The Durango Herald, July 24, on work to clean up orphaned oil and gas wells after Gov. John Hickenlooper leaves office:
Friction over the environment and the use of natural resources, from forests to oil, only seems to increase in the West.
Take the Endangered Species Act. Signed into law by President Nixon in 1973, it’s never ceased to be controversial. Forty-five years later, it’s under new and fierce attacks by politicians and industry that hope to lock in reductions to the act before possible setbacks for their cause in midterm elections.
At the federal level, this can be a lot of political sound and fury that signifies little about whether our drinking water will be safe tomorrow. At the state level, at least in Colorado, sometimes it’s a different story.
Gov. John Hickenlooper, for example, has been working to address the hazards posed by the state’s abandoned oil and gas wells.
He just took another step in that direction, ordering state regulators to accelerate well cleanups and study whether the bonds that oil and gas producers now must post are big enough to cover future costs of plugging wells, should that be necessary.
It’s a sound initiative for Southwest Colorado, where there are numerous abandoned wells.
Just because we’re talking about action at the state rather than the national level doesn’t guarantee that politics won’t keep us from doing the right thing. In this case, however, we see a common-sensical consensus.
Hickenlooper will be leaving office soon. Jared Polis, a Democrat, and Walker Stapleton, a Republican, are vying to replace him in what should be a lively contest. The race, The New York Times noted yesterday in a profile of Stapleton, “has turned into a nationally watched contest that is largely viewed as a test of the political direction of one of the purplest states in the nation.”
Unfortunately, that doesn’t do a lot for us and our backyard issues. So we asked both campaigns where the candidates stand on efforts to clean up wells.
Specifically, we told each candidate that we wanted to know “whether as governor, you would support and extend Hickenlooper’s executive order to prioritize the cleanup of orphaned oil and gas wells; whether you would seek the means to pay the approximately $25 million Hickenlooper says it will take now to clean up those wells; and whether you would toughen or increase the bonding requirements for oil and gas producers.”
We also said we would be asking his opponent the same questions.
“Jared supports Gov. Hickenlooper’s executive order and will continue to implement it if he is elected,” Polis’ spokeswoman, Mara Sheldon, told us. “This is exactly the kind of sensible policy to strengthen health and safety that we all should be able to agree on and get done.”
In a statement provided by Stapleton’s spokesperson, he said, “I commend the effort to clean up orphan wells in order to protect our environment and I will continue to pursue this policy as governor. This is a great example where different stakeholders came together to craft a workable solution.”
What this means is that no matter who our next governor is, the good work continues - in at least this one area.
And we would be remiss if we didn’t give Hickenlooper at least some of the credit for that, for the example he’s set of quiet competence straight through the end of his final term.
Editorial: https://bit.ly/2Acm2uQ
___
Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, July 23, on Bureau of Land Management headquarters coming to Grand Junction:
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has his critics, but if he succeeds in relocating the Bureau of Land Management’s headquarters to a western state from Washington, D.C., he’ll secure a place in history as a friend of conservation.
Whatever policy agenda Zinke and Interior agencies pursue during these Trump years, there’s no question in our minds that having BLM decision-makers living among the public lands they administer -the vast majority in the West - will result in more effective land management programs and a more responsive agency long after Trump leaves office.
The credit isn’t Zinke’s alone. Sen. Cory Gardner has been pushing the idea for two years and it gained serious traction beginning last fall. But it was Zinke’s willingness to consider the idea that led to this week’s announcement that Interior “absolutely” intends to make this happen.
Unfortunately, there’s still the small matter of congressional authorization. If Democrats win a majority in either chamber this fall, who’s to say they won’t block the move as a political middle finger to the Trump administration? If that happens, you can bet it won’t involve any Colorado representatives. Sen. Michael Bennet, a Democrat, has joined Gardner and Rep. Scott Tipton in pushing for the move in general and for Grand Junction, specifically, to become the BLM’s new home.
Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District “serves as a microcosm of almost every Western land-management issue,” Tipton said in a news release. He’s right about that, but only one city on the Western Slope has the critical mass to offer the quality of life we suspect Interior is looking for.
Where else in the district is there a combination of affordable housing and an airport capable of delivering a non-stop flight to Washington, D.C.? What county has a greater percentage of land in BLM’s inventory?
In March, Zinke said during a House Natural Resources Committee hearing he wanted the BLM to go to a community with a high quality of life that’s affordable to middle-tier employees, “… great communities where we can attract millennials who will want to live there.”
Denver, of course, if one of the nation’s premier millennial destinations, but housing is expensive and traffic is a nightmare. Grand Junction has made great strides promoting an outdoors lifestyle attractive to millennials. There’s no better place for outdoor recreational pursuits or to raise a family.
But Zinke shouldn’t take our word for it. He should come here and see for himself that Grand Junction checks all the boxes for what Interior is looking for in a BLM headquarters location. He’s been invited by Colorado’s congressional delegation and we urge him to accept now that a serious analysis is underway to determine the most suitable location for the headquarters.
We’ll even show him where his statute among Grand Junction “legends” will be located.
Editorial: https://bit.ly/2LL8Qyt
___
(Colorado Springs) The Gazette, July 21, on opposing collective bargaining for city employees:
Firefighters save property and lives. That’s why the electorate wants politicians to pay them good salaries and benefits.
We have rank-and-file firefighters and paramedics who, with overtime, earn six-figure wages that exceed the mayor’s pay and the combined stipend of all nine City Council members. They deserve it, and the mayor and council do not complain.
The mayor and the City Council prioritize public safety personnel and take advantage of our strong economy to increase compensation.
They raised firefighter pay last year and plan additional wage hikes as city revenues improve.
Despite all reasonable efforts to pay what the city can afford, the council might vote to refer a collective bargaining measure directly to the ballot next spring.
As seen in Pueblo and other cities, one arrangement for collective bargaining soon becomes the practice for all other departments. Few communities would tolerate the injustice of granting collective bargaining to firefighters, but not police officers, line workers, city foresters and others.
Colorado Springs has been down this road, trouncing three other ballot questions seeking collective bargaining for firefighters. To determine whether sentiment has changed, collective bargaining advocates should petition their cause onto ballot. They will find adequate signatures, only if enough registered voters support the idea.
Residents of Colorado Springs elect a mayor and council to manage public revenues and expenses. They set budget priorities in the best interests of the people they represent, or they do not remain in office. That’s how our representative democracy works.
Collective bargaining short-circuits the democratic process, authorizing a handful of union representatives to professionally advocate for a special interest group of employees. Elected officials lose much of their ability to make major financial decisions. Taxpayers get stuck with the costs.
Our system does not seem to be broken, and so we wonder what problem needs fixing. Firefighters have easy and direct access to the mayor and the City Council, who understand the political benefits of paying employees what they deserve.
Mayor John Suthers meets with representatives of the International Association of Firefighters Local 5 chapter and the Colorado Springs Police Protective Association at least four times a year in a spirit of friendly collaboration.
Converting to a confrontational bargaining process will mean less collaboration, replaced by mandatory contention between city leaders and professional advocates.
That system, in a context of government service, has been soundly condemned by government and labor leaders, and even the U.S. Supreme Court.
As explained by a New York Times opinion article in 2014, “founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money.”
Collective bargaining leverages demands under the threat of union strikes. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a friend of labor unions, called the prospect of public employees striking “unthinkable and intolerable.”
“All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service,” FDR wrote.
George Meany, founder of the AFL-CIO, also warned against public sector employees collectively bargaining for taxpayer funds.
“It is impossible to collectively bargain with the government,” Meany said on the eve of the AFL-CIO merger in 1955, as quoted in the New York Times magazine.
The U.S. Supreme Court in May questioned the legitimacy of public employee unions, with its majority ruling in Janus v. AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees).
“The idea of public-sector unionization and agency fees would astound those who framed and ratified the Bill of Rights,” the Supreme Court ruling states.
City government has no higher purpose than public safety, and we trust Mayor Suthers and the City Council to pay firefighters and police the most competitive wages city revenues can support.
They should not waste time, money, and resources on another proposal for collective bargaining - a process city voters consistently reject, for excellent reasons.
Editorial: https://bit.ly/2uNHnWm
___
The Denver Post, July 19, on Sen. Gardner and President Trump:
An incredible 43 percent of Americans still approve of President Donald Trump despite families being separated at the border, despite Helsinki and despite the trade war - three dismal presidential performances we think should transcend party lines.
If you don’t think that aggregate approval rating from Real Clear Politics played into Republican’s tepid admonishment of Trump’s international performance last week, then you haven’t been following the midterms.
But don’t dismay - just yet - that our nation’s best interests are being run over by the mechanics of an endless re-election cycle.
At least in Colorado, where Trump is not significantly less popular in polling, our GOP politicians are mounting a fight or, at the very least, scheduling an uncomfortable family dinner.
While Sen. Cory Gardner didn’t call Trump out by name following the Helsinki press conference, he did urge the administration to not normalize relations with Russia. Gardner deserves credit for sponsoring legislation that would add Russia to a list of state sponsors of terrorism even if he simultaneously normalizes Trump’s bewildering press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin by comparing his actions to “the mistakes of past administrations.”
It’s not that President Barack Obama didn’t commit serious errors when it came to Russian relations; it’s that Obama never undermined U.S. intelligence while praising Putin on the international stage.
Gardner’s words certainly weren’t as forcible as those of Sen. John McCain, “one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory;” or of Rep. Mike Coffman, “President Trump . should give greater consideration to U.S. intelligence agencies over the Kremlin’s rhetoric;” or even of Rep. Ken Buck, “we should work to improve American relations with our adversaries, but not at the cost of our nation’s soul.”
But actions do still speak louder than words, and Gardner’s legislation would have an immediate impact, punishing Russia with the full force of U.S. sanctions. Russia deserves those sanctions for all the reasons Gardner cited in an op-ed to the New York Times: “Russia has invaded its neighbors Georgia and Ukraine, it supports the murderous regime of Bashar al-Assad and our enemies in Afghanistan, and it is engaged in active information warfare against Western democracies, including meddling in the 2016 United States elections.”
All Republicans must acknowledge that Russia tried to destabilize our democracy by running a sophisticated misinformation campaign during the presidential election. It’s an indisputable fact even if there’s quibbling about how successful the campaign actually was.
Gardner, Coffman and Buck are now being criticized by both sides of the aisle. Are they Republican traitors to be labeled RINOs in their next primaries or spineless GOP lackeys afraid to stand up to Trump in any meaningful way?
They are neither of those two things. Standing up to the popular leader of your political party when he does wrong is important but never easy, even when that leader is Trump.
Editorial: https://dpo.st/2NJ5PPL
Please read our comment policy before commenting.