The B2H Project will construct a new high power (500 kilovolt) electric transmission line over 298 miles of private and public lands throughout North-Central to Eastern Oregon and Idaho. The B2H Project is currently scheduled to begin construction in 2011 and begin service in 2012. Between now and 2011, the project is undergoing the permitting and engineering phases. There are opportunities to participate and submit written comments!

This project will affect landowners’ property interests. Approximately 86% of the project crosses private land. The other 14% is land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, the United States Forest Service, the States of Oregon and Idaho, and other various public entities. In the last month, approximately 800 landowners received a mailing from Idaho Power providing notice of the project. These landowners hold property interests in the “notification zone.” Idaho Power will work to acquire easements, and or rights-of-way (ROW) with the private landowners. In some cases, Idaho Power may purchase the land in fee simple. If these options fail, Idaho Power will acquire easements and ROW through eminent domain.

The ROW will be approximately 250 feet wide, however, the proposed corridors, including alternate corridors, maintain a 2 mile width for evaluation purposes. The average distance between the 100 to 190 feet tall lattice steel towers and H-frame steel power structures will be 1200 to 1300 feet. The amount of land affected during construction includes 13,500 acres whereas the land affected during operation will include 7,550 acres. During the scoping meeting, each landowner is encouraged to provide written comment to question and discuss the limitations of these identified corridors. The landowner knows best!

Because this project traverses both public and private lands, two review procedures will occur simultaneously. These processes include National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) compliance at the federal level via an environmental impact statement (EIS). BLM will be the lead agency in charge of the EIS. On a local level, the Oregon Department of Energy, Energy Facility Siting Council (ODOE-EFSC) reviews the Notice of Intent (NOI) received from Idaho Power. The NOI is then noticed to the public and persons can submit their written comments to the NOI which is available on the project website. The NOI was submitted on August 28, 2008.
-Public Written Comments to the EIS Scoping phase are due on November 14, 2008, and can be submitted to the Federal Project Manager, Lucas Lucero at 4701 N. Torrey Pines Dr., Las Vegas NV 89130.
-Public Written Comments to the ODOE-EFSC are also due on November 14, 2008, and can be submitted to the Energy Facility Analyst for ODOE, Adam Bless at 625 Marion St. NE, Salem OR 97301.

Transmission lines over private property do affect property values and options. Humans and animals are sometimes affected when living under or near transmission lines. Health and safety issues must be considered in light of the public need for these transmission lines.

Public information and scoping meetings are being held in October from 4:00 pm to 7:00 pm at the following locations. You are encouraged to attend!
• October 21: Marsing, Idaho (Marsing American Legion Comm. Cntr, 126 N. Bruneau Hwy)
• October 22: Ontario, Oregon (Four Rivers Cultural Cntr, 676 S.W. 5th Ave)
• October 23: Baker City, Oregon (Baker County Fairgrounds, 2610 Grove St.)
• October 28: Island City, Oregon (OSU Agricultural Service Cntr, 10507 N. McAlister Rd.)
• October 29: Pendleton, Oregon (Pendleton Convention Cntr, 1601 Westgate)
• October 30: Boardman, Oregon (Port of Morrow Riverfront Cntr, 2 Marine Dr.)

For more information, copy and paste this link in your brower: http://www.boardmantohemingway.com/default.aspx

At Schroeder Law Office we are versed in navigating through the permitting process, submitting comments to BLM and ODOE, and protecting property interests. Submitting comments is an imperative part in protecting your property interests. Please contact our office if you have any questions or desire to employ our assistance.

One can’t help but notice the increasing amount of wind-generation farms that are being installed throughout Oregon, Washington and the U.S.  At first glance, wind energy seems like a great idea with many people looking to jump on the bandwagon.  It provides clean renewable energy and helps stabilize energy costs and our nation’s dependence on foreign fuel sources.  However, it is not as simple as it may seem and careful feasibility and due diligence analysis must be made to determine if wind energy is right for you and your land.

There are three categories of systems that are available:

1.  Small Scale – for your own residential or commercial (office or farm) facility. These are small wind generation towers. These help to offset the individual owner’s utility costs.
Some of these systems allow the owner to be hooked up to the power grid, wherein any extra power the owner currently generates is fed directly to the grid.  Later when the owner needs power, they can take back from the grid at no-cost and use the credit on the power they previously supplied to the grid. This system is known as net metering. The owners power meter will actually track in both positive and negative directions.  Of course the owner doesn’t have to be connected to the grid and thus their power generation would be used at that moment in time unless additional equipment, like batteries, are installed to capture that generation – the stand alone system.
These smaller systems cost anywhere from $10,000 to $80,000 installed. They generally produce around 10 kilowatts (kW) to 25 kW in generating capacity, and can be up and running in about a year.

2.Community Program – group of landowners come together to install mid-sized wind generation towers and the power created is spread amongst the group.

3.  Large Scale and Utility Scale – wind farms that generate power to sell to distributors like PGE, Pacific Power, and Idaho Power for a profit.  These are the systems that usually produce 10 megawatts (“MW”) or more.  The cost is anywhere from $800,000 to $1,200,000 per turbine, in a multiple turbine system, and can be up and running in about five years, from first idea to completed construction.

Leasing the wind rights on your land to a developer is a viable option if you are not interested in going through the development process, and can provide you as the landowner with $3,000 to $4,000 per year for one 1.4 MW turbine, using .5 acre footprint that is spread over 50-75 acres of land.  Of course profit will be based on the amount of wind produced by that turbine, thus you want to make sure you have “windy land.”

The level of due diligence required to determine cost/benefits and feasibility will change depending on which system you are interested in.  The key things to remember and look at when assessing any of these systems are: goals including leasing versus developing, wind resources, amount of available land, energy needs or interconnection to the power grid, permitting through local and state governments, capital contributions available and amount of risk you are willing to assume, government grants and incentives and tax incentives and consequences.  There are different ways to structure these projects to make it worth the investment and minimize risks, but like property, each project is unique.  It is important to spend the time and money up-front in researching the opportunities and feasibility of any new business opportunity.

While the costs may ward off many potential developer candidates in prime site locations, there are several grants available for all systems including financing for the feasibility study.  There are also several different incentive programs available for project costs, taxes and production.  The range of these programs is great and should be considered specific to the proposed system.   With these grants and incentives, it can turn an $80,000 project into $10,000 project with a positive return on investment.  Thus with careful time and consideration spent up front, a landowner or company could turn this clean renewable energy resource into a profitable venture.

The Federal Court made its decision on the jurisdictional question by sending the case back to Lyon County District Court last week. See http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=8229832 for more information.

Interestingly, many farmers have still not received water that is due to them as insufficient flows continue in the Truckee-Carson Canal. Crops are being stressed and damaged.

Many meetings are taking place in Fernely and Fallon with the Bureau of Reclamation to help resolve these issues. Obviously, if enough water is not diverted from the Truckee River over to the Carson River via the Canal, the amount of water allocated to Fallon side water users in the project, as well as those in Fernley will diminish. With the “water year” already at 90% of the allocation, there may not be enough water to fulfill the allocation if Truckee water is not available.

We encourage your attendance to voice your concerns at these meetings! The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 1, 2008, from 6:00 – 9:00 PM at the Lahontan Elementary School, Multi-Purpose Room,1099 Merton Drive, Fallon.

In the aftermath of the January 2008 flood after the Truckee-Carson Canal break, many lawsuits have been filed.  These suits have been filed in both state and federal courts in Nevada and present many questions as to which Court holds jurisdiction to hear these issues.  Proper jurisdiction depends on the parties to the lawsuit as well as the subject matter of the action.

Recently, an action for an injunction to stop certain amounts of water from flowing down the Truckee-Carson Canal was filed for fear that the higher water levels and amounts of water would cause additional damages to them and potentially cause another ditch break.  While this action was limited to the parties involved and served in the pending lawsuit, this caused an uproar by Newlands Project water users.  Many users have contemplated intervening in this action as the reduced amount of water going over to the project has and will directly affect project water deliveries to the users on the Canal itself, and downstream in the project.

The action for an injunction has questionable subject matter jurisdiction because it was not filed with the Decree Court that administers the water deliveries affected. How can a Court that does not have subject matter jurisdiction of the waters affected make any affective order?

The Alpine and Orr Ditch were Decreed in Federal Court and that court retains jurisdiction to administer the Decree that defines exactly how much water each user is entitled to receive and where that water is to be delivered. Thus, presumably an action to limit the amount of water delivered down the Canal should be brought in the Decree Court. The problem is that those seeking the injunction may not have standing in the Decree Court because they have no water rights issued by the Decree Court.

An interesting question still to be decided.