Representative image
For at least three generations, the Luidhardt family has farmed land north of Bowling Green, Ohio. That continuity came under pressure when the family learned that a natural gas pipeline connected to Meta’s data centre in Middleton Township could cross roughly 40 acres of their soybean fields.
After Jon and Ken Luidhardt challenged the proposed route through the Ohio Power Siting Board, the developer ultimately selected a different path, according to BG Independent News and The Cool Down.The dispute became a broader test of how farmland, family heritage, and private corporate development collide in the age of rapid data-centre expansion. While Williams, the pipeline company’s parent firm, says it never pursued or threatened eminent domain on the route submitted for review, the Luidhardts say a map showed the pipeline crossing their property and that they felt compelled to fight back.A farm with deep family rootsJon Luidhardt said the land has been in his family for at least three generations, and he wants future generations to continue farming it. “We want to continue a fourth and fifth generation of farming,” he told BG Independent News.The property lies near the corner of Haskins Road and Hannah Road, between Bowling Green and Haskins. Its value to the family was not only agricultural, but also personal, because it represented continuity, work, and a way of life passed down over decades.
That history helps explain why the family rejected a financial offer to sell part of the acreage. Luidhardt said pipeline representatives offered what he described as an “insane amount of money,” with some offers reportedly reaching as much as $200,000 per acre, but he argued that money could not replace family history.A pipeline for Meta’s data centerWill-Power, a pipeline company connected to Williams, sought land for a natural gas pipeline intended to serve the Meta data centre being built in Middleton Township.
The pipeline would support the Apollo power plant, a natural gas facility located east of the data centre. The Apollo plant was approved by the Ohio Power Siting Board in February under an expedited review process. It will operate “behind the meter,” meaning it will serve the electricity needs of the adjacent Meta data centre rather than being physically connected to the public power grid, as per the reports.Because the facility is dedicated to a single customer, the approval process did not include public hearings.
That lack of broader public involvement became a central concern for opponents, who argued that the project was designed to benefit one private company rather than the wider community.The family’s legal challengeThe reports further suggested that when Jon Luidhardt saw a map indicating that the pipeline would cross the family’s soybean field, he and his father contacted attorney Maurice Thompson, executive director of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law in Columbus.
The family had previously worked with Thompson to stop another pipeline from crossing their land. Thompson filed a motion to intervene with the Ohio Power Siting Board.
He argued that private property in Ohio should not be taken simply to benefit a purely private corporate project, including a private pipeline built to fuel that project.The legal argument focused on eminent domain, the government power to take private property for public use.
Thompson contended that the Apollo pipeline was solely intended to fuel Meta, rather than to heat Ohio homes or fuel vehicles, and therefore did not meet the traditional public-use standard.The developer says it chose another routeAfter the family’s challenge, Thompson said Will-Power informed regulators that the line would be redirected around Luidhardt Farms and removed from the family’s property. However, at the time of publication, the Luidhardts had not yet seen the revised map.
Williams disputed the characterisation that eminent domain had been used or threatened. A company representative said the Luidhardt property was not on the route submitted for review and that the company had already achieved 100 percent acquisition before the farmer filed the intervention.The representative also said that all land options for the project involved voluntary agreements and that Williams did not pursue or threaten eminent domain against any landowner affected by the route.
The company has previously described eminent domain as a last resort for pipeline projects.Why the case mattersThe dispute raises questions about whether state authority should be used to help a private corporation secure land for infrastructure that mainly benefits its own operations. Thompson argued that eminent domain is generally meant to serve a public use, not the needs of one private business.The case also reflects a wider tension between data-centre growth and rural communities.
As companies build large facilities that require substantial electricity, water, and fuel infrastructure, nearby landowners may face pressure to sell or alter land that has been farmed for generations.There are environmental concerns as well. The pipeline would support a natural gas-powered facility for the data centre, potentially locking in additional polluting infrastructure as communities weigh the costs of rapid industrial expansion.What happens nextFor the Luidhardts, the reported reroute offers reassurance, but it does not fully close the issue. Jon Luidhardt said he wants to see the updated filing before treating the matter as resolved, and he also wanted the case tested in court.Thompson’s intervention did not produce a court ruling, but it appears to have contributed to the company’s decision to pursue a different route. He argued that public scrutiny can change corporate behaviour, saying that when the issue is highlighted, companies often find another way forward.The outcome is a partial victory for the family, but it also illustrates the uncertainty many landowners face when major infrastructure projects approach their property. A pipeline route can shift, offers can be substantial, and legal challenges may not always result in a formal ruling, yet they can still influence the final decision.A question of land, power, and progressThe Luidhardt case is ultimately about more than one pipeline or one data centre.
It asks whether long-standing family farms should be preserved when a private development promises economic growth but requires land that families have cultivated for generations.Meta and its pipeline affiliates remain free to buy land from willing sellers. The dispute centred on whether a project serving a single private company should be able to rely on the power of eminent domain, or the threat of it, to overcome a landowner’s refusal.For now, the Luidhardt family’s land appears to be off the route. Their challenge shows how local opposition, legal intervention, and public attention can shape decisions about where large-scale infrastructure is placed, even in an era when data centres are expanding rapidly across the United States.