A Union County resident shared his concern this week about the decision by county officials to seek legal assistance in blocking a solar project south of Richwood.
Chuck Warner, a Taylor Township resident planning to lease land in the proposed Richwood Solar project area, told the county commissioners Wednesday that he had questions about their decision.
“One of my questions I had is my concern about what I read in the paper here about a week ago about the county commissioners and the township trustees seeking legal counsel to take away my property rights,” he said. “Who’s going to pay for the attorneys that you’re seeking to take away the solar project? Who’s going to pay for that?”
The commissioners said they were starting the counsel search in a regular meeting of the board in February after learning Samsung, the company proposing the 1,600-acre project across Leesburg, Claibourne and Taylor townships, filed its formal application with the Ohio Power Siting Board in January.
While the application is still technically under review, the process allows for affected parties to submit support or opposition to the state. OPSB officials then consider that information in their final approval of the project.
Warner said the arguments against the project don’t always contain factual information, despite being widely circulated in the county. For instance, he said, the “no farms, no food” argument that solar projects take up land that is used to grow food, isn’t really an issue here.
“I’d like to see the farms that produce food that’s grown in Union County,” he said. “We grow corn and soybeans. If we didn’t grow any corn or soybeans for the next 10 years, our grocery stores would be as full of food as they are now because it all comes from other parts of the country (and) overseas. We don’t grow anything in Union County that goes into the grocery stores except maybe eggs and milk.”
According to the Ohio Corn and Wheat Growers Association, much of Ohio’s corn is used in feed for livestock and in ethanol production. As for soybeans, the USDA says nearly 70% of the soybeans grown in the country are used for animal feed also and the rest goes to food production like making cooking oils and a very small percentage goes to biodiesel.
He said while he does understand the concerns about large projects’ impact on drainage, he doesn’t think the county has been oversaturated with project acreage.
“This project in Richwood is in less than 1% of the 217,000 acres of farmland in the county,” Warner said, noting, all three projects – the approved Cadence and Acciona projects as well as the proposed Samsung project in question, take up less than 10,000 acres.
Warner said that the commissioners have to consider what’s best for the whole county and while there is vocal opposition to solar, the board represents more than 60,000 residents.
“You got to consider the population growth of Union County,” he said. “You got to consider their needs that’s coming up about the availability of electricity.”
He said the potential income figures alone should convince the board of the project’s value.
“The land that is in this project now, being taxed as farmland, is generating $32 an acre, which the 1,600 acres will provide $59,000,” Warner said, noting if the project goes through, the land will go up in value and be added to the $2 million Samsung will pay in taxes. “I don’t see how we can turn that down. If you don’t need the money now, put it in your portfolio – it comes to like $17 million a year.”
On a more personal note, Warner said, the revenue from leasing the land will help pay his family’s medical bills totaling more than $8,000 a month. Additionally, he said, his family has lived in the county for over 200 years, settling in Taylor Township around 1820, and he’d like to keep his land for future generations.
“This project will help me pay my bills, pay my taxes, to keep my family going,” he said.
Commissioner Dave Burke told Warner that while the board appreciates his thoughts, officials are following the process approved by the state to submit opposition.
“Within (Senate Bill 52), we’re allowed to contest certain projects and so we’re following the process the way it was set up,” he said. “We can’t stop it, that’s up to the Power Siting Board but we do have concerns about it based on the other two that currently exist and right now, our position is to not support it.”
Burke encouraged Warner and other residents to submit their support to the OPSB for consideration and said, in fairness, the board would work to ensure Warner and any residents with questions would have answers and resources to do that.
Since the application was submitted in January, the state could have a completed review of the application as early as the next two weeks at which point a hearing dates will be set.