Jump to content
This is funny yet very much not so funny. Let's go back to the early 1980's when in our infinite wisdom the voters decided not to allow spring bear hunts and not to allow for baiting. While neither practice might be considered as the most sportsman oriented, we NEVER saw a bear anywhere and the hunters had a hard time filling hunting licensees. So now since the voters took over the job of game managers we only have ourselves to blame. I have to also laugh at the comments of "lets push them out to the forests". As a rancher that loses (donates) a $1500.00 calf a year to these Constitutionally protected beasts please let's keep them in town or start reducing the herd. If they could live in the forest they would be there. It's simple the numbers are the problem. The last morale to be gained is "KEEP THE VOTERS OUT OF PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT" any kind of professional management. Let's leave that to those who went to school to be professional.
Thanks Mary for your service, and good luck on the retirement gig, hopefully third time will be the charm.
Yes no wonder the elk got aggressive with some clown not having control of their dogs. I agree the dog's owners need ticketed. In the old days they would have been shot as pack dogs.
Actually Bill I understand the experts say that 2011 was a 100 year event for the Elk. On the same point I don't disagree with the point that man keeps building in closer and testing the proverbial waters. Quite the fine balance trying to legislate around "stupid" and allowing private property rights. It's all great and it's my property right till a situation needs bailed out and my house is flooding and we need sandbags. One should not wonder why the pioneers built on the bluffs overlooking the river rather than on the river bottom. Oh well
Rob, I'm confused in your attribute to four county managers. I assume that refers to the three commissioners and the one county manager. I would say to that, the commissioners are in charge of policy decisions and the county manager is responsible for the administrative implementation of the policy decisions. The county has a salary structure for department heads and has one county manager who supervises department heads. We have researched the opportunities of combining departments, restructuring, and creating a more streamlined approach, yet all of our efforts seemed to lend itself to more middle management. We do not need more middle management and we continue to support a more flat management structure.
Regarding your comments that county commissioners create their own work load, manufacture work load to create self worth? I guess that is totally what I would expect my commissioner to do, create work load. I would expect my commissioner to champion locally, state wide, and federal issues that move Routt County to the best possible position for the benefit of us all. If that be in water, transportation, economy, energy policy, work force employment, , public land administration, communications/broadband, community development or what ever, I would expect my commissioner to work diligently to move our county forward as a policy maker and spokesman to put our county in the best possible position to succeed in this dog eat dog world. If the thought is that all of that representation and championing can be done in a weekly meeting is basically dreaming.
If I as a commissioner get paid half or a third of what our department heads get paid really does not concern me as much as having the knowledge that I have done all that I could do to protect and enhance our wonderland county. I don't personally believe that commissioner salaries have inhibited candidates but we have to have the opportunity that regular John Q. Citizen that has regular bills to pay and a family to provide for are not prohibited from providing diversified leadership to our county and represent our total county. I respect that the blogs are dominated by the conservative spectrum of our community, but I will say to all of the conservatives, fiscally speaking in my mind you are being very well represented. I watch every penny in our budgets to allow for the stretching of every dollar. Do we pay our employees well? Yes, our county budget is premised on having good employees, running good equipment, and running effectively. It is not great wages, we have for 20 years based our salaries off of surveys. Be they skewed?-- maybe, we have competition that we need to compete with in order to keep our good employees.
I would invite anyone to join me weekly in leaving my house at 5:00am in the middle of the winter snowstorm to make the 9:00 am somewhere meeting that lasts all day through 4:30 Friday evening to make it home by 8:00 pm. Not complaining, happy to serve. PART TIME
Actually Rob, it was not defeated, it was approved 23 yes to 12 no. It did not get the required yes votes to pass the 66% required majority to refer it to the voters which by my math would have required 24 yes and 11 no. I personally thought this had a snowballs chance in summer Phoenix to passing (especially with the electorate and the mistrust of any government) and was basically a "kicking the can down the road" by our legislature to address issues that they constitutionally were mandated to address and haven't addressed since 2007. Somewhere in their infinite wisdom, after the state salary commission's report was released they combined county officials salary discussion with state elected officials salaries in the same bill. That was a death nail in any discussions of anything.
I sympathize with our locally elected "professional" officials in that their second, third and sometimes the fourth employee in line under the elected official receives more compensation than the elected official. This is with the increased personal liability that comes with as an elected official. I'm ok that the bill did not pass yet if it had, we would have locally dealt with it as appropriately as we could have. Comments were correct in that it all would have then been locally politically posturing.
Let's be safe out there, especially when we are having so many high wind warnings. Rather embarrassing to call out the fire department to your house to put out a simple "LITTLE" fire. Been there done that, as I said embarrassing. Be safe, remember you might be held liable for escape of the fire.
Last of State Memo
The Upper Basin Commissioners have created two work groups to analyze the technical and
legal challenges to accomplishing extended operation of CRSP reservoirs in the near future
should the need arise, and to suggest ways to overcome these challenges within the Law of the
River. The legal and technical work groups will also begin exploring the potential for
implementing demand management programs in the Upper Basin. The Commissioners will
review the work groups’ progress in early March and direct their continued efforts toward
implementation of a response to critical decline in Lake Powell storage. Then, once a framework
for these analyses is approved by the Commissioners, interested stakeholders will be invited to
We will be closely monitoring this winter’s hydrology to determine whether any of these options
must be exercised to keep Lake Powell from reaching a critically low storage level.
Moving forward, we will continue to update Colorado River stakeholders within Colorado as
2nd part of memo
Allowing Lake Powell to fall below minimum power pool would lead to the following
• Dramatically higher electric costs (potentially, current rates could increase two to four times)
for customers in cities and towns, farms and ranches throughout much of Colorado and the
elimination of funding for the important programs noted above that protect current and future
water use in Colorado.
• Reduced capacity to make releases from Glen Canyon Dam, resulting in releases that are
insufficient to keep the Upper Basin on course to comply with the Colorado River Compact
obligations that increases the risk of a Compact violation. A Compact violation could result
in protracted litigation with the threat of curtailment of water uses throughout Colorado and
the Upper Basin.
• Risk imposition of federal management of Upper Basin reservoirs with diminished Colorado
primacy on the management of the River and water rights.
Should extreme drought conditions persist, proactive steps are necessary to protect the Upper
Basin. In addition, Lower Basin actions to address shortages at Lake Mead should be
accompanied by Upper Basin actions. This basin-wide approach is in the best interest of
Colorado for several reasons:
1) Colorado needs to protect its use of Colorado River water;
2) Colorado must vigorously guard state primacy over Upper Basin water management;
3) Colorado stands to benefit from synergistic benefits arising from Lower Basin efforts; and,
4) Colorado must strategically position itself for future negotiations with the Lower Basin—we
are better positioned to do this if we can actively manage proper water elevations in Lake
In light of these real and immediate threats, the Governor’s Colorado River representative
directed a group of Colorado water advisors to engage with the other six Colorado River Basin
States in confidential brainstorming and system modeling for the purpose of developing an
emergency response plan. The Upper Basin group members evaluated options that could be
deployed in the near term to address Lake Powell elevations, and concluded that the Upper Basin
can respond to this emergency by taking two actions: 1) releasing increased amounts of water to
Lake Powell from other CRSP reservoirs in the Upper Basin; and, 2) implementing demandmanagement
programs to bolster Lake Powell (e.g. voluntary lease-fallowing or deficit
irrigation). Continuation of existing efforts, such as weather modification and phreatophyte
removal can also contribute, but these actions are less reliable. The additional water delivered to
Lake Powell would be “system water” and would be carefully managed so that critical storage
levels are maintained without triggering greater releases to the Lower Basin.
Harvey and all of you doubters here is some more propaganda, but this isn't from the Democrats, and also the water doesn't really just come from the tap.
M E M O R A N D U M
February 4, 2014
To: State of Colorado’s Colorado River Water Users
From: John McClow
Governor’s Representative on Colorado River Matters
Director, Colorado Water Conservation Board
Re: Contingency Planning in the Colorado River Basin
This memorandum is intended to inform Colorado stakeholders about the State of Colorado’s
contingency planning efforts given the possibility of critically low Colorado River reservoir
levels in the next several years.
The Colorado River supplies water to most of Colorado’s 5 million people. Basin wide, it
supplies 40 million people and irrigates over 6 million acres of agriculture in the Upper Basin
(Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming), the Lower Basin (Arizona, California, Nevada), and
Mexico. According to the United States Conference of Mayors, the combined metropolitan areas
served by the Colorado River represent the world's 12th largest economy, generating more than
$1.7 trillion in Gross Metropolitan Product per year.
The Colorado River system relies on two large regulating reservoirs: Lake Powell in the Upper
Basin and Lake Mead in the Lower Basin. Lake Powell is the main storage unit of the Colorado
River Storage Project (CRSP), the “bank account” that allows Colorado and the Upper Basin to
meet our Colorado River Compact obligations. Electric power generation from Glen Canyon
Dam at Lake Powell helps supply the electrical needs of 5.8 million people, including a
significant number of people in Colorado. Revenue from hydropower generation is applied to
several beneficial purposes, including salinity control projects and important environmental
programs (such as the Upper Colorado River and San Juan Endangered Fish Recovery Programs
and the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program), repayment of the cost of
constructing the CRSP facilities, and paying project operating costs.
Severe drought since 2000 and a supply-demand imbalance in the Lower Basin (i.e.
more uses than inflow), have caused both reservoirs to approach critically low levels.
The attached graph illustrates the impact on Lake Powell storage elevation if we
experience continued drought conditions during the next few years that are similar to
the hydrology witnessed during the 2000-2012 period. Unless something is done in
response to these conditions, Lake Powell elevation could drop below the level at which
the reservoir can generate hydroelectric power (minimum power pool).
Last login: Monday, August 25, 2014
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.