Screenshot courtesy of Botetourt Co.
By Matt de Simone
Rejecting the Planning Commission’s request to organize a special public forum on water supply and demand, the Botetourt County Board of Supervisors voted 3-1 Tuesday to establish an independent commission to study the potential impacts of a proposed Google data center campus in Botetourt County.
Vice Chairman Brandon Nicely (Fincastle), presiding in the absence of Chairman Mac Scothorn (Valley), joined Amsterdam District Supervisor Tim Snyder and Blue Ridge District Supervisor Walter Michael in approving the proposal. Buchanan District Supervisor Linda Rottman voted against the motion.
The decision followed more than an hour of discussion over whether the Planning Commission or a newly created independent body was better suited to examine issues surrounding the proposed Google data center campus, including water resources, infrastructure, environmental impacts and quality of life.
Under the proposal approved by the board, a five-member commission appointed by the Board of Supervisors will conduct an independent assessment of the proposed Google data center campus.
Commissioners must have no affiliation with Botetourt County government, Google, the data center industry, or advocacy groups with a direct interest in the project. They will serve without compensation and produce a public report detailing the commission’s findings. The board will also appropriate funding for the commission’s work, including the hiring of outside consultants or experts if needed.
The action came after the Planning Commission unanimously requested authorization to organize a public forum examining water supply and demand in relation to current and anticipated development in Botetourt County. County staff instead recommended establishing an independent commission, arguing that an outside body free from affiliations with the county, Google or the data center industry would provide the most objective and credible review.
After making his motion, Snyder read from a prepared statement in which he said the proposal was intended to ensure the county would receive an independent evaluation of the proposed Google data center campus rather than advocate for or against the project itself.
“This motion is not about being for or against a data center,” Snyder said. “It is about ensuring that our community has access to factual, unbiased information.”
He said an independent commission would either reinforce previous analyses conducted by the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA), the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission (RVARC) and other technical experts or identify additional issues that should be considered before future decisions are made.
“Either outcome benefits Botetourt County,” Snyder added.
Snyder also argued the county had an opportunity to establish a process that could serve as a model for other communities facing similar proposals.
“Communities across Virginia and throughout the nation are grappling with how to evaluate large-scale data center projects,” he said. “Botetourt County has the opportunity to help create that blueprint.”
Rottman questioned both the proposal itself and the process by which the board arrived at it, saying residents who had attended recent meetings overwhelmingly supported allowing the Planning Commission to continue its work.
Reading from an email she said she had received from constituents, Rottman argued the administration’s proposal would further erode public trust.
“This does not address the public’s concern about transparency, accountability and truthfulness,” she read. “Quite the opposite.”
Rottman contended the Planning Commission had already begun identifying the questions residents wanted answered and should remain responsible for organizing an independent review. She outlined an alternative process that would have the Planning Commission coordinate a public forum featuring representatives from Google, WVWA, county administration and an independent water expert. Written questions would be submitted beforehand, with responses made available to the public before the forum.
“I really, really think that we have to go with the public on this one and hand it over to the Planning Commission,” Rottman said.
She later criticized Snyder’s prepared remarks, describing them as “generic pabulum” that failed to address what she viewed as the public’s desire for an investigation led by the Planning Commission rather than a newly appointed commission.
Michael also supported the independent commission, saying he believed the county first needed to identify the questions requiring expert analysis before seeking answers. He suggested the process should include outside experts and a discovery process conducted independently of both the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission to ensure public confidence in the findings, adding that the effort could cost between $75,000 and $100,000.
The board’s decision prompted another round of public comment, with many of the speakers criticizing supervisors for rejecting the Planning Commission’s request in favor of creating a new commission.
Several residents questioned whether a commission appointed by the board would be viewed as truly independent, arguing the Planning Commission had already identified many of the questions the public wanted answered regarding water availability and the proposed Google data center campus’ potential impacts. Others criticized what they described as a lack of transparency throughout the county’s negotiations with Google and said studies examining water resources, environmental impacts and other issues should have been completed before agreements related to the project were reached. Some also urged the county to expand any future review to include potential effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat.
The Southwestern Virginia Data Center Transparency Alliance (SWVA DCTA), which has opposed the proposed Google data center campus, also criticized the board’s decision following the meeting.
“Tuesday’s meeting torched what was left of the Board of Supervisors’ credibility,” the organization said in a statement. “Not only did they bypass the Planning Commission’s recommendation for a water study free of their influence and clear interest in its outcome, they tried to paint the commission as biased instead.”
The organization went on to say the board “acted like their belated, grudging gesture was magnanimous and responsible,” calling the decision “both clueless and condescending.”
Asked whether it was aware of other localities that have established independent commissions or similar review processes before considering proposed Google data center projects, a Google spokesperson said Monday, “We don’t have anything to include at this time.”
A review of publicly available information on several recent Google data center proposals in Virginia and elsewhere did not identify another locality that created an independent commission to evaluate a proposed Google data center campus before local land-use decisions were made.
Following the meeting, the county was asked to clarify several issues raised during the board’s discussion, including comments by County Attorney Mike Lockaby, the process for selecting commission members, the commission’s budget and whether Snyder prepared his statement independently. The county confirmed Snyder prepared the statement himself and said prospective commission members will be presented to the board for formal appointment. Officials also said no formal budget has been established and that any appropriation will require board approval at a future meeting. Regarding Lockaby’s comments, the county said his remarks “were not directed at one specific communication or event.”
The board is expected to consider appointments to the independent commission, along with a proposed budget for its work, during its Aug. 26 meeting. Under the framework approved last Tuesday, the commission will have six months from the date its members are appointed to complete its work and submit a written report to the board.
