Nuclear plant really isn't the best idea for county

Dear editor:

After several months of hearings it was finally time to answer the question of whether or not to rezone a Hammett Valley farm to N2 Industrial.

To say that we were disappointed that Commissioners Rose and Cruser could not make a determination, is an understatement. To hear Commissioner Cruser referring to the potential "use" of nuclear power to satisfy northwest energy needs as a reason to defer judgment, after the commissioners disallowed any testimony at public hearings about "use" and problems with "use" of a nuclear reactor, is both contradictory and unfair.

Commissioner Cruser continued on the "use" issue citing the Lower Hell's Canyon development by Idaho Power, comparing that company and the energy benefits of hydroelectric power with AEHI's nuclear reactor and energy benefits. But there are significant differences. Idaho Power was a proven company with several hydro-electric plants built, before the Hell's Canyon project was undertaken. AEHI has not built any nuclear reactors. Further all their construction plans are at this point, hypothetical.

Additionally, hydro-electric power is renewable, naturally replenishing itself in an environment that is well-suited to this kind of energy production. Nuclear power is not renewable and necessitates large expenditures in mining, transportation and storage of toxic waste products.

Finally we'd like to point out that the commissioners are paid a salary to make decisions for Elmore County. The citizens who serve "pro bono" on the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted their hearings and were able to come to a decision: the application to rezone this farm ground was not in compliance with the current Comprehensive Plan.

The plan can be changed and maybe even should be changed, but not mid-game and not just at the whim of one development company.

To our thinking, the prudent course open to the county commissioners would have been to turn down the rezone under the current Comprehensive Plan, then change the plan if they so desired, and after these processes were completed have the applicant reapply under the new plan articles.

As it stands now, more time, more money and more hearings, sadly, may be in all of our futures.

Dale and Diana Hooley