Caroline County claims eminent domain over local couple’s farmland

CAROLINE COUNTY, Va. (WRIC) — Caroline County is condemning a portion of a local couple’s farmland so it can build a water intake facility, citing eminent domain. However, it has not made this move without facing significant backlash — from both the couple themselves and from many of their neighbors.

Cory and Rebekah Garrett own over 100 acres of farmland in the area of Tidewater Trail, overlooking the Rappahannock River. It’s that access to the river that prompted Caroline County to consider their property as a potential site for an over $200 million water intake facility, which officials say would help the county address an ongoing water crisis.

A little over 11 acres of the Garretts’ farmland was one of three sites surveyed for the project. According to the county, it was selected over the others due to it ranking best in factors such as constructability, water quality and environmental impacts, among others.

The Garretts received an offer of just under $80,000 for this land, which they refused to accept — citing both personal reasons and the fact that their farmland has a conservation easement placed on it, meaning it cannot be subdivided.

When buying the land failed, county officials voted unanimously to condemn these acres for county use, citing eminent domain, during a recent Board of Supervisors meeting held on June 18. However, the easement remains an obstacle in the county’s way, according to its holder, the Virginia Outdoors Foundation (VOF).

8News reached out to the Garretts, the county and the VOF to better understand this situation. While the county did not respond to a request for an interview, it did provide documentation associated with the water intake project for 8News’ use.

The County: The project and why it’s reportedly needed

Documents provided to 8News by Caroline County state that its groundwater is becoming more and more limited. Throughout this process, the county has continued to emphasize that its water situation is “fragile” and that its options are even more scarce than the water itself.

The water demand of Caroline and King George counties, as well as the town of Bowling Green, is projected to reach 3.6 million gallons a day by 2025, according to county-provided documentation.

By 2045, that is expected to grow even further to 10.4 million gallons a day. The county cites expected population and business growth.

To solve these problems, the county states it has been working on a solution since the early 2000s.

According to the county, these plans were made in conjunction with multiple agencies, including the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission.

“We are sandwiched between two metropolitan areas and we are trying to survive,” a board member said during the June 18 meeting, referring to Spotsylvania and Hanover counties.

This meeting, which was extremely contentious, featured a lengthy public comment followed by responses from the board. Each board member took to their mics to emphasize the severity of the county’s water situation.

The board stated during the meeting that it’s the use of river water by those above two counties that left the Rappahannock River as Caroline’s only option.

To address these concerns, the county has been working for several years to develop and plan a more than $200 million water intake facility, which would be positioned riverside. The water it pulls from the Rappahannock would then be directed through a raw water pipeline that — if the facility is built on the Garretts’ acres as intended — would stretch from his property near Fort Walker all the way to Ruther Glen off Route 1, where it would be treated at a treatment plant.

A presentation provided on these water needs stated that 44% of the water would be used in residences, 23% would be used in commercial buildings and 33% in industrial buildings.

“Whoever controls the water is going to control growth,” said another board member at the meeting.

Documentation from the county claims less than 1% of the Rappahannock’s water flow would be withdrawn. The county also states that, per the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, “the current design of the intake has comparatively low impacts on ichthyoplankton [fish eggs and larvae] in this estuary.”

The Garretts’ property was chosen from three potential sites as the preferred location for the water intake facility. According to the county, the county has had this property in mind since the owner before the Garretts. The Director of Public Works and Utilities reportedly met with owners twice in late 2018 during “informational” conversations at their dining room table.

According to the county, they sent three letters to the Garretts — one in 2022 and two in 2023 — notifying them of property surveys that would be conducted, as well as an appraisal.

The county also states that the Garretts attended multiple public hearings and meetings about the project.

The county offered a total of $78,400 for just over 11 acres of the Garretts’ property via letter in June. Around the same time, the county scheduled a public hearing for June 18 to discuss the use of eminent domain to condemn and seize the land.

“The County has made every reasonable effort to acquire the Property by negotiation,” the referendum approving the condemnation reads. It goes on to state these efforts were “bona fide.”

8News requested more information about any direct contact the county had made with Cory and Rebekah and what negotiations between them looked like. In response, the county’s attorney with Sands Anderson provided this statement:

All the County can say at this time, due to the possibility of litigation, is that this Water Intake Facility — which is necessary to provide critical water supply to Caroline County citizens — has been on the public agenda for years and has been discussed in public and private for decades.  The Garrett’s property was identified publicly as a possible location at least as early as 2017, including during a March 2018 Board of Supervisor’s work session on the subject, as well as during the November 2018 in-person meetings with the former owners you referenced.  Discussions on the subject continued at multiple subsequent Board meetings and information sessions from 2019 to the present, and certified letters concerning the project were sent to the property owners in 2022, 2023, and 2024.  The JPA is currently undergoing regulatory approval and is not something we can comment on further.

Christopher M. Mackenzie with Sands Anderson on behalf of Caroline County.

Despite both of the Garretts, as well as a significant amount of community members, stating during the public comment period on June 18 that they did not agree with the use of eminent domain in this way, the board approved the referendum unanimously.

“The rest of the farm’s gonna be there for him [Cory] to do,” said a board member during the meeting.

The Garretts: Their land and why they want to keep it

“I have always felt that, if the residents of Caroline County knew the whole truth and all the facts surrounding this project, the public outcry would be huge,” Cory said.

The Garretts told 8News that this farmland has been a part of Cory’s family’s life for generations. Julian Wyatt Garrett, the brother of Cory’s great-great-grandfather, owned the property at one point. Julian’s grandaughter — and Cory’s distant cousin — is the one who sold Cory and Rebekah the property in the fall of 2020. The Garretts said she did this because Cory was the last Garrett still in the farming business.

While a Garrett’s name has not always been the one on the deed, several family members previously farmed the property — as far back as Cory’s great-grandfather, who sharecropped the land, then his grandfather and father before Cory himself took up the trade.

Overall, Cory said the name inked on the deed was irrelevant to him, as what matters to him is simply preserving the land and its heritage as his relatives have entrusted him to do.

“My full intention is to pass on that torch to the next generation, like it was passed on with me,” Cory told 8News.

Cory said this land already means something to the generation after him — his two daughters love spending time in the fields.

“She will ride around in the tractor with me, and [be] like, ‘Daddy, is that Pop-Pop’s corn?’ ‘Is that your beans?'” Cory said. “She already loves the land. And I think some people that aren’t farmers, or haven’t grown up in a rural area, maybe can’t relate to that.”

When showing the property to 8News reporter Rolynn Wilson, Cory said the piece of the property the intake facility is planned to be built on holds special memories for him specifically.

“[It] was actually the first field that I was ever turned loose on a tractor unsupervised,” he told Wilson.

The Garretts told 8News that, first and foremost, these familial ties are why they do not want to part with their farmland.

“That’s what farming is — taking care of the land, leaving it better than you found it for the next generation,” Cory said. “So, if this project does go through, it’ll be a huge black eye on this farm for me and for everybody that comes after me.”

However, even beyond that deep-rooted sentiment, they still have significant issues with the county’s conduct in this matter.

“I’m paying taxes, personal property taxes to Caroline County, and my own money that I’m paying in is being used to fight me keeping the land just the way that I would want to,” Cory said.

According to Cory and Rebekah, their contact with the county has been extremely limited regarding their land and what the county wants to do with it.

“Nobody from the county has tried to contact us [directly,]” Cory said. “The only correspondence we’ve gotten from the county … is a letter saying, ‘Hey, we’re gonna do this.'”

From the Garretts’ perspective, the county’s few letters have felt more like the county telling them about what was happening to their land, not asking for their consent.

Cory also spoke on his attendance at various meetings throughout this process. According to him, those meetings have not been as informative as they should have been, leaving them with more questions than answers.

He told 8News that, prior to one meeting he attended in recent months, Cory was informed that representatives from Virginia DEQ would be present — so Cory prepared questions for them. According to Cory, no such representative attended.

“They’ve only used the facts that promote their side of what they want to do, more than all the facts,” Cory said.

8News asked the Garretts about a board member’s statement during the June 18 meeting that they’d still have “the rest of the farm” if they parted with this portion of it. Both told 8News that it greatly upset them.

“Even if it was true, it’s kind of appalling that someone can, from afar … somebody that doesn’t have any connection, and hasn’t made an effort to talk to you … can make that assessment from afar, like they know more about my business than I do,” Cory said.

Rebekah added that the Garretts weren’t given this land — they bought it, and that required work.

“We scraped for that land,” she said.

In that same vein, the Garretts said that they felt the offer price of $78,400 was “ridiculous.”

“If you look at any other property around, you could never get riverfront property for that,” Cory said. So it’s a little bit ridiculous — a lot bit ridiculous.”

But Cory emphasized that no amount of money would make him part with the land, regardless. He told 8News that the money was simply “one point” of contention that, paired with the other pieces of the puzzle, made a greater point clear.

“It demonstrates to me — the county, and how they operate,” Cory said.

The Garretts said they understand the county needs water, but they believe there are other avenues that do not require using eminent domain to take their land.

“‘X marks the spot, and we’re committed to that regardless,'” Cory said of what he believed to be the county’s mindset. “Like, we can’t stop and reconsider? And think about all of the ramifications of doing [it] this way?”

Notably, though, the Garretts are not sure how this process can even proceed due to one significant point: the conservation easement placed upon their land.

“I couldn’t even sign the offer [if I wanted to,]” Cory said. “The land can never be subdivided.”

According to Cory, the same day they received a letter from the county regarding the result of the June 18 meeting, they received an email from The Virginia Outdoors Foundation (VOF) — the organization that holds said easement, stating the VOF would be in contact with the county.

The VOF: Conservation easements and what they mean

The VOF is a Virginia government agency. Under Virginia law, it has the ability to issue conservation or Open Space easements on land parcels for the sake of protecting Virginia’s environment and maintaining undeveloped, agricultural spaces.

While Cory and Rebekah were the ones to ultimately sign off on the conservation easement in the fall of 2022, the easement process began before they took ownership of the property, according to the Garretts.

This easement prevents the farmland from being subdivided, or broken apart into pieces for sale — something that the Garretts brought up when the county offered to buy the portion needed for the water intake facility.

During the June 18 meeting, one of the board members claimed that the easement was “granted by mistake.”

“If it was something that shouldn’t have happened, the county did something to shoot themselves in the foot,” Cory said when asked about that claim.

According to a VOF spokesperson, it is a “long-standing policy” to contact the locality in which the land potentially being eased resides prior to issuing the easement. This is so that the VOF can ask if the land is “in conformance with the current comprehensive plan.”

The VOF made such contact with the county at the time of deliberating the easement and provided 8News with a copy of its communication with Caroline officials.

In the county’s May 2022 letter responding to the VOF, the county’s Director of Planning & Community Development, Michael Finchum, said the easement would be “consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.”

“Additionally, the easement should not adversely affect any future County utility plans for the area, including the Rappahannock River water intake project,” Finchum wrote.

The day after the June 18 meeting, the VOF sent a letter to the county advising that its actions during that meeting were in conflict with the easement’s terms.

That letter, which was provided to 8News, states that the county must take additional action in order to proceed with the water intake project as planned.

“VOF does have a policy to work cooperatively with local governments and not record new easements in areas designated for growth and development or in the middle of planned infrastructure projects,” the VOF spokesperson said. “Since the easement has been recorded on the property and would prevent the completion of the water intake project as currently proposed by the County on the Garrett property, the County must apply for a conversion or diversion of open space as described in our letter.”

8News asked the county’s attorney about said application what the county’s plans were regarding it.

“I can only confirm that no such application has been filed at this time,” the attorney said in a July 12 email.

The attorney did add that the county is “hopeful that it can work with the VOF towards a resolution that satisfies any issues related to the open-space easement.”

The community: Others’ concerns about the project

The contentious June 18 public hearing featured a public comment section. During that section, dozens of people took to the mic to speak their thoughts on the project.

A variety of concerns regarding the project were brought forward. There was discussion about this water being used for data centers — which was largely denied by the board, but it remains notable that over half of the county’s projected water use is non-residential.

Many of the speakers claimed the water taken from the Rappahannock would be put into the Mattaponi River after being treated.

This is something the Friends of the Rappahannock, a non-profit organization, touched on in an article posted regarding the project.

“Not a single drop of water removed from the Rappahannock River would come back to the Rappahannock River,” the organization wrote.

Further concerns the non-profit shared included possible damage to the spawning grounds of the Atlantic sturgeon.

“While Friends of the Rappahannock (FOR) acknowledges Caroline County’s need for water, we oppose the draft permit in its current form,” the Friends wrote online. “We remain concerned about the potential impacts of this intake to the health of the Rappahannock River and its aquatic fauna.”

These potential threats to wildlife were also a point of contention with June 18 speakers, who expressed their worries about the narrow Mattaponi watershed being adversely affected by this surge of new water.

A speaker from the Mattaponi and Pamunkey Rivers Association said the project’s plans had “a lot of holes.”

Additionally, a Cultural Heritage Counsel lawyer representing the Upper Mattaponi Tribe stated there was concern about how the impact on the Mattaponi River would affect the tribal communities along its banks.

She claimed “zero analysis” had been done by the Virginia DEQ on consequences for the Mattaponi.

8News reached out to Caroline County to confirm if the Mattaponi was the destination for this water.

“I can tell you that the water will be used throughout Caroline County’s utility systems,” its lawyer said in response.

Two members of the King William Board of Supervisors came to Caroline to also express their opposition, sharing these concerns about the Mattaponi. One of them called this project’s methods “despicable.”

Many other commenters used similar words — including “absolutely ridiculous,” “distasteful,” “lazy” and “a travesty.”

“I can think of no more tyrannical action than the eminent domain,” one speaker said.

Multiple other speakers agreed that they did not approve of the county using eminent domain to ensure this project moved forward.

No one spoke on June 18 in support of the referendum to condemn the Garretts’ land.

“At any point along the way, I had hoped that the voice of reason would prevail,” Cory told 8News.

What’s next for the Garretts’ farmland?

“We’re taking it one step at a time. I’ve never been here before – I don’t wanna be here, I don’t want this fight,” Cory said.

He added that he is “committed to going the distance,” no matter what that looks like.

At this time, the Garretts are not entirely certain what the next steps are, but told 8News they are working with a lawyer. The letter they received following the June 18 meeting was a notification that the county would be filing a “certificate of take” within the next months. They stated they are not sure what comes after that and have not been informed.

8News asked the county what the next steps of this litigation would look like.

“Although no pleadings have yet been filed to initiate condemnation regarding this project, because condemnation necessarily involves litigation, we are going to treat this as active litigation and honor the County’s policy of not commenting thereon,” its lawyer said in a July 12 email.

The Garretts told 8News they will take this one step at a time.

“I told my Board of Supervisors that I wish I didn’t have this fight, but I didn’t ask for it,” Cory said. “They came knocking on land that I love and I want to keep the way it is. So we’ll stand firm.”

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to WRIC ABC 8News.