In this letter to the South Hill Enterprise editor, a certified landscape architect points out how large-scale solar projects permanently damage Virginia’s rural landscape, including by clear-cutting and removing all vegetation from solar sites (which damages critical habitat for birds and animals); clearing vegetation from the entire work site instead of just the area where panels will be installed (which leads to significant erosion and run-off into local streams and lakes); removing topsoil from project areas (which permanently removes that land from future agricultural or forestry purposes); and siting many projects near economically disadvantaged communities (which forces them to bear the brunt of the projects’ negative impacts).
“Seven Bridges” Industrial Utility Solar Project
South Hill Enterprise, Dec 1, 2021
Dear Editor and Mecklenburg Residents:
The Mecklenburg Planning Commission recently voted unanimously against the planned “Seven Bridges” industrial utility solar project located north of Chase City in their September meeting. It appears the Planning Commission has listened to public comment and witnessed the environmental degradation and continuing issues with the adjacent built “Grasshopper” solar facility that after every hard rain dumps silt into Butcher’s Creek sending plumes of mud into Kerr Lake in Boydton ten miles away. Or maybe the County has also learned from the “Bluestone” solar project silting into Bluestone Creek. If these two solar projects in the County can’t manage erosion, sediment, and contamination, how will “Seven Bridges” be any different? The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is supposed to police and protect our rivers, streams, and environment but all DEQ does is merely fine the developers for failing to control the runoff, meanwhile permanent damage to an important and now endangered watershed is occurring. It’s up to citizens to step up and become vocal on protecting our environment that we call home.
The good news is that on Thursday, December 2, 2021 beginning at 7:30 PM, Mecklenburg County Planning Commission will vote to amend Article 20 of the County Solar Ordinance to not allow large scale solar projects within a mile of any County town boundary, limit the activities of large scale solar to no more than 500 acres, curb the growth of large scale solar facilities to not being closer than 2 miles from one another, and to not allow large scale solar on prime agricultural land. These steps, if approved by the majority of the Planning Commission, are a positive step toward improvements of the county solar ordinance. Similar changes are up for a vote on Small Scale Solar projects as well. These same items will be also voted on Monday, December 13, 2021, at 7:00 PM by the Mecklenburg County Board of Supervisors. Please call or write your Planning Commission or BOS member or show up on those dates in person and support the revisions to the Solar Ordinance to protect the future of the rural way of life in Mecklenburg and the beautiful Meherrin River for future generations.
Furthermore, the changes on size and density of these solar facilities, both small or large, are simply about equity. So far, Chase City has taken the brunt of these projects in the County. Simply put, only one area of the rural county should not be the only spot to stick all the utility scale solar projects. Chase City happens to be located close to high-voltage electrical transmission lines which creates significant cost savings to the industry, therefore that is one reason why the industry is focusing there. But Chase City is also an impoverished minority community, so this is an issue of equity as well as the impacts to the local community and the environment. The above planned change to the ordinance seems to suggest that the County Planning Commission and BOS are addressing the equity issue and wants to spread these facilities out to make them more equitable in the County and lessen the overall negative impacts to just one area. This is a critical step in the right direction.
Another significant impact of utility-scale solar is the removal of forest and agricultural land from active use. All these built or planned solar facilities like “Seven Bridges” would take an existing agricultural or forestry operation out of production for more than 30 years. Such facilities should not be sited on prime agricultural and forest land (as identified by the USDA or by state agencies) and ecological sensitive lands (e.g., riparian buffers, critical habitats, hardwood forests). The least productive land should be used first to minimize the loss of productive agricultural/forested land. The “Grasshopper” solar facility is a lesson learned for the County. It has taken agricultural land out of commission and damaged the environment at the same time. Solar developers use the argument that agricultural use or forestry can return to the site after decommissioning, but in that project and others around the Commonwealth, most of the topsoil was removed and not replaced after construction—so the site will not support any active agricultural or forestry resources in the future. The County Solar Ordinance should react and learn from this issue and ensure through further revisions, that construction activities must retain the sites’ original topsoil and ensure that the decommissioning plan also addresses this issue and the likely groundwater contamination. Otherwise, the county will be left with severely degraded sites that offer little future value to the community and continue to impact equity in the county for generations to come.
In closing, utility scale solar projects in Mecklenburg County should not impact only certain communities like Chase City, nor our prime agricultural and forested areas. Nor should it adversely impact our environmentally sensitive, scenic, and historical resources. Do County officials know that the “Seven Bridges” is less than 1 mile from a cultural resource in Lunenburg County–Spring Bank—a State and National Historic registrar property. We need to protect our rural cultural resources. A solar project should bring overall value to the County beyond the clean energy label and minimize its impact on our rural community, natural environment, and local economy. With the above stated improvements to scale, density, location and ensuring that topsoil is retained on project sites, the County can create an ordinance that ensures the proper scale and sites for solar which will be a good thing for Mecklenburg County and allow a diverse tax base for the county to grow and prosper from.
Thank you,
Taylor Gould, RLA, ASLA
Landscape Architect & Planner