It is with the humility that comes with having been mistaken that I view the controversy surrounding Rep. Gabe Evans’ claims about his Mexican-born grandfather. On the campaign trail last year for Colorado’s 8th Congressional District, Evans described his abuelito, Cuauhtemoc Chavez, as a man who “did it the right way” when he immigrated to America.

The truth is more complex, an investigation by Colorado Newsline revealed. Chavez came to the U.S. illegally as a young child. He was arrested as a teen and subject to deportation proceedings. At some point in his youth he was arrested but not convicted of attempted burglary. He later served in World War II and became a naturalized U.S. citizen. The article suggests that Chavez was granted citizenship, not because of his service to the nation as Evans has stated, but because a 1944 law made it so candidates for naturalization no longer had to show proof of lawful entry.

Did Evans’ grandfather become a citizen “the right way?” The answer is not black and white. He came here illegally but was ultimately naturalized through a legal process that is no longer available to immigrants who first arrive illegally.

As for my family, my dad’s kin emigrated from Germany and the Russian Empire decades after the Civil War. My mom’s family immigrated to Pennsylvania, one of the first states to abolish slavery, and Maryland from England and Central Europe beginning in the 17th century. My mom’s great-great-grandfather, Joseph Lopez, born Joseph Getward, deserted from the Royal Navy to come to the U.S. He later joined the New York Volunteer Infantry, was captured, and ended up at Andersonville, the notorious Confederate prisoner-of-war camp. Adding all this up, odds seemed good that my family lacked a connection to the horrors of human bondage.

That was until last weekend, when I learned that Joseph Lopez’s daughter-in-law (my great-great-grandmother) had a great-great-grandfather who owned slaves and with one of them fathered a son, her great-grandfather, my great-great-great-great-great-grandfather. Guarding against the deeply racist attitudes of the day, my relatives of mixed ethnic heritage started a family rumor that their darker skin tone must have come from a Native American ancestor.

Turns out my assumptions about my family were incorrect. The truth is far more complex; my family tree includes at least one slaveholder and at least one slave. If I weigh in on a political issue like racial reparations and choose to invoke my family history, I cannot simply say “my whole family did it right.” In fact, if I searched further, I would find other slave owners and slaves even on my dad’s side. Pre-Christian Germanic tribes practiced slavery, too. It was an abhorrent practice throughout human history. No one’s family is a paragon of virtue.

It’s with that perspective that I can offer Evans grace for his mistake. Colorado Newsline produces some excellent investigative journalism, but as a far-left news organization, don’t expect any grace for Republicans from them. Rightwing media reacted the same way, accusing Sen. Elizabeth Warren of insincerity when she overstated her Native American heritage. How do we know she wasn’t relying on family lore? I have never met Evans, but it seems more likely he didn’t know the nuances of his grandfather’s case than that he deliberately misspoke. Knowing how I was wrong about my own family history, I’m going to give them both the benefit of the doubt.

The fact that Evans has been more circumspect in recent interviews suggests that once he knew the truth, he course-corrected. Give him credit for cosponsoring H.R. 4393, which would enable people working in the U.S. illegally to receive legal status and continue to work here, if they meet certain conditions. It would also speed up the asylum process and allow immigrants brought here illegally as young children and those with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to obtain legal status. It is the kind of practical, humanitarian, compromise immigration reform we need. Similar legislation was blocked in 2024 by then-candidate Donald Trump, who wanted to keep the contentious issue bleeding throughout the election year. There is no reason it should not pass now.

But Evans should go a step further. He should use his unique family background to champion humane treatment of illegal immigrants, even though it risks the ire of the president and the far right. Every person, citizen or immigrant, here legally or not, deserves due process. Too few Republicans are willing to champion this constitutional guarantee. If Evans can lead on this issue, maybe others will follow.

Krista Kafer is a Sunday columnist for The Denver Post.

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.

So I’m not without sympathy for the Palmer Lake Board of Trustees as it faces intense and often vitriolic public opposition to a proposal to annex land two miles outside the town boundary to make way for a Buc-ee’s gas station with 120 pumps, and 780 parking spaces.

But Buc-ee’s is not the magic bullet of tax revenue some in Palmer Lake, a town of just 2,600, hope. Rather than save the town, the massive travel center instead is likely to end up killing precisely what makes Palmer Lake and the surrounding Tri-Lakes region a unique Colorado treasure.

Even if you’re not a local, you probably are familiar with the vast Greenland Ranch open space that stretches from the mountains to the plains on either side of I-25 between Larkspur and the summit of Monument Hill. Greenland Ranch’s 40,000 acres is the only protected open space along I-25 between Fort Collins and Colorado Springs and is a crown jewel – a living and thriving reminder of the Front Range before the sprawl of urban development.

Buc-ee’s wants to build its massive travel mecca directly across a two-lane road from this ecological linchpin, adding thousands of cars every day, flushing millions of gallons of water down its famously clean toilets and casting an unnatural glow from its parking lot lights into a critical big-game migration corridor.

Over the past three decades, Coloradans have invested more than $100 million to preserve and protect the Greenland Ranch open space. It was a cause celebre for two governors – Roy Romer and Bill Owens – and Liberty Media founder John Malone played a crucial financial role in protecting the ranch from development. It is something the state rightly should be proud of and fierce to protect.

Nowhere should that be more true than in Palmer Lake because the open space commitment all Coloradans have made over the years insulates and protects the bucolic appeal of the town. I grew up in the Pikes Peak region and while my law firm has clients that oppose Buc-ee’s, my opposition is as a lifelong resident who has watched as the wild places that are the birthright of Colorado children are lost forever to inappropriate development.

What makes Buc-ee’s inappropriate is this location. Buc-ee’s is, by all accounts, a great place for weary travelers to grab a bite and take a break from the road. I oppose depriving landowners of their land without compensation (and, in fact, the owners have at least one backup offer to purchase and protect the property). All of us should reject a proposal that negatively impacts a resource the public paid – and pays – to protect while a private out-of-state corporation makes big bucks.

As a former local official, I know that strategic development builds the economic foundation of towns to provide vital community services. But development needs to make sense and fit the character of the town. In Johnstown, Colorado’s only other Buc-ee’s location, local officials have seen other businesses locate next to Buc-ee’s to offer complementary services and products. Those kinds of synergies are a lot less likely at the proposed El Paso County location. Why? Because the pine-studded property is bordered by a rural church, I-25 and the Greenland Ranch.

Palmer Lake’s land grab would let the town capture whatever ostensible revenue Buc-ee’s generates while dumping all of the inevitable downsides – traffic, noise, pollution and light – on citizens in unincorporated El Paso County who have no voice whatsoever in Palmer Lake elections.

In addition to not being very neighborly, annexation to make way for a Buc-ee’s is bound to change the entire region. Once up and running, Buc-ee’s would serve roughly four times as many travelers every day as Palmer Lake has residents, which would require hiring new police and fire personnel and new equipment while jamming thousands of cars onto country roads.

The Tri-Lakes region of which Palmer Lake is a part is a unique slice of Colorado as it once was. There are too few places like it left. Palmer Lake trustees may believe they are saving their town by welcoming Buc-ee’s, but if doing so requires sacrificing the elements that make Palmer Lake and the Tri-Lakes special, what, in the end, are they really saving?

John Suthers is the former mayor of Colorado Springs, former Colorado Attorney General and served as the United States Attorney for the District of Colorado. He is a shareholder at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck.

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 White House has proposed a massive 25% cut to the NASA budget, a move congressional appropriators have rejected in their recent funding proposals, but which still has the potential to dampen the U.S. economy and workforce, undermine national security, health and safety, and curtail American ambitions to shape the final frontier.

In Colorado, America’s second-largest aerospace economy, we know that losing global leadership in space is a gamble the United States cannot afford to take. As federal budget negotiations continue, I’m asking the public to contact their Congressional representatives and remind them of everything America stands to gain through robust investment in NASA.

NASA remains popular among Americans of all stripes. It served as a source of unity and pride as we won the first Space Race, enabled a massive aerospace-based economy that employs 2.2 million people across the nation, and undergirds much of our national defense and everyday well-being.

The administration’s proposal would cut NASA from about $24.9 billion to $18.8 billion — the agency’s lowest funding level in 60 years, when adjusted for inflation, and the largest single-year cut in its history. Despite proposed increases for human spaceflight to the moon and Mars, the proposal includes a 47% cut to the Science Mission Directorate, which oversees the agency’s scientific research. This research underpins the spectacular missions that inspire and delight us all.

At the University of Colorado Boulder, Purdue, Georgia Tech and many other universities across the nation that lead in aerospace and related fields, NASA research grants provide a dual benefit; they advance America’s space science and innovation, and they develop the skilled workforce ready to address the nation’s needs.

At CU Boulder’s Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, the world’s only academic research institute to send instruments to all eight planets and Pluto, NASA funding helps employ more than 250 undergraduate students and nearly 100 graduate students annually, integrating them into mission teams and training them to operate multimillion-dollar satellites. These students become the engineers and scientists who will drive continued American dominance in space for the next 40 years.

NASA-supported, hands-on training ensures graduates are well-prepared for jobs at BAE, Lockheed Martin, Blue Origin, Sierra Nevada, the U.S. military, scientific labs, and the impactful startup companies of tomorrow. They are the backbone of American greatness.

America will continue to have the world’s greatest rockets and space stations only if we continue to have the human resources provided by an adequately funded NASA.

You don’t have to be an aspiring astronaut or scientist to reap the benefits of publicly funded space research.
Research and development on space domain awareness, hypersonic systems, radio frequency communications are critical to safeguarding the public from threats foreign and domestic, natural and man-made. Prior wars were won based on dominance on land and by air; future conflicts may be decided by the countries that control space.

Researchers here have successfully used NASA funding to develop, build and operate weather satellites to improve forecasts. They are using it to observe space weather that can cripple our power grids, threaten GPS service, and ruin Midwest planting seasons. CU Boulder’s BioServe Space Technologies conducts biological research in space that aids in development of anti-cancer drugs and osteoporosis treatments.

Furthermore, the proposed budget cut would force the termination of missions far along in development or already operating, throwing away billions in taxpayer investments on projects that are on-budget and producing results for the American public.

Taxpayers have already invested $85 million toward the CLARREO Pathfinder, which will provide the world’s best measurements of reflected sunlight, improving the accuracy of government and commercial satellite sensors. This instrument is sitting in a laboratory in Colorado, ready to launch to its permanent destination, the International Space Station. Why would we throw that away?

Since Neil Armstrong’s first steps on the moon, American curiosity and ambition have led us to wonder what’s next. Perhaps space tourism, mining the moon for precious resources, or human habitats on Mars.

Those aspirations are catalyzed in projects like MAVEN, designed to measure radiation and solar storms in space at Mars — a critical element for human exploration — that is also at risk in the current NASA budget. If MAVEN is cancelled, the United States will cede leadership in Mars exploration to China and rely on Europe and Russia for all future telecoms at Mars. Do we want a future based on independence or reliance on other countries?

NASA’s successes are some of the best examples of American ingenuity, persistence and imagination — part of our national identity as pioneering explorers. It’s up to all of us to ensure these values continue to drive federal policy and our collective future.

Justin Schwartz is the chancellor of the University of Colorado Boulder.

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.

This policy wasn’t developed with the necessary transparency, nor was it shaped through meaningful community input.  Initially, the Office of the Independent Monitor wasn’t even given an opportunity to review the draft policy, as is required by city ordinance. Even now, the community has yet to see any actual policy language. That’s a problem.

More than two decades ago, Denver voters created a clear, community-driven oversight structure with the city’s police discipline ordinance. The system centers on the Office of the Independent Monitor, community input, and a formal disciplinary matrix. But education-based development could bypass all of that. The current proposal estimates that up to 85% of misconduct cases could be diverted outside this structure, circumventing the independent oversight that voters demanded in 2004.

Let’s be clear: This isn’t a minor adjustment to the disciplinary matrix; it’s a fundamental change in how police accountability works in Denver. What’s more, it’s being pushed through without a public vote, hearings, or any formal opportunity for the community to weigh in.

In a recent public meeting, Chief Ron Thomas claimed there is “overwhelming support” for this change. However, this “support” is based on an incomplete understanding of the policy, as the chief has yet to release the full details to the community. During select meetings with public safety organizations, concerns have been raised about shifting the focus from accountability to training.

What’s more troubling is the lack of evidence supporting this approach. There’s no clear research showing that education-based discipline improves outcomes for cities or communities. The model is loosely based on a program in Los Angeles County, known for poor police conduct, and smaller communities like Pasadena, California, which use education-based development but do not replace traditional discipline. In Denver’s case, however, the plan is to shift the majority of disciplinary cases into this alternative track.

The city deserves better than a rushed, loosely copied model implemented behind closed doors. Police discipline reform is a serious issue that requires careful planning, evidence, and, most importantly, community trust. That trust is already fragile, and the process by which this change is being pushed forward only weakens it further.

We’ve seen this before: changes made in the name of efficiency, without regard for long-term consequences. In the context of public safety and civil rights, the consequences can be profound. Decisions about police conduct need to reflect community values, not just internal departmental preferences. Meaningful community involvement in significant changes provides legitimacy and community buy-in, and should not be bypassed just because it’s inconvenient.

While there is always an opportunity to offer officers additional training or learning opportunities, these should complement, not replace, a fair and transparent disciplinary process. Any significant deviation from the current disciplinary system must be done with full public transparency, clear evidence of effectiveness, and strong community involvement.

Right now, we have none of that.

We urge Mayor Mike Johnston, Chief Thomas, and the Department of Public Safety to pause the policy’s implementation and allow it to be brought into the open for a genuine community discussion. Let’s involve the Independent Monitor, the Citizen Oversight Board, the City Council, and — most importantly — the public. If we are going to change how police are held accountable, we must do it the right way.

Denver has led the way on police oversight before. We can do it again — but only if we follow the charter, the evidence, and the people.

Julia Richman is chair of the Denver Citizen Oversight Board. She wrote this op-ed on behalf of seven other members of the board: Vice Chair Tymesha Watkins, Karen Collier, Rufina Hernandez, Dawn Holden, David Martinez, Larry Martinez, and Alfredo Reyes. One seat on the nine-member board is currently vacant.

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.

Now that OBBBA has been signed and is the law of the land, over the course of the next year, governors and lawmakers in many states will be seeking to pass legislation that complements some of the changes that OBBBA made to the federal tax code.

In statehouses across the country, lawmakers will take action to provide the same year-one deductibility at the state level for business capital expenditures, along with research and development costs, that OBBBA restored federally. While state lawmakers will seek to conform with some of the changes made by OBBBA, they’ll also work to decouple from other parts, particularly the international provisions.

In addition to full business expensing, expect some state lawmakers to propose emulating OBBBA’s $25,000 tax deduction for tips and overtime pay by providing a similar state deduction. In fact, over the past year, lawmakers in more than a dozen states have introduced legislation that provides some form of state tax exemption for tip income. That trend will likely continue following federal enactment of the tips and overtime exemptions.

Coming state legislation that complements or conforms with OBBBA will typically be done in a way that reduces state tax burdens, but that’s not the case everywhere.

Take Colorado, where Democrats who control state government have gone in the opposite direction, clawing back some of the federal tax relief that OBBBA provided to workers. Voters, however, may soon have an opportunity to undo that maneuver, which was designed to counteract some of the tax relief provided by OBBBA.

“In April, legislators added into House Bill 1296 — a bill that made several changes to state tax exemptions — a requirement for residents to add the amount of overtime pay excluded from their federal income tax revenue to their Colorado taxable income,” Ed Sealover wrote in a July 17 article for The Sum and Substance, a news site published by the Colorado Chamber of Commerce. “This was a defensive move anticipating that Congress could exempt overtime compensation from federal tax income, as state officials said that mirroring federal law would cost Colorado $400 million to $600 million in annual revenue.”

A July 10 Colorado Springs Gazette editorial noted that “Colorado’s Legislature and Gov. Jared Polis decided to gut-punch Colorado workers,” by voting this spring to raise state taxes on overtime pay, “essentially taxing their hard-earned overtime wages.” That state tax hike, the Gazette editorial went on to add, “was buried in an obscure, wide-ranging bill innocuously titled, ‘Tax Expenditure Adjustment,’ which lawmakers passed this spring.”

Advance Colorado, an organization that has a record of running successful ballot measure campaigns, filed paperwork with the Colorado Secretary of State on July 8 to begin collecting the signatures needed to place a measure on the 2026 ballot. That measure, Initiative 119, would undo the provision in the Expenditure Adjustment Act that decoupled from the new federal exemption for overtime pay. What’s more, Initiative 119 would also prevent state taxation of tip income. In order to qualify for the 2026 ballot, Initiative 119 supporters must collect 124,238 valid signatures.

“If they would have done nothing,” Michael Fields, president of Advance Colorado, said about Colorado legislators, “people would have seen this reduction.” Fields added that when people find out about what the legislature did to ensure that enactment of OBBBA would not also result in a new state tax break for workers, “they are going to be upset that the state took a direct action to ensure higher taxes.”

It remains to be seen whether lawmakers in other states will follow Colorado’s lead, changing state tax law as a way to not provide state tax relief that is the same as what their constituents received from OBBBA. Even if Illinois, New York, Oregon, and other blue states follow suit, however, there is a good chance Colorado voters will end up undoing the state tax hike that served as a model for such proposals.

Patrick Gleason is vice president of state affairs at Americans for Tax Reform, a taxpayer group founded in 1985 at the request of President Ronald Reagan. 

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.

Yet I support the elimination of their public funding for one reason: it’s inequitable. Federal subsidies are unfair to taxpayers and station competitors.

Taxpayers, roughly half of whom lean right, should not have to subsidize left-leaning news coverage and analysis. I love public radio, but find the bias impossible to ignore. Sometimes hosts can barely keep the disdain they feel for President Trump, his supporters, and conservative policies from tinging their sonorous voices. Usually, though, the liberal bias is a little more subtle.

For example, a recent story on NPR about “Trump Accounts” for children in the budget reconciliation bill included listener comments. Not one was in support of the measure. I could have been one of those commenters since I oppose the accounts, the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and for that matter, much of what Trump says and does. However, the segment should have included comments from supporters. I learned that in high school journalism class.

Mischaracterization of conservative and libertarian views and motivations is another problem. This may be less from intention and more from hosts and producers not actually knowing any conservatives. For example, another recent NPR segment featuring two liberal hosts described prolifers as “wanting to control women.”

As someone involved in the movement for four decades, I’ve never met anyone who wanted to control women. The prolifers I know, most of whom are strong, independent women, want simply to protect vulnerable human beings from a painful death. It’s fine to disagree, but not to misrepresent our motivation as misogyny. Of course, it’s easier to argue with a strawman than to find an actual person and ask her about her motivation.

Hosts also show a preference for liberal-preferred terms and phrases such as “undocumented,” “sex assigned at birth,” “white privilege,” “reproductive rights,” “unhoused,” and “living wage.” Hosts are not trying to gall conservative listeners. These words reflect hosts’ views or are what they think their listeners want to hear. The preference, however, can be alienating to those who hold other views especially when they are forced to subsidize broadcasts through their tax dollars.

And yes, it is true that hosts of rightwing radio and television regularly feature only conservative viewpoints, mischaracterize liberal opinions, and use conservative buzzwords. But here’s the difference: those programs are not subsidized by taxpayers. Stations have to earn their funding through advertisers and subscribers. Left-leaning Americans need not give a dime.

As a listener, I am not worried that public radio and television stations will collapse from the elimination of public funds. These funds represent only a portion of their budgets. Stations will simply have to raise more money through advertising and donations.

True, it’s a tough environment. Journalism has changed. Growing up, new news and analysis could be found in newspapers, magazines, and on broadcasts, and old news in books and on microfiche archives. Thanks to the internet, these sources now compete with websites, blogs, social media, podcasts, and online video. The operative word here is “compete.” These news and opinion sources, like their traditional counterparts — public broadcasting excepted — are 100% dependent on subscribers and advertisers without any handout from taxpayers. It’s only fair that public radio and television stations compete on equal footing.

Krista L. Kafer is a Sunday Denver Post columnist. Follow her on Twitter: @kristakafer.

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.

That’s why I’m proud to support the One Big Beautiful Bill. This legislation isn’t just a tax package — it’s a lifeline for Colorado’s subcontractors and a major investment in the future of our local infrastructure.

One of the most important pieces of this bill is how it strengthens the Highway Trust Fund, the critical federal funding source for road and bridge projects nationwide. For too long, the trust fund has faced uncertainty, leaving states like Colorado waiting on unreliable federal dollars to repair highways, widen rural roads, and modernize infrastructure. This bill provides new resources and stability for the fund ensuring that infrastructure projects can move forward without delay, and that subcontractors like drywall crews, electricians, and concrete companies have steady work.

For years, the Highway Trust Fund has teetered on the edge of insolvency, made worse by outdated funding mechanisms that haven’t kept pace with the demands on our roads. The One Big Beautiful addresses that problem head-on by redirecting revenues from unused COVID-era funds and creating new federal fees on electric vehicles to provide a fresh infusion of dollars into the trust fund.

It also modernizes the funding formula to ensure states like Colorado — with growing populations and aging infrastructure — get a fairer share of the pot. That means more dollars for projects like Interstate 70 improvements through Glenwood Canyon, the long-needed expansion of US-85 in Weld County, and safety upgrades to rural roads that support our state’s agriculture and energy economies.

Just as important, it opens up the door to new projects across Colorado — such as bridge replacements in Pueblo County, resurfacing and widening Highway 50 in Otero County, and long-overdue maintenance on key mountain corridors like US-285.

In the Denver metro area, it could help accelerate long-discussed expansions of Interstate 270 and Interstate 225 to ease congestion and improve freight movement. These are the kinds of projects that not only modernize our transportation systems but keep Colorado subcontractors like drywall crews, concrete teams, electricians, and framers employed year-round.

When federal infrastructure dollars flow reliably, it benefits more than just highway contractors. It supports the small, local subcontractors who take on everything from bridge railings and retaining walls to electrical systems and interior work on public projects. In my business, those projects help keep our crews on job sites and paychecks in the hands of local workers.

The bill also delivers tax relief for small businesses like mine. By lowering federal tax rates for pass-through businesses and expanding deductions for equipment, vehicles, and operational costs, it allows companies to invest in their teams, upgrade equipment, and weather tough times like inflation and labor shortages.

On top of that, the One Big Beautiful Bill cuts red tape, simplifying the permitting process for infrastructure projects. Too often, subcontractors are forced to sit idle while bureaucratic delays stall projects. Streamlining these approvals means faster job starts, steadier work, and less wasted time and money for businesses like ours.

This legislation represents the kind of practical, pro-growth policy our industry and our state need. It’s not about partisan politics — it’s about keeping Coloradans working and making sure our infrastructure is safe, modern, and built to last. Subcontractors, suppliers, and tradesmen across Colorado are ready to get to work — and this bill clears the path for us to do just that.

Rusty Plowman is the owner of Delta Drywall, a commercial subcontractor based in Colorado, as well as the Past President of ASA Colorado and Past President of ASA National.

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 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation should start planning to modify the Glen Canyon Dam, which plugs the Colorado to form Lake Powell. The plan will help ensure water and sediments will continue to flow through the Grand Canyon, and into Lake Mead, the nation’s largest reservoir.

In late June, Colorado’s representative to the Upper Colorado River Commission told an audience, “we stand on the brink of system failure.”

Earlier last month the leader of the Colorado River Authority of Utah suggested some states are considering an “amicable divorce” from the 103-year old Colorado River Compact, which established the basic rules for apportioning Colorado River water among its seven-member states.

Despite a 2026 deadline, the Bureau and seven states have been grappling unsuccessfully with how to share the river equitably. There is significantly less water in the river compared to what was expected when the Compact was ratified: 12.5 million acre-feet annually this century, compared to no less than 17.5 million acre-feet assumed in 1922.

Lake Powell, the nation’s second-largest reservoir, was almost full in 1999. Today it is less than one-third full.  The reservoir’s water level has dropped 29 feet compared to the same date last year — almost three feet in the last two weeks — and it will continue to drop, as rivers feeding it are running about 36% below average.

In mid-July, the Bureau forecast that by December 2026, under “probable minimum inflow” conditions, the reservoir could reach “minimum power pool elevation,“ below which the dam would be unable to generate power. If the reservoir continued to drop it would eventually reach the river outlet works, the only remaining method for getting water through the dam.

These outlets were never intended to be used on a continuous basis, and have been damaged previously from extended use. When the water level in the reservoir reaches the elevation of the outlet works it is known as “dead pool,” even though water at the face of the dam would 240-feet deep.

At dead pool limited water could flow to the Grand Canyon, which starts a few miles below the dam, and into Lake Mead, the nation’s largest reservoir, eventually threatening those dependent on Colorado River water in Arizona, California and Nevada. It also could require the upper basin states, including Colorado, which receives about 40% of its water supply from the Colorado River, to curtail their use of the river’s water.

The lower basin states understand the potential danger of reaching dead pool. In February, their representatives urged the Secretary of the Interior, who oversees the Bureau, to consider “structural modifications … that would eliminate the infrastructure limitations at Glen Canyon Dam.”

While current trends do not necessarily portend destiny, it would be prudent for the Bureau to start evaluating ways of getting water and sediments around or through Glen Canyon Dam downstream to Lake Mead. The Bureau has stated “a decade is optimistic” to analyze and select the best option, appropriate funds to design the conveyance system, procure contractors, and construct the system.

Failing to start planning now is irresponsible. It will increase the probability that insufficient water will flow through or around the dam, resulting in endless lawsuits about how to allocate dwindling supplies, threaten drinking water for millions of people in the lower basin, jeopardize the amount of water provided to farmers and ranchers, and further despoil Glen Canyon, and the Grand Canyon.

Ron Rudolph was the assistant executive director of Friends of the Earth, and vice president in some of the largest Colorado-based architect/engineering companies, including MWH Global (now part of Stantec), and CH2M Hill (now part of Jacobs Engineering).

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.

After his exoneration, I read of a Wyoming hunter who, charged by a grizzly, put down his rifle and sought to repel the attack with bear spray. He was badly mauled and saved only because his hunting partner shot the grizzly dead. Later, I telephoned and asked why he had not used his rifle.

“I’d hear about your Montana client,” he replied, “and I did not want the feds coming after me.”

That hunter came to mind when I read about a Westminster woman whose case is now before the Colorado Supreme Court. In 2020, at the age of 72 and after 16 years clerking for Circle K Stores, she was discharged for her response when a customer, armed with two knives, demanded free cigarettes and stepped behind the counter toward her.

Circle K Stores said she violated its “Confront and Chase Policy.” Mary Ann Moreno says she was fired for defending herself when she feared death or serious bodily injury and sued in state court for wrongful discharge.  After her suit was removed, by her employer, to federal court, but before the factual issue of why she was terminated was submitted to a jury, she sought an opinion from the Colorado Supreme Court.

Colorado, like most states, recognizes the common-law doctrine of at-will employment, which provides employees may be terminated for any reason or no reason whatsoever.  One exception includes discharges contrary to the public interest, such as exercising a legally protected right. Of concern to Moreno is whether self-defense is a public interest exception in Colorado. Her request that the federal district court certify that question to Colorado’s highest court was denied; but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed. Subsequently, the federal district court certified the question, which, on May 19, the Colorado Supreme Court accepted; briefings began this week.

A ruling from neighboring Utah foreshadows a possible outcome.

In 2015, in response to a certification from a Utah federal district court in a wrongful termination case akin to that of Moreno–a purported violation of the employer’s shoplifter policy—Utah’s Supreme Court recognized the self-defense exception:  (1) “[T]he right of self-defense is enshrined” in Utah’s Constitution, statutes, and common law decision. (2) Self-defense “protects human life and deters crime, conferring substantial benefits on the public.” (3) “[T]he right of self-defense outweighs an employer‘s countervailing interests” if an employee, facing “imminent threat of serious bodily injury,” reasonably believes force is necessary and cannot withdraw.

Like Utah, Colorado’s Constitution enshrines, as the “Inalienable rights” of “all persons,” that of “defending their lives and liberties … and of seeking and obtaining their safety … .”

Thus, both embrace John Locke’s view that the right of self-defense is “inalienable” because it is “a natural right” and is “self-evident.”  Moreover, the common law of both states is based upon the English common law, which, with its castle doctrine in the 17th Century, recognized the right of self-defense.

Today, Utah and Colorado have codified, or recognized by court rulings, the castle doctrine (right to use deadly force in one’s home), stand your ground (no duty to flee), and the right to defend others when facing death or serious bodily injury.  Thus, Ms. Moreno should prevail.

What will Ms. Moreno’s employer–the nation’s largest company-owned convenience store chain, with locations in 48 states—argue when it files its brief next month?  It should defend vigorously its current policy but eschew any desire to discharge employees for protecting their lives.

After all, citizens facing the threat of death or serious bodily harm, whether from four or two legged animals, have better things to worry about than whether their actions can get them sued or fired.

William Perry Pendley, a Wyoming attorney and Colorado-based, public-interest lawyer for three decades with victories at the Supreme Court of the United States, served in the Reagan administration and led the Bureau of Land Management for President Trump.

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.

Nevertheless, the concept document provided reassurance: “As the walkway traverses the Civic Center National Historic Landmark, it will adhere to specific design guidelines for the state of Colorado, state Historic Preservation Commission, the National Park Service, and the Denver Landmark Commission.”

Fast forward 18 months and the concept document has been translated into something that looks quite appropriate in the Winter Olympics but wildly out of place in front of the state Capitol. The national, state, and local design guidelines have been steamrollered – or perhaps shredded by the metaphorical bobsled hurtling down its track. The meandering layout has been created by an out-of-state firm, leading many to question why Colorado’s birthday is being celebrated by a project designed in Illinois.

The City of Denver was not keen, so the bridge only connects state land with state land, losing the original symbolism. Public reaction has been fierce and Historic Denver’s own petition of opposition has received over 2,000 responses. In the face of criticism about the clear lack of purpose, the bridge’s proponents pivoted to labor the need for wheelchair accessibility. Yet, accessibility is not mentioned once in the original concept document. To compound matters, the only accessibility advocate to publicly support the project retracted his views and stated he felt “used.” The State had a budget deficit prior to the passing of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” in D.C. and the governor has highlighted that this will make the situation worse. Surely now is the time to exercise financial restraint.

In response to all this, the Governor’s Office is finally asking for public feedback – but for only one week. We encourage the public to vote “no” in the first question, which asks whether Colorado should build a walkway at the state Capitol.

Historic Denver has a track record in reconciling the historic past with a vibrant present and future. We support a city initiative to rehabilitate the Greek Theater just across the park from the proposed bridge. We agree with the Governor’s Office about the importance of the 2026 anniversaries and the merits of drawing upon our state’s art and culture to celebrate this unique moment – after all, the creative industries contribute more to Colorado’s economy than the ski industry. However, we firmly believe that these objectives can be accomplished at ground level without the need for an elevated walkway.

A largely designed and broadly supported initiative already exists in Denver – the 5280 Trail.

Conceived in 2017 and promoted by the Downtown Denver Partnership and the City and County of Denver, the trail aims to “link neighborhoods and connect people by reimagining underutilized streets into the essential Downtown experience, uniting urban life with Colorado’s outdoor culture.” The route passes state Capitol grounds, running down Sherman Street.

What better way to achieve the original concept of the pedestrian bridge, to symbolically link city and state, than by integrating the story of Colorado into the 5280 Trail adjacent to the state Capitol.

The trail then continues its journey through Denver, linking several of the city’s vibrant neighborhoods. The original concept of the bridge remains both admirable and achievable, but instead of giving up on our streets and pushing people into the sky, let’s celebrate street-level vitality and invest in the 5280 Trail.

Historic Denver and our state-wide partners at Colorado Preservation Inc. stand together in opposition to the pedestrian bridge.

John Deffenbaugh is the president and CEO of Historic Denver.

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.