That’s when I learned about a state law that requires Colorado utilities to credit homeowners who send power back to the grid at the same rate they would pay to buy power from the power company. This “net metering” policy made adding solar to my home a good investment. Even though we didn’t add batteries, which would have doubled our costs, our solar panels will offset a significant portion of our utility bills.

I’m a fan of net metering because it forces Xcel Energy, which enjoys a monopoly in my area, to discount our bill for any energy our solar panels produce that I don’t use. They do this even though it cuts into their profits. Net metering made the economics of solar power work in my instance, and I save money when the sun shines brightly and spring days stay cold.

But after watching hurricanes knock out power across large regions of the country, I have a brand-new perspective on net metering. Rather than viewing it as a policy that lets homeowners save on utility bills, I’m thinking of net metering as a way to make where I live more resilient to natural disasters.

My parents live in Asheville, North Carolina, which was devastated by Hurricane Helene in September 2024. They were out of town visiting family when the storm struck, but water and power outages kept them from getting home for weeks.

Until 2023, North Carolina had used net metering requirements to encourage solar installation, contributing to its status as the fourth-largest solar power-producing state in the country. But in recent years, power companies successfully persuaded legislators in North Carolina, as well as California, Nevada and Arizona, to switch from net metering to “net billing.” That change and other policies now pay solar producers at significantly lower rates.

In those states, utilities argued that net metering hurts homeowners who don’t have solar by increasing costs for non-solar power. But analyses, notably those conducted by public power consultant Richard McCann in conjunction with the California Solar & Storage Association, show that increased solar production saves billions for non-solar producers in California.

When states move away from net metering — despite the dubious arguments justifying the shift — the pace of solar installations slows dramatically. In California, new solar installations dropped by 56% from 2022 to 2024.

For those of us with solar panels, I think it’s time to think about adding storage batteries right from the start, using that extra electricity for battery charging. Batteries make any home more independent from the grid, but here’s the catch: The cost can be prohibitive. I’m saving up as solar batteries cost between $12,000 and $20,000 for a typical home, according to solarreviews.com.

The advantages to battery support, however, are significant. If homeowners use their net metering savings to add batteries to disconnect from the grid during outages, they could still pump water out of domestic wells, run refrigerators, or charge their phones until power is restored during natural disasters.

Normally, I wouldn’t advocate for state governments to step in and regulate businesses. But in the case of power companies, I support net metering because there usually isn’t a competitive free market for power.

Customers are at the mercy of electric companies that raised power prices 11% in 2022 and 2.5% in 2023, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s state electricity profiles. As the same companies were raising prices, they were also fighting to reduce the amount rebated to solar-producing homeowners.

Now that I’m aware of net metering and invested in providing solar power back to the grid, I’m keeping tabs on any proposal that would reduce net metering in my state.

It’s such a wonderful concept — thousands of homeowners selling power back to the electric company — while also reducing their vulnerability to natural disasters such as wildfire.

What’s even better: Residential solar power mimics a stand-alone power plant, one that need never be built.

Andrew Carpenter is a contributor to Writers on the Range, writersontherange.org, an independent nonprofit dedicated to spurring lively conversation about the West. He writes in Colorado.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Within 24 hours of arriving at his mother’s house in Washington last Christmas, Avery had connected with a local drug dealer through Snapchat. The transaction at his home in Olympia was as casual as ordering food through Doordash: a quick search revealed a dealer openly selling drugs who delivered them directly to Avery. Within hours, my son was dead.

I later learned that Snapchat had received a subpoena for the dealer’s account records two months before he was allowed to deal drugs to my son. They knew about him and did nothing, allowing a known dealer to keep selling drugs to kids using their platform.

If Snapchat had enforced their own rules, which they claim keep kids on their platform safe, my son would still be alive. Now, a new bill on its way to Governor Jared Polis’ desk could spare other  families from this kind of completely preventable tragedy.

There is just one problem: Gov. Polis is threatening to veto it – siding with billion dollar tech companies instead of parents, kids, law enforcement, and an overwhelming bipartisan consensus.

If signed into law, Senate Bill 86 would require social media platforms to permanently remove users found to be engaging in narrowly defined, egregious criminal activity that disproportionately impacts children: illegal drug sales, firearm sales that violate state or federal law, and child trafficking.

It would also require social media companies to respond to warrants from Colorado law enforcement in a timely manner, which is a tragically necessary measure given these companies’ track record of stonewalling investigations. When I testified in favor of this legislation earlier this year, I sat next to a Colorado mother named Chelsea Congdon.

When she lost her son Miles to fentanyl poisoning after he purchased what he thought was pain medication on Snapchat, the company simply never responded to the ensuing police investigation. No one was ever held accountable for Miles’ death.

This crisis threatening our kids goes beyond drugs. Colorado’s youth violence intervention groups report that firearms are easily purchased by teens through social media in violation of state and federal law, and often find their way into our schools. This illegal gun trade is directly enabled by lax enforcement policies by social media companies (for example, Facebook prohibits gun sales on its platform, but buyers and sellers can violate the rule 10 times before they are kicked off the social network).

America’s most popular social media sites have also become hotbeds for unspeakable
crimes like child sex trafficking.

It must be emphasized that these companies are not just enabling hideous criminal activity, but directly profiting from it. Social media platforms happily accept payment for ads that boost illegal gun and drug dealers into the feeds of children. In one of their many investigations into the top tech platforms, the Tech Transparency Project revealed over 450 paid advertisements openly selling drugs on Instagram and Facebook in just three months of 2024. These weren’t coded messages – they showed explicit photos of pills and powders.

A bill to put an end to this insanity in the state of Colorado has already passed both chambers of the state legislature with overwhelming bipartisan support. Senate Bill 86 also has the support of every district attorney in the state – democrat and republican – and was developed in partnership with Attorney General Phil Weiser.

The only people who seem to have a problem with this bill are lobbyists for social media  companies, and Gov. Jared Polis. The arguments Gov. Polis’ office has offered in opposition to this bill, which cite concerns about “free speech” and “protecting innovation,” are absurd and offensive. Preventing a drug dealer from offering fentanyl to a child is not a “free speech violation.” Enabling
illegal gun sales and child sex trafficking is not “innovation.” These half-baked arguments make a mockery of the heartbroken parents who have been advocating for commonsense reforms for years.

SB 86 will land on Gov. Polis’ desk within the next few days. I urge him to do the right thing, drop his nonsensical opposition, and sign it into law without delay. Parents in every corner of our nation will be watching

Aaron Ping has joined parents across the nation to fight for regulation of social media companies to protect children from illegal activities.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Re: “City Council considers whether to keep cams taking photos of license plates,” April 7 news story

It’s a reminder of why I love Denver and Colorado. Denver City Council is debating keeping a license plate recognition program that has proven successful at identifying stolen cars driving past and, by extension, catching the “suspects” driving them.

Why the pause by the Council? Privacy concerns! Balancing the greater good with individual freedoms is government operating at its best.

One only has to observe our current national government grabbing people off the streets and, without “due process,” but for simply expediency, shipping them off to a hellhole prison in El Salvador.

It’s comforting to know someone still cares for the rule of law.

Harry Puncec, Lakewood

A violation of American values

Re: “Federal government detains international student at Tufts,” March 27 news story

Watching the video of Rumeysa Ozturk, a 30-year-old Turkish student working on a Ph.D., is pretty sickening, especially since it is occurring in the United States.  First of all, we keep hearing the lie that the administration is only deporting violent criminals. Then we have masked people who claim they are with law enforcement, grab her and handcuff her, and apparently cart her off to Louisiana. She did have a visa allowing her to study in the U.S., which the president’s administration apparently revoked and shipped her to Louisiana. Unlike these agents, Hitler’s SS did not bother wearing masks.

One story is that she spoke up and was against the killing of thousands of innocent women and children in Palestinian territories. Target Hamas? Yes. Slaughtering innocents? We all should be against.

I guess this is a way that President Donald Trump wants to keep people from traveling to the U.S. and spending dollars here. But America, it is not. It is evil and corrupt, in this 83-year-old’s opinion.

Wayne Wathen, Centennial

Work hard, pay taxes, get deported

Re: “Internal Revenue Service will send immigrant tax data to ICE enforcement,” April 9 news story

To Make America Great Again, the IRS will give the tax returns of immigrants who work and pay their taxes to Homeland Security so they can target and deport undocumented immigrants who work in America and pay their taxes. Why not? Makes about as much sense as the Trump tariffs scheme.

Jeffrey Stroh, Denver

Biden’s brag about job creation

I remember when former President Joe Biden boasted about the increase in employment each month. Nobody ever complained that many of those jobs were unneeded government jobs. Now everybody is complaining about the reduction in government jobs, especially the provisional workers who have been employed less than two years – the same two years Biden boasted about rising employment. The chickens have come home to roost.

Jim Lloyd, Lakewood

Shouldn’t we taxpayers be team owners too?

Re: “NWSL stadium: Denver to kick in up to $70M,” April 10 news story

So now, after the National Women’s Soccer League team owners have announced that they will bring a new team to Denver and have sold season tickets, the taxpayers of the city find out that they should kick in $70 million dollars to make this work. Why do cities keep doing this?

Private capital came up with $110 million to pay the fee for the NWSL expansion franchise. If Denver adds $70 million to the pot, then why should the city not own 39% of the team?

Professional sports have become a money spinner for team owners in America. Nonetheless, the taxpayers of Denver are being asked to put their money at risk with no reward for any upside.  Would you give someone 39% of the capital needed to start a new business without any ownership rights in the enterprise? So why should the taxpayers of Denver do this for the new NWSL team owners?

Guy Wroble, Denver

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

If Bennet wants to show voters that he truly cares about Colorado, he should resign now to run for governor.

Anything less would be unfair to Coloradans during this time of unprecedented turmoil in Washington, D.C. No one from Colorado is better suited to fight President Donald Trump’s out-of-control agenda than Bennet, but if he has his heart set on coming home to be governor, he must step aside for someone else to fill his seat for the next three years.

Bennet is only 2 years and four months into his six-year term in the U.S. Senate. If he were to resign now, Gov. Jared Polis could appoint someone to serve almost four years in the Senate before the November 2028 election. That is a meaningful term for Coloradans.

All politicians must balance their time in office between the duties of their job and the rigors of the campaign trail. A major shortcoming of the U.S. House is that the two-year terms force politicians to constantly be in campaign mode. The six-year terms of the Senate give our nation’s 100 most powerful legislators a reprieve from the trail to get work done and fight for their constituents.

Bennet says he can easily manage representing Colorado and running a campaign; after all, he’s done it three times before in his bids for re-election. But we see a difference. Incumbents finish off their term — no matter the length — with a campaign blitz that often has an uncontested primary to a general election. Bennet will be pock marking the middle of his term with a grueling primary against Attorney General Phil Weiser in June 2026 and then what could prove to be a challenging general election that November.

Bennet poured salt on the wound of losing a tenured U.S. Senator Friday when he announced his plans to time his resignation so that he could fill his own vacancy were he to win.

If Bennet wants to beat Weiser, starting out his campaign with a political power grab is not a good look.

Bennet must send a clear message to Coloradans that he is in it to win it, and that he won’t play political games with his vacant seat. We are certain the power to appoint his successor would sideline some Democrats on a short list for the appointment who otherwise would be tempted to back Weiser. That alone doesn’t feel like a fair fight.

Colorado Democrats and unaffiliated voters deserve a robust primary between Bennet and Weiser.

Gov. Jared Polis is trustworthy in appointing Bennet’s successor to the U.S. Senate.

Ironically, Bennet himself was an appointment. Gov. Bill Ritter appointed Bennet on Jan. 21, 2009, to fill the seat vacated by Sen. Ken Salazar so he could serve as secretary of the Interior. Bennet quickly faced re-election in 2010. That year, due to both Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Joe Biden leaving for the White House and Sen. Hillary Clinton becoming secretary of State, there were a record number of appointed members serving in the U.S. Senate.

After the corruption involving Obama’s seat – which contributed to the incarceration of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich – many states passed laws either stripping governors of the power of appointment altogether or requiring a special election to be held as quickly as possible following an appointment to give voters a say.

Who can forget the recording of Blagojevich played by prosecutors: “”I mean, I’ve got this thing, and it’s [expletive] golden. And I’m just not giving it up for [expletive] nothing.”

Today 10 states authorize gubernatorial appointments but require a special election quickly, and 5 states don’t allow governors to make an appointment at all but hold the seat empty until a special election can be conducted. Colorado lawmakers should consider adding our state to the list of states that make sure voters get to pick replacements quickly through ad-hoc elections. A federal effort to eliminate the ability for governors to make appointments was introduced, but leadership never let the measure get a vote.

Not all appointments are bad, however. Bennet has served us well, and his first re-election came quickly because Salazar’s term was up in 2010 anyway. We have endorsed Bennet for Senate in all of his bids for re-election because he is competent, honest, and hard working.

Bennet, however, should resign to run.

Trying to have it all – retain his senate seat if he loses and hand-picking his own replacement if he wins — is unfair to Coloradans.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

We are adamant that divesting our public lands from public ownership would be a grievous error. We encourage all Americans to support the public servants who work for you and, most importantly, the public lands that belong to all of us and define us as Americans.

This year started with the catastrophic fires in southern California. It is now only spring, and already we have an active fire season across parts of the southeast. Is this a time to dismiss thousands of trained firefighters? Most U.S. Forest Service employees have collateral firefighting jobs and are called on as fire season escalates.

We believe that the current administration’s abusive description of career federal employees is an unforced and, frankly, unforgettable error. These fired employees, we know from experience, represent the best of America. Many gave up other potentially financially lucrative jobs to serve the public interest, many were military veterans. To see them treated the way they have been over the past few months is incompetence at best and mean-spirited at worst.

There was the random firing of some 3,400 probationary Forest Service employees, some with years of experience as seasonal firefighters, others with jobs ranging from managing prescribed fire and fuel reduction, timber sale layout, fish and wildlife habitat improvement to campground maintenance. This was followed by a court order to reinstate the fired employees, who were only soon to be fired again. Additionally, there was the buyout and retirement incentives of another 3,000 employees.

While the exact numbers are changing daily, the chaotic approach resulted in many of the top leaders, including the Forest Service chief and another dozen top agency leaders to leave or be demoted. Further, major reductions in the workforce are expected. The administration has asked USDA to significantly cut more funding and people.

This is occurring while a recent Executive Order calls for the immediate expansion of timber harvest from the National Forests and other federal public lands.

If the White House continues to dismiss the employees who manage the campgrounds, visitor information centers, trails systems for hiking, biking, horseback riding and motorized uses, facilities will have to be closed. The summer vacation season is just around the corner.

Permit holders for animal grazing, oil and gas leases, logging and mining activities will also be affected. It appears the intent is to create a number of crises for the millions of Americans who use the national forests and grasslands for their livelihoods and for their recreation. Rural economies are intertwined with the uses on these lands, bringing millions of dollars to local economies.

Are these drastic actions the first steps toward crippling the agencies so they cannot carry out their Congressionally mandated mission? If so, they portend a cynical effort to divest and transfer federal public lands to the States and private interests.

The national forests are public lands that are owned collectively by all U.S. Citizens and managed under the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act and a host of other laws. These laws allow for responsibly managed oil and gas development, mining, timber harvest, as well as recreation development, untouched wilderness, and many other uses. Most importantly, they are the backyard of families that camp, hike, bike, cut firewood, ski, float rivers, hunt or fish on their public lands without “no trespassing” signs.

More than 60 million Americans get their drinking water from streams that flow from the 193 million acres of national forests. Truly, we have a federal public land system in the U.S. that serves us daily and is the envy of natural resource professionals around the world for the benefits realized by our citizens daily. Divesture of these precious lands, that belong to all citizens rich and poor, would be an irreparable tragedy.

The first Forest Service Chief Gifford Pinchot famously wrote, “Where conflicting interests must be reconciled, the question shall always be answered from the standpoint of the greatest good of the greatest number in the long run.” We believe the greatest good is keeping the National Forests and all federal public lands in the hands of all citizens for future generations.

The six authors of this column served as U.S. Forest Service chiefs between 1997 and 2025. Mike Dombeck (1997-2001), Dale Bosworth (2001-2007), Gail Kimbell (2007-2009), Tom Tidwell (2009-2017, Vicki Christiansen (2018-2021), Randy Moore (2021-2025).

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Re: “Lower Arkansas Valley: Clash over water,” April 6 news story

While visiting a local business the other day in Rocky Ford, I noticed the headline in the local paper about another attempted water grab in the Lower Arkansas Valley by Colorado Springs. I am a fifth-generation farmer, and we have agricultural interests in Kansas and Colorado, including in the valley.

For anyone unaware of the consequences of these water grabs, it would be timely to take a drive through Ordway, Las Animas, or other locations in the valley. There you can see the impact of the greed of cities and developers.

The reality is that the cities and the developers operate on the assumption that there is a God-given right to develop. Last Sunday, there were also articles about the massive growth around DIA and the need to widen Peña Boulevard to handle the higher volumes of traffic. Really? The fact is that we are dealing with finite resources, and there are limits to growth.

I am fully aware of the water savings technology that is in use in agriculture, and there are multiple ways in which that technology can and should be used in urban settings. But when we have unaccountable bureaucrats who have no incentive to conserve, the result is bound to be bad.

Until there are some honest conversations and leadership at all levels of government in Colorado about the limits to growth that are tied to finite water resources, the conversations about saving the Colorado River and other water sources are just for show.

Ben Palen, Denver

I’m pretty sure they teach the basics of supply and demand in business 101. But just in case the people in charge of these decisions skipped that class, let’s review. There’s no question the Front Range needs water to continue to develop. That’s the demand side.

The problem is the search for new water sources in areas that don’t have water to spare. We don’t need to duplicate the actions of Los Angeles that turned the Owens Valley into a desert, with the same outcome for the Arkansas River Valley in Colorado. How about a different approach? Look to obtain new sources of water from areas that have a surplus of water.

The Missouri River and Mississippi River basins flood with regularity almost every year. This would be the supply side of the equation. Why not run a pipeline to the Front Range? It seems feasible that they could run a pipeline that would parallel existing oil pipelines. They could also utilize solar, wind and backup generators to run the pumps.

The immediate argument is that we can’t; it’s too expensive. Yes, it is expensive, but can’t never got anything done. Los Angeles proved that water runs uphill to money, and the money is there. It’s there in the form of insurance settlements to pay for all the damage the flooding does every year to that region. It would require reallocating how the money gets spent. It would require a functioning federal government. It would require political willpower. The issue isn’t the short supply of water; it’s the short supply of imagination.

Mike L. Keith, Gunnison

Commuter rail is Front Range issue to solve

Re: “Still waiting: Endless barriers prevent start of construction on train from Pueblo to Fort Collins,” April 6 commentary

Please name the fast-growing cities in the United States that do not have traffic problems. They are everywhere.

Predictability in transit times is important for economic efficiency. Given the unpredictable nature of metropolitan road traffic, there is a significant opportunity to improve economic efficiency through improved transit.

NIMBYs, however, don’t want to share the burden. Nor do environmentalists. Further, there is no consensus on the ideal solution. Is it light rail, subway, more highway lanes, blimps or a partridge in a pear tree?

Most importantly, there is no money — not local, not federal. The federal government’s debt level must be reduced. It cannot borrow funds to solve traffic frustration.

What is the solution? Colorado residents must pay for the improvements in transit. If Coloradans are frustrated by the lack of a solution, I suggest they buy a mirror.

Every people has the government it deserves.

Michael Canon, Denver

I wholeheartedly agree with the content of Sofia Joucovsky’s commentary. Sadly, our country now lags behind both European and Asian countries in passenger rail infrastructure. Dispersed population centers like those that exist on the Front Range could easily upgrade the system in a simple, linear way.

Peter Ewing, Pueblo

Looking for better ways to get to the airport

Re: “For $15 million, look at all Peña Blvd alternatives,” April 6 editorial

I hope the Peak Consulting Study finds a way to understand who’s using the road and why, which will probably include understanding where the person is traveling to and from. I live near 13th Avenue and Holly Street. The A Line is not close. I’d have to drive there or hire a driver, then still pay the $10 ticket and wait for the train.

I like the idea that drivers could go to E-470, but if most people are coming from the west of the airport, why would they go east? No matter how much traffic I’ve seen on Google Maps when I’m leaving the airport, it has not once told me to take E-470.

The article mentioned the expansion of lanes by the airport, which has always puzzled me. I’ve only been here for six years, so maybe before that, the last mile before the airport had bad traffic? All of that roadwork planning missed the mark on how fast the area was growing residentially. It feels like everyone is scratching their head as to why there are more people on the road.

I lived for years in New York City, and I loved its public transportation options, but that’s not feasible for Denver at this point. We need to think about more futuristic options, like self-driving vehicles with a dedicated lane, because asking me to take a train, then a bus, then walk doesn’t seem like the future.

Lauren Jenkins, Denver

Denver City Council doesn’t need to spend $15 million on a study; rather, look at what the Washington D.C. metro area did in the 1980s. As the area around the Dulles International Airport grew, the Dulles Airport Access Highway became clogged not as much with airport traffic as with travelers going to homes, shops, and restaurants between the Beltway (Interstate 495) and the airport. Does this sound familiar? It should, because that is what is happening between Interstate 70 and DIA. This is due to all of the development around the airport. I would venture to say much of the traffic on Peña Boulevard never even goes to the airport.

The solution for Dulles and the surrounding area was simple: Build local access roads to serve travelers who did not have business at the airport and restrict the Airport Access Highway to airport business traffic only. Having traveled in and out of the area since the late ’70s, I can tell you that this has worked and continues to work for the airport and surrounding area.

There seems to be plenty of land around Peña Boulevard. Building traffic lanes for local businesses and housing in the area and keeping non-airport off of Peña makes sense.

Calvin T. Switzer II, Castle Rock

I offer a far less expensive and disruptive alternative not mentioned in the article. Recently, I read a second cell phone lot was being considered. For the new cell phone lot, why not have a continuous loop of shuttle buses?

Departing passengers could be dropped off at the lot, transported to the terminal, and the same bus could bring arriving passengers back to the lot to be picked up. This would not only reduce traffic on Peña Boulevard but also reduce traffic congestion at the airport. RTD could run the service, charge a fee of maybe $2.00 per trip and maybe show a profit.

Attention City Council: I offer this alternative and will accept far less than $15 million.

Steve Nash, Centennial

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Re: “Under bill, gas stations would have to post climate warnings,” April 3 news story

House Bill 1277 (which requires stickers on all gas pumps in Colorado alerting consumers about the negatives of fossil fuel) is an asinine misuse of the Colorado State Senate’s time. I’m guessing little tikes riding tricycles know, at least, that much.

Rep. Ron Weinberg is right in saying that it is an insult to our intelligence.

Moreover, requiring the Colorado Attorney General’s Office to be involved in investigating compliance on something so ridiculous would be yet another asinine misuse of time. The sponsors of this harebrained bill should take some time to learn what real public policy is and attend to that.

Nan Young, Denver

As a physician trained in public health care and a pediatrician living and practicing in Denver, I treat children who live in some of the most polluted zip codes in the country. I can tell you firsthand that the burning of fossil fuels is making them sick. Children are especially vulnerable to pollution-related illnesses like asthma and increased respiratory infections, which can have lifelong impacts, especially as we experience more days of extreme heat.

In light of this health threat, HB 1277, a bill moving through the Colorado legislature requiring warning labels on fuel products, is a viable and necessary public health strategy. We know from history that putting warning labels on tobacco products shaped consumer behavior and was key in advancing tobacco policies that continue to save lives. It is time to take similar action on fossil fuels.

My patients, their families, and all Coloradans have a right to know how the products they are using are impacting their health.

Clare Burchenal, Denver

Party discipline hurts our country

Re: “Congress began ceding power to presidents long before Trump,” April 7 commentary

In his commentary, David Drucker correctly observes that strict party discipline means the U.S. government functions like a parliamentary system, without checks and balances, when the president’s party controls Congress. Parliamentary systems have a check on an out-of-control executive when the electorate is closely divided; changing a few votes in the legislature can force an early election and bring down the government. That is not a feasible option with our fixed terms of office.

We would be better off with less party discipline or a parliamentary system.

Paul Lingenfelter, Denver

Student-athletes deserve fulfillment of education

Re: “The term ‘student-athlete’ is a lie that must die with House Bill 1041,” April 5 commentary and “Bring back the amateur athletes,” April 5 letter to the editor

Jim Martin and the letter writer did not mention an important fact about student-athletes: if they are injured enough to be unable to compete anymore, their scholarships are gone. Unless they also have an academic scholarship, they are on their own. They will have to return home without an education, with a potential lifetime injury.

The perks they may have received as a sports hero are gone; they might have some extended medical care related to the injury, but no way to support themselves. If they were close to graduation, they might be able to get their degree if they planned ahead. Maybe if they were good enough, they could get a position back home as a school coach. Otherwise, many former student-athletes are limping along without a way to make a living.

At the very least, student-athletes should be guaranteed an education if they are injured while fulfilling their obligations to the school.

Beth Heinrich, Colorado Springs

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

My parents’ childhoods could not have been more different, but their families taught them we have a responsibility to build opportunity for one another and for our country’s future. My wife Susan and I share those values, and they have informed her work as an environmental and land use lawyer and mine as a school superintendent and Colorado’s U.S. Senator. Now I hope to carry on that fight as the next governor of Colorado.

U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet jumps into governor’s race, saying he wants “to forge a better politics”

I have worked alongside Coloradans to provide more opportunities in this state. Together, we led the fight to expand the Child Tax Credit, which cut taxes for 96% of Colorado families and reduced our nation’s childhood poverty rate by half. We pushed to end surprise hospital bills, limit seniors’ prescription drug costs, and provide high-speed internet to every household. In the last four years, we brought $12 billion in federal funds to every corner of Colorado to upgrade our infrastructure, produce clean energy, and modernize our water systems. Along the way, we protected many of our treasured landscapes, including Camp Hale, Chimney Rock, Brown’s Canyon, and Camp Amache.

Unlike most Coloradans, President Donald Trump does not believe we have a shared responsibility. He has aimed a wrecking ball at our democracy, asking not “What can I do for my country?” but, instead, “What is in it for me?” His economic policies will make our country even less fair and his rhetoric is intended to divide us so he remains in charge. No president’s values have been more at war with what our parents taught us and their hopes for our country.

Meanwhile, it is getting harder to live in Colorado. Housing, groceries, and child care cost too much. Health care and mental health care aren’t available to everyone. Our schools and small businesses are struggling.

Our best solutions to these challenges will not come from the broken politics practiced in Washington. They will come from us – and that’s why I am running for governor.

Colorado already is a model of leadership for our country. We have passed a robust Child Tax Credit; offered free, full-day kindergarten to Colorado’s families; and fought climate change. But too many Coloradans cannot afford a middle-class life. Those of us who are parents worry that our kids will never be able to raise their own families here.

Colorado’s challenges are not unique. They are shared by people living all over America and result from unfair, trickle-down economic decisions our country has pursued since the 1980s. In Colorado and across the country, we need to strengthen our middle class and build an economy that works better for everyone.

The answers to our economic challenges will not come from Washington’s chaos. Firing federal workers will never bring down the price of eggs. Endless fighting over government shutdowns will not help us build more housing. Cutting taxes for the wealthy will never fix our education system.

Colorado can provide the vision our country needs. We can build a future focused on the well-being of all of us, not just the few. That starts with building more reasonably priced housing so Coloradans of every income level can live near their work, and making health care, mental health care, and child care more affordable and accessible for every Coloradan. We must bring our education system into the 21st century so Coloradans can thrive in our economy, whether they graduate from high school or college. We should make it easier for small businesses, our engines of innovation, to start, grow, and stay in Colorado. We must protect our public lands and build on Colorado’s leadership in the fight against climate change and for energy independence.

As I work to earn your vote for governor, I will keep fighting every day for Colorado in the Senate. I will continue challenging President Trump’s dangerous, unqualified nominees, as I did Robert Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard. I will stand up for our democratic values here and abroad, as I have for Ukraine. I will fight Trump’s disastrous plan to take away your health care to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. I will lead those battles throughout this campaign, in the Senate, and as the next governor of Colorado.

Colorado, I am asking for your help to build a brighter future for our kids and grandkids and reclaim the idea that America stands for freedom and opportunity for all. I hope you will join us in this fight.

Michael Bennet announced Friday he will run for governor in the 2026 Democratic Party primary. Bennet has served in the U.S. Senate since he was appointed in 2009.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Re: “New leadership: The Republican Party’s big tent returns to Colorado,” April 6 commentary

I appreciate Brita Horn’s wish to open up the Republican tent to new members. I was one for the first 20 years of my voting life. I am now an unaffiliated voter.

If she really wants me to rejoin the party, she and her fellow Republicans must recognize that when elected to Congress, a new member takes an oath, stating, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic …”

I believe President Ronald Reagan was wrong in stating that Republicans shouldn’t speak ill of fellow Republicans. Any politician who feels they owe more to their party than to the Constitution should not be in office. A Republican or Democrat who refuses to call out members of their party who are not abiding by the Constitution is violating their oath of office. Any politician who refuses to abide by the Constitution is a domestic enemy of our country.

There is nothing in the above oath about supporting a political party. If Horn wants me and the more than 40% of unaffiliated voters in Colorado to join her party, it must demonstrate that its elected officials will abide by their oath and call out any politician (of any party) that is ignoring the Constitution.

Wayne Patton, Salida

Having attended the “Hands Off” rally in Durango on Saturday, April 5, this unaffiliated voter became more progressive than ever. What may have been true about unaffiliated voters leaning conservative in the past, I believe, is no longer the case.

Until Republican office-seekers can truly condemn the current administration’s rape and pillage of our democratic republic, voters like me will vote the other way. Republicans seeking election or re-election will hang on to the coattails of their almighty leader because that is the only way they will get the party nomination from their constituents.

The “big tent” cannot be big enough! Until the current president, with his crusade to limit government services, is no longer in office, Horn’s words of inclusion ring hollow. This is demonstrated by the dismantling of government agencies that were created to help people in need: the poor, the disabled and veterans who served our country.

Horn’s commentary was very well written, and I may have been persuaded to vote Republican before President Donald Trump and his theatrics. But the “big tent” idea is too little, too late!

Cory D. Wheeler, Durango

At least Brita Horn admits that the party does not, and has not, had a big tent. The Republican Party used to promise it regularly but then continued to move further and further to the right. Look where we are now. I wonder if people will fall for this “big tent” trope again?

Marianne E. Duer, Parker

I was happy to read Brita Horn’s commentary. Republicans who can reach across party divides by allowing for all voices within the more conservative spectrum can help meet the need for balance in our state’s political life.

As a pro-life Democrat, I would like to see a similar expansion of the Democratic tent to include those who see that life does not start in the delivery room and yet also recognize the right of a woman to safeguard her own bodily integrity.

It doesn’t stop there. As Horn has shown, there is room for reasonable discussion on all the topics that face and so often divide us.

So many of the tenets held by the Democratic Party — equal economic opportunity, robust social safety net,  public education, respect for human rights, and an attitude of cooperation towards allies and trading partners— can be promoted and implemented in ways that respect legitimate concerns of those on the more conservative side of our population.

Having two parties that complement rather than oppose one another would give us all an opportunity to make more reasoned judgments in our choices as voters, in place of the nose-holding-lesser-of-two-evils ones we’ve had in the recent past.

Let’s have less “either/or” and more “both/and” in our political process.

Frances Rossi, Denver

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

We are dismayed that, based on what amounts to a procedural quibble, a federal court judge ordered Denver Water to abandon the expansion project and halt ongoing construction in two weeks, mothballing the proposed deepening of the reservoir.

Legal documents, and interviews with Denver Water’s CEO and the head legal counsel, convinced the Board that the utility needs this additional storage capacity.

But perhaps more importantly, Denver Water should prevail on appeal because the utility has spent decades painstakingly complying with federal environmental law – checking every box – and has spent millions in remediation on both sides of the divide for the environmental impact of expanding the dam.

The Denver Post editorial board has lamented the frustrating delays to this project, which is the smart alternative to the misguided Two Forks dam rejected by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1990. Two Forks would have drowned the town of Deckers and 30 miles of pristine fish habitat along the South Platte River.

As an alternative, the Gross Reservoir expansion will have considerably less environmental impact while fulfilling a second need that the Two Rivers project wouldn’t have – providing an alternative, albeit limited, northern water source in case the southern water distribution network is compromised by fire, contamination, or even human error or malicious hacking.

Ironically, the lawsuit seeking to stop the 131-foot raising of the Gross Dam is hanging on the argument that the U.S. Army Crops of Engineers failed to adequately consider all alternatives to storing water in Gross Reservoir.

Suffice it to say that we are convinced all alternatives have been given adequate consideration in the 35 years since Two Rivers was felled by the EPA and President George H.W. Bush.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers deemed that the Gross Reservoir was the only place where both of Denver Waters’ goals could be met — increasing storage generally and specifically doing so north of the city so the water would feed through that purification and supply system. Expanding an existing dam rather than building new actually reduces the environmental impact.

In 2003, the EPA commented on the initial draft proposal and need statement by suggesting a single purpose and need would be easier to address than multiple ones — “It would be more useful if a single, basic project purpose could be developed so that various alternatives would not have to be examined for each separate project purpose.” The EPA suggested a consolidation.

When the Corps issued its final draft proposal, the EPA responded by thanking the Corps for their work on the issue and did not appeal or push back again on the question, according to officials with Denver Water and public documents.

The anti-dam movement has gained traction across the West. Dams are coming down in California, Oregon and Washington. Talk of dismantling Glen Canyon Dam once it reaches dead-pool status has gained surprising traction.

Dams are an imperfect solution to the threat of climate change – water stored is lost to evaporation, and the dams have cushioned overuse for years, hiding the lack of water behind consumptive use until crisis occurs.

But dams also have prevented great suffering across the West during drought. In a system built entirely on a use-it-or-lose-it ethos, there is a perverse incentive to overuse water in times of plenty. In times of drought, draconian limits on showers and flushes while trees die are the flip side of the coin.

Reservoirs norm out years of plenty and years of dirth, reducing the extremity of conservation measures.

It is not the duty of the Army Corps or the EPA to find a flawless solution to Denver’s water needs, only one that satisfies federal law, particularly the Clean Waters Act and the National Environmental Protection Act. Stopping construction now also won’t reverse the damage that has already been done to the wetlands below the dam. The larger foundation for the higher dam has already been poured.

Denver Water has also spent millions on a river restoration project on South Boulder Creek and another along the Williams Fork River. These were required remediations for the impact of the dam project.

Yes, the new normal will be using less and less water across the West. The transition to a drier climate will be painful. But the question that will come before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is not whether Gross Reservoir will dull that pain enough to be worth the environmental cost, but whether Denver Water and the Army Corps complied with federal law during years of detailed analysis.

No permitting application is perfect, but we find it hard to believe that after 35 years, countless meetings, numerous analyses conducted by state and federal experts and hours of public feedback, this process was so inadequate as to warrant scrapping the project mid-way through completion.

We’d hazard to guess that upon appeal, the 10th Circuit will find the project can move forward.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.