| |
|
Friday, June 8, 2007
|
|
Coyote Gulch is heading down the two-lane blacktop to spend the weekend near the headwaters of the Colorado River. We may get the opportunity to use the rod, reel, fryingpan and cornmeal method of non-native trout species control.
We'll be back Sunday night unless we take the opportunity and jump into early retirement.
12:54:01 PM 
|
|
From today's Denver Post, "The Democrat-controlled [sic] Congress passed legislation Thursday to loosen restraints on federally funded embryonic stem-cell research, but supporters lacked the votes needed to override President Bush's promised veto. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., appealed to Bush moments before the bill passed 247-146 to sign legislation that she said could help 'save lives, find cures and give hope to those suffering.' Bush responded with a written statement that accused Democrats of recycling a measure that he vetoed a year ago. Under the bill, 'taxpayers would for the first time in our history be compelled to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos. Crossing that line would be a grave mistake,' he said."
"2008 pres"
12:41:48 PM
|
|
From today's Denver Post, "Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo said today that a crucial Senate vote against a broad immigration proposal was "a great victory for our country." Tancredo, a Colorado congressman who has made illegal immigration a centerpiece of his underdog presidential campaign, said the federal government should focus on enforcing existing law instead passing a new one."
More coverage from the Denver Post:
An effort to pass sweeping immigration reform allowing 12 million undocumented immigrants to stay legally in the U.S. imploded Thursday when the Senate rejected a bid to bring the bill up for a vote. Senators voted 45-50 on a procedural motion to end debate, a necessary step before a vote on the immigration bill. That fell 15 votes short of the needed number. The vote came after a day of tense meetings, negotiations involving two White House Cabinet secretaries and phone calls to Republicans from Vice President Dick Cheney. Despite that, President Bush lost what may have been his best chance to pass a major domestic initiative. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., insisted afterward that the bill wasn't dead, but he yanked it from the floor and moved on to other business.
Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., who crafted the bill as part of a bipartisan group of about 12 senators, said he was "disappointed but optimistic. I'm optimistic because failure is not an option here," Salazar said. "We're going to keep at it. We need to get it done."
More coverage from the Rocky Mountain News. They write:
Here's what two key players in the immigration debate from the Colorado congressional delegation had to say Thursday night after the setback in the Senate's quest to overhaul immigration policy.
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Littleton, who opposed the bill and who has made immigration an important element of his presidential campaign, issued this statement: "This is a testament to the will of the American people and a great victory for our country. It's time to move forward with what we should have been doing when this bill was originally passed is 1986, and consistently enforce the laws. I call it Plan A."
Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Denver, who was part of a bipartisan group of senators who met in private for three months to broker a compromise immigration bill, issued this statement: "I am disappointed the United States Senate did not, today, fix our broken borders and immigration system. This was our best chance to pass a bill that would secure our borders, strengthen and enforce our immigration laws and provide a realistic solution for the 12 million undocumented workers in our nation."
"2008 pres"
12:37:23 PM
|
|
From today's Pueblo Chieftain, "Democratic presidential hopeful Bill Richardson will visit Pueblo today to raise money and court Western support, hoping it will help him break out of the pack of second-tier candidates. The New Mexico governor is scheduled to appear at an 11 a.m. reception at Koncilja Law Offices, 125 B. St. He then is scheduled to speak at an 11:30 a.m. lunch at the Olde Carriage House on the Riverwalk, 102 S. Victoria. Both events are fundraisers with varying amounts required to participate."
"2008 pres"
6:08:44 AM
|
|
Here's an article about the impact of oil shale development on Colorado's water supply, from the Rocky Mountain News. They write:
Environmental groups Thursday demanded that companies hoping to develop Colorado's oil shale deposits explain how much water the process could consume and how it would affect water quality and supplies. Six green groups, citing a 2006 analysis by a Los Alamos National Laboratory researcher, said the yearly water requirements to produce oil from shale could equal the amount consumed annually by two Denver-sized cities. They also worry that using water in the mining process will leave it highly contaminated with salts...
Jill Davis, a spokeswoman for Shell, said activists raise a good question, and emphasized that Shell is dedicated to "managing precious resources efficiently." But, she said, not nearly enough is known about what she called "an immature industry" to quantify the impact on water supplies. The company needs to answer myriad questions about equipment and processes before it could begin to provide specifics on water, she said.
Green activists aren't the only ones wary of oil shale impacts. Other water users, including some on the Front Range, could see their access to Western Slope water slip if oil companies move ahead with development. That's because, in some cases, the companies could use water rights that predate those owned by cities. The older rights, under Colorado water law, get priority. A draft environmental impact statement prepared by the Bureau of Land Management and released to some government officials, but not yet to the public, apparently makes little reference to water impacts, said Cathy Kay, of Western Colorado Congress. "In 2,000 pages, there's only five paragraphs on water," she said. "For what's most important to this state, and this whole operation, you've got so little information."
More coverage from the Denver Post. They write:
"It all comes down to water," said Cathy Kay of the Western Colorado Congress. "They would need so much water for something that is going to give you a piddling amount of oil." The coalition wants more water-usage information now because the state of Colorado next week is expected to submit comments on a preliminary draft environmental impact statement that could determine the future of oil shale. Officials with Shell Exploration and Production, which is testing an in-the-ground method of oil-shale extraction in the Piceance Basin, have said their method will require two barrels of water to produce one barrel of oil. But Shell recently revealed in a research permit application that its underground production areas will have to be rinsed more than 20 times, requiring up to 4 acre-feet of water a day for more than two years. Shell is researching an extraction method, which melts the oil-containing kerogen in the rock underground and prevents groundwater from seeping into the heated area by using an underground wall of frozen water...
Two other companies with federal permission to conduct oil-shale research and development projects in Colorado - Chevron and EGL Resources - propose to use less water for their in-the-ground extraction but haven't specified how much.
The coalition points to a 2005 analysis by the Rand Corp. that concluded the Colorado River and several of its tributaries would be "highly impacted" regardless of which oil-shale- extraction technologies are used. In addition to water needed for production, water will also be needed to run new power plants that will be necessary for commercial production of shale.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here. We recommend a moratorium until the kerogen becomes crude oil in a few million years.
"2008 pres"
6:07:01 AM
|
|
Here's a call to action from the Fort Collins Coloradoan. The author, Jackie Adolph, is trying to rally the troops to prevent uranium mining in Weld County. She writes:
Uranium mining in Northern Colorado? What are we thinking? With so many problems on our minds, it is easy to push away issues and pretend that threats are not real. This issue of uranium in-situ mining is not going away. It is a mess that won't really ever be cleaned up if it starts...
Technology has not changed since water contamination in Goliad, Texas, prompted changes to stop uranium mining. Many areas already ban this (the entire Navajo Nation tribal lands in Arizona and Utah), but in most cases, the damage is already done (www.irc-online.org/americaspolicy/amcit/3963)...
Water is at a premium in Colorado; those of us who have domestic wells feel fortunate. If all the ranches in the proposed area need to abandon their properties and wells, and the county wells are also affected, where will we be then? Real estate will plummet. Health will nose-dive as well. Not the best place to live in the United States anymore? The little group of http://Nunnglow.com needs help and participation to stop this from all of us. We need a resolution to stop uranium mining in Colorado. Get informed and be ready to vote or sign petitions when they emerge.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
"2008 pres"
5:56:42 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2009 John Orr.
Last update: 3/15/09; 1:01:22 PM.
|
|
|
