April 19th, 2024

The Commissioners meeting had more than the retirement of K9 Officer Pickles. There was another public hearing for the Cat Creek Energy project, and the “request for reconsideration regarding ‘Decision on Second Amendment’ to Cat Creek Energy development agreement,” a decision recently made by commissioners, but that was suitable to Cat Creek Energy.

This project has been underway for nearly a decade, but was put at a court order stay that prohibited any sort of construction at a stand still. The scale and scope of the Cat Creek Energy would require further infrastructure to be built at Anderson Dam, a conversation that was held at the last public hearing conversation. To which the company attorney, Terry Pickins stated that Cat Creek Energy would not be paying for.

The goal of the company is to provide carbon free energy and storing water. A goal that has yet to be obtained, and one that the Planning and Zoning Director, Mitra Mehta-Cooper, is adamant that there hasn’t been progress. Mehta-Cooper stated, “We have been lenient and at this point in time, we would like to see some progress.” She had also pointed out that there hadn’t been any water rights granted to Cat Creek Energy yet.

However Pickens stated, “The court did stay this case and the county vehemently agreed and followed suit of the court.” This in turn, she argued, was the reason that the company wasn’t able to move forward in any way.

Elmore attorney Phillip Miller, asked Pickens if the stay was all that was holding them from progress or if it was also monetary issues. To which Picken declared that of course there were monetary issues because no one would invest in a company that was at a legal stay, but that there were now investors and money, but they were running out of time.

Commissioner Rodgers, had asked multiple times if the stay and litigation hadn’t happened, then they still wouldn’t be on course because, based on Mehta-Cooper’s analysis, there isn’t the progress to show for it. A fact that was backed up by Dylan Lawrence, water rights, environmental, and natural resources attorney for the county.

During the public hearing there were four people in support of the project, but they did not wish to speak. There was one person who was neutral on the matter who did not wish to speak. There were three people who were against the project, all of whom spoke to the Commissioners and the room. Terry Haggard spoke against the project saying that he had been ‘against it since inception.’ He went on to say that he, “remember[ed] the department head suggested that none of these conditional use permits be made. Mitra [Mehta-Cooper] has put together a well established time-line, and I think that Cat Creek is being disingenuous with their progress.” He concluded his time by sharing that he wasn’t against the project, just that he was against its location.

Nancy Thompson also shared that if this project continued forward, it would destroy the county’s only scenic byway.

The County Commissioners have yet to make a decision on the matter, and will continue the conversation May 3rd at 9:30am in the County Courthouse basement. All are welcome to attend.