Bernie's Journal

The Colorado Oil and Gas Commission

noreply@blogger.com (Bernie Buescher) — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:22:00 +0000

Earlier, I posted comments about using letters to comment on public issues. One of the issues that has generated a bunch of letters from legislators is oil and gas activity in Western Colorado, and the proposed new rules of the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission. The proposed rules have generated a number of letters and emails to me. The Commission's website discusses both the Initial, Predraft, Rule-making Proposal and the hearing process that the Commission is going through to discuss the various proposals being considered. I invite interested individuals to actually look at the website to learn what the proposal involves:

http://www.oil-gas.state.co.us/RuleMaking/2007RuleMaking.cfm

To me, some of the proposed rules look pretty solid and a few of them may well be unworkable (I particularly think that the standing for adjacent surface owners is unworkable, and the time frame for the processing of permits may be too long). But the important point is that these rules are "Initial, Predraft." I have talked to several individuals involved with the Commission, and it is the clear intent of these "initial, predraft" proposed rules to generate a conversation about the appropriate level of regulation and the balance between wildlife, the environment, surface owners and the clear need to develop our natural resources.

Again, it is clear to me that some of the rules go to far. I do not in any way believe that they are intended to "shut the industry down" or "drive the industry out of the state." A good, open and frank discussion about balance is appropriate, and I am confident that, at the end of the process the advocates on one side of this issue will say that the rules do not go far enough and the other side will say that they go too far. The best policy is generally when both sides to an issue are somewhat disappointed.

Bruce Benson

noreply@blogger.com (Bernie Buescher) — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:01:00 +0000

The Regents of the University of Colorado may, this week, name Bruce Benson as President of the University. This decision would result in damage to the University, damage which may well be irreparable.

I respect the Regents. Their work is hard work. I do not want to micro-manage the University, but I don't think they understand how incredibly divisive the choice of Bruce Benson is. I am sure that they want only the best for the University, my law school alma mater. I want the best for the University also.

After a good number of years in the wilderness, years when the University's reputation at the State Capitol was badly tarnished, Hank Brown has worked wonders in restoring the luster for the University. The work is not done, but the University is miles advanced from where it was when Hank took over.

The choice of Bruce Benson to replace Hank is viewed as an insult by me, and by most of the individuals who were attacked by Mr. Benson's Trailhead Group. For those of you not familiar with Trailhead, this 527 organization was formed by Mr. Benson to attack Democratic opponents in the last election cycle. It ran adds that were misleading, in some cases outright lies. It was forced to withdraw or alter adds in some of the races.

I met with Bruce Benson after he was chosen as the sole candidate by the University's
search committee. He is charming, persistent and also completely tone deaf to the anger he created. Although he admits forming this 527, contributing several hundred thousand dollars to this 527, and raising millions more for it, he disavows responsibility for its actions. "They didn't listen to me."

Every University President needs a "honeymoon" to be effective. If he is ultimately chosen as President of the University, EVERY decision he makes, EVERY request the University makes of the Legislature will be scrutinized and viewed with skepticism.

I have promised to Bruce Benson that if he is chosen as President of the University, I will do my level best to work with him, and I will. At the same time, I will not forget for a single minute his political history. Will I trust him? Ronald Reagan said, "Trust, but verify." Even more than before, I will need to verify every issue that comes from Bruce Benson or the University.

Legislators and Letters

noreply@blogger.com (Bernie Buescher) — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:40:00 +0000

One of the popular ways for a legislator to get his or her name in the newspaper is to send a letter to *********. Honestly, you can almost fill that blank in with the Governor, or any particular state agency, or even the President or one of the Departments of U S Government.

There have been a lot of these examples lately. In Western Colorado, this a is a great way to get your name in the newspaper,by sending a letter to somebody about oil and gas drilling. Legislators have sent letters demanding that the BLM be allowed to drill the Roan Plateau, and legislators have sent letters demanding hat the BLM prevent drilling on the Roan Plateau. More recently, a group of legislators have sent a letter to the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission complaining about the proposed, predraft, preliminary rules of the Commission. I actually received some criticism for not signing on to these letters. Now, don't get me wrong, it is entirely appropriate to communicate with the Departments and the Governor's Office and with the Federal Government, too.

My objection is the use of these communications as a method for getting the legislator's name in the Newspaper. These types of letters limit a legislator's real effectiveness in being effective. The letters tend to use words like "outrageous" and "unprecedented" and "devastating."

Several years ago, Hank Brown, the President of the University of Colorado explained to me his personal political philosophy. He told me that he never wanted to be the person who started out every press release with "I'm outraged that..." I've taken this advice to heart. Therefore, I very rarely sign these letters. I much prefer to deal directly with the Governor's office and the Departments. They know what my thoughts are. Although this doesn't get the publicity, I am absolutely certain it is much more effective.

Wasting time about wasting time

noreply@blogger.com (Bernie Buescher) — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:07:00 +0000

Some of the debates and discussions at the legislature can be a waste of time. The legislature, every year, passes resolutions honoring groups and individuals; recognizing significant events in American History. Over the last two weeks we have adopted resolutions honoring Martin Luther King and Ronald Reagan and many of these are very worthwhile. In past years we have adopted resolutions regarding the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide and on behalf of groups ranging from the American Cancer Society to Planned Parenthood. On occasion we adopt a resolution expressing to the U S Congress our feelings regarding an issue. We did this last year when we expressed our displeasure regarding the Real ID act that Congress had passed and which will cost Colorado tens of millions of dollars to implement. A few of the resolutions are a waste of time, but most have some real value in expressing the sentiments of the General Assembly.

Today we considered a resolution commemorating Ronald Reagan's birthday. This was an opportunity for about a dozen speeches, with some partisan comments. Then, the strangest thing happened. Rep. Doug Bruce did not vote, and before the vote tally was closed, he asked permission to not vote on the Resolution. Rep. Bruce had obviously not followed the rules, but he was allowed to not vote on the Resolution. My reading of the rule leads me to the conclusion that the body needs to vote on allowing Rep. Bruce to be excused from voting. If Rep. Bruce persists in asking permission to not vote on resolutions, his request will be debated and voted on. That is a waste of time. I personally believe that we should vote yes or no on each item that comes before us. Unlike the U S Congress, where you can vote "present," the members of the Colorado General Assembly have historically indicated their stance on every issue.

Such silliness.... Rep. Bruce should just vote on each item, and not waste our time.

End of January update

noreply@blogger.com (Bernie Buescher) — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:13:00 +0000

I've been remiss in not posting much for a while.

I've spent a lot of time working on the reallocation of federal mineral lease revenues; this has been a bipartisan effort with Sen. Penry, Sen. Schwartz and Rep. David Balmer. The original draft caused concern at Colorado Counties, Inc., and they responded with good suggestions to improve the bill.

The bill, which I hope will be introduced this week, will use 50% of the growth in federal mineral lease revenues to help fund higher education, and 50% of the growth will go to impacted communities to help deal with impacts. Ultimately, this could lead to a significant permanent endowment to benefit higher education.

The Denver Post wrote a nice editorial about the proposal on Sunday, and I am pleased to share it with the readers of this journal:

http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_8070626

noreply@blogger.com (Bernie Buescher) — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:14:00 +0000

Although the Legislative session doesn't start until January, I am already at work crafting a budget for 2008.

My Journal is a good place to get information about what is going on at the State Capitol.

Please return often. If you would like to post to this blog, sign up for Blogger's service. It's free, and only what you post to the blog will be shared.

Can we call a highway issue a trainwreck

noreply@blogger.com (Bernie Buescher) — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:34:00 +0000

The Joint Budget Committee today is hearing from the Colorado Department of Transportation. Doug Aden, Chairman of the Transportation Commission, is over from Grand Junction.

Whenever we look at the costs of maintaining the transportation system in this state, the numbers are simply overwhelming. Although transportation is the biggest beneficiary of Referendum C, we are not even treading water on the maintenance of our system.

The key costs of transportation construction have increased far more rapidly than other inflation in our society. Roads are built with asphalt, steel and gravel. These items have increased at about 6.4% per year over the last 25 years, but in 2005, construction inflation was 52% IN A SINGLE YEAR. This makes it difficult for the State to keep up with the transportation needs for the state. Although the state has transferred significant amount of dollars to CDOT (dollars that were made available by Referendum C), we are simply getting further and further behind.

In the next 27 years, CDOT expects to receive and have available to spend, about $28 billion dollars. Sounds like a lot. It is a lot, but the projection of the cost to maintain just what we've got today --- the current level of congestion, pavement condition, bridge condition and safety, is over twice as much, $64 billion. Wow. This is a large amount of money.

The Governor's Blue Ribbon Panel suggested an increase in annual registration fees and the use of an increased severance tax of 1.7%. I am not certain that this is the right solution, but I do know that we cannot continue to ignore this problem and hope it goes away. It will, in fact, just get worse.