Denver water usage and the Fraser River
As a 35-year resident of the Fraser River Watershed, I was happy that Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper announced plans for the city, along with Denver Water, to reduce water usage by 22 percent in the next decade. Water is a statewide issue, and I’m proud of Denver’s mayor for being able to see the bigger picture.
Denver also needs to take the next step by helping to improve the health of the Fraser River, from which it takes more than 16 billion gallons of water a year through the Moffat Tunnel across the Rocky Mountains to the Front Range. Denver plans to remove another 5 billion gallons of water a year from the Fraser River in its proposed expansion of the Moffat collection system.
The Fraser River watershed is the lifeblood for those of us who live, work and recreate in the Fraser Valley. I, along with many other individuals, businesses and Grand County civic organizations, have put in countless hours and money to try to restore the health of the Fraser River. Without an adequate flow of water, those efforts will be wasted.
I applaud Mayor Hickenlooper and Denver Water for breaking new ground on water conservation, and hope that they will also be good neighbors to those of us on the other side of the divide by working on a win-win solution to provide enough water to restore one of Colorado’s great rivers.
Kirk Klancke, Fraser
Looking at the other side of global warming
Re: “Utility raises $150,000 for global-warming critic,” July 30 business news story.
The reported flak that Intermountain Rural Electric Association general manager Stanley Lewandowski is catching is no surprise. As an owner and CEO of an alternative energy company, I know that those of us in the energy business must be realists to survive, and that means understanding in detail the effects of the use of energy on the environment. By hiring a consultant to critically examine the other side of popularly held beliefs, this is all that Lewandowski is trying to do.
All methods of energy production have some sort of effect on the environment, be it emitting carbon dioxide, producing nuclear waste or creating unsightly wind farms that kill flying wildlife.
It is the use of fossil fuels, however, that receives the most criticism when it comes to energy production, probably because it is the most widely used and cost-effective energy source. Alternative energy sources, such as the biomass that our company uses, definitely have a place in the industry, but it will be some time before such sources can supplant fossil fuels. And when they do, there is no guarantee that the environmental impact will be any less than it is with fossil fuels.
Sam Thiessen, CEO, Ag Bio-Power LC, Parker
…
Re: “Dissenting climatologist feels the heat,” Aug. 3 David Harsanyi column.
It’s too bad The Post felt the need to give David Harsanyi a forum through which to mislead the public about global warming. To throw global warming into the polarized meat grinder of modern American politics is a grave mistake. It’s also a shame that to some, the word “environmentalist” is a pejorative. From Teddy Roosevelt down to Rachel Carson, environmentalism in America has been a noble pursuit. As Eisenhower pointed out, we “must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow.”
Global warming is not some form of “hysteria,” as Harsanyi wrote. No doubt he, and the world’s energy companies, can summon up a scientist or two who disagree, but the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed scientific studies on the issue sound the same alarm: We must begin to take action on global warming now.
Imagine someone who smoked cigarettes in the 1960s and visited two doctors. One doctor says, “Smoking might cause cancer. You should quit now.” The other doctor says, “We’re not sure of the evidence yet. No need to quit until all the evidence is in.” Which doctor would you advise that smoker to listen to?
George Hope, Morrison
Effect of Colorado’s new immigration laws
Re: “New era on immigration; Owens signs package of bills,” Aug. 1 news story.
If Colorado’s new immigration laws are effective, and are effectively enforced, does anyone really know what the net economic impact on Colorado will be? We have heard a lot about the costs to our schools, hospitals and other services. But I have yet to see any analysis of the “plus side” of the ledger – let alone the bottom line.
The nation’s and Colorado’s unemployment rates are around 4.5 percent – approaching full employment, according to economists. In addition, the national economy has grown each quarter for the last 4.5 years. At the same time, reports indicate that there are likely at least 8 million illegal immigrants living in the United States (according to a Pew Hispanic Center Report). Most are working.
If most of Colorado’s reported 250,000 undocumented immigrants suddenly become unemployed, who will take those jobs? Taking into account these factors, coupled with the lower cost of living passed along to the marketplace due to lower wages being paid to a substantial number of workers (plus a myriad of other issues on the “plus” side of the equation), I am simply wondering if anyone has really done the math.
David Card, Denver
Getting the salt out
Re: “Western water woes,” July 29 Open forum.
Letter-writer Neal A. Griffin’s suggestion that desalination might be a solution for our dry American West is questionable, at best.
Problems arise out of desalination energy costs and how to dispose of its waste salts and the chemicals used in the separation process. Typically, companies just dump it back into the ocean. If my math isn’t failing me, this doesn’t add up. Mineral salts from land masses are what cause our oceans to be salty in the first place.
It is interesting to note that Mexico has probably benefited more than the United States from desalination. Even more notable is the fact the Colorado River is cleaned up by a BLM plant in Yuma, Ariz., before it reaches the river’s delta in Mexico. We promised them that years ago, even though Los Angeles and Phoenix swimming pools hold sway over amount delivered.
Doug Duncan, Aurora
Petition rights on ballot
Re: “Petition initiative is wrong for Colorado,” July 9 editorial.
The Post’s editorial made several misleading claims about Amendment 38, the Petition Rights Amendment on the November ballot. Learn more about PRA at www.pra2006.com
PRA simplifies and standardizes petition procedures for all Colorado governments. When governments or special interests stop petitions via technicalities, they are infringing both on people’s right to petition and their right to vote.
By standardizing use of the 1988 form, all but Page 1 are common to all petitions and can be printed in mass, reducing printing costs and eliminating approvals and mistakes. A 100-signature petition booklet will cost less than 20 cents and governments may charge $1 to recover costs.
Which is more “chaotic”: the current 49-page state procedures manual (compounded by those of home-rule cities) that opens with “The initiative process is complex and lengthy” or the one-page Petition Rights Amendment?
In November 2000, only seven Colorado cities (3 percent) had an initiative petition on their ballot. Simplified procedures might raise that number slightly. Petitions are an accountability tool that makes for better representative government. They give citizens the right to vote. Vote “yes” for Amendment 38, the Petition Rights Amendment.
Dennis Polhill, Golden
The writer is co-author of the Petition Rights Amendment.
TO REACH OPINION EDITORS
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 or PO Box 1709, Denver, 80201
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.
Archives: Missed your favorite columnist or the latest Mike Keefe cartoon? Archives available at The Denver Post Online (www.denverpost.com)
