Revisiting Fibrowatt - One Year Later

Page County readers have started to see a few indications that the Commonwealth of Virginia is still considering the use of electricity generated by poultry waste, which are sometimes called litter incinerators. Then approximately two weeks ago, a meeting with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Department of Conservation and Recreation held a meeting on a similar topic in Charlottesville.

I have a copy of the minutes from that meeting, which I will summarize in a post tomorrow. However, the presence of Fibrowatt’s Terry Walmsley at the table caused my eyebrows to raise, and I am sure I am not the only one. Honestly, it seemed for a time that all the work those many Page County residents put in last year to understand what a Fibrowatt plant would mean to our quality of life, and the Board of Supervisors’s letter of “thanks but no thanks” was being ignored by the governor and his administration - and I honestly had to question whether this governor had sold out to special interests.

The significance of the meeting being held in Charlottesville wasn’t lost on our delegate, Todd Gilbert, who sent a letter to the PN&C editor outlining his position and his commitment to representing us in the matter.

I am reprinting the letter here (thanks to Keith for getting up on the Page County blog so quickly!). The PN&C has the headline as:

Gilbert: I will continue to say “No” to Fibrowatt Plant
Delegate thinks Charlottesville meeting may have been held outside Valley to avoid public scrutiny.

Dear Editor,

Recently, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and the Department of Conservation and Recreation sponsored a meeting in Charlottesville. The purpose of the meeting was to begin the process
to determine if the Shenandoah Valley would be suitable for placement of an industrial plant that would burn poultry litter in a process that would generate electric power.

I question why the meeting was held in Charlottesville, clearly not located in the Valley; a more convenient location for Valley farmers, elected officials and other stakeholders would have been the DEQ offices in Harrisonburg, in the very heart of the agricultural Shenandoah Valley. The reason for the location likely has much to do with avoiding public scrutiny.

Since the meeting, I have received communications from constituents questioning if the Charlottesville meeting was the start of a procedure to force the poultry litter incinerator on the citizens of Page or Shenandoah County. I have been told that the meeting was the beginning of a study only.

When I first heard of the Fibrowatt project, it almost sounded too good to be true. It would have provided
a few jobs, taken poultry litter off the hands of our farmers, generated some electric power and ensured fewer nutrients were making it into the Chesapeake Bay. What I have since learned about the proposed project and its 300 foot smoke stack spewing Lord-knows-what into the air quickly led me to the conclusion that this was not a good fit for us.

Regardless of the reasons for the meeting or its Charlottesville setting, I would like to assure my constituents that I will continue to oppose the construction of a Fibrowatt plant or other such contraption in our counties now, tomorrow, and as long as I represent the 15th House District.

Delegate C. Todd Gilbert
Virginia House of Delegates

I have yet to thank the delegate for this letter, a shortcoming I will take care of right away.  He has a Facebook page, for those who might like to pass along a note of support on this issue as well. 

For tomorrow’s post, I’ll summarize the notes I was passed along from the Charlottesville meeting.