Roger Hill has fought for more than a decade to reclaim public access to these rivers where ill-informed or intentionally errant landowners have attempted to block access. He calls his act of fishing on stretches where public waterways flow through private property marked with no trespassing signs “civil disobedience.” Just this week, the 83-year-old resolved to continue his fight, and asked others to join the movement.

We echo his call for action but want to be clear that we are not calling for civil disobedience because the law is on Hills’ side.

Law enforcement officers should know that they cannot enforce trespassing laws on public property – in this case, rivers that are floatable even as they pass through private land. Homeowners who call a local sheriff on fishermen and rafters should be met with laughter.

Collectively ignoring these false claims on publicly owned waterways is the only path forward, after years of ignored pleas for change. Lawmakers have refused to address the issue for years and the Colorado Supreme Court has avoided ruling on cases. Every year of inaction by the Capitol and the courts, landowners are emboldened to claim more of our natural resources from the public.

However, that doesn’t mean the “Right to Wade” movement is not without risk.

Smart landowners simply post no-trespassing signs along the water’s edge hoping to discourage people ignorant of the law from using the river along their property. Aggressive landowners have taken to stringing wires across the river with “Keep Out” signs. Crazy landowners might assault people, brandish and even fire weapons, or commit other crimes in an effort to retain their squatter’s claim on a public resource.

Coloradans naturally respect private property rights but we’d remind recreation enthusiasts: to stay on the river, keep noise levels down, and not to litter, clean fish or go to the bathroom on the adjacent banks.

These rivers have not been purchased with the transfer of a land title or even the transfer of water rights. If a landowner holds some right to take some water from the Colorado River, that does not mean they own the entire river while it’s on their property. Common sense tells us this, as does the public trust doctrine.

Water use rights – irrigation, drinking, etc. — are secured by their own laws as spelled out in the Colorado Constitution in Article XVI. Nobody is trying to change those laws or change anyone’s rightful claim to use the water.

As Coloradans begin reclaiming their property, lawmakers can learn a lot by reading the excellent laws in Montana that cement the right to access waterways that flow through private lands. A new Colorado law rumored to be drafted for the 2025 legislative session should include these five key provisions modeled after the law in Montana:

1. Define “navigable” waters broadly to include waters that historically were used for log floating, fur trading, and mining and in the modern day can be used for recreational activities like rafting, kayaking, guided fishing or floating.

2. Landowners do not have to grant any easement for access to the waters, but cannot restrict access to the water from other public or private land.

3. A right to portage around barriers in water in the least intrusive manner possible without damaging property.

4.  A right to use the streambed as defined by the high-water mark of the river.

5. And finally, indemnity for landowners from any claim of harm that may come to people using the river or river bank or injured while accessing private property in an emergency.

Anything less than this would be a disservice to Coloradans.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

But we have to agree with Denver city council members who expressed grave concerns about the plan to raise Denver’s sales tax to fund a new venture into affordable housing for the city.

“I will support it going to the voters but we have to be honest; good intentions exist but the clarity and specificity doesn’t,” Councilwoman Jamie Torres said this month while casting her vote to help place it on the ballot in November.

Denver voters should not approve this dedicated sales-tax increase, at least not without a more thoroughly vetted plan. Johnston does have a vision that he spent an hour sharing with The Post editorial board, but the Affordable Denver Fund needs more scrutiny than it has received in the weeks since Johnston first unveiled the proposal.

If voters approve the $100 million-a-year increase in sales tax, it will be up to Denver City Council to approve spending plans. In other words, this is a tax-first, get-the-details-later approach that has resulted in mixed success for city voters in the past.

For example, Denver’s preschool program was a smashing success that has helped thousands of kids access quality early childhood education since 2006. The Educate Denver sales tax is getting scholarship money into the hands of seniors graduating from Denver high schools but has amassed a $30 million fund. The fund has not moved to reduce its sales tax rate of 0.08%.

Denver needs more affordable housing – particularly housing for Denverites who are making less than $60,000 a year. These middle-class and low-income Coloradans are falling through the cracks. They can’t qualify for subsidized housing through Section 8 (Housing Choice Vouchers) or Denver’s many public housing units but also struggle to afford market-rate rents.

But the city needs a concrete plan to make a dent in the housing crisis, especially given that this 0.5% sales tax would be in place for the next 40 years. Johnston should go back to the drawing board and come up with a proposal that provides voters with more details for how $100 million a year will create affordable housing in Denver. As it’s written now, the ballot language says the money will be used to: increase “production, preservation, financing, acquisition, conversion, (and) subsidies” for housing deemed affordable for those making less than 80% of the area median income. It also could be used for a homebuyer assistance program for those making less than 120% of the area median income. Those income targets feel right, but the “First Year Plan” for how to actually spend the money will be created by the manager of finance and the Department of Housing Stability sometime between the November election and Jan. 30, 2025. Voters need that plan now to judge whether this is a good idea.

We do like many of Johnston’s ideas, especially his plan to emphasize the acquisition of existing affordable housing in Denver, either through direct purchase or the purchase of an easement, to protect it forever from becoming new luxury housing. Johnston understands the housing market and wants to leverage the tax to dollars with other state and federal funding to build new units, preserve existing units, help first-time homebuyers escape the rental market, and help renters on the verge of eviction.

In the meantime, Johnston should select one key initiative in his proposal, find existing funding, and run a pilot program to demonstrate how his Affordable Denver Fund will work on a $100 million-a-year budget. Then build a “First Year Plan” around that success. Rome wasn’t built in a day, and Denver didn’t become unaffordable overnight. It’s OK if the mayor doesn’t solve this problem in his four-year term in office.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Of course not.

The conservative and liberal mayors of Aurora and Denver have even come together to dispel the sensationalized reports of rampant gun violence.

There also is no vast conspiracy to cover up the gang activity of Tren de Aragua, an international criminal organization that is run by Venezuelan nationals across South America and is behind the criminal organization of recent arrivals in America who likely arrived illegally or using the asylum system.

The Denver Post and other mainstream news outlets have covered the emergence of this gang in America, but also have maintained perspective on the size, threat and activities of the gang, unlike some who are using incidents in Aurora and Denver to fuel fear of other Venezuelans and asylum seekers. Others, like the owners of an apartment beset with crime in Aurora, are using the gang as a scapegoat for the unsanitary, unsafe and unhealthy conditions of their apartments that were condemned by the city this month.

Aurora is an extremely diverse city of about 400,000 people. It has always had some gang activity – same with Denver, Commerce City, Arvada, Westminster, and Lakewood. The addition of the Tren de Aragua gang to the mix is a dangerous complication, but not a cause for panic, fleeing the city, or calling 911 without cause.

The videos of men armed with semi-automatic long guns and pistols – in the hallway of an apartment complex and during a violent armed burglary at a Denver jewelry store — are unnerving. But they’d be unnerving regardless of the race or nationality or immigrant status of the wielders.

We understand the frustration of Aurora City Councilwoman Danielle Jurinsky. It is completely unacceptable to have apartment complexes where residents are unsafe because of rampant gang activity. She is right to call attention to the issue, just as we have done for years with gangs in Aurora and youth violence in general.

Now is the time for elected officials and law enforcement to come together and eliminate organized crime that often preys upon the most vulnerable people in our communities including small-business owners, immigrants, and low-income families.

Last year, Aurora launched the Standing Against Violence Every Day, or SAVE, program in an effort to keep young people – between the ages of 14 and 25 – from committing crimes, especially acts of violence. It’s estimated 1% of the population in Aurora was involved in 34% of the city’s homicides during a 15-month span.

Four men were arrested and charged with crimes related to the violent robbery of Joyeria El Ruby in Denver in June. At least one of those men was believed to be a member of Tren de Aragua, and was captured in Texas, a sign federal officials and local law enforcement are working hand in hand to shut down this gang.

Homeland Security Investigations regional spokeswoman Alethea Smock, told The Denver Post this month that the gang was an emerging threat in Denver.

But as Aurora’s Republican Mayor Mike Coffman and Denver’s Democratic Mayor Mike Johnston told 9News Thursday night in a joint interview, their cities are still safe.

The danger of blowing things out of proportion, however, is very real.

The vast majority of Venezuelan refugees and migrants from other South American countries have come to America for a chance at freedom and to escape the violence in their home countries. We cannot demonize them because a small proportion of the thousands of recent arrivals have banded together to commit crimes.

Let’s catch the criminals, deport them, and secure our southern border so we can ensure bad eggs aren’t getting in with the good people seeking work permits, liberty and a better life for their children.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

The city’s teachers, students, principals and support staff need safe, comfortable classrooms and buildings to do their important work – readying the next generation of Coloradans for success and happiness.

The district funds most of the upkeep and upgrade of schools by asking voters to approve a bond package about every four years. This November the school board and superintendent are asking for almost $1 billion. A “yes” vote sends actual dollars to every school in the district for fixes, big and small.

We understand that some are urging voters to reject this bond issue to send a message. There is a growing frustration with the district-level management and the elected school board about things that have little to do with fiscal management or school conditions. But we can’t justify punishing those who work hardest in this district or those students suffering summer heat simply to vocalize displeasure with the adults in charge.

Here are five reasons to vote yes on the school district’s bond proposal and one big concern.

1. Technically taxes will not increase. Older bond debt is getting paid off leaving room for the school district to take additional debt without increasing service payments. Of course, what we all know is that if voters say no to this proposal, property taxes will decrease for homeowners and commercial real estate owners in the city. The tradeoff is not worth the small savings – collectively about $250 million a year.

2. 29 schools in DPS still have no air-conditioning in their buildings. The district has slowly whittled away at this problem and, if this bond passes, the district can officially say that none of its schools are without heating and cooling. In recent years, the district has had to close because of the heat, leaving students at home and parents in the lurch. But worse, some days the district has stayed open and children have suffered the ill effects of unbearably hot classrooms.

3. School safety is a top concern and this bond measure includes $30 million to make our schools more secure. At several campuses the district plans to add entrance vestibules that will allow staff to screen visitors before entry. The money can and should be used to buy new external doors that cannot be breached and locks and other barricades for internal doors.

4. Every school – including charter schools in district-owned buildings – will get some funding. The district has an inventory of historic buildings and those built in the 1960s and 70s that are in need of everything from new paint to new windows and doors. Principals, teachers and parents will have a say in how some of the money is spent at their schools.

5. The school district has proven that it will deliver on its promises over the years, and maintaining the same level of investment in our maintenance of buildings is an investment in the future.

Our one big concern is that this bond does include millions of dollars for a new elementary school in far northeast Denver near the existing mega-campus that holds DSST Green Valley Ranch Middle School, Rocky Mountain Prep Green Valley Ranch, Vista Middle School, Kipp NE Middle School, and SOAR Elementary School.

The district projects that housing developments planned in the area will bring an additional 500 elementary students by 2027. However, we urge the school board to take a wait-and-see approach. Denver actually needs to close a number of schools with low enrollment and move school attendance boundaries to adjust for pockets of growth, pockets of gentrification, and changing school choice preferences.

Then, once those options have been exhausted, the board can move forward with building the new Gateway school at 51st Avenue and Telluride Street. If every elementary school in northeast Denver were filled to 100% capacity, there would be room for another 830 students. Obviously, that would mean bigger class sizes and students having longer drives to schools with bigger zones. But before we build a new school amid closures, let’s make sure we absolutely need it.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

In February we wrote: “If this becomes law, for example, an entire committee could meet a week before the session begins to discuss a hypothetical bill they are likely to hear in the next session, hammer out the details of that bill, and not violate the open meeting laws.”

Lawmakers approved Senate Bill 157 despite our concerns.

Now, a few short months later, we have the first example of abuse.

Colorado Democrats met in two separate meetings last week – one for the House and one for the Senate – to talk about deeper property tax cut legislation that could supersede legislation from the 2024 session that attempted to curb the effects of Colorado’s out-of-control housing inflation.

Were issues voted on? Were promises made? Were illegal vote swaps arranged?

We don’t know because the meetings were closed to the public under Senate Bill 157 which now allows lawmakers to gather formally before legislative session to discuss future bills.

The hypothetical legislation in question would be brought forward in a potential special session called by Gov. Jared Polis in the coming days.

If we are giving Speaker of the House Julie McCluskie the benefit of the doubt, the meeting – which was held remotely using a video meeting service and that several journalists unsuccessfully attempted to join – was merely to figure out the logistics of who would be available for such a special session and not to figure out who would vote yes on a detailed package to further reduce property tax increases.

However, a few days later, a nearly complete and thoroughly analyzed plan to adjust the law to bring another $270 million reduction in property taxes statewide was presented to the legislative committee responsible for studying property taxes during the interim. No alternative was discussed.

Colorado’s open meetings law is built on the premise that we shouldn’t have to trust lawmakers not to discuss public policy in private because meetings of a voting quorum will be open and honest. Coloradans approved the open meetings law in 1972, and the first paragraph says: “It is declared to be a matter of statewide concern and the policy of this state that the formation of public policy is public business and may not be conducted in secret.”

The meetings of a quorum of lawmakers discussing public business that occurred last week would have certainly been required to be open to the public under state law. In fact, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in 1983 that caucus meetings are “de facto” policy-making bodies subject to open meetings law.

But Senate Bill 157 changed that, opening up the floodgates for lawmakers to deliberate about bills before they are considered in public meetings. The practice makes the public meetings a sham – the outcome has been determined, changes made to accommodate secret demands with unknown origin and intent, and any public input and testimony are moot.

If there’s a chance at a compromise that would further salve the sting of skyrocketing property taxes while staving off extreme ballot box proposals, Colorado lawmakers should interrupt their recess and return to a special session in Denver.

But the development of the property tax cut proposal must happen in public, and we fear that a deal has already been reached among lawmakers in private making the special session irrelevant – a public show to make it seem like lawmakers are engaging the public when in reality the majority caucus has already decided.

Public scrutiny is the only way to ensure legislation is drafted with the best interests of Coloradans at heart and not unduly influenced by the political calculations that would take place in a closed-door caucus meeting.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Trapped in a heat dome with low humidity and 90 days of drought conditions, following a cool, wet spring, our forests are now laden with kindling ready for the smallest spark.

Colorado has been here before. We had almost three years of respite without a wildfire fatality, significant acreage loss or structure damages. But The Front Range still hasn’t recovered from the devastating Marshall fire in 2021 that burned 1,084 suburban homes, killing two people and costing an estimated $2 billion.

The Colorado Division of Fire Prevention and Control called the wildfire a “tipping point” in an in-depth analysis of the tragedy, asking for “collective action to address well-documented and severe risks to the lives and livelihood of Coloradans.”

“If the Marshall Fire is not that tipping point, it may not exist at all, and governments may be willing to enact change in response to market forces,” the report said in a dire prediction that the only way to bring about change is for multibillion-dollar disasters to wreak financial havoc on the state making homes uninsurable and forcing action.

Now Coloradans are battling four wildfires on the Front Range and one in Delta County simultaneously in unfavorable conditions. As of Friday, at least one person had been killed, 30 structures destroyed and tens of thousands of acres had burned.

The potential for catastrophe is palpable.

Gov. Jared Polis warned on Wednesday that these fires could burn uncontrolled for weeks and could rival 2020 in the scope of destruction. But Polis and his team are certainly not surprised. The state has been preparing.

Four of the top five largest wildfires in Colorado history have occurred in the last three years, and all of Colorado’s 20 largest wildfires have occurred since 2001. The warming, drying climate is to blame for the worsening wildfire conditions.

In four years the Polis administration has invested $145 million toward fire mitigation, including the creation of Colorado’s Strategic Wildfire Action Program with legislation in 2021. The money has meant grants for wildfire mitigation, forest treatments and watershed protection. For example, the Upper Yampa water district received a $1 million grant which was used to leverage another $700,000 in local and federal funding to reduce hazardous fuels in the Bear River watershed. A fire in that area would be catastrophic for water quality in Routt County and the project will begin next year.

Gov. John Hickenlooper created the first program for Colorado to manage its own wildfire-fighting aviation team, and later funded a division to research and implement the most effective firefighting technology and techniques.

No one was under the illusion that such investments could prevent wildfires, but the goal is to prevent death and destruction and contain wildfires in size, while protecting critical watersheds and other critical ecosystems.

Our hearts go out to those who have lost homes and loved ones in these fires, and to those evacuated from their homes awaiting news and praying for improved conditions.

Fortunately, Colorado’s firefighting heroes are on the scene. Five firefighters were injured Wednesday by heat exhaustion and medical conditions. These men and women put their lives on the line to save people, pets, and homes. Resources are stretched thin, not only across the multiple blazes in Colorado but across the West where we’ve shared our firefighting capabilities with others.

U.S. Sens. John Hickenlooper and Michael Bennet teamed up with Reps. Brittany Pettersen and Joe Neguse to request available engines, planes, helicopters, and personnel from the National Interagency Fire Center. Stan Hilkey, executive director of Colorado’s Department of Public Safety, asked Colorado agencies to recall any resources loaned out to other states and Canada in recent weeks.

“I’d feel a lot more comfortable if we had those resources back as soon as possible,” Hilkey told The Denver Post.

These next three weeks will be a test of Colorado’s preparation and resolve to meet the growing threat of wildfires. Forests will burn, and in some places, the destruction will rejuvenate unhealthy habitats full of beetle kill, poor soils, and other problems.

But we are grateful for those fighting day and night to protect Colorado’s special places and our developed lands. More fires will come in the future and if the state can meet this moment, we’ll have hope that the Marshall fire “tipping point” served a purpose.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

The truth is that little remains architecturally on the 130-year-old buildings worth salvaging, and that was the case even before the Wyman Historic District was designated in 1993 to save a neighborhood full of stately mansions of historic value. Like bulky monsters constructed in an ad-hoc manner from bits and pieces, storefronts had been added to the homes in 1938 to capitalize on the bustling commercial area on Colfax. The boxy additions are poorly executed.

And even before the current owners – Pando Holdings — purchased the buildings at Franklin and Colfax in 2017, they were in decline.

Sadly saving the old buildings by blocking their demolition until someone comes along with the desire, financial means and ability to structurally restore them is not the best way to protect the Wyman Historic District.

In March a fire rendered the homes unsound and the owner wants to abandon his already approved plans to preserve both houses as part of a mixed-use development with a seven-story residential building on the large parking lots behind the homes.

Denver’s Landmark Preservation Commission rejected the demolition permit requested by Pando Holdings and developer Kiely Wilson.

But allowing the buildings to sit structurally damaged, vacant and badly burned for an indeterminate amount of time is doing more damage to Wyman than their demolition.

The fire was possibly started by people using the empty buildings for shelter – although the Denver Fire Department has not been able to determine a cause yet. The remaining structures are unsound and a safety hazard to anyone else who might try to enter the fenced-off area, whether that’s homeless individuals or Denver teens looking for a fun graffiti pallet.

Demolition seems to be the best path forward.

That is not to say that we don’t sympathize with the Preservation Commission’s consternation over the turn of events.

A plan was in place to save the buildings, and if they are demolished there is less ability to ensure that the developer will build something compatible with the historic district. The commission has more teeth when it comes to preserving a historic building and can even order repairs on buildings so homeowners don’t intentionally allow a historic structure to decay beyond the point of salvage so they can demolish it. Do we suspect that Pando Holdings is guilty of such a nefarious practice? If there was evidence of wrongdoing, no one has named it.

Even with demolition, the commission still has review power over plans for new development in historic districts, even on non-conforming structures and on vacant lots. The goal is to make sure that a new build does not “adversely affect the character-defining features of the overall historic district.”

That’s still a pretty high bar for any new plans at the five-point intersection of East Colfax, Park Avenue, and Franklin Street.

Barring revelations of a plot to avoid preserving the buildings via neglect, we think the commission must recognize that the fire dramatically altered the feasibility of plans to save the homes and storefronts on East Colfax.

Pando Holdings and Wilson surely must recognize that their reputation is on the line if they replace the buildings with anything that isn’t a net gain for the community in terms of aesthetically pleasing, historic façades on East Colfax.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Davis was briefly detained by six FBI agents when the plane landed in California; handcuffed in front of his wife, three children, and an entire plane of passengers.

Because Davis was then quickly released and sent on his way to attempt to enjoy his family vacation to California, we give credence to his version of events. Other passengers must have supported Davis’ story that he didn’t strike the flight attendant but merely attempted to get his attention with a tap.

All’s well that ends well. Right?

No. All is not well for Terrell Davis’ family who had to spend the next few days setting the record straight in the media and talking about America’s continued problem with false criminal accusations against Black men.

Tamiko Davis told CBS that she worries most for her and Terrell’s children, a 9-year-old daughter, 11-year-old son, and 13-year-old son who were sitting with them on the plane.

“As a mom, as a Black mom raising two Black sons, you work really hard to not have your children have those types of experiences,” Tamiko Davis said. “And we were simply going on vacation. This is something that we’ll never get back.”

Shook by their experience, Terrell and Tamiko have been doing interviews and asking that United Airlines address the incident head-on.

They are using this sad experience to shed light on an intractable problem in America. Would the flight attendant have reacted the same way had a petite white woman tapped him on the shoulder?

More likely is that Davis’ race and size – the Black Hall of Famer was listed as 200 pounds when he was winning Super Bowls for the Broncos with John Elway – factored heavily into the flight attendant’s reaction, accusations, and attempt to get Davis detained if not arrested and charged with a crime.

United Airlines has apologized to Davis and placed the flight attendant on leave while the company investigates.

Terrell Davis has said repeatedly that he was humiliated by the experience. We hope the outpouring of love and support from his fans in Colorado has helped to lessen that embarrassment.

We support Davis in his effort to raise awareness of racial prejudices whether they are overt or subconscious.

United Airlines should be proactive and use this as a training tool for all its staff.

Flight attendants have high-pressure jobs where they are entrusted with the safety of passengers, enforcing rules and even federal laws in a confined space 30,000 feet above the ground. Because of these responsibilities, they are granted support from law enforcement and some degree of deference.

Since 2020, flight attendants have had to manage an increasing number of unruly passengers. The increased reports range from violent assaults and drunken tirades to refusals to wear seatbelts and masks.

We all want to fly safely, without conflict or fear.

But this incident only further harms the outstanding employees at United who sometimes go above and beyond to care for passengers, and worse, it harms every family who has ever experienced discrimination based on their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation, whose fears of travel may have just increased.

Talking about these incidents publicly takes bravery and resolve. The rest of us can lend our support by listening and doing what passengers on the United flight did — telling authorities what they see and hear.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Not all lobbying is bad. As Sen. Paul Lundeen pointed out in The Denver Post’s investigation into lobbyist spending and activities this year, lobbyists often make sure lawmakers are clear-eyed about the unintended consequences of legislation.

Good lobbyists quell bad ideas and in a state with single-party rule — where Democrats hold the House, Senate, and the governor’s office — that is an important role.

But lobbyists can also mislead lawmakers, draft questionable legislation, and propose poison pill amendments. Being aware and cautious about a bill’s negative effects is good, getting hoodwinked or browbeat into doing something that’s bad for Coloradans is not.

Major lobbying firms like Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Husch Blackwell Strategies, and The Capstone Group are able to pay their employees hundreds of dollars an hour to be at the state Capitol pushing for their client’s preferred outcomes.

And lobbyists do far more than just testify in committees. As The Denver Post reported earlier this year, lobbyists often write bills and amendments and pressure lawmakers to carry the exact language preferred by their clients.

Sen. Julie Gonzales, the sponsor of House Bill 1057, told The Denver Post that a bad amendment to her bill had actually been written by a software company opposed to the legislation. The legislation was sparked by an investigation by ProPublica into a nationwide company that is part of a federal probe into price fixing among landlords. The amendment would have allowed landlords to use the rent-setting algorithm as long as they publicly disclosed it.

Ultimately, the bill died because the House refused to accept the bad amendment and the Senate refused to strike it.

Gonzales did the right thing standing up to lobbyists’ attempts to water down her bill.

Lawmakers can shine a bright light on lobbyists’ dark activities to help undermine their power. More lawmakers need to speak up about the bills and amendments lobbyists asked them to carry, even when the suggestions are refused.

Colorado’s new lobbyist disclosure platform developed by Secretary of State Jena Griswold is a huge step in the right direction, so Coloradans can see who is spending what at the Capitol to influence whom.

Sen. Lisa Cutter’s bill to fully ban PFAS from some consumer products was one of the five most heavily lobbied bills of 2024. Cutter’s bill became law, but even she agrees the lobbying pressures have grown worse at the Capitol.

“It’s kind of complicated, right? There’s some really great lobbyists that do some really great work for their clients — and add to our understanding to create a bill that’s workable and makes sense,” Cutter told The Denver Post. “Then there’s the lobby and the special interests that spend a bazillion dollars — lots of money — to try to prevent progress and prevent what we all really know is the right thing to be doing.”

Cutter’s bill was better for the lobbied amendments — a full ban of PFAS was taken out in response to requests from companies that have products already manufactured that need to be sold. A partial ban will take effect in 2028.

But ProPublica reported this year that the chemical company 3M has known since 1997 that some PFAS chemicals had contaminated the general population’s bloodstreams and that chemicals were toxic. 3M paid lobbyist John Paul Seman with Colorado Advocates $2,000 a month during the 2024 legislative session. We hope Seman used his influence to support a ban that never should have been required because 3M executives should have begun phasing out PFAS chemicals almost three decades ago, but we are guessing that’s not what he was paid to do. Lobbyists for 3M are the modern-day equivalent of Big Tobacco lobbyists in 1954.

The good, ethical, hardworking lobbyists have nothing to fear from lawmakers airing dirty laundry. The rest may have to clean up their acts.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

In reality, Elias has alienated himself from the residents of the small town with his own disastrous decision to reroute a stream so water no longer flows into the community’s beloved Barn Pond.

Because of Elias’ actions, Barn Pond is now a mud hole and nearby wetlands are drying up.

Elias says that he is legally entitled to the water that once flowed into Barn Pond. But Elias alone doesn’t get to decide that the stream feeding into Barn Pond was a man-made diversion. That will be determined by investigations conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and water engineers for the Colorado Division of Water Resources in the Arkansas River basin.

Colorado water rights are generally straightforward — a user can only take from a flowing water source what they are legally allotted and must send the rest downstream to other users regardless of whether “downstream” is a single path serving one user or multiple tributaries serving multiple users. Unfortunately, water rights in Colorado are increasingly dictated by who can hire the higher-powered attorney and who can act first to take what they think belongs to them.

While we wait to see the results of the investigation and any potential litigation, if Elias truly wants “peace” in the community, he could voluntarily undo the harm he has done. Nothing is preventing him from recreating the stream flow he disrupted to ensure that Barn Pond becomes a healthy and photogenic pond again.

Elias wants the water to instead feed into the streams and ponds on 75 acres he owns just a half mile from Twin Lakes right off of Highway 82. Elias is attempting to get approval to subdivide the land into 18 lots that are marketed online at beginning prices of $1 million.

The proposed map shows a network of lakes and streams interspersed throughout a small subdivision of lots of a few acres. What is unclear is how many of those lakes and streams will exist without the water taken from Barn Pond and the surrounding wetlands.

We are glad that the Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of Water Resources are investigating.

But regardless of what legal answer they come up with, the answer for Elias to get the peace he wants and deserves on his little slice of Colorado heaven is to take immediate action to undo the harm he has caused Twin Lakes. Who would want to move into a community – even if it’s a family’s “second or third home” as Elias has marketed the subdivision – knowing that the ponds, lakes and streams in AngelView are fed by water that was taken from Barn Pond.

Barn Pond is more than a local watering hole for wildlife; it’s more than a popular fishing spot, and it’s more than a healthy wetland ecosystem for watersheds. Barn Pond and the wetlands surrounding it are the heart of the Twin Lakes visitor’s area and the location of the Twin Lakes National Historic District signs and markers. Barn Lake has become a symbol for the beautiful Twin Lakes town itself. In other words, water didn’t divide the community, but Elias may destroy it.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.