Buckingham supervisors approve up to $250,000 for legal fight against Valley Link transmission line

The Buckingham County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on May 11 to set aside up to $250,000 for legal fees and related costs tied to litigation opposing the Valley Link transmission project.

Residents pressed the Board during the public‑comment period, with Amy Crawford of Orion Family Farms saying the county had gathered "over 300 signatures" for a petition that asks the Board to create a citizen advisory council, host a county information page, coordinate with neighboring counties and commit funding to legal efforts. "We refuse to accept that this transmission line is inevitable," Crawford said, urging the board to act.

The expenditure was approved after the Board met in executive session to consult with counsel. Supervisor Carter S. Allen moved that the Board "appropriate up to $250,000 towards legal fees and ancillary costs of litigation in the ongoing battle against the Valley Link Project and that money come from the building permit funds from the solar panel project in the Francisco district," and Supervisor Dennis H. Davis Jr. seconded. The motion carried with seven votes in favor.

Chairman Joe N. Chambers said the county would coordinate with other affected counties where interests align, and the Board authorized the county attorney and administrator to "work with the coalition of other counties impacted by Valley Link where our interests may align and look for outside counsel for issues which are unique to Buckingham County." The funds were specified to come from building‑permit receipts tied to a recent solar project in the Francisco magisterial district.

Residents and speakers argued the line would bisect farms, damage land values and threaten rural life. David Reinhardt, whose property he said would be bisected by one proposed route, asked the Board to "set a special meeting so that this can be reviewed and immediate action can be taken." Aree Reinhardt told the Board "each proposed route runs through over 100 parcels in this county and affects land values for at least double that amount," and urged preparation for State Corporation Commission proceedings.

The motion does not itself initiate litigation; it authorizes the appropriation and gives the county attorney and administrator authority to engage with a regional coalition and seek outside counsel for Buckingham‑specific legal issues. The Board did not identify an outside firm at the meeting.

Next steps described at the meeting include the county coordinating with other affected counties and beginning preparations for potential filings with the State Corporation Commission. No timetable for hiring outside counsel or for filing litigation was announced at the May 11 meeting.