Nuke plant hearing set next week

I received the dvd and found it informative, I liked the fact that several independent resources for researching facts on nuclear power plants were listed at the end of the video. It was extremely helpful to have the farmers point of view concerning water and the costs to pump to their fields, this is a real current issue. It has been verified though the Idaho Dept. of Water Resources that the watering of a farm would use more water than the plant. The simple facts are nuclear power plants have strict stringent guidelines and watchdogs such as the nuclear regulatory commission, epa, etc. To gather correct facts you can contact any of these sources. I see the need for non-carbon based power without dependence on foreign products for the US.

For all the people out there who are so against this plant, PLEASE tell us what are any other options? Solar and wind can't meet the need, hydro is at its limit. So, if we decide to follow what the nay sayers push we will be forever dependent on foreign carbon based polluting products. AGAIN I ask for options. If the argument is they don't like this company, so what... a nuclear power plant is governed by more than the company.

As to impact on the county that is why the procedures for allowing a plant include environmental impact studies, transportation impact studies, as well as other requirements. Conditional Use Permits can require the company to improve roads prior to building the plant or other restrictions to protect the infrastructure of the county or any burden on the county from occurring. As to the design of the plant itself, there again are very strict safety regulations. As to water usage, I have read many posts and talked with the Idaho Dept. of Water Resources to verify those facts, and found it to be true that watering a field would easily use more water than the plant.

So, I again ask what are the true issues, and what are other options and plead with people to not believe just posts but to get out and do the research, contact independent resources for their information. Go to this meeting, ask your questions, give your concerns or support!

We recently sent this letter to the people of Hammett, as they are the closest town to our power plant.

April 7, 2009

Dear Hammett resident,

As you know, my company, Alternate Energy Holdings Inc., is proposing to build a nuclear power plant near your town. If the Elmore County Commission approves our rezone request April 22, it will mean some changes for all of Elmore County and Hammett. There has been some concern about how a nuclear plant will affect the rural lifestyle of Elmore County so I want to explain some things to you in this letter about my company's intentions and goals.

Nuclear plants may seem large, but they produce lots of power in a relatively small area. To generate the same amount of power, for example, a wind farm would need to cover about 100 times the area of a nuclear plant with 40-story-tall turbines and thousands of miles of access roads (and only produce electricity less than 20 percent of the time, compared to 92 for nuclear). Our plant will emit no odors, dust or noise, be well-landscaped and have a low profile, with none of those large cooling towers.

I know people are concerned about water. Any water our plant uses will have to come from existing water rights, whose holders willingly provide us with water, with fair compensation. Old-style nuclear plants consume up to 30 million of gallons a day, but our plant will use a hybrid cooling system, using heat sinks and fans to cool water. When water is scarce, a hybrid plant can throttle back its consumption greatly, spending an extra one-half to 1.5 percent of its power output to cool itself. If nuclear plants are to be possible in dry places, new approaches will have to be used.

What does a power plant mean for Hammett residents? There will be growing pains as the plant is built, but it will last 60 or more years, providing high paying job opportunities for young people to remain in the community. If you earn your living in the local economy, the plant will bring business opportunities. If your livelihood is tied to the regional or national economies, you will see expanded opportunities from low power costs. For example, Idaho farmers can't compete without low cost electricity.

We are looking to acquire rights up to 10 million gallons a day but our hybrid cooling system will keep our net consumption of water between 100,000 and 1 million gallons a day (about as much as 140 acres of irrigated land). We are looking at the possibility of renting water -- since we won't actually have to consume much water, we can use it for cooling and return it to farmers. The warmer water could potentially extend the growing season up to two weeks each direction and give farmers another source of income. Winter greenhouses would be another beneficiary of abundant hot water.

Low-cost power built on coal and hydro sustains Idaho's agricultural industry, but coal is on the way out and hydro is maxed out. To maintain current farming, and to bring more idle ground into production, we need low-cost power. Now only nuclear can provide that same low cost power. As a public company, Idahoans hold the majority of our stock. We are literally vested in Idaho and we want to be good neighbors.

Several people have asked me how I would feel if a nuclear power plant was proposed next to my home. If I were someone who had devoted their life to a place, living and working and raising a family there, I would understandably be concerned at the changes the plant would bring to a place I had known all my life. I might even oppose the plant if it were close enough to be prominently seen as an industrial facility or was noisy or emitted an odor, but this plant won't do any of that. At the very least, I would want to know what the developer would do to ensure the plant would be a good neighbor, pay its fair share and give back to the community. Any large construction project will create some inconvenience on a community and any good developer will fairly compensate the people who live there, and then some.

We are proposing the following if our plant is built. These are standard things that good companies should do during construction, and to give back to the community:

A committee to oversee service needs. This committee would be a partnership of local officials, neighbors and plant representatives. It would examine demands that construction would place on fire, schools, housing, roads, administration, etc., and make recommendations for meeting those needs, including what compensation the plant would need to make to keep services well-funded.

Direct infrastructure funding. Nuclear plants typically pay for fire stations, vehicles, equipment, road improvements, etc., necessary to serve the plant and benefit the community.

Payment of local property taxes. This could involve paying money directly to the county to reduce the bill for all taxpayers, or focusing tax relief on the neighbors most closely affected. Building the plant will put thousands to work but will also burden residents somewhat in the short-run. These payments would be intended to compensate people for any potential disruption to their lives.

Local scholarships. Elmore County would receive scholarships to study sciences at colleges of their choice. We hope these promising young people would come back to Elmore County and maybe even work at our plant. But our main incentive would be to fulfill the responsibility of technology industries to help the next generation of engineers and scientists.

Job training. Most jobs at a nuclear plant don't require a college degree, but they require specialized training. We propose to pay the full costs of Elmore County residents who earn training certification, or college degrees, and who commit to work at our plant.

A community center. County residents would need to discuss where this could be constructed. I think Hammett could be a good location if people there want it. This would be a place for neighborhood meetings, youth programs, training and local government meetings. For security reasons, access to nuclear plants is highly restricted, so this could be a place where neighbors could meet with plant representatives to discuss problems and opportunities.

America currently has 104 nuclear reactors, most of them in rural areas, where they are quiet, clean and compact. American nuclear plants bring jobs, greater prosperity and preserve the rural way of life. For example, In 2005 -- after nearly 50 years of commercial nuclear power -- a Bisconti poll found 83 percent living close to nuclear plants favor nuclear energy. The survey only questioned residents within 10 miles of an operating nuclear plant also found that 85 percent give the nearest nuclear power plant a "high" safety rating, and that 88 percent are confident that the company operating the power plant can do so safely.

Thank you for your time and please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions, 939-9311 or info@aehipower.com. We look forward to seeing you at the County Commission meeting on Wednesday, April 22, at 6 p.m. in the Mountain Home Junior High School auditorium. If any of you are interested in learning more about jobs at the plant, we will be taking letters of interest and resumes. You can also see our site at www.alternateenergyholdings.com or www.cleanidahoenergy.wordpress.com.

Don Gillispie

CEO

That is really interesting WAYL. There is a letter in the AEHI file with P & Z/the ECC's that indicates the opposite of what you state. IDWR stated that there was NOT enough info provided for them to render a decision regarding water. We need to know what reactor will be used and how many there will be BEFORE we can even guess how much water will be used. I have also talked to IDWR, a water Judge to be more specific, and that person stated that there was not enough water to support a nuclear power plant.

We have asked the questions but it is hard to get responses when even AEHI is not sure what they are doing.

WAYL, on page 2 of 3 at line 18 of the AEHI Zoning Change Application it reads:

"Submission with this application of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), or an Environmental Assessment (EA) may be required at the DISCRETION (my emphasis added) of the Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter referenced as Commission). NOT REQUIRED PER DIRECTOR."

So, that study you state will be done, is not required per the AEHI Application dated 8/12/08. Read up. Your facts are a bit off on all they will be required to do. As for the roads, their application also states that improvement to the roads will be the burden of us, the taxpayers...as opposed to AEHI (page 20). Further, with the property tax credit that will be given, they are not likely to pay much in property tax either (that came out at the MH CC meeting where Mr. G. spoke). So, it will be us that pays for all of this, not AEHI. Read the application. It is all there.

The AEHI application further states (page 10) that "Elmore and Owyhee counties would also see another 3,785 jobs during construction and 871 jobs when the plant is complete..."

"Each reactor could employ up to 500 directly and create hundreds of well-paying spin-off jobs..."

So, once again, what are we going to be stuck with really? Each time you read a document from AEHI, the numbers are different and so is the so called "plan." What is really going on and when will we find out? I should hope before the big "APPROVED" stamp goes on this.

OM, your "facts" are incorrect/misleading. Even though the director may not have chosen to have an impact study done prior to the this rezone application, an application for a CUP (Condition Use Permit), would require such a study. Check the CUP application! As I stated part of the CUP process could require the conditions to ensure there is no burden on the infrastructure of the county or to county taxpayers. Look at was required for the racetrack as a possible example. Attend a few P & Z meetings and learn about conditional use permits. Also consider the impact of residents on a conditional use permit, their concerns and considerations are taken into account and the presiding P & Z Commission have put conditions on permits based on those imputs. I noticed you again chose to ignore the question of viable options.

Again, all those of reasonable insight, attend the meetings, ask your questions, state your concerns, or give your support. This is your opportunity to speak out for or against.

WAYL, I have been to many meetings/CUP hearings, thank you. I have also attended ALL of the hearings on this facility as well as 2 CC meetings. Heck, I even attended the "public meeting" in GF where the doctor was taken away in cuffs and in the back of a police car. Thanks for your ideas on how to become more involved. My comments came directly from the AEHI Application for Rezoning...if they are misleading to you---blame AEHI since I typed DIRECTLY from THEIR application. I guess because it did not say what YOU wanted it to say, I was misleading.

OM you have serious personal issues. Let me explain this in simple easy terms, there is a BiG difference between and application for a rezoning and an application for a conditional use permit. As I explained conditions are applied by the P&Z Commission such as: Roads must be improved prior to the building of any plant, or all infrastructure must be in place prior to plant construction.... or any other needed restrictions to ensure the residents of Elmore County don't carry any burden. That is why it is important for residents to input their concerns or suggestions. As to the plant itself it is under very stringent regulation from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Bottom line Idaho needs new power resources that can sustain the current need and future growth without being dependent on carbon based fuel (coal plants are worse) and foreign oil. As does the northwest itself. A plant will be built to meet that need, it would be better for this county's future to have it built here.

Now all I can say to you is LISTEN FOR THE LOUD POP!!!!!!!

WAYL, you are the one with issues. First, AEHI disputed their bill and STUCK us with part of it for all of those hearings. Why, because Don did not feel he owed the money. We have paid for all of the police to be at the hearings as well. You know that racetrack that was going to be built...they did not pay their bills either to the county---WE PAID! So, pardon me if I fail to see your point on how well this is all taken care of. With other projects in this county, it has been the taxpayers that paid for "improvements" as opposed to the business. Your research is not truthful. I understand the process. I also understand that we pay for growth...not big business. Wake up already. Study that property tax bill that cuts taxes to about zero (Micron and Albertsons use it). AEHI will pay very little but will cash in big. I get it---but you do not.

WAYL, you are the one with issues. First, AEHI disputed their bill and STUCK us with part of it for all of those hearings. Why, because Don did not feel he owed the money. We have paid for all of the police to be at the hearings as well. You know that racetrack that was going to be built...they did not pay their bills either to the county---WE PAID! So, pardon me if I fail to see your point on how well this is all taken care of. With other projects in this county, it has been the taxpayers that paid for "improvements" as opposed to the business. Your research is not truthful. I understand the process. I also understand that we pay for growth...not big business. Wake up already. Study that property tax bill that cuts taxes to about zero (Micron and Albertsons use it). AEHI will pay very little but will cash in big. I get it---but you do not.

om explain to me how they "stuck us with their bills" be specific as to what they did or did not pay and why. Was that accepted by the Commission? Also police presence at any hearing is by the Commission's choice, how is that an applicants responsibility? Tell me how the taxpayers paid for any roads on any CUP application requiring roads to be built by the applicant? If a condition has been put on a permit and it has not been upheld, tell us, give an specific example? I don't believe one bit of your rhetoric without specific example. If you can't provide traceable proof, you're a liar.

OM it is the right of any applicant to dispute the costs, if it is found to be valid by the commission and the amount paid is accepted, then they paid their bill. So again, twist information and slander others for your own perverse needs.

Okay, lets say we are blessed with the building of one and most likely more nuclear power plants. What happens to the waste that is produced? I know they said they would store it on site for a while, but then what?

The Obama administration has decided to stop funding the Yucca Mountain depository, 90 miles north of Las Vegas, Nevada, and our government has been working on and has spent $13.5 billion of our tax dollars on it, to date. I know that the citizens of Nevada are breathing a great sigh of relief. And the reasons for stopping this storage facility are, I believe a good idea, especially since they have yet to make this "fatally flawed and dangerous program" workable. The people of Nevada have been very vocal about their desire for the government to scrap a bad and unfixable plan and "for the nation to move on and consider other more appropriate, less damaging, and more promising approaches to managing the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level wastes" and to search for a better solution.

Yucca Mountain was selected by congress in 1987 as a storehouse for spent civilian fuel (we know the military's spent fuel is stored in INL). And Yucca Mountain was supposed to start accepting fuel in 1998. Even if by some miracle, Yucca Mountain were ever to be finished, it would be too little, too late. There would be too much spent-fuel being stockpiled and "by the time Yucca Mountain did open (the optimistic predictions say in 2018), the national spent-fuel stockpile will already exceed Yucca's design capacity of 70,000 tons."

Even before Yucca Mountain could be opened, a second nuclear waste dumpsite would be needed. Not counting the spent fuel from the civilian sector, "the overall radwaste problem also includes low-level waste and an ocean of high-level liquid wastes left over from making 30,000+ nuclear bombs."

One of my concerns now that Yucca Mountain seems out of the picture, is that Nevada was chosen because it was a weak, under-populated state in a location already despoiled by nuclear explosions at the Nevada test site." Why couldn't Idaho be next to be "volunteered" to accept all of our nations nuclear garbage?

Idaho fits most of the selection profile: INL stores all the military nuclear wastes. We are a weak, under populated state. And lets face it...we are weak. Just look at our politicians selling off our state and lining their pockets. (Can you tell I don't have very much faith in the elected officials who have proimised to protect Idaho and its people from those who want to use and abuse our state and its people for profit?)

Why are we even considering allowing anyone to ruin Elmore County? And why on earth are our Commissioners even entertaining the thought of turning our farm land and our precious water over to this bunch of profiteers who have no experience what-so-ever in nuclear energy and building nuclear power plants?

Sure jobs are needed, but surely we can entice better companies, with better opportunities. Isn't it worth it to lure some manufacturing company to come to Elmore County? What is money compared to our precious Snake River, our aquifer and our health? And our precious water will be necessary to use to store the spent fuel rods for a long, long, long time.

One last thing before I shut up and let you enjoy the rest of your Sunday... Why is AEHI being allowed to buy billboards and flashy banner ads, shouting that they are offering 5000 jobs? These jobs won't be available, most likely for several years, so what will the people that really need a job do for those several years? If they need to feed their families or pay their mortgages, they will be screwed. Mostly likely, they will lose their homes and be forced to move somewhere else.

P.S. Chernobyl Reactor #4 is till, after 20+ years, as bad as it was. Russia covered it with a large sarcophagus and has over the last several years been trying to cover the nuclear plant with its sarcophagus with a giant arch, which will slide over the top of them.

Three things are keeping Russia from cleaning up this mess.

1. "The lava-like remains of the melted-down reactor,"

2. "The spent fuel from the other three reactors" (now shut down)

3. " Hundreds of leaking nuclear fuel waste dumps."

Russia hopes that this new structure will contain the reactor in the shroud for at least 100 years, maybe as long as 300 years. Unfortunately the fuel will stay deadly for thousands of years. The decaying plutonium, will turn into americium, which is even more hazardous to our health. The Russian government also tried to build a dry storage facility for nuclear waste but some of the fuel rods from Chernobyl were cracked and had soaked up water, so the dry facilities were found to be unsuitable and Russia scraped the plans. (Could we learn a few things from the Russians?)

Enjoyed whats left of your Sunday:)

Parts in quotes are from:

http://whyfiles.org/275nukewaste/index.php?g=3.txt

Except for the part about Russia. It can be found at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4942828.stm

WAYL, the info about what was NOT paid was posted long ago. If you have questions, call P & Z and they will tell you what they billed for and what AEHI would not pay. They (P & Z) did a re-bill and that was what AEHI paid. It clearly states that they will pay costs on their application. When they did not pay---WE got stuck with a portion of their (AEHI's) bill. Call and ask. The speedway did the same thing. I do not have to rewrite what goes on in this town. The taxpayers are left holding the bag often on some of these deals. WAYL, I am many things but a liar I am not. Thank you.

OM, took your suggestion and spoke with P&Z, you are wrong! AEHI has paid their bill.

OM wrote" I am many things but a liar I am not. Thank you." If you supposedly researched this information as you stated, then you are absolutely making another false accusation.

And true to form you have not once, when presented with accurate true information responded; you go off on a different tangent. And this one was proven to be false so where shall you go next.

Conditional Use Permits are very different that a Rezoning Application, with different requirements. Requirements of a conditional use permit application will be impact studies on things such as roads or the environment. Requirements on a conditional use permit can be set to protect the county residents from any infrastructure burden. Contrary to OM statements the Planning and Zoning Commission are responsible, intelligent and diligent members of this community. Their job is to protect the growth of this county by implementing necessary requirements on conditional use permits to ensure there is not a burden on the taxpayers or the land.

The P&Z has the experience and ability to do their job well. They always take into consideration the community's concerns and suggestions. The conditional use permit hearing is the forum for having those concerns or suggestions heard and implemented.

WAYL, I said they paid their bill. Are you a complete idiot? They did not pay their original bill and disputed some of the charges (asked for a re-bill). So, the taxpayers sucked up what they refused to pay. Guess P & Z forgot to tell you that part of the story. So once again a liar I am not. Thank you WAYL.

WAYL, you are the one with issues. First, AEHI disputed their bill and STUCK us with part of it for all of those hearings. Why, because Don did not feel he owed the money. We have paid for all of the police to be at the hearings as well. You know that racetrack that was going to be built...they did not pay their bills either to the county---WE PAID! So, pardon me if I fail to see your point on how well this is all taken care of. With other projects in this county, it has been the taxpayers that paid for "improvements" as opposed to the business. Your research is not truthful. I understand the process. I also understand that we pay for growth...not big business. Wake up already. Study that property tax bill that cuts taxes to about zero (Micron and Albertsons use it). AEHI will pay very little but will cash in big. I get it---but you do not.

-- Posted by OpinionMissy on Sat, Apr 18, 2009, at 10:07 AM

KEY WORD...part of it!!!! Read. Go through the BB and read...it was all posted line by line.

Here is another one for you WAYL...shall I draw you a picture maybe. Perhaps you will get that a little better.

WAYL, the info about what was NOT paid was posted long ago. If you have questions, call P & Z and they will tell you what they billed for and what AEHI would not pay. They (P & Z) did a re-bill and that was what AEHI paid. It clearly states that they will pay costs on their application. When they did not pay---WE got stuck with a portion of their (AEHI's) bill. Call and ask. The speedway did the same thing. I do not have to rewrite what goes on in this town. The taxpayers are left holding the bag often on some of these deals. WAYL, I am many things but a liar I am not. Thank you.

-- Posted by OpinionMissy on Sun, Apr 19, 2009, at 4:58 PM

OM, how could you draw a picture when your topic is a lie? You said they did not pay their bill, I called and spoke with the office and they said they paid their bill in full. The resource you said to contact said they have paid their bill! So you are wrong. End of story. You are so full of it!

I for one am so tired of your negative baloney. Shut up, you make up stuff for whatever reason. I have come to the conclusion that you and your opinions are a waste of space. Enough of you. I am finished talking to this particular wall. As once again, your tangents are unreliable and incorrect.

I don't believe you will ever hear the loud pop.

OM it is the right of any applicant to dispute the costs, if it is found to be valid by the commission and the amount paid is accepted, then they paid their bill. So again, twist information and slander others for your own perverse needs.

OM oron. Exactly how did the taxpayers get STUCK? PLEASE tell us on what CUP where it was required that roads be built did taxpayers get Stuck with the bill. AGAIN, you are full of it. Just because you say that does not make it so.

Every applicant is entitled to dispute their bill, if the disputed amount is found by the governing authority to be a valid issue and they are "rebilled" then that applicant has paid the bill. I noticed you choose not to pick at the police issue again, why... BECAUSE YOU WERE WRONG AGAIN!

WAYL, you are a complete idiot! AEHI disputed a PORTION of their bill and did not pay it (the DISPUTED portion)...so, we as taxpayers, will cover those costs since the bills from all of this must still be paid. Are you really too stupid to understand all of this? Really?

While they may be allowed to dispute their bill, it also states in the application that they will pay their costs. It is one thing to dispute that an attorney spent 14 hours on a 1 page letter that should have only taken an hour to read and respond to but they disputed more than that and then turn around and state they have paid their bills. If the taxpayers had to pay a cent for this---which was put into motion by AEHI---that was WRONG! It is a different story if the bill was inflated or the hours spent on the project by P & Z were too high but that was NOT the case.

We get stuck with the road repairs from all of the heavy truck traffic. We get stuck with the bill when lights are needed at an intersection due to heavy traffic from a subdivisions/business. Why is that not part of the plan when these things are allowed? Growth should pay for itself. Boise allows for these expenses on projects. Why are we any different. We paid for the police to be at all of the hearings as well. Seems like that should have been a cost paid 100% by the applicant. If you lie to people, they tend to get mad. WAYL, you are too stupid to even understand this. Have a nice day.

OM, really what are you ranting about; taxes are meant to pay for maintaining the infrastructure.

However, I am very surprised to be agreeing with you on the fact that the developers of any new development should bear the burden of all infrastructure costs and carry such until the development's taxes can sustain that infrastructure cost.

Yes, that is the way it is in Boise BECAUSE of the consultant who helped to write Elmore County's proposed new ordinances. Funny, that you who said such slanderous things about that man, should have such admiration for what he implemented in Boise.

What traffic lights are you referring too? What new development has required a new traffic light? What conditional use permit was granted? Stop making generalized statements and get factual.

As to AEHI's paying of their bill, if the dispute was found to be valid by the governing authority then they met their obligation. In other words the governing authority agreed that the costs was excessive or unjustified, therefore they chose to bill AEHI correctly. I would be more suspicious of why was the dispute found to be valid, was the charged amount arbitrary?

Bottom line, all you do is complain and fight with everyone... you live for conflict. Well, enjoy your conflict. For me you are a grain of salt; have a nice conflict filled life.

I would like to thank Don Gillispie for his letter outlining both impact, and the benefits, for Elmore County if the plant is built here. His was one of the few letters free of hyperbole and emotional ranting, neither trait useful to informed discussion.

To address some of the concerns, I lived next to a nuclear power plant for many years, (Calvert Cliffs in rural Maryland). Affordable clean energy, living wage jobs with benefits, contributions to community concerns, etc., every one of the promised benefits materialized. Given my experience, I strongly support bringing the plant to Elmore County.

At the same time, I am not dismissive of legitimate concerns regarding waste disposal. I am however, dismissive of the ridiculous rambling personal attacks voiced, again and again, by the same ill mannered, uninformed types who seemingly live for a chance to avoid substantive discussion in favor of espousing their vile ranging from half-truth to flat out lies.

In a matter of this importance I do hope people of reason can prevail, that factual issues can be discussed and debated without lapsing into ad hominin attacks. I would remind people of a founding father's precept "men of good conscience can disagree".

Thank you for the voice of reason AD. I unfortunately sunk to OM's level, as my mother always said "Consider the source". I apologize. I do so hope those reading these blogs can sift through them and find the truth and factual statements.

SB you are correct about the consultant from Boise. If anyone chooses to verify that information just call the Ada County's Planning and Zoning office.

AS to OM maybe a class on the government would help to understand how it works.

Thanks again for the voice of reason.

I will stay away from the emootional ranting and the environmental angle. The data that the company provides is suspect. This says something to me and should anyone else. If you research what effect the last 13 had on their communities, one will find that the numbers are far below that of this proposed development. He assumes a political and economic culture similar to that of 1976 when the last one broke ground. Well Earth to whoever but times change.

"....Conditional Use Permits are very different that a Rezoning Application, with different requirements. Requirements of a conditional use permit application will be impact studies on things such as roads or the environment. Requirements on a conditional use permit can be set to protect the county residents from any infrastructure burden. Contrary to OM statements the Planning and Zoning Commission are responsible, intelligent and diligent members of this community. Their job is to protect the growth of this county by implementing necessary requirements on conditional use permits to ensure there is not a burden on the taxpayers or the land.

The P&Z has the experience and ability to do their job well. They always take into consideration the community's concerns and suggestions. The conditional use permit hearing is the forum for having those concerns or suggestions heard and implemented.

-- Posted by Whyarentyoulistening? on Mon, Apr 20, 2009, at 12:43 PM"

I am a 2 time college grad and have had Government classes thank you. I have also experienced, first hand how things are run here in EC, Idaho and what is required by P & Z and the ECC's and how much they listen to what the public has to say and what we want for our community. Yes, we needed another 200 home subdivision when there are several hundred homes on the market already that are not selling. Yes, that was "smart" to approve because the home values could still be lower than what they are by flooding the market with yet more homes. Priceless! See how much the dairy industry in our county pays to repair the roads their trucks rip through town on. Check out Hamilton Road and GV Hwy. as well as the road with the dairy operations themselves. Truck traffic is hard on the streets---but you and I pay for that.

Directly from the EC Application for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) which was revised on 031809:

Page 2 of 4, number 19: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND/OR ASSESSMENT: "When a development or proposal is of a more complex nature, when it is required by the Zoning and Development Ordinance, and/or when the site is located within an (goes to page 3 of 4, number 19) Area of Critical Concern, and (sic) Environmental Impact Statement and/or Assessment MAY (my emphasis) be required at the expense of the applicant. EIS Required (yes/no option)." Sounds like an "option" as opposed to a requirement to me.

To state that the EIS will be done because the CUP mandates such action IS A LIE. It is up to P & Z if it is required or not.

Page 2 of 4 at f: "The impacts of a proposed development and/or land use on adjacent land uses and transportation facilities must be considered. The applicable Highway District or Transportation Department MAY (my emphasis added) require a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) if the proposed development or land use has associated with it special circumstances deemed by the district or department to warrant a study..."

Wow, not always REQUIRED. Up to the district or department...not a DONE DEAL!

As far as Don and his fees go, he disputed the bill, got a re-bill and paid that. He stuck the taxpayers of Elmore County with the rest because he felt it was too much or not his to pay. While it may be his "right" to do so, it showed lack of honor on his part and that of his company.

Directly from the Zoning and Development Change Application Page 3 of 3 in the last paragraph right above the date and Don's signature:

"The applicant hereby agrees to pay the fees established by the Board at the time of submission of the application and agrees to pay ANY (my emphasis) additional fees and postage and publication costs. The applicant also verifies that all information contained herein is true and correct and that the application is complete. ..." Signed and dated by Don G. on 8/12/08. Sure sounded like he agreed to pay the ENTIRE bill to me.

Now from the CUP Application regarding payment (so he can dispute more charges and leave us to pay part of his bill again):

"The applicant hereby agrees to pay the fees established by the Board and agrees to pay ANY (my emphasis added) additional fees incurred..."

I know, more "lies, hyperbole and slander" even if it is all right from your 2 favotite documents WAYL. Just the facts.

What is so funny about all of this is that EC MAY not require any of this because they feel that DEQ and the NRC will take care of all of the study requirements (require that AEHI do them that is). The problem with that thought process is that the rezone will already be done at that point, the CUP will already be issued and the damage will already be done. That is the problem with thinking that someone else will take care of things for us. Once the rezone is done and the CUP is issued that land will NEVER revert back to Ag as it is worth far more to the owner as M1/M2. Who knows what we will end up with in the end. That is the larger picture.

I attended AEHI's rezone hearing last night. The moderator and hearing recorder were terrible with their interruptions of the speakers. Please find some real professionals. (I understand AEHI is paying 100% of the fees as requested by county.)

Most of the people (400 of 500 or so) were for AEHI. (Not to mention 1600 pro-petition signatures to the Snake River Alliance's 100 or so.) The opponent speakers spoke as groups like Snake River Alliance and some Hammett groups then their members and children spoke as individuals defeating the group idea and greatly inflating the number of opponents.

AEHI should get this rezone or there are likely to be 3 new commissioners next election.

OM as a "a 2 time college grad" and a supposed watchdog of taxpayer dollars, I find it interesting that you pick apart a general CUP application. The reason for a general type of application is cost savings. To have a specific specialized application developed for say a nuclear power plant would cost the taxpayers; how many times do you think a specialized application would be needed and at what taxpayer cost?

To help you understand there are several types of land uses that require a CUP.

NOT all of them will require impact studies, this would be why a general CUP application would use "ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND/OR ASSESSMENT: "When a development or proposal is of a more complex nature, when it is required by the Zoning and Development Ordinance, and/or when the site is located within an (goes to page 3 of 4, number 19) Area of Critical Concern, and (sic) Environmental Impact Statement and/or Assessment MAY be required at the expense of the applicant. EIS Required (yes/no option)."

Hopefully, even you can understand that a power plant would be "of a more complex nature" Again, you show your ignorance and distain for the P & Z process and Commission members. You choose to make generalized statements and when presented with actual facts you choose to ignore them. Whatever your opinions are... they are yours.

As I read your posts on different subjects as well as this one I find that you remind me a little of Mark Twain when he said, "I am not one of those who in expressing opinions confine themselves to facts."

WAYL...I understand P & Z rules probably better than you do but then you know that. Respect to the ECC's and the P & Z Board---you are one to talk with regard to that point. How much have you been paid and at what point did it start? Seems like there are more closed door meetings than open door meetings. Hope it was worth it. What goes up must also come down. Enjoy that fall because I know I will when it all comes to light...which it will. Good luck. Hope number 2 or 3 works out for you. You take care now.

Oh, one more thing. The 2007 ECC's Minutes clearly indicate that it was known that there was a relationship between Mark and AEHI while he was doing things for EC. So, I am not 100% sure that you really did know who your were working for at the time...or did you just sell yourself to the highest bidder? You always were a snake. The truth shall set you free...if you even know what that is at this point. Have a nice weekend.