Oil and gas drilling on “split estates”
Re: “Feds, Wyoming split over drilling rules,” July 24 editorial.
The Denver Post criticized the Bureau of Land Management for allegedly siding with oil and gas developers over surface landowners in connection with the “split estate” issue in Wyoming. The issue addressed by The Post’s editorial has to do with oil and gas development rules in circumstances where the federal government owns the sub-surface mineral estate beneath surface land owned by another party.
Surprisingly, the editorial took exception to a letter from BLM Director Kathleen Clarke to the State of Wyoming in which she noted that split-estate legislation recently passed by the Wyoming legislature may not apply to sub-surface federal minerals. The Post construed this simple recognition of a constitutional principle – that federal laws and rules apply to federal lands – to be evidence of taking the side of oil and gas operators over surface owners.
This is not the case at all. The BLM supports the intent of the Wyoming legislation, which is aimed at protecting the interests of surface landowners. In fact, as the editorial notes, Wyoming’s legislation is modeled after the BLM’s own policies dealing with split-estate issues, which call for oil and gas operators to engage in good-faith negotiations with surface owners regarding compensation for losses or damages. These BLM policies are working, and I would note that the BLM published on July 27 a proposal that would put these existing policies into regulatory form.
As a federal agency whose mission is to manage the public lands for multiple uses, the BLM is committed to administering the nation’s sub-surface mineral estate for the benefit of the entire country. Working with the State of Wyoming and all other interested parties and stakeholders, the BLM will succeed in protecting the rights of surface owners while managing public land uses that help meet the nation’s energy needs.
Bob Bennett, Cheyenne
The writer is Wyoming state director of the Bureau of Land Management.
—————————————-
Salazar the moderate
Re: “Some feel wounded by Salazar gun vote; Senator backs bill to limit suits against gunmakers,” July 31 news story.
It seems that Sen. Ken Salazar is not satisfying the fantasies of either the extreme political left or right. When he ran for office and won as a “moderate” Democrat last fall, liberals hoped and conservatives feared that that his moderation was a smokescreen. When a true moderate shows up, representing the silent majority of moderates in the population, he gets beat up in both the liberal media and on conservative talk radio.
It’s about time the mainstream population had someone to represent us, even though we don’t make news like the National Rifle Association or Tom Mauser of the Colorado Ceasefire Capital Fund. Think about it and be thankful for political moderation.
James D. Cover, Centennial
—————————————-
Native sports mascots
The NCAA recently passed a ban on American Indian mascots from appearing in NCAA postseason play.
I am from Oklahoma. The word “Oklahoma” means “Land of Red Man.” I grew up with many Indians, some of whom were Seminoles. They rooted for two teams – Oklahoma University and the Florida State Seminoles. They were proud of their teams and their heritage. They didn’t find Chief Osceola, the beloved Florida State mascot, offensive, nor did they find the Utes, Illini or any other college football team with Indian mascots offensive.
The NCAA needs to reverse its new policy. The only thing that is offensive is the NCAA’s ignorance.
Chase LaValley, Boulder
—————————————-
The collectivist mind
Re: “Islamists serious; are we?” Aug. 7 John Andrews column.
Why have conservatives become so collectivist lately? John Andrews calls Rep. Tom Tancredo’s idea about nuking Mecca “defensive,” though he must know that many innocent people would die. But to the collectivist mind, there’s nothing wrong with murdering people who belong the same group (Muslims) as others who have committed murder.
Andrews’ biggest howler has to be his reference to the White House and the Capitol as symbols of self-government. Wouldn’t the state capitols be much better such symbols? Or, better yet, cities, towns and villages – or the family? Washington, D.C., is the very antithesis of self-government.
Paul Menger, Franktown
—————————————-
Re: “Let market save history of ’50s ‘hood,” Aug. 4 David Harsanyi column.
David Harsanyi’s column regarding the downside of historic district designation makes the case that designated Denver neighborhoods suffer from intrusive and extreme meddling in homeowner rights. Unfortunately, the abuses he cites bear little relation to the actual experience of living in a designated historic district.
Harsanyi perpetuates the urban legend that oversight of historic neighborhoods extends to items like backyard barbecues; in fact, only those changes requiring a building permit even trigger design review.
In the early 1990s, I was proud to take part in a homeowner-led project to have my Cheesman Park neighborhood designated. As we had predicted, this designation led to immediate and visible benefits, including increased homeowner investment and accelerated growth in home value. Meanwhile, the threat of neighborhood “scrape- offs” and boom-bust real estate speculation was greatly reduced. Furthermore, my dealings with the design review staff and committee proved them to be helpful and very interested in the success of my building addition.
I look forward to someday seeing my current neighborhood of Congress Park receive the historic designation it merits.
And I plan to add that brick barbecue too.
Dan Jacobs, Denver
—————————————-
The passing of news anchor Peter Jennings
Re: “TV news anchor Jennings dies at 67,” Aug. 8 news story.
Many people of faith deeply appreciated Peter Jennings’ industrywide leadership in insisting that matters of religion be covered in the mainstream. Until now, I never knew he was a high school dropout, which explains it perfectly – his education did not scare the religion out of him. Those who believe that spiritual issues should be covered more, relative to their impact on people’s everyday lives, have lost a good friend indeed.
Dan Krause, Colorado Springs
…
The death of Peter Jennings appears as front-page news in The Denver Post. Peter Jennings is held up as a great icon in American journalism. Unfortunately, despite a career that began in the United States in the 1960s, his opinionated and occasionally inflammatory views were reflective of a person who represents the media elite – someone who does not represent the very Americans he was reporting to.
Peter Jennings worked in the United States but showed his distance by not securing U.S. citizenship until 2003. His emphasis on “World News” further manifested his disdain for Americans and the events which occurred here. He eschewed domestic news for his news.
If The Denver Post wants to cover tragic loss, report on the thousands of people who die each day from cancer. They are the heroes of families, of business, of the very fabric of America.
Jennings represented himself and the journalism elite. Jennings was an example of why the network media in this country continue to be replaced by blogs, Web pages, cable TV and other forms of communication.
The death of another human is always tragic. However, the iconic stature bestowed upon Peter Jennings is undeserved.
Kelly Carter, Centennial
TO REACH US
Phone: 303-820-1331
Fax: 303-820-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202
Letters guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
