Opinion ID: 675684
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Petitioners' Request for a Hearing

Text: 34 The petitioners' final argument is that because there was a disputed issue of material fact in the agency proceeding--namely, whether Eagle Mountain has identified a source of water for its project--the Commission was required to conduct a hearing prior to granting the applicant a preliminary permit. See 18 C.F.R. Sec. 4.34(a) (The Commission may order a trial-type hearing on an application for a preliminary permit ... upon either its own motion or the motion of any interested party of record). Having determined that the Commission need not require a permittee definitively to identify a source of water for its proposed pumped storage project, we are hard pressed to see how the fact assertedly in dispute can still be deemed material. Moreover, even if it were material we would be loathe to require a hearing to resolve the dispute at this stage. As we noted in Town of Summersville, [t]he Commission's policies reflect a decision to devote minimal resources to examining preliminary permit applications, primarily because [p]ermittees often find after further investigation that no project at the site is feasible. 780 F.2d at 1039. As we also pointed out in that case, [t]he project described in the license application often differs materially from the project described in the preliminary permit. Id. at 1038. In this circumstance, it would be wasteful for the Commission to resolve factual disputes that may well turn out to be irrelevant or, if still relevant, can be contested at the licensing stage.