A Virginia county has won a major legal battle to seize 11 acres of a farmer’s land for a new public water project, but locals are furious over what they see as an insultingly low offer and another warning sign in the state’s fight over development.
According to a report from The Cool Down, Caroline Circuit Court Judge Dennis Hupp refused to block Caroline County from using eminent domain against farmer Cory Garrett, whose Tidewater Trail property sits along the Rappahannock River.
The county has offered Garrett $78,400 for the 11 acres, a figure the judge ruled qualified as a good-faith offer under Virginia law. But plenty of Virginians are not buying that description.
Over on the Virginia subreddit discussing the report, one user reacted: “Really, 78k is a good for 11 acres. It’s robbery…” Another was even more direct: “In no way is that a good faith offer.”
Others joked that they would happily buy the land themselves at that price, including one commenter who wrote: “I’ll pay 80k in cash today. Let’s do this like a real market. Start bidding.”
The anger is not only about the money. The county plans to draw untreated water from the Rappahannock and move it roughly 35 miles to a treatment facility in western Caroline County. It already has approval to withdraw as much as nine million gallons per day.
Data center fears are pouring into the fight
The original legal dispute does not establish that Garrett’s land is being taken specifically for a data center. It’s a distinction that matters.
County officials previously sought permission for up to 13 million gallons per day and included “industrial cooling” in an application before later removing that language. Local rules also prohibit data centers from using potable water for cooling.
Still, that has done little to calm suspicion among residents already uneasy about the spread of data centers across Virginia.
One commenter asked: “Why can’t we have data center moratorium in VA.”
Another argued the connection remained worrying because of the scale of the infrastructure being created, while others pushed back and said the data-center angle was being exaggerated.
That disagreement may actually be the bigger story. Even where a project is legally defined as public infrastructure, some residents increasingly see new utility capacity through the lens of who might ultimately benefit from it.
Garrett argued the county’s taking was premature and challenged whether officials followed the proper process. Hupp rejected those arguments, ruling the water project serves a public use and that the county had not acted arbitrarily or fraudulently.
Garrett has not ruled out further action. For angry locals, though, the legal definition of “public use” is only part of the argument. When government can take farmland for $78,400 while residents fear the surrounding infrastructure could eventually support massive commercial development, being told the offer is “good faith” is unlikely to settle anything.
