Residents raise concerns about proposed transmission corridor and quarry enforcement in Clark County

Residents and neighborhood leaders told Clark County associational members that a proposed utility transmission corridor and gaps in quarry code enforcement are generating community alarm, and they urged county officials to press the utility for clearer answers.

Gary (East Fork Alliance) said residents learned in recent weeks that the company leading surveying work for an 80‑mile transmission corridor is PacifiCorp and that the route would run from the Swift Reservoir area toward Troutdale. Residents described public meetings with strong turnout and said county staff and council had limited prior awareness of the project. Gary said residents had submitted a list of about 15 technical questions to county council and to the utility and that PacifiCorp had declined to answer those questions at a council presentation.

“We finally know who that is,” Gary said of the company doing surveying work, and he urged neighborhood groups to watch the proposal closely and to prepare for more meetings. Residents said the proposal would clear a wide corridor—residents estimated roughly 100 feet in some places—and that trees and other property features in the proposed route are a major point of concern.

Gary also reported that quarry complaints have become harder to resolve locally. He said county code enforcement has limited staffing and that, at the time of his remarks, the county had two code enforcement officers and no dedicated quarry officer; residents told him quarry operators had adjusted behavior in response. The staffing shortfall, residents said, reduces the county’s ability to investigate quarry complaints quickly.

Neighborhood leaders said they plan to organize larger public meetings and to invite county staff and elected representatives. Residents asked county staff to provide clearer points of contact for state, city and county roads and stressed that transmission‑line proceedings and major utility easements require robust public engagement.

Clarifying details - Utility project: residents identified PacifiCorp as the utility conducting the corridor work; route described in meeting as running from the Swift Reservoir area toward Troutdale (detailed route maps were discussed at neighborhood meetings). (resident statements) - Quarries/code enforcement: residents reported only two county code enforcement officers and no dedicated quarry enforcement staff; they said this has reduced enforcement responsiveness. (resident statements) - Public process: residents said PacifiCorp representatives presented at a council meeting but did not answer detailed written questions submitted by residents. (resident statements)

Speakers (selected) - Gary — East Fork Alliance neighborhood representative (spoke at length about transmission corridor and quarry enforcement) - Glenn — neighborhood participant and former council/plan participant (commented on comp plan timeline and process)

Proper names mentioned - PacifiCorp (utility; transcript referred to variants — article uses authoritative spelling) - Swift Reservoir (referenced as the origin area for the proposed corridor) - Troutdale (approximate destination area) - Battleground Library (meeting venue referenced by residents)

Searchable_tags:["PacifiCorp","transmission line","quarry","code enforcement","Clark County"]

provenance:{"transcript_segments":[{"block_id":"block_4164.21","local_start":0,"local_end":240,"evidence_excerpt":"we finally know who that is. It's Pacificor. And this may not be news to anybody, but, that's what's been going on.","tc_start":"01:08:44","reason_code":"topicintro"},{"block_id":"block_4994.935","local_start":0,"local_end":220,"evidence_excerpt":"Right. Well, I'll I'll see what I can do with it. Awesome.","tc_end":"01:23:14","reason_code":"topicfinish"}]