http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/ Copyright 2008 John Orr Fri, 07 Nov 2008 01:53:45 GMT http://backend.userland.com/rss Radio UserLand v8.2.1 jworr@opermail.com jworr@opermail.com rssUpdates 23 0 22 3 1 21 14 12 60 http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/11/06.html#a12748 <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/water/clearcreekcanyon.jpg"><img src="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/water/clearcreekcanyon.jpg" width="85" height="63" border="0" align="right" hspace="5" vspace="0" alt="A picture named clearcreekcanyon.jpg"></a> <p>Say hello to <a href="http://truthtalltales.blogspot.com/">Truth and Tall Tales</a>. They're, "A miscellany of book reviews, rambles, opinions and outright lies." Here's the link to their post today on <a href="http://truthtalltales.blogspot.com/2008/11/high-atop-triceratops-trail.html">Golden</a> and the Tricerotops Trail.</p> <p>Back in our college days Coyote Gulch toured the brewery there many, many times just to get the free beer.</p> http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/11/06.html#a12748 Fri, 07 Nov 2008 00:38:36 GMT http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/11/05.html#a12736 <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/water/fountainpavementdrawing.jpg"><img src="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/water/fountainpavementdrawing.jpg" width="64" height="96" border="0" align="right" hspace="5" vspace="0" alt="A picture named fountainpavementdrawing.jpg"></a> <p><a href="http://www.denverpost.com/ballotissues08/ci_10899378">From</a> the <i>Denver Post</i> (Jeffrey Leib): "The contest over Amendment 52 turned into a battle largely between water and asphalt, and water won...As of late Tuesday night, the measure was getting trounced, with 63 percent against and 36 percent in favor. 'I think Coloradans made it very clear with their vote that they don't think messing with the constitution is the right solution, especially when it comes at the cost of Colorado's water projects,' said Heidi Van Huysen, spokeswoman for Responsible Colorado, a campaign committee set up to defeat the measure."</p> <p>More Coyote Gulch coverage <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hq=inurl%3A0101170&hl=en&sitesearch=radio.weblogs.com%2F&q=amendment+52&btnG=Search">here</a>.</p> Category: <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/coloradowater/">Colorado Water</a> http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/11/05.html#a12736 Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:56:09 GMT http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/11/04.html#a12732 <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/vote.jpg"><img src="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/vote.jpg" width="66" height="64" border="0" align="right" hspace="5" vspace="0" alt="A picture named vote.jpg"></a> <p>If you didn't take advantage of early voting get out there today -- no matter how long it takes-- and VOTE.</p> <p>If you need a ride to your polling place (Denver County only) email us at coyotegulch [AT] mac [DOT] com.</p> Category: <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/2008presidentialelection/">2008 Presidential Election</a> http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/11/04.html#a12732 Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:35:48 GMT http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/10/30.html#a12700 <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/family/coyotegulchmtantero806.jpg"><img src="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/family/coyotegulchmtantero806.jpg" width="85" height="64" border="0" align="right" hspace="5" vspace="0" alt="A picture named coyotegulchmtantero806.jpg"></a> <p>If you were trying to get here today using <a href="http://www.coyotegulch.net/">http://www.coyotegulch.net/</a> we apologize for an outage this morning. Power went down and the UPS didn't keep the server up and running.</p> http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/10/30.html#a12700 Fri, 31 Oct 2008 00:11:56 GMT http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/10/28.html#a12677 <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/water/fountainpavementdrawing.jpg"><img src="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/water/fountainpavementdrawing.jpg" width="64" height="96" border="0" align="right" hspace="5" vspace="0" alt="A picture named fountainpavementdrawing.jpg"></a> <p>The <i>Denver Post</i> is running an <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_10831618">article</a> about opposition to the proposed Amendment 52. From the article:</p> <blockquote>Amendment 52 -- which would redirect some oil-and-gas severance-tax revenues from water to highway projects -- is drawing fire from water officials and conservation groups across the state. "At a time when we are under pressure to get more out of our water resource and protect the environment, this would seriously hamper us," said Harris Sherman, executive director of the state Department of Natural Resources. At risk, Sherman said, are more than $50 million in funds to do water supply planning, offer low-interest loans for local water projects and for programs to control invasive species, manage forest health and help endangered species. Over time, the revolving loan fund for water projects administered by the Colorado Water Conservation Board would see about $134 million less in its account, Harris said.</p> <p>Supporters of the proposal reject the criticism, which they say is aimed at defeating the proposal in favor of a Ritter administration amendment to use severance-tax money for college scholarships. "This is all about politics," said Sen. Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, a sponsor of Amendment 52. Penry said that when Gov. Bill Ritter chose to seek the severance-tax change through the ballot rather than the legislature, those seeking more money for highways "were forced to put our own proposal to the voters."[...]</p> <p>Groups including Trout Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited, the Northern Colorado Conservancy District, the Greeley Water Board and water conservation board say redirecting dollars slated for water will hurt the state. "We know that we are facing a growing population and a need for water projects," said Chris Treese, a spokesman for the Colorado River District. "This just hurts." The Denver Water Board also voted to oppose the highway proposal. "The endangered species fish recovery program on the Colorado and (South) Platte rivers is funded with this money, and losing it could affect our compliance with the Endangered Species Act," said Denver Water Commissioner Susan Daggett.</blockquote> <p>More Coyote Gulch coverage <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hq=inurl%3A0101170&hl=en&sitesearch=radio.weblogs.com%2F&q=amendment+52&btnG=Search">here</a> and <a href="http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=platte+river+recovery+plan&btnG=Search&sitesearch=radio.weblogs.com%2F&hq=inurl%3A0101170">here</a>.</p> Category: <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/coloradowater/">Colorado Water</a> http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/10/28.html#a12677 Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:09:07 GMT http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/10/27.html#a12667 <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/water/fountainpavementdrawing.jpg"><img src="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/water/fountainpavementdrawing.jpg" width="64" height="96" border="0" align="right" hspace="5" vspace="0" alt="A picture named fountainpavementdrawing.jpg"></a> <p>Here's an <a href="http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20081027/COMMUNITY_NEWS/810269993/1001&parentprofile=1059&title=Roads%20versus%20water?%20Question%20drives%20debate%20in%20western%20Colorado%20over%20Amendment%2052">analysis</a> of Amendment 52 from the <i>Grand Junction Free Press</i>. From the article:</p> <blockquote>[Jim] Spehar, a former Grand Junction City Council member and Mesa County commissioner, joined a bipartisan group of community leaders at a press conference Friday to speak against Amendment 52, which they say would earmark funds for maintenance and construction along Interstate 70 at the expense of state water projects. State Rep. Bernie Buescher, D-Grand Junction, former Republican state Rep. Matt Smith, Grand Junction City Council Member Linda Romer Todd and Tom Burke, former chairman of the Colorado Wildlife Commission, also spoke against the measure.</p> <p>State Sen. Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, coauthor of Amendment 52, admitted Friday that part of the purpose of Amendment 52 is to counter Amendment 58. Amendment 52 proposes to change the state constitution in regards to the allocation of revenues from state severance tax; Amendment 58 would change state law without amending the constitution.</p> <p>Amendment 58 would eliminate a state tax credit given to the oil and gas industry which would boost state severance tax collections by $321 million in budget year 2010. The increased revenue would go toward college scholarships for in-state residents, wildlife habitat, renewable energy projects, transportation projects in energy-impacted areas and water treatment grants. Colorado's current severance tax rate is the lowest among eight Western energy-producing states. Amendment 58 would raise the state's rate to the third lowest. Companies pay Colorado severance taxes to extract nonrenewable resources from public lands. Currently state severance taxes are split between local governments and the Department of Natural Resources. Half of what the DNR receives go to the Colorado Water Conservation Board.</p> <p>Amendment 52 would not change the tax credit given to energy companies. According to the Colorado Secretary of State Web site, three energy companies -- Plains Petroleum and Exploration of Houston, Berry Petroleum in Bakersfield, Calif., and Occidental Oil and Gas Corporation of Los Angeles -- each contributed $100,000 in July to pay help get Amendment 52 on the ballot. Amendment 52 would change how severance taxes are distributed...</p> <p>A "massive" funding shortage for Colorado's roads and bridges is the motivation for Amendment 52, Penry said. But amending the Colorado Constitution to fix roads is "wrong," Buescher said. "We should not put transportation policy in our state constitution. Times change. It may not work in 15 years. It's putting water against transportation." Spehar said the Colorado Municipal League also opposes Amendment 52, saying the state constitution is the "wrong place to do this kind of work." Romer Todd agreed. "We're not against funding transportation; it's just the wrong mechanism," she said. Club 20, Colorado Water Congress, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Colorado River Basin Roundtable, Colorado Farm Bureau and the Colorado Farmers Union oppose Amendment 52.</blockquote> <p>More Coyote Gulch coverage <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hq=inurl%3A0101170&hl=en&sitesearch=radio.weblogs.com%2F&q=amendment+52&btnG=Search">here</a>.</p> Category: <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/coloradowater/">Colorado Water</a> http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/10/27.html#a12667 Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:05:38 GMT http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/10/26.html#a12666 <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/family/coyotegulchmtantero806.jpg"><img src="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/family/coyotegulchmtantero806.jpg" width="85" height="64" border="0" align="right" hspace="5" vspace="0" alt="A picture named coyotegulchmtantero806.jpg"></a> <p>We're having troubles with the broadband at the Holiday Inn in Cortez. We'll try to post later today from Denver.</p> http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/10/26.html#a12666 Sun, 26 Oct 2008 15:15:40 GMT http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/10/25.html#a12663 <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/family/coyotegulchmtantero806.jpg"><img src="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/family/coyotegulchmtantero806.jpg" width="85" height="64" border="0" align="right" hspace="5" vspace="0" alt="A picture named coyotegulchmtantero806.jpg"></a> <p>We're on an intermittently very slow and unreliable network at the Holiday Inn in Cortez. Posting may be slow this weekend.</p> http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/10/25.html#a12663 Sat, 25 Oct 2008 16:16:35 GMT http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/10/24.html#a12651 <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/water/fountainpavementdrawing.jpg"><img src="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/water/fountainpavementdrawing.jpg" width="64" height="96" border="0" align="right" hspace="5" vspace="0" alt="A picture named fountainpavementdrawing.jpg"></a> <p>As is often the case with water issues -- for example 2003's <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hq=inurl%3A0101170&hl=en&sitesearch=radio.weblogs.com%2F&q=%22referendum+a%22&btnG=Search">Referendum A</a> -- <a href="http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/oct/24/republicans-feuding-on-52/">Amendment 52</a> finds Colorado Republicans on different sides of the issue, according to the <i>Rocky Mountain News</i>. From the article:</p> <blockquote>Amendment 52, backed by three up-and-coming Republican lawmakers - Sen. Josh Penry, of Grand Junction; Rep. Cory Gardner, of Yuma; and Rep. Frank McNulty, of Highlands Ranch - aims to shift some state drilling revenues from water and wildlife projects to road construction. They say there will still be plenty of money for water. But the measure is meeting resistance from fellow Republicans.</p> <p>One of the most prominent is former state agricultural Commissioner Don Ament, who is whipping up opposition on the plains. Ament, who worked for eight years under former Republican Gov. Bill Owens, has trashed the measure. He says it will siphon money from water projects critical to farmers and derides the effort to put the spending plan into the cluttered state constitution. He said the trio is using Amendment 52 to attack Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter over what they see as a failure to pump enough money into transportation...</p> <p>Other Republican legislators have also come out against the measure, including Reps. Marsha Looper, of Calhan, and Ellen Roberts, of Durango. Many water conservancy districts that supply farmers and other users also oppose Amendment 52, including the giant Colorado River District in Glenwood Springs.</p> <p>Gardner downplayed the opposition from Ament and others, calling it "isolated." He noted the top contributor, who gave $35,000 to the campaign against the measure, is Pat Stryker, a wealthy heiress who funds Democratic causes and candidates.</blockquote> <p>More Coyote Gulch coverage <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hq=inurl%3A0101170&hl=en&sitesearch=radio.weblogs.com%2F&q=amendment+52&btnG=Search">here</a>.</p> Category: <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/coloradowater/">Colorado Water</a> http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/10/24.html#a12651 Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:35:19 GMT http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/10/21.html#a12631 <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/water/saguachecreek.jpg"><img src="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/water/saguachecreek.jpg" width="98" height="64" border="0" align="right" hspace="5" vspace="0" alt="A picture named saguachecreek.jpg"></a> <p>The good folks at <a href="http://www.environmentcolorado.org/">Environment Colorado</a> have made their choices in the <a href="http://www.environmentcolorado.org/reports/election-2008-reports2/election-2008-reports/marilyn-musgrave-bad-for-colorados-water?id4=CP">4th Congressional</a> and <a href="http://www.environmentcolorado.org/reports/election-2008-reports2/election-2008-reports/bob-schaffer-bad-for-colorados-water2?id4=CP">U.S. Senate</a> races.</p> Category: <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/coloradowater/">Colorado Water</a> http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/10/21.html#a12631 Wed, 22 Oct 2008 02:19:53 GMT http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/10/20.html#a12624 <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/water/fountainpavementdrawing.jpg"><img src="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/water/fountainpavementdrawing.jpg" width="64" height="96" border="0" align="right" hspace="5" vspace="0" alt="A picture named fountainpavementdrawing.jpg"></a> <p>Here's an opinion piece in <a href="http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2008/10/20/amendment-52-diverts-water-funds-to-highways/">opposition</a> to Amendment 52, written by former State Engineer Hal Simpson, from the <i>Denver Post</i>. He writes:</p> <blockquote>Amendment 52 would divert up to $134 million over the next three years that could be used for critically needed water projects. Examples of recent loans made by the CWCB include $60 million for the Republican River Compact compliance pipeline near Wray and $70 million for the local cost share for a federally funded Arkansas pipeline to deliver high-quality water to communities along the Arkansas River. Once paid off, the loans will provide an opportunity for other water projects since the funds are perpetually available for water projects.</p> <p>Amendment 52 would, if approved, allow the legislature to fund unspecified highway projects for a one-time use. Amendment 52 is short-sighted and wrong for Colorado, and I encourage you to vote "no."</blockquote> <p>More Coyote Gulch coverage <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hq=inurl%3A0101170&hl=en&sitesearch=radio.weblogs.com%2F&q=amendment+52&btnG=Search">here</a>.</p> Category: <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/coloradowater/">Colorado Water</a> http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/10/20.html#a12624 Mon, 20 Oct 2008 14:40:39 GMT http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/10/19.html#a12619 <p><a href="http://www.chieftain.com/articles/2008/10/17/news/local/doc48f820e3c2d3e185338102.txt">From</a> the <i>Pueblo Chieftain</i>: "the [Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District] board unanimously backed the [Colorado Water Conservation Commission] in its opposition to Amendment 52, which would cap mineral severance revenue available for water projects in order to make more available to transportation."</p> <p>More Coyote Gulch coverage <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hq=inurl%3A0101170&hl=en&sitesearch=radio.weblogs.com%2F&q=%22amendment+52%22&btnG=Search">here</a>.</p> Category: <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/coloradowater/">Colorado Water</a> http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/10/19.html#a12619 Sun, 19 Oct 2008 16:19:34 GMT http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/10/18.html#a12612 <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/science/shelloilshaleprocess3.jpg"><img src="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/science/shelloilshaleprocess3.jpg" width="83" height="64" border="0" align="right" hspace="5" vspace="0" alt="A picture named shelloilshaleprocess3.jpg"></a> <p>From email from Gigi Richard (Mesa State):</p> <blockquote>The Natural Resources of the West: Energy seminar series continues...</p> <p>Colorado's Oil Shale: Its origin, resource importance, and potential exploitation<br> Dr. Rex Cole, Professor of Geology, Mesa State College</p> <p>Monday 20 October, 4-5:30 p.m., Saccomanno Lecture Hall (SL 110), Mesa State College, Grand Junction, CO</p> <p>Seminars are FREE and open to the public. No registration necessary. A schedule of all of the seminars in the series can be found at:</p> <p><a href="http://home.mesastate.edu/~grichard/WSS/WSSF08index.html">http://home.mesastate.edu/~grichard/WSS/WSSF08index.html</a></p> <p>For more information please contact:<br> Prof. Gigi Richard, 248-1689, <a href="mailto:grichard@mesastate.edu">grichard@mesastate.edu</a><br> Prof. Tamera Minnick, 248-1663, <a href="mailto:tminnick@mesastate.edu">tminnick@mesastate.edu</a></blockquote> Category: <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/climatechange/">Climate Change News</a> http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/10/18.html#a12612 Sat, 18 Oct 2008 16:11:04 GMT http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/10/18.html#a12611 <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/water/highmeadow.jpg"><img src="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/water/highmeadow.jpg" width="80" height="64" border="0" align="right" hspace="5" vspace="0" alt="A picture named highmeadow.jpg"></a> <p>From email from the League of Conservation Voters: "Colorado's delegation was split between those who favored continued dependence on oil and other dirty fuels and those who favored renewable energy and energy efficiency. Senator Salazar earned a perfect score of 100 percent in 2008, consistently standing up to Big Oil and voting for renewable energy and energy efficiency. Representative Udall was not far behind, earning a 92 percent, followed by Representatives Salazar and Perlmutter, both earning respectable scores of 85 percent. At the other end of the spectrum, Senator Allard earned an 18 percent, while Representative Musgrave earned a 15 percent. Representatives Lamborn and Tancredo both received abysmal scores of 0 percent.</p> <p>"The average Colorado Senate score was 59 percent, the average Colorado House score was 51 percent."</p> <p>Here's their list:</p> <blockquote>Sen. Allard - 18<br> Sen. Salazar - 100<br> Rep. DeGette - 77<br> Rep. Udall - 92<br> Rep. Salazar - 85<br> Rep. Musgrave - 15<br> Rep. Lamborn - 0<br> Rep. Tancredo - 0<br> Rep. Perlmutter - 85</blockquote> Category: <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/coloradowater/">Colorado Water</a> http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/10/18.html#a12611 Sat, 18 Oct 2008 16:06:06 GMT http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/10/18.html#a12605 <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/water/fountainpavementdrawing.jpg"><img src="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/water/fountainpavementdrawing.jpg" width="64" height="96" border="0" align="right" hspace="5" vspace="0" alt="A picture named fountainpavementdrawing.jpg"></a> <p>Bob Ewegen comes out <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_10748774">against</a> Amendment 52 in yesterday's <i>Denver Post</i>. He writes:</p> <blockquote>...the water conservation community's ability to do its job is threatened by Amendment 52, a power grab by the highway lobby intended to hijack taxpayer dollars from water and environmental needs to earmarked highway projects. You can't make this stuff up. In a year when congressional earmarks are a national scandal, special interests in our own state are not only trying to siphon money away from water needs into politically favored freeways, they also want to place that earmark in constitutional concrete!</p> <p>Amendment 52 might best be described as "Machiavelli meets the Bridge to Nowhere." Machiavelli is political spinmeister Rick Reiter, panjandrum of the massive oil and gas industry campaign to defeat Gov. Bill Ritter's Amendment 58, which would raise severance taxes paid by that industry. According to state Sen. Chris Romer, Reiter openly boasted about providing funds to help put 52 on the ballot because the oil and gas lobby hoped to sow doubt, fear and confusion by having two conflicting severance tax measures on the ballot. Additionally, 52 tries to hijack any new money raised by the rival 58 to highway projects as well. Gov. Ritter wants that money to go to college scholarships, local government, wildlife habitat and alternative energy...</p> <p>After 52 reached the ballot, the highway contractors funneled money into the drive, hoping to reap sales of asphalt at the expense of water projects. So far, the water rustlers have aroused a storm of opposition. The state's newspapers have denounced 52 en masse, especially on the Western Slope and Arkansas Valley, which would be hard hit by the water raid. The Farm Bureau and Farmers Union are fighting to save the state's water. Club 20, the voice of the Western Slope, is determined to save every drop of its precious patrimony. Environmental groups have joined ranks with the water buffaloes to fight against drying up Colorado's farms and ranches and the open space and wildlife habitat they provide. Ducks Unlimited, Audubon Colorado, the Colorado Wildlife Federation, Trout Unlimited and other green groups have entered the fray. Yet, the outcome remains in doubt. There are so many issues on this year's ballot that the water and environmental communities fear Amendment 52 could slip through. That would be tragic, because 52 does more than raid our water. It would cripple vital programs such as watershed protection, tamarisk control, the Species Conversation Trust Fund, Low Income Energy Assistance Program, community reforestation grants to ease bark beetle impacts, and the aquatic nuisance program that attempts to curb water mussels and other invasive species.</p> <p>For full information on the mischief Amendment 52 would wreak, visit <a href="http://www.responsiblecolorado.com">ResponsibleColorado.com</a>.</blockquote> Category: <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/coloradowater/">Colorado Water</a> http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/10/18.html#a12605 Sat, 18 Oct 2008 14:46:52 GMT http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/10/16.html#a12593 <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/family/coyotegulchmtantero806.jpg"><img src="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/family/coyotegulchmtantero806.jpg" width="85" height="64" border="0" align="right" hspace="5" vspace="0" alt="A picture named coyotegulchmtantero806.jpg"></a> <p>We're behind in our posting and hope to catch up this evening.</p> http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/10/16.html#a12593 Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:48:31 GMT http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/10/14.html#a12581 <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/water/fountaincreek.jpg"><img src="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/water/fountaincreek.jpg" width="97" height="64" border="0" align="right" hspace="5" vspace="0" alt="A picture named fountaincreek.jpg"></a> <p>U.S. Congressman <a href="http://www.chieftain.com/articles/2008/10/14/news/local/doc48f42fa680ebb861082354.txt">Mark Udall</a> is still trying to hang 2003's failed Referendum A around Bob Schaffer's neck, according to the <i>Pueblo Chieftain</i>. From the article:</p> <blockquote>U.S. Senate candidate Mark Udall gathered a flock of fellow Democrats on the banks of Fountain Creek in Pueblo to discuss water, an issue he says distinguishes himself from opponent Bob Schaffer. "Water is precious. Water is the lifeblood of the West," Udall, a Democratic congressman, said. "I want to bring people together to make sure we protect and enhance this precious resource."</p> <p>Udall pointed to his own positions on Southern Colorado water and land use issues as decisive.</p> <p>- He called for a more complete environmental impact statement on the Southern Delivery System, for the same reason he asked for an EIS on Aurora's contract with Reclamation last year: to avoid litigation.</p> <p>- He advocated adequate flood control on Fountain Creek.</p> <p>- He wants to make eminent domain off-limits for the Army in its desire to expand its area at the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site.</p> <p>- He supports legislation to build the Arkansas Valley Conduit, a project to deliver water to communities east of Pueblo provided for under the 1962 Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.</p> <p>"We owe it to people to deliver on a promise we made in the 1960s," Udall said.</blockquote> <p>Meanwhile Schaffer and Udall <a href="http://www.gazette.com/articles/candidates_41850___article.html/clash_economy.html">squared off</a> on Monday night in Pueblo, according to the <i>Colorado Springs Gazette</i>. From the article:</p> <blockquote>... both favored additional studies of the Southern Delivery System, a proposed pipeline to bring water to Colorado Springs from Pueblo Reservoir. Schaffer went further, calling on Colorado Springs to come up with additional "tens of millions" to reduce the impact of additional water flow in Fountain Creek, which carries Colorado Springs' effluent into downtown Pueblo. Colorado Springs says the pipeline is crucial to its economic health and wants to complete the project by 2012, but more studies would jeopardize that deadline.</blockquote> <p><b>Update</b> Here's the coverage of the debate from the <i>Pueblo Chieftain</i>. They write:</p> <blockquote>With a Senate seat at stake, Rep. Mark Udall and former Rep. Bob Schaffer came to Colorado State University-Pueblo and challenged each other over the war in Iraq, energy development and Southern Colorado water and land questions during a one-hour televised debate Monday night...</p> <p>...Udall touted his regional work on Southern Colorado water projects, such as supporting the Arkansas Valley Conduit pipeline, Schaffer acknowledged that he had been a parochial congressman in fighting for 4th District issues...</p> <p>On energy, Schaffer said Aspect Energy supports wind power and other renewable sources, as well as oil development. Noting he supports offshore drilling as well as oil shale production, Schaffer said, "I am the only candidate that supports a broad-based energy policy."</p> <p>Udall acknowledged that he has fought the Bush administration's effort to speed up Colorado oil shale development, saying the technology is still not ready. "I'm not going to let others tell us how to develop oil shale before we know its impact on our communities," Udall said.</blockquote> Category: <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/coloradowater/">Colorado Water</a> http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/10/14.html#a12581 Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:16:13 GMT http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/10/12.html#a12574 <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/water/coloradoriverbasincgs.jpg"><img src="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/water/coloradoriverbasincgs.jpg" width="100" height="58" border="0" align="right" hspace="5" vspace="0" alt="A picture named coloradoriverbasincgs.jpg"></a> <p><a href="http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/10/11/101208_5A_amend_52.html">From</a> the <i>Grand Junction Daily Sentinel</i>: "A group representing Colorado River Basin interests in water discussions within the state has come out in opposition to Amendment 52. The <a href="http://ibcc.state.co.us/Basins/Colorado/">Colorado Basin Roundtable</a> voted unanimously to oppose the measure, which would divert severance tax funds from the Colorado Department of Natural Resources and water supply projects to transportation projects. "The roundtable believes the state of Colorado faces too many critical water supply issues to straitjacket funding by the policies of this ballot question," the group said in a news release last week. The group also opposes putting into the Colorado Constitution a fiscal policy now under the state Legislature's purview."</p> <p>More Coyote Gulch coverage <a href="http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=amendment+52&btnG=Search&sitesearch=radio.weblogs.com%2F&hq=inurl%3A0101170">here</a>.</p> Category: <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/coloradowater/">Colorado Water</a> http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/10/12.html#a12574 Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:03:03 GMT http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/10/09.html#a12556 <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/water/watertreatment.jpg"><img src="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/water/watertreatment.jpg" width="64" height="80" border="0" align="right" hspace="5" vspace="0" alt="A picture named watertreatment.jpg"></a> <p><a href="http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/oct/09/2008-ballot-issues-amendment-52-severance-tax/">From</a> <i>The Boulder Daily Camera</i>: "What it means: If approved, Amendment 52 would direct money raised by severance taxes on the oil and gas industry into a transportation fund set aside for road improvements throughout the state. The first priority would be relieving congestion along the Interstate 70 corridor.</p> <p>"What supporters say: The amendment is a way to fund new transportation projects with no new taxes and no new tolls.</p> <p>"What opponents say: The measure focuses too much on I-70, and adjusting severance tax funds away from water projects could cause problems in the future."</p> Category: <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/coloradowater/">Colorado Water</a> http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/10/09.html#a12556 Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:21:19 GMT http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/09/18.html#a12431 <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/family/coyotegulchmtantero806.jpg"><img src="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/family/coyotegulchmtantero806.jpg" width="85" height="64" border="0" align="right" hspace="5" vspace="0" alt="A picture named coyotegulchmtantero806.jpg"></a> <p>We're heading down the highway for a couple of days. We'll be back online tomorrow morning if Internet connectivity works at the hotel and Mrs. Gulch doesn't keep us up dancing until dawn.</p> http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/09/18.html#a12431 Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:35:36 GMT http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/09/18.html#a12429 <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/water/supplyconstruction.jpg"><img src="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/water/supplyconstruction.jpg" width="64" height="81" border="0" align="right" hspace="5" vspace="0" alt="A picture named supplyconstruction.jpg"></a> <p><a href="http://www.chieftain.com/articles/2008/09/17/news/region/doc48d0b1add562c500243671.txt">From</a> <i>The Pueblo Chieftain</i>: "The Colorado Water Conservation Board came out Tuesday against a proposal to amend the state constitution that would reduce state funding for water projects and a host of other natural resource programs. Amendment 52 would reallocate severance tax revenue from the Department of Natural Resources and put it toward a Legislature-controlled trust fund that would give priority to easing congestion on Interstate 70. In a draft analysis that looked at just the next four years under the measure, the state Legislative Council estimated the measure would swing $226 million toward highway funding. Colorado Department of Natural Resources Director Sherman Harris, speaking as a member of CWCB, said the measure would impair the state's ability to keep up with the $2.7 billion in water infrastructure improvements identified by the Statewide Water Supply Initiative. 'There's a huge need out there for water,' he said. Under the amendment, money for water projects is expected to drop by $44.7 million in 2009, according to the draft analysis."</p> Category: <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/coloradowater/">Colorado Water</a> http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/09/18.html#a12429 Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:25:09 GMT http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/09/14.html#a12407 <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/water/derrick.jpg"><img src="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/water/derrick.jpg" width="64" height="67" border="0" align="right" hspace="5" vspace="0" alt="A picture named derrick.jpg"></a> <p>Here's an opinion piece <a href="http://www.chieftain.com/articles/2008/09/14/editorial/doc48cc7d8def194950141608.txt">in favor of Amendment 58</a>, from <i>The Pueblo Chieftain</i>. From the article:</p> <blockquote>In November, the state's voters will consider another proposal to aid its colleges and universities: Amendment 58, which is led by Gov. Bill Ritter. If passed, the measure would eliminate a tax credit for large oil and gas companies and use 60 percent of the proceeds to create the Colorado Promise Scholarship. The remaining funds would support renewable energy projects, wildlife habitat and water quality and transportation projects in communities where oil and gas producers operate...</p> <p>The tax credit in question was enacted in the late 1970s to foster the state's energy industry. The credit allows energy companies to subtract 87.5 percent - roughly $320 million a year - of their property tax bills from the severance taxes they owe on oil and gas extracted in the state. Amendment 58 supporters say the tax credit is no longer necessary, and the state must make investments to assure a competitive economy and livable environment once the current rush on oil and gas dissipates. The measure also would exempt all of the oil and gas severance tax revenue from TABOR restrictions. The measure was introduced by A Smarter Colorado, whose spokesman, George Merritt, said, "They (Big Oil) just had the most profitable quarter in the history of the world ... Colorado taxpayers don't need to be subsidizing this industry that made $50 billion in the last three months."[...]</p> <p>Coloradans for a Stable Economy, heavily funded by oil and gas, opposes the measure. They are joined by regional organizations Club 20 on the Western Slope, Action 22 in Southern Colorado, and the Denver Metro Club, as well as the Denver Chamber of Commerce. Commissioners in Weld County, home to most of the state's oil and gas wells, also oppose the measure, fearing loss of jobs and revenue. These opponents say eliminating the tax credit would hurt the Colorado economy and increase gas prices. Both the Consumer Federation of America and the Sonoran Institute dispute this claim, saying Colorado produces too little oil to impact the worldwide price. America produces only about 10 percent of the total world oil supply; Colorado accounts for about 0.13 percent. Amendment 58 supporters say even without the subsidy, the oil and gas industry will still pay lower taxes in Colorado than in some neighboring states.</blockquote> Category: <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/coloradowater/">Colorado Water</a> http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/09/14.html#a12407 Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:04:27 GMT http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/09/10.html#a12382 <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/water/supplyconstruction.jpg"><img src="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/water/supplyconstruction.jpg" width="64" height="81" border="0" align="right" hspace="5" vspace="0" alt="A picture named supplyconstruction.jpg"></a> <p>Club 20 <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/newsheadlines/ci_10401375">reversed</a> it's former stance on Saturday and now opposes the proposed fall ballot issue, Amendment 52. The Amendment is designed to tap the growing pot of severance taxes to fund improvements to I-70.</p> <p>The amendment would come at the expense of water projects and that was the basis for the reversal. Water providers all over Colorado are <a href="http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=wiggins&btnG=Search&sitesearch=radio.weblogs.com%2F&hq=inurl%3A0101170">struggling</a> to deal with tougher regulations from the EPA and the state. Infrastructure repairs and new construction are also taking their toll on budgets. These providers need state help in many cases.</p> <p>Spending earmarks do not belong in the state constitution. It is way too hard to remove them in the future. Voters need only to <a href="http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=TABOR+Gallagher+amendment+23&btnG=Search&sitesearch=radio.weblogs.com%2F&hq=inurl%3A0101170">revisit</a> the perfect storm of Amendment 23, TABOR and the Gallagher Amendment when state tax revenues plunged earlier this century.</p> <p>For a list of the many fall ballot issues check out the <a href="http://washparkprophet.blogspot.com/2008/09/colorado-ballot-measures.html">Wash Park Prophet</a>.</p> Category: <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/coloradowater/">Colorado Water</a> http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/09/10.html#a12382 Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:26:00 GMT http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/09/07.html#a12366 <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/mountains/roadsuptheroan.jpg"><img src="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/mountains/roadsuptheroan.jpg" width="75" height="64" border="0" align="right" hspace="5" vspace="0" alt="A picture named roadsuptheroan.jpg"></a> <p>A serious national energy policy and discussion about the trade-offs between development and its environmental, social and infrastructure impacts have not caught on as part of the national dialog. In Colorado however those issues are front and center in the senate race between Mark Udall and Bob Schaffer. Here's a <a href="http://www.chieftain.com/articles/2008/09/07/news/local/doc48c36dac01fee071728424.txt">recap</a> from yesterday's Club 20 debate between the candidates, from <i>The Pueblo Chieftain</i>. From the article:</p> <blockquote>Potential oil shale development, water and U.S. energy policy drew sharp lines between U.S. Senate candidates Mark Udall and Bob Schaffer as they debated before Club 20 on the Western Slope Saturday night...</p> <p>Udall, citing a Grand Junction Daily Sentinel editorial opposing leasing oil shale tracts until vital questions about water and power can be answered, called for a continued moratorium on leasing by the Bureau of Land Management. "We're not going to turn northwest Colorado into a sacrifice zone with so many unknowns," the Democratic 2nd District congressman said. "Counties and communities on the West Slope are urging the BLM to go slow."</p> <p>Schaffer, the former congressman from the 4th District, said he believes the moratorium is "counterproductive. It keeps us from asking the questions we need. Applicants need to know the rules, lease sizes, royalties." He said Udall, U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., and Gov. Bill Ritter "have done nothing about these questions." Schaffer said there is "no rush to development. We're probably 10 to 15 years away from a business standpoint."</p> <p>Udall said he has "already joined" the so-called "Gang of 16" senators who are proposing a comprehensive energy plan for the county, which he said is "an opportunity to throw the kitchen sink at energy." Among other things, he said, the bill calls for off-shore drilling, nuclear power, coal, oil and gas, renewables and car efficiency standards. But Schaffer said there is a "bipartisan bill on the House floor right now, but the House took time to go on vacation." He said the Gang of 16 proposal is "drive-by energy policy" and called for development of American energy...</p> <p>Schaffer slammed Udall for supporting a reduction of Colorado's oil and gas royalties, which used to be split 50-50 between the federal government and the states where oil and gas development is occurring. The recent change means the federal government keeps 51 percent, with states getting 49 percent. Udall said the Bush administration was responsible for inserting the change, "and we're working to fix it."</p> <p>Udall also attacked Schaffer for supporting Referendum A, a 2003 ballot measure that would have provided $2 billion for financing of water projects. The measure failed in all of the state's counties. He said former Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Colo., "accused you (Schaffer) of selling out the Western Slope and the San Luis Valley with Referendum A." "I happen to be in favor of water storage," Schaffer responded. "I voted for it."</blockquote> <p>More <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/previous2/home/ci_10401253">coverage</a> from <i>The Denver Post</i>. They write:</p> <blockquote>Helped by the debate's format, the event produced one of those rare moments on this campaign when Udall and Republican Bob Schaffer confronted each other with their own questions. And neither held back. Udall asked whether Schaffer regretted a fact-finding trip to the Northern Mariana Islands which turned out to be paid for by allies of jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff. (Schaffer said no).</p> <p>And Schaffer asked why Udall authored a bill to allow American companies to drill off the coast of Cuba, potentially helping prop up the communist regime. (Udall gave no clear answer).</p> <p>Near the debate's end, the two were asked to come up with three things on which they would vote differently from Wayne Allard, the Republican who currently holds the seat. Udall ticked off a list of major votes: Allard's vote for the Iraq war (which Udall opposed); his vote against a Federal Renewable Electricity Standard (which over time would require 20 percent of the nation's electricity to come from renewable sources); and the vote by Allard for the Bush tax cuts (Udall supports tax cuts targeted at the middle class). Schaffer paused for a moment, and then said he could think of only a few minor differences he has with Allard, in whose footsteps Schaffer has often said he wants to follow. "I think Sen. Allard has done a heroic job as a member of the United States Senate," Schaffer said.</blockquote> <p>More Coyote Gulch coverage <a href="http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=energy+policy+oil+shale&btnG=Search&sitesearch=radio.weblogs.com%2F&hq=inurl%3A0101170">here</a>, <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hq=inurl%3A0101170&hl=en&suggon=0&sitesearch=radio.weblogs.com%2F&q=energy+policy+oil+and+gas&btnG=Search">here</a> and <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hq=inurl%3A0101170&hl=en&suggon=0&sitesearch=radio.weblogs.com%2F&q=referendum+a&btnG=Search">here</a>.</p> Category: <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/">Denver November 2008 Election</a> http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/09/07.html#a12366 Sun, 07 Sep 2008 12:41:01 GMT http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/08/27.html#a12298 <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/water/bridalveilfallstelluride.jpg"><img src="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/images/water/bridalveilfallstelluride.jpg" width="64" height="85" border="0" align="right" hspace="5" vspace="0" alt="A picture named bridalveilfallstelluride.jpg"></a> <p>Here's an <a href="http://www.skyhidailynews.com/article/20080826/NEWS/808279975/1079/AE&parentprofile=-1">excerpt</a> of an interview with U.S. Representative Mark Udall, from <i>The Sky-Hi Daily News</i>. From the article:</p> <blockquote>[SHDN]: West Slope leaders have been upping their game in protecting Upper Colorado River basin water for fear trans-basin diversions will threaten the health of rivers and natural Grand Lake. What have you accomplished thus far to help West Slope water efforts and what do you plan to do on behalf of those efforts as U.S. Senator? [Udall]: My efforts on water have been to "bridge the divide" -- working together to provide for the water needs of all of Colorado and not pit one region against another. In that spirit, I strongly opposed Referendum A, the 2003 ballot issue that would have given the state a $2 billion blank check to build water projects on the West Slope and transfer that water eastward without any protections or compensation for West Slope communities. In addition, I urged the Denver Water Department to work collaboratively with Grand County and others to address potential negative impacts to the Fraser River related to the Department's expansion of the Moffat Tunnel diversions, introduced legislation requiring the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to grant "cooperating agency" status under the National Environmental Policy Act to counties like Grand County affected by water diversion projects (H.R. 3465), and I urged the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to include all users of the Green Mountain Reservoir in any requirement to maintain a minimum level of water in that reservoir and not place all of that responsibility on the Western Slope users. I also voted for the final passage of the Animas La Plata water storage project near Durango to satisfy the water needs of the Ute Tribes and the communities of that region, and in all wilderness and public lands legislation I have worked on -- including the James Peak Wilderness, Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness, Black Canyon of the Gunnison, Spanish Peaks, and Colorado Canyon -- I have made sure that West Slope water rights have been protected. I plan to continue to work for all of Colorado to develop consensus-based solutions to water issues and make sure that we do not return to the water wars of the past.</p> <p>This is also an area where Bob Schaffer and I are very different. Bob Schaffer supported the fundamentally flawed Referendum A in 2003, which nearly 85 percent of Grand County opposed. In fact, Referendum A was defeated in every single county in Colorado. Congressman Schaffer also backed a court decision that would have made water from the Blue Mesa Reservoir on the Gunnison River available for sale. Water is a precious resource on the Western Slope. We shouldn't be selling it to the highest bidder.</blockquote> <p>More Coyote Gulch coverage <a href="http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22referendum+a%22&btnG=Search&sitesearch=radio.weblogs.com%2F&hq=inurl%3A0101170">here</a> and <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hq=inurl%3A0101170&hl=en&suggon=0&sitesearch=radio.weblogs.com%2F&q=%22mark+udall%22&btnG=Search">here</a>.</p> Category: <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/coloradowater/">Colorado Water</a> http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/categories/denverNovember2008Election/2008/08/27.html#a12298 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:37:34 GMT