Tag Archives: Local Control

On June 11, 2013, Black Forest erupted in fire.  Living fairly close to the point of origin, we were among the first group to evacuate.  We were out for 8 days.  Our home survived.  Another 488 families were not so lucky.  They lost everything.

My husband and I saw, on our way out of the neighborhood, a sign of just what makes Black Forest people so special.  Cars, trailers, bikes, horses, and dogs were all heading away from the fire.  It was scary and intense, but orderly.  As we were all fleeing the fire, one Black Forest resident, wearing jeans, no shirt and carrying an ax, was walking with a purpose toward the fire.  I can imagine a story in which he has a cabin in the woods somewhere behind him, and he is determined with bare hands and an ax, to help.  That is what makes Black Forest the place it is.

In the days following our evacuation, Black Forest residents came together, privately and without government assistance, to determine how to help our neighbors.  I have attended a number of these meetings, leaving feeling encouraged by the power of ordinary people, voluntarily assembling, to help their neighbors.  They have called themselves “Black Forest Together, modeling their purpose after “Colorado Springs Together” (CST).  CST came together in the days following the Waldo Canyon fire last year, and has had spectacular results.

I was disappointed in the Colorado Springs Gazette’s coverage of CST, and in the refusal of the El Paso County Government which “made a policy decision up front as a board,” not to follow the city model.

Members of Black Forest Together have met with Bob Cutter, President of CST to talk about their experience, and to determine what worked and what could be improved in this new effort.  Cutter shared the following statistics:

• In the Waldo Canyon Fire area, 61% of homes are already rebuilt or under construction after 13 months
• In the High Park Fire area in Larimer County, 27% of homes are already rebuilt or under construction after 13 months
• In the Four Mile Fire area, 34% are already rebuilt or under construction 3 years after the fire

Results matter.  The Gazette should throw Bob Cutter and the CST a parade, not criticize their volunteer efforts.

The residents of Black Forest have the right to do what they decide, not what the county government decides, is in the best interest of the fire survivors and the long term best interest of the forest.

The county is planning on “delegating recovery tasks to subcommittees,” according to County Commissioner Darryl Glenn, whose district includes Black Forest.  With all due respect to Commissioner Glenn and the Board of County Commissioners, I don’t think that’s your call to make.  My suggestion to the Board of County Commissioners is to be proactive in meeting with the Black Forest Together team, and ask these two questions:

1. How can we support this private effort?
2. Where do you need government help and where do you need government to get out of the way?

Seems easy.  And the spirit of Black Forest residents, as evidenced by the guy with the ax walking toward the fire, demands it.

Disclaimer: The above opinions are my own and in no way should be construed to represent Black Forest Together.

Not many have heard of the National Blueways System designation, but it has lawmakers from affected districts hot under the collar this week.

The designation sounds nice enough.  Former Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar signed a Secretarial Order last May and issued this press release. It establishes “a program to recognize river systems conserved through diverse stakeholder partnerships that use a comprehensive watershed approach to resource stewardship”. Sounds benign. But like an Executive Order signed by the President, a Secretarial Order also bypasses Congress, and the scrutiny it would get if it had been legislation.

Is it a big deal for the federal government to provide, as DOI’s Rebecca Wadder calls it, “a pat on the back” to states that are managing their watersheds “correctly”? Some say that it provides the federal government an additional foot in the door to the states. Some are suspicious because they were not consulted. At minimum, if it’s really just “a pat on the back”, doesn’t the DOI have better things to do with our tax dollars?

Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis from Wyoming is concerned about the imposition of this designation in her state without any local discussion or input. She details her concerns here.

Then at a hearing last week, Missouri Congressman Jason Smith, and Colorado Congressman Scott Tipton, expressed their displeasure with the program to the new Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell. You can see those animated discussions here and here. At this hearing, Jewell discusses pausing the Blueways program so she can look in to it. Both Congressmen, like Congresswoman Lummis are concerned about the lack of local input ahead of such designations. Congressman Tipton is additionally concerned about how this will impact private property rights. In Colorado, water rights are property rights. Ranchers and farmers own property along our waterways. Will they be restricted in their crop or livestock management by yet-to-come regulations that fall under the “resource stewardship” goal?

And Secretary Jewell has not released the stakeholder list to Congressman Tipton. Tipton asked in a hearing whether a New Jersey resident who once rafted on the Colorado River could be considered a stakeholder. Russell Boardman, supervisor of the Shoshone Conservation district in Frannie, WY, responded, “As I read it, yes.”

Who is really driving these designations and why?  There are too many open questions that remain unanswered.

I believe that nearly every time a federal agency steps in to state affairs, things become worse. And when the Federal government bestows a “pat on the back” that the state didn’t request, there is cause for caution. Federal agencies should butt out, and leave us to our own affairs.

Did you know there is a County official whom you did not elect?

Many Colorado Counties have a position called Public Trustee that oversees foreclosures in the County. This position is appointed by the Governor. If Public Trustees do not perform, you can’t vote them out; they have no direct accountability to the people they serve.

Fifty-four counties combine the Public Trustee duties with the County Treasurer—an elected position. If voters are not happy with this elected official, they can use the ballot box as a remedy.

Makes sense to me. Why should the Governor have the power to appoint a county official? And the icing on the cake: Counties choosing to combine these roles save money. The County Treasurer receives a small portion of the Public Trustee’s salary for the extra responsibility, but there is no longer an additional high-level state employee.

Now, Representative Ray Scott from Grand Junction has offered a bill, 12-1329, that allows counties to place themselves in the appropriate category to be able to combine the roles. Thus far, only 3 Counties (El Paso, Mesa and Weld) are part of this bill allowing them local control over the decision to combine the elected County Treasurer role with the appointed Public Trustee duties. This seems like a straightforward yes vote.

Find the text of this bill here.

After brief testimony on Monday in the House Local Government Committee, with Douglas County joining the three others, the bill was laid over until at least next week for additional hearings.