America's "Emergency Powers" Emergency

An exaggerated "emergency," exploited and prolonged for political purposes.

Snitch lines that turn "neighbors" into informers.  

Government monitoring of alleged scofflaws, aimed at forcing compliance with capricious, arbitrary, unjustified dictates.

No, this isn't another post about the mass panic and growing tyranny unleashed by COVID-19. It's a protest against Colorado Springs Utilities Board's "emergency" water rules, which share striking similarities more clearly visible in hindsight. The COVID-19 crisis brought the potential misuse and abuse of "emergency powers" into clearer focus for many of us. But the temptations such arbitrary powers present to petty tyrants were there to see before Covid-19 engraved the invitation. 

These "emergency" water restrictions were put in place by the utilities board (on which I once served) late last year, in December, when lawn-watering rules were the last thing on most of our minds. That was also before we saw how the COVID19 "emergency" would be exploited by petty tyrants to flex their little muscles. But in retrospect, we can see a similar power play unfolding.

The COVID-19 threat is real enough, especially for the sick, the deceased, others who were or are directly effected. But no analogous water emergency looms in Colorado Springs -- not even close. It's a figment of the board's imagination, a manufactured "crisis" that conveniently gives members power to lord it over alleged water-wasters like a bunch of Karens (or "Gladys Kravitzes," if you prefer.)

Water is a reasonably scarce resource, obviously, depending on natural fluctuations. And we live in an arid zone -- the "Great American Desert," as it was known before reclamation projects made the desert hospitable. Water conservation makes sense, but so does water use, since there's only so much water we can store and the elaborate and costly water infrastructure we've built-out over the years to store and steward water -- the reservoirs and pipelines, pumping stations and water treatment facilities -- must be paid for. Charging utilities customers a reasonable sum for using water is how all that infrastructure (and the debt we accrue building and maintaining it) is funded, pointing to a glaring contradiction in how CSU treats water users.

Water use is what pays for the system, so why is the city-owned utility treating water users like villains, scofflaw's or bad neighbors? A tiered rate structure already helps ensure that heavy water users pay more. Going beyond that when not in the midst of a real or looming crisis strikes me as social engineering, not smart water management.

And these restrictions go far beyond the three-sprinkles-per-week rule -- by barring puddled water on your driveway, for instance, which makes hand-washing your car against the rules -- inviting a level of surveillance and intrusiveness by CSU that's unprecedented in the city's history.

Reported the Gazette:

"The rules will also prohibit residents from using water to clean sidewalks, driveways and patios, “except when cleaning with water is necessary for public health or safety reasons or when other cleaning methods are impractical or inappropriate.” Utilities customers will be barred from allowing water that’s meant for irrigation to pool on paved surfaces or accumulate in gutters and drains.

The regulations also advises against watering landscapes during high wind or precipitation events and recommend that hoses with nozzles be used to wash vehicles and that restaurants refrain from serving drinking water unless a patron requests it."

So why were these needlessly-restrictive rules in place? Apparently, just because a majority on the City Council/Utilities Board believed it could impose them without raising a public squawk. It's a sort of warm-up for the alleged water shortages we may face 50 years into the future -- a tool for conditioning and training CSU customers in anticipation of water shortages that may or may not arise, depending on a dozen, hard-to-predict variables.

My guess is that the impetus for this -- like the impetus for virtually everything Colorado Springs does as a city -- comes from the development community, which fears that the cost of tap fees might rise when the massive growth slated for areas like Banning Lewis Ranch begins to explode. Thus, established and existing residents are being forced to abide by water restrictions in order to accommodate the new growth the city's usual "Movers and Shakers" are banking on, literally and figuratively.
       

Perhaps we should go back and review these watering restrictions in light of what we now know about how real or manufactured "crises" are exploited by political leaders to advance secondary and tertiary agendas. We need to understand that any latitude we cede to petty tyrants in government will be exploited for maximum gain. We need to closely guard against granting any politicians "emergency" powers that aren't in response to an actual emergency.

When Lab Rats Rebel

You all remember learning about Ivan Pavlov and his slobbering dog in school, right? You probably saw the film about pigeons who can be taught to play Beethoven's 5th (or was it Chopsticks?) if they're rewarded with a kernel of corn for pecking piano keys in the right order.

So, you’ll also recall that the process of programming animals to respond to rewards (or punishments) is called "conditioning." It's the same method your parents used on you to prevent you from becoming a little barbarian. Well, "conditioning" has a tendency to break down over time if the rewards or punishments aren't consistently administered. And that's what's happening out in the real world, despite the best efforts of our local autocrats to hold us down, keep us housebound, compel us to obey, mandate empty rituals. 

The conditioning is breaking down. The lab rats have grown restive and they are rebelling. People are shaking-off a politically-induced panic attack and cautiously going about their lives. The fog of fear is lifting; rational thought is creeping back in. People are starting to understand that risks can be managed but not completely ameliorated. And we're seeing mass civil disobedience of the sort that one would expect in a free society. 

And I, for one, think it's healthy, in spite of the calculated but manageable risks that escaped lab rats must take. I, for one, am relieved to see Americans yearning for freedom again.

I'm also more than a little ashamed that my city, Colorado Springs, is treating residents like kids by playing the rewards-and-punishment intimidation game. From Denver or Boulder or Fort Collins I would expect that. From the city of responsible adults, like "conservative" Colorado Springs, I expect a different and better, less controlling and condescending approach. 

I also think it's rather weak for the "strong Mayor" to push his poor parks director out there to play the heavy, instead of issuing the warnings himself. The "strong Mayor" is now primarily responsible for policymaking in the city, not the parks director. We need to hear the rationales for continued lockdowns coming directly from the source.

We diligently followed orders and flattened the curve. It's time to loosen the noose and let Colorado breath again. A free people won't be locked-down forever.

Dionysians Decry Air Force Academy Discrimination

This report in today's Colorado Springs Gazette prompted the following letter of protest to Academy Superintendent Michael Gould, acting in my capacity as High Priest (3rd Degree) in the North American Temple of Dionysus, Colorado Springs Chapter. We Dionysians have long borne the brunt of various forms of religious discrimination, often suffering in silence, but I felt that something must be said in response to this latest outrage. I hope you'll all join me in urging the Air Force to end this pattern of unequal treatment and provide all neo-pagan fertility cults with an appropriate worship area of their own on academy grounds.

"May 4, 2011

Lt. Gen. Michael C. Gould
Superintendent, U.S. Air Force Academy
Colorado Springs, Colorado

Dear Lt. General Gould:

The Colorado Springs Gazette reported today about the dedication of a shrine for earth-based religions on academy property. I feel I must weigh-in, as a high priest in the North American Temple of Dionysus, Colorado Springs Chapter.

While I applaud your efforts to accommodate earth-based groups such as Druids and Wiccans, we Dionysians do not belong in this over-broad category. Nor do we view ourselves as an earth-based religion or “new age” fad. A little research will indicate that Dionysianism dates back to very ancient times, making Druidism look like a flash in the pan. Moreover, we have strict rules against associating with many of the “new age groups” with whom we are expected to share this space.

We therefore find that your efforts to be inclusive have fallen woefully short. We will be contacting the American Civil Liberties Unions on this matter because we believe your unequal and unfair treatment of Dionysians may constitute grounds for court action.

Just lumping Neo-pagans in with so-called earth-based groups, and expecting us to share the same facilities, not only indicates a poor understanding of Dionysianism. It’s disrespectful and possibly discriminatory. It’s crude stereotyping of the type we Dionysians have suffered from for too long. We therefore request that you end this clear pattern of discrimination and authorize the construction of a shrine suitable for Bacchanals and other Dionysian-oriented worship on Academy grounds as soon as possible. A failure to do so invites legal action.

We stand ready to work with you on the thoughtful design of this facility, but here are the broad parameters of what is required. We note from newspaper photos that the Academy’s earth-based shrine is on a hilltop, exposed to the elements. That simply will not do for Dionysians or our rituals. A secluded and wooded setting is more appropriate for the sort of orgiastic, free-roaming festivities we host. And many of our members wear little to no clothing during these rites, and engage in activities not suitable for viewing by minors, so such an exposed space simply isn't suitable.

We also note that the academy’s earth-based shrine forms a circle, though triangular or rectangular worship areas are favored by Dionysians. Animal sacrifices are a part of certain Dionysian rites, so we’ll need some rudimentary pens nearby, sturdy enough to hold everything from baby goats to brahma bulls (no offense to any Hindus out there). We of course will provide our own livestock, our own wine, our own maenads. Fire-burning alters also are needed, which we like to have simply constructed out of local natural materials, but which must meet all applicable OSHA safety standards, of course.

A clearing in the forest, large enough to accommodate several hundred heavily-intoxicated revelers, dancing in serpentine lines, will also be necessary. We generally hold our Bacchanalias after dark, during new moons, and they often go on through the night, until all our primal appetites have been sated, so we’ll need appropriate permits to be on academy grounds after hours. Animal fat-fueled torches are used for illumination (incandescent bulbs are strictly forbidden, due to the damage they do the planet) and moderate human bloodletting sometimes occurs at these events, so we’ll need fire and ambulance crews standing by, at a respectful distance, in times of celebration. (We’ll of course compensate you for the expenditures such crews will require). Handicap-accessible restrooms would also be appreciated, since our rituals can stretch on for many hours and the wine and other libations flow freely.

The North American Temple of Dionysus, Colorado Springs Chapter, stands ready to meet with you and your staff, at your convenience, to discuss in greater detail how we can avoid a nasty legal battle and get the fair treatment federal and state law requires. Prompt action on your part will not only avoid the need for legal action, but will earn the U.S. Air Force the undying gratitude of Dionysians everywhere. And we are sure that Dionysians who attend the academy, or send their children there, will also be grateful.

Thank you for your time,

High Priest Sean Paige
North American Temple of Dionysus
Colorado Springs Chapter

New App Turns Your Phone into a Whistle

I have a lot of silly and pointless applications (or "apps") on my smart phone. Some are remarkably useful. Most are just distracting drains on the battery. But imagine the transformative possibilities of a phone app that allows you, as an alert citizen and taxpayer, to instantly blow the whistle on the government waste, fraud and mismanagement that you see first-hand as you go about your daily lives.

No more need to complain to a hard-to-reach council member or commissioner. No more getting bounced from bureaucrat to bureaucrat, in search of someone in charge. No more calling into a"hotline" that no one ever answers. Just punch a button and report what you see, as a citizen-watchdog, knowing that the report -- and the accompanying video -- will reach someone who might actually do something about it.

The city of Philadelphia is experimenting with just such a concept, reports the Philadelphia Daily News, a smart phone application, dubbed the PhillyWatchdog, that "that allows citizens to report fraud or government misconduct directly to the controller's fraud unit."


"City Controller Alan Butkovitz yesterday unveiled an iPhone app that allows citizens to report fraud or government misconduct directly to the controller's fraud unit.

"Our Philly WatchDog app allows citizens to play a crucial role in protecting their tax dollars by reporting fraud, waste and abuse," Butkovitz said during a news conference.

Using the application, available for free through iTunes or the App Store on the iPhone, residents can report sightings of fraud or city workers goofing off and send in pictures or videos. Messages can be sent anonymously.

Butkovitz said that the app, which the office developed for $5,400, is the first of its kind in the nation. Butkovitz and his staff said that residents might capture examples of bribery by city workers, or city workers napping on taxpayers' time.

The office gets between 75 and 100 such reports from citizens each year, but the app certainly could boost that number."

The story doesn't say what happens to reports or tips that don't rise to the level of fraud. But how useful would this potentially be for a city manager or mayor who us seriously interested in weeding-out waste, improving city services or just keeping city employees on their toes? It potentially turns every citizen into a deputy watchdog, providing city officials with hundreds of extra eyes and ears out on the streets. It's affordable, empowering and gives average people a stake in the improvement of their government. And it's something we could easily and affordably do in Colorado Springs.

The city auditor's office already has a waste and fraud hotline. But that's so 1950s and too few people even know it exists. Adding a higher-tech twist would be a good opportunity to re-launch and republicize the effort, while highlighting the important work this often-overlooked city office does.

The first mayoral candidate to add the creation of a "Springs Watchdog" phone app to his campaign platform can claim all the credit. That he read it here first will be our little secret.

Something To Be Proud Of

This item in Men's Health Magazine is sure to fuel false perceptions about the influence Christian conservatives supposedly wield in Colorado Springs, but it also spotlights one of the city's underappreciated virtues. The magazine based its ranking not just on how many religious organizations we host, but on how generously locals volunteer and give to charity. That's what landed us on the top of the list.

"While it's true that Colorado, at 5,980 feet above sea level, is closer to heaven than even the Mile High City, we used a different set of numbers to divine our findings. We scoured the U.S. Census and the yellow pages (Yellow.com) for places of worship per capita. Then we tallied up religious organizations (U.S. Census) and the number of volunteers who support these groups (VolunteeringinAmerica.gov). Finally, we considered the amount of money donated to religious organizations (Bureau of Labor Statistics and spent on religious books (Mediamark Research)."

This is a city where people render assistance to others in a very hands-on way, working through a wide variety of associations and organizations, secular as well as religious. It's been reported before that Springs residents tend to donate and volunteer at levels above the national average. This ranking confirms it. And while Springs-bashers may seize on the item to paint a simplistic and inaccurate portrait of this great and generous city, I count it as another feather in our caps.

Carpe Diem

I’ve seen a lot of city council members accused of doing too little. I must be the first in history accused of doing too much. It’s a criticism I can live with.

John Hazlehurst seems to want my service on council to be as unmemorable as his was, but given that I was appointed to a truncated term (18 months), and given that those who appointed me knew full well that I would shake things up, and given the number of important issues that are coming to a head in the city, I didn’t even consider the possibility of running out the clock.

If I wasn’t having an impact, or gaining some measure of colleague support, I might agree with John’s grandfatherly advice. But on a number of issues, I think I’ve been able to get helpful and interesting things done. And I couldn’t have done this without the support (some grudging, to be sure) of colleagues, showing that I’m not the lone wolf John suggests.

A majority of my colleagues supported city partnership efforts – an idea I first proposed during the budget crisis of last year. Community centers, pools and a number of other city amenities scheduled to be axed when I came aboard are open today as a result of those efforts. A majority on council also backed creation of the City Committee, at my urging. It’s been quietly providing City Council and other city leaders with some very enlightening briefings on the city’s big picture budget outlook, and I’m confident it will play a larger role going forward. Also at my urging, the interim city manager is in the process of creating an Optimization Committee, which will help the city explore outsourcing opportunities and other innovations. That, too, has buy-in from colleagues.

A majority on council seems on the verge of approving some reasonable regulations for the medical marijuana industry, based on a comprehensive ordinance drafted by a task force I chaired along with Tom Gallagher. A majority backed my proposal to conduct the first-ever performance audits of the EDC and other recipients of public funds, putting some teeth behind the words “accountability” and “transparency.” A majority supported my proposal to explore passenger screening alternatives at Colorado Springs Airport. And I believe a majority doesn’t really give a hoot what the Planning Commission says about marijuana dispensary setback rules, even if they won’t say so, as I did.

I’ve more quietly shaped or influenced a lot of other decisions made by this council in the year I’ve served, even if it’s gone unreported, unnoticed and unheralded in some circles. And I’ve tried to be responsive to more day-to-day constituent issues, whether it’s helping Westside merchants confronting the homeless situation or helping someone maneuver through city red tape. I normally don’t go around bragging about any of this, but since my accomplishments on council have been called into question, I thought it was important to correct the record.

Not all my initiatives or ideas are warmly embraced by colleagues, to be sure. Few had any interest in trimming back the just-approved 2011 budget, for instance, in an effort to not spend every dollar coming in. Few (except Jan Martin) seem to have any real interest in improving the governance model of Colorado Springs Utilities, by creating a more professional and independent board (though that issue isn’t dead yet). And none except Tom Gallagher would join me in the dunk tank at the community center fundraiser.

I’m not sure how this stacks up against Hazlehurst’s accomplishments. I asked around but no one remembers what those were. It’s a challenging time for Colorado Springs. A lot of issues are coming to a head. Given the vacuum of leadership and lack of creative thinking that exists at some levels, there are plenty of opportunities to get involved. I never imagined I would stand accused of getting too involved.

I’ve stepped on a few toes and bruised a few egos along the way – it’s hard to get anything done around here if you’re afraid to do that. But I think I’ve also gained supporters, judging from the positive feedback I receive every day. I’ve not done too badly for someone who was billed, coming in, as too “radical” to work with others or get anything acomplished. And I’ve still got five months before my term expires.

I plan to finish strong.

Beware the Wily Hicken-gipper

I ran across a quote today I thought would make a good pop quiz.

So, who said the following?

“I believe we should be providing the best quality government in the most efficient manner. The cornerstones for good government are engaged citizen feedback, dedicated customer service and continuous improvement. It is not the role of government to solve every challenge. The role of government is to create a collaborative environment and to provide the resources to facilitate solutions that spring from the community itself.”

Was it:

A.) Ronald Reagan?

B.) Calvin Coolidge?

C.) Barack Obama?

D.) Barry Goldwater?

Actually, it was none of the above.

The quote comes from yesterday's State of the City speech by Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper (which may be his last such speech if Republicans can't get their act together), though it could easily be confused with something that Reagan or Goldwater might have said. Hickenlooper is no conservative. Not by a long shot. But his use of such rhetoric (and it may be empty rhetoric, to be sure) increases the chance that he can sell himself as a centrist between now and election day.

The first two sentences are boilerplate for most politicians, at least since the Reagan era, but it's the second two that really grab me, since they pretty well describe the approach we've traditionally taken in Colorado Springs -- a model we've been relying on even more during this fiscal crisis:

"It is not the role of government to solve every challenge. The role of government is to create a collaborative environment and to provide the resources to facilitate solutions that spring from the community itself.”

The leftist in Hickenlooper betrays himself, just a bit, when he asserts that it's the city's function to "provide the resources to facilitate solutions," since that still gives government a too-central role in true, community-based solutions, in my opinion. These efforts should rely, to the greatest extent possible, on private funding sources. Had I been giving the speech, or writing it for the mayor, I would have made the following changes:

"It is not the role of government to solve every challenge. The role of government is to create a collaborative environment that facilitates solutions that spring from the community itself.”

That's the way we've been doing things in Colorado Springs for years. It's the secret strength that will help this city through these challenging times. If Mayor Hickenlooper really wants to turn that Reaganesque rhetoric into action, and see how it works in practice, we should come on down. We'd be happy to show him around.

Why Bother with a Ban?

The economic arguments for licensing, regulating and taxing medical marijuana -- see related news stories here and here -- won't make a dent with prohibitionists. They are on a moral crusade to prevent the corruption of Colorado Springs youth, by pushing medical marijuana back into the shadows. That this will deny medical marijuana patients their constitutional rights, and get the city sued, while doing nothing to curb teen drug use, is of little consequence to them. Crusaders can see no shades of gray.

But those fretting over the prevalence of medical marijuana dispensaries in Colorado Springs need only be patient. Many of these businesses won't be around a year from now. They'll have been killed-off by regulation or competition.

One cause of death comes naturally in a capitalist system, with competition separating the good operators from the bad. Boom almost always leads to bust; that will happen here, too. Too many suppliers chasing a limited number of patients (and it is limited, despite the recent surge in red card applications) will sooner or later thin the herd. I trust in the market to solve many MMJ-related "problems," if given time to operate and evolve. But that requires a degree of patience, and an understanding of markets, that prohibitionists lack.

The second cause of death -- death by regulation -- is more objectionable, in my opinion, because it is government-induced and largely unnecessary. Some reasonable local controls make sense, given the newness and sensitive nature of this industry. But most regulation is excessive and blindly destructive; it's imposed for the ego-gratification of politicians and the job security of regulators. It pretends to "fix" what isn't broken, to protect the public from a phantom menace.

An example of this dynamic at work can be found in this article from the Boulder Camera, which details the struggles that city's dispensaries are having trying to comply with a spate of new regulations imposed by the state.

"Boulder-area providers of medical marijuana are scrambling to comply with new state regulations that require them to grow most of their own pot, keep detailed records of all transactions and apply for state licenses through a process that includes criminal background checks.

The new rules, signed into law by Gov. Bill Ritter earlier this month, are predicted to put at least half of the state's 1,100 medical marijuana dispensaries out of business.

Local dispensary owners agree their numbers soon will be fewer, but each business owner is doing everything possible to be one of the survivors.

"When I look six months down the road, we're either going to be very successful because we made it through this, or we're going to be out of business," said Ryan Hartman, owner of Boulder Wellness Center on Arapahoe Avenue.

The biggest hurdle for Hartman is the requirement that dispensaries grow 70 percent of their own marijuana by Sept. 1. Hartman doesn't have the resources to hire employees right now, and he and his partners -- his wife and another couple -- are working "triple-time" to ramp up what had been a very small growing operation.
The new rules also require that dispensaries -- called "medical marijuana centers" -- have a local license by July 1 and apply for a state license through an as-yet-undetermined process by Aug.

1. The state license requires criminal background checks for all owners, officers and employees and calls for detailed security and record-keeping measures to account for all the marijuana that moves through a center.

"I think ultimately the goal of the legislation is to centralize the industry so it's easier to keep track of and control and tax," said Eric Moutz, a Boulder attorney who specializes in advising clients who work with medical marijuana.

While some of the law's requirements are clear, many of the details still need to be worked out through a state rule-making process that could take most of the year.

"Everything is in a holding pattern until the rules get set," Moutz said. "And those could be crippling or they could be very reasonable."

Colorado Springs dispensaries are in the same boat. Some will sink, others will stay afloat, as they struggle with the dual threat of competition and regulation. The architects of H.B. 1284 said they were out to kill many of these businesses, and they'll undoubtedly succeed. A year from now, the landscape will look much different, whether or not a dispensary ban makes the ballot.

Storefronts now filled will be empty again; landlords will be without tenants; jobs will disappear; city tax revenues will fall. Instead of visible dispensaries, operating openly in designated areas, some providers may go underground. The action will move back into neighborhoods, back behind closed doors. With less competition, and fewer places to purchase their medicine, the costs and inconveniences for patients will soar.

All the dreams of MMJ prohibitionists will be realized, in short, without the need for a divisive ballot battle, or the legal battle that will follow. And all they have to do is be patient, trust in the free market and let business-killing regulations take their toll. Banning businesses outright isn't really necessary in the United States. We have plenty of other ways to drive them under -- to strangle opportunity and entrepreneurship and cripple our local and national economy -- without the need for such extreme measures. All we need to do is the usual thing and these businesses will also disappear.

Is Ken Salazar Trying to Soak Colorado Springs?

Gazette Editorial Page Editor Wayne Laugesen must be a very alert reader. One would have to be in order to pick out this paragraph, buried near the end of a long Pueblo Chieftain story, for special attention:

"Collins explained that federal laws give Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar broad concessions to set rates, and did not attempt to argue the basis with the Colorado Springs team."

The passage jumped out at me, too, because it at least hinted, if not strongly suggested, that Inferior Secretary Ken Salazar had some direct involvement in the exorbitant, some might say extortive, rates the Bureau of Reclamation wants to charge Colorado Springs for storing water in Pueblo Reservoir, which is part of a water project local taxpayers heavily bankroll. I appreciate Laugesen's effort to drill a little deeper (so to speak) into this potentially-troubling possibility.

Having a Coloradan as inferior secretary should be a help, not a hindrance, to the folks back home. If Salazar is trying to soak Colorado Springs for using the reservoir, while other users, like Pueblo, enjoy discount rates, we need to know about it.

Salazar's muppet denies the secretary is so intimately involved in such decisions, and denies, as well, that Salazar has any anti-Colorado Springs bias . . .

“The secretary has had no involvement in the development of the rate proposal,” Interior spokesman Daniel DuBray wrote in an e-mail. “The Secretary has delegated this authority to the Bureau of Reclamation. The federal negotiating team, led by Mr. Michael Collins of the Bureau of Reclamation, developed the proposed rates for storage, conveyance, and exchange of non-federal water within the federally-owned facilities of the US Bureau of Reclamation’s Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.”

DuBray denied that his boss sides with Pueblo to spite Colorado Springs.

“It has been Secretary Salazar, more than any other elected or public official in recent memory, who has tried over the years to bring Pueblo and Colorado Springs together to work cooperatively on water issues,” DuBray wrote.

. . . but I find it extremely hard to believe that the bureau is making such significant decisions in the secretary's home state without implicit or explicit approval from Salazar. And the fact is that Salazar sometimes has been a divider, not a uniter, in the Pueblo-Colorado Springs water feud. As senator, Salazar did seem to walk a middle ground, at least publicly. But before that, while serving as attorney general, he played a much more divisive role. It was AG Salazar who urged Pueblo County and other SDS obstructionists down south to use so-called 1041 regulations to delay or derail the project. And Pueblo County made the most of such advice.

Obstructionists have used this and whatever other levers they have to shakedown Colorado Springs for various "concessions" (it's Colorado Springs' water, for instance, that helps keep a kayaking course in downtown Pueblo frothy), driving up the price tag on an already-costly project. So this would be the latest, but perhaps most outrageous, of numerous shakedowns Colorado Springs has endured while simply trying to run a pipe north from Pueblo Reservoir. We have tried to be good neighbors. But some of our "neighbors," in Pueblo and points south, aren't content to borrow a cup of sugar, but seem to want a pound of flesh. At some point we need to fight back.

That's all water over the dam, perhaps, but it's important to remember that Ken Salazar and his brother, U.S. Rep. John Salazar, have always been more closely aligned with Democrat-leaning Pueblo than with Republican-voting Colorado Springs. The anti-Springs bias of brother John (who serves on the House Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, which puts him in a strong position to influence bureau decisions) is overt. But Ken, when he was senator, needed to appear more even-handed.

Michael Collins could have said that federal law gives the bureau broad latitude to set such rates, but he specifically used Salazar's name, which raises suspicions that the inferior secretary is more deeply involved than his muppet lets on. That suspicion grows when the bureau can offer no clear and coherent explanation for how it determined that this city should pay $50 per acre foot of stored water, when Pueblo pays about $22 per acre foot. The missing methodology makes the charge appear arbitrary and capricious -- almost as if the number were pulled from a hat, by someone very high up the federal food chain.

This particular food chain, if you follow it to the top, stops with Ken Salazar.

Talking Trash

Colorado Springs has heard a lot of trash talk from certain Denverites about our choice of budget cuts, but at least we can still get the garbage collected when things get tight. Unlike Denver, and a lot of supposedly-"progressive" cities, we have embraced a groundbreaking innovation called "private garbage collection" -- a system that's reliable, affordable and frees residents from the threat of garbage strikes or service cuts when a contract expires or the money runs low.

Believe it or not, you don't need government, or government workers, to pick up garbage and transport it to the dump. Turns out that there are very reliable private companies that will provide this service, at very competitive rates, if the government simply declines to get into the business. Makes you wonder what other "government functions" could be performed by the competitive sector, if the government didn't insist on doing everything.

Not that I'm gloating or anything. It's just a reminder that not everything we do in Colorado Springs is backward or wrong. In point of fact, we do a lot of things the right way, despite all the trash talking we sometimes hear from misinformed outsiders.

"No" News is Good News

I’m not sure why this non-event generated so much coverage and commentary in Colorado Spring, but since it has, let me make a few points.

The headline in the Gazette might lead casual readers to conclude that Uncle Sam placed a bucket of gold on the city’s doorstep and it was rudely rejected. That’s not the case. We simply decided not to send a form letter, at the urging of a left-leaning municipal league, asking U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn to support a bill that might, at some future date, trickle some federal “job creation” money into the city, if we grovel hard enough, if we are lucky and if we want to live with the strings that always come attached. The chance that this bill will pass, and that the money will ever flow to this city, and that it would do this city any lasting good, is so small and hypothetical that it barely deserves mention – much less the headline coverage it received.

The proposed bill hasn't passed. It may not pass. No money has been appropriated -- and any money that might be appropriated is borrowed money, which will have to be funded with more debt, or with printed money, which will eventually contribute to explosive inflation. One letter from this city to Doug Lamborn will have zero impact on whether the bill passes, how the proposed program will work, what levels of funding it will receive and whether this city would ever receive a dollar of it. It's all pie-in-the-sky, in short. You can't turn down something that doesn't exist. There are better uses of staff time than lobbying on behalf of The National League of Cities.

But even if such a program, and such a pot of gold, existed, there are plenty of reasons to be wary. Temporary infusions of federal money won't result in sustainable solutions, because the funding will eventually go away, leaving the city with an obligation it can't afford. Uncle Sam is a pusher, who gets the addict hooked on a habit he can't pay for.

FREX offers a good case in point. The commuter bus service began as a federal "demonstration" project -- which demonstrated that people will take a heavily-subsidized ride to work if it's offered to them. But when the federal funds ran out, the city was left to fund a service that couldn't operate on a sustainable basis and was draining precious resources from our core bus routes. FREX is today running on borrowed time -- time borrowed by cannibalizing and selling off the fleet. It was an expensive diversion from the city's real transit priorities, which began with an offer of federal "help." Sometimes, it's better to say "no" to such offers -- that's the lesson of FREX and a hundred other federal programs. If you don't want to become an addict, you have to turn your back on the pusher.

Virtually all federal money is earmarked for certain purposes, and comes with conditions attached. The city can't just take federal money designated for "job creation," for instance, and use it to water city parks or fill potholes or keep community centers open. Because of that lack of flexibility, the utility of such funds is limited. As in the case of FREX, if we hire additional city personnel based on a temporary funding stream, those jobs may have to go away when the funding stops. You gain no long-term benefit and assume obligations you can't sustain. This is what happened with Bill Clinton's Community Oriented Policing program, which I covered as a reporter. Some local police departments used the windfall to put a few more cops on the street (the 100,000 figure touted by Clinton was a lie, to put it bluntly), temporarily. But many of those cops were hitting the streets with pink slips a few years later, when the funding ran out.

The federal government has killed far more jobs than it ever “created.” It should focus its efforts on killing fewer, leaving job “creation” to the competitive sector. Every job “created” with a federal dollar is paid for by removing that dollar from our pockets, or from the private sector, where the real jobs are created. Maybe if we stop asking so much of Washington, it will stop taking so much from us. Until we as citizens (and cities) recognize that this is all just a shell game, in which government “gives” us something that it actually takes from us through its taxing power, we’ll never get a handle on runaway federal deficits and debt.

The best way to create real local jobs, and to stimulate the economy, is for Washington to stop carrying so much local money off to the U.S. Treasury, where it is re-distributed according to a political spoils system. Until Americans start saying “no thanks” to gifts from Washington, Washington has tacit permission to fund its gift-giving sprees at our expense.

This was one small (largely symbolic, admittedly) step in the right direction. It's a revealing sign of the times that politely saying "no" to Washington becomes news.

Cockeyed Coverage

City jobs eliminated; un-planted flower beds; cutbacks in park maintenance; streetlights turned off: these are the tell-tale signs of a city on the brink of disaster -- a city being strangled by the stinginess of conservative voters and a government straitjacket called the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. That's the sensationalist and silly caricature of Colorado Springs we've seen drawn by certain journalists, peddling a left-wing morality play about the alleged dangers of reasonable taxation and restrained government.

But what about Salt Lake City?

Salt Lake City is cutting city staff; Salt Lake City is reducing park maintenance; Salt Lake City is eliminating flower beds; Salt Lake City is turning off streetlights as an austerity measure -- all in response to its budget crunch. None of this has garnered much attention, though, because the simplistic morality play doesn't as easily fit there. The city is led by a liberal Democrat, Mayor Ralph Becker. It's about as "progressive" as you get in Utah. Editorials in the city's daily read like The New York Times. There is no Taxpayer's Bill in Rights, no Douglas Bruce, no Focus on the Family, no libertarian editorial page whipping the mob into anti-government frenzy. Reporters can't caricature it the way they have Colorado Springs, apparently, so they just don't seem interested.

Next time a reporter calls, I'll make him or her a deal. I'll be happy to give an interview about the budget situation in Colorado Springs (because I think the creative way we're dealing with it makes this an interesting story), on one condition. First go cover the budget crunch in Salt Lake City.

Two Paiges May Be Too Much to Handle

I was booked to be on Fox's Neil Cavuto Show today, to talk about the budget situation in Colorado Springs and the creative ways we're responding to it. But I was "bumped" from the show to make room for another guest -- some loud-mouthed chick from Washington named Leslie Paige, who will be on (at 4:00 Eastern) to talk about an annual pork barrel report called "The Pig Book."

Damn those big sisters, always trying to upstage younger brothers! But maybe one Fox show just isn't big enough to hold two Paiges.

Tune in to see Leslie at 4:00 today.

What's happening way out here in "fly-over country" will just have to wait for another day.

Muddying the Waters

Good news, everyone. Pueblo, Colorado, can now officially be certified as a crime-free city. There are no robberies, no rapes, no spousal abuse or purse-snatching or petty crimes to prosecute. That leaves Pueblo DA Bill Thiebaut with so much time on his hands that he can focus his prodigious crime-fighting skills on another culprit -- Colorado Springs -- by interjecting himself into the Colorado Springs-Pueblo water feud.

For the second time in his tenure, Thiebaut is acting as if he exercised authority over water quality and management issues in Fountain Creek; this time, by submitting a letter to the Army Corps of Engineers designed to toss a monkey-wrench into the Southern Delivery System pipeline project. But his views on the matter are irrelevant, as his earlier attempt to intervene proved.

Thiebaut a few years back dragged Pueblo into a federal lawsuit, claiming that Colorado Springs waste water spills were violating federal Clean Water Act regulations. It was grandstanding of the worst kind. He was unceremoniously dumped from the suit by a federal judge who ruled that this exceeded his authority.

How much taxpayer money Thiebaut wasted on this lark is unknown. One can't help believing those resources could have been put to better use, since Pueblo is not, contrary to my lead, a crime-free city. But this has nothing to do with the law, or with water quality, or with Thiebaut's sincere desire to serve as eco-enforcer on Fountain Creek. It's about politics, plain and simple -- about Thiebaut's desire to curry favor with a few crusty old water warriors in Pueblo (and possibly distract public attention from some major housekeeping problems in his office).

Thiebaut must have gotten a call from Bob Rawlings, publisher of the Chieftain, who has long played the role of puppet master on such issues, suggesting that a letter from Thiebaut might help slow the recent progress Colorado Springs has made on clearing away hurdles to SDS. The ploy probably won't do much in that regard, because Thiebaut's opinions on Fountain Creek are as legally and morally relevant as the tooth fairy's. He has no expertise. He has no legal standing. He has no jurisdiction, unless a body is found floating down the creek south of the Pueblo County line.

But it plays well as propaganda with Springs-bashers in Pueblo. And it wins Thiebaut another merit badge with Rawlings, whose editorial page can come in very handy when re-election time comes around.

Short Sighted and Self-Defeating

I imagine that a good number of Fort Carson personnel live in the Pueblo area. Many shop and eat and party there. Some may choose it as a retirement spot. That means Pueblo and Colorado Springs, those famously feuding cities, would seem to share a common interest in keeping the Mountain Post off future base closure lists, by supporting efforts to ensure it remains a viable training facility. So what, other than a belly full of anti-Colorado Springs bile, explains The Pueblo Chieftain editorial page's continuing efforts to cheer on the forces seeking to permanently slam the door on future expansion of the Pinon Canyon training site?

Colorado Springs and El Paso County obviously reap the greatest direct economic benefit from Fort Carson. But Pueblo, as close as it is, must also look at the base as an economic engine of importance -- not to mention a military asset of continuing value to the entire country. But the Chieftain, acting it seems out of blind spite for anything that might benefit Colorado Springs, has thrown in with those in Southern Colorado who began by expressing legitimate fears about the Army's use of eminent domain, but who have since adopted an angry, take-no-prisoners attitude, adamantly opposed to Pinon Canyon expansion under any circumstances.

The latest lashing-out at the U.S. Army wasn't a bill designed to restrict the use of eminent domain, but one aimed at blocking the state of Colorado from selling or leasing land to Fort Carson in the event that it had private parties willing to sell Fort Carson more acreage. That's a radical shift of emphasis from the issues that sparked this controversy, as the Denver Post's Vince Carroll pointed out a few days back. Opponents have continued shifting the goal posts, and re-casting their objections, and launching new attacks on a downsized and re-worked Army proposal, in what's morphed into a case of knee-jerk, anti-military obstructionism.

The Army hasn't completely giving up on expansion, reportedly. But its recent shifting of funds to another facility is one clear (and potentially ominous) signal that it will direct future resources to more hospitable places.

Perhaps The Chieftain and other expansion-bashers are delighted by the Army's retreat. Nothing short of a complete and unconditional surrender will satisfy some folks. But the gloating will end in Pueblo soon enough, if Carson's inability to train additional troops, and to provide adequate training space for the fighting force of the 21st and 22nd Century, land it on a future base closure list. The gloating will end when all those dollars and jobs go away.

It won't impact the ranchers-turned-activists down south. They're content living a 19th Century existence and don't want their little island of economic and cultural isolation disturbed. But Pueblo will feel the pain -- and perhaps come to regret the short-sighted, anti-military signals that the city's daily newspaper is sending out to the rest of the country.

Colorado dodged a bullet in the last base closure round. Carson was fortunate to actually benefit from the process. Yet Colorado showed little gratitude when the Army raised the possibility of expanding the training site to accommodate a bigger mission and more troops. What the Pentagon got in thanks was hostility, vilification, statehouse measures aimed at fragging the proposal -- what amounted to a rolling-up of the welcome mat in Colorado.

One can't help wonder whether folks back in Washington are having regrets about shifting additional assets to Carson in the last go-around. One can't help wonder if they're taking note of Colorado's anti-military attitudes. You can be sure that bases in more military-friendly states, and their representatives in Congress, are taking note.

They might even be clipping these Chieftain editorials for future reference.

Let's Do Things Differently This Time

I strongly agree with Barry Noreen's Wednesday column, which called on Colorado Springs officials to conduct any renegotiation of the USOC headquarters "deal" in a more open, public-friendly fashion than the first "deal" was conducted. Many of the problems with the "old deal" stem in part from the hushed and hurried way it was approved.

Here's how Barry put it:

"A looming question now is whether the new deal will be consummated in a back room, as the first ill-fated USOC deal was, or whether City Hall will bring a doubting community in on the discussion.

About 13 months ago, city officials unveiled a done deal, a $53 million package already tied up with a pretty bow. They talked about it as if it were a tremendous accomplishment, a gift, even.
There was no way to talk about it without being guilty of being a Monday morning quarterback, because when the game is already over, all one can do is look back.

Now that the old deal has gone awry, some of us must be excused for wanting to see the new deal before it's final."

The original arrangement, which has now fallen apart (leading to a lawsuit, acrimony and more backroom intrigue than seems healthy), was negotiated in secret, sprung on the public on a Friday and rubber-stamped by City Council the following Monday. The "public process" consisted of City Council members, joined by those who had negotiated the deal, patting themselves on the back for "saving" the USOC. There was virtually no public examination of, or debate about, the agreement's fine print or potentially hidden costs, some of which -- like whether the developer enjoys a property tax waiver -- are only belatedly coming to light. And a little more due diligence, and public debate, might have raised red flags about whether the city had selected the best possible partner in Ray Marshall and LandCo.

A more open and public process, and better public buy-in, is especially important if the "new deal" is going to require an even greater commitment of taxpayer dollars than the original -- something that everyone already suspects will be the case. But that's the problem when so much of the process is conducted behind closed doors, leaving the public in the dark.

Secrecy breeds suspicion. The city's negotiators may be making promises and commitments that the public won't support when the details become public. Citizens will be much more alert now than they were back in March of 2008 about the fine print and devilish details. And fear of public rejection -- of public meddling in their carefully- crafted compromise -- may push the mayor and council members to shortcut the public process again, creating even more public relations problems for the city and USOC.

It's a vicious circle, in other words, that City Hall hopefully won't repeat, now that it has an opportunity for a re-do. So far, as Barry point out, it seems they're following the same playbook they did the first time around. Reasonable people recognize that some level of secrecy is required in certain negotiations. But the sooner the process is opened to the public, and the sooner the details are made known and aired out, the better the chances are that public buy-in will occur.

Let's hope City Hall understands that the second time around.

Something's Come Between Us

It's official. There's a new governing body with taxing and regulating authority along the Fountain Creek watershed between Colorado Springs and Pueblo. Gov. Bill Ritter signed a bill yesterday creating the Fountain Creek Watershed, Flood Control and Greenway District. It's being hailed, at birth, as the herald of a new era of cooperation and comity between the famously feuding cities -- as something that will turn the Fountain into an "amenity" which both cities can share pride in. We'll sing camp fire songs together along the banks of the bucolic Fountain -- and hope that an errant turd doesn't float by to spoil the moment.

The best laid plans of mice and men.

Here's what the new district can do, and spend, according to today's Pueblo Chieftain:

"The 60-page measure would establish a nine-member board that would oversee the flood plain from Fountain to Pueblo.Under it, four district boundaries would be created with varying degrees of authority. While the full boundary of the district would include all of Pueblo and El Paso counties, any fees imposed by it would apply only to a smaller area encompassing the watershed.

The panel also would have some land-use authority, but only on a small tract right along the river.

Under the bill, the district would have the ability to impose fees, and place before voters in both counties a new tax to help pay for improvements. It is, however, limited to asking voters for no more than 5 mills, which could raise about $30 million a year.

The district also is to get about $50 million from a Southern Delivery System mitigation fund, which is to be used to get a matching federal grant that could bring in another $150 million."

If the power of a governing body is measured at least in part by its bankroll, this one is beginning with a bang, with $200 million in the pipeline -- so to speak -- and the ability to levy up to $30 million more a year. Its regulatory clout seems modest enough, according to this description. But for people who own land in that "small tract right along the river" -- which may be the most valuable tract they own -- having this new entity looming over them might in time become a major headache, and significant property rights threat, making them nostalgic for the days before the district was formed.

Unmentioned in the story is whether the new district will have any regulatory of legal power over the waters flowing through it -- which would effectively give it regulatory power over every drop of water the city of Colorado Springs releases into the Fountain. What it will have is a bully-pulpit on which to stand and brow-beat El Paso County and Colorado Springs any time a stormwater event or sewage spill occurs (a bully pulpit paid for, in part, by Colorado Springs ratepayers). And these will occur, in spite of whatever precautions we take or infrastructure improvements we make.

Nothing in the story indicates whether the new district will have the ability to sue the city of Colorado Springs or El Paso County for actions it deems harmful to Fountain Creek. Just imagine the wag-the-dog situations we'll see if that comes to pass.

All new government entities are created with noble intentions and modest missions. But the nature of all governments, even ones initially limited in scope, is to grow, increase in power, demand more resources and, in time, become a tool of coercion, higher taxation and oppression. That means that, in time, the FCWFCGD (it really needs a shorter acronym) could become a battle zone rather than a buffer zone; a curse rather than a blessing to land owners along the creek; and yet another bone of contention between the cities -- defeating the purpose for which it was conceived.

Cynical thoughts, pouring cold water on what should be a happy occasion? Perhaps. But there is no "Law of Unintended Consequences" -- only the law of unanticipated ones. And anyone who spends any time watching governments might well worry that the seeds of such a scenario were planted yesterday.

Whether they will bear bitter fruit, or just sweet-smelling flowers, only time will tell.

Beware the Blank Check

Those caught up in the heat of every campaign tell voters the outcome will be pivotal. Therefore, one risks sounding cliche, and a little like the boy who cried wolf, by saying this in regard to the city election now entering its final days. But I think the decision involving ballot issue 1A really could be pivotal, in at least two ways. That's why I've been working so hard to defeat it.

The most obvious problems with 1A, as a policy prescription, have already been highlighted. No point in repeating them at length (click on the "panhandler in pinstripes" at LocalLibertyonline.org if you're that interested). It's just not a smart way to do economic development. It will crack open a can of worms the city will have a hard time keeping a lid on.

But it's a less obvious danger from 1A I'll focus on today. And that's the fact that it's a blank check.

It's a point of frustration with many local political and business leaders, but a point of pride for me personally, that voters in Colorado Springs and El Paso County have been notoriously reluctant to issue blank checks. When you step forward with a tax increase proposal around here, you had better have specifics to offer about how the money will be spent. Just crying poor won't cut it. And scare tactics can backfire, as those supporting a county sales tax hike found out last fall.

But if you do your homework, and if you make a convincing and detailed case, you'll be rewarded with a "yes" vote. We've seen that happen with RTA. We've seen it happen with TOPS. We've seen it happen with a cops and firefighter tax. It's unfair to say locals are robotically or reflexively anti-tax. They just have higher standards, and a healthier dose of skepticism, than a lot of voters do.
They won't be played for suckers. They won't be stampeded by scare tactics. They won't be shamed into giving more of their hard-earned money to government than is necessary. And I think that's a strength rather than a weakness, a virtue, rather than a vice.

But that could all change if 1A is approved. 1A is the ultimate blank check. There's no plan, and no specifics, for how the money would be used. It's a half-baked idea, cooked up by a few people on the city's Sustainable Funding Committee and hurriedly slapped on the ballot by City Council. Backers of the proposal are betting -- and betting big, given the significant money they're pouring into it -- that they can win without specifics, without a plan.

They believe that glossy mailers, deceptive ballot language, big billboards and vague promises will be enough to get the taxpayers to issue the city a $51 million blank check, breaking with long precedent. They believe a down economy, and the anxiety it brings, might lead voters to suspend their normal skepticism, drop their guard and buy into the panacea they're pushing.

On Tuesday we'll find out if local voters will hold with tradition, and reject tax increases that aren't accompanied by detailed plans and specifics, or whether they'll break with tradition and issue blank checks. If it passes, 1A will have demonstrated that you can overcome the natural caution and common sense of local voters with an empty slogan -- "jobs now" -- and a slick media blitz. And that will indeed be a pivotal -- but not promising -- moment in local politics.

Job Creation -- the Old-Fashioned Way

Hey, here's a cool new idea in today's Boulder Daily Camera. It's called venture capitalism. This is how it works.

You start with a group of private citizens who have a little extra money to spare, a nose for good ideas and a willingness to take a chance on a startup company that has potential. They pool their personal funds and go out prospecting for interesting new businesses, hoping that they'll turn a profit, which will bring a decent return on their investment, if the company takes off. Sometimes these "ventures" succeed, and everyone benefits: the investors, the start-up, the new employees, the economy as a whole. Sometimes they fail -- but that's okay, since the costs of failure are only shouldered by the venture capitalists.

Here's the really interesting part. It's completely voluntary, and private. No taxpayers are involved! No politicians are involved! There's no need to coerce the public into making risky "investments" with tax dollars. Jobs are created, only without the need for government meddling and micromanagement. There's no favoritism involved, either, since winners and losers aren't determined by politicians, but by consumers, competition, market forces and the skill and ability of individual business owners. It's no longer the government's responsibility to create jobs, so it can focus on the things government does well.

It's a radical concept, no doubt, but maybe we should think about giving this "venture capitalism" thing a try here in Colorado Springs before we adopt the government-centered approach offered by backers of ballot issue 1A. Many of the folks funding the "jobs now" campaign are financially well-off, and count themselves as savvy business people: why don't they take the money they're contributing to 1A (almost $150,000 at last count), and take the money they give to the Economic Development Corp. each year, and use it to create a private venture capital fund for local job creation? If they're so sure they know how to create jobs and "invest" in the local economy, why don't they leave the taxpayers out of it and put their personal money on the line?

Just a few questions to ponder for those who still haven't made up their minds on 1A.

It's strange and ironic to see good old-fashioned, private sector-centered, free-market venture capitalism alive and well in Boulder County, even while supposedly-conservative Colorado Springs is flirting with central planning and "municipal socialism."

Playing Water Politics a Hard Habit to Kick

The water war between Pueblo and Colorado Springs has for years been a reliable vote-getter for Democrats, so some of them actually seem a little disappointed that the hostilities might be coming to an end. While the two cities finally seem on the verge of working things out, on the Southern Delivery System pipeline project and related issues, certain politicians seem inclined to keep stirring the pot, perhaps for fear of losing an issue they've exploited for votes.

What has SDS to do with partisan politics? Could politicians really be so cynical and self-serving? Answering the first question requires a bit of context. The answer to the second question would seem self evident.

Here's the context.

Pueblo has a lot of registered Democrats, and a powerhouse little newspaper, The Chieftain, that's done everything in its power to delay and derail the pipeline, by portraying Colorado Springs as an 800-pound gorilla taking advantage of the rest of the Arkansas Valley. And because Colorado Springs and El Paso County are heavily Republican in their voting habits, Democrats -- from Ken Salazar to John Salazar to Mark Udall -- have learned that they have little to lose and much to gain (including the endorsement of The Pueblo Chieftain) by playing to Pueblo's sense of victimization.

Some readers may recall that it was former Attorney General Ken Salazar, a Democrat -- and the current Secretary of Interior -- who first encouraged Pueblo County to use regulatory mechanisms (including so-called 1041 rules) to impede the pipeline. His brother, U.S. Rep. John Salazar, has incorporated Springs-bashing themes in the mailers he sends to Arkansas Valley constituents. And freshman Sen. Mark Udall also has played the issue for votes, by posing as the protector of Pueblo and the lower Ark against big, bad Colorado Springs.

All three men understood that they could secure the political support of The Chieftain, and gain whatever additional Pueblo votes that might bring, by playing one community off against the other. Instead of helping mend fences, they used their positions to help build them higher. And now, when a series of recent developments suggest that an end to the water war might be near, John Salazar and Mark Udall seem reluctant to embrace the good news and move ahead.

They don't call it "water politics" for nothing.