July 15, 2020 – Idaho Water Resource Board Tells Cat Creek they Can’t Limit Discovery

*The water source for the Cat Creek Energy Project*

On July 15, 2020, the Idaho Water Resource Board ordered that Cat Creek Energy will have to follow state laws that allow all concerned parties to obtain critical information about the large scale energy complex proposed for Elmore County, Idaho.

Prior to the ruling by Gary Spackman from the Department of Water Resources of the State of Idaho, Cat Creek Energy sought to limit the information citizens could obtain about a project that would use Idaho’s natural resources and water. And, let’s be honest … if the Cat Creek Energy Project was good for the people of Idaho and will supposedly be a cash cow for the residents of Elmore County, why would they try to hide information about that project.

To read the full document from the IDWR, download it here https://catcreek-energy.com/download/1151/

###

BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION FOR PERMIT NOS. 63-34403, 63–34652, 63–34900 AND 63–34987 IN THE NAME OF CAT CREEK ENERGY LLC

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION

BACKGROUND

On June 10, 2020, the Idaho Department of Water Resources (“IDWR”), issued the Amended Order Consolidating Dockets and Parties; Order to Reorganize Applicant’s Rule 40.05 Information; Order Establishing Protective Order Procedure; Order Authorizing Discovery; Notice of Continue Prehearing Conference (“Amended Order Consolidating Dockets”). The Amended Order Consolidating Dockets authorized parties to this matter to immediately conduct and engage in discovery pursuant to IDAPA 37.01.01.521.

On June 24, 2020, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (“IDFG”) filed a Petition for Clarification (“Petition”). IDFG asked the Director to clarify whether “the parties may conduct discovery to the full extent allowed by IDAPA 37.01.01.520.02 (“Rule 520.02”) and the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure for each application and that the limits on interrogatories set forth in I.R.C.P. 33[(a)J(l )¹ will apply to each application individually and not to the four applications as a whole.” Petition at 3.

On July 1, 2020, Cat Creek Energy, LLC (“Cat Creek”) filed its Applicant’s Response to Petition for Clarification (“Response”). Cat Creek requested “the Director enter an order clarifying that the Rule 33 requirement limitation of 40 interrogatories applies to the consolidated cases, with parties being permitted to make interrogatories that pertain to multiple applications counting as a single interrogator [y].” Response at 2.

ANALYSIS

IDFG and Cat Creek both assert discovery in this matter is governed by the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure (“I.R.C.P.”). The Director agrees. I.R.C.P. 33(a)(1) limits parties to 40 written interrogatories, including subparts, unless otherwise stipulated to or ordered.

IDFG asserted that absent consolidation, parties could have submitted forty interrogatories for each distinct application. Petition at 2. IDFG asserted it needs to preserve the ability to posit 40 interrogatories for each application because each application proposes a distinct beneficial use. Id.

___________________

¹ I.R.C.P. Rule 33(a)(1) states: “Number. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court for good cause allowing a specific additional number of interrogatories, a party may serve on any other party no more than 40 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.”

Cat Creek responded that with more than 20 protestants in the consolidated docket, allowing up to 160 interrogatories per protestant could place it in the position of responding to more than a thousand interrogatories. Response at 1. Cat Creek argued federal and state rules have recently been changed to clamp down on the moden trend of excessive discovery. Id. In this case, “the fact that the applications are interrelated, that they divert water from the same point of diversion and from the same source, and that water is stored in the same reservoir, means that Cat Creek’s discovery responses will in most cases be identical for all four applications.” Id. at 2. Cat Creek would instead have the Director allow only 40 interrogatories related to the consolidated docket, but requests could pertain to all four applications, by including, for example, the following statement: “If certain information applies to less than all of the Applications, identity which Applications it pertains to.” Id.

The purpose of case consolidation is to attempt to reduce and alleviate duplicative procedure, to increase efficiency, and to decrease burdens on participating parties. However, case consolidation does not end or eliminate an application’s individual character or identity. If each application would have proceeded individually, parties would have been allowed 40 interrogatories toward each individual application under I.R.C.P. 33(a)(1). Consolidation does not remove that opportunity.

However, the Director has the authority to order a change in the scope of discovery under Rule 520.02 and I.R.C.P. 33(a)(1) (“Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered [emphasis added] by the court for good cause allowing a specific number of interrogatories . . . .”). I.R.C.P. 26(C) also provides the Director the authority to limit the frequency or extent of discovery if

the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;
the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or
the burden or expense of the of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.

I.R.C.P. 26(C). In any of those instances, IDWR may “issue protective orders limiting access to information generated during . . . discovery . . . .” IDAPA 37.01.01.532.

At this time the Director will allow 40 interrogatories per application, as allowed under I.R.C.P. 33(a)(1). However, as discovery in this matter moves forward, any party may move the Director for a protective order according to Rule 532 under the rationale expressed in I.R.C.P. 26(C)(i), (ii), or (iii).

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to I.R.C.P. 33(a)(1), 40 interrogatories are allowed each party, for each of Application for Permit Nos. 63-34403, 63-34652, 63-34900, and 63-34987, in the name of Cat Creek Energy, LLC.

DATED this 15th day of July, 2020.

~ Signed ________________
GARY SPACKMAN
Director

###

Thanks for taking an interest in our efforts to shut down this large scale and unnecessary energy project in the backcountry of southwestern Idaho. We’ve come a long way in exposing how bad the project will be for the local landowners, residents of Elmore County, and our natural resources.

Anthony M. Jones Response to CCE’s Motion for Protective Order – June 30, 2020

What the Anderson Ranch Reservoir view might look like when the Cat Creek Energy project is finished.

Anthony Jones was retained by the S Bar Ranch to evaluate Cat Creek Energy’s Motion for Protective Order regarding its planned pumped hydroelectric storage facility on Little Camas Prairie in Elmore County, Idaho. That planed pumped hydroelectric storage facility entails creating a new reservoir on the bluffs about 800 feet above Anderson Ranch Reservoir. The proposed water right that would be used to fill the Cat Creek Energy Reservoir currently doesn’t exist.

Mr. Jones researched the Cat Creek Energy idea of building the pumped hydroelectric storage facility, plus a large scale solar and wind turbine complex. His conclusions tell us the financial viability of the Cat Creek Energy project along the Highway 20 Corridor in Elmore County is questionable at best. Mr. Jones also suggests Cat Creek Energy, LLC is trying to keep critical project information and documentation from public scrutiny under a guise of a proprietary exemption. This cannot be allowed to happen.

Read Mr. Jones’ 12 talking points below.

Download the full Legal Doc from Anthony Jones to Cat Creek Energy's Motion for Protective Order - June 30, 2020 legal document that is partially included below.

###

Declaration of Anthony M. Jones in Support of SBar Ranch, LLC and the District at ParkCenter, LLC’s Response to Motion for Protective Order and Renewed Motion for Rule 40.05b Order for Applicant to Submit Complete Rule 40.05 Information

ANTHONY M. JONES, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I hold a B.S. degree in economics from Idaho State University and an M.A. degree in
economics, from the University of Washington.

2. As detailed in my curriculum vitae attached hereto as Exhibit A, I have substantial
experience and expertise in the field of energy project economics.

3. Currently, I am the Principal of Rocky Mountain Econometrics, a consulting energy
economics firm in Boise, Idaho.

4. I was retained by SBar Ranch, LLC and The District at ParkCenter, LLC to evaluate
Cat Creek Energy LLC’s claims of proprietary and trade secret information in its June 16, 2020,
Motion for Protective Order and associated Declarations in this proceeding. In connection with
my work, in addition to reviewing the Motion for Protective Order and associated Declarations, I
also have reviewed Cat Creek’s Applications for Water Right Permit Nos. 63–34403, 63–34652,
63–34897 and 63–34900, Idaho Code 42–203A(5)(d), Idaho Water Appropriation Rule 40.05(f)
and Shokal v. Dunn, 109 Idaho 330, 707 P.2d 441 (1985), as well as other publicly available
information and pertinent materials available to me.

5. I reached the opinions presented here by applying accepted methodology in the field
of energy economics. The opinions expressed here are my own and are based on the data and
facts available to me at the time of writing. I hold the opinions set forth here to a reasonable
degree of economic science certainty.

6. The Cat Creek project will be located geographically in Idaho Power Company’s
(“IPC”) territory and will connect to the Western Grid. When generating, it will produce roughly
25% as much power as does IPC total. It will produce more power than Brownlee Dam, IPC’s
largest hydro project and nearly as much as IPC’s largest coal plant, Jim Bridger.

7. When pumping water back to its reservoir, the Cat Creek project will consume even
more power than it generates, comprising approximately 25% of IPC’s total firm load, roughly
equivalent to the load of the Treasure Valley, on top of IPC’s existing firm load.

8. The Pacific Northwest, where Cat Creek’s project will be located, has the most
intensively developed hydroelectric energy industry in the United States, perhaps the world. The
major players, Bonneville Power Administration, Avista, IPC, and Pacificorp, all have hydro
projects that also provide energy storage that can be used for load shaping and energy
storage. They all have programs in place to provide, both for themselves and for independent
power providers, the exact same service CCE is proposing.

9. Pumped storage is reviewed on page 54 of IPC’s most recent 2019 Amended
Integrated Resource Plan (“IRP”). In the IRP, IPC gives pumped storage an economic thumbs
down, noting, “Historically, the differential between peak and off–peak energy prices in the
Pacific Northwest has not been sufficient enough to make pumped storage an economically
viable resource.” (Page 54 of IPC’s most recent IRP is attached hereto as Exhibit B.) In the IRP,
IPC puts the levelized cost of pumped storage at around $175 /MWh. That cost compares
unfavorably with open market prices averaging less than $30/MWh and load shaping service
from the major players for less than $50/MWh.

10. Given that the process of storing energy via the pump storage process has been
developed and well understood for decades; that the necessary pump–turbines, control
mechanisms, etc. are commercially available from multiple vendors offering nearly identical
performance criteria; that at least 24 other pump–storage projects, many of similar sizes and
configurations, all connected to the same Western Grid, all dedicated to serving the same daily
mismatches in the supply and demand curves, are currently working their way through the
application process; that competition for and supply of investment funding is universal and
seemingly instantly balancing, nothing presented suggests that CCE’s solution to energy storage
is an improvement on the same process studied and shelved by the region’s major utilities or
superior to the other projects being promoted in other areas. One would expect that a dramatic
technological improvement to pumped storage would be supported by one or more patent
applications.

11. Bottom line, against this backdrop, Cat Creek Energy needs to be able to establish
that it will be able to cost effectively participate in this competitive energy marketplace. If there
is no assurance that its project will be economically viable, there can be no reason to expect that
it is reasonably probable financing can be secured.

12. 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.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

DATED THIS 30th day of June, 2020.

~ signed ~
Anthony M . Jones

###

You can download the full legal document at https://catcreek-energy.com/download/1093/

Thanks for any support you can offer in getting the Cat Creek Energy project sent back to the Elmore County Commissioners for an honest reevaluation of the entire project. The people of Elmore County, Idaho deserve better.

S Bar Ranch Protests Cat Creek Energy’s Motion for Protective Order – June 30, 2020

*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.

Download the full 9.25 mb pdf file at S Bar Ranch, LLC, response to Cat Creek Energy's Motion for Protective Order

###

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

Thanks.

Idaho Power Protests Cat Creek Energy’s “Lack of a Water Right Plan”

Many residents in Elmore County, Idaho still have doubts and questions pertaining to the Cat Creek Energy project. That proposed project is a four-tier plan involving a large solar and wind turbine complex along the Highway 20 corridor between Little Camas Prairie, Anderson Ranch Reservoir and Camas Prairie. The plan also involves creating a new 100,000 acre-foot reservoir on the bluffs above Anderson Ranch. Cat Creek Energy is planning to fill their proposed new reservoir with a non-existent water right from the South Fork of the Boise River. And that is where Idaho Power comes into the picture.

On June 8, 2020, Idaho Power filed a notice of protest with the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) regarding Cat Creek Energy’s concept for obtaining a new unappropriated water right in the South Fork of the Boise River Basin. That phantom new water right, in part, could be used to partially fill a new reservoir on Little Camas Prairie in Elmore County, Idaho.

The basis of the protest is highlighted below. In short, Idaho Power is telling the IDWR that Cat Creek Energy’s concept has not been sufficiently researched nor documented in order for Idaho Power officials to make an informed decision on the permits.

The way we are reading this protest is, Idaho Power doesn’t believe Cat Creek Energy’s proposed new unappropriated water right will have sufficient volume to fill the Cat Creek Reservoir. Cat Creek Energy officials have indicated that a full-pool is critical to the success of the project. Idaho Power also seems to be saying Cat Creek Energy doesn’t really have a plan but more like they are in the beginning stages of an idea company officials have locked inside their brains.

Many of us are tired of the effort to protect our interest when over the last six years Cat Creek Energy has not produced any definitive plans including location details, substantiated cost estimates, or proof of funding. These are all requirements for IDWR applications. Perhaps, more importantly, they have recently separated the four-tier projects completely and Cat Creek Energy is not going to utilize wind or solar power to operate their hydro-pump storage facility. They have also admitted that the originally submitted plan of pumping water out of Anderson Ranch Reservoir at night and generating power from the hydro-pump storage during the day will not be the rule.

Source: https://catcreek-energy.com/download/1063/

From: Idaho Power Company

BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
NOTICE OF PROTEST

IDAHO POWER COMPANY (the “Protestant”), by and through its attorneys of record,
files this Notice of Protest to the approval of Permit Number 63-34900 filed by
CAT CREEK ENERGY, LLC (the “Applicant”).

1. The applicant should be required to identify in each of the files within the Rule 40
submittal, the documents which support this application.
2. The application lacks specificity sufficient to evaluate the elements of the
proposed application in light of the criteria of Idaho Code §42-203A(5) and should be returned
and subject to refiling upon additional facts supporting the application be submitted.
3. To the extent the basis for this application are documents already submitted in the
Applicant’s sharefile, the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that unappropriated water supply is
available for the diversion of water under this application. Specifically, the hydrology supporting
the application and the availability of unappropriated water doesn’t support the proposed
quantities and volumes
4. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 42-1737, the Applicant must obtain the approval of the
Idaho Water Resource Board. It is unclear to the Protestant whether this approval shall be a part of
this application, supplemental to this contested action or subject to a separate proceeding wherein
the Protestant’s interests may be protected.
5. Applicant’s proposed place of use lacks sufficient detail to determine actual place of
use.
6. For such other and further reasons as may be discovered or set forth at the hearing
on this matter.

DATED this 8th day of June 2020.

BARKER ROSHOLT & SIMPSON LLP

-signed-

John K. Simpson
Attorneys for Idaho Power Company

A Judge Could Review the County Commissioner’s Decision of Approve the Cat Creek 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.

Download the 64-page document at https://catcreek-energy.com/download/928/

What is Next and What We Expect – 16 May 2019

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.

We’ve put together a list of contact information for all the elected official mentioned above at https://catcreek-energy.com/mailing-addresses-for-cat-creek-energy-issues/

Share, Share and Share Some More

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.

Thanks.

Will Highway 20 Become the Next Wind Turbine Corridor?

*Is this the future of Highway 20? We hope not.*

The segment of Highway 20 that Roger Brooks, an international tourism expert called “one of the best drives in Idaho” could easily become the next wind turbine corridor in the state.

That segment of highway Rogers Brooks was referring to, runs from just north of Mountain Home to Camas Prairie and into our mountain communities of Pine and Featherville.

Cat Creek Energy already has plans to put up forty, 500+ foot tall wind turbines along Cat Creek Summit and partially down the Pine-Featherville Road. We also know that Cat Creek is having troubles getting federal approval for the Pumped Storage Hydroelectric project on the bluffs above and interconnected with Anderson Ranch Reservoir. The developers have stated many times in the past that all three portions of their mega-energy project need to be approved to make it financially viable. If Cat Creek cannot get state or federal approval for the hydroelectric portion, they will likely have to make up for the megawatt shortage by putting up additional wind turbines along Highway 20.

Wind Power Friendly California Rebels Against New Turbines

According to an article on the Daily Wire website (https://www.dailywire.com/news/44146/b-b-climate-change-california-county-kills-plans-paul-bois), the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors voted to ban the construction of large solar and wind farms on more than 1 million acres of private land.

“Local residents say that solar and wind farms destroy areas like Dagget, Joshua Tree and Lucerne Valley by turning the landscape into eyesores. Sara Fairchild, a resident of Pioneertown, has been working to have California Highway 247 turned into a designated state scenic highway to boost the local economy; she says that would all fall apart in the face of a mega solar farm.”

The local San Bernardino government listened to residents when they asked for a moratorium on new wind and solar farms in the rural parts of the county. Basically, the people said why grow wind and solar farms when we can grow a more profitable tourism industry that won’t destroy the scenery.

What they actually said was basically the same thing opponents to the Cat Creek Energy project are saying.

These vast open areas are precious for their natural, historical and recreational qualities. But they are fragile, and no amount of mitigation can counter the damage that industrial-scale renewable energy projects would cause,” Fairchild told the supervisors. “Once destroyed, these landscapes can never be brought back.”

The big difference between the California mega-energy project locations and the planned Cat Creek Energy location is our Elmore County, Idaho location contains verified wildlife migration corridors, the “threatened” bull trout and no need for the energy Cat Creek says they want to generate.

Spread the Word / Tell the Elected Official We Don’t Want CCE

The Elmore County Commissioners tentatively approved the Cat Creek Energy project even after their own planning and zoning commission said “no way.”

If you are opposed to the Cat Creek Energy project, take action today.

Contact Elmore County Commissioners Corbus, Wootan and Hofer at:

https://elmorecounty.org/contact/

Bud Corbus – Phone: (208) 587-2129 ext. 505 Phone: (208)599-1294
Wes Wootan – Phone: (208) 587-2129 ext. 505 Phone: (208)599-3131
Al Hofer – Phone: (208)587-2129 ext. 505 Phone: (208) 599-1620

and/or

Mail Address:

BOCC
150 South 4th East
Mountain Home, ID 83647

In addition, you might consider sharing this post with friends, family, and co-workers.

Contact the Elmore County Commissioners From Their Website

Sometime in the last weeks of February 2019, Elmore County finally made a “Contact the Board of County Commissioners” form available to citizens.

This is good news as the online form makes it easier to express your opinions and give feedback to these elected officials.

To access the contact form:

Point your browser to https://elmorecounty.org/contact/
Under the “Which Department or Person are you trying to contact?” click the dropdown menu and choose “Board of County Commissioner.“
Fill in all of the input boxes and submit the form.

I always make a copy of what I send to our elected officials before submitting via an online form, including the date and time I sent my feedback. I find that sometimes the online submission form is broken and other times, I get no response from the person I was contacting. Having a record of the who, what, where and when makes follow up questions easier.

Your Elmore County Commissioners

Bud Corbus (R) – Commissioner District 1 – Term expires Jan 2021
Wesley Wootan (R) – Commissioner District 2 – Term expires Jan. 2021
Albert Hofer (R) – Commissioner District 3 – Term expires Jan. 2023

Shelley Essl is the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) and can be contacted by using the web form at https://elmorecounty.org/contact/ or at
150 South 4th East, Suite 3
Mountain Home, Idaho 83647
Phone: 208.587.2130 Extension 500

Reference: A Nov. 29, 2018 post at https://catcreek-energy.com/why-we-ask-you-to-write-a-letter/

Cat Creek Energy – A Problem, Not A Solution!

Camas Prairie, Elmore County, Idaho

Tag Archives: Communications