Colorado's Economy is Vibrant...So Why is the Federal Government Attacking It?

Can you think of anything that might calm this man down?

$17,300,000,000 is what Colorado's tourism industry generated in 2016. There is no doubt that our state does well with its skiing, hiking, hunting and fishing industries.  But were you aware that since Colorado legalized the use of both medical and recreational marijuana, our state has increased its tourism significantly? Agree with it or not, people are curious to see what the buzz (pun intended) is all about in Colorado.

In 2016, the legal sales of marijuana in the state added $266,000,000 to our coffers.  That has done a great deal to improve Colorado's budgetary woes, especially in the area  of capital improvement in schools and helping the homeless.  Theses facts can be found in a great NPR interview from last year aimed at making people aware of how these tax dollars are spent. http://www.npr.org/2016/10/01/496226348/where-does-colorados-marijuana-money-go. It is not going to completely heal our fiscal difficulties, especially since the prices for marijuana will begin to drop as more states fall into line with pot-friendly legislation, but there is no doubt it has helped a great deal.

In an October article in the Washington Post, the newspaper attempts to understand the impact on the states of Washington and Colorado after having legalized marijuana usage and possession amounts.  That article can be viewed here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/13/heres-how-legal-pot-changed-colorado-and-washington/?utm_term=.13b36d02e432.   In a brief summary, both states have not had any significant negative fallout from the decisions.  Crime is slightly down.  Drug arrests are very much in a downward spiral.  Usage among teenagers has not gone up and might actually be going down.  Traffic accident rates involving pot have not gone up.  There is even some evidence to suggest that medical marijuana may dramatically help abate the crisis in this nation as it struggles with the worst opioid crisis in its history. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/could-pot-help-solve-us-opioid-epidemic.

But President Trump sees things differently.  His appointment of former Senator Jeff Session as Attorney General marks a return to the policies that rank marijuana as a dangerous drug on a par with heroin.  It is expected that the AG will make moves to criminalize those who recreationally use marijuana by throwing them in jail as common criminals.  This is going to become a gigantic crisis here in our state as a significant number of Coloradoans  benefit from the legalized sale and usage of the substance.  Many people grow their own marijuana and it has led to a reduction of alcohol consumption, which is both hazardous and expensive.  Many are finding pain relief that is safe and effective requiring less uses of dangerous and often addictive prescription drugs.  Some people are finding that marijuana not only helps them solve sleeping problems without the dangerous side effects of drugs like Ambien.  And, there does not seem to be the debilitating impact of what drinkers painfully refer to as "hangovers."

So why are the new AG and President Trump so worried about the twenty-eight states that have relaxed laws on marijuana?  Perhaps you need look no further than the high paid lobbyists of the alcohol industry.  Perhaps you need look no further than the high paid lobbyists working for private prisons that need customers in the form of inmates.  You may even want to examine the lobbyists for Big Pharma who see the medical benefits of marijuana cutting into their profits.  If you think that my belief is that our new president and his appointed officials are doing this for nefarious purposes, you would be correct.

This states' rights argument comes up from time to time.  When it is convenient for the conservatives, they say leave it to the states to decide.  When it serves their corporate sponsors, the conservatives want the federal government to step in and do the dirty work for them.  President Trump, Colorado has decided as a state to loosen federal regulations on marijuana and we are doing just fine. If you criminalize us for what we have done here in Colorado, you may be in for a big surprise.

Personally, I don't use  alcohol or marijuana for recreational purposes.  I do have relatives who have abused alcohol and prescription drugs, resulting in death.  I do have relatives who have had pain issues and have become addicted to painkillers.  I have a number of  family members who battle insomnia and then have had horrifying side effects with drugs like Ambien. 

I live in arguably one of the most conservative counties in our state.  As a liberal Democrat I am in a minority of epic proportions.  Many of my friends, neighbors, and acquaintances in this county are conservative Republicans.  They may not publicly talk about the fact that they not only use marijuana, but  they grow marijuana for their own consumption.  In my opinion, they are not going to be happy about this decision.  This may be more of a problem than anyone might imagine when the government comes for their weed.  These are the same people who said that they would not remain silent if someone came for their guns (which nobody ever did).  It will be interesting to see what happens in this case.

Suffice it to say, if Sessions turns its forces loose on the people of Colorado for marijuana usage, there will be resistance from both side of the political aisle and the other states will be watching.  This is just one more attempt to divide the people of this nation and replace our cherished Democracy with authoritarian rule of law.  Resist.

Come one, come all...er, unless you are not a republican

Okay, this is where you go if you want to learn all about Elbert County's strategic plan?  Really?  So let me get this straight.  If I, as a Democrat, or an Independent, or a member of any recognized party other than the Republican party, wish to go and learn about the new and improved strategic plan for the future of our county, I get to go to a "Town Hall Meeting" at the Elbert County Fairgrounds?  And…this love fest is being hosted by the Elbert County Conservative Breakfast Association.  Lucky me!  I would normally get to sit in a room full of conservatives who are eating a meal which costs $10 and listen to them bash Democrats between utterances such as, “Pass the salt,” “Hand me a napkin,” or “Where's that guy who was named after a bicycle seat?” God, you just have to love the arrogance of these people.  Now we get light snacks at the night meeting of the breakfast club.

This is not a town hall meeting.  This is a fund raiser for a host group that has absolutely no use for anyone with a viewpoint other than its own.  A town hall meeting is supposed to be held at the town hall.  You will notice when you say those two words out loud, there is no mention of a particular political party.  You see, we all get to pay taxes.  The Elbert County Commissioners work for all of the taxpayers, not just the ones who go to the Conservative Breakfast Association so they can support their party while simultaneously driving their cholesterol numbers through the ceiling.

I have written several blogs recently trying to tell people that nothing will ever change in Elbert County as long as we keep doing things the same way.  I have conceded that there will be no Democrats elected in the next umpty-eleven years.  There are simply not enough Democratic votes for that to happen.  Period.  The Conservative Breakfast Association is in no danger of having some leftist hijack their little party.  But that really isn't the point, is it now?  They not only do not want us to have anyone sporting a “D” holding office, they would rather we did not have any rights at all.  They want purity.  They despise diversity.  They do not give a rat's butt whether I get to talk to my commissioner.  My taxes are not as real as theirs.   Fine, I get it.  But it is not as easy as all that in the long run. 

I will repeat it for anyone who may still be reading at this point:  Elbert County has one commodity.  That commodity is water.  Elbert County is essentially a high desert.  There is a finite amount of water in a nonrenewable set of aquifers.  We are being besieged by a set of developers who will not build out here unless they can build water pipelines.  I do not care what you think you know about development, the value of the water beneath our feet far surpasses anything you can build on the surface above it.  Developers know it.  They also know that Elbert County is desperate for asphalt and commerce and jobs.  They always shout (along with this new set of commissioners) that in order to have your dreams come true, you must bring the rooftops. 

Don't you find it interesting that none of these people are interested in doing a current Cost of Services Analysis (CAS) to see if any of these proposed developments will even begin to pay for themselves?  

Independence, Ritoro, Spring Valley, and Wild Pointe are all wonderful names for developments that make promises that almost seem too good to be true.  Do you know why?  Because they are too good to be true!  If developers could make a buck out here they would have arrived years ago and completed their large projects.  Think about that for a moment.  The developers did not stop in Douglas County.  They were all over Arapahoe County.  Adams County has had tremendous growth over the years.  Why the hell have they bypassed Elbert County?  The answer is pretty simple.  Because up until now, they couldn't make any money at it.  Why now?  What has changed?  Did you really just think it was some kind of liberal plot keeping you from reaching developmental Nirvana? It is the fact that the price of water has now gone so high that it is now possible to make a killing on what remains in the Denver Bedrock Aquifers.

Let me remind you once again:  98% of us live on well and septic here in Elbert County.  Most of the people on well and septic in Elbert County are Republicans.  Do you honestly think that the people who are hosting the upcoming BOCC Sugarplums Vision Quest breakfast care if your well runs dry?  Do you think these pipelines that run both ways are only being put in to bring you water in the distant future when and if the aquifers run dry?  Why is it only now that pipelines are a part of the development equation?  Ask that of your breakfast waiter over at the fairgrounds, Sparky.  Ask them why our dear old former commissioner, Kurt Schlegel, is still lurking around every damned corner.  You do realize that Falcon and Douglas Counties desperately need our water, and reservoirs like Rueter-Hess are paying twice what they were just ten years ago to serve their customers.  Hell, those counties even have the money for it, but for the most part, we do not.  Once the water is pumped out, folks, they will sell it back to us at astronomical rates.

So, let’s get back to the conservative breakfast bunch and the anointed Republicans who believe their newly elected BOCC have their backs.  If these people do not want to hear from Elbert County citizens who will question them about simple things like a neutral place to hold a town hall-style meeting, what chance in hell do you have in getting their attention when your well goes dry?  Pass the syrup and pass the water pitcher there, brother.  I am feeling a bit parched.

Only One Person in a Hundred People Can Ace This Donald Trump Quiz! Can You?

This quiz is generally regarded by experts as one that only a handful of U.S. Presidential scholars can pass.  The reason that it is so difficult to pass is that the forty-five men who have held the office of the President of the United States of America have been deemed by many around the world as the brightest and most eloquent statesmen that the world has ever produced.  When you compare side-by-side quotes of these great men it is tremendously difficult to choose which great leader was the actual author.

It is a straightforward quiz.  I give you two quotes.  One is by a past president, and one is by our newest president, the honorable Donald J. Trump.  Of the two quotes, choice A or choice B, which one was said by the forty-fifth president, Donald J. Trump?  The key is at the end the quiz.  Take your time, these sage utterances are why the world looks to us for our leadership.  Good luck!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. A comparison of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Donald J. Trump 

Is DJT the author of A or B?

Quote A:  “So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself – nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. ” 

 

Quote B:  “Happy New Year to all, including to my many enemies and those who have fought me and lost so badly they just don’t know what to do. Love!”

2. A comparison of Dwight D. Eisenhower and Donald J. Trump      

Is DJT the author of A or B?

Quote A:  “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron….Is there no other way the world may live?"

Quote B:  “I will build a great wall – and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me – and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.” 

 

3. A comparison of Theodore Roosevelt and Donald J. Trump           

Is DJT the author of A or B?

 

Quote A:  “To waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed.”

Quote B:  “I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.” 

4. A comparison of Harry S. Truman and Donald J. Trump                

Is DJT the author of A or B?

Quote A: “Of course, there are dangers in religious freedom and freedom of opinion. But to deny these rights is worse than dangerous, it is absolutely fatal to liberty. The external threat to liberty should not drive us into suppressing liberty at home. Those who want the government to regulate matters of the mind and spirit are like men who are so afraid of being murdered that they commit suicide to avoid assassination.” 

Quote B: “Look at those hands, are they small hands? And, [Republican rival Marco Rubio] referred to my hands: ‘If they’re small, something else must be small.’ I guarantee you there’s no problem. I guarantee.”

 

5. A comparison of Theodore Roosevelt and Donald J. Trump          

Is DJT the author of A or B?

 

Quote A: “In the history of mankind many republics have risen, have flourished for a less or greater time, and then have fallen because their citizens lost the power of governing themselves and thereby of governing their state; and in no way has this loss of power been so often and so clearly shown as in the tendency to turn the government into a government primarily for the benefit of one class instead of a government for the benefit of the people as a whole.” 

Quote B: “You know, it really doesn’t matter what the media write as long as you’ve got a young, and beautiful, piece of ass.” 

 

6. A comparison of Thomas Jefferson and Donald J. Trump            

Is DJT the author of A or B?

 

Quote A: “The diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety.” 

Quote B: “You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything. … Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.” 

 

7. A comparison of Woodrow Wilson and Donald J. Trump            

Is DJT the author of A or B?

 

Quote A:  “I can imagine no greater disservice to the country than to establish a system of censorship that would deny to the people of a free republic like our own their indisputable right to criticize their own public officials. While exercising the great powers of the office I hold, I would regret in a crisis like the one through which we are now passing to lose the benefit of patriotic and intelligent criticism.”

Quote B:  “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re not sending you … they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bring crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

 

8.  A comparison of Warren G. Harding and Donald J. Trump        

Is DJT the author of A or B?

 

Quote A: “There is something inherently wrong, something out of accord with the ideals of representative democracy, when one portion of our citizenship turns its activities to private gain amid defensive war while another is fighting, sacrificing, or dying for national preservation.” 

Quote B:  "It’s like in golf. A lot of people — I don’t want this to sound trivial — but a lot of people are switching to these really long putters, very unattractive. It’s weird. You see these great players with these really long putters because they can’t sink three-footers anymore. And I hate it. I am a traditionalist. I have so many fabulous friends who happen to be gay, but I am a traditionalist.”

 

9. A comparison of George Washington and Donald J. Trump       

Is DJT the author of A or B?

 

Quote A:  “Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause; and I was not without hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy of the present age would have put an effectual stop to contentions of this kind.”

 

Quote B:  “[John McCain’s] not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”

 

10.  A comparison of William Henry Harrison  and Donald J. Trump                

Is DJT the author of A or B?

 

Quote A:  “The only legitimate right to govern is an express grant of power from the governed.”    

 

Quote B: “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her… wherever.”    

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, there you have it.  If you guessed Donald J. Trump was the originator of every one of the "Quote B" choices you would be 100% correct and considered to be a presidential expert!   Yes, I know some of you are disappointed because you never do well on these things.  But hey, these were not easy questions... urm, or maybe, just maybe, you felt a sharp twinge of embarrassment for our once respected nation.  

This is just the beginning of a dark chapter in our nation's history.  We have elected a huckster, a reality television star to guide our great nation for the next four years.  The fraternity of great men who have held this prestigious office will now be joined by a man who believes the world can be run by vague messages on Twitter, 140 character at a time.  Don't be alarmed by that loud whirring sound.  It is only the bodies of all of our dead United States Presidents spinning in their graves.  Heaven help us all.

The Supreme Court is Not What It Was Intended to be

Thoughtfully written by guest blogger, Tony Corrado

Traditionally, deliberative boards or committees are comprised of an odd number of members so that ties can be broken and a decision rendered.  The number of voting members is usually decided on the basis of the “importance” of the body itself. Thus a committee of one is sufficient to decide on what type of cupcake icing should be baked for sale at the local fair. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) was determined to be composed of nine members, because it’s decisions were possible, and likely, to have long lasting ramifications on the entirety of the US society. The members of such august bodies were generally chosen for their knowledge of the issues affecting society as well as their integrity in supporting their avowed mission, their oath of office  and their willingness to remove personal biases from the deliberative judicial process. The number of SCOTUS justices was intended to ensure a diversity of views and opinions. Divided opinions were supposed to show a diversity of support for the issues, not a politicized view.

This began to change as the nature of the SCOTUS was corrupted, as special interests and politics began to be the basis by which these “esteemed” persons were selected. Chief Justice Roberts was nominated after acting to secure the Bush vs Gore election decision in 2000. The SCOTUS has become more intensely political and irreparably harmed, with the decision by Senate Republicans to break the constitutional requirement to advise and consent on the Presidents nomination to the Supreme Court. They blatantly defied the constitutional requirement and even refused to hold a hearing on President Obama’s nominee, Merrick  Garland. The choice of Garland was an extraordinary one, as the man was not only imminently qualified, but clearly Obama had nominated a moderate in judgement, precisely what the country required if any semblance of healing was to occur.

Merrick Garland is not a member of SCOTUS, simply and only, because the Republican party deliberately chose to refuse to even give the man a hearing. Mitch McConnell actually stated that if Hillary Rodham Clinton was elected president of the United States, they would block any of her nominees. Apparently Mitch McConnell had an epiphany and saw the wisdom of reducing a politicized SCOTUS in total number so as to reduce the effects of corruption or extreme ideology on our democratic processes. He was correct, politicizing the SCOTUS is a mistake and a degenerative SCOTUS simply needs to be diminished in importance and impact until sanity in our politics re-emerges. 

Now that Trump has nominated a right wing zealot with a bias toward those of similar wealth status as himself, as a SCOTUS nominee, it is imperative that the Democrats in Congress concur  with McConnell’s conclusion that nine is far too many members for the Supreme Court to have. I am perfectly content with eight, or, actually, with seven. Or, perhaps six and then five and finally four. Yes, four is a good number. If they are divided politically, or ideology, then they can simply render ineffectual judgements.

It is the patriotic duty for every Senator to refuse to approve any more judges for a seat that it is illegitimate. Further, it is their patriotic duty to recognize the extreme politicization of this previously august body, and to reduce the membership via attrition until a maximum of four or less is attained. Call your Democratic Senators and advise them to filibuster any and all nominees. Also Call your Republican Senators and advise them of their treasonous actions in blocking Merrick Garland and advise them to follow McConnell’s advice in reducing the total number of SCOTUS judges.

As for whether it is treasonous or not, consider this argument, printed and edited, from a Quora posting, namely https://www.quora.com/What-acts-are-considered-treason


Here's one of those definitions:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cons...

U.S. Constitution, Article 3, Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Now, there was a little problem here because it wasn't specifically called out that a Congresscritter violating their legally binding Oath to protect Our Constitution is, in point of Fact, working against the Nation and could be used to adhere to the enemies of Our nation by giving them aid and comfort in protection from Our Laws. So in 1868 they added this bit to make it crystal clear the Congressional Oath of Office was, in Fact, legally binding and that any who violated it should be thrown bodily from the Capitol. 
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cons...


U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

What this bit does is define Treason against the Constitution as a High Crime and mandates that any Public Official in the US who subverts, evades, or rebellion against Our Constitution be thrown from office and banned forever from service in any Public Office... whether they were elected or appointed. 

Sadly for our bribed and treasonous Congresscritters and judges there is precisely zero wiggle room here. They are specifically bound by the Constitution and actions which attempt to "change" our Constitution without the use of the Constitutionally mandated Amendment Process and all its inherent protections, are committing "insurrection or rebellion against the United States Constitution."

Tired Old Excuses Return to the Elbert County BOCC

Sometimes, no matter how much you want things to change, they don't change.  You hope and hope and hope that things will change in Kiowa, but they don't. No matter what kind of lucky talismans you carry, no matter how many lucky rabbits' feet adorn your key chain or how many four leaf clovers you carry in your wallet carefully preserved in wax paper, you just can't catch a break.  You were hoping you were going to get lucky and discover that things in Kiowa were going to change but then you learned that things remain jammed, blocked and frozen.  You can uncross your fingers, Nelly. If this week's BOCC meeting was indicative of what we can expect in the future, you are going to be underwhelmed. Sigh.

Now, in fairness to the BOCC, I can only give you this information in a secondhand manner.  You see, I had other personal business conflicting with my ability to come into Kiowa and sit in on the scheduled BOCC meeting.  I was hoping that there would be a recording of the meeting, but since that accounting is left to the public to perform, we cannot always be sure that it will happen.  People have jobs,  they have appointments, they have children, et cetera, that conflict.  I can't blame anyone but myself.  It's my fault I was not able to fulfill my civic duty and attend this important meeting today.

I tried.  I called the usual suspects who are  generally found in attendance at these meetings.  That is when I learned that we are in for another four years of more-of-the-same-old thing. I have been active in Elbert County politics for nearly twenty years.  Every election cycle the Republican candidates make the same old promises during their campaigns. The speeches goes something like this:

Folks, I know you want to become more involved!  I know you have day jobs and can't participate in regular day meetings of the BOCC.  I know you want your opinion to be heard.  Well good news!  I am the one who is finally going to bring you the thing you have been clamoring now for years!  That's right, if elected I am going to make sure at least some of our BOCC meetings are scheduled in the evening.  That way, you can have someone watch the kids.  You won't have to miss work.  You are finally going to be able to express your thoughts at the podium to your elected officials!  Huzzah! Elect me!

Recently, Chris Richardson dropped the same old excuse that we hear every time a new board puts their collective elbows on the table and looks over the tops of their glasses and down their noses at you.  Chris told the people in attendance today that there are not going to be any evening BOCC meetings because the commissioners are only able to do the county business when the county is open.  He reminded us all that Elbert County rolls its sidewalks up at 6:00 PM.  Oh sure, those fluff committees full of citizens can meet at night, but not the commissioners.  Not when the county is closed.

I called a half a dozen counties today to ask if they ever hold evening meetings.  Adams County does, but heck, they have so many more people than we do.  Ouray County does.  Larimer County does.  Mesa County does.  Arapahoe County does not... but they actually hold county town hall meetings on a teleconference line during evening hours.  Funny thing, they do not restrict the callers on choosing topics.  

Elbert County does not hold evening meetings with the BOCC.  They even restrict what you can or cannot discuss during the period set aside for community comments.  Taxpayers just do not matter unless it is during campaign season.

In addition to to this same old set of tired excuses, I just learned that all of the the appointments to the planning commission had been made.  Every new position was filled by a Republican. I learned that every placement on the Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) had been made.  Every new position was filled with a Republican.   The message was ham handed yet clear as crystal:  In Elbert County our government is not interested in representing  the ideas or opinions of Independents  or Democrats.  If you cannot pass the purity test, do not bother applying to fulfill your civic duty...it ain't gonna happen.  As has been the case out here for ages, new ideas are too scary for consideration.  

Let's just be honest with ourselves.  If you are not in 100% agreement with the folks in control over at the Elbert County Republicans, even if you are a card carrying member of the GOP, your ideas are unwanted, bothersome and annoying.  We just got  more-of-the-same-old thing on steroids.  This is all playing out at a time when developers who have an eye on our water resources and are ramping up for a push the likes of which we have never seen.  Everybody was hoping that there would be some moderation by Commissioners Wilcox and Thayer, but alas, recent moves indicate that they are just a politer version of so many of their predecessors who made promises to change and then picked up at the exact same spot where the last team left off. 

The Inevitability of Change in Elbert County

Guest Author - Tony Corrado

2017 is becoming the year of change throughout the world, and, it is coming to Elbert County also. We now have two major housing developments in the planning stage, both of which will be moving to the execution stage in the near future. These changes will bring substantial, and lasting, change to our county in that the traffic, business and rural nature of the north western corner will be forever altered. There is one report that predicts Elbert County will undergo the largest rate of growth, over the next decade, of all counties in the front range.

Many are committed to resisting this change and want to protest the planning and execution of the necessary BOCC actions required to enable these changes to take place. While I understand the intentions and the enthusiasm of those folks who resent this change, it is inevitable. Not only is it inevitable, it is the right of those developers to reap the benefits of their investments. It is also the right of Elbert County tax payers to insist that the process be fair to all parties, that it be above corruption and most of all, that the water, which is essential to our way of life be preserved.

Water, like minerals, is a right the owners have for exploitation as well as surface land development. If done properly, the BOCC can minimize the impact of these developments and do the least harm to future Elbert County dwellers. It is necessary to understand the value of water rights in order to understand how simple it is for the BOCC to minimize the affected water supplies in question.

First, it is necessary to understand that developers make money building homes and selling them to any and every buyer they can. The BOCC, with the advice of the planning commission and the CDS staff, can act to ensure that the physical developments are well planned with sewage treatment plants, improved roads, open spaces etc. etc. What each developer will also seek, however,  is a resolution by the BOCC establishing a water district for each development. Water districts are very powerful instruments in that, once approved by the BOCC, they are then independent of oversight and control from both the county and the state. In essence, if they don’t screw up and violate the rules by which they were established, they are forever in charge of their destinies. Most of them, if not all, will ask the BOCC for the right of imminent domain (the right to seize your property), the right to buy and sell water, and the right to raise monies for their project through the issuance of public bonds. They,likely, will also request authority to construct a pipeline from, likely Douglas and Arapahoe Counties in order to “ensure an adequate supply of renewable water for the future”.

They will, likely, already have purchased the rights to water from the aquifers beneath the county. It will, likely, be a right to access water in multiple aquifers. They will assign a certain number of acre-feet of water to the homes they are building. This assignment will be the minimalist amount of water designated by the State of Colorado. But they will retain ownership of far more water than they designate for the development itself. Why would they do all this?

A pipeline that carries water into Elbert County can be used to carry water from Elbert County as well. The water will never know which direction it is heading. (trust me)
If the aquifer the developer has assigned water from, for his development, ever goes dry, the homeowners will have no choice but to rely on the water district to supply them water. If you believe the aquifer(s) will never go dry, just check the dropping water levels caused by Douglas County development. The developer, having plenty of water they still own, can then allow the water district to purchase the water from the owners of the water rights and sell it to the homeowners. Now that the surface land profit is exhausted, because the development is complete, the owners of the water can now grant themselves an annuity for life because the price of water will now be exorbitant. Look to the Wild Pointe subdivision to see the costs of maintaining a modicum of living style by purchasing controlled sources of water.
By the way, if you think water is not already a global and USA  issue, I suggest you  read the article posted here: https://www.fastcoexist.com/3067513/a-third-of-the-us-population-wont-be-able-to-afford-water-bills-in-just-5-years
In addition to the water supply for the homes they built, the water rights owners can now use that “necessary pipeline” that the BOCC approved, to transport their water to customers in areas of Colorado where the aquifer water can command a higher price.

If this sounds like another Trump administration play, it is. But unlike that fiasco, you, the taxpayers of Elbert County can prevent this from happening. I bet the word you are thinking of right now is “how”?

Imagine if the BOCC, in approving a resolution for these developers and their water districts, simply requires them to not transport water out of the county. Pipelines can bring it in, but pipelines cannot transport it out. They require them to sell water they own, restricted  for use within the borders of the county. Further, they insert a clause that all changes to the water supply contracts, enabling a cost increase, must be approved by the BOCC whenever a price increase is sought.

Sources of renewable water, brought into the county through pipelines are fine and may prove to be necessary for our sustained growth. Aquifer water leaving the county is not acceptable. To those who will suggest that water rights are inalienable rights that cannot be infringed, you are wrong. You may own the water rights and you may sell them or the water they represent. You can fill tanker trucks and have the water transported out of the county. However, the county does not have to enable you to sell it by sanctioning its sale and by enabling it to be pumped out through pipelines they approve.

The indivisible movement has awakened a sleeping giant unlike any this country has ever seen. All it takes is to focus a small of that energy on the three commissioners of the BOCC.

Where the Rubber Meets the Road

So, a little time has passed and there have been some encouraging signs from the newly elected BOCC.  While I was still on the Elbert County Citizens  online site with my weekly blog, I made mention of how positive a step it was to hear from the board members that they would like to usher in a new era of cooperation and friendliness.  Jaw meet floor.  If that does not get you out of your seat and clapping, no matter where you reside on the political spectrum here in Elbert County, I do not know what would.  I was not just saying those things so that the administrator of the ECC would allow me to post my thoughts.  The sentiments are the same today as they were when they posted, genuine and heartfelt.

Lest you think I became a card carrying member of the Elbert County Government Fan Club, let me say that there have already been some troubling actions by a couple of our commissioners since they were sworn into office.  By now you have heard that Chris Richardson was photographed with Planning Commission members, Ron Turner and Bob Lewis, at the local coffee shop in Elizabeth.  Of course, it got out immediately that the ever defensive Mr. Richardson told anyone who would listen to him that they were doing nothing inappropriate.  They were only talking about things that were appropriate and wonderful and good!  Ironically, that is the same speech given to me when I asked developer Tim Kraft if he felt it was appropriate that he was holding meetings with a former commissioner turned water district manager, Kurt Schlegel, and Elbert County Manager Ed Ehmann when the county BOCC had not heard from the planning commission on the Independence/Bandera matter at that point.  Tim got pretty miffed that I said it looks bad.  

The County Manager should not give the appearance of any impropriety and meeting with developers and water managers gives off a certain aroma.  But Mr. Kraft assured me they would never talk about anything inappropriate. I will let the readers decide how the situation looked.  For purposes of this blog, I will give them a temporary hall pass.  Yes, I am a retired teacher.

Then we have the new appointments to the Planning Commission (PC).  Which well-informed people, who are always on top of these important growth issues in the county, did the newly elected commissioners select to be on this august group?  Which "in-the-know" denizens were chosen from those recognizable faces in the crowd at all the really juicy board meetings where all of the highly contentious growth issues had been discussed over the past few years? Uh, what's that you say?  The candidates were not people at the forefront of the issues?  They were not recognized by almost anyone in the room?  Perhaps just friends of the commissioners who might have placed them over people who are really on top of the issues?  Naw, say it ain't so.  

Okay, it is so.  It is not illegal, and certainly well within the selecting commissioners’ rights.  So again, I have to offer up yet another temporary hall pass on the matter, but I am still getting a nose full of that same aroma of which I mentioned earlier.

So at some point in time, we have to establish a metric by which we measure the newly elected Elbert County BOCC.  As I stated in the title of the blog post,  this is the time to see what happens when the proverbial rubber meets the road.  The initial courtesy was extended to the friendlier version of the Elbert County BOCC and two hall passes were issued to them for conduct that might just be attributable to rookie mistakes.  I am good with that, I suppose...at least for now.  Where the true test of whether the new commissioners wish to really change things and usher in a new era of responsible growth comes down to one word.  That word is transparency.

I am suggesting that if the newly elected BOCC really wishes to have a better relationship with the taxpayers of the county, then they have to let them actually see any records that they have a right to see.  Let's be clear here:  Nobody need information that reveals personnel matters or health issues.  Nobody needs the upper hand on competitive bid numbers that might end up costing the county a good price on a road grader.  We get it.  There are certain things that must not be made public.  But there is history that precedes this new board.  There is a path of obfuscation and denial that runs through several offices in the courthouse and the citizens have every right to ask about what is happening with their hard-earned tax dollars.  Instead of coming out with reasonable explanations for why they cannot, or in some cases, just do not wish to share information, officials have used tactics to make the public weary and disgruntled by telling us that the records do not exist.  Equally distressing trick of saying that the request was not specific enough.

The courthouse in Kiowa is not the only place where this is happening.  There is legislation in the pipeline to improve this statewide quagmire designed to keep the public and their inquisitive noses out of the business of government employees.  That would of course be fine, but government is actually designed for transparency and short of the private stuff that can bring harm to an entity as mentioned above, the people have the right to know. The following link takes you to a good article on the subject in the Denver Post, http://www.denverpost.com/2017/02/02/open-records-changes-still-needed-for-transparency/.

So what's it going to be, Elbert County Commissioners?  Are you just putting icing on a stale loaf of old bread and calling it cake?  Or, is it really time for Elbert County to become accountable to the public and work hand in hand with them to solve the problems that are in front of us as we grow into the future?  It is in the hands of this new board.  I know they can do it if they so choose. Now get to class.