(Last updated on Wednesday, April 13, 2022) – While the Elmore County Commissioners are reconsidering a previous decision to give Cat Creek Energy an extension on the construction of their large energy project, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) told Cat Creek they legally need to file progress reports on the pump storage hydro electrical generating facility portion of the project. The progress report deadline Cat Creek should have submitted expired about two weeks ago or more specifically, March 31, 2022.
If Cat Creek Energy cannot even be bothered to submit a progress report to the US Government regarding the project they want to build on lands only 20 miles to the northeast of Mountain Home, Idaho, what makes the resident of Elmore County or the Elmore County Commissioners believe Cat Creek will follow through on any of the requirements set forth in the project’s Development Agreement between Elmore County and Cat Creek Energy, LLC.
Dear Mr. Carkulis: Article 4 of the successive preliminary permit1 for the above referenced project requires submittal of a progress report every 12 months. According to our records, the progress report due March 31, 2022, has not been filed. The failure to timely file a progress report warrants the cancellation of the preliminary permit. This letter constitutes notice under section 5 of the Federal Power Act of the probable cancellation of the preliminary permit no less than 30 days from the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact Michael Tust at (202) 502-6522 or michael.tust@ferc.gov.
Sincerely,
~ Signed ~
David Turner, Chief Northwest Branch Division of Hydropower Licensing
(Last updated on February 4, 2022) The developers of the proposed Cat Creek Energy (CCE) Project in Elmore County, Idaho are still trying desperately to move forward in 2022. For the past 5 years, CCE has insisted their project centered around a large-scale wind project and the creation of a new reservoir on Little Camas Prairie will solve water and energy problems in Mountain Home and the rest of Elmore County.
The Elmore County Commissioners are hosting a public hearing on Feb. 4, 2022, at 11 am in the county courthouse to determine if Cat Creek Energy should get a two-year extension for their highly complex project in our backcountry. It is our opinion that Cat Creek Energy has wasted enough of our government’s time trying to push through a project that will be more harmful to wildlife and tourism than can ever be recouped by the entire energy project.
Here is the public notice published on January 19, 2022:
BOARD OF ELMORE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR EXTENSION OF APPROVALS GRANTED TO CAT CREEK ENERGY, LLC CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS (CUP-2015-03, CUP-2015-04, CUP 2015-05, CUP-2015-06. AND CUP-2015-07) BY ELMORE COUNTY AND A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE SAME
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Friday, February 4, 2022, at the hour of 11:00 a.m. in the Elmore County Courthouse, downstairs in the Commissioner’s room, 150 South 4th East, Mountain Home, ID 83647, a public hearing will be held for extension of the valid time period for approvals granted to Cat Creek Energy, LLC Conditional Use Permits (CUP-2015-03, CUP-2015-04, CUP-2015-05, CUP-2015-06, and CUP-2015-07) due to a stay in proceedings occasioned by pending litigation.
The Elmore County Board of County Commissioners (the “Board”) entered into a Development Agreement on February 9, 2018, with Cat Creek Energy, LLC (the “Development Agreement”) for live Conditional Use Permits (CUP-2015-03 for Transmission Lines, CUP-2015-04 for Pump Storage Hydro Facility, CUP 2015-05 for PV Solar Power, CUP-2015-06 for Wind Turbines, and CUP-2015-07 for Electric Substation). The Development Agreement stated that “the Conditional Use Permits shall be valid for a period of time for five (5) years from February 10, 2017 and maybe extended for one 2-year period upon application to the Elmore County Land Use (and Building Department (“Department”).” The Extension of Approval requests are reviewed by the Land Use and Building Department under Elmore County Code 7-3-17. The code requires a hearing with the Board because the approval period for the live CUPs was established through the Development Agreement.
All interested persons shall be heard at said hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Testimony will be limited to extension of the valid time period for the five CUPs. The Board reserves the right to set time limits on testimony, and if implemented, the time limits will be announced at the start of the hearing. Anyone may submit written testimony prior to the hearing by sending it to the Elmore County Land Use and Building Department (the “Department”), 520 East 2nd South Street, Mountain Home, Idaho. 83647. The record for this matter may be reviewed prior to the hearing at the Land Use and Building Department and all the Elmore County Clerk’s Office, 150 South 4th East, Mountain Home, Idaho, during regular business hours.
A common way of locating the property from Mountain Home for the said CUPs, is to travel North on US 20 for 25.4 miles to Wood Creek Road, The center of projects is approximately 3.2 miles north on Wood Creek Road.
The Elmore County Board of Commissioners is responsible for ensuring compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Any person needing special accommodations to participate in the public hearing should contact the Elmore County ADA Coordinator, Kacey Ramsauer, 24 hours prior to the Public Hearing at 208-587-2130 ext. 1254, via email VOIT, or in person at 520 East 2nd South, Mountain Home.
SHELLEY ESSL, CLERK BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ELMORE COUNTY, IDAHO
1 Publication: January 19, 2022
We will try to get the transcripts from this meeting if they are published on the county website.
After 5 years of wrangling with our local, state and federal governments, there are too many unknowns about the Cat Creek Energy Project. The whole project should be shelved completely.
On June 30, 2020, S Bar Ranch, LLC, and the District at ParkCenter, LLC responded to Cat Creek Energy’s Motion for Protective Order with the Director of the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR). This response is in regards to certain aspects of the proposed Cat Creek Energy project in Elmore County, Idaho.
In short, Cat Creek Energy is withholding required information and data that individuals and government entities, such as the U.S. Forest Service need in order to make informed decisions regarding this immense boondoggle of a project.
The Response to Cat Creek Energy’s Protective Order
Dana L. Hofstetter, ISB No. 3867 Attorneys for Protestors SBar Ranch, LLC and The
District at ParkCenter, LLC
COME NOW, Protestors SBar Ranch, LLC and The District at ParkCenter, LLC
(hereinafter, “these Protestors”), and hereby respectfully respond to the Applicant, Cat Creek
Energy, LLC’s (“Cat Creek” or “CCE”) Motion for Protective Order and renew their Motion for
the Director to issue an order pursuant to Water Appropriation Rule 40.05.b. for CCE to submit
all information required pursuant to Idaho Water Appropriation Rule 40.05. The Declaration of
Anthony M. Jones (“Jones Declaration”) is contemporaneously filed in support of this Response.
In its Motion for Protective Order, CCE requests that the Director issue, “an order that
(i.) Cat Creek has satisfied the disclosure required under Rule 40.05.f.i of the Water
Appropriation Rules, and (ii) protects from disclosure the confidential information redacted from
the Second Declaration of James Carkulis and the Declaration of John L. Faulkner.” Motion for
Protective Order at 9. As discussed more fully below, CCE has neither satisfied the Rule 40.05
information requirements nor justified the requested protective order and CCE’s Motion should
be denied.
I. CCE’s Motion for Protective Order Should Be Denied as it Proposes Overbroad
Protection of Financial Information and Would Protect Non-Proprietary Information from Disclosure in Violation of Idaho Code 42-203A’s Financial Resources Criterion.
CCE provides a general itemization of estimated project development costs but declares
virtually every other aspect of project financing to be trade secret and proprietary. There are
certain kinds of non–confidential information concerning project financing that can and should be
provided pursuant to Rule 40.05. Thus, CCE’s proprietary claims are overbroad and threaten to
unnecessarily interfere with the parties’ ability to ensure the financial resources criterion in Idaho
Code 42-203A is satisfied.
The Declaration of energy economist Anthony M. Jones submitted herewith explains that
at this stage (which by CCE’s own timeline is approximately 5 years from project operation),
substantial non-proprietary economic information about project financing should be available:
At approximately 5 years away from operation, as I
understand Cat Creek Energy claims to be based on a review of its
project timeline provided as CCE-X-00039, it should be able to provide the full terms of its capital funding arrangements,
including the amount and terms of debt commitments, the amount
and terms of equity commitments, and the interest rates,
amortization schedules, provisions for default, anticipated cash
flows, prospective balance sheets, the cost and income relationships associated with CCE’s wind, solar, pump–storage,
irrigation, municipal water, and irrigation district operations, etc., for the life of the project. The only potentially confidential items
that may need redaction would be the identity of the parties committing to provide the capital. This redacted information should be provided to the Hearing Officer, however.
Jones Declaration at.\\2.
While at this stage, significant project financing commitments should be in place and the
key financing terms would be non–confidential, CCE has claimed wholesale all such information
to be proprietary and has withheld this information from the parties. Although there may be a basis to protect the identities of the providers of debt and equity commitments from public
disclosure, no good proprietary reason is provided for CCE withholding the existence of such
commitments and their basic terms or for CCE withholding information from disclosure
substantiating the economic viability of the proposed project.
CCE requests that the parties be required to execute a certain Protective Agreement in
order to have access to the financial information CCE is required by Rule 40.05 and Idaho Code
42~203A(5)(d) to disclose. In a number of ways, the Protective Agreement proposed by CCE is
too overbroad to protect the limited confidential information that may be in CCE’s financial
disclosures:
CCE, not IDWR, decides what is protected information and what is not. IDWR, not the applicant, should be in the position of deciding whether
information is legally protected.
Every person involved in this proceeding must execute the Protective
Agreement to obtain access to virtually all project financial information,
although the Applicant statutorily is required to establish its prima facie case
and meet its burden of proof under Idaho Code 42-203A regarding financial
resources.
What about the public nature of this proceeding and how would the public’s
right to access information, including financial information, about these
Applications be safeguarded? Would parties’ experts also be required to sign
the Protective Agreement to be able to review the protected documents?
Paragraph #2 of the proposed Protective Agreement concerning who could
have access to the documents could preclude any law firms who have ever
been involved with any energy project transactions in this State from
participating in this proceeding, including, likely, CCE’s own counsel
With only in camera review and no ability to copy protected information
except upon specific request and IDWR order, discovery and other
preparations for hearing would be severely impaired.
IDWR is in the best position to determine whether certain information actually is
proprietary and trade secret. However, even if certain aspects of CCE financial information may
be proprietary, much of it would not be. IDWR can decide what is the right balance between public disclosure of information and the protection of any truly proprietary information. CCE’s
concerns about law firms’ unnamed clients are unfounded speculation. Hawley Troxell is not representing any other client in connection with this matter other than SBar Ranch and The
District at Parkcenter. These Protestors have water rights that could be impacted by these
applications. These Protestors have no other use for the Rule 40.05 information other than
protecting their own interests. These Protestors will comply with the Director’s Order on this matter entered into in accordance with applicable Idaho law.
II. Although CCE Has Added 11 Additional Documents to its Repository Since
these Protestors Last Filed their Motion for Rule 40.05 Information, the Rule
40.05 Information CCE Has Disclosed Remains Woefully Inadequate.
These Protestors, in the chart prepared by Spronk Water Engineers attached as Exhibit B
to their May 1, 2020, Motion for Rule 40.05.b. Order, detailed the informational insufficiencies
of CCE’s initial Rule 40.05 information submission. On June 16, 2020, in connection with its
Motion for Protective Order, CCE updated its repository, deleting 9 documents and adding the
following 11 documents:
CCE–C–00343– List of Surrounding Groundwater Wells (1 pg.)
CCE–C–01217– June 4, 2020, USFS comment letter to IDWR (2 pgs.)
CCE–D-00015– Civil Site Plan (1 pg.)
CCE-D-00016– Electrical Diagram– Not for Construction (1 pg.)
CCE-D-00029– Conceptual General Arrangement Substation (1 pg.)
CCE-D-00021– Preliminary – Not for Construction–General Arrangement Substation (1 pg.)
CCE-D-00022– Preliminary–Not for Construction Switching Diagram Substation (1 pg.)
CCE-D–00023– Financing Sources (2 pg.)
CCE-D-00025– Preliminary Transmission Line Sketches (10 pgs.)
CCE-D-00035 – Preliminary Plan 115kv lines (1 pg.)
CCE–X-00039– Timeline– Major Milestone Dates (3 pgs.)
Unfortunately, as reflected in the updated Spronk Water Engineers chart attached hereto as
Exhibit A, the addition of these 11 documents do little, if anything, to address the inadequacies in CCE’s Rule 40.05 submission. The chart in Exhibit A details the significant gaps in CCE’s
Rule 40.05 information that remain unsatisfied.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, these Protestors respectfully request that the Director deny
CCE’s Motion for Protective Order and issue an order requiring CCE’s compliance with Rule
40.05’s information requirements within thirty (30) days.
Dated: June 30.2020 HAWLEY TROXELL ENNIS & HAWLEY LLP
~ signed ~
Dana L. Hoffstetter
The tables referenced in the S Bar Ranch response to Cat Creek Energy contains many of the Water Rule 40.05 violations. These omissions and rule violations are highlighted in red on pages 8 through 14 in the original document found at https://catcreek-energy.com/download/1081/
Here are just the first few violations of Rule 40.05:
No information provided to establish that storage pond will not intercept or appropriate groundwater.
General documents on the project concept. No design, construction, or operation specifics.
Claims no impact on water rights without supporting
information.
Claim diversions only in high flows and that Water Master will ensure no injury but no information on how CCE
Project will be designed, constructed, operated or
administered on a real–time basis to protect other water rights.
If you feel that the Elmore County Commissioner made a mistake in approving the Cat Creek Energy Project, we encourage you to contact them and let your feelings be known.
Quick County Commission Phone Listing …
Chairman Al Hofer 208-599-1620
Wes Wooten 208-599-3131
Bud Corbus 208-599-1294
Elk and mule deer migration patterns be disrupted.
The Cat Creek Energy site would be built within a major migration corridor for mule deer, elk, pronghorn, raptors, and fish and other animals like bats.
The Cat Creek Energy site would be built in important sage grouse habitat.
The Cat Creek Energy site would affect our fishery and water quality.
The Cat Creek Energy site would create unacceptable noise pollution on Anderson Ranch Reservoir.
On May 16, 2019, Judge Nancy Baskin will have the opportunity to hear oral arguments that support the fact that the actions of Elmore County in regards to the Cat Creek Energy project approval were invalid. As a result we expect the judge will remand the project back to the Director of the P&Z Commission as early as July of this year.
Below you can read for yourself another of the many reasons we believe Judge Baskin will rule that the CUP approval process and the subsequent 2019 Development Agreement between Cat Creek and Elmore County were legally and procedural flawed.
Another opponent of the Project, Wendi Combs, a resident of Pine, Idaho, testified that the Project does not belong on Anderson Ranch Reservoir. She stated that “according to Fish and Game, the proposed site does lie within a major migration corridor for mule deer, elk, pronghorn, raptors, and fish and other animals like bats.
The area is an important sage grouse habitat. Sage grouse do not like tall structures, such as wind turbines, power lines, and towers. Displacement, avoidance and reduced nesting success are well documented.
Fish and Game are concerned about water quality impacts, entrainment of fish, particularly the bull trout, and endangered species. “We’re not talking about one, but six silos pumping water up and down the reservoir 24/7, 365 days a year,” their words in quotes.
Then there is the noise pollution that will affect all the surrounding neighbors and campsites rendering them practically useless for solace and enjoyment.”
We invite you to read the full 64 pages of the Judicial Review document that S Bar Ranch filed with Fourth Judicial District of Idaho to right this Cat Creek Energy wrong.
Please help us stop the Cat Creek Energy project from moving forward. Contact County Commissioners Bud Corbus, Wes Wootan and Al Hofer and tell them you are opposed to this ill-conceived mega-energy project.
Taken on Peak 5915 looking over the Castle Rocks and Wood Creek area of Elmore County, Idaho
Many Elmore County residents believe a District Court judge should remand the entire Cat Creek Energy project approval back to the County Planning and Zoning Commission (P & Z) for new and honest hearings. Our entire “Petition for Judicial Review” document is filled with legal, moral and ethical reason why we believe the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) erred in approving this ill-conceived project. A project covering 3,730 acres in the Elmore County, Idaho backcountry.
Hunting, Fishing, Wildlife and Scenic Beauty is at Stake
We realize how time-consuming attending the P & Z Commission meetings, hearing and deliberations in 2016 became. No one really believed Elmore County would every approve the Cat Creek Energy project. And those people were right. The P & Z Commission denied the permits Cat Creek Energy needed to begin the process of getting state and federal approval for their mega-energy project.
But then in 2017, the Elmore County Commissioners overruled their own P & Z Commission and handed that Gooding-based corporation the keys to our very own backcountry, the Anderson Ranch Reservoir and South Fork of the Boise River fishery, and will threaten our elk, deer and pronghorn populations.
Local Mountain Home, Idaho, resident Harry Taggart, “aka Skip,” testified in front of our county officials and offered the following facts …
Harry Taggart, a resident of Mountain Home spoke and informed the Commissioners that he hunts and fishes throughout the South Fork of the Boise River basin, that he opposes the Project “because it would destroy the scenic beauty and environmental diversity of the area known as Wood Creek, which is right at the very doorstep of our splendid Boise and Sawtooth National Forests.”
Mr. Taggart also informed the Commissioners that he has “read and understood the Elmore County Comprehensive Plan, as well as Title 6, Chapter 14 of the Elmore County zoning and development ordinance defining areas of critical concern, which the Elmore County Planning and Zoning Commission is lawfully charged with protecting” and that he had read the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to deliberate Cat Creek Energy’s applications and he “agree[s] with the Commissions unanimous rejection of multiple Cat Creek Energy permit applications because they fall short of compliance with a minimum of 12 different Comprehensive Plan standards.
Harry Was Right Back Then and is Still Right
Destroying the scenic beauty of our backcounty with 500-foot tall wind turbines will not benefit the residents of Elmore County.
In approving the Cat Creek Energy Project, Commissioners Wes Wootan, Bud Corbus, and Al Hofer made a ruling in direct conflict with the county’s own Comprehensive Plan.
Please help us stop the Cat Creek Energy project from moving forward. Contact County Commissioners Bud Corbus, Wes Wootan and Al Hofer and tell them you are opposed to this ill-conceived mega-energy project.
In addition, many of our elected officials from city mayor and on up the line to U.S. Senators could use some feedback from you. If you need their names or point of contact, we’ve created a list at https://catcreek-energy.com/mailing-addresses-for-cat-creek-energy-issues/
Our local tourism industry will suffer because of the Cat Creek Energy project.
On February 10, 2017, the Elmore County Commissioner voted to approve five conditional use permits (CUPs) for the Cat Creek Energy mega-project. That approval went against the ruling of the Elmore County Planning and Zoning Commission who denied those same five permits to the Gooding-based company on July 13, 2016.
That unfortunate reversal quite possibly will damage our fledgling Elmore County tourism industry just when the city and others are looking to pour time and money into local tourism.
How Will Cat Creek Energy Damage Tourism?
During a public hearing on November 17, 2016, local resident, Nancy Thompson provided the following testimony:
Among several others who provided negative comments about the Project, Nancy Thompson, a resident of Mountain Home and the owner of a vacation home in the Featherville area, testified that she sits on the travel tourism committee, and is manager of the visitor’s center in Mountain Home.
She told the Commissioners that they get over 8,000 visitors every year, many from other countries, and they come to Idaho to see what the nature and the meaning of Idaho is about. Tourism brings about $7 million a year into Elmore County. They are sent on a scenic drive that is called the “Boise, Sun Valley Historic Loop Tour” that goes through Lowman, Idaho City, Stanley, Hailey, Fairfield, across the Camas Prairie, into Mountain Home and back to Boise.
They return to the center and comment on what a beautiful drive it is. She added: “I can’t imagine that I’m going to get the same kind of comments from these visitors when they come back to tell us what they’ve done when they cross up over the top of Cat Creek Summit and see wind turbines and solar panels. Ugly is as ugly does. You can’t make them beautiful. You can’t make them blend in.”
And under that glaring fact, we believe a judge will see that the county commissioner erred in approving the previously denied CUPs. We also believe the judge will remand the entire project back to the Director of the P&Z Commission.
Please help us stop the Cat Creek Energy project from moving forward. You should contact your elected officials. Begin with contacting County Commissioners Bud Corbus, Wes Wootan and Al Hofer and tell them you are opposed to this ill-conceived mega-energy project.
The long, complex and contentious Cat Creek Energy project approval process started in 2016 and bit and pieces are still being worked out at the local level. While the Cat Creek Energy project still has some state and federal obstacles to overcome before they can officially ruin the Elmore County backcountry the S Bar Ranch isn’t sitting idly by.
On March 7, 2019, the owner of the S Bar Ranch filed a petition with the Fourth District Court asking a judge to review the decisions that Commissioner’s Bud Corbus, Al Hofer and Wes Wootan made regarding the nearly 4,000 acre Cat Creek Energy mega-project. The 64-page petition can be downloaded at https://catcreek-energy.com/download/928/ but we realize some resident don’t have the time to review such an extensive legal document, no matter how well it was written (it’s mostly plain language and tells a troubling story).
Just Some “Bit and Pieces” of the Document
Below you’ll find some actual snippets from the legal document to whet your appetite and give you a reason to spend a few hours reading about how entrenched the “good 0ld boy” network has become in our local government. So, here goes.
Page 9 / P & Z Deny all Conditional Use Permits in Aug 2016 On June 15, 2016, the Elmore County Planning and Zoning Commission (“P&Z Commission”) met to consider the applications. The P&Z Commission heard testimony from the Developer, representatives of the Developer, and others individuals who supported the Project, some individuals who were neutral and several individuals who opposed the Project. On July 13, 2016, the Elmore P&Z Commission conducted deliberations of the applications for the CUPs. On August 17, 2016, the P&Z Commission unanimously, on a 6–0 vote with one member absent, voted to deny the applications.
Page 10 / The Project Does not Comply With County Ordinance The Commission made several findings that the proposed project conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan with regard to Private Property Rights Objectives, Land Use Objectives, Scenic Area Objectives, Hazardous Area Objectives, andAreas of Critical Concern Objectives. The Commission further found that the Project failed to comply with the applicable Zoning Ordinances, including Title 6, and the applicable State and Federal regulations.The Commission concluded that the Applications do not comply with the required findings set forth in Section 6–27–7 of the Zoning Ordinances.
Page 30 / Conflicts of Interest The Board of Commissioners have a conflict of interest that violates I.C. § 67-6506 and other law, and prevents them from serving as a neutral quasi-judicial body in this contested matter that is pending before the Board. The conflict arises from the fact that the County is requiring, as a condition for issuance of CUP-2015-04 and the other CUPs, that the Developer agree to divert and deliver water from Anderson Ranch Dam to the County using the Developer’s infrastructure. In other words, the County has a vested beneficial interest in approving the granting of hydro CUP and the other CUPs, which prevents the Board from serving as a neutral decision maker as required by law.
A further conflict of interest is created by the fact that Commissioner Hofer purportedly stepped away from his duties as a Commissioner and acted as a negotiator representing the County in negotiations with the Cat Creek representatives to reach agreement on the terms of the Development Agreement. Those ex parte communications were not disclosed to the Petitioner or the public. The Development Agreement, negotiated by Commissioner Hofer, was then submitted to Commissioner Hofer’s fellow Commissioners for their approval. Knowing that the terms of the Development Agreement submitted to Commissioners Wooten and Corbus had been negotiated and approved by Commissioner Hofer, there was no way that Commissioners Wooten and Corbuscould remain neutral and perform their duties as neutral decision makers regarding the terms of the Development Agreement.
Page 52 / The Board’s Decisions Violate Due Process Because Two of Its Members Had Ex Parte Communications with Cat Creek During the December 22, 2017, public hearing, CommissionerWootan acknowledged the Commissioners had been communicating among themselves regarding the project and decided they wanted to make the project work. In response to comments from a representative of Cat
Creek that they would work with the Board to put a deal together that works for Cat Creek and the County, CommissionerWootan stated: “We’re already to that point. We’ve already communicated among ourselves that we’re workable, that we want to make their project work, and we want to make our intent happen.” Obviously, the Board had decided to approve the project, regardless of the public’s input in the decision, in violation of due process.
The next court hearing will be on May 16, 2019, at 3 p.m. in Boise, Idaho before Judge Nancy Baskin. That is when S Bar Ranch will present oral arguments in support of our case and ask the judge to rule that the actions of the County are invalid and to remand it back to the Director of the Elmore County P&Z Commission.
We believe Judge Baskin will take the decision under advisement and render a written decision as early as July 2019.
Take Action Before it is too Late
There are many actions you can take that will send a clear message to the Elmore County Commissioners, the State of Idaho and even our federal government.
Contact the Elmore County Commissioners and tell them you are opposed to the Cat Creek Energy project.
Contact your State Representative and State Senator and tell them to find a way to stop the Cat Creek Energy project before it ruins our Idaho backcounty, hunting grounds and fisheries.
Contact Senator’s Crapo, Senator Risch, Congressman Simpson, and Congressman Fulcher.
There are many people in and around Elmore County that still do not know about the Cat Creek Energy project and how badly it will affect wildlife, fishing, water quality and hunting. Please share this information with your friends, family, and co-workers.
