A sampling of editorial opinions from Colorado newspapers:
The (Grand Junction) Daily Sentinel, Nov. 22, on fighting oil and gas drilling:
One of the overriding sentiments to emerge from the Thompson Divide controversy is that some places are too special to drill.
We’ve heard that particular turn of phrase come into play in conjunction with efforts to protect the Roan Plateau and the Thompson Divide from oil and gas development - especially from public officials who had to defend the BLM’s decision to cancel leases.
But it’s not really reflective of the conservation groups that adhere to a “keep it in the ground” mindset. The “too special” argument suggests that drilling might be OK elsewhere, but groups like the Center for Biological Diversity make no secret of wanting to end fossil fuel leasing on public land.
Any drilling operation is unreasonable, according to the conservationist mindset, by virtue of the fact that it results in greenhouse gas emissions. Never mind that the nation’s emissions profile has remained virtually unchanged over the last three years, thanks in large part to the displacement of coal in favor of cleaner-burning natural gas in power generation.
“It’s irresponsible for the BLM to issue new fossil fuel leases on public lands without considering the impact that extracting and burning these new sources of dirty energy will have on the climate,” a lawyer with the Center for Biological Diversity said in a news release in response to a BLM plan to offer 20,000 acres of oil and gas leases, including 16,000 in Mesa County.
The climate angle is just one of many concerns raised by conservation groups. In protesting the sale, they’re citing potential impacts to three plants listed as protected species and protected by the Endangered Species Act, the amount of water involved with hydraulic fracturing and the potential for floods to damage oil and gas infrastructure - even whether injection wells to dispose wastewater could cause earthquakes that threaten the integrity of the Vega Reservoir dam.
That’s not to say that none of these are legitimate concerns. But it’s clear that these groups are willing to pull any combination of levers to stop the leases.
Perhaps most discouraging is the notion that the BLM improperly relies on broad-scale analysis in resource-management plans of its local field offices, which is inadequate to address site-specific issues.
Katie Stevens, the manager for the BLM’s Grand Junction field office, recently wrote in an op-ed that the Federal Land Policy and Management Act “doesn’t include cookbook approaches - it still relies on individual people in government to be good stewards and puzzle out … complicated tradeoffs.”
It seems disingenuous to celebrate the BLM’s wisdom in canceling leases in the Thompson Divide and simultaneously claim the agency doesn’t know what it’s doing elsewhere.
Ultimately, the protests will be vetted. They’re an important part of the system, so we don’t begrudge conservation groups for lodging them. It’s the tension they bring to the debate that helps us identify where reasonable development can or should occur on federal land.
But the BLM is just following the law. If these groups want to stop leasing, they need to go to Congress.
Editorial: https://bit.ly/2g2nF08
___
The (Pueblo) Chieftain, Nov. 22, on providing treatment for veterans:
Prison isn’t the answer for many of our veterans who break the law, veterans who suffer from substance abuse or disorders such as traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress disorder.
A better solution is to treat their problems, which in turn may lead them away from criminal activities.
We were excited to read last week in The Chieftain about a program instituted in the Pueblo court system that takes a different approach in dealing with veterans.
Last Friday, a Pueblo courtroom turned into a place of celebration as the 10th Judicial District Veterans Treatment Court graduated the first four individuals to successfully complete the intensive treatment and monitoring program.
District Attorney Jeff Chostner was instrumental in getting the program set up in Pueblo; it’s one of only a few in the state.
Participants in the voluntary program agree to actively engage in treatment and counseling, make frequent court appearances and are intensely supervised.
A team comprised of officials from district court, the probation department, prosecutors and pubic defenders, law enforcement and treatment professionals decides which veterans are diverted to the program rather than sending them to prison.
Last Friday, the four graduates, whose full names were not provided, were praised for the hard work they put in throughout the program. Numerous individuals who worked with the graduates, including those from the local public defender and district attorney offices, told them all how proud they were for their accomplishments.
Chostner also addressed the graduates in the courtroom, which was filled to capacity with about 40 people.
“You folks are the face of the program and everything we envisioned it to be,” Chostner said.
Chostner thanked District Judge David Crockenberg, who is overseeing the effort, for his work and support.
“For those who don’t know, Judge Crockenberg is an Army vet, and I think he personifies all of us who want to come together and take care of our own,” Chostner said. “Because at the end of the day, we are a band of brothers and sisters in this fight, and we don’t leave each other behind.”
The graduates were given the opportunity to speak, and each one expressed gratitude for the opportunity to participate in and complete the program.
“This changed my life and my family’s life,” said one of the graduates.
We would like to commend the various government agencies and individuals who have worked and will continue to work on this project. All of us know veterans have special needs, and we think it is admirable and progressive for our community to have such a program in place.
Our veterans deserve this special opportunity and a second chance. We owe it to them.
Editorial: https://bit.ly/2g2k3v3
___
The (Colorado Springs) Gazette, Nov. 17, on Colorado picks for Trump:
If President-elect Donald Trump wants to load the executive branch with talent, he should look to some of Colorado’s best and brightest.
He could start by interviewing fellow Ivy Leaguer Steve Schuck, a Colorado Springs philanthropist and developer, as the next potential secretary of education. Of note: Schuck predicted Trump’s victory months ago, without hesitation and almost exactly as it played out.
Schuck began his career as a teacher and went on to devote his adult life to improving K-12 schools. Perhaps more than any single person, Schuck has changed Colorado’s educational landscape by making it a model of educational choice other states try to replicate.
Like Trump, Schuck is neither politician nor bureaucrat. The fellow Penn alumnus is a constructive private-sector disrupter.
In addition to his indefatigable and successful efforts to inspire modern educational advancements, Schuck and his wife, Joyce, started Parents Challenge to help low-income families choose and pay for the schools that best serve unique needs of individual children.
As secretary, Schuck would gladly help Trump eliminate the Department of Education and restore all academic policy to communities and states.
If Schuck is not chosen, or will not take the job, another excellent choice would be Pam Shockley-Zalabak, chancellor of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. Shockley-Zalabak has led a good-to-great transformation of UCCS and made it among the fastest-growing universities in the country.
Trump should consider Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers for appointment as attorney general. We would hate to lose Suthers to federal service, but he could be the most successful attorney general in generations.
Suthers was elected to two terms as Colorado attorney general, after serving as U.S. attorney and director of the Colorado Department of Corrections. He is not the typical politician with a barely used law degree.
Suthers is a real-deal lawyer, with a long track record of winning difficult cases. He likes and understands the practice of law.
Suthers doesn’t share Trump’s penchant for bombast, but he does share the president-elect’s commitment to liberating the country from the Affordable Care Act. Suthers took a leading role in the multistate lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of forcing consumers to buy private health insurance.
Other Coloradans Trump should consider for significant appointments include:
-Former Gov. Bill Owens, who was so successful voters re-elected him in 2002 by the largest majority in Colorado history. Owens pushed through a $1 billion tax cut his first year in office. It was the largest tax cut in state history, and it led to a decade of economic stability and growth. Owens also improved the landscape by persuading voters to approve a $1.7 billion bonding initiative that expedited dozens of essential road projects. He improved education by expanding the charter school program and enhancing teacher accountability standards. He would be an excellent choice as secretary of transportation or for any position in the Department of Commerce.
-Former U.S. Rep. Bob Beauprez, the most recent Republican nominee for governor. A successful banking entrepreneur and rancher, the Boulder County native understands public lands and the country’s urban/rural cultural conflict better than most. Beauprez would be an ideal choice as secretary of the Interior or administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
-Former senatorial candidate Robert Blaha. A successful business consultant and banking entrepreneur who chaired Trump’s campaign in Colorado, Blaha should be considered for a position in the Department of Commerce or as administrator of the Small Business Administration.
We lack space for an exhaustive list of Colorado’s civic, business and political leaders who could help the Trump administration succeed. They have made Colorado a cultural and economic success, and we hope the incoming president invites a few to service.
Editorial: https://bit.ly/2gmVixF
___
The (Loveland) Reporter-Herald, Nov. 22, on a proposed mileage tax for Coloradoans:
Anyone who has driven Colorado highways for the past few years knows a couple of truths: there’s more traffic and congestion than ever before, and most roads are in OK shape but certainly not being repaired at a swift pace.
State transportation budget writers know the link between the two and acknowledge the problems of deteriorating and crowded roads will continue into the foreseeable future without some drastic changes to how road construction and repairs are paid for.
Under the current system, the Colorado Department of Transportation relies on a gasoline tax to pay for the bulk of road work in the state. When the taxes were implemented, they were a fair way for users of the roads and highways to pay their fair share of road costs.
Why doesn’t that work anymore? Two distinct reasons. First, the gasoline tax was never indexed to inflation - or even the cost of gasoline itself. Whether gas is $2 per gallon or $3.50 per gallon, the state gas tax remains at a level set in 1992 - 22 cents per gallon. It’s purchasing power is much less than it was 25 years ago, too, as construction costs have risen since then.
But with more drivers on the road, shouldn’t that bring in more money? The second reason the gas tax isn’t working is the increase in vehicle fuel economy. The rise of gas-electric hybrid vehicles and some electric-only vehicle means there are drivers who are paying very little for the roads used by all.
A solution being considered in Colorado is a mileage tax, one that would be paid based on the amount of miles put onto a car. State tax collectors would look at either the odometer of a vehicle or plug into a GPS unit that would indicate how many miles it has been driven on the state’s roadways.
While the notion behind such a tax is intriguing - making every road in the state a toll road for residents, basically - there are troubling notions to consider.
First, a government powerful enough to require a GPS unit to track vehicle movements won’t likely stop at seeking mileage data. And those units aren’t cheap, adding hundreds of dollars to the price of each vehicle.
Second, such taxes would further penalize commuters - creating more pressure on housing prices in the Front Range cities. For those who live outside the Front Range, the unfairness would be worse. Taxes to go to the grocery store in the next town over or see a doctor in the county seat would take another shot at the residents of rural Colorado.
Third, if the national policy goal of increasing fuel efficiency is to continue, a mileage tax would decrease the economic benefit of owning an electric or hybrid vehicle.
While the need for a more-secure funding source for roads is looming, a mileage tax comes up short in Colorado.
Editorial: https://bit.ly/2gf2V4k
Please read our comment policy before commenting.