Carlson has decision-making skills
Dear Editors,
I have known Suzanne Carlson for more than 10 years, as an attorney, as a judge and as a friend. She is a smart, thoughtful person who can weigh information and different options to make sound decisions. I have seen Suzanne make decisions in the lives of others while she was a judge. I certainly trust Suzanne to make decisions in the best interest of our community and the children who attend our Durango 9-R schools. A vote for Suzanne Carlson for School Board, District G, is a vote well-cast. Remember to mail your ballot in!
– Julie Westendorff

ALP is, always will be, a bunco job
Dear Editors,
If one has the best water right on a river that has never gone dry, storage is in that river. And while it might be true that Durango could use storage, the logical place for that storage is not being pumped 500 feet and a distance of several miles to the Animas La Plata Project, but in Lemon Reservoir on the Florida.
 
The Florida River is, after all, where the enlightened Durango City Fathers moved the water supply after the Animas River became too polluted for human consumption in the early years of the 20th Century. Not because of drought in 1902. There was no drought in 1902. But there was heavy metal contamination from the mines and mills of Bakers Park as well as raw sewage being dumped into the Animas from Silverton.
 
Durango’s water rights on the Florida are golden. In fact they are probably some of the best on the entire Colorado River system. However, Durango fails to use all it is entitled to. In the winter, water needs drop and much of the senior water rights passes downstream. Oddly enough, the amount of water bypassed from winter flows is almost exactly the amount of water the City would buy from the ALP.
 
Engineering reports from 1980 recommended that Durango capture that flow by enlarging Terminal Reservoir on Fort Lewis College Mesa. But in their quest for the ALP, the City ignored that recommendation and allowed development up to the edges of Durango’s drinking water supply.
 
There are no engineering constraints keeping Durango from utilizing Lemon Reservoir for that storage. Certainly all the water can be delivered through gravity flow, like it has been for the past 104 years. But as long as the ALP boondoggle is alive, Durango will never do the sensible thing.
I would also like to address the nonsense about the future need for ALP water. That need only occurs if a host of unrealistic scenarios appears. Note that Durango would use the ALP water only if: 1) There is a drought worse than ever recorded; 2) The population of Durango exceeds 40,000 people; 3) There is a call from senior water rights holders downstream in Colorado; and 4) There is a compact adopted on the Animas resulting in a call from New Mexico.
 
I have it on the best authority, Frank E (Sam) Maynes, that since there is no compact between CO and NM, Colorado CANNOT be called to deliver Animas water in New Mexico. That is because NM gets its Upper Colorado River Basin Compact allocation from the main stem San Juan. See: Navajo Reservoir, Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, Gallup Pipeline and the San Juan Chama Diversion. Scenario No. 4 is bogus unless Colorado negotiates a future Compact without considering the No. 1 water user on the river.
 
No. 3 scenario is also bogus. While senior water rights holders could place a call on the Animas from downstream (an event that has never occurred), the City of Durango under emergency conditions has the right to condemn those water rights. They would have to pay compensation of course, but they couldn’t lose their right to deliver water to their customers.
 
A much better idea would be for the City to negotiate a cooperative agreement with those senior water rights holders. Something it has refused to look into despite the fact the City was given the name and phone number of those water rights holders.
 
As for scenario No. 2, does anyone really want to see Durango grow to greater than 40,000 people? Do you want to see even more traffic on the limited roads? And do the taxpayers really want to subsidize that growth?
 
The ALP has been a bunco job from the beginning. We have a reservoir that requires every drop of water to be pumped more than 500 feet and over several miles. And a reservoir that to date, with the exception of the City of Durango, has nobody with a use that can actually pay for that water. With all that water, enough to supply a city of half a million people, and which must be used on the Ute reservations, within the State of Colorado, going to waste, why should the taxpayers of Durango be the ONLY ones to actually pay for that water? Water they don’t need. They shouldn’t.
– Michael Black, Durango

Eliminate redundancy; ‘yes’ on 4A
Dear Editors,
The current Durango Fire and Rescue Authority has more elected officials governing it (22) than it has career firefighters on duty each day (16), the truth. Durango Fire Rescue currently is governed by five boards or councils, each with their own agendas and expenses such as lawyers and accountants to the tune of nearly $800,000 of your tax dollars, a year, in redundancy and funds they retain, the truth.
 
Secondly, state law requires a fire district to be funded equally across the jurisdiction, makes sense. The fire district is requesting a uniform 6.6 mill levy across the entire 325-square-mile jurisdiction to do just that… equal and fair for every home and business owner. Compare this to Pueblo Rural Fire District’s current mill levy of 24.2, it is reasonable.
 
By saying “yes” on 4A, you will eliminate all but one board with seven elected officials and all the expenses and bureaucracy will go away with them. It will fairly fund the department equally from Bondad to Coal Bank Pass. If this is a scheme, as the Durango Herald editorial stated, well then it is a fair, honest and reasonable scheme. Other local cities that use this same fair, honest and reasonable method to fund their fire departments are Bayfield, Ignacio, Cortez, Telluride, Montrose, Aspen, Ouray, Dolores, Lake City, Pagosa Springs, Gunnison … you get the picture. By the way, 21 of those 22 current board and council members 100 percent support 4A knowing they will lose their positions and the one member who doesn’t is sending out exaggerated threats and lies to each of you so he can retain his power. Yes, I am one of your firefighters; yes
I will risk my life to save you and your family … my family accepts that risk. I am simply asking each of you to risk a few dollars a month to help protect my life, to support your current highly respected and qualified Fire Department and, most importantly, to end the bureaucracy so we, the firefighter/medics, can just simply continue protecting you. Thank you!
– Tony Harwig

Vote yes for Ignacio schools
Dear Editor,
This is in response to folks concerned about the Ignacio School Bond issue. I understand.... Wow, less than 1,000 students in this district. More than $50,000 per student for this bond; $84,000 by the time they pay it back.
 
While I agree with some folks’ math (assuming the district does not receive the BEST grant), there is more to the equation. The bond will be paid back over 20 years ... so let’s take that $84,000 and divide it by 20, now we’re looking at $4,200 per year, per student. That number assumes that over the next 20 years, there will be NO GROWTH in the district, which is unlikely considering this is one of 4 the few areas where there is still room for significant expansion and is, quite frankly, one of the most affordable places to live in the county. Also brand new and more efficient facilities will last more than 20 years and will reduce operating costs by lowering dollars spent on heating and cooling as well as the dreaded “emergency fixes.” All of these factors reduce the cost long term.
 
The vitality of a school district is one of the major decisions for many when purchasing a home or investing in a community. Many complain that government wastes our hard-earned tax dollars and there is little accountability for how money is spent. Homeowners and business owners alike recognize and are taking advantage of the lowest rates in history for borrowing. This project is not a matter of IF but WHEN the renovations and building will take place. Do we wait until a roof collapses under heavy snowload? Or when a district employee dies from mesothelioma from asbestos contamination? Better yet, how about when borrowing costs go back up to 7 percent or, heaven forbid, 18 percent like they were in the ’80s.
 
I believe it would be fiscally irresponsible for the school district not to ensure we get the most bang for every tax dollar. 3A holds the district accountable to the community, and the dollars spent by the community stay LOCAL. It’s not being sent to some school on the Front Range to get a heated swimming pool or new football stadium while our kids and district staff are in asbestos-tainted, inefficient facilities.
 
Finally, think about JOBS. A major multi-phase multi-year renovation and construction project will bring critically needed employment to contractors and laborers throughtout our region and those qualified workers bring money into the local economy when they buy lunch, shop for tools or fill up their gas tank.
 
I had initial sticker shock, too, being unemployed with uncertainties in what will come in the future and went to a community meeting, planning to let my concerns be heard. But, after taking a moment and thinking of my other long-term investments – value of my property and the health and well being of my children and neighbors – supporting 3A made economic sense. I urge others to avoid knee-jerk reactions to the admittedly large figure and take a moment to think about what is really important and why you live in this community. Then be sure to mail your ballot.
 
If you have questions about how 3A would impact you or your business, go to www.citizens4ignacio.com and fill out the contact form. Someone from the committee will contact you to help find answers to your questions.
– Gina Shulz, Ignacio

In defense of single-use bag ban
Dear Editor,
In response to Mr. Stew Mosberg’s response to my letter on plastic bags I offer a few comments.
 
Single-use plastic shopping bags are not made from a biodegradable material such as corn. They could be, but that is not the commonly used variety unfortunately.
 
Here is a simple Wikipedia explanation of their makeup: “Traditional plastic bags are usually made from polyethylene, which consists of long chains of ethylene monomers. Ethylene is derived from natural gas and petroleum. The polyethylene used in most plastic shopping bags is either low-density ... or, more often, high-density ... .”
 
As for the harm they cause, again Wikipedia: “According to Vincent Cobb, a seller of reusable bags, each year millions of discarded plastic shopping bags end up as litter in the environment when improperly disposed of. The same properties that have made plastic bags so commercially successful and ubiquitous—namely their low weight and resistance to degradation—have also contributed to their proliferation in the environment. Due to their durability, plastic bags can take up to 1,000 years to decompose. As they slowly decompose, plastic bags break into tiny pieces and leach toxic chemicals into soils, lakes, rivers and oceans.
 
“On land, plastic bags are one of the most prevalent types of litter in inhabited areas, becoming an eyesore to local residents and an environmental hazard.
 
“Plastic bags constitute a portion of the floating marine debris in the ocean, and floating marine debris is largely plastic. When plastic bags are washed out to sea, they pose a threat to animal life. In the decades since plastic bags first came into wide use, there has been a dramatic increase in the quantity of plastic bags found floating in oceans around the world. Once in the ocean, these bags can strangle wildlife or, if ingested, can choke or cause wildlife to starve to death. Some marine animals including sea turtles and dolphins have been killed as a result of ingestion of plastic marine litter, including plastic bags.”
 
Neither Greenpeace nor myself need to explain the appearance of bags at sea. They are there, take a look. If we would like to blame that fact on the seafront communities, why would we not take on the issue locally and reduce our use? Because we are landlocked does not mean that the ocean does not belong to us, we occupy the planet. Plastic bags are no better for the landfills than they are for the ocean, and it certainly would be a disastrous mistake to think we could incinerate them, releasing toxins into the air. Why not just quit using them? That is the easiest, and yes I do take my groceries home in a canvas bag, over and over again, hoping my bag does not decompose.
 
Hundreds of cities and a growing number of countries have banned the use of single-use plastic bags. They are taking responsibility for their actions, and I would like us to consider doing the same.
– Sheryl Lock, Durango


 

 

In this week's issue...

January 25, 2024
Bagging it

State plastic bag ban is in full effect, but enforcement varies

January 26, 2024
Paper chase

The Sneer is back – and no we’re not talking about Billy Idol’s comeback tour.

January 11, 2024
High and dry

New state climate report projects continued warming, declining streamflows