President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
August 05, 2008 04:19 PM UTC
69 Comments
Montana voters banned this very procedure (cyanide heap leach mining) not once, but twice, in the past twelve years. The second ban vote (in 2004) came after Canyon Resources (out of Golden and a good friend of Newmont) tried to get citizens to overturn their first citizen-passed initiative to ban the practice (in 1994).
I lived in Montana when this was going on and it is a far more mining-friendly state than Colorado. For the MT citizens to ban a specific mining procedure says a lot about that procedure and how nasty it is. The fact that JFG was opposing a cyanide leach ban is simply stupefying. This is one of the most destructive mining practices employed in the western U.S. And this from a woman running for the CD-2 seat??? Unbelievable.
If the leaching pits fail the environmental impact is devastating.
Water is Colorado’s most valuable resource and someone who would back cyanide mining is placing the profits of a single industry over the economc health of the state.
On the strategic front, why is this just coming out now.
Maybe they just found the letter?
It’s widely known in clean water circles that Joan refused to allow a cyanide mining ban to come to the floor of the Senate year after year. Perhaps someone wised up and filed some CORA requests.
As an aside, one friend of mine recounted to me when she was trying to explain the leach mining process to Wayne Allard, then in the state legislature. For the life of him he could not understand the idea that solids dissolve in liquids. His assistant finally came to his rescue and said “I’ll explain it later.”
How that guy ever made it through vet school I’ll never know.
Old Wayne was never the sharpest tool in the shed.
“To the best of my knowledge…” How much are they paying a campaign manager to say “To the best of my knowledge…” Is the Campaign Manager the same person who wrote the letter in the first place?
Joan Fitz-Gerald should start rallying her allies to lobby for her appointment to be Secretary of State. Mike Coffman is going to Congress and Joan Fitz-Gerald is not.
Given her experience as Jeffco Clerk and Senate President, she’s extremely well qualified, it’s a four-year term, if her appointment is delayed into the second week of January (or if she pulls a Doug Bruce and refuses to take the oath til then), she may be able to run for two, four-year terms after finishing Coffman’s term.
I see Romanoff going to DC to serve in the Obama administration. And I think Ken Gordon has worried a few too many with some of his ideas.
Joan would run things perfectly and make it look effortless.
I believe that a moratorium on all hard-rock mining was instituted in Wisconsin and citizens attempted to get a ban placed in Michigan (neither states being bastions of pro-environmental practices).
I have to give it to the Polis (and Shafroth) camps on this one. I cannot see how this info does not hurt her in the primary.
like the Jared’s environmental impact of jetting around in a private place and his profiting from mining, oil and gas extraction, etc…be careful of glass houses.
fine with me. let’s call them both as they are.
You mean plane? You have any evidence for this accusation?
After it appeared in the press.
Polis flew Trimpa down to some progressive conference in 2006. So he at least rents them occasionally
I don’t know how often he rents one (he said he doesn’t own one or a fractional–I’ll take him at his word, though after the use of offshore tax shelters to invest in Oil companies maybe “he” doesn’t own one, but one of his companies does), but he does use them.
BTW checkout the 2004 westword profile talking about Jared and his Lincoln Navigator–sounds like an environmentalist to me.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U…
He’s always been a Jeep guy as far as I know. Maybe it was a biodiesel Navigator?
Not his style. He drives around in a hybrid Ford, if memory serves.
“To the best of my knowledge there was no gold mine project up there…” sayeth the Fitz-Gerald campaign manager. Sounds more like Grand Jury testimony than a strong response.
I cannot remember two candidates Wil Armstrong and Joan Fitz-Gerald running campaigns so poorly. Both went in as favorites and both are now falling way behind.
…but I believe with his $$$ and connections, he was considered a serious contender.
For the people who still haven’t decided, they’re looking for a reason to make their decision. This could be that reason. Keep in mind, this impacts those who haven’t decided yet – so it has an impact on them.
I think JFG needs a very credible response to this – and I’m not sure there is one.
JP isn’t posting it on his site. The RMN only makes reference to it. Where’s the actual letter? Would be nice to see what JFG actually wrote.
If so and if JFG wins the primary, anyone think that might make the CD 2 race a little more interesting this fall?
I don’t know if anyone remembers but back in ’98 in northern N.M., a Republican won the seat now held by Tom Udall because a Green candidate siphoned enough votes from the Dem to allow the Republican to win. He only lasted one term.
I can’t imagine that happening in CD 2, but a JFG, Starin and Green candidate race might be interesting to watch.
but it’s not changing my support for her (I’m not a one-issue voter). She might do best with this by looking at the issue again and coming to a new conclusion.
She still supports the position.
There is no such thing as purity, but what makes this so bad.
1. this was only 4 years ago
2. she still seems to support it
3. her defense has no basis other than “its legal”
4. she name called environmentalists trying to stop cyanide mining–you don’t have to be an “anti-mining activist” to be against cyanide leach mining. You could just be anti-poisen water human being.
I have have not slammed JFG for her ties to O&G or mining because her votes have been pretty good, but this is a big deal.
aka, environmentalists.
Me thinks you gots some ‘splaining to do, Lucy!
Here are the facts. After the Summitville mine disaster in the mid-1990’s, the Colorado General Asembly passed statutes regulating the use of chemicals in extracting minerals from ore deposites. The General Assembly gave the Mined Land Reclamation Board (MLRB) the authority to enforce this new statute by requiring mining companies who want to use these processes to obtain a permit first before extracting any minerals.
Summit County contains the largest known unmined gold depsoites in the state of Colorado. Sen. Fitzgerald is correct that no mining company has sought a permit to mine the deposites in Summit County.
This is what has happened. Summit County decided to pass local zoning ordinances that would preclude mining companies from utilizing this kind of ore extraction processes. The Colorado Mining Association (CMA) filed a lawsuit claiming that no county could regulate this kind of mining process because the state statutes through the offices of the Mined Land Reclamation Board already regulate these mining processes. In legal parlance, its called a preemption case. In other words, did the state preempt this field of law so that local governments are precluded from implementing its own regulatory scheme.
The District Court in Brekenridge agreed with the CMA and ruled Summit County was preempted. The County and the environmental groups appealed the case to the Colorado Court of Appeals. That court overturned the district court’s ruling by a vote of 2 to 1, with a strong dissent by Judge Roy. The case was then appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court which granted the appeal and the case was argued I believe in June 2008. The Supreme Court has not issued its opinion.
This is a very significant case not just for gold mining but for all mining. For example, the Climax mine near Leadville, Colorado straddles three different counties. If a mining company had to satisfy the requirements of the state regulatory scheme plus three different county schemes it would be impossible to mine anything. The various schemes would undoubtedly be inconsistent and contradictory. Mining law needs to be made at the state level so companies have a consistent regulatory scheme to deal with.
All Senator Fitzgerald was advocating was a consistent statewide policy for regulating mining companies. She was not and has never advocated that mining companies should be given a blank check to mine anywhere they want without regulation. All she wanted was a statewide policy which in fact strictly regulates this kind of mining. She advocated a policy that is balanced and includes both strict environmental controls on this process (already part of the regulatory scheme) while allowing responsible mining companies to open mines after receiving a permit. Senator Fitzgerald was exactly correct in her stand on this issue – strong environmental enforcement coupled with a consistent statewide regulatory policy. She shouldn’t be critisized, she should be praised for her balanced approach.
Great post.
The only poster defending Joan on this has a handle “Republican 36”. That not good.
is only Republican 36 percent of the time 😉
R’s for JFG. Good tag.
On the policy landscape you might be right. But Joan put none of this context in her letter (I’ve now seen it). The first two paragraphs attack “anti-mining activists” in as many ways as she can. The third paragraph says in two sentences that CO already has a mining law that’s good enough. The fourth paragraph tells Summit Co. to “get the facts” from DNR and Div of Mining and Geology. That’s it.
If you read the letter you certainly cannot come to the conclusion that “All Senator Fitzgerald was advocating was a consistent statewide policy for regulating mining companies.”
Sorry, JFG might actually possess a “balanced approach” but it doesn’t come out in this letter. It’s hard to read this letter as anything but an attack on “anti-mining activists” and attempt to stonewall or even threaten Summit Co. into not acting.
None of this correspondence is done in isolation.Have you seen the letter that may have prompted this letter? Have you seen follow-up correspondence? The public is not as gullible as to believe the smear campaign that Polis has stamped with his approval. This is a desparate man.
The fact is that open records can provide you with information that can be cherry picked to the satisfaction of the opposition camp.
Neither Polis nor Shafroth have open records available. We still have not had an answer about off shore accounts, or a 2007 tax return from Polis or Shafroth. We cannot research the Conservation Trust tax credits to see who benefited from them nor can the public view land appraisals because they are not public documents.
Becker and his cherry picking is not going to elect his negative candidate.
…is generally not an effective way of responding to something like this. It may be the best that Joan & team can do. But if so, this is going to hurt her.
People do not spend 3 hours researching every issue in an election. Time is short and the to-do list is long. You get a couple a minute if you’re lucky.
To respond to this Joan needs to answer it. Just throwing a bunch of questions out there leaves people figuring this is an issue.
Check out Jared’s $$$$ to researchers. It is not “people” who research but a highly paid professional team who need to get their facts straight. His team found a letter without adding the additional correspondence nor the outcome of court decisions.Becker gave his uninformed interpretation of the intent of the writer.
Get real David, your suck up posts about Jared are getting nauseating.
“To the best of my knowledge…” was not Joan Fitz-Gerald’s finest response.
this memo was given to them by somebody in the Summit County government, I’m sure. if it wasn’t a public-release letter (seems to not have been) then only JFG and her staff and the recipients knew about it. All that was up to JP’s campaign once they got it was to publicize it. It seems to me they bungled that though. They could have raised a far bigger stink than they have if they had been prepared. Took me a few minutes of googling to find related CMA newsletters that tag Joan as a friend of mining on this issue. the JP campaign should have put all this out as a package.
Unfortunately, I think people will continue to ask Joan to actually speak to what the letter says rather than continue to demand even more additional documentation.
you always post relevant info.
Much appreciated.
However, I disagree on Cyanide leaching–it’s dirty and a catastrophic risk to the watershed.
But more to the point why isn’t JFG defending her position on the merits you raise instead of using “everybody does it” shiny object defense.
….nor did she say in her letter that her concerns were motivated by having a “consistent” statewide policy. So your post-hoc rationale falls flat.
that Summit County should keep in mind where they were getting their information. From activists who failed at the ballot and the state levels.
According to the letter, in 2004 Colorado had some of the most stringent mining regulations in the country. All parties agreed to the regulations when passed.
Commissioner Lindstrom would have understood the context of the letter.
If Polis and others wish to stop cyanide mining in Colorado that’s great, I’d support that. But as of now, they’ll have to do it through the state and not local governments.
That was the point I took from the letter.
Joan’s campaign team hasn’t been good at beating these things back, and my guess is this one will sit around like a lump, too.
Playing “Devil’s Advocate” for a second…
Is cyanide heap leach mining better than the techniques used back in the early 1900’s? There are millions of dollars in precious metals sitting in (already toxic) tailings piles that could be refined using a modern process to fund cleanup of sites – assuming they haven’t been frozen in time as National Historic Landmarks.
Our biggest problem from mining isn’t the present, it’s the past that could come back to haunt us.
present a graver threat than the imaginary ones Polis sees CD2.
How to clean up from our past mistakes is a conversation this state has not had, yet needs to have if we are to ‘protect our environment’.
Rhetoric cherry picked for political impact isn’t moving any issue forward.
Thanks for illuminating the real issue instead of focusing on the diversion.
I thought this issue dealt with the gold mine in Teller county, not in Joan’s district. Is there proof the supposed mine leached cyanide into the water?
This is political games from Polis.
The price of gold has skyrocketed increasing the production of gold in the US. Colorado was built on mining, we continue to benefit from mining and our state would be worse off without mining.
And before the environmentalists pile on, remember, I’m a Dem.
Yet, I have an ability to recognize that the state of Colorado needs to balance revenue sources to keep our economy afloat (something the fringe nature nazis aren’t able to grasp).
Which is worse, referring to environmentalists as “nature nazis” or using a quote from the world’s most boring musician, Jimmy Buffet?
a) once a parrothead, always a parrothead
b) my reference of nature nazis refers to environmentalists who would run oil and gas, mining and timber interests out of this state 100%, not the majority of people working to find balance.
In my humble opinion, this would be extremely detrimental for Colorado. THE fix for higher education being proposed is to collect a tax from the oil and gas industry in Colorado. Mining provides revenue for counties and cities that would not have revenue otherwise.
I’m not an industry shill, I’m not anti environment, but I recognize that Colorado has natural resources beyond the natural beauty of our environment and Coloradans need to recognize that we would be in a world of hurt without these natural resources.
You mean people who don’t want to drink cyanide in their water? Otherwise known as “everyone”?
And as far as proving cyanide leach mining is dangerous, just google it. Start with Summitville, a few miles to the south of Summit County.
Word to the wise … you’re not helping Joan here.
You can come up with a different epithet for the radicals than that, and perhaps not draw this kind of fire.
All we’re getting is “I read the letter and Joan clearly is …” – give us the context so we can make our own judgement please.
Here we go. I received this from a source I trust – Joan’s letter
I am reading this story in a way that paints Joan Fitz Gerald in a pretty negative, hypocritical light…not good…I would like context and clarification as well
Personally I’d rather save the river and not have a suit.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f…
Most mining techniques are inherently bad for the environment. They expose heavy metals, semi-metals, salts, and other dangerous substances to situations where they leach into ground water. Processing chemicals like cyanide add to the danger.
No matter what you’re doing, if you don’t properly clean up after yourself, you leave behind a hazardous time bomb. Mining must be done responsibly and under heavy regulation, or it’s going to be done cheaply and with many casualties.
In Gold mining, there aren’t many options for sorting the Gold from the ore. Cyanide is one of only a few possibilities, and all of the non-mechanical methods are extremely hazardous.
Joan supported the mining industry over local citizens concerned about the process. You can argue about how good or bad the process is until your face is blue, but that doesn’t change the fact that Joan opposed “anti-mining activists”–or in our common language, environmentalists. At the same time, she was supporting the mining industry. It is up to people to decide whether they think this is a good or bad thing. Most Republicans would probably think that her position was the only sane position. Evironmentalists just might disagree.
The letter is clearly written on the State Senate letterhead with her title attached. It indicates that the “anti-mining” faction was using false information in their campaign that could be refuted by a proper fact-check and notes appropriate places to contact to get valid information on the state’s mining regulations.
The Colorado District Court agreed with the advice offered by Fitz-Gerald.
AFAICT, it’s just more mud-slinging.
we’ll see what the supreme says.
Les, was JFG involved in killing the senate bill that would have instituted a statewide cyanide ban?
This isn’t mudslinging to me this is real.
I’ve never had a problem with JFG, but cyanide mining is bad.
Considering that TABOR starves our government of the capability to properly oversee this very dangerous process, I don’t even see how cyanide leaching can even be considered.
The risks are just too great without proper risk management.
The alternatives to cyanide mining aren’t any better. Aqua Regia in high concentration (also dissolves many other minerals in the matrix), Mercury… Pulverization and separation by mechanical sorting is the only other method, and I’m not sure of its efficiency… The risks in Gold mining are not small regardless.
I don’t know about any later bills in the Senate. SB03-026 was killed in the still-Republican 2003 State Senate, so I doubt she personally managed to kill the bill.
I’m just wondering if she was the D that made it Bi not partisan.
The 2003 Pink Book doesn’t list her on that committee. If she helped kill it, she did so from her posts on the various Executive-type committees before it was assigned to the State Affairs committee.
She may very well have steered bills to the “dead-letter” committee while acting as Senate President after 2004, but none of that has been brought to light so far in anything other than “it is well known” vague terms.
Frankly, we’re discussing an issue here the specifics of which are not even known to us. We’re here arguing “cyanide bad” / “some mining necessary”, and we’re not even looking at current state law regarding the regulation of the industry or the realities of mining today.
Damn them anti-mining activists at Fish & wildlife
http://www.fws.gov/news/issues…
From the very pages of the October/November 2006 newsletter of the Colorado Mining Association:
“Joan Fitz-Gerald, a Democrat and current President of the Senate, has served ably and has defended the industry against ill-advised attempts to prohibit modern gold mining.”
http://www.coloradomining.org/…
If you can find it, this follows the March 2003 issue in which Joan is described as being the target of successful lobbying to kill a bill that industry didn’t like. The same issue goes into some detail about heap leaching and links the CMA’s efforts to ensure no bans of the practice here in CO with efforts to overturn Montana’s citizen-passed ban (see the first comment on this post). Same issue also talks about the CMA strongly opposing efforts to pass a state RPS. And the hits go on and on.
In Colorado, where we can regulate it?
Or someplace like Indonesia, where companies like Newmont have been accused of all sorts of negligence? China is the new world leader in gold production, followed by South Africa, the USA, Australia, Indonesia, Peru, Russia, Canada, Papua New Guinea, and Ghana. I suspect that the regulations governing mining and extraction practices in some of these countries are superior to those in others.
I couldn’t find statistics on how much gold is extracted via cyanide versus other methods, but I suspect that cyanide is the most popular. If they aren’t doing the extraction here, they will just be doing it somewhere else. Unless the demand for gold jewelry (the largest single use) drops unexpectedly, the demand for gold will remain high.
And in case you’re on your moral high horse, claiming that you don’t use gold, crack open the CPU at the heart of the computer on which you are reading Pols. Yup, gold. Electronics is the second largest end-use of gold after jewelry (I’m not counting investment as an end use).
Yes, some other country will always care less for the environment. But I don’t want to live in a place like Beijing where you can’t see ½ mile and the environment is killing me.
So yes, I want adequate rules and safeguards. Not impossible, but reasonable. And I want a representative who takes the same approach.
I’m not suggesting that Colorado should look like Beijing. But I don’t think it’s moral to outsource the dirty parts of our industrial economy to places where we don’t have to look at them. If you want a computer, or a car, or heat for your house in the wintertime, you have to accept that there will be mining, or drilling, or wind turbines, or factories, or hydro reservoirs, and I think seeing those things every day is a good reminder of the impact we have on the planet. In general, I would rather see industry regulated everywhere than see it banned in some places and acting without restraint in others.
In this case, since gold is being mined all over the world, and extracted all over the world using cyanide techniques, I’d like to see Colorado have tough regulations and real penalties rather than ban the practice outright. I think that’s currently how it is. There probably are practices that need to be banned (e.g. mountaintop removal in the Appalachians). But I don’t think cyanide leaching is one of them. However, the enviro groups should always make sure to keep the pressure on. That’s the only way we have to keep corporations honest.
But the fact that it is banned in places like Montana makes me think we should evaluate the alternatives and see what makes the most sense. And then yes, restrict it in such a way that there cannot be problems with it.
You control what you can control. We can control Colorado and U.S. mining and reclamation law. We can’t control Indonesia’s (or Brazil’s or China’s or whomever else’s). To say we should use cyanide heap leaching because other countries are too and we might be doing it cleaner than they is ridiculous.
First of all, it’s disingenuous to claim that we can’t control laws in other countries. That’s true, but not the whole story. The impact of international NGOs is obvious in many extractive industries.
Fundamentally, I think we should keep our industrial processes as close to home as possible. If we ban in isolation the only technically or economically viable processes for producing the resources necessary to run our society, then those processes will be relocated to places that allow them. Usually, they will be relocated to places with populations with insufficient political power to regulate them appropriately. If something is so horrible as to be banned in Colorado, it’s probably horrible enough to be banned everywhere. To ban it here, then say “well, too bad for Indonesians” is morally repugnant. Neither Coloradans nor the Colorado environment are more valuable any other people who speak different languages, have different colored skin, or live in distant places.
An alternative to cyanide leaching should be:
1) Economically viable
2) Technically feasible
3) Environmentally cleaner
Are there such alternatives available? If not, then banning the practice here will just drive gold production to other states or countries.
If you are pushing for a ban here, but not worldwide, then I question your motives. I also hope you are supportive of campaigns to end the use of newly mined gold in jewelry. I doubt that there is any “clean” way to mine gold, although you can check out http://www.nodirtygold.org to see some attempts at forcing jewelry retailers to accept some sourcing criteria for their products.
Unfortunately, many of the “activists” in Colorado seem to be more concerned about the view from their McMansions than anything else. I’ll bet many of them own gold jewelry. How many South African miners died, or acres of Peruvian rainforest were destroyed, or Colorado fish killed, so that they could look pretty?
So my point is not that cyanide leaching is a clean process. It is that JFG’s letter should not be viewed without context. Also, I stick by my larger point, which is that industrial consumers (i.e. anyone reading this website) must be prepared to accept the consequences of their lifestyle. Taking actions that only serve to move the consequences out of view is a fundamentally wrong way to approach issues. In a global economy, “think globally, act locally” doesn’t really work.
So the solution is to allow it here because the Indonesians won’t ban it? Jesus.
In other words, we think this practice is dirty and harmful but we’re not going to outlaw it because other countries are allowing it and if they’re fucking up their environment we would only be morally safe if we allowed ours to be fucked up as well? You’re twisting the morality issue. If you want to play the morality card the only moral thing to do would be to close the markets and not allow any gold into the U.S. that is not cleanly produced. The moral solution would absolutely not be to allow a dirty practice here just because other countries follow it.