Idaho Reports; Lucky Peak Project

The funding for this program is provided by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the friends of four 10 and 12. Tomorrow voters in two southwestern Idaho irrigation districts will be asked again to decide the future of the hydro power project here at Lucky peak dam east of Boise. Tonight we'll look at the arguments for and against that project. Good evening. On and off for the last eight years or so there has been an effort to construct a hydroelectric project at Lucky peak dam just a few miles upstream on the Boise River from Idaho's capital city. Tomorrow voters in two irrigation districts voters who just a few days ago rejected that project will be able to vote again on the idea. The proposal has created substantial controversy in southwestern Idaho both for the reasons of who the project will benefit

and because power generated by the proposed new facility at Lucky peak would be sold out of state to the city of Seattle. Backers of the project say they must move quickly on the lucky people puzzle by June 1st or they risk losing the federal license allowing construction at Lucky peak. Supporters also say the deal with Seattle City Light is a no lose proposition that guarantees a substantial return to the irrigation districts involved. But opponents counter that the project benefits only a handful of the irrigation districts that have an interest in Boise River water. And further they say the sale of electricity out of Idaho will eventually cost the state's consumers through higher electric rates. Tonight we'll try to sort out these conflicting arguments over whether the lucky peak project makes good sense. We begin tonight with Royce van Curran. He's the manager of the Boise project Board of Control which consists of five irrigation districts Boysen Big Bend and wilder which have already okayed this project. And the New York and Nampa Meridian Meridian districts which will vote on it again tomorrow.

Mr. Vancouver and why should the voters in those two districts approve this project. The voters should approve this because of the need to generate new revenues for future operation and maintenance requirements. The background for the pursuit of new revenues are the nine hundred twenty six repayment contract with the federal government that Granted some power of revenues for the area from the River projects and then the infringement on the power right by the Corps of Engineers dam the. But the revenues are fast reaching the point of the. That the lands beyond the land's ability to pay.

In other words you need the revenue that you would derive from this project to basically operate the system of canals that gets the water out to the people who use it to continue to meet the inflation spiral. As I mentioned when this was considered for the first time just a couple of weeks ago those two districts which will vote again tomorrow narrowly defeated it didn't it didn't get the two thirds vote necessary in two districts. Why was that. I'm not sure of course I would think that two thirds majority is a is a hard fact to come by in any instance these days but I was satisfied that we didn't educate or inform our people well enough. There does seem to be a good deal of confusion about a number of aspects of this project. What do you see as the most confusing part of it and and frankly why some people perhaps were confused enough to vote against it last time. Well the real question appears to be the sale of the

power. And it would appear that the power is going out of the state I don't know as we have answers for all of that but we've done the best we can. This the power handling once it's produced is really not our business we don't intend that it be our business. So we really can't answer an answer that one of it seems to me that one of the arguments that some of those on the other side of this issue from you have made is that in essence it's not fair that only five districts out of I think the total is 56 right in the in the Valley will benefit from this project just in terms of I can understand why are just five of fifty six involved early on. The feeling was that. The benefits maybe should be spread broader

than that. But the five districts were granted the hydro rights to Iraq dam and none of the others were given that right under contract. And Iraq is the dam just upstream again from Lucky. That is correct in the US. But the pursuit of that revenues is mentioned in the contract is what got us down to the five districts in the five districts are more or less a unit. And while they may only represent 5 districts they probably represent half or better the lands in the along the Boise River that are your gated from the Boise. And I guess the bottom line again in just layman's terms is that those five districts are the ones who went after this project right. That's right and we discovered. Almost after the fact that to try to bring anybody else in was a

hard fact it just you can't change your mind every little bit we found out. Let me ask you finally Mr. Vancouver and this distance by way of a summary statement here. You have worked there for a long time to bring a project about to utilize that hydro power potential at that dam. This is the best deal possible. To me it is because it retains the ownership is retained locally it doesn't mean that the contract to sell to Seattle is a permanent thing. But the to keep the ownership in the 50 year contract. Yeah that's that is correct and they but to retain as much of it as we could seem to be the best possible money. I'm not going to really speak to the money figures boggle my mind. When you get to the total total the water will come back in moments or thank you. The other view of this

project tonight comes from Harry vote a member of the Farmers Union irrigation district and a leader in a group called the Boise River water users a group that's formed to oppose this lucky pee project. You heard the arguments Mr Van Curran makes. Why should there be a no vote tomorrow. MR BALL. Well first I'd like to say that we believe that the water should be harnessed nowhere in favor of a power project. We're not in favor of the way it's being done. We think the project has been proposed by the boys your project is grossly unfair to a lot of the water users on the boys who ever as you pointed out they represent a little more than 50 percent of the water users or the acreage. But the older rights on the river and all the land on the north side of the river and also part of the towns on the south side of the river and part of the land south on the south side river are split and would receive no

benefit from the project. Or we would like to do is go forth with a new application including all the Boise River water users including the five arrogation districts all 56 of those districts raise everyone that is using water from the Boise River. You see our company for example. Has a vested interest in the three reservoirs on the Boise River RR geisha and company paid for construction of their rock reservoir. We're now paying operation maintenance. We're still paying construction costs on Anderson and all in em. Then we get to Lucky peak. Many people think that lucky peak was constructed for flood control which it was. But there is irrigation water in Lucky peak and then that amount of the contracted space in the private sector. We have 78 percent of that water and yet

we would share in no way in the costs and benefits of the project. OK just again and I want to get bogged down in these terms which you understand but I don't. But in essence you're just saying that you help pay for these projects and now you should get some of that right. We feel that all the water users in the Boise River should share in the costs and the benefits from this project. OK. And we feel strongly about the fact that. I don't know has a beautiful resource of water. We don't have oil wells and we don't have coal. But we have water and it's a clean resource and we feel real strong that this should be developed for Idaho people and should be controlled by little people. One of the arguments against I guess opening it up and allowing all of these districts in would be running the risk that maybe they would not get the license to build the plant at Lucky be right. Is there a danger in that. Well we think that since we have some vested interest as I pointed out we were involved in construction

of the two girls reclamation project which was Iraq and Anderson and then also we have contractual interest in Lucky peak. Therefore we think that we would have a power because basically the projects were initially ours. You say from a standpoint of us having water and so the project need not go down the stream if you know it's not built not construction doesn't start real quick. They're saying let's take another look and bring everybody in OK and go forth with a new license we have also have one of the arrogation districts in our group that has committed themselves to be the lead group. And we would then go forth with attempting to get a license and develop the project. Let me just ask you finally then we'll go back to Mr. Van Curran here. It's been said by some who oppose the way this project is being structured as you do that selling this power out of state might actually be a violation of state law I think. Yes I understand it correctly. There is a statute to that effect. OK so that's another

reason for not doing it in the right way in the way it's been proposed. Let me go back to Mr Van Curran on a couple of these points. Why not let all 56 of those districts at this point in time I don't know how we would manage I frankly don't know how we'd manage that. If we lose a license the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has made it very plain we have. No more voice or can't have any more application for six months. That's where we stand so you know there could be a real risk of losing the license does that surrounds the farmers just adding to at this point in time I couldn't see any way to add to or transfer anything. Well is it unfair as I think I heard Mr. Bird say unfair to these folks that they have that they're not going to get some of the benefits of of this project. Well I'm not sure that they don't benefit. It seems to me like the project

is constructed up there will put a new bypass tube or tunnel up there at the reservoir which will guarantee the irrigation water of the primary. To be shut down or has to be shut down for any reason it's always been a concern of ours. The management of flood control can go along at a more uniform pace when you've got two possible outlets in the room in the reservoir. We don't question the various districts participation in the upstream reservoirs. I guess it's only fair it is for the five districts to say that their participation is far greater than all of the other district put together. But then that isn't what we're leaning on we're leaning on the. And as a priority matter we we lean on this concession of Iraq for the power rights. That's that's where we

got our priority it lucky he was to vote. We too had a right in Iraq and as Mr Benham pointed out like I'm sorry originally that was proposed proposed in Iraq since we were a party to the construction very rock. We also had a right now. How could they transfer our right to Lucky peak. You see this raises that question a legal question. Mr. Ventura All right I was under the impression that I could be wrong I was under the impression that all of the contractors in Iraq were under the Warren Act except the five districts which makes some difference. And I I am not going to argue with Harry because he's a neighbor but I don't believe that the power right is written into their repayment contract. And Carol I think we can probably go back and forth on this for good and I would just settle for and let me ask you Mr. Banneker and one other point to Mr. Vogt makes about the possible illegality of

the sale of this power to Seattle City Light. I really can't speak to that. Certainly Seattle is outside of the state of Idaho but to I don't know who we would have contracted to sail with that would guaranteed that they were power would have stayed in Idaho. Well we think that the again that the project can go forth with a new license a new application. And then we would include all the water users and the Boise project or the 5 district would care greatly on that not getting back to me just interrupt for a second here Mr Van Curran says though that there's a danger of losing that license. You don't you don't think that danger is there. No because as I've said before since we have a vested interest in the three reservoirs we would have priority over say some company coming in from out of state and filing for the power. The other point you wanted to make was about about the out of state sale of the power I think.

Well again only on the out-of-state part. We still raise the question now why would Seattle come in if they didn't feel they were going to have grossly benefit from this project in a few years ago you know in 1977 we had a drought here in this area. A lot of people were discouraged. Where are we going to get power for Idaho. And so we feel that we should be harnessing that power for local use. OK well John when we come back more on this issue now of selling this Idaho generated electricity out of the state and for that we go to public utilities commissioner Perry Swisher he is a member of the Idaho PUC. Mr. Commissioner how do you size up this project is there some danger in selling this part of the state. I don't see the danger. I don't know how or importer. Mark let's start on the Eastern Slope quickly go across the state over 90 percent of the electricity consumed in the Utah Parnell area is imported

in Idaho and it's made with coal. You get the Idaho power company system we rely on the Jim Bridger plant heavily. We now rely on the valy plant in Nevada we have backup power at the Borden plant in Oregon. When you reach northern Idaho Washington water power company is a mix of Columbia hydro. A little bit of northern Idaho and western Montana hydro and a whole bunch of Washington state coal plants and finally Pacific Power and Light Company generates no power in Idaho. But does service these the panhandle. It's pretty archaic to think of the region since the Northwest Power Act as being one which each state husbands its energy resources. So I don't think that's at issue. And and. I understand what Mr. vote's talking about on laws that restrict what you can do but those date back to the whole public

versus private power fights and I suspect third party interests like the investors would quickly invoke the commerce clause and say electricity doesn't stop flowing at the state line. So all of that code which has been widely widely quoted section 61 327 didn't apply here and equated the real investors for payoff purposes or the people who buy the securities and finance the project. Those third party and Chris would quickly assert their rights under the commerce clause the commerce clause simply is is that most frequently cited language in the federal constitution in cases like this it says you cannot operate a state you know autonomy Asli when you're dealing with Congress. It would make sense to a lot of people though who maybe live in this Boise Valley to look up there and see all that potential and say Gee why are we selling it to Seattle Why

can't we use it here. Well if they keep doing that I guess it'll be like I'm quite grateful to solder in a cooler for excluding downtown Boise FBR area from his wilderness bill and I think the conversation could go on for another generation the debate could go on it's true that lucky Pete damn particular because of that that spout is visibly visible and and excites people's imagination but it doesn't excite people's imagination is that the lights that we're sitting under at this moment of course are fed by power from out of state. So our bottom line is it's all part of the same Pyatt it doesn't make a whole lot of difference where the where the piece comes in doesn't separate very well including electricity itself is not. Does it make good sense that energy and public policy sets to build a hydroelectric facility at that dam. It makes good sense to build hydroelectric facilities wherever they're feasible it's

the most beautiful electricity we get. It's the most environmentally benign over the long haul. It is the cheapest and the water is hauled up by nature and stored in the mountains and we just trip it on his way back to the ocean. We don't have any finer form of electricity then than hydro in general terms. So yes it makes sense to develop but I don't. I'm sure I don't belong there in the dispute between these two parties but I do belong in a dispute that says that there comes a time when disputes are counterproductive and the benefits that would come from a project involving 55 districts I'm thinking of that is suppose the format were the same as the Boise border control you have to get approval in 55 districts or 56. That's a lot of work and that could take years and if it only took one Russian veto out of

fifty six I'm confident that anyone who had an interest in succeeding the Boise board of controllers the licensee could easily turn one out of fifty six districts after all who went down modified so that is that the danger and not ok the project now as you see it that. Well I'd ask you to insert yourself in that part of this debate at least about whether it's likely that that license will ultimately benefit some people who live and work in this valley. First licenses are anything but automatic. Other parties can and do come in the same people. Pacific Northwest generating who had Eagle Rock application below the American Falls Dam are still viable. There are other parties perhaps I opine I don't know what their interests might be other coal generating groups in a supply all of these through out the region. So it's not just a discussion here in the valley. Any major remaining hydro site.

It is not going to be decided by some debate. It will be decided by a federal agency with the licensing power and not by the I don't PC and not by the irrigators here has to go. Mr Swisher says seems to be saying that that license could be up for grabs if it doesn't go the way I disagree. We believe that it could be done on the basis of one irrigation district taking the lead and then inviting all the other districts to participate and we think that we would have a coalition that could work effectively. The other groups will be asked to point to spade and cost and benefits and they can elect to participate or not. But we believe we would have a coalition that could effectively develop a project commissioner. Just quickly Mark on the case we've had in the works question and elsewhere in the region in the last two or three years.

Say those decisions say you can't create a debt obligation without a vote of the people. Any of these local units sponsoring our project is to vote and we believe it could be financed through private enterprise by having out one district we could have more than one district. Take the lead and the other groups coming on the basis of their participation. Well a man like Mr. Van Curran back in the US you see it differently I'm sure. Yes I still believe that no matter which way we turn and I speak of the five districts no matter which way we turn we're going to be out to the electorate before we're done whether it be the absolute bond issue or whether it be in the contract sales or whatever somewhere we've got to go back to the people. That's and that's just where we are today. Good comment on that Mr. Bell. Well again now in our process we would have bullied them straight as I've

mentioned. And then of course the other groups would have to vote whether or not they were going to participate. But if we have private enterprise financing their venture then we wouldn't be involved in the bond election commissioner on that point. I don't part company at one time had an interest in this project Simplot did and perhaps many others that we don't know about how viable is that. Well that's what I meant by saying that when you go before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the other players all have their plans and who gets the benefits from what license ultimately comes down. We don't know you know in May of 1984 right. We do know in May of 1984 that the Boise project gets the benefits if the generators go in but on another go around on licensing.

It's all speculation. Let me raise another question in the brief time that remains gentlemen. Commissioner Swisher what does the difficulty that this project has had coming about eight years and as I mentioned some of the history earlier. What does it say about the viability of other projects by irrigation districts in other parts of the state. There's a huge amount of potential but just how realistic is it given all the difficulties we've been discussing. It's pretty realistic district by district Highline canal by a high line can now drop by drop. It's not only a potential it's an actuality and several canal companies do have projects either producing power at this moment are under construction or under negotiation and I hope our. To buy that truce so the canal companies over time are are definitely going to add to our hydro resource and are definitely going to appreciate some revenues from from their water resources.

You agree most fair current would. What would your advice be to other people who are in the same kind of position you are here with this kind of potential should they plunge ahead. Well as far as I'm concerned. I agree that the potential is there. Rose I have the desire and the energy to push it through to fruition the way full steam ahead. But it's not going to be easy. It's not going to be easy though and that's to vote. What do you say about that is the potential there for other irrigation districts to set this issue aside for a moment. I only believe that the potential is there and we believe that it will go ahead and lot of the other groups because we also feel that water riots and power riots are closely related in this venture. They were separated but we don't really believe that's right. Going back to the history of the Boise River we have the developments talking about 1860 and the first and right first in time first and

right now we have another issue where the pro-rights are going out and yet the people that have the water right now the actual construction of a facility. So we really think the two ought to go together wherever we can at least the people that have the vested interest should have the opportunity right to say whether or not they want to participate in this case. We didn't we were actually to encourage I don't want to go go back to that debate but let me just ask you Do you have a prediction of what's going to go tomorrow. No I wouldn't make any predictions. I'd just want to say one thing and irrigation right is not a power right in the state of Idaho. OK but close election again tomorrow. Oh I'm confident we'll will have a better turn of terror made a better percentage this time we had last time. KERNAN Mr voter Mr Swisher we thank you gentlemen for joining us tonight. That's our time for tonight will be back tomorrow. I'm Mark Johnson.

The funding for this program is provided by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the friends of four 10 and 12.