Supervisors chose former sheriff over incumbent Loretta Johnson Morgan.
By Heather Michon, Editor
The Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors has appointed Ryant Washington to the Planning Commission, choosing him over incumbent Loretta Johnson Morgan for the Columbia District seat, following a discussion of service, experience, and the long-term consequences of development decisions.
Before the vote, Morgan–who had served on the commission for about 16 months and had emerged as a vocal critic of Tenaska’s Expedition Generation project–asked supervisors to let her continue.
“All I can say is I have enjoyed being on the Planning Commission. For the county. I won’t just say Columbia; this was for the county,” she said. “I think I’ve done a good job. I hope y’all saw that I’ve done a good job. There is a lot of work that still needs to be done. And I want to continue doing that work.”
Ron Barchi also applied for the Columbia District seat, telling supervisors he wanted to lend his expertise as the county faces more complex energy and technology issues.
Washington was not present when the matter came to the floor.
The vote stood out among several other appointments made during the meeting, in which incumbents or uncontested applicants were approved with little or no debate.
Supervisors approved two applicants for two Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee landowner seats, two applicants for two land-use seats on the same committee, and three applicants for the Board of Building Code Appeals, including its incumbent.
The board also reappointed Rivanna District Planning Commissioner Robert Dorsey.
Columbia District Supervisor Mike Sheridan, who nominated Washington, said the decision was among the hardest the board has had to make.
Sheridan praised Morgan’s work and Barchi’s technical knowledge, but said Washington’s background made him the right choice.
Washington served as Fluvanna County sheriff from 2000 to 2014 and later served as policy adviser for Virginia ABC and as deputy secretary of public safety and homeland security at the state level.
Sheridan said he thought Washington’s “intangibles are immeasurable.”
Cunningham District Supervisor Chris Fairchild said he supported Morgan, pointing to the permanent nature of land-use decisions.
“There’s only one thing that the next board can’t change that this board can do, and that’s development,” Fairchild said. “Once something’s built, it’s there for a lifetime.”
Other supervisors also praised Morgan and suggested that, if she were not reappointed to the Planning Commission, the board should find another place for her to serve.
The vote to appoint Washington passed 3-2, with Fairchild and Fork Union District Supervisor Mike Goad voting no.
Later in the meeting, resident Ashleigh Crocker questioned why Morgan had not been reappointed when so many other incumbents had been kept in place, arguing the decision could be viewed as retaliation for Morgan’s opposition to Tenaska. Supervisors did not directly respond to that allegation during the meeting.
WATER MANAGEMENT
Residents also pressed supervisors on water protections tied to the Tenaska project, returning repeatedly to one central concern: whether the county has an enforceable construction water management plan before land disturbance begins.
Several speakers said the county should require Tenaska to disclose how much water it expects to use during construction, where that water will come from, how it will be disposed of after use, and what protections will be in place for nearby private wells.
Ray Bassi said state permitting should not be treated as a substitute for local safeguards.
“A James River withdrawal permit is not a construction water disposal plan,” he said. “A stormwater permit is not a private well protection plan.”
Jennifer Kingrea Ruffner said the issue was not whether residents support or oppose the project, but whether the county has done its due diligence.
“Before construction begins, there should be an enforceable plan that identifies the source of construction water, estimates anticipated water demand, establishes baseline well testing, creates a clear complaint and response process, and includes protections for drought conditions and water shortages,” she said.
Crocker said her family had stopped watering its garden because of the drought, then questioned why a major industrial project should not face similar scrutiny.
“Water is too important to leave to assumptions, and residents deserve answers before, not after, construction begins,” she said.
Other speakers asked for developer-funded baseline well testing, limits on bulk water withdrawals, drought triggers, and clearer rules for large users.
Sarah Hernandez, who said she shares a property line with the existing plant, told supervisors that a natural spring and part of Cunningham Creek on her property had gone dry for the first time.
Later in the meeting, supervisors returned to the issue. County staff said Tenaska had stated in an email that it did not plan to use wells for construction, but supervisors noted that an email is not an enforceable agreement.
Supervisors discussed asking Tenaska to put its construction-phase well-use commitment into a formal agreement. They also asked staff to seek more information from state agencies on groundwater regulation and oversight of construction water.
The water discussion broadened into a larger conversation about whether Fluvanna needs stronger local rules for major industrial or energy-related projects. Goad suggested the county may need a committee or review process focused on emerging technology, energy, and large-scale development.
In other business, supervisors approved a water agreement with the Louisa County Water Authority, discussed possible no-parking enforcement in subdivisions, reviewed proposed changes to the noise ordinance, and agreed to consider changing board bylaws so speakers are no longer required to state their full home addresses during public comment.
