Cat Creek Energy – A Problem, Not A Solution!

Camas Prairie, Elmore County, Idaho

Tag Archives: Idaho

All Five Cat Creek Energy Permits “Were” Dependent Upon Each Other

The Master Site Plan changed again?

 

The story of the five Cat Creek Energy conditional use permits (CUPs) that John Faulkner applied for in 2015 gets lost in the grand scheme of his ill-conceived project. However, the fact that Cat Creek Energy sold their five-part mega-energy project as one complete project to the residents of Elmore County and many other entities is crucial to understand.

The Elmore County P & Z entire hearing and deliberation process was based on Cat Creek Energy’s insistence that the entire mega-project had to be approved as one. Cat Creek repeatedly said, if all five permits were not approved, their project would not be economically viable and they’d have to cancel it.

In 2017, the Cat Creek developers convinced the Elmore County Commissioners that all five CUPs were no longer required in order to build out their mega-energy project. In other words, all those residents who said:

“Cat Creek will never get state or federal approval for the reservoir or sprawling wind farm so we don’t need to even worry about the project being ever approved,” were fooled by our elected officials.

Well, guess what? The County Commissioners, by separating all the CUPs, has made it possible for Cat Creek Energy to build what they want, where they want and when they want and the residents never had any input into that huge modification in the Master Site Plan.

When the S Bar Ranch filed a Petition for Judicial Review on March 7, 2019, with the district court, they highlighted this fact for Judge Nancy Baskin to consider. We hope the honorable judge will see this lack of public oversight and remand the entire project back to the Director of the P&Z Commission. Only then will the county residents be able to provide proper feedback to these local decision-makers.

Reference: See Page 8 after download the full petition at https://catcreek-energy.com/download/928/

“The P&Z Commission found that “five (5) separate applications, each for a conditional use permit are required.” The P&Z Commission further found that “based on testimony from the Applicant, all five (5) applications are dependent upon each other and cannot exist separately.”

Therefore the Commission conducted only one (1) public hearing and issued only one (1) decision on the Applications.” The Commission found that the
“Owners” of the Site are Sawtooth Grazing Association and Wood Creek Ranch, both at 1989 South 1875 East, Gooding, ID 83330 and that the Applicant’s property right in the Site is based on lease agreements. The property size is approximately 23,000 acres, all of which is owned or controlled by John Faulkner.

The Commission found that the applicable law for consideration of the Applications was:

A) the Elmore County 2014 Comprehensive Plan, adopted as Resolution 562–15 on January 20, 2014 (the “Comprehensive Plan”);

B) Zoning Ordinance, adopted March 21, 2012, as Ordinance
2012–01; which was subsequently amended on September 19, 2012, as Ordinance 2012–03 and on July 14, 2014, As Ordinance 2014–01; and

C) the Local Land Use Planning Act, I.C. § 67–6501 et seq. [Exh. 4 at R. 007297–007298] ”

If you have concerns about the Cat Creek Energy project, please contact your elected officials and tell them you oppose the entire project and why.
Here is a link with many of the people you might want to contact: https://catcreek-energy.com/mailing-addresses-for-cat-creek-energy-issues/
Also, please share this post with friend, family, and co-workers so they also understand how horrible the Cat Creek Energy project will be for Elmore County.

 

Thanks.

 

Originally published on March 19, 2019.

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.

Wake Turbulence and Cat Creek Energy Wind Farm

There are many different groups that are opposed to part or all of the Cat Creek Energy mega project. A new group of professionals and/or hobbyist spoke up about the proposed wind farm on Camas Prairie. The forty, 500+ foot tall wind turbines that the developers want to put up greatly concern some local general aviation folks.

What is General Aviation?

THE SIMPLE ANSWER: General aviation is all civilian flying except scheduled passenger airline service. AS SIMPLE AS THAT? Yes. And as complex as that. General aviation includes flying as diverse as overnight package delivery and a weekend visit back home; as different as emergency medical evacuation and inspection trips to remote construction sites; as complimentary as aerial application to keep crops healthy and airborne law enforcement to keep the peace. General aviation benefits the community in so many ways, it’s hard to cover them all. (https://www.aopa.org/-/media/files/aopa/home/advocacy/what_ga.pdf)

 

Why General Aviation Pilots Might be Opposed to the Cat Creek Wind Turbines?

  1. The first and most obvious problem with the Cat Creek Energy wind turbine would be the in-flight obstruction danger they present. Just think of one of those huge turbine blades reaching up to swat a Cessna Skyhawk out of the skies as it flies from Arco, Idaho to St. Luke’s Hospital in Mountain Home.
  2. The wake turbulence created by wind turbines would also present some challenges to general aviation also. And with Cat Creek Energy planning to erect wind turbines as tall as 5-story building on the crest of Cat Creek Summit, that turbulence wouldn’t be welcome and should be considered a flying hazard.

 

“The taller the obstacle, the larger the wind shade. If the turbine is closer to the obstacle than five times the obstacle height, or if the obstacle is taller than half the hub height, the results will be more uncertain, because they will depend on the exact geometry of the obstacle. (http://www.inforse.org/europe/dieret/Wind/wind.html)

 

Take Action

If you oppose any part of the Cat Creek Energy project, your elected officials need to hear about your concerns. And because many residents living in the area have little or no idea what could happen if the project is allowed to move forward, we are asking you to help spread the word.

Contact Elmore County Commissioners at https://elmorecounty.org/contact/ or by mail at …

BOCC
150 South 4th East
Mountain Home, ID 83647

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/

or

  • 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.

 

Comment on Cat Creek Energy’s Hydro Project by March 20, 2019

Take Action

Low water conditions on Anderson Ranch Reservoir on Aug. 17, 2018.

The Federal Energy Regulation Commission (FERC) is actively soliciting your comments regarding Cat Creek Energy’s “Pump Storage Hydroelectric Generating Facility.” The S Bar Ranch, Chris Stephens and many locals who oppose the entire project hope you will provide feedback to our federal government, too.

The goal is to protect Anderson Ranch Reservoir for the people of Elmore County.

How to File a Comment with the FERC

Go To: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/11/27/2018-25813/cat-creek-energy-llc-notice-of-successive-preliminary-permit-application-accepted-for-filing-and

Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission’s eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp

Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp.

FYI: You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments.

Below, you will find some of the issues we believe the federal government should seriously consider before allowing Cat Creek Energy to build a hydroelectric generating facility on the shores of Anderson Ranch Reservoir.

The more comments the feds receive, the harder they will look at this project.

What is Pump Storage Hydroelectric?

What is this “ Pump Storage Hydroelectric Generating Facility” that Cat Creek Energy (CCE) is trying to build on Little Camas Prairie? In theory, it goes something like this …

  • CCE digs out the shell of a reservoir on the bluffs above Anderson Ranch Reservoir.
  • CCE drills six 15 foot diameter tunnels from that new shell of a reservoir down to Anderson Ranch Reservoir.
  • CCE siphons 100,000 acre/feet of water up those bluffs to fill that new reservoir.
  • Once that phase of the project is completed …
  • CCE will release a large amount of water from their reservoir back into Anderson Ranch Reservoir.
  • That water will be run through turbines located at or near the south shore of Anderson Ranch Reservoir.
  • CCE collects that hydroelectric power and sells it to consumers in Washington, Oregon and California via a maze of transmission lines they plan to construct.

The Problems Associated With the CCE Pump Storage HydroElectric

  1. Water Quality: All local reservoirs have had toxic blue-green algae health warnings issued on them during 2017 and 2018 except Anderson Ranch Reservoir.
    The proposed Cat Creek Reservoir will likely experience a blue-green algae bloom soon after it gets filled. And then, Cat Creek will dump that toxic soup into Anderson Reservoir.
    Many people fish, boat and swim in this water. We think it should be kept clean of any blue-green algae source.
  2. Endangered Species: The endangered Bull Trout thrives in Anderson Ranch Reservoir because of the near constant water temperatures at depth. Cat Creek Energy will dump 1000s of gallons of warm and stagnant water back into Anderson, raising the local water temperature. Studies have suggested the Bull Trout will be adversely affected by this warming.
  3. Water level issues in Anderson: The physical act of removing water from Anderson Ranch Reservoir will affect the lake levels. However, massive summertime evaporation and domestic/agricultural use of the water will surely lower the warm season levels of their reservoir. CCE will then need to siphon additional water out of Anderson during the summer to prevent their reservoir from running dry just when we need that water in Anderson the most. Studies show our kokanee salmon fishery in Anderson will be mightily threatened by the CCE hydroelectric facility.
  4. Electrical Transmission Lines: CCE plans to run many high-tension electrical transmission lines between their different projects. Those lines will likely run from the bluffs above Anderson Reservoir and along the Highway 20 corridor. Many studies show that those massive towers greatly affect tourism and the viewshed.

Please consider giving your feedback to our government about the ill-conceived Cat Creek Energy Project.

Understanding the 10,000 Pages of the Complex Cat Creek Energy History?

This is the future with Cat Creek Energy

Can you really understand the Cat Creek Energy project just by reviewing the 10,000 or so documents created by the numerous hearings and meetings? Could you afford to obtain all the documents related to this complex project? Keep in mind, you’ll probably be charged $3,000+ just to get the digital files. With that said …

The Elmore County Commissioners just gave the Cat Creek Energy lawyers another six months to hammer out a water diversion and delivery agreement with the county for this ill-advised and ill-conceived project. And during that Dec. 14, 2018 hearing the history of the project became even more complex.

After years of backroom dealings, legal wrangling, last minute changes, hearings, and deliberations, we don’t know how many documents currently make up the history of the proposed Cat Creek Energy project slated for our nearby backcountry. No one knows how many pages of documentation has been created in a vain attempt to get approval for this project. And that is a problem.

The project? Just 20 mile or so up Highway 20, outside of Mountain Home, Idaho, a Gooding-based corporation plans to construct a 5,750-acre mega-energy project that also includes the construction of a 170,000 solar panel energy plant.

This is the current history without Cat Creek Energy

Two years ago, in November 2016, the county commissions figured there were 8,000 pages of testimony already in existence. One month ago, in November 2018, an Elmore County Commissioner testified again that there were still about 8,000 pages of testimony and evidence. We believe there is likely much more documentation and there is just too much information lying around in boxes within county offices to allow the Cat Creek Energy project to move forward.

The public, the commissioners and likely even the developers are a little confused as to how this project will move forward without harming the residents of Elmore County. And we think it important that the people who will be greatly affected by the project’s 500-foot tall wind turbines, a 590 acres of solar panels, countless high tension electrical transmission lines and an Anderson Ranch draining reservoir to understand its long and complex history.

So, here is a shortened version …

Part 1: 2016 – Feb 2018 History of the Cat Creek Energy Project

In 2016, Cat Creek Energy, LLC submitted five Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) applications to Elmore County for various projects in the County’s Agriculture and Area of Critical Concern Overlay Zones. The projects include the installation of:

1. Transmission lines (“CUP-2015-03”);

2. Pump storage hydro-electrical generating facility (“CUP-2015-04”);

3. PV solar electrical generating facility (“CUP-2015-05”);

4. Wind turbine electrical generating facility (“CUP-2015-06”); and

5. Substation (“CUP-2015-07”), (collectively the “CUPs”)

The projects are collectively referred to herein as the “Proposed Development.”

June 15, 2016 / July 13, 2016: The CUPs came before the Planning and Zoning Commission of Elmore County, Idaho (the “Commission”) on June 15, 2016, for a public hearing, and on July 13, 2016, for deliberation. Evidence was presented to the Commission that the CUPs were in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of Elmore County and would have a negative impact on the “surrounding area.”

July 13, 2016: After finding that the CUPs were dependent on each other and could not exist separately, the Planning and Zoning “Commission” of Elmore County, denied the approval of the CUPs.

In its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, the “Commission” found, among other things, that the issuance (or approval ) of the CUPs would have a negative impact on the surrounding area as well as other properties in the area. Approval would have a negative effect on the scenic characteristics and visual aspects of the area.

Summer 2016: Cat Creek appealed the Commission’s Decision to the Elmore Board of County Commissioners (“Board” or BOCC).

November 16, 2016: The “Board” held a hearing on the appeal of the Commission’s Decision on November 16, 2016, at which time Cat Creek presented new evidence for the first time that materially changed Cat Creek’s applications for the CUPs, including a new master site plan of the integrated Proposed Developments. This new evidence was not properly noticed as part of the hearing.

January 13, 2017, February 3, 2017, and February 10, 2017: The “Board” / BOCC held deliberations on the appeal of the Commission’s Decision on January 13, 2017, February 3, 2017, and February 10, 2017.

During the deliberations on February 10, 2017, the Board issued its lengthy Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order (February 2017 Order”), which had obviously been prepared prior to the February 10, 2017 “deliberations”.

In its February 2017 Order, the Board affirmed the Planning and Zoning Commission’s finding that the five separate CUPs were dependent on each other and could not exist separately.

However, the BOCC reversed the Commission’s Decision and provisionally approved the CUPs subject to certain conditions that had to be satisfied by the Developer before construction of the Proposed Development.

The “Board of County Commissioners retained jurisdiction of the conditional use permit application process and as a condition for the approval of the CUPs, required the execution and recordation of a “Development Agreement” by and between the County, Cat Creek, and the entities owning the land (“Landowners”) where the Proposed Development was to be located.

The February 2017 Order expressly provides that the Developer could not proceed with the Proposed Development until the Development Agreement was executed between Cat Creek, the County, and the Landowners, and recorded in Elmore County.

January 2017 through February 9, 2018

Over the course of approximately one year, Cat Creek, the County, and the Landowners met on several occasions to draft, discuss and negotiate the terms of the Development Agreement.

The Development Agreement was signed by Cat Creek, the Landowners and the Elmore County Commissioners on February 9, 2018, and recorded on the same date.

The Development Agreement that was approved materially altered the terms and conditions of the CUPs that were approved in the February 2017 Order. The material alterations include:

  • A new master site plan that was never presented to the public for consideration.
  • The Development Agreement that was executed and recorded excludes the terms and provisions for the hydro component—CUP 2015-04, for the diversion and delivery of water by the Developer to the County, which is a major component of the Proposed Development.

 

Cat Creek Energy Development Agreement with Elmore County Gets its First Amendment

During the Dec. 14, 2018 public hearing.

Spoiler Alert: The county commissioners agreed to give Cat Creek Energy, LLC more time to renegotiate certain water issues at the Dec. 14, 2018 public hearing.

The Hearing

In a nutshell, this is what happened at this 30-minute public hearing. The first amendment of the development agreement between Cat Creek Energy and Elmore County in regards to the mega-energy project slated for our backcountry was approved during a public hearing and deliberations on December 14, 2018.

The approved amendment, however, was merely to give the county and the Gooding-based corporation extra time to negotiate the Water Diversion and Delivery Agreements portion of a joint development agreement. The original date to hammer out the details was December 31, 2018. The new date to agree on those water issues is now officially, June 30, 2019.

If the county and Cat Creek Energy cannot come to an agreement by June 30, 2019, the conditional use permits (CUP 2015-04) will lapse.

There were four individuals who testified against giving Cat Creek Energy additional time to hammer out the agreement and one individual who was neither for nor against the amendment. The interesting thing to know and understand is, Cat Creek Energy did not publicly testify at this meeting. There was one Cat Creek lawyer in attendance and she did not give us any reason for why they require more time. That could be important.

FYI: CUP-2015-04 deals with the proposed Cat Creek Reservoir and its Pump Storage Hydro-electrical Generating Facility.

Reference:

More to Come

Expect a follow-on post regarding this issue where we will discuss some of our thoughts about what happened and what didn’t happen at this and other related public hearings.

Recent Posts