Coyote Gulch

Friday, September 15, 2006

Amendment 44 - Legal Marijuana?
The Rocky Mountain News editorial staff blasts the State Legislative Council's Blue Book wording on Amendment 44. They write, "The Legislative Council and its staff have made a serious mistake that will cloud the reputation of the Blue Book for years to come, not to mention tilt the playing field so far against Amendment 44 that the angle resembles a cliff. Amendment 44 would have had an uphill fight under any circumstances, given its goal of legalizing the adult possession of up to an ounce of marijuana. But at least its backers had a fighting chance if they could appeal to Coloradans who harbor mixed feelings about the nation's drug war, and who resent how law enforcement often lumps pot together with harder drugs. But thanks to this Blue Book blunder, the task for Amendment 44 backers may be infinitely more difficult. Did we say blunder? Strike that: The line was deliberately placed in the Blue Book and is defended to this day by the Legislative Council as a legitimate interpretation...

"Unfortunately, the clear implication of that statement - that the amendment decriminalizes such transfers, at least insofar as the state is concerned - is simply false. It is a crime in Colorado to help any juvenile break any federal or state law, and under both federal and state law it will continue to be illegal for minors to possess marijuana even if Amendment 44 is approved. So someone giving a minor marijuana would be breaking the law as well. The Blue Book does acknowledge that 44 "addresses state law for possession only; enforcement of other marijuana laws would not change." But contributing to the delinquency of a minor is not a marijuana law, meaning the Blue Book fails to remind voters that such a law exists. Sponsors of Amendment 44 tried to have the offending language struck this week in court, but a Denver judge said he had no authority to do so. We understand the judge's reluctance to meddle in a legislative prerogative, but the result is that voters will be misled. And that's simply not right, whatever your opinion of the merits of Amendment 44."
"denver 2006"
6:57:28 AM

Referendum I
Rocky Mountain News: "Three state religious organizations endorsed a ballot measure Thursday that would grant gay couples many of the legal rights and responsibilities of married couples. Among the groups backing Referendum I is the Colorado Council of Churches. It is the largest Christian coalition in the state, representing a dozen Protestant denominations and close to 1,000 churches, including the United Methodists, American Baptists and the United Church of Christ, according to Council executive the Rev. Jim Ryan. The Interfaith Alliance of Colorado and Colorado Clergy for Equality in Marriage, representing about 200 clergy statewide, also announced support for Referendum I during a news conference on the steps of the Denver City and County Building. The endorsements add new religious voices to the debate. Until now, the highest profile group has been Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, which has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the effort to defeat Referendum I and win passage of a marriage amendment. The pro Ref I clergy members said they are backing the initiative because it supports the view that gay couples should be treated as equals under God...

"On Nov. 7, voters will decide on Referendum I and a related measure, Amendment 43, which would define marriage in the Colorado Constitution as a union only between a man and a woman. The Council of Churches will not take a stand on Amendment 43 because of disagreement on the issue, Ryan said. The Interfaith Alliance and the Clergy for Equality in Marriage oppose Amendment 43. Amendment 43 is sponsored by Coloradans for Marriage, a coalition of Christian organizations, including the Colorado Catholic Conference, National Association of Evangelicals and Focus on the Family. While Focus on the Family has been the most vocal opponent of Referendum I, other major religious organizations, including the Catholic conference and Evangelical association, have not yet officially announced their position on the measure. Supporters of Referendum I said religious community support is crucial."
"denver 2006"
6:50:04 AM

Ritter with big lead in poll
Bill Ritter leads Bob Beauprez by 17 points, according to a poll from the Rocky Mountain News/CBS4. From the article, "Democrat Bill Ritter has a remarkable 17-point lead over Republican Congressman Bob Beauprez in the race for Colorado governor, according to a Rocky Mountain News/ CBS 4 poll of likely voters. Fifty percent of voters surveyed said they were likely to vote for Ritter, versus 33 percent for Beauprez. Eleven percent said they were undecided. The poll, conducted earlier this week, showed Ritter with a huge lead in metro Denver, earning 56 percent support to Beauprez's 32 percent. Even more surprising, Ritter is leading in some of the state's most conservative areas. He holds a 22-point lead over Beauprez on the eastern Plains and a 5-point lead in the Colorado Springs/Pueblo area. Pollster Lori Weigel said a wave of anti-Iraq war and anti-Washington sentiment is making things difficult for Beauprez, who has represented a suburban Denver district since 2002...

"Ritter now has huge leads over Beauprez among Colorado's most important swing voters: political independents and women in the Denver suburbs. 'What you've got is a textbook case for how you win an election in Colorado,' said Weigel. 'You need independents, but only 16 percent of independents are choosing Beauprez.' The poll offers a snapshot of how voters view the race for governor just as the campaign shifts into high gear for the Nov. 7 election. The Rocky Mountain News/CBS 4 poll is based on statewide telephone interviews of 500 registered voters who said they are likely to vote in November. It was conducted Sept. 10 through Sept. 12 by pollster Weigel of Public Opinion Strategies, a firm that generally polls for Republican candidates. David Kenney of The Kenney Group, a firm that typically works with Democratic candidates, consulted on the questionnaire and the analysis. The sample has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.38 percentage points.

"At this point in the race, according to the poll, voters have a much more negative impression of Beauprez than they do of Ritter, the former Denver district attorney. Forty percent of voters said they have a negative view of Beauprez, while only 18 percent of the respondents view Ritter negatively. Voters were also more likely to say Ritter was honest and shared their values...

"Most of the surveyed voters rated Ritter as better able to handle issues like the economy, education and health care. But Beauprez scored well on the issues of illegal immigration and energy prices, and voters who feel most strongly about immigration may be more likely to back Beauprez...

"Weigel said the wide lead Ritter enjoys in places like the eastern Plains was because of a voter backlash against Republican control at the national level and frustration with an unpopular war. 'This is what happens when you have a difficult environment and (Republicans) are in charge of both houses of Congress and the presidency and the governor. People get a bee in their bonnet and want change.' She said Ritter has also benefited from a perception that he is a fairly conservative Democrat."

Coyote Gulch suspects that this poll is an outlier and would warn the Ritter camp not to get complacent. Campaigns are funny things at times and one event can turn the tide.
"denver 2006"
6:41:20 AM

Colin Powell: The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism
Denver Post: "Ignoring threats and warnings from President Bush, a defiant Senate committee approved legislation Thursday that would ban abusive CIA interrogations and make it easier for terrorist suspects to defend themselves at trial. The Republican-led Senate Armed Services Committee voted 15-9 to send the legislation to the full Senate. Four Republicans, including Sen. John Warner of Virginia, the committee's chairman, backed the bill over Bush's objections, as did the panel's 11 Democrats. The split in Republican ranks widened as former Secretary of State Colin Powell joined the dissidents against his former boss. 'The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism,' Powell wrote in a letter to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who has teamed up with Warner and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., in opposing Bush."
"2008 pres"
6:28:27 AM

Immigration
The U.S. House of Representatives has voted to build 700 miles of fence on the border, according to the Denver Post. From the article, "Lawmakers voted 283-138 for the double-layer fences. The legislation is almost identical to part of a larger House border-security bill that passed last December. Opponents decried the vote as a pre-election stunt by Republicans who've refused to negotiate immigration reform with the Senate, which passed its own legislation in May. Even proponents of the fences agreed that part of the motivation for Thursday's vote was to please voters. 'It's absolutely political, and I'm all for it,' said Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., head of the House immigration caucus that wants tough enforcement of immigration laws. While attempting to show voters they are strong on border security, Republicans also hope to paint Democrats as weak.

"The bill passed with 64 Democrats joining 219 Republicans. That gave the bill a much wider margin of approval than the broader House measure that passed in December on a 239-182 vote. That bill included many provisions Democrats found objectionable, including making it a felony to be in the U.S. illegally. That offense is now a civil violation. House Republicans plan to force votes on other border-security issues in the next two weeks. House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., announced a long list of measures planned for action, including adding 1,200 Border Patrol and 1,212 Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, expediting the deportation of illegal immigrants convicted of crimes, and criminalizing the construction of tunnels under the border to smuggle immigrants...

"The House bill approved Thursday proposes fences along a stretch of border mostly in Arizona. Currently there is 75 miles of double fencing in Southern California. The bill does not allocate money for the fences, which Republicans say would cost $2 billion and Democrats charge would cost closer to $7 billion. Colorado's U.S. House delegation split along party lines on the vote. Republicans Tancredo, of Littleton; Marilyn Musgrave of Fort Morgan; Joel Hefley of Colorado Springs; and Bob Beauprez of Arvada voted for the bill. Democrats Mark Udall of Eldorado Springs, John Salazar of Manassa and Diana DeGette of Denver voted against."
"2008 pres"
6:26:11 AM

Help for South Platte irrigators?

U.S. Senator Ken Salazar is hoping to get some dough for farmers whose wells were shut down earlier this year, according to CBS4Denver.com. From the article, "Sen. Ken Salazar said Wednesday he has asked federal agriculture officials to reconsider their decision to deny drought disaster loans to farmers on the Eastern Plains whose wells were shut off in a water rights dispute. Salazar said the farmers' plight was caused by the drought and they deserve help from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Salazar, D-Colo., said federal officials ordered crop insurance providers to cover losses only on crops irrigated with water that farmers were guaranteed before the planting season...

"The Central Colorado Water Conservancy District has told farmers who depend on well water that they may be limited to one well each next year under a plan aimed at settling a dispute with other northern Colorado farmers and Front Range cities. The dispute won't be resolved until a trial is held in February...

"Shirley A. Pugh, spokeswoman for the RMA, said the agency visited the Eastern Plains at the invitation of state officials on Tuesday and would review Salazar's complaints. In a statement, Pugh said irrigated crops are insured based on the amount of water farmers can reasonably expect and the Central Water District supplied the expected water for this crop year."
"colorado water"
6:18:04 AM

It's hard to store water when the gate is open

More local reaction to U.S. District Court Judge Clarence Brimmer's ruling on Gunnison River stream flows, from the Montrose Daily Press. From the article, "The largest water rights case in the history of Colorado started a new chapter Thursday when a federal judge overturned an agreement between the state of Colorado and the federal government. High Country Citizens' Alliance, Trout Unlimited, Western Colorado Congress and several other environmental groups asked the judge to void the agreement. They felt it did not protect the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, because water flows in the agreement were too low...

"The case started in 2001 in the waning days of the Clinton Administration when a large federal water right claim was filed in District 4 state water court. In the 1970s, a federal judge ruled that the federal government had a federal reserve water right in the Black Canyon and ordered the National Park Service to quantify the right. The 2001 filing was based on a complicated model that tried to mimic the natural hydrograph of the river. The water right is intended to 'insure the continued nutrition, growth, conservation, and reproduction of those species of fish which are thereafter introduced' and to 'attain and preserve the recreational, scenic, and aesthetic conditions existing on the applicable reservation dates or to preserve those conditions which are thereafter caused to exist,' according to the 2001 filing. The problem, however, for many water users in the Gunnison Basin was the date of the water right. A federal water right gets a priority date at the time the land was taken into federal possession. For the Black Canyon, the date is 1933. Many ranchers in the Upper Gunnison and the dams in the Aspinall Unit have less senior water rights. Some worried that the agreement could have a huge economic impact on the region if large quantities of water were required for the Black Canyon...

"When the dust settled, the 2001 water filing became the largest water case in the history of Colorado. Over 300 farmers, ranchers and other water users filed statements of opposition to the filing. To settle the case, an agreement was reached in 2003 between the state of Colorado and the federal government. The Black Canyon was given a state water right with a 2003 priority and it abandoned the 1933 priority. The environmental groups sued to have the agreement voided, and Federal Judge Clarence Brimmer ruled in their favor Thursday...

"Brimmer agreed with the environmental groups' four claims: the agreement did not follow the National Environmental Policy Act; the federal government delegated management of the Black Canyon to the state of Colorado; it illegally disposed of federal property and it violated its fiduciary duty to protect the park. In his ruling, Brimmer said the federal government understood the magnitude of the case and moved too quickly to reach an agreement...

"The judge remanded the case back to the Park Service. James Doyle, public affairs specialist with the National Park Service, said he could not comment on the specifics of the case but said the Park Service will protect the resources in the Black Canyon. 'What form that will take is up in the air,' Doyle said. Marc Catlin, Uncompahgre Water User Association manager, said he is disappointed in the decision. He said the agreement between the state and federal government was an equitable solution...

"Brimmer said ultimately the state water court will decide the water rights case. Catlin said he believes the parties involved in the case will begin negotiations again soon but he was not optimistic. 'It's hard to store water when the gate is open,' Catlin said."
"colorado water"
6:10:04 AM

e-mail John: