I think they should truck the poop to Canyon County. They might even think it smells good and look at it as an improved nutrient. I mean, check out the herd it comes from. White, healthy , many on organic diets too. Canyon County doesn’t have a problem with polluting our air with their cars. Could be win-win.

Here’s the thing… The approval of Avimor’s preliminary plats (with the hope that lots o’ unresolved issues will get squared away by conditions of approval) have let Suncor proceed with the installation of infrastructure and the expenditure of a whole lotta bucks. Is the County really going to have the stones to tell them that they can now kiss their final plat (and hence building permits) goodbye because they haven’t satisfied certain conditions like poop handling? I’ll believe it when I see it. Plus, I think this is a completely ridiculous way of both planning and doing business. Here’s a fifty that says it pisses off the public and the developers almost to the same degree.

Perhaps you could explain how the EPA’s after the fact comment period is consistent with the Idaho Supreme Courts statement that interested parties right to a public hearing are weakened or possibly nullified if those studies are not completed prior to the county’s public hearing.

Tony

I, for one, would like Idaho to take-over the issuance of NPDES permits — which most states already do in order to keep these decisions more local. But until that time comes, to assert that the EPA doesn’t solicit public comments on its draft reports (compiled and published before it grants any such permit) is flat wrong. Just as wrong as asserting that the DEQ or the Health Districts are managed as unaccountable Black Op’s organizations.

I, for one, did use such a public comment period to put a stop on a proposed treatment facility (right here in Idaho). I availed myself of my right as a private citizen to be heard – and it didn’t require that the entire Local/State/Federal hierarchy be changed to make it happen. Nor did I have to file a lawsuit, or pretend to be a lawyer, or attend endless public meetings, to get it done. Nor, by the way, does the airing of such grievances require some type of special knowledge on the part of an average citizen (and I am such an “average citizen” by any measurement).

By your writings Mr. Jones, it appears that you’ve been sorely misled by people with ulterior motives. Unfortunately, they appear to have thrown you off your main purpose — I hope they’ve extended their apologies.

The wheels of government may turn slowly, but that speed is just about right when it comes to carefully considering the implications of something as serious as the location and operation of a sewer treatment facility. The last thing I would want to have happen is an unknowledgeable public planning department rendering a decision on something outside its skill set. I would rather have any approval it might grant for a development have a condition that it first secure approvals for the appropriate oversight agencies before home/commercial building permits are issued.

Weren’t these conditions added to Avimor and The Cliffs development approvals? But, perhaps this isn’t your point — you just don’t like the decisions, or the way these other agencies implement their oversight. Perhaps you should run for State or Federal office — strike that, you’ve already taken too much bad advice.

Such is life…

I readily agree that cities and counties, and the projects they approve, have to comply with state and federal guidelines. Unfortunately, for several reasons, simply complying with their requirements doesn’t mean much.

First, agencies such as EPA, DEQ, and the Health departments establish minimum standards. Cities and Counties are always free to require higher levels of sanitation, treatment, etc., and there are times when they may want to.

Second, staffers at the various state and federal agencies are human. They are prone to errors and omissions. Just because they approve something doesn’t mean they got it right.

Third, just because EPA/DEQ/Etc. are willing to sign off on something doesn’t mean it is publicly acceptable. Decisions associated with the location of sewage related equipment, effluent pipes dumping into the Boise River, and poop dumpsters cruising rush hour traffic is not EPA/DEQ’s long suit.

Fourth, EPA/DEQ/Etc. are blind to a number of management, operation, ownership, bonding and other considerations critical to the safe long term operation of public service companies.

The resolution of these and other items clearly benefit if the public is given a chance to review and rebut all aspects of a development prior to approval by the county.

From about 2004 through early 2007, Ada County routinely allowed decisions on water, sewer, fire, traffic, and other items to be made by other agencies after the county had already granted approval. While the practice may, as George suggests, be deemed legal, I have my doubts. And, even if it is legal, it is certainly not necessary. Nor is it in the public interest. And, that is where the rubber hits my road.

Any public employee, elected or otherwise, who argues for more secrecy rather than less, or to restrict public involvement in the decision making process when it is clearly beneficial to increase it, is in the wrong line of work.

As you so kindly pointed out, Ketchum violated IC 67-6512 — specifically the part that required the city to provide a summary of the proposed action (the consideration of the development) without revealing the engineering design of the snow wall, even though the engineering document was considered a “special report”. The city’s own ordinance obligated the city to require the applicant to submit the document as part of the application packet of material (not Idaho Code).

When the city approved the development, but only required that the special report be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit, it violated its own rule. The city ordinance that required the engineered snow wall design, as a pre-approval special report, was enacted under the authority of IC 67-6512. When the city chose to ignor its own rule the Supreme Court determined that it had done so in an attempt to circumvent the very State Law that allowed them to make the rule.

Idaho’s not a Home Rule State — meaning locals secure their authority to make rules from the State. And, when a local agency violates such local rules, the state consideres it a violation of the State’s authority. Now if Ketchum had never required an application-packet “special report” on the snow wall (a positiona that would also have been legal), it’s absense from the application material (and subsequent addition to the development’s CUP as a condition of approval) would not have violated State Law.

Having sympathy for a land use developer would be a waste of time, and my comments are not intended to elicit any empathy for such a speculator. I can sometimes take on “wonk-ish” qualities, but this does not mean I’m an advocate for any one jurisdiction — only that the rules should be followed, and not twisted by anyone for their own purposes.

As this pertains to the Avimor poop-machine, it means that Avimor is subject to Ada County’s rules (as they existed at the time it was approved), and that Ada County is subject to the State’s rules (DEQ’s), and that ultimately the State is subject to the Fed’s rules (EPA).

Asking for the nature of that relationship to be reversed is an interesting political statement, but not much more. If I didn’t know better, I’d think that you were fairly new to Idaho’s curiously conservative spin on democracy. Your position reminds me of an old Simpson’s episode.

Mr. Burns: Ironic, isn’t it Smithers. This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That’s democracy for you!

Smithers: You are noble and poetic in defeat, sir.

Mr. Jones, this little monkey considers you noble and poetic…

By the way since Mr Jones keeps bringing up Hammer Flat into this discussion, maybe he can explain if all 3 plaintiffs still having “standing” in the the appeal. Or does one of them just one of them have unique injury?

By the way George, you and the wonks at Ada County may want to read the Fisher Case again. They didn’t overturn Ketchum’s approval of a project because Ketchum failed to follow their own rules. They overturned Ketchum’s approval of the project because Ketchum failed to adhere to the requirements of Idaho Code 67-6512. That bit of code sets the standards that land use bodies such as city and county commissions must follow when hearing applications for development permits. It is also worth noting that the part of IC 67-6512 the Supremes cited calling for the engineering stamp of approval prior to approving development applications makes no exception for studies, permits, etc. that have to come from state or federal agencies.

Realistically, Ada County, under the division of Development Services Armstrong administration for the promotion of Planned Communities was very self, and developer, serving. They loved to defer to whoever had the lowest standards, even to the point of artificially lowering the standard themselves if necessary. In the case of traffic, Ada County simply deferred to ITD, an agency Avimor routinely ignores, or badgers into approving their access schemes after the fact. Same thing with sewage where they deferred to DEQ and we now have the current mess. They routinely waved the Wildland Urban Fire Interface Standards

It was a little different with wildlife, particularly with the Hammer Flat application. When Fish and Game failed to cave in to Skyline’s feeble mitigation plan, Ada County hired their own wildlife consultant who was willing to set the hurdle at, Surprise! Surprise!, exactly the point the developer set it.

Once again, it would have been so much simpler, and better for everyone concerned, even Avimor, if Ada County would have simply taken the time to do it right, and followed the law right from the very beginning.