Our letters
section and your opportunity to weigh in and be heard. Send
us your thoughts and profundities. You can contact us here.
Muddy politics on the La
Plata
Dear Editors,
In an interview with
Will Sands several weeks ago, I characterized the money grab of
more than $15 million in state taxpayer dollars by the La Plata
Water Conservancy District as political corruption.
Brice Lee, the
District's president, tookexception to my characterization,
calling it scurrilous.I think Mr. Lee is guilty of that old
political gambit in which private greed is paradeded around as
public virtue. Here are the facts as we know them. You
decide.
Mr. Lee says that the
irrigators in his tiny La Plata Water Conservancy District are
water short. It follows from this, at least in his mind, that the
rest of us owe this small group of landowners more than $15 million
in public handouts so that they can begin to correct the problem.
We commoners have to cut back when we find we've overspent. But not
this bunch; their solution is more water, not less. And how do they
get more? They go to shadowy state agencies and get huge handouts
of public money, even in a time of state budget crisis. No
apologies from LPWCD there.
Specifically, the
sources of their windfall are as follows: $15 million from the
Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority for
reservoir construction and another $440,000 from the
ColoradoWater Conservation Board to study the feasibility of
building another reservoir on the La Plata River, even though the
river isalready over appropriated. Some people might find it odd
that $15 million was advanced for construction beforefeasibility
was even determined, but perhaps we quibble.
During this same time
frame, the LPWCD hasalso received over $30,000 from the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation, $60,000 from the Southwestern Water
Conservation District,and about $22,000 from the Animas La Plata
Conservancy District. Working people in Durango and La Plata County
ought to begrabbing their wallets, reflexively,
becausethey've been taxed numerous times to help support the
appetite and designs of the landowners in the LPWCD. The
ALPWCDraises about $205,000 in local taxes annually, and the
SWWCDraises another $620,000.
How much does the
district intend to contribute to helping correct their "problem?"
Well, nothing really. It's our responsibility. They tax themselves
less than $7,000 a year, a pittance when compared with the
operating budgets of most individual families. So how did this tiny
district with a lemonade stand operating budget get so lucky? Well,
the district's past and present presidents ask us to believe it's
Kismet. We think it's self-dealing reaching to the highest levels
of state government.
The District's past
president and largest individual landowner is State Sen. Jim Isgar.
He once professed ignorance on how all this money started landing
on the district's doorstep. He must be just as mystified by the
federal crop subsidy payments he received over the last four years.
They average over $55,000 annually. Compare that to the fact that
over 60 percent of the working families in this country have
incomes of less than $45,000 annually. Mr. Isgar gets most of his
farm-subsidy handouts from the feds for agreeing not to work his
land.
Mr. Lee, the current
president, is more forthcoming about the district's boodle. He says
the biggest chunk is from money that is no longer needed to build
ALP. He is quick to add that the district is no longer part of ALP,
since the conditions for federal funding of the project exclude
that possibility. But that hasn't stopped the district from going
to friendly state agencies and getting a huge handout of money that
was originally set aside for ALP by the state Legislature, money
that we argue should be returned to the State Treasury to offset
budget shortfalls.
And who is the lawyer
advising the state agencies hell bent on giving our money away to a
few large landowners so that they can build another dam on a river
that is already over appropriated?
Why, it's none other
than Attorney General Ken Salazar. He's already built a record of
taking care of water poachers on the Arkansas River. That case has
cost Colorado taxpayers over $36 million. Mr. Salazar characterized
the Arkansas River outcome as a "significant victory for the people
of Colorado." Start celebrating! 4
The situation on the La
Plata River is similar. The water users in Colorado have been
taking more water than they are entitled to. As a result, New
Mexico has been shorted under a mutual interstate agreement, called
a compact. Mr. Lee would have us believe that the issues here are
minor and can be easily corrected, particularly if they are allowed
to develop another reservoir so irrigators in Colorado can use more
water. This is tantamount to claiming you can repay the apples you
owe your neighbor by eating them all yourself. The neighbor might
get a product, but it won't be fresh, and it won't be
apples.
The LPWCD withdrew its
permit request before the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers in the face
of substantial opposition to its building plans. But they will be
back, even though Mr. Lee is complaining in private correspondence
that the feasibility studies are costing too much and that the
district may need more public funding.
Finally, there is the
issue of the friendship between Mr. Isgar and Mr. Salazar, and how
that friendship may be influencing policy. Both are large
landowners, or family members of large landholders. Mr. Isgar,
10-gallon hat on pate, was conspicuous on stage in Pueblo when Mr.
Salazar made his U.S. Senate candidacy speech before the Democratic
state delegates. Yes, I was there. I'm a falling-away
Democrat.
Yep, everything about
this deal with LPWCD is just too tidy. In fact, it reeks of
privilege and self dealing. Personally, I think Ken Salazar should
change his campaign slogan from "Fighting for Colorado's land,
water and people" to "Fighting for Colorado's people who own lots
of land and water and would like more." It is better supported by
the record.
Phil Doe,
chairman, Citizens Progressive
Alliance
End loss of liberty
To the editors, The Orwellian-speak of
the present campaign is suffocating. It is important to vote, as
this is our chance to continue to live in the land of liberty,
where citizens conduct their own affairs and efforts to keep our
overpopulated masses from overwhelming our nest. The other choice
is to go with the guys who influenced the denial of emergency
contraception for women, in spite of favorable testing and
unanimous approval by scientists. This administration began its
first week in office by denying funding for family planning (not
funding for abortions), worldwide. This government sees benefits
for itself in encouraging submission of women and encouraging
overpopulation. This growth provides the president with the cannon
fodder he needs. It also gives his "have-mores" a large desperate
workforce, willing to work for near slave wages.
Who says that
international authorities do not agree with the Bush
administration? Osama, the male institutions of Pakistan,
Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Rome, etc., etc., line up with the
Bush boys to require women to bend over so these men can protect
their values.
While our hearts are
struck with sorrow over the caskets of our friends and loved ones
returning home, the casket the Bush administration wants most to
hide is the one in which the land of liberty is being carried
away.
Kassandra Johnson, Durango
Focus on the real issues
Dear Editors
Oh My God! I cannot
believe so many people are still focused on what our presidential
candidates did, or did not do in the military! I realize that our
nation's defense and protection are important issues these days,
and that the president should know what he's doing, as
commander-in-chief of the military. But I am very tired of all the
back-and-forth attacks on what Bush and Kerry did, or did not do,
back when they were kids.
The reason I want a
Democrat in the White House (and in every Senate, congressional and
governor's seat), is because I want the health and welfare of our
citizenry and environment to have a fighting chance. I have no
problem forking over some of my hard-earned pay for taxes to fund
programs that help people in need, or to keep the environment
somewhat healthy for future generations.
I don't see the point of
putting all our resources into trying to protect us from real or
perceived foreign enemies, when there are so many problems to
tackle on our home front. Problems that we can do something about.
I realize that we probably can't trust either of our filthy-rich,
greedy presidential candidates as far as we can throw them. I am
not a Kerry fan (I was rooting for either Dean or Kucinich), but if
we care anything for the environment, health care or social
equality across all races, genders and sexual orientations, he's
our only hope at the moment.
Regardless of how you or
I vote, let's please focus on real present issues and let both Bush
and Kerry's military experiences be part of the past.
Pamela Marshall, Hesperus
Our Middle Eastern hit man
Dear Editors,
Our national politicians
still do not get it. After experiencing the disdain and alienation
of many former internationally allied nation colleagues in the wake
of our petulance over Iraq, Kyoto, the International War Crimes
Commission and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, they have
further embittered these and others by refusing to recognize the
World Court decision that would restrain Israel's wall of defense
against terrorism to her internationally recognized
border.
Only Thomas Buergenthal,
the American judge, dissented from a 14-1 ruling that orders Israel
to disband its present serpentine construction that makes cantons
without communication of what had been Palestinian farmland, and
provides and protects further settlements by the illegal Israeli
occupiers. The Court continues to recognize Israel's right to
border protection, as in the case of Gaza, but sides with the
Amnesty International Report that the illegal extension and
gerrymandering course of the wall having devastating economic and
social consequences ... separating families and communities from
each other and from their land and water their most crucial
assets."
President Bush, Sen.
Kerry and an approving Congress have all added support to Israel's
denial of the Palestinians' fundamental human rights. Their action
echoes the refusal of President Reagan in l986 to obey a World
Court order to cease our attacks on Nicaragua and to pay over $2
billion in compensation. Their attitude reinforces our blocking of
UN Resolutions 446, 452, 465 and 471, which cite the Geneva
Convention interdict against an occupying nation transferring its
citizens into any land occupied by force.
Our recent $9 billion
guaranteed loan to Israel caps a series of such and iterates our
hegemonic craze to control Middle East resources and peoples. We
continue to use Israel as our vicar "hit man" for what the area
nations rightly see as desire to dominate. It should come as no
surprise to us, a federation founded on rejections like the Boston
Tea Party and Concord of such similar arrogance, that we are now
wound about by the cords of the unwinnable. Desperate people
fabricate such, and history attests to the invincibility of their
weaving. Witness Napoleon, Charles XII, Cromwell, India..... and,
more recently, Cuba. Vietnam, Chile, Venezuela. Witness and
weep.