Grown Better Together: Supporting Small Farmers Through a Publicly Owned Agricultural Supply Chain in West Virginia

Introduction

“They wanted to make this whole place a coal mine, and now that we’re realizing that won’t work, we don’t know what to do.” This quote from Mark,¹ a farmer I interviewed in McDowell County, West Virginia, perfectly describes the broken promises of extractive industries in the state. Industries such as timber, coal, and natural gas have dominated West Virginia’s economy for generations with guarantees of economic prosperity; however, those guarantees have not been realized (Stump 2021). Instead, those same extractive industries have left West Virginia as the fourth poorest state in the nation, with a poverty rate of 16.7 percent (WVCBP 2025) and a median annual income just over $33,000 (US Census Bureau n.d.).These same industries have poisoned West Virginia’s landscape, ranking 47th worst in the nation (EPA n.d.), about 250,000 West Virginians lack access to quality drinking water (Hanson 2025). 

Today, a new wave of extraction sits on the horizon of West Virginia’s hills. This time, it takes the form of data centers, evident with the passage of West Virginia House Bill 2014 in the 2025 Legislative Session (HB 2014 2025). HB 2014 strips local governments of their ability to dictate data center developments and allows said developments to conceal their projected pollution outputs and water usage as “trade secrets,” all while setting no requirements for in-state job creation or investment (Coyne 2025). HB 2014 also directs 50 percent of the tax revenue generated from data centers to the personal income tax reduction fund. Beyond being the largest revenue-generating mechanism for the state of West Virginia (WVTD n.d.), the personal income tax is progressive, which means that its phase-out disproportionately benefits West Virginia’s wealthiest individuals (TPC 2024). Further, HB 2014 diverts 10 percent of data center tax revenue to all West Virginia counties on a per capita basis (HB 2014 2025). By providing funding to already cash-strapped counties, the data center industry is employing a former coal-industry tactic by building support among county commissions and leveraging their existing relationships with state representatives to prevent further industry reform (Stump 2021). This is the standard extraction playbook: The industry promises jobs and economic prosperity, state politicians establish legal structures that prioritize industry over people, and that industry fails to deliver on its promises, instead overusing already scarce natural resources, polluting what remains, and transporting its profits across state lines. 

In a political environment focused on economic development, pursuing a just transition beyond extraction requires the use of legal structures to uplift industries that can meaningfully guarantee stable livelihoods for West Virginians and hold a vested interest in maintaining a clean and healthy environment. One path for West Virginia beyond extraction lies in cultivating its soil through agriculture. Due to its mountainous geography, 98 percent of the state’s over 20,000 farms are considered small (WVDA n.d.b), a dramatic contrast to traditional agricultural states like Iowa whose small farms amount to 44 percent (Edwards 2024). Small farms are significantly less likely to adopt the environmentally harmful practices of mechanized large-scale agriculture; they traditionally embrace more conservation-based practices such as integrated pest management and crop rotation (van Rossum 2022). And yet such farms face severe challenges in West Virginia. As of 2024, 68 percent of farmers in the state were unable to meet their basic needs through on-farm income alone (Wilson and Morrissey 2024), reducing what was once a sufficient stream of income to petty cash (Sperow 2024). 

This brief first explains the methods used to understand the past and current state of West Virginia’s agriculture industry alongside the experiences of people currently engaged with small-scale agriculture. It then details the historic, economic, and political relationship agriculture has had with West Virginia’s extractive industries. Following those accounts, the brief evaluates the outcomes of current agricultural policy and programs impacting West Virginia’s small farmers. It then describes how the build-out of a publicly owned agricultural supply chain in West Virginia would directly address the concerns of today’s Mountain State farmers, advance the shortfalls of existing policy, and contribute to the revitalization of West Virginia agriculture. Ultimately, this brief offers West Virginians a path beyond extractive industries—a path that leads to meaningful livelihoods that don’t require sacrificing the quality of one’s health or the health of the mountains, valleys, and rivers they call home. 

Methodology

To frame this brief’s policy recommendations and analysis of West Virginia agriculture, I performed a literature review covering relevant West Virginia history, small farm and sustainable agriculture, alternative economic practices, and just transition concepts. However, a literature review alone is insufficient in developing policy recommendations relevant to the experiences of West Virginia’s agricultural producers, since it would lack crucial perspective on lived experience needed to create a robust state-level agriculture industry attuned to the needs of the people it seeks to serve (Iles, Ma, and Erwin 2020). To understand the major issues producers face that prevent small farming from being a broadly viable livelihood in West Virginia, I did what any farmer would do: I went into the field.

With the help of West Virginia University’s Agricultural Extension Services, I traveled across the state and interviewed 15 farmers, K-12 agriculture teachers, and extension agents. As a majority small farm state, West Virginia’s agriculture industry is incredibly diverse (WV Agricultural Advisory Board 2019). To capture this diversity, I covered every geographic region of the state, from the Monongahela National Forest Region, to the Ohio River Valley, Southern Coal Fields, Kanawha River Valley, the North-Central Region near Pittsburgh, PA, and the Eastern Panhandle near Washington, DC. The geographic diversity of the farmers I interviewed was accompanied by product diversity. While some of the farmers interviewed produce cattle, hay, and poultry, which make up a sizable amount of West Virginia’s agricultural outputs, I also talked to farmers who produce bees, honey, fruits, vegetables, mushrooms, sheep, goats, maple syrup, wood products, and a multitude of other agricultural goods (ARC 2022). While the diversity of farmers I interviewed gave me a wide breadth of wisdom to pull from, my hour- to two-hour-long conversations with each interviewee provided the depth needed to get to the root causes of the problems they face, and to conceptualize the solutions they hope to see. 

The History of West Virginia Agriculture

Agriculture has played a substantial historical role in West Virginia’s economy, namely as an alternative to the state’s extraction industries (Hitchcock 1995). The size of West Virginia’s agricultural industry peaked in 1935 with a total of 105,000 farms, and has steadily declined since (Sperow 2024). The emergence of new transportation technologies, such as canals and railroads, catalyzed the rise of the extractive timber and coal industries by enabling the transportation of natural resources within West Virginia to population centers beyond it (Cronon 1992). West Virginia agriculture, however, continued to contrast these cycles. As timber jobs faded after nearly the entire state was logged in the 1920s, agriculture stayed stable (Lewis 2024). Greg, a Preston County farmer and former extension agent, highlighted this stability, explaining that his grandparents began farming as timber jobs left the state, and they remained farmers to avoid the dangerous working conditions of coal mines. Further, agriculture provided West Virginians a means to build and retain their livelihoods untethered from the corporations that dominated extractive industries.

As coal companies in particular began to build company towns and stores through the 1950s, they also contributed to the development of West Virginia’s unique small farm–dominated agricultural industry. Coal companies embraced subsistence practices of provisioning and gardening as a means of outsourcing the labor of food production to coal miners’ families (Stump 2021). These subsistence methods transitioned into livelihoods as Mark, a farmer in McDowell County, described hog and poultry grazing as agriculture’s beginnings in the Mountain State’s coal fields. Additionally, the rise of financially powerful land holding companies in Appalachia resulted in a massive transfer of property ownership to entities based outside the state (WVCBP 2013). Poverty was so prevalent in West Virginia at this time that selling mineral rights or whole plots of land to these companies was a means of survival for many Appalachian farmers (Malin and DeMaster 2016). Subsequently, agriculture has represented a financially viable means of retaining one’s land ownership and, thus, independence. The practice of provisioning and gardening, their roles in growing small farms, and those farms’ ability to provide means for financial independence illustrate West Virginia agriculture’s role in combating the economic grip extraction industries hold on the Mountain State.

Farmers in West Virginia’s agriculture industry have also played an active role in shaping policy to limit the environmental destruction caused by the development of extractive industries. This phenomenon can be best observed with the development of the Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977. Farmers in mining communities were the first to sound the alarm about the broader environmental impacts as their livestock died from water contaminated by acid mine drainage and as flooding from valley fills destroyed entire fields of crops (Stump 2021). While SMCRA was a historic piece of mining regulation, it was West Virginia farmers who initiated the conversations to move the bill forward and who pushed—although ultimately unsuccessfully—for regulations beyond the neoliberal paradigm to be included in the bill, such as an outright ban on mountaintop removal mining (Stump 2021). Additionally, extraction industries in West Virginia have created further environmental destruction through their ancillary industries. For instance, West Virginia’s chemical industry grew from the need for coal processing chemicals. These chemicals have routinely contaminated West Virginia’s water supplies, and it’s been farmers who have led the charge in advocating for accountability from said chemical companies. This advocacy is best represented by Wood County farmer Wilbur Tennant’s nearly 20-year legal battle with the multinational chemical company Dupont, culminating in a $671 million settlement from the company. The lawsuit arose after nearly all of Tennant’s cattle died from what was found to be chemical contamination from Dupont having illegally dumped waste upstream from his farm’s water source (Pilz and Shaw 2025). These examples detail the role small farmers have played in advocating against extraction industries, particularly as their livelihoods are directly tied to the quality of their environment.

Current Policy Context

While a publicly owned agricultural supply chain would produce the transformative change needed to build substantial power against the expansion of extraction industries in West Virginia, there have been several policies and programs designed to develop agriculture in the Mountain State. Under the administration of Governor Jim Justice, the West Virginia Legislature worked with Commissioner of Agriculture Kent Leonhardt to institute an annual passage of a West Virginia Farm Bill that would ensure regular updates of Chapter 19 of West Virginia’s state code (WVDA n.d.a). And in the 2019 Farm Bill, the West Virginia Legislature passed the West Virginia Fresh Food Act. Aiming to support small farmers by spurring in-state demand, the policy mandated that 5 percent of food obtained by state-funded institutions must be produced or processed in West Virginia (HB 2396 2019). While initially successful in spurring demand for small farmers, one Monroe County farmer, Sandy, described the policy’s shortfalls: She highlighted the reality that accessing said commercial-scale institutions requires working with for-profit food service companies and detailed how their relationship supplying strawberries to local school systems through a food service company began following the passage of the Fresh Food Act. However, the food service company she was working with ended the deal once they found a cheaper way to reach the 5 percent quota by buying out-of-state milk and processing it in West Virginia. Upon this realization, the local school system not only lost access to fresh nutritious strawberries, but Sandy’s farm lost access to a major revenue stream she relied on to make ends meet. Subsequently, the legislature created the Agriculture Investment Program via the 2021 West Virginia Farm Bill. Administered by the state treasurer’s office to fund grant programs designed by the West Virginia Department of Agriculture, the scarce nature of state funding first limited this fund to approximately $39,000 annually in 2023, and later to zero dollars in 2025 (West Virginia Office of the Auditor 2026). While well intentioned, the small scale and implementation challenges these policies face have produced an impact insufficient for the transformation of West Virginia’s agriculture industry.

Beyond legislative action, the state and federal departments of agriculture administer several programs that have had positive impacts on small farmers in West Virginia. At the state level, West Virginia has seen success in growing small farm jobs through the Veterans and Heroes to Agriculture Program. Through educational workshops, access to grant funding, and pitch competitions, this program opens up financial opportunities to West Virginia veterans interested in agriculture by lowering the barriers to entry and providing a supportive social network (WVDA n.d.c). Bob, a Clay County farmer and participant in the program, highlighted it as being vital to his ability to adjust to life after military service and find a stable and fulfilling occupation. At the federal level, almost every farmer interviewed highlighted the positive impact of the USDA’s conservation programs, particularly those administered by the Farm Service Agency and Natural Resources Conservation Service. Almost all of the farmers I interviewed praised the grant and loan funding for on-farm infrastructure and processing equipment, as well as technical assistance support on grant applications and other legal documents, such as H2A visa worker applications. However, this recurring praise was paired with recurring caveats. This dichotomy was best summarized by Frank, a farmer in Monongalia County and USDA grant recipient, who described the process of applying to his first USDA grant as “brutal,” underscoring the high barrier associated with access to these USDA resources. Other producers similarly expressed difficulty locating and understanding what federal resources were available to them. Despite the tangible benefits created by these programs, means testing and administrative burdens have prevented them from producing the industry-wide change needed to tangibly build power in West Virginia’s agriculture industry.

West Virginia lawmakers lack the political will to effectively regulate the timber, coal, natural gas, and now data industries—despite being the most effective approach to prevent economic and environmental extraction. This is due to these industries’ financial clout in state elections and their ability to mobilize public opinion for their causes (Thomas 1998). While extraction industries have been detrimental to the health and livelihoods of West Virginians, they are also the industries that employed generations of West Virginians and literally built several West Virginia towns (National Coal Heritage Area n.d.). Extraction industries, particularly coal and more recently natural gas, have weaponized this cultural connection to industry, alongside their financial might, to prevent the election of politicians that support regulation of their practices or their power (Van Nostrand 2022). Despite this cultural and financial dominance, passage of legislation such as the Fresh Food Act and funding of programs like the Heroes and Veterans to Agriculture Program, despite their limited scope, do represent the political willingness among the West Virginia legislature to support programs related to the development of the state’s agriculture industry. Thus, building power in West Virginia’s agriculture provides a politically feasible method for developing the state beyond further extractive industries in a political context heavily influenced by extraction industry lobbies. 

A Publicly Owned Agricultural Supply Chain

Through conversations about what limits small farmers and what the government could do to help, three major issues began to arise: (1) the lack of sufficient agricultural processing infrastructure, (2) an inability to supply commercial-scale markets, and (3) a lack of accessible technical support. Taken together, these problems illustrate a failure of the free market to supply West Virginia’s small farmers with needed physical infrastructure, the commercial mechanisms necessary to access high-revenue markets, and the educational services required to sufficiently access existing resources. Among these three overarching concerns rises a common conclusion: A publicly owned agricultural supply chain that can meet the state’s unique needs is imperative to the development of West Virginia’s small-scale agriculture industry. A publicly owned agricultural supply chain in West Virginia that meets the needs of the state’s small farmers would need to possess

1. publicly accessible, regionally based processing facilities;
2. a state owned and operated food service corporation; and
3. administrative, technical, and engagement staff.

Processing Facilities

Processing infrastructure can broadly be described as the facilities and equipment needed to transform an agricultural product into a consumable state (USDA 2012). This infrastructure varies substantially depending on the product; for instance, processing cattle requires a slaughterhouse, while processing fruits into jam requires a commercial kitchen. With a diverse set of agricultural products with varied processing needs, making a profit on agricultural processing facilities in West Virginia would be extremely difficult. Without adequate supply of processing facilities producers are forced to front the massive financial costs of purchasing their own processing equipment. Bob, a farmer from Clay County, experienced this firsthand, as it took him four years to save enough money to purchase the packaging equipment needed to process his honey in single-serving pouches suitable for schools. While the equipment dramatically increased his sales, he conceded the difficulty of those four years, saying his farm almost went bankrupt. The few processing facilities that do exist in West Virginia are overwhelmed and understaffed. Stephanie, a farmer in Hampshire County, articulated this phenomenon with a nearby slaughterhouse, saying the facility is always booked but lacks the personnel to meet local demand. She added, “The lack of infrastructure makes it harder for people to get into agriculture and make a living off it. Once it gets so difficult, people give up.” No matter the type of processing infrastructure, its availability and accessibility are crucial to making small farming in West Virginia a viable livelihood. 

Processing facilities are necessary to ensure small farmers have the ability to safely and appropriately prepare their produce to be consumed. In building out a publicly owned agricultural supply chain, the West Virginia Department of Agriculture would construct and operate one processing facility in each of its 14 conservation districts. Organizing these facilities by conservation district ensures that the administration of these facilities aligns with an existing administrative unit within the West Virginia Department of Agriculture (WVCA n.d.). The West Virginia Department of Agriculture has already established agreements with all five infrastructure projects funded by the USDA’s Resilient Food System Infrastructure Program to provide processing services to West Virginia farmers at said facilities (USDA 2026). A publicly owned agricultural supply chain would expand the network of processing facilities from five to 14 and from five conservation districts—concentrated in the North Central Region and the Eastern Panhandle—to the entire state, allowing West Virginian small farmers access to processing facilities for free no matter where they’re located in the state.

Food Service Corporations

Another particular market of concern was commercial-scale institutions, such as hospitals, schools, restaurants, and prisons. Commercial-scale institutions comprise the majority of produce demand in West Virginia; however, it is nearly impossible for any single small farmer to meet the scale needed to directly supply this demand (Farmer and Betz 2016). Instead, the only way most small farmers in West Virginia are able to access these institutions is through food service companies (Farmer and Betz 2016). A food service company provides a commercial institution with bulk supplies of food under a contractual agreement (Pepin 2022). As the sole intermediaries between farmers and the revenue of commercial institutions, food service companies hold a sizable amount of power over small farmers in West Virginia. Sandy, a farmer in Monroe County, detailed how food service companies use their market position to pin small farms against each other in a race to the bottom so that the food service companies can get the best product for the cheapest price. Additionally, with West Virginia’s major population centers located near state borders, almost all of the food service companies operating in West Virginia are based out-of-state. Lisa, program coordinator for WVU’s Small Farm Center, explained how this results in food service companies forcing small farmers to conform to their supply chains. In most instances, small farmers incur the costs of transporting their produce to an out-of-state warehouse, only for the food service company to eventually transport the food back in-state to a West Virginia–based commercial institution. This status quo shuts small farmers out of major revenue sources, while giving profit-driven food service companies outsized power over West Virginian producers. To address the lack of income among West Virginia’s small farmers and ultimately revitalize the state’s agriculture industry, small farmers must be able to easily access the demand of commercial institutions.

In pursuit of building out a publicly owned agricultural supply chain, the Department of Agriculture would establish a state-owned food service company with the explicit goal of supplying West Virginia’s commercial-scale institutions with food produced in West Virginia. The state-owned food service company would utilize the statewide network of processing facilities as warehouses, to coordinate procurement with producers and distribution to commercial-scale customers. This public alternative will break the power for-profit food service corporations have over West Virginia’s small farmers by allowing them to access commercial-scale customers without price and logistical demands that impact their bottom lines. The state publicly owned food service corporation would operate similarly to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Federal Surplus Commodity Corporation—today’s USDA Agricultural Marketing Service—which illustrated the ability of the government to facilitate distribution of food from producers by having them sell their produce to the corporation for explicit demand requests from customers (USDA n.d.). To fulfill its state-based mission, the West Virginia Department of Agriculture Food Service Corporation would only be able to serve in state commercial institutions, but also only purchase produce from West Virginia farmers. 

Administrative Staff

The administrative burden of agricultural permits and government programs designed to maintain food safety and help small farmers is significant, such that many small farmers forgo opportunities that would otherwise help their bottom lines. Stephanie, a farmer from Hampshire County, highlighted the impact agricultural labeling standards had on her farm’s marketing, as undercapacitated state officials spent three months contesting the size of the font on her sausage packaging. Stephanie stressed, “Farming isn’t a business where you can sit and wait,” adding that the three-month delay resulted in lost product and directly cut into her farm’s finances. Amanda, a farmer in Monongalia County, emphasized the need for legal technical assistance for small farmers following her experience with conservation easements and the H2A Agricultural Visa Program. She underscored a sentiment shared by many small farmers, saying, “My time is valuable—am I going to spend the day in the field or sit all day and figure out how to apply for this government program?” Overall, to position agriculture as a viable occupation in West Virginia, state agencies must have the capacity to efficiently help producers, and small farmers must have the technical support they need to remain compliant with government regulations and utilize public programs designed to help them.

To address these administrative challenges in a publicly owned agricultural supply chain, the West Virginia Department of Agriculture would employ an administrator/technical assistant to staff each of the 14 processing facilities. The administrator—as an employee of the Department of Agriculture—would be able to supply small farmers with legal, technical, and administrative assistance either directly or by connecting them with the relevant entities, such as other government employees, university extension offices, and nonprofits. These district-based administrators would also be charged with overseeing conservation district agricultural councils. To ensure that the processing equipment in each district facility matches the needs of small farmers in said district, small farmers could become members of their conservation district agricultural council for free and participate in making decisions on the contents of the processing facility. District-based administrators would not only make government more accessible to West Virginia’s small farmers by supporting their technical assistance needs, but their role in operating conservation district agricultural councils will ensure that a publicly owned agricultural supply chain continues to meet the evolving needs of small farmers across various regions of the state.

The combination of these policy proposals to construct a publicly owned agricultural supply chain will have additional social and political ramifications. Every current and former extension agent interviewed for this policy brief commented on a general difficulty in getting small farmers in West Virginia to work together in organizations such as cooperatives. This phenomenon was generally seen as a product of a cultural norm caused by long-term financial hardship and relative geographic isolation (Berry 1997). A publicly owned agricultural supply chain—via public processing facilities and conservation district agricultural councils—would erode that norm by creating a common space and collaborative work environment. Replacing a culture of isolation with one of collaboration would build the advocacy infrastructure needed for small farmers to effectively organize against extractive developments that threaten their livelihoods (Gibson-Graham, Cameron, and Healy 2013). For instance, if a data center threatening water access is sited in a particular conservation district, the farmers in said district would already have the personal relationships needed to collectively pressure developers, elected officials, and/or permitting agencies. Ultimately, the physical, commercial, and human infrastructure of a publicly owned agricultural supply chain would not only build financial power through the establishment of livelihoods, but also political power through networks of small farmers that could quickly mobilize against a threat. 

Conclusion

The development of industries rooted in environmental stewardship is already combating the damages of West Virginia’s extractive industries. West Virginia has made an intentional effort through state investment to grow a tourism industry rooted in county fairs, state parks, and outdoor adventure that highlights the state’s natural beauty. West Virginia’s tourism industry began to take off with the passage of the West Virginia Tourism Development Act of 2004, creating tax credits for the establishment of tourism attractions in West Virginia (SB 139 2004). While these market incentives facilitated the creation of tourism opportunities, alone they were insufficient to support well-paying jobs in a state tourism industry. Subsequently, the state Legislature passed the Tourism Act of 2017, creating the cabinet-level Department of Tourism as a de facto publicly owned marketing agency for tourism attractions in West Virginia (SB 535 2017). By supporting the tourism industry at a scale that the free market couldn’t, the state was able to create well-paying jobs that preserved public health and protected the environment, without relying on extractive industries (Tourism Economics 2024). By 2025, the power of this new non-extractive industry was put to the test: Just months after the passage of HB 2014, a data center proposal was submitted to the state Department of Environmental Protection to be placed between the ski and mountain biking towns of Davis and Thomas, just a seven-minute drive apart. With nearly the entire proposal redacted from public view, these towns began to organize, pushing back against the development and mounting public pressure against their elected officials (Tucker United n.d.). So far the pressure has worked. The West Virginia senate president has since vowed to reform HB 2014 in future legislative sessions and has done so citing a desire to protect tourism jobs in the area (Coyne, Kersey, and Knisely 2026). 

While political battles over HB 2014 are ongoing, the progress made by the tourism industry in Davis and Thomas articulates a clear reality: Creating favorable legal structures to create livelihoods in industries reliant on a clean environment builds power that can curtail the further development of extractive industries. The outcomes seen with the tourism industry illustrate that with proper, people-minded policy development, the same phenomena can occur in the agriculture industry. West Virginians can no longer tolerate extractive industries, so much so that the Mountain State experienced the highest percentage of population loss from 2010 to 2020 when compared to any other state (US Census Bureau n.d.). However, we now have a clear path beyond extraction. To call back to Mark’s quote at the beginning of this brief, we now know what to do. With a focus on building livelihoods for West Virginians in environmentally conscious industries and on designing policy solutions not to transfer wealth beyond the state but to invest in our own state, West Virginians can grow a new path forward together.