After Senate Bill 941 (2025), do West Virginia local conservation districts still have any oversight role over dams they own or sponsor, or is that authority now exclusively the Department of Environmental Protection's?

Plain-English summary

Senate President Randy Smith asked the AG a narrow question after the 2025 legislative session: did Senate Bill 941 actually strip local conservation districts of authority over dams they own or sponsor, or do they retain some role? The question was urgent because at least one district was refusing to step aside until the AG confirmed what the bill did, and the standoff was holding up imminent mining work that depended on the dams.

Senate Bill 941 amended West Virginia Code § 19-21A-8(a) to add a single sentence: "any alteration, improvement, or agreement related to a dam owned or sponsored by a local conservation district is subject solely to the authority of the Department of Environmental Protection." The bill's title described its purpose as "clarify[ing] certain authority regarding dams owned or sponsored by local conservation districts." It mirrors the DEP authority already granted under the Dam Control Act at § 22-14-5.

The AG concluded the language is unambiguous. "Any" is read broadly under Shaffer v. Fort Henry Surgical Associates (2004) and the federal Romero v. Barr (4th Cir. 2019) line: "one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind." "Solely" means exclusively, "leav[ing] no leeway" (Stockton Harbor, 1954; Clingan, 2001). The specific dam proviso prevails over the more general water-resources language elsewhere in § 19-21A-8 (Newark Ins. Co., 2005). And legislative history confirmed the legislative intent: the Senate Energy, Industry, and Mining Committee's chair, counsel, and the state Conservation Agency all said the bill was meant to take dam responsibility away from local districts and consolidate it in DEP's professional engineering staff.

Conservation districts are statutorily created, "delegates of the Legislature" (Fairmont State, 2019), so they have only the powers a statute gives them. The amended § 19-21A-8 gives them none over dams they own or sponsor. The conclusion is direct: districts cannot exercise authority over alterations, improvements, or agreements related to those dams. DEP alone may do so.

The AG flagged a footnote: no district had presented a specific legal basis for objecting, and the rushed timetable meant the office reserved the right to revisit if circumstances warranted.

What this means for you

If you are a local conservation district supervisor

Step back from dam decisions. Any work order, lease, easement, modification, or agreement touching a dam your district owns or sponsors needs to go through DEP. Continuing to assert authority opens the district up to litigation, and the AG's opinion will sit in the record as the prevailing reading of § 19-21A-8(a). DEP may still want district cooperation as a practical matter (you may know the watershed best), but that has to be by DEP's invitation, not your reservation.

For non-dam activity (soil-conservation work, planning, watershed studies, education), district authority is unchanged. The proviso is dam-specific; the rest of § 19-21A-8 still gives you the powers you have always had.

If you are a mining operator or developer relying on a conservation-district-sponsored dam

Your project's clearance path runs through the DEP, full stop. If a conservation district tries to assert a veto or impose conditions, that position is no longer defensible after Senate Bill 941 and this opinion. Document any delay attributable to district interference, and route formal requests to DEP's dam-safety engineers.

Confirm the dam's classification under DEP's Dam Control Act framework (§ 22-14-5 and following) so you know which approvals you actually need and on what timeline.

If you are a Department of Environmental Protection engineer or attorney

You now hold sole authority over alterations, improvements, and agreements concerning conservation-district-owned or sponsored dams. The opinion supports a clean assertion of jurisdiction. You can choose to coordinate with the originating conservation district (the AG's text leaves room for that), but the choice is yours. Expect a wave of clarification requests from districts, mining operators, and prosecuting attorneys; a written intake or coordination policy will save staff time.

If you are a county prosecuting attorney advising a conservation district

Tell the district to comply. Continued assertion of dam authority is contrary to the plain text of the amended statute as the AG reads it, and litigation risk runs against the district. If the district has a specific legal basis for objecting (the AG's footnote leaves a door open), that basis needs to be put on paper and submitted; the AG offered to revisit if circumstances warrant.

If you are a downstream landowner with safety concerns about a conservation-district dam

Address concerns to DEP, not the conservation district. DEP's Dam Control Act authority, paired with the new sole-jurisdiction proviso, makes DEP the right office to act on inspection, alteration, or repair requests.

Common questions

Q: Does this opinion strip conservation districts of all their powers?
A: No. It addresses only dams the district owns or sponsors. Districts retain their other water-resources, soil-conservation, and planning authority under § 19-21A-8. The proviso is targeted.

Q: What does "owned or sponsored" mean?
A: The opinion does not define those terms beyond their plain meaning. "Owned" typically means title-holding; "sponsored" typically means the district originated, financed, or formally backed the dam project (a common pattern for federal Soil Conservation Service-built dams). If the line is unclear for a specific dam, the prudent move is to treat it as in scope and route to DEP.

Q: What did Senate Bill 941 actually change in the statute?
A: It added a single sentence to § 19-21A-8(a): "any alteration, improvement, or agreement related to a dam owned or sponsored by a local conservation district is subject solely to the authority of the Department of Environmental Protection." Everything else in the section stayed.

Q: Does DEP have to act on a dam matter, or can it delegate to the district?
A: The statute makes DEP the sole authority, but the AG's reading is permissive: DEP "chooses to coordinate or otherwise allow such a role." Coordination is at DEP's discretion.

Q: What about mining permits that depend on dam-related approvals?
A: Those approvals now run only through DEP. The legislative history shows the committee was explicitly concerned about mining timelines, and the consolidation in DEP was meant to give mining operators a single, professional-engineer-staffed office to deal with.

Q: Is the AG's opinion binding on a conservation district?
A: AG opinions are persuasive authority, not binding precedent. But this opinion is direct, and a district that ignored it would be exposed in any later challenge. The AG's footnote also signals willingness to revisit if a specific legal basis is presented.

Background and statutory framework

Conservation districts in West Virginia are statutory political subdivisions, formally "continued" by the Legislature under W. Va. Code § 19-21A-5. Hesse v. State Soil Conservation Commission (1969) calls them statute-authorized. Potomac Valley Soil Conservation District v. Wilkins (1992) classifies them as political subdivisions of the State. As "delegates of the Legislature" (Fairmont State, 2019), they have only the powers a statute supplies.

Section 19-21A-8 is the powers-and-duties section. Subsection (a) historically gave districts authority over various water-resources matters. Senate Bill 941 added a dedicated sentence about dams owned or sponsored by a local district: "any alteration, improvement, or agreement" related to such a dam is "subject solely to the authority" of DEP. The proviso parallels the broader DEP authority in § 22-14-5 of the Dam Control Act.

The AG's interpretive moves are textbook plain-meaning analysis. "Any" is read broadly: Shaffer (W. Va. 2004), Williams (W. Va. 1992), Thomas (W. Va. 1980), and the Fourth Circuit's Romero v. Barr (2019) all stand for that proposition. "Solely" means exclusively (Stockton Harbor, 9th Cir. 1954; Clingan, 6th Cir. 2001). Specific provisions prevail over general ones (Newark Ins. Co., W. Va. 2005). Plain language controls (Beasley v. Sorsaia, W. Va. 2022; Louk, W. Va. 2016).

The legislative-history piece adds an extra layer of confidence. Games-Neely v. Silver (W. Va. 2010) authorizes courts to look at legislative history after the text. The Senate Energy, Industry, and Mining Committee record showed the chair, another senator, committee counsel, and the state Conservation Agency all agreeing that Senate Bill 941 was intended to "foreclose responsibility over dams by local conservation committees" and put DEP's "professional engineering personnel" in charge.

The opinion's conclusion is therefore narrow but firm. Districts retain their non-dam powers. They lose all authority over alterations, improvements, and agreements concerning dams they own or sponsor. DEP holds sole authority and can decide whether and when to invite district participation.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- W. Va. Code § 5-3-1 (AG opinions to Senate President and Speaker)
- W. Va. Code § 19-21A-5 (Continuation of conservation districts)
- W. Va. Code § 19-21A-8 (Powers and duties; dam-oversight proviso added by SB 941)
- W. Va. Code § 22-14-5 (DEP authority under the Dam Control Act)
- Senate Bill 941, 87th W. Va. Leg. (2025)

Cases:
- Hesse v. State Soil Conservation Comm., 153 W. Va. 111, 168 S.E.2d 293 (1969)
- Potomac Valley Soil Conservation Dist. v. Wilkins, 188 W. Va. 275, 423 S.E.2d 884 (1992)
- Div. of Just. & Cmty. Servs. v. Fairmont State Univ., 242 W. Va. 489, 836 S.E.2d 456 (2019)
- Shaffer v. Fort Henry Surgical Assocs., 599 S.E.2d 876 (W. Va. 2004)
- Williams v. W. Va. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 419 S.E.2d 474 (W. Va. 1992)
- Thomas v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 266 S.E.2d 905 (W. Va. 1980)
- Romero v. Barr, 937 F.3d 282 (4th Cir. 2019)
- Newark Ins. Co. v. Brown, 218 W. Va. 346, 624 S.E.2d 783 (2005)
- Beasley v. Sorsaia, 247 W. Va. 409, 880 S.E.2d 875 (2022)
- State v. Louk, 237 W. Va. 200, 786 S.E.2d 219 (2016)
- State ex rel. Games-Neely v. Silver, 226 W. Va. 11, 697 S.E.2d 47 (2010)

Source

• Landing page: not separately published (the PDF is the official record)
• Original PDF: https://ago.wv.gov/media/37569/download?inline

Original opinion text

State of West Virginia
Office of the Attorney General
John B. McCuskey
Attorney General

Phone: (304) 558-2021
Fax: (304) 558-0140

July 10, 2025

The Honorable Randy Smith
President of the Senate
State Capitol Building 1, Room 229M
1900 Kanawha Boulevard East
Charleston, WV 25305
Dear President Smith:
You have asked for an Opinion of the Attorney General about the oversight of dams owned
or sponsored by local conservation districts. This opinion is issued under West Virginia Code § 5-3-1, which provides that the Attorney General will "render to the President of the Senate … a
written opinion or advice upon any questions submitted to the Attorney General by them …
whenever he … is requested in writing so to do." Where this Opinion relies on facts, it depends
solely on the factual assertions in your correspondence with the Office of the Attorney General.
You explain that the Legislature recently amended West Virginia Code § 19-21A-8, which
details the powers and duties of conservation districts and supervisors. The bill, Senate Bill 941
(2025), provides that "[a]ny alteration, improvement, or agreement related to a dam owned or
sponsored by a local conservation district is subject solely to the authority of the Department of
Environmental Protection."

Despite this language, we understand that at least one local conservation district is refusing
to cede oversight authority to the Department of Environmental Protection unless and until an
opinion of this Office confirms that authority. We also understand that this dispute is affecting
imminent mining operations. Given that expediency, "this opinion must necessarily be brief" "[i]n
order to provide you with a prompt answer to your question." 50 W. Va. Op. Att'y Gen. 163
(1963).

With these facts in mind, your letter raises the following legal question:
In light of S.B. 941, do local conservation districts continue to exercise any
oversight authority over dams that they own or sponsor?

We conclude that, under the facts you have described, local conservation districts cannot
exercise authority over alterations, improvements, or agreements pertaining to the dams that the
districts own or sponsor (that is, maintain).

Discussion

"[C]onservation districts are authorized by statute," Hesse v. State Soil Conservation
Comm., 153 W. Va. 111, 118, 168 S.E.2d 293, 297 (1969), and "political subdivision[s] of the
State of West Virginia," Potomac Valley Soil Conservation Dist. v. Wilkins, 188 W. Va. 275, 277,
423 S.E.2d 884, 886 (1992). While formed under a variety of prior enactments, they were
"continued" by the Legislature. W. Va. Code § 19-21A-5. Like similar entities that are "creatures
of statute," they are "delegates of the Legislature" whose "power is dependent upon statutes," such
that "they must find within the statute warrant for the exercise of any authority which they claim."
Div. of Just. & Cmty. Servs. v. Fairmont State Univ., 242 W. Va. 489, 498, 836 S.E.2d 456, 465
(2019).

The local districts' "powers and duties" are described in West Virginia Code § 19-21A-8.
As relevant here, they may exercise certain authority pertaining to water resources. W. Va. Code
§ 19-21A-8(a). But in Senate Bill 941, the Legislature amended this provision to expressly provide
that "any alteration, improvement, or agreement related to a dam owned or sponsored by a local
conservation district is subject solely to the authority of the Department of Environmental
Protection." Id. Conversely, the statute does not expressly provide conservation districts any
affirmative authority over dams. And according to its title, the bill was specifically intended to
"clarify[] certain authority regarding dams owned or sponsored by local conservation districts."
This new proviso parallels the Secretary of Environmental Protection's powers under the Dam
Control Act. See W. Va. Code § 22-14-5.

The language of the dam proviso is unambiguous: only the Department of Environmental
Protection may now oversee these dams. The statute broadly covers alterations, improvements, or
agreements, reflecting an intent to embrace all manner of activities pertaining to dams. The
statute's use of "any" confirms its breadth. After all, "[t]he word 'any,' when used in a statute,
should be construed to mean any." Shaffer v. Fort Henry Surgical Assocs., 599 S.E.2d 876 (W.
Va. 2004); see also Williams v. W. Va. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 419 S.E.2d 474 (W. Va. 1992)
(same); Thomas v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 266 S.E.2d 905 (W. Va. 1980) (same); accord
Romero v. Barr, 937 F.3d 282, 292 (4th Cir. 2019) ("[T]he word 'any' has an expansive meaning,
that is, 'one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind.'"). Likewise, "'[s]olely for' means
'exclusively for.' It 'leaves no leeway.'" Stockton Harbor Indus. Co. v. Comm'r, 216 F.2d 638,
645 (9th Cir. 1954); see also United States v. Clingan, 254 F.3d 624, 626 (6th Cir. 2001) ("'Solely'
means 'SINGLY, ALONE ... to the exclusion of alternate or competing things.'"). So by saying
the Department of Environmental Protection was "solely" responsible, it left no room for anyone
else to act—conservation districts included—unless the Department chooses to coordinate or
otherwise allow such a role. Lastly, the specific language related to dams would prevail over the
more general language related to water conservation. See Newark Ins. Co. v. Brown, 218 W. Va.
346, 352, 624 S.E.2d 783, 789 (2005) (explaining how specific provisions prevail over general
ones).

In the end, such plain language must prevail. See Beasley v. Sorsaia, 247 W. Va. 409, 412,
880 S.E.2d 875, 878 (2022). Whether one agrees or disagrees with the choice behind the proviso
is irrelevant. "It is the duty of the Legislature to consider facts, establish policy, and embody that
policy in legislation." State v. Louk, 237 W. Va. 200, 201, 786 S.E.2d 219, 220 (2016). It has
done just that here—and that choice must be respected. Id.

And indeed, the legislative history confirms that, when it comes to these dams, the
Department of Environmental Protection was intended to act alone. See State ex rel. Games-Neely
v. Silver, 226 W. Va. 11, 13, 697 S.E.2d 47, 49 (2010) (noting how courts construing statutes can
consider "the legislative history" after text to determine legislative intent). Speakers before the
Senate Energy, Industry, and Mining Committee largely—including the committee chair, another
senator, committee counsel, and the state Conservation Agency—all agreed that Senate Bill 941
was intended to foreclose responsibility over dams by local conservation committees; professional
engineering personnel at the Department of Environmental Protection are now in charge. See
Hearing Before Senate Energy, Industry, and Mining Committee, 87th W. Va. Leg. (Mar. 28,
2025), available at https://tinyurl.com/mst7fbpk. This consensus view confirms that conservation
districts were not intended to exercise authority after bill passage.

Conclusion

Local conservation districts cannot exercise authority over alterations, improvements, or
agreements related to the dams that the districts own or sponsor.* Under current law, only the
Department of Environmental Protection may do so.

Sincerely,

John B. McCuskey
Attorney General
Michael R. Williams
Solicitor General
cc: Senator Chris Rose

• We have not been presented with any specific legal basis for any conservation district's objection to the
  Department of Environmental Protection's sole authority. Although we have endeavored to consider all
  relevant West Virginia law in rendering this opinion, that lack of information—combined with the time
  constraints we faced here—may lead us to revisit this opinion should the circumstances warrant it.