The civil penalty is part of a settlement Union Pacific reached with the EPA for allegedly violating the Clean Water Act and the Oil Pollution Act. In 2003 and 2004, the EPA claims the company spilled oil and coal along railroad lines in all three states and committed other violations at 20 of its rail yards.

“Today we have secured a settlement that will help prevent spills, protect water quality, and improve the safety of Union Pacific’s operations in 20 communities across Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming,” said Jim Martin, EPA regional administrator. “Union Pacific has already begun putting necessary measures in place and we will ensure they continue to do so.”

A Union Pacific Railroad locomotive.

Union Pacific will deposit $1.4 million into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which is used by federal agencies to respond to oil spills. The remaining $100,000 will be paid to the U.S. Treasury for the coal spills and stormwater violations.

The settlement also requires Union Pacific to develop a management and reporting system to ensure compliance with the EPA’s Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure rules, Facility Response Plan regulations, and storm water requirements in all three states.

“Union Pacific must take further actions to control stormwater runoff at the Burnham Rail Yard in Denver, which are anticipated to prevent the discharge of approximately 2,500 pounds of chemical oxygen demand, 50 pounds of nitrate, 11,000 pounds of total suspended solids, and 30 pounds of zinc annually to waters in the Denver area,” an EPA press release said. “This settlement will benefit many communities in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, many of which are disadvantaged, by requiring Union Pacific to install secondary containment to safely store oil and prevent oil spills from leaving its properties.”

Union Pacific will also be required to designate an environmental vice president responsible for complying with oil spill prevention and stormwater control requirements at its 20 rail yards.

The Colorado rail yards in question are located at Burnham, 36th Street in Denver, Denver North, East Portal Moffatt Tunnel, Grand Junction, Kremmling, Pueblo and Rifle.

“Union Pacific is working to ensure our response plans are up-to-date across our entire network and that our derailment response is as swift as possible while at the same time conforming to all applicable environmental laws,” Union Pacific spokesman Mark Davis said. “We are committed to protecting the environment now and for future generations. Our employees, customers, shareholders and the communities we serve can expect our full compliance with all laws and regulations.”

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

“We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth, to use it wisely and steward it wisely, but for our benefit not for the Earth’s benefit,” Santorum told an audience at the Colorado School of Mines where he was a guest speaker Monday at the Colorado Energy Summit.

“We are the intelligent beings that know how to manage things and through the course of science and discovery if we can be better stewards of this environment, then we should not let the vagaries of nature destroy what we have helped create,” Santorum said to applause from the conservative crowd.

The former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania argued that science has been hijacked by politicians on the left, and that climate change is “an absolute travesty of scientific research that was motivated by those who, in my opinion, saw this as an opportunity to create a panic and a crisis for government to be able to step in and even more greatly control your life,” Santorum said.

Rick Santorum speaking in Golden. (Photo by Troy Hooper)

Gingrich, speaking an hour before Santorum at the Colorado Energy Summit, said he regretted a TV commercial he shot with Democrat Nancy Pelosi that addressed climate change. He called it “the dumbest single thing I’ve done in five or six years. … It was stupid.” He said part of his Pelosi hangover is tied to his diminishing confidence in climate science. Asked by a man in the audience whether he believes human activities can cause climate change, Gingrich pleaded ignorance.

“I believe we don’t know. I am an amateur paleontologist. The planet has changed its temperature a number of times,” Gingrich rambled. “… If you look at the Antarctic today, you’ll figure it [must've been] a lot warmer when the dinosaurs were there. So what I’ve said in the past is I’m happy to take prudent measures that aren’t very expensive. So if we can find relatively inexpensive, safe nuclear power, I’m for it. The fact that Iowa produces 20 percent of its electricity from wind is fine. There’s a lot of things you can do with the margin. What I would not do is I would not turn the power over to bureaucracy to run the entire country. I have always opposed cap and trade …”

Newt Gingrich at the Colorado School of Mines on Monday. (Photo by Troy Hooper)

Oil and gas, he said, is “so central” to the nation’s future energy portfolio.

“Environmentalists,” Gingrich added, “have been infiltrated over the last 40 years by people on the left who are against business and against local control and they use the environment as an excuse.”

Santorum, meanwhile, claimed “there is a war on fossil fuels in this country by [the Obama] administration.” Like Gingrich, the native Pennsylvanian vowed to open up more public lands to oil and gas drilling. Don’t worry, he promised, Yellowstone would be left alone. But there is a lot of Bureau of Land Management and other federal land that Santorum said would be better served by the oil and gas industry, ranching or other human uses. He cringed every time he mentioned the Endangered Species Act and blamed it for hurting business. Santorum told the story of how the Endangered Species Act is preventing the harvesting of a forest with profitable wood in his home state.

“We have the Endangered Species Act, which has prevented us from timbering all sorts of acreage there,” he said. “It’s bankrupted the school district and the like because of the government’s inability to allow for us to care for our resources. A forest in my opinion is like a garden and you’ve got to care for it. If you don’t care for it, you leave it to nature and nature will do what it does: boom and bust.”

Stressing the importance for the country to provide cheap energy to its citizens, Santorum blamed the recession not on sub-prime mortgages or the derivatives market but on spiking fuel prices.

“We went into a recession in 2008. People forget why. They thought it was a housing bubble. The housing bubble was caused because of a dramatic spike in energy prices that caused the housing bubble to burst,” Santorum told the audience. “People had to pay so much money to air condition and heat their homes or pay for gasoline that they couldn’t pay their mortgage.”

The nation’s energy policy is a key talking point this election season.

“This is the most anti-American energy administration we have ever had,” Gingrich said. “… You have the highest cost of gasoline in American history. And I think that if you’re an editorial writer at the New York Times and you live in a high-rise in Manhattan and you ride the subway to work, it may not occur to you that for most Americans a high price of gasoline is a real problem.”

Gingrich called Obama’s “all-of-the-above” energy plan “very dangerous and very destructive.” He claimed the need for the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act underscores the EPA’s overreach.

GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney was also in Colorado on Monday, giving speeches in Grand Junction and Centennial. He is scheduled to speak in Loveland on Tuesday morning. Romney, also a proponent of the Keystone XL pipeline, looks primed for a big win in Colorado. He leads Republican voters in the state with 40 percent to 26 percent for Rick Santorum, 18 percent for Newt Gingrich, and 12 percent for Ron Paul, according to Public Policy Polling. Paul was in Colorado last week.

Check out this video shot at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden on Monday of Rick Santorum discussing his views on public lands, domestic energy and his problems with public education:

Here, Newt Gingrich discusses U.S. energy policy in Golden where he says, “If you want to measure what our goal is, it is to ensure that no American president ever again bows to a Saudi king …”

In a letter to the president, the two Colorado Democrats, along with Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y, ask Obama to support the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act, which would require the disclosure of chemicals used in the natural gas extraction process called “fracking.”

In his State of the Union speech last month, Obama emphasized natural gas as a key resource in his “all-of-the-above” strategy to reduce the nation’s reliance on foreign oil and to make the United States a global leader in clean energy. Obama followed it up with speeches at Buckley Air Force Base and another in Nevada in which he called the United States “the Saudi Arabia of natural gas.”

Rep. Diana DeGette

“With hydraulic fracturing expanding across the country, it is more important than ever we ensure the economic benefits of natural gas do not come at the expense of the health and safety of our families,” DeGette said Thursday.

DeGette, Hinchey, and Polis also requested an expansion of an ongoing Environmental Protection Agency study of hydraulic fracturing, which received a congressional hearing Wednesday so charged Academy Award-nominated filmmaker Josh Fox of “Gasland” ended up in handcuffs.

“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is currently embarking on the first, independent and comprehensive study of the risks that hydraulic fracturing poses to drinking water,” their letter states. “Unfortunately, media reports indicate that some in the oil and gas industry are seeking to narrow and even undermine this important study. This must not be allowed to happen. We urge you to maintain a strong commitment to the research that is under way by providing the necessary resources and support. We also urge you to consider expanding this research to cover hydraulic fracturing’s impact on air quality and human health.”

The House members also questioned the shale gas statistics cited in the State of the Union address.

Rep. Jared Polis

“We also believe it’s critical to have an accurate understanding of exactly how much shale gas lies beneath the surface,” their letter states. “Much has been said about our country’s potential supply of shale gas. Some in the industry have claimed we have an ocean of natural gas buried beneath our surface. Despite these claims, independent estimates about shale gas reserves reveal great uncertainty. In fact, just this week, the Energy Information Administration slashed its estimate of technically recoverable resources of U.S. shale gas by half. Furthermore, the United States Geological Survey’s estimates released last year are even lower. This is an enormous swing and it should be a caution to those who claim these new shale gas fields are the silver bullet to our country’s energy challenge. We must take care to ensure that any ‘bridge fuel,’ doesn’t instead prove to be a bridge to nowhere.”

On Tuesday, in the lead up to a hearing on a controversial federal study of water contamination from natural gas drilling, residents in the Pavillion, Wyo., area voiced unwavering support for the EPA.

“The Pavillion area was heavily drilled for natural gas,” said John Fenton, an alfalfa farmer. “No consideration was given to well spacing or to the impacts on the people or the environment. Our land and the land of our neighbors has been damaged and devalued. The water has been contaminated and the air fouled. Our health has also been attacked, my wife is losing her sense of smell and her sense of taste, my youngest son has developed seizures and I suffer chronic headaches and fatigue.”

Fenton was one of three landowners from the Pavillion area to speak to the press in a teleconference the day before the hearing over the EPA’s draft report, which has been criticized by gas industry executives, Wyoming officials and some members of Congress.

At the hearing, GOP lawmakers questioned the integrity of the EPA’s draft report, alleging it “jumps to conclusions” in making connections between fracking and water contamination. EPA officials clarified the scope of the draft report and explained the uniqueness of the Pavillion gas field.

“We make clear that the causal link to hydraulic fracturing has not been demonstrated conclusively, and that our analysis is limited to the particular geologic conditions in the Pavillion gas field and should be assumed to apply to fracturing in other geologic settings,” James B. Martin, EPA’s Region 8 administrator in Denver, testified. “It should be noted that fracturing in Pavillion is taking place in and below the drinking water aquifer and in close proximity to drinking water wells — production conditions different from those in many other areas of the country.”

The EPA on Tuesday issued more than 600 new pages of data to support its draft report.

Fenton praised the EPA for paying attention.

Louis Meeks’ well water contains methane gas, hydrocarbons, lead and copper, according to the EPA’s test results. When he drilled a new water well, it also showed contaminants. (Photo by Abrahm Lustgarten/ProPublica)

“When the people of the Pavillion area began to notice negative impacts to their water they looked to the state and industry to provide answers and help to remedy the contamination,” he said. “However there was no help from the state of Wyoming or the natural gas industry. The people of the Pavillion area were told that there was no way the natural gas drilling and fracking operations in the Pavillion area could have caused damage to the water. When industry did admit that problems existed they blamed the impact on the landowners saying that they lacked proper hygiene or that they had contaminated the wells themselves.”

“During the entire time we’ve known our water is bad, we contacted our elected officials, the Wyoming Governor, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, and the BLM, who administer the Tribe’s minerals under our property, asking for help. They continually said our water was fine,” added landowner Louis Meeks. “While reading the EIS for the Wind River Gas Field Development Project, I saw Region 8 EPA Greg Oberley’s name and called him to ask for EPA’s help. Several of our impacted neighbors also contacted the EPA. After site tours of the Pavillion area, we were invited to go to Denver to explain the problems we were having with our water. We welcome and are thankful for the help that the EPA has given us.”

The EPA is extending the public comment period on its study into March and it also sent out a request for peer review. Martin and other officials stressed that the study is not final.

In the meantime, natural gas prices are plunging due to a surge in supply. Several oil and gas companies recently announced plans to close off natural gas wells, pull out rigs and slow spending.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

About a dozen local twenty-somethings waved signs reading “Keep Our Water Pure,” “Rig Free For You And Me” and “Stop Frac’ing Colo” that television cameras carried live when Shaun White twisted and tumbled through the air on his way to his fifth-consecutive men’s snowboard superpipe victory.

Anti-drilling demonstrators make a statement as snowboarder Shaun White flies by. (Photo by Eric Allen)

The ESPN Winter X Games provided an ideal venue, the activists said, to educate an extremely large and youthful crowd about fracking — a method of extracting natural gas and oil by breaking rocks with a pressurized mixture of fluids. The protestors specifically sought to raise awareness of the threat of drilling in the nearby roadless area of Thompson Divide and energy plays on the other side of the Elk Mountains in the North Fork Valley.

The mission went off without a hitch until about 15 minutes before the superpipe finals came to an end. That’s when private security tried to shut the demonstration down.

“ESPN said they ‘couldn’t’ air footage with our signs. They were told to make us stop, but they really couldn’t do anything about it,” said Nick DeVore, a professional telemarker who grew up in Aspen.

More than once, private security guards tried to physically remove DeVore and his signs from Buttermilk Mountain, where the Winter X Games were held, but he stood his ground. After the competition was over and the awards ceremony began, Pitkin County sheriff’s deputies approached DeVore, informed him that he was on private property and that he could avoid arrest if he left the grounds immediately. He did. But not before lifting his “Don’t Frac It Up” sign high for all to see.

The crackdown on environmental activism put ESPN in a curious spot as Winter X Games athletes such as Gretchen Bleiler and Seth Wescott regularly use their fame to educate fans about climate change, recycling and sustainable living. Bleiler and several other pro riders even visited Capitol Hill last fall to defend the Environmental Protection Agency. The Winter X Games protest came just three days before today’s House sub-committee hearing on the EPA’s hydraulic fracturing research.

“ESPN does not allow advocacy signage regardless of message,” ESPN spokesman Danny Chi said.

In the end, the peaceful demonstrators succeeded in not only getting their anti-drilling signs television exposure, but news organizations captured their messages in still images splashed on the Internet and in newspapers from coast to coast. It was such a success some of the same activists plan on picketing U.S. Bureau of Land Management offices along the Western Slope beginning next week.

Untitled from Eric Allen on Vimeo.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

The report, commissioned by Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., Edward Markey, D-Mass., and Howard Berman, D-Calif., notes that, as of Dec. 15, the Republican-led 112th Congress voted a record 191 times on legislation that would undermine environmental protections.

The House averaged more than one anti-environmental vote for every day Congress was in session during 2011, which equates to more than one out of every five of all roll call votes, the report found.

Rep. Cory Gardner

Gardner was one of at least a dozen Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee who made public statements indicating that they question or reject the scientific consensus that climate change is predominantly human caused.

“Rep. Cory Gardner admitted that the climate is changing but said that he does not ‘believe humans are causing that change to the extent that’s been in the news,’” according to the report (pdf), which notes that House Republicans also voted to block the EPA from regulating carbon pollution from power plants and oil refineries, and they voted to prevent the EPA from working with the Department of Transportation and the automobile industry to develop fuel economy standards for vehicles.

The report also calls out Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., who introduced the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, which seeks to overturn the EPA’s finding that climate change endangers human welfare and to upend the Supreme Court’s decision that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The bill also prohibits the EPA from enforcing existing greenhouse gas reporting requirements to collect emissions information.

“During the floor debate about the Upton bill, the House Republicans voted against several Democratic amendments to restore [the] EPA’s authority to address climate change. Only one Republican supported an amendment offered by Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., to allow the EPA Administrator to suspend the bill’s prohibitions if impacts from climate change affect public health.”

The attacks on climate science aren’t exactly a surprise.

In 2010, Gardner and fellow Colorado Republican U.S. Reps. Scott Tipton, Doug Lamborn and Mike Coffman signed a “No Climate Tax Pledge” in which they promised to oppose “any legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue.”

That same year, Native Alaskans and environmental groups successfully appealed to the Environmental Appeals Board to overturn a permit the EPA issued to Shell Oil Co. for exploratory drilling in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas off the coast of Alaska. During an appropriations debate, the House obstructed the Appeals Board from using government funds to invalidate the permit.

“Rep. Cory Gardner then introduced H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act, which makes significant revisions to Clean Air Act provisions relating to [Outer Continental Shelf] activities,” the Waxman, Markey and Berman report states. “The bill limits EPA review of a permit application to six months; it eliminates any appeal to the Board, forcing all appeals to be brought in federal court in Washington, D.C.; it blocks EPA from requiring pollution reductions from support vessels, which often comprise the bulk of emissions from a drilling operation; and it provides that the impact of emissions from [Outer Continental Shelf] sources must be measured at the shoreline, where the emissions are diluted, rather than at the source, as current law provides.”

At the time, House Republicans said the purpose of H.R. 2021 was to accelerate the permitting process in the Arctic Ocean. But the bill was drafted so that it also applied to both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts despite objections from officials in California, Delaware and other states.

“This bill will create tens of thousands of jobs, increase energy security, and lessen our dependence on foreign oil,” Gardner said in a press release at the time. “It will add billions of dollars in salary to Alaska and other states over the next several decades, bringing good paying jobs to our country.”

The EPA isn’t the only agency in the GOP’s crosshairs. The House targeted the Department of the Interior with 35 votes meant to weaken its authority and the Department of Energy with 31 of them.

The report goes on to detail how the House proposed to slash funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service, cut clean-energy programs, curtail reviews of the Keystone XL pipeline, allow unsafe disposal of toxic coal ash, transfer public lands to a mining company, remove protections for forests and wetlands, repeal water quality standards, and promote loopholes for polluters.

On Dec. 7, the House passed the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, or H.R. 10, which requires approval from both houses of Congress before federal agencies can implement any significant rule, including those to protect the environment and public health. “In effect, this bill would force Congress to re-legislate provisions in the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and other laws that require the agencies to conduct significant rulemakings. If Congress fails to act on a rule, the new rule would not go into effect, delaying important safeguards and wasting years of scientific inquiry, stakeholder comment, and agency staff resources,” the report contends.

Among the 191 votes highlighted in the report, 94 percent of Republican members voted for the anti-environment position, while 86 percent of Democrats voted for the pro-environment position.

Rachel Boxer, the spokeswoman for Gardner, and Joanna Burgos, spokeswoman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, did not return messages seeking comment for this story.

“This entire session of Congress has felt to many of us like a trip into Alice’s Wonderland,” the eight-term Democrat from Colorado said Thursday. “While our nation struggles with a devastating economy … we do nothing about jobs or getting America back to work; instead we repeatedly fall down the rabbit hole of extreme legislation, and now with this so-called ‘Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act,’ it would seem we’re having tea with the Cheshire Cat. To paraphrase the Cheshire Cat, ‘We’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad … You must be mad or you wouldn’t have come here.’”

The fact that the Environmental Protection Agency maintains it has no plans to regulate farm dust is only partially what left DeGette challenging the sanity of her colleagues at a time when their approval rating lags behind both President Nixon during Watergate and Paris Hilton circa 2005. She was also tripping out that they refused to limit the scope of H.R. 1633 to agriculture, as its title implies.

U.S. Reps. Cory Gardner, Scott Tipton and Doug Lamborn — Coloradans who co-sponsored the bill — and their Republican cohorts shot down several amendments that would have exempted farm dust from the Clean Air Act but would have ensured the EPA can regulate coarse particulate matter from the mining and extraction industries, or dust that contains arsenic or other heavy metals, or dust that substantially harms public health.

DeGette floated a “motion to recommit” that sought to refer the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act back to committee so the legislation would clearly state that the EPA could still be able to regulate dangerous asbestos, lead and cadmium emissions but the GOP-led House rejected that too.

Rep. Diana DeGette

Republicans defended the legislation.

“While our nation’s farmers are expected to continue meeting the needs of a growing population, unnecessary regulations that place increased burdens on American agriculture are making production more costly and challenging — hurting jobs and small businesses,” Tipton said in a prepared statement. “I urge the Senate to quickly send this common sense pro-jobs bill to the President.”

Rep. Scott Tipton

Many Democrats counter the bill is a solution in search of a problem. A white rabbit.

“The truth is that the EPA doesn’t currently regulate farm dust. This bill would prevent a regulation that doesn’t actually exist, from overseeing something undefined,” DeGette told the House. “… Sadly for the American people, H.R. 1633 simply underscores the ‘madness’ of this body right now.”

After the House passed the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act, H.R. 1633, on Thursday, the White House announced that President Barack Obama will veto it if it lands on his desk, citing an administration policy statement that says the bill “purports to address a problem that does not exist.”

The “ambiguously written bill would create high levels of regulatory uncertainty regarding emission control requirements that have been in place for years,” the Obama administration’s statement reads.

But U.S. Reps. Cory Gardner, Scott Tipton and Doug Lamborn, all Republicans from Colorado, co-sponsored the legislation anyway. Gardner maintains he is not swayed by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s insistence that her agency has no designs to regulate farm dust.

“The EPA is notorious for trying to implement regulations through the back door, and that is exactly what is happening with regard to farm dust,” Gardner said. “Despite denials from agency officials saying they don’t regulate farm dust, the Energy and Commerce Committee has demonstrated that these denials are nothing more than semantics. During an October hearing on H.R. 1633, the ‘Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act,’ a top EPA official acknowledged that the EPA does regulate ‘course particles in the air,’ which includes farm dust. Therefore, the EPA is in fact regulating farm dust.”

Or could it be the polluters who are trying to go through the back door with H.R. 1633?

“The bill is sweepingly overbroad, creating numerous damaging consequences that appear to be unintended but that would cause real harms to Americans,” John Walke, a senior attorney and associate director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, wrote last month. “The result would be increases in harmful soot pollution – not just coarse particulate matter (PM10) but deadly fine particulate matter (PM2.5) – across the country. And not just in rural America but urban and metropolitan areas too. The legislation inexplicably eliminates, weakens or blocks federal Clean Air Act authority over overwhelmingly industrial soot pollution from power plants, manufacturing facilities, mines, other industrial facilities and even the nation’s fleet of motor vehicles …”

The Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act — an extension of the GOP-led House’s crusade to undermine the nation’s bedrock environmental laws — is spurring its share of confusion.

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association President Bill Donald issued a statement after the vote saying Americans are worried about being fined for moving cattle, tilling a field or driving down a dirt road.

Still, not everyone is buying it.

Roger Johnson, president of the National Farmers Union, said he is “disappointed” the legislation passed the House and that representatives are wasting taxpayer time and money.

“As EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has repeatedly said, both verbally and in writing to members of Congress, the EPA is not proposing to revise farm dust regulations,” he said yesterday. “Despite this assurance, misinformation regarding potential dust regulation continues to spread across the country, creating unnecessary concern for farmers and ranchers. Congress should stop politicizing this issue and move on to passing meaningful legislation to help farmers, ranchers and rural communities.”

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

So she is taking him on in 2012.

Even though Casida announced her candidacy at the Historic Federal Building in Pueblo on May 13, there’s a good chance you still haven’t heard of her. Political observers in the 3rd Congressional District all know the name of the other congressional candidate in the area, Sal Pace, a Democrat. But as an unaffiliated candidate, Casida doesn’t get the same attention. Her campaign is organic and in its infancy, much like her business, That’s Natural!, which promotes sustainable agriculture. Casida also has a real estate license and she publishes The Good American Post.

Despite the obstacles, Casida is getting noticed. Last month the Liberty Candidates endorsed her campaign. Former Libertarian presidential nominee and constitutional scholar Michael Badnarik recently joined her team of about ten. Several of her staffers campaigned for Ron Paul in the past.

She is not married but was once. “I was married at one time to a young man in the military and after he came back from Iraq, it was apparent that his emotional state would not allow for us to continue a meaningful relationship,” she explained. “It was devastating, and that has of course impacted my love for our troops as well as a desire to have them fighting only Constitutional wars.”

She has never run for office before. She grew up on a farm in Vineland, Colo., — she was baptized in the Arkansas River — and she says she simply wants to “represent the people who live here.”

In a recent e-mail interview with The Colorado Independent, Casida explained herself and her views.

Q. As a conservative, how is Scott Tipton failing to meet the expectations you have for the position?
A. As a representative, I expect Scott Tipton to unequivocally stand against intrusions into the American people’s rights and pocketbooks. I believe he is doing a good job of walking the party line and voting what some would call “conservative,” however he is not:
1. Speaking out against the Federal Reserve System and its effects on the nation’s currency
2. Speaking out against the Patriot Act
3. Speaking out against the National Defense Authorization Act

Q. Would you work to weaken the powers of the Environmental Protection Agency as other conservatives in Congress are doing?
A. Yes. I do not believe the EPA is doing a good job of protecting the environment – most of what they are doing is causing problems for businesses. The concept of environmental protection must be taken to a state and local level in order for such an agency to remain true to its mission and work with the people who are impacted by rules and regulations.

Q. Do you support local decision-making on all issues?
A. Yes, making decisions at a local level allows for people closer to the issues to be more involved in the processes. Making environmental decisions closer to home also allow for representatives and officials to remain transparent and accountable. It is easier to go to Denver to talk to someone than it is to go to Washington, D.C. I am not going to make a blanket statement about all federal standards – I am sure some are good and some make no sense – the fact is that people closer to Colorado, including environmentalists and leadership in Colorado – are more capable of making decisions for environmental standards for Colorado. As a matter of fact, holding decision-making and implementation closer to Colorado will likely be good for our local economies. Instead of sending money to Washington, D.C., we can keep it closer to home.

Q. What about the war on drugs? Do you support the ability of states to legalize medical marijuana?
A. The drug war is a complete fallacy and is doing nothing to stop drug use. If people are apt to use drugs, no legislation or war will stop them. You cannot legislate morality or behavior. I absolutely support the ability of states to legalize medical marijuana. As a matter of fact, it is incredibly beneficial to local economies. Constitutionally speaking, marijuana growth and use is not a federal issue at all. There is nothing stopping people from growing or using a substance, which is in effect, a plant. 

Q. Given your interest in sustainable agriculture and organic foods, do you have an opinion on the raw milk raids occurring across the country?
A. I believe that organic and raw foods are products that have existed on the planet for thousands of years (maybe more) and there is no reason that federal agents should be accosting people for their choices to consume these foods. Government cannot protect us from ourselves. After being exposed to pesticides as a child and becoming ill, I went on an organic diet, that I continue to this day, in an effort to de-toxify my system. I am also a consumer of raw milk, and believe that it has many health benefits. My grandmother drank “raw milk” as a child – they called it “milk.” People have the right to consume foods and nutritional supplements that they feel are beneficial to them. Every action of a human being involves some risk, there is no way to regulate every action that may be dangerous to our own well-being. That is where free will and personal responsibility come in to play.

Q. How concerned are you about fracking?
A. It depends on the situation. I can understand both sides of this issue, and I think that it is dependent upon the area, the people, the company, and the practices – each of these variables plays a part – in some cases I believe it can be performed responsibly. In other cases, I am sure that these practices are abused. I am most concerned about the transparency of the methods and practices used, especially in instances where the public is a part of the stakeholders.

Q. Should drillers be required to reveal what is in their fracking fluids or should that be proprietary?
A. Absolutely, I believe that they should be required to reveal what is in the fluids because these fluids are becoming a part of the ecosystem.

Q. Do you support the Keystone XL Pipeline?
A. Yes. Pipelines run through the entire U.S. Although there are periodic problems with these pipelines, they have an incredible safety track record. This project would provide jobs, growth, and energy independence. From an ecological standpoint, don’t you think it is safer and less intrusive on the environment to pump oil from Canada versus loading it in tankers and trucking it across the ocean?

Q. Do you believe humans cause climate change?
A. No, I believe the climate change we are seeing is from changes in the earth itself; however, there are many pollutants other than CO2 that are incredibly dangerous to the environment and people’s health that should be mitigated – these chemicals should be the focus. People and the private sector need to step up to the task, because the federal government is doing a terrible job at it. We should also never act in fear – to my sadness, it is a tactic too often used from both “the right” and “the left” to push the American people into making decisions that intrude upon our individual liberties. Regulating CO2 is dangerous – making a fair marketplace where renewable energy can compete on the same playing ground as other types of energy is smart.

Q. Where do you stand on abortion?
A. As a female I cherish the ability to give life and find the current statistics concerning abortion horrifying. Nonetheless, the federal government can never tell a woman what to do with her body. We cannot legislate morality – instead of picketing at places like Planned Parenthood, we should get involved in our communities and help these young women so that such a horrible choice would never have to be made in the first place. Our country has a moral problem when it comes to this issue – the government can’t fix it, but we can.

Q. Which current presidential candidate best reflects your views?
A. Ron Paul – he is consistent, he is fiscally conservative and arguably more socially liberal, and he loves the people of this country. He is a statesman, a representative, someone who does not take the American people’s money and abuse it. He is humble, reflective, and a good person with integrity. We need people in D.C. who are representatives and not politicians; he best reflects that in my mind.

Q. Are you a Liberty candidate or an Independent? Do you really think you have a chance of beating the big party candidates?
A. That is up for whoever wants to define either of those – I am Tisha Casida, and people are free to label me based on their world views and frameworks – it differs for everyone. I absolutely have a chance – that is the only reason I am running – to win. People’s anger and resentment at the parties, and politicians in general, will make 2012 a unique election year. Colorado has an equal number of “Independent” voters to the two parties, and we have more and more people thinking that way every day.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

A pair of environmental monitoring wells drilled deep into an aquifer in Pavillion, Wyo., contain high levels of cancer-causing compounds and at least one chemical commonly used in hydraulic fracturing, according to new water test results released yesterday by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The findings are consistent with water samples the EPA has collected from at least 42 homes in the area since 2008, when ProPublica began reporting on foul water and health concerns in Pavillion and the agency started investigating reports of contamination there.

Last year – after warning residents not to drink or cook with the water and to ventilate their homes when they showered — the EPA drilled the monitoring wells to get a more precise picture of the extent of the contamination.

The Pavillion area has been drilled extensively for natural gas over the last two decades and is home to hundreds of gas wells. Residents have alleged for nearly a decade that the drilling — and hydraulic fracturing in particular — has caused their water to turn black and smell like gasoline. Some residents say they suffer neurological impairment, loss of smell, and nerve pain they associate with exposure to pollutants.

While the EPA has not claimed certainty that the contamination came from fracking at this point, the presence of 2-Butoxyethanol (2-BE), a chemical used in fracking, and the lack of contamination with nitrates and fertilizers that would indicate an agricultural source, suggest a link.

A holding pond for fracking fluids in Texas.

One of those retrospective study areas is in Colorado – a state where new fracking regulations are being drafted and an independent review recently recommended a more comprehensive look at water resources available for fracking.

The process, which can use up to 1 million gallons of water per frack job, also includes sand and frequently undisclosed chemical additives. Fracking fluids are injected under higher pressure deep into oil and gas wells to fracture tight sand and rock and free up more gas or oil. Critics of the process say it can lead to groundwater contamination.

The EPA’s “Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources (pdf)” is now available on the agency’s website. Initial EPA findings will be released to the public in 2012, although the final report won’t be ready until 2014.

U.S. Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., wrote the legislation to authorize the study and also is a co-sponsor, with Colorado Reps. Diana DeGette and Jared Polis, of the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act. His district in New York includes the heavily drilled Marcellus Shale.

“I applaud the EPA for releasing a final research plan for its study on hydraulic fracturing,” Hinchey said in a prepared statement. “I wrote the legislative language that initiated this study and, as I had intended, the final study will look at the full cycle of water used in the hydraulic fracturing process.

“Our country is in the middle of a shale gas rush, but unbiased, scientific research into hydraulic fracturing is almost non-existent. This EPA study will provide invaluable information to the public and policy makers interested in understanding the impact of hydraulic fracturing on our water resources.”