Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, September 8, 1994 TAG: 9409080069
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: By BRIAN KELLEY STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The 3-2 vote was a win for power-line foes, who viewed the supervisors' Aug. 2 resolution as too favorable toward Apco and its plans for a new 115-mile line from Oceana, W.Va., to Cloverdale.
In that resolution, the supervisors supported Apco's preferred route north of the New River Valley, but said they would work with the utility to lessen the power line's negative effects on people and the environment if that route didn't work and one through Giles ``is deemed most appropriate.''
The development comes as the Montgomery County supervisors are to consider a power-line resolution Monday that also would support Apco's preferred route. However, the Montgomery draft also would urge the State Corporation Commission to recognize the need for the new power line, a need that opponents dispute.
Local governments across the region have considered the power-line issue since July, when the U.S. Forest Service released a map of alternative routes that pass through or near portions of Giles, Montgomery, Pulaski and Bland counties. Those alternatives are under study, along with Apco's preferred route to the north, through Craig, Roanoke and Botetourt counties.
The Giles vote is a ``victory in the sense that our Board of Supervisors is now responding to the community rather than blindly voting on something,'' said activist Donna Muhly of Dismal Creek. ``They saw the error of their way and rescinded it.''
Chairman Larry Jay Williams said the board reacted to activists and ``old-timers'' from the rural areas of the county. ``I think we got a little ahead of ourselves,'' Williams said. ``The people out in the county are really rallying on this issue.''
Supervisor Bobby Compton, who had voted for the Aug. 2 resolution, was the swing vote. He joined Williams and Supervisor Ted Timberlake, who also voted against the original.
Compton said Wednesday that he still favors a route to the north, outside of Giles, because it would have the least impact.
Apco is awaiting completion of a federal study of the environmental impact of the high-voltage line. The study is required because the preferred route crosses the Jefferson National Forest for 12 miles. This week, the utility asked the SCC to step up its long-delayed ruling on Apco's request to build the line. The SCC has the ultimate say in Virginia on whether the line is needed and where it should run.
The Giles supervisors' vote shatters an attempt at a unified stand on the power-line issue between the county and its five towns.
Four of the five towns have voted in favor of the original resolution; the Narrows Town Council has yet to consider it.
But the supervisors' vote may mean some of those councils will now follow suit and rescind their earlier votes. The Pearisburg Town Council, which meets next week, might be the first.
At least one town is sticking with the original resolution. The Pembroke Town Council voted down an attempt to rescind it Tuesday night.
Though the Giles supervisors have struck down the August resolution, they still have three 1991 resolutions on file with the SCC. Those urge the SCC not to rule on Apco's application until: the environmental study is complete; the county and regional planning commissions study the power line's impact on comprehensive plans; and the SCC holds a public hearing in Giles. None of those resolutions expresses a preference for one route or another.
Last month, the Botetourt County Board of Supervisors voted to oppose two alternative routes under review by the Forest Service that went ``right through the heart of the county,'' said Gerald Burgess, county administrator.
The Botetourt board has not taken a stand for or against Apco's preferred route, which clips a southern corner of the county and ends at the Cloverdale substation.
Craig County passed resolutions opposing the line in February 1991 and May 1992, citing potential environmental and health effects and potential loss of tourism. It submitted the resolutions to the SCC, and top county officials testified against the line at SCC hearings.
In May 1992, Roanoke County adopted and filed with the SCC a ``statement of position'' opposing the line. The board said the line wasn't needed and would adversely affect the county's scenic quality and, therefore, its economic development. It also said the line would weaken incentives for an aggressive conservation program.
Staff writer Cathryn McCue contributed information to this story.
by CNB