< PREVIOUS ] [ 2003 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
When Colorado was a territory, and continuing into the early years of statehood, it was pretty much a Republican domain, just as it is now.
Those pioneer Colorado Republicans, though, were not a
united force. One faction was the Denver Crowd
of
bankers and railroad builders, like John Evans and David
Moffat, who wanted the territory run for the benefit of
their city. They were often opposed by the Golden
Crowd,
led by Henry Teller.
The Golden Crowd would be more accurately characterized
as the out-state crowd
or the let's not put all
our eggs in the Denver basket crowd.
They weren't
promoting Golden so much as they were fighting Denver.
The geographic split delayed Colorado's statehood, and
if you want to read more about it, there's an engaging and
entertaining history published earlier this year: Denver
from the Bottom Up, Volume One: From Sand Creek to
Ludlow,
by Phil Goodstein.
History does seem to be repeating itself this year with Referendum A -- it's causing a geographic split among state Republicans. Instead of the Denver Crowd and the Golden Crowd, we've got the Metro Suburban Crowd in support of Referendum A, and the Just About Everywhere Else in Colorado Crowd in opposition.
Referendum A, of which you will be hearing much more as November nears, was put on the ballot by our legislature. It allows up to $2 billion in bonding for water projects which would be selected by the Colorado Water Conservation Board and approved by the governor.
Gov. Bill Owens, a Republican from Aurora, supports it.
So does State Senate President John Andrews, a Republican
from Centennial. In a recent newsletter, Andrews called it
the ballot issue to save Colorado's water,
and went
on to explain that My friends in Grand Junction,
watching our state's unused compact-entitled water flow
west by the hundreds of thousands of acre-feet each year,
can't really prefer to see it used in Anaheim instead of
Aurora.
I could make a pretty good argument that Grand Junction would be much better off if the water continued to flow west. Growing seasons are longer in California, so the water would produce more food. California tourists stay longer and spend more money than Front Range tourists, and with more water in the river, there's more fishing, white-water rafting and similar tourism. And in case Grand Junction needs more water, Colorado's share of the Colorado River is right at hand -- not in pipeline bound for Aurora.
But those aren't the arguments that a Grand Junction Republican, U.S. Rep. Scott McInnis, made last week in an op-ed piece published in the Summit Daily News.
He pointed out the obvious, in that cities, towns,
conservancy districts and the like can already borrow money
for water projects, as does the Colorado Water Conservation
Board and the obscure Colorado Water Resources and Power
Development Authority. So why add another bonding mechanism
when financing sources are not the problem
?
He also pointed out that Referendum A will create a
$2 billion pot of money, with the imprimatur of the state
of Colorado, that can be used to hire the best water
lawyers and engineers to buy water rights and divert water
from the Western Slope and rural areas,
while there's
no provision requiring mitigation for diverted water.
But Andrews assures us folks in the boondocks that we
shouldn't worry. Since Andrews spent some boyhood years
near Buena Vista, I understand the unfair games that get
played between river basins,
and those games aren't
part of Referendum A, rural fears notwithstanding.
Instead, Referendum A will make this a better Colorado
for all of us and future generations. Work with us on this,
neighbors, there's nothing to fear.
In other words, trust him. That won't be easy, given that the Durango Herald reported Saturday that the Denver District Attorney's office is investigating Andrews for falsifying state records -- this in connection with a vote on ending debate on the measure to put Referendum A on the ballot.
Andrews meant to vote yes, but inadvertently voted no, then brought down his gavel, meaning the motion failed 17-18, and it was so announced. Once it's announced, under Senate rules, the record cannot be changed.
But Andrews altered it anyway, to show 18-17 passage with his changed vote. Thus Referendum A got on the ballot, and this criminal investigation, according to Andrews, is politically motivated.
It could throw Referendum A off the ballot, but I hope not. We should have a chance to vote it down overwhelmingly, and in the meantime, we can enjoy the spectacle of a good Republican brawl.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 2003 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >