Good Samaritan legislation: A solution for a vexing problem

The 2015 Gold King Mine waste water spill was an environmental disaster that began at the Gold King Mine near Silverton, Colorado, when Environmental Protection Agency personnel, along with workers for Environmental Restoration LLC, caused the release of toxic waste water into the Animas River watershed.

by Trout Unlimited (Trout Unlimited is the nation’s oldest and largest coldwater fisheries conservation organization, boasting more than 140,000 members. TU’s mission is to conserve, protect and restore North America's coldwater fisheries and their watersheds.  Learn more at www.tu.org)

Pollution from mine sites (abandoned or active) fall into two categories: “Non-point sources” and “point-sources”.  Non-point source sites are those without a specific point where the pollution discharges into waterways.  These are commonly waste rock and tailings piles that cause contaminated soil runoff.  Point-sources are those that have a specific source of water pollution discharge that you can, well, point to. In this instance, think of a mine portal bleeding orange, heavy metal-laden water; that’s a point source.  

This is an important distinction because under the Clean Water Act (CWA), the EPA requires a discharge permit for all discharges of point source pollution. The effect is that third-party groups - “Good Samaritans” who have no legal responsibility or connection to an abandoned mine – who are interested in conducting a cleanup to address a point-source, draining abandoned mine would inherit permanent liability for a problem they didn’t create.  Additionally, Good Samaritans would be required to hold a CWA pollution discharge permit and meet all applicable water quality standards as if they had created the pollution. In other words, the Clean Water Act treats polluters and Good Samaritans the same.  There is no distinction in the law.  

Because a draining mine is likely to drain forever, the entity performing the work at an abandoned site would be saddled with accountability for any remaining pollution and held liable as if they had created the pollution to begin with - even if their actions create measurable improvements in water quality. The existing legal framework is “all or nothing”.  A cleanup project must result in 100% attainment of water quality standards – 99% isn’t good enough.  This creates legal jeopardy for Good Samaritans who are unsure if 100% attainment is possible. This conundrum leaves the EPA as the only entity legally positioned to clean up leaking, abandoned mines.   But, again, it is only through Superfund can this action occur.    

Under current law, only the EPA can treat discharged mine water from abandoned mine sites.  ‘Superfund’, or the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) provides the legal authority and source of funding for the EPA to treat mine waste water from a point-source.  But, mine sites are not the only toxic sites awaiting EPA Superfund cleanups.  At present, there are over 1300 toxic chemical/pollution sites on the EPA’s Nation Priorities List (NPL) awaiting funding and attention, only a few of which are mine sites.  Federal resources are limited for the EPA to conduct cleanups at Superfund sites and there is no dedicated funding source beyond the Congressional appropriations process.  And, unfortunately, there are hundreds - if not thousands - of smaller, abandoned draining mine sites contaminating the environment that are not likely to qualify for a Superfund action.  These are sites that Good Samaritans could take on to increase cleanup capacity beyond the back-logged and underfunded Superfund program.   

View fullsize

After the Gold King mine spill in 2015, numerous Federal and State agencies placed a greater emphasis on quantifying the scope and scale of draining mines in Colorado.  A study by the State Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety (DRMS) showed over 250 draining mines in Colorado with 148 likely degrading downstream water quality.  With more frequent temperature fluctuations and population increases across Colorado, having clean water sources will become more important for future generations of Coloradans.  The draft legislation discussed in previous summaries and below, will give qualified groups the opportunity to assist the EPA and federal agencies in addressing the cleanup of draining mines.    

Good Samaritans would only be those private organizations and/or state agencies qualified to conduct cleanups who apply for, and receive, a new type of “Good Samaritan” permit from the EPA. At a minimum, permit applications would have to include: site description, parties to be involved in project, description of mine residue to be remediated, description of the expertise of the Good Samaritan and resources available to successfully implement the project, baseline environmental conditions, comprehensive remediation plan, monitoring plan, engineering plans, contractors, work schedule, health and safety plan, contingency plans, project budget, proof of financial resources and an operation and maintenance plan. Permits would only be issued after a public hearing and comment period, and only if the Good Samaritan meet requirements to the satisfaction of the EPA and applicable regulations.  

Funding for Good Samaritan projects would come from a variety of private and public sources, including both state and federal dollars depending on site locations.  Grants and foundation money could also be utilized to fund these types of cleanups that would take on a true collaboration of all project partners and interest groups in the surrounding area.   

If the EPA chooses to issue a permit for an abandoned mine cleanup, a Good Samaritan would not be required to hold a traditional CWA pollution discharge permit.  And, they would be shielded from lawsuits if 100% attainment of water quality standards are not achieved. The EPA would instead hold the Good Samaritan to the requirements and terms of the permit.  And, in the unlikely event that a Good Samaritans violates the terms of the permit, and the violation leads to a reduction in water quality or environmental conditions below baseline levels, then the EPA is authorized to require the Good Samaritan to return the site to baseline conditions or face fines, bond forfeiture and permit revocation.   

Good Samaritan legislation is being proposed by conservation organizations such as Trout Unlimited who want to conduct Good Samaritan cleanup projects, but are prevented from doing so under current laws.   Under existing laws, there are three primary disincentives to Good Samaritan cleanups.  They are: 1) It is not feasible to improve water quality to meet high Clean Water Act standards, even though there would be measurable water quality improvements. 2)  The Good Samaritan would be permanently liable for pollution they didn’t create.  3)  The threat of being sued under “citizen suit” provisions of the Clean Water Act if a project does not attain 100% of water quality standards for any given criterion - again, even if there is a measurable improvement in water quality.  

Without Good Samaritan legislation, abandoned mines sites throughout the West that are not qualifying candidates for Superfund will continue to drain pollution every single day without a legal mechanism to begin addressing the problem. Under CERCLA, these sites are not candidates for Superfund projects and therefore the EPA does not have the funding or authority to clean them up.  By passing Good Samaritan legislation, state agencies and private organizations can fill in this gap and help take-on cleanups that would yield cleaner water to the benefit every water user downstream.  

The current draft proposal is for a pilot program that would terminate after 15 projects or 7 years, whichever comes first.  After which, Congress would either let the program expire or pass legislation to continue the program. This will allow for the concept to be proved-up and show that Good Samaritan mine cleanups are effective before making permanent changes to federal law.   

In the end, Good Samaritan proponents believe any improvement to water quality, over any period of time, is better than none at all.  

Clean Water rollbacks will put us back 50 years - what comes next?

Final rule announced; what it says and what comes next.

Final Rule Announced. 

On January 23rd, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) announced a final “Waters of the U.S. Rule.”  This rule replaces a 2015 Rule, which clarified the extent of jurisdictions for clean water act protections.  This new 2020 rule not only reverses the clarifications made in the 2015 rule, but further reverses protections that have been in place dating back to the 1970s.

What it Means?

We are awaiting publication of the final rule and will need to review in detail once available. 

Based on our reading of the proposed rule (we will update this after we review the final rule), the new rule would end Clean Water Act protections for millions of stream miles in the country – streams that contribute to the drinking water supplies of 117 million Americans and provide essential fish and wildlife habitat that support a robust outdoor recreation economy worth $887 billion.  The rule would also erase protections for millions of acres of wetlands, a critical part of functioning watersheds, including groundwater recharge, pollution filtration, as well as protecting communities from flooding. In eliminating these protections, the new 2020 Rule would deregulate a host of development activities, such as pipeline construction that will, over time, degrade hunting and fishing opportunities in every state in the country

Stay tuned for more.

What comes next? How can TU members engage?

Because this is a “final” rule, there is no additional opportunity for comment with the agencies.  However, there are still things that you can do to help voice your concerns about this rule and related attacks on clean water protections.

Write to Congress & Your Governors:

• Congress: Tell your members of Congress that you are angry about this rule and other attacks on the Clean Water Act and concerned about protecting our nations’ waters.  Urge them to oppose any legislative proposals to further weaken protections and urge them to do everything in their power to protect clean water.

• Governors: Tell your Governors that you are concerned about rollbacks for protections of waters in your state.  Many states will challenge this new rule in court.  Urge your Governors to join a challenge against this rule and do everything in their power to protect state waters.

Share you Stories:  We encourage you to share your stories and concerns through letters to local papers or blog posts on TU.org or other online publications.  The TU Communications team has templates and tools available to assist you. Contact Shauna Stephenson (shauna.stephenson@tu.org) for help drafting or submitting.

Background:

In December 2018, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unveiled a proposal to significantly narrow the scope of protections for our nation’s waters. The proposal would replace a positive, TU-supported 2015 rule (the Clean water Rule) designed to clarify the scope of Clean Water Act protections, which includes protections for headwaters, intermittent and ephemeral streams, and wetlands. The new proposal would substantially weaken the Clean Water Act, one of the Nation’s most effective natural resource laws.

The Clean Water Act and the 2015 Rule are vital to TU’s work and to anglers across the nation. Whether TU is working with farmers to restore small headwater streams in West Virginia, removing acidic pollution caused by abandoned mines in Pennsylvania, or protecting the world-famous salmon-producing, 14,000-jobs-sustaining watershed of Bristol Bay, Alaska, we rely on the Clean Water Act to safeguard our water quality improvements.   

TU members and volunteers contributed more than 4,000 comments for the record, including 25 council and chapter letters and 4,406 individual comments on the proposed rule.

Read TU Comments for the Record:

• Trout Unlimited State Council Letters

• Trout Unlimited Comments (National Office)

• TU State Maps: Waters of the U.S.

Additional Materials:

• 2019-Sportsmen’s Fact Sheet

• 2019-May update to TU Volunteers

• 2019-February update to TU Volunteers

• 2018-December update to TU Volunteers

• Federal Register Publication of Replacement Rule 84 FR 4154 (February 15, 2019). 

• Learn why it’s so important to protect clean water.

For questions, please contact:

Steve Moyer
Vice President of Government Affairs steve.moyer@tu.orgKate Miller
Director of Government Affairs kate.miller@tu.org

Celebrating the passing of the CORE Act through U.S. House of Representatives

Image credit: https://conservationco.org/

Excerpt from the Real Vail article.

Today, Trout Unlimited celebrates the Colorado Outdoor Recreation & Economy Act (CORE Act) passing through the U.S. House of Representatives and moving on to the U.S. Senate. This important legislation conserves more than 400,000 acres of public lands in the Centennial State, along with fish, wildlife and the traditional sportsmen’s values of Colorado’s Western Slope. 

 “Hunters and anglers across the state applaud the members of the House for passing this important legislation protecting our public lands and the vital fish and wildlife habitat they provide here in Colorado,” said Scott Willoughby, Colorado public lands coordinator for Trout Unlimited. “The CORE Act balances public access to fishing, hunting, and recreation in these special places with protection of pristine headwaters that support native trout populations. Following today’s vote, we look forward to working with the Colorado delegation to move this bill forward in the Senate.” 

The four components of the CORE Act provide protection and improved access to public lands in western Colorado. It expands wilderness designations in the San Juan Mountains, increases fishing access and streamlines management of the Curecanti National Recreation Area and permanently protects the Thompson Divide from inappropriate oil and gas development. Lastly, it also establishes special management areas along the Continental Divide, including a first-of-its-kind National Historic Landscape honoring Colorado’s military legacy at Camp Hale where the 10th Mountain Division trained for winter combat in World War II. 

Trout Unlimited members have long advocated for protection for these unique landscapes, including the Thompson Divide, where nearly half of the CORE Act’s protected lands provide a largely roadless refuge for numerous economically and ecologically important wildlife species, including native trout and large populations of elk and mule deer that require room to roam. 

 “Preserving wildlife connectivity and protecting our waters and lands is of utmost importance to sportsmen living in Colorado as well as those who travel here to take advantage of what these special areas offer,” Willoughby said. “Economic impacts from sportsmen are a big driver in Colorado, so ensuring more access and opportunities is critical to maintaining our recreation economy and the license revenue required by Colorado Parks and Wildlife for fish and wildlife management.” 

A map of lands affected by the CORE Act in Colorado. (Handout from U.S. Rep. Joe Neguse and U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet)

Among the benefits of the CORE Act, the Curecanti Boundary Establishment Act promises to restore an additional 11.5 miles of public fishing access in the Gunnison River Basin due to an as-yet unfulfilled mitigation obligation from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation dating back to the creation of Blue Mesa Reservoir and the surrounding Aspinall Unit in the late 1960s. Additionally, the San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act will benefit the San Miguel, Uncompahgre, and Animas watersheds, protecting 2.5 miles of Colorado River cutthroat trout habitat, which currently occupy less than 10 percent of their historic range. 

“TU deeply appreciates Representative Neguse’s efforts and the strong support of Chairman Grijalva for enabling its passage, said Willoughby. “It is a true testament to Colorado’s commitment to investing in our treasured public lands and outdoor recreation economy.” 

Read More: https://www.aspendailynews.com/news/house-passes-core-act-which-protects-thompson-divide/article_d3632ad2-fc07-11e9-90e4-cffdd277f613.html

CTU Supports Proposition DD: A letter from the Executive Director

With Election Day right around the corner, I’m writing on behalf of Colorado TU to recommend you vote YES on Proposition DD and help invest in the future of Colorado’s rivers and watersheds.

Proposition DD would add a 10% tax on casinos’ sports betting, generating up to $29 million in annual proceeds to invest in Colorado’s water future. Only the casinos will pay, but all of Colorado stands to benefit.

The last time a major statewide water funding measure was on the ballot – the $2 Billion Referendum A in 2003 – Colorado TU was a vocal opponent. So what has changed? This time, there is a plan for how to use the funds – Colorado’s Water Plan – and it places much-needed emphasis not only on meeting water needs for our growing population but also on preserving the healthy rivers and productive agricultural lands that are so much a part of what makes Colorado a great place to live and work.

Colorado is in urgent need of more funding to implement its water plan because its population is expected to double by 2060, and current water supplies cannot keep up with demand in the future. Investment in our water system must be a priority to meet our water needs while preserving Colorado water values for healthy rivers and thriving farms. From projects for river and watershed health, to modernizing irrigation systems to improve efficiency, to conducting balanced multi-purpose projects, funding for Colorado’s Water Plan is critical to preserve our Colorado way of life.

Just as Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) has done for our open space and park lands, Proposition DD promises to spur much-needed investments and partnerships to benefit our waters. It is an important down-payment on Colorado’s water future.

Please join us in supporting Proposition DD – and don't forget to tell your friends and family to do the same!

Sincerely,
David Nickum, Colorado TU Executive Director

In the News

• https://www.postindependent.com/opinion/letter-support-colorado-proposition-dd/

• https://yesondd.com/

• Trout Unlimited: Colorado has a water plan; now let’s fully fund it: https://www.tu.org/blog/colorado-has-a-water-plan-now-lets-fully-fund-it/

TU sues EPA over removal of Bristol bay protections

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 

Contact:  

Chris Wood, Trout Unlimited CEO, (571) 274-0601 

Nelli Williams, Trout Unlimited Alaska program director, (907) 230-7121 

Trout Unlimited sues EPA over removal of Bristol Bay protections 

Sportsmen argue EPA ignored sound science, prioritized advancement of Pebble mine over fishing industry. 

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Trout Unlimited, represented pro bono by Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, filed a lawsuit today against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over its recent decision to withdraw protections for the Bristol Bay region of Alaska. Called the Bristol Bay Proposed Determination, the protections would have limited the scope and scale of impacts from the proposed Pebble Mine to the world-class salmon, trout and water resources of the region. 

“The practical effect of the EPA’s decision was to help out a mine that would devastate a fishing and hunting paradise,” said John Holman, who grew up in the area and is a second-generation owner of No See Um Lodge, a Trout Unlimited member business. “I cannot in good faith pass a business down to my family that will become a financial burden if the Pebble Mine is built. Who does our government work for? This decision made it seem like the EPA and our elected officials are writing off thousands of American jobs, and businesses like mine so a foreign mining company can obliterate the land I depend on, then walk away.”  

Trout Unlimited’s lawsuit alleges the EPA ignored science and the potential impacts of developing the mine when it withdrew the Bristol Bay Proposed Determination, and in doing so violated the Administrative Procedures Act and Clean Water Act. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers cannot issue a permit to Pebble if the EPA’s decision on the Bristol Bay Proposed Determination is overturned.  

“Billions of dollars have been spent in attempt to restore salmon runs in the Pacific Northwest. Meanwhile, Bristol Bay sets records for its salmon returns year after year. All we need to do is have the humility and common-sense to leave this landscape alone,” said Chris Wood, president and CEO of Trout Unlimited. “Sacrificing a place such as Bristol Bay for some gold is a short-sighted fool’s errand. We are not a litigious organization, but we and millions of other sportsmen and women will not allow greed to compromise the most important salmon fishery on the planet.” 

The Bristol Bay region of southwest Alaska supports the world’s most abundant sockeye salmon run, Alaska’s best Chinook salmon run, and a world-famous trophy rainbow trout fishery. These fisheries are the foundation for a robust sportfishing industry, a rich cultural history and subsistence way of life supporting more than 30 Alaska Native Tribes, and a valuable commercial fishing industry. Bristol Bay fishing—including sport, commercial and subsistence—accounts for thousands of sustainable local jobs and more than $1.5 billion in annual economic activity.  

Citing this unique and wild character, and the economic and cultural importance of the region, the EPA prepared the Bristol Bay Proposed Determination after years of scientific research and multiple peer reviews, with many thousands of Alaskans and millions of Americans voicing support for protecting the region.  

“Any action that jeopardizes this fishery and extremely unique place is unacceptable,” said Nelli Williams, Alaska director for Trout Unlimited. “The proposed Pebble mine is widely opposed by anglers and hunters across Alaska and the country. This lawsuit is a step to hold the EPA accountable to their own science and American sportsmen and women, not a foreign-owned mining company.” 

Photo by Fly Out Media.

“Look at what’s at stake and the maddening progress Pebble is making here at our expense,” said Nanci Morris Lyon, local resident and owner of Bear Trail Lodge, a Trout Unlimited member business. “Contrary to science, the will of the people, and common sense, Pebble is advancing toward their key permit, thanks in part to agencies giving them handouts. This lawsuit calls that out. We can’t afford Pebble in Bristol Bay, and that means we need science, oversight, integrity and persistence.” 

“Removing the Proposed Determination was one of the most poorly justified decisions in the history of the Clean Water Act and is an affront to the fisheries, local communities, and sportsmen and women around the world,” said Wood.  

### 

Trout Unlimited is the nation’s oldest and largest coldwater fisheries conservation organization dedicated to conserving, protecting and restoring North America’s trout and salmon and their watersheds. In Alaska we have worked in the Bristol Bay region for almost two decades along with thousands of members and supporters including dozens of businesses that depend on the fishery of the region. Follow TU on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram and our blog for all the latest information on trout and salmon conservation. For more information on the Save Bristol Bay campaign go to SaveBristolBay.org. 

Take Action for YOUR Public Lands

We celebrate our nation's rich legacy of public lands and the natural resources that depend on those lands - including the amazing fishing and other outdoor recreation opportunities that our public lands support. National TU is preparing a series of blog posts about the major agencies responsible for managing our federal public lands - the US Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and US Fish and Wildlife Service. You can read the first post - featuring the story behind the Forest Service- here.

One of our nation's most successful programs investing in public lands and outdoor recreation is the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). We celebrated earlier this year as Congress passed and the President signed legislation permanently authorizing this program, which has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into Colorado's great outdoors from our iconic national parks to community trails and parks in our own backyards.

LWCF doesn't depend on your tax dollars but rather is funded by a portion of revenues from offshore drilling royalties. Unfortunately, these funds are anything but secure and are regularly raided by Congress for other purposes during annual appropriations. Now, Congress is considering legislation to secure those dedicated funds on a permanent basis so that LWCF can continue to support public lands and outdoor recreation for generations to come.

You can help by asking your Representative to support this important legislation. Please take a moment this Public Lands Month to speak up for continued investment in our public lands!

TU supports the Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act

Repost from National Trout Unlimited

by Kate Miller
July 18, 2019
Original Blog post here.

Bill would help to advance renewable energy projects on public lands in a manner that protects fish and wildlife habitat, and strengthens local economies and communities

Upcoming

TU CEO Chris Wood to testify in support of PLREDA before a House Committee on July 25th at 10 am eastern. Read Chris’ written statement or visit the hearing page to find witness testimony and to watch the hearing live or on replay.

What is PLREDA?

On July 17, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) and Rep. Mike Levin (D-CA) introduced the bipartisan Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act (PLREDA). 

• Congressman Gosar’s press release on the bill is available, here.

• Congressman Levin’s press release is here.

The Public Land Renewable Energy Act would create a new system for efficient, responsible renewable energy development on public lands. By identifying priority areas for wind, solar and geothermal development, PLREDA encourages smart siting and efficient permitting of projects in places with high potential for energy and low impact on wildlife and habitat. 

Critically, the act would also strategically direct the royalty revenue from development to invest in local communities, fish and wildlife resources and more efficient permitting for renewable energy projects. 

Why PLREDA?

The nation’s public lands system provides Americans with the some of the world’s richest opportunities for outdoor recreation. In some cases, federal holdings also represent a reasonable setting for well-planned and properly mitigated renewable energy development projects. These energy projects could stimulate job growth, reduce carbon pollution, and contribute to the protection and restoration of fish and wildlife habitat on public lands.

Utility-scale wind and solar projects are a growing presence on our public lands. These projects will help us move toward a clean energy future, but can take up large chunks of land for long periods of time, and may cause some unavoidable impacts on fish, wildlife and water resources and recreational access. The Public Lands Renewable Energy Development Act provides the conservation counterbalance to unavoidable impacts on our public lands.

PLREDA offers a way to offset issues created by development on public lands by designating a conservation fund derived from royalties and other revenues generated by wind and solar energy projects operating on federal land. The bill also directs a portion of the royalty and lease revenues from public land wind and solar projects to compensate for states and counties impacted by development. Read more about the bill details in our factsheet.

Why this Matters for Trout Unlimited

Public lands contain some of the most valuable trout and salmon habitat in the nation. In most western states, public lands comprise more than 70 percent of the available habitat for native trout, representing the vast majority of remaining strongholds for coldwater species. PLREDA offers a way to advance development of renewable energy on public lands in a responsible and innovative fashion, while also ensuring funds flow back into Trout Unlimited’s critical on-the-ground conservation work that benefits anglers and downstream communities.

• Click here to see the TU PLREDA Factsheet and learn more about the bill.

How you can help

We need your help to build even more support for PLREDA. Urge your member of Congress to sign on as co-sponsor of the Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act. 

TU letters / statements:

Upcoming: Chris Wood to testify in support of PLREDA before a House Committee on July 25th at 10am eastern. Read Chris’ written statement or visit the hearing page to find witness testimony and to watch the hearing live or on replay.

• TU Letter to House Natural Resources Subcommittee on expanding renewable energy development on Public Land (April, 2019)

• TU PLREDA Fact Sheet

• Sportsmens groups joint press release re: PLREDA (coming soon!)

That’s all for this one! Please contact Kate Miller, Rob Catalanotto or Steve Moyer with any questions.

Speak Up for South Park, the South Platte and the Arkansas Rivers

The Bureau of Land Management’s Royal Gorge Field Office is currently revising the plan that will determine the future management of 658,000 acres of public lands in the Arkansas and South Platte river drainages in eastern Colorado, and local sportsmen and women are encouraged to take part. These public lands offer world-class trout fishing, crucial habitat for Colorado’s most iconic wildlife, and some of the best backcountry hunting opportunities in close proximity to the Front Range.

Please attend a local public meeting (schedule below) in the next few weeks to share your perspective as a public land user and ensure that anglers have a say about the places where we love to fish. These events will offer updates on the planning process, allow the public to share their ideas and opinions on the draft plan, and suggest ways for citizens to stay involved.

This is your opportunity to voice concerns and make recommendations on how our public lands are managed. The 90-day comment period on the BLM’s Draft Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan & Environmental Impact Statement closes Sept. 20, 2019.

Where and When:

• Canon City - The Abbey Event Center, Benedict Room, 2951 East Hwy. 50, Canon City, CO 81212 - July 9 - 5:30-7:30 p.m.

• Fairplay - Foss Smith Multipurpose Room, 640 Hathaway Street, Fairplay, CO 80440 - July 11 - 5:30-7:30 p.m.

• Walsenburg - Washington School, Auditorium, 201 E. Fifth Street, Walsenburg, CO 81089 - July 15 - 5:30-7:30 p.m.

• Denver - Denver Marriott West, Monart Room, 1717 Denver West Blvd., Golden, CO 80401 - July 18 - 5:30-7:30 p.m.

• Colorado Springs - Westside Community Center, 1628 W. Bijou Street, Colorado Springs, CO 80904 - July 22 - 5:30-7:30 p.m.

• Greeley - Greeley Recreation Center, Room 101 ABC, 651 10th Ave, Greeley, CO 80631 - July 23 - 5:30-7:30 p.m.

You can read the Draft Plan here.

Online COMMENTS:

Can’t make a public meeting? Comments are being accepted online here.

Just click the “Comment on Document” button.

Suggested Talking Points:

Arkansas River.

• Protection of aquatic wildlife, stream health and Gold Medal fisheries: We are asking that the BLM establish and maintain strict stipulations for surface occupancy for oil and gas development surrounding bodies of water containing or designated for introduction of native cutthroat trout (400 meter buffer) and those designated as Gold Medal Trout Waters (805 meter buffer) along the South Platte and Arkansas river drainages. The current draft includes these stipulations but they need to be maintained through the final plan.

• Conservation of unfragmented, functional habitats: We ask that the BLM safeguard our best hunting and fishing areas by adopting the Backcountry Conservation Area (BCA) management tool designed to conserve important big game habitat, prioritize active habitat restoration and enhancement, and support important public access for hunting, angling and other forms of recreation.

• Conservation of big game migration corridors and seasonal habitat: We’d like to see the BLM take steps to ensure the conservation of identified big game migration corridors and winter range. This should not only include corridors that have already been mapped and analyzed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife, but also ensure that the RMP is flexible enough to conserve migration corridors that will be mapped in the future.

• Public access: Public access is necessary for outdoor recreation and we encourage the BLM to identify opportunities to increase access to public lands that are landlocked or difficult to access because there are few or no access points across private land that allow the public to reach BLM lands.

• Community-driven planning: We support conservation measures to maintain the scenic, wildlife, and recreational values of the South Park valley, and the management direction for this iconic Colorado landscape should align closely with the community recommendations developed by local stakeholder groups along with Park County.

A threat to Colorado's Rivers (and Taxpayers)

A Threat to Colorado’s Rivers (and Taxpayers)

Colorado TU says NO on 74!! 

We rarely get involved with ballot measures, but Amendment 74 poses a fundamental threat to Colorado TU’s mission to conserve, protect and restore coldwater fisheries. The Amendment is risky and extreme.  Under current law, when government takes private property for public use, it must compensate the owner – and that is as it should be.  Amendment 74 would expand that concept so that government (i.e., we the taxpayers) would have to compensate land and property owners when government regulates the use of land or property and thereby cause any perceived diminution of value – even where such regulations are needed to protect their neighbors’ property, our communities, or our environment. 

A wide range of important governmental programs could be attacked under Amendment 74. Possibilities could include:

• Local requirements on construction projects to protect our waterways, such as maintenance of riparian buffer strips and management of stormwater runoff, could provide the basis for a diminution of property argument by a property owner that would require governmental compensation under Amendment 74 – or abandonment of those important protections.

• Since only the Colorado Water Conservation Board can hold instream flows, when such a state-held instream flow right requires another private water right holder to curtail their diversions in order to meet a water “call” for the instream flow, that could be interpreted as a governmental action diminishing the value of private property and require taxpayers to compensate the junior water right holder.

• The Colorado Division of Water Resources is in charge of dam safety inspections; if threats revealed in an inspection led the State to place restrictions on how much water can be safely stored behind a dam, that could lead to Amendment 74 claims since the owner of the water storage right would see their ability to use that right (and thus its value) diminished.

• In the wake of a tragic explosion caused by a flowline leak near Freestone in 2017, the Oil and Gas Commission adopted new flowline safety rules. Because the rules will increase costs for oil and gas production, they could be argued under Amendment 74 to have diminished the value of the underlying mineral rights and taxpayers could be forced to foot the bill.

• Fish health restrictions on the stocking of hatchery-produced fish that are not tested and certified disease-free  could be argued to diminish the value of private hatchery properties and thus result in claims against taxpayers for “takings” under 74.

• Use restrictions placed by local governments (e.g., on placing liquor stores or marijuana dispensaries near schools, or water restrictions applied during drought) could be rendered impossible or prohibitively expensive.

• Even laws incidentally affecting a business’ profitability (such as minimum wage, or work safety regulations) could be argued to impact the market value of the property occupied by the business, and thereby become prohibitively expensive to enforce.

The language of Amendment 74 is very simple – and very sweeping.  It is so broad that virtually any arguable impact upon fair market value of any piece of private property resulting from state or local government action – no matter how reasonable or justified or minimal or incidental or temporary – could trigger a claim for taxpayer compensation to the property owner. Even where a restriction was essential to protecting neighboring property values – such as by preventing placement of a landfill in the middle of a residential area – such governmental action could trigger claims under Amendment 74.

The exact reach of its impacts would undoubtedly be decided in the courts – tying up state and local governments in needless litigation even if some of the filed claims are rejected by the courts. The other key effect of Amendment 74 would be a major chilling effect on any local or state government rules designed to protect our environment, public health, and our communities – as our local governments may simply decide that the risks of expensive claims from private property owners preclude them from implementing the kind of planning and protections that we’ve come to expect from them.

Amendment 74 isn’t a new idea; Oregon passed a similar initiative in 2004. After three years and $4.5 billion in payouts required from local governments, voters there recognized their mistake and repealed the measure. Colorado can learn from their costly mistake and vote “no” the first time.

Colorado TU’s Executive Committee voted unanimously to oppose Amendment 74, and we are joined in that stance by a wide range of stakeholders – from Club 20 to the Colorado Nonprofit Association, from the AFL-CIO to the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, from the Colorado Association of Homebuilders to the Colorado Water Congress.

Amendment 74 takes a risky and extreme interpretation of “takings” - and worst of all, it would embed it in our state Constitution where we would be stuck with its intended and unintended consequences, without any ability for the legislature to make adjustments to fix problems created by the measure. 

Colorado Trout Unlimited encourages our members and supporters to vote “NO” on 74.

Download PDF of CTU’s statement

https://coloradopolitics.com/in-response-amendment-74-threatens-colorados-outdoor-traditions/

Tell Congress: take action before America's most successful access and recreation program expires

From crown jewels like the Great Sand Dunes and Black Canyon of the Gunnison, to access on the Colorado River, to community parks and trails in our own backyards, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) has set aside and protected special places in Colorado and nationwide for more than 50 years. If you've gone fishing, hiking or camping on public lands, or picnicked at a community park in your area, there's a good chance the LWCF helped protect it. But despite more than 50 years of success, the program will expire on September 30 if Congress doesn’t take action to renew it. 

Senators Bennet and Gardner have both been leaders in supporting LWCF – but we need Colorado’s House delegation to also step up so that this successful program isn't lost to Congressional gridlock.