It’s been an interesting start to my summer. Responding to a reporter’s question of whether I’d be thinking about running for the U.S. Senate during the interim, I answered honestly that I’d consider that possibility. What followed was the unleashing of the partisan hellhounds, who disappeared only with my decision not to pursue that direction.
If my experience is any indication of how election season 2016 is headed, God help us. Little is worth rehashing, but my stance on public lands deserves clarification as much of my district includes federal lands.
I’ve personally dedicated years to responsible public land management. My undergraduate and law school degrees reflect that interest and my work in three national parks, including Rocky Mountain National Park, also attest to that fact. My kids were raised with — and, I’m proud to say, exemplify — a respect and reverence for the beauty of our surroundings in the American West. Much of my work at the State Legislature, spanning almost a decade, has been aimed at responsible natural resources policies.
Coincident with my thinking of a federal campaign, though, my support and appreciation for public lands repeatedly came into question based on a vote I made last session. Based on district input, I supported a proposed study to be voluntarily undertaken by interested county commissioners, addressing the challenges faced today in living next to federal lands.
While thanked in parts of my district for this vote, others publicly excoriated me for the same. Differences in opinion are common in a diverse district like mine, but the distortion of the bill and the significance of my vote from the opponents of the bill aren’t justified.
Many in my district love our public lands, but also view these lands to have become inaccessible and so poorly managed that lives are seriously threatened by more catastrophic wildfires in Colorado’s many dead national forests. Federal employees, locally tasked with responsibly managing these lands, are denied adequate resources and, in my view, are challenged with policy directives based more on politics than science-based natural resources management principles.
Is this a state issue? Yes. Colorado wildfires, many originating on federal lands, have cost our state budget more than $98 million since 2011. In 2012 alone, these fires took six Coloradans’ lives, 696 structures, more than 268,558 burned acres and insured property losses exceeded $538 million. Water quality and quantity for all uses have been adversely impacted by wildfire ravaging the land. Is it any wonder that some county commissioners want to study alternatives and report back to the State Legislature? Obviously, they can’t sell or transfer federal lands.
My own bill this session, HB 1225, established a grant program to help local governments better engage in the federal land management decision-making process. This bill had bipartisan sponsors and was signed by the governor. It was promoted by Colorado’s environmental groups. If there isn’t a serious problem today with federal land management, then why would this bill receive such widespread support?
That there is more than one way to tackle a thorny public policy debate should not cause people to resort to distorted rhetoric and falsehoods when opposing a bill. American creativity is viewed on the decline at a time when we need it most on the perplexing challenges we face. Inviting more viewpoints to the discussion, even if it’s uncomfortable and not homogenous, is an approach I will continue to welcome.
Ellen Roberts represents Senate District 6 in Colorado’s General Assembly. The district encompasses Montezuma, Dolores, La Plata, Archuleta, Montrose, San Miguel, San Juan and Ouray counties. Contact Sen. Roberts by phone at (303) 866-4884, or by e-mail [email protected].
