| |
|
Monday, October 9, 2006
|
|
Amendment 39 and Referendum J
The Denver Post editorial staff is urging voters to reject Amendment 39. From the opinion piece, "We were tempted to support Amendment 39 because we think school districts can and should do a better job of pushing more resources into classrooms. Plus, there's no specific penalty if school districts don't comply with the 65 percent threshold, and it could open up school district budgets to more public scrutiny. Even top school leaders admit there's not enough transparency in their budgets. However, we don't believe the Colorado Constitution is the proper place for a state-mandated school funding formula that may or may not produce better-educated students and higher test scores."
The Post is OK with Referendum J, "Voters also will see a Referendum J on their ballots, which calls for schools to spend 65 percent of their operating budget on classroom instruction but includes principals, support staff (counselors, nurses, bus drivers, food service workers), teacher training, college placement services and medical services as part of the definition. With that prescription, all school districts will meet the mandate and nothing will change."
"denver 2006"
7:02:20 AM 
|
|
Amendment 38
The Rocky Mountain News editorial staff is urging voters to reject Amendment 38. From the article, "We first came out against Amendment 38, the Petition Rights Amendment, shortly after it made the ballot last December. Further reflection has not caused us to change our minds. The amendment has some good points, but it's a very dense document and tries to cram in too many extraneous, even wrong-headed, elements. Yes, we still believe in the initiative process as a vital citizen right (even if we are increasingly convinced that it should be harder to pass a constitutional amendment than a statute). But we see no reason to make it much easier to get issues on the ballot."
"denver 2006"
6:53:05 AM
|
|
Google search
Coyote Gulch needs help with Google search. We use it for our search on the home page and recently it started returning just 3 results out of all it's found on the weblog (i.e. 3 results out of 114 found for Tamarisk). Is this a new feature from Google? Send email to coyotegulch [AT] mac [DOT] com.
6:50:26 AM
|
|
Tamarisk control in the Arkansas Valley
Here's an update on the prospects for controlling tamarisk in the Arkansas River valley, from the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article, "The bad news: The Arkansas River is the most heavily infested area for tamarisk in Colorado. The good news: There's still a chance to get it under control...
"Van Landingham is co-chair of Tackling Tamarisk on the Purgatoire, which formed one year ago and met recently at the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District headquarters in Pueblo to review its progress. Rather than concentrate on the Purgatoire watershed, which contains some of the most infested areas of the basin, the group looked at the entire basin. There are at least a dozen separate efforts to control tamarisk, also called salt cedar, in the Arkansas Valley. While these are at different stages - ranging from more than a decade of work at Bent's Old Fort near Las Animas to fledgling groups like the Purgatoire coalition - there is a need to coordinate efforts, Van Landingham said.
"A study completed earlier this year by the statewide Tamarisk Coalition detailed growth of tamarisk in the Arkansas Valley, revealing some alarming statistics. Because the river is flat and wide, tamarisk is a far greater problem than in the Colorado River basin, which also was studied. Tamarisk is growing on about 45,000 acres along the Arkansas River and its lower tributaries - the Purgatoire, Apishapa and Huerfano rivers and Fountain Creek. About 66,000 acre-feet of water above the amount that would be lost to native vegetation is consumed by the tamarisk annually. If nothing is done, future losses could be more than double that amount, the report states...
"Perhaps as staggering as the spread of tamarisk is the cost of bringing it under control - hardly anyone still imagines eradication of the plant in Colorado is possible - which is more than $50 million for the Arkansas River and its tributaries. The worst area of infestation in the basin is 5,500 acres around John Martin Reservoir, where one stand of tamarisk is 7,000 feet wide at one point. State Parks and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are working on several projects to bring the problem under control. Bent County is more than 50 percent infested throughout the entire county and has its own effort to remove tamarisk in the immediate area around the U.S. 50 bridge over the Arkansas River on the east side of Las Animas. A recent U.S. Geological Survey study showed flood control capacity of a levee protecting the city has been significantly diminished by tamarisk growth. The density of tamarisk varies from point to point elsewhere in the lower valley, but ranges from 35 to 50 percent east of Pueblo County. In Pueblo County, the rates range from 12 percent below Pueblo Dam to 18 percent at the Fountain Creek confluence to 35 percent at the Otero county line.
The Chieftain is linking to a cool GIS application at TamariskMap.org.
"colorado water"
6:34:12 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2009 John Orr.
Last update: 3/14/09; 8:39:01 PM.
|
|
|
