The legislation “demands results and accountability but allows states the ability to chart their own course to higher achievement for students,” said Polis in a release. “There is no substitute for improving student outcomes and ensuring that every graduate is ready for college or a career, but where No Child Left Behind was prescriptive and punitive, the Growth to Excellence Act is flexible and focused on what helps better prepare students to succeed and graduate.”

The bill grew from Colorado’s experience as a participant in the Growth Model Pilot Project started in 2005, which allowed states to experiment in tweaking the No Child Left Behind Act accountability system. The idea was to look beyond the one established achievement standard and seek to reward schools that were successful in helping students significantly advance in their learning.

Provisions of the Bennet-Polis-Udall Growth to Excellence Act would allow states instead of the federal government to set measures of achievement and to base those measures on test score growth and high school graduation rates; replicate success by recognizing top-performing schools and districts; and seek to more accurately measure student progress by allowing states to use “adaptive assessments,” which “dig deeper into a student’s knowledge base to better measure knowledge or ability.”

Before being appointed to the Senate, Bennet was superintendent of the Denver Public School system and he has championed education reform on Capitol Hill. He spoke with passion last fall in the Senate chamber about what he characterized as the comically frustrating shortcomings of No Child Left Behind, describing the law was the worst kind of federal overreach. In explaining the priorities of the new Growth to Excellence bill, he emphasized the need to grant local parties the power to shape achievement and assessment efforts according to varying contexts.

“We developed a School Performance Framework in Denver to measure the progress of actual students year over year that served as the foundation for the Colorado growth model, which is now being used or pursued by more than a dozen states,” he was quoted in a release. “Our model has provided the country with an innovative example of how to measure student progress in real and meaningful ways.

“This bill builds on Colorado’s example and ensures we are working towards a sane and useful accountability system that gives every kid a shot at a quality education. I commend Congressman Polis for taking up this bill in the House of Representatives. It is an excellent counterpart to the bill Senator Udall and I have introduced in the Senate.”

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

“As a former superintendent who has been on the receiving end of No Child Left Behind, I know that well-intentioned ideas from Washington often do not make sense once they reach the classroom,” Bennet said today in a release. “In a system where kids living in poverty face a 9 in 100 chance of graduating from a four-year college, parents, children and educators aren’t concerned with where a fix comes from. They just want the problem solved, and unfortunately, dysfunction in Washington has held up a fix in Congress.

“Now, Colorado has received relief from many of the one-size-fits-all elements of No Child Left Behind that disempower the people who are closest to our kids. This exemption will remove bureaucratic barriers to innovation and reform and allow Colorado to focus on what matters: improving outcomes for kids.”

Obama is granting waivers to ten states– Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oklahoma and Tennessee. The administration is working with New Mexico to help it meet the requirements for the waiver and nearly 30 additional states are applying for the same exemption.

A signature domestic policy of the Bush years, No Child Left Behind requires all students to be proficient in reading and math by 2014. Educators have long felt the policy a draconian and ill-considered attempt to boost student performance by holding teachers to inflexible one-size-fits-all benchmarks. The effect, critics say, is that instructors simply “teach to the test” instead of taking a more organic approach to the way children learn.

“The goals of No Child Left Behind were laudable, but it has suffered from poor implementation and has been loaded with burdensome one-size-fits-all standards, making it difficult for our children to succeed in the 21st century,” said Udall in a prepared statement. “I’ll continue to work with my colleagues to improve the law, but until that happens, I’m glad the administration has recognized the reality that Colorado has developed a better way to hold kids and teachers accountable through its nationally recognized growth model. As the author of a bill that would build on that model nationally, I appreciate the administration’s decision today. And I’m proud Coloradans will be able to continue our efforts without being held back by onerous federal government standards.”

States receiving waivers must set new targets for improving achievement, reward schools making the best progress and aid schools that are struggling most.

Bennet has aimed at reforming No Child Left Behind almost since the day he arrived in the Senate. He helped write the Growth to Excellence Act meant to remake the controversial policy and made news last fall with an impassioned floor speech excoriating his colleagues for stalling action on the bill, which is still in committee.

“You know why people are fed up with this place?” he said. “It’s because they don’t think the debate we’re having is about them. They think the debate we’re having is about us. And they’re right about that…

“The teachers all across this state want us to lift this burden from them, in my view the biggest federal overreach ever in domestic policy. That’s what this bill does, not for ideological reasons, but to respond to the voices of our teachers, respond to the voices of our superintendents.

“[The bill] responds to the voices of our parents who are sick and tired of the almost comical but to them painful measures of annual progress, the idea that we’re going to label all of our schools failing by 2014 because we have a completely made up accountability system in Washington DC. This bill does away with that!”

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

Udall and Bennet

Rep. Cory Gardner

U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colorado, is the lone holdout in the state’s bipartisan push.

Rep. Lamborn

“My preference is to help industry grow by reducing federal regulations and mandates as opposed to carving out special interests in the tax code,” Lamborn wrote in an email to the Colorado Independent on Tuesday.

Lamborn, who is the chairman of the Natural Resources subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, recently supported H.R. 2173, the Advancing Offshore Wind Production Act, which would slash government red tape for the wind industry in seeking permits on federal lands. He also recently introduced a plan to open about 2 million acres of public lands in Utah, Wyoming and western Colorado to oil shale drilling, which environmentalists strongly oppose. The U.S. Department of Interior has different ideas and is trying to rein in oil shale leasing in the American West.

Polls show, however, that Colorado residents prefer renewable energy over fossil fuels.

Renewable energy experts say the wind production tax credit is key for Colorado.

“Manufacturing jobs are critical in America’s economic recovery,” Tim Heaton and Lee Boughey, chairs of the Colorado Energy Coalition, said in a joint statment. “The expiration of the Production Tax Credit would have a devastating impact on Colorado, affecting not only jobs and investment at our large wind manufacturers, but the many supply chain manufacturers that serve the wind industry. To provide the certainty that wind-energy companies need to create more jobs and investment in Colorado, the Colorado Energy Coalition endorses a three- to five-year extension of the PTC.”

The legislation, which President George H.W. Bush first signed into law in 1992, gives owners of wind energy farms a 2.2 cents-per-kilowatt credit on their U.S. income taxes annually for the first decade of the wind farm’s existence. It has been extended many times and is set to expire at the end of the year.

Colorado generates the third highest percentage of power from wind of any state in the nation and is home to several major wind energy developers and wind turbine manufacturing facilities.

Estimates show that wind energy employs upwards of 6,000 workers statewide.

The BLM’s proposal is a thorough overhaul of the Bush-era leasing inventory: it slashes shale from 1.9 million acres to 462,000 and sands from 431,000 acres to 91,000.

Oil shale is found in northwestern Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah and it contains an organic precursor to oil called kerogen. Despite decades of attempts, oil shale has never proven commercially viable. Squeezing fuel from the rock requires copious quantities of water and heating the shale underground to something above 700 degrees over a period of several years. Everything that must go into oil shale production is considered far more environmentally harmful than the production of conventional oil.

“While I have long felt there is potential for oil shale development, it is critical that a number of unanswered questions be resolved before commercial-scale leasing takes place,” Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colorado, said in a prepared statement. “Fully understanding the demands of oil shale development on Colorado’s water and local communities is essential to ensuring responsible development.”

Last year, the BLM announced it would reconsider the Bush-era land leasing plan as part of a settlement of a lawsuit by environmental groups in 2009 that challenged the 2008 action.

“For the sportsmen, farmers, ranchers and communities on the Western Slope that depend on clean air and clean water, making sure development is done right the first time is vital to their way of life,” said Udall, noting that the BLM will be accepting public comment on its plan for the next 90 days.

Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colorado, issued a statement reminding residents of “Black Sunday,” May 2, 1982, when Exxon’s massive Colony oil shale project went bust on the state’s Western Slope.

Udall and Bennet

Rep. Lamborn

“Oil shale is one of the most promising new sources of American-made energy and the United States is fortunate to have an abundance of oil shale resources, including in Colorado,” Lamborn said.

Environmentalists and others immediately panned Lamborn’s bill.

“We already face a water shortage in the West that threatens farmers and ranchers,” said Bill Midcap of the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union. “We simply cannot gamble away our water on oil shale speculation at the risk of losing our farming and ranching economy that we depend upon for our food and fiber. … We should use existing research and development projects to determine how much water will be needed before we consider commercial leasing of oil shale.”

“Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM) does important work to educate women about breast cancer and provide screening exams that are critical to early detection,” he wrote in a release. “I applaud Komen’s Denver affiliate for pushing back on their national organization and insisting that they be allowed to continue providing grants to PPRM, which help ensure access to affordable, life-saving services for Colorado women on the Front Range.

“Women’s health should never be used as a political football, and I hope the national organization of Susan G. Komen reverses its decision to end its partnership with Planned Parenthood elsewhere in our state and across the country.”

Staffers earlier said Udall was crafting a response to the Komen news with Colorado Senator Michael Bennet. It’s unclear if Udall and Bennet at this point still plan to pen a letter to Komen together. Colorado’s senators’ staffers told the Colorado Independent the two wanted to directly address news coming out of Colorado, where the two major women’s health organizations, Komen and Planned Parenthood, seemed to be coming to their own agreement.

A group of roughly two dozen U.S. Senators signed onto a letter to the national Komen foundation decrying the decision to pull back crucial support in the battle against breast cancer for what seemed to be clearly partisan political reasons.

Komen’s rationale for the move has shifted in the hours since it made its decision public.

Known for its marketing savvy– this is the group that hosts enormously popular “races for the cure” around the country and that launched the omnipresent pink-ribbon campaign– Komen first said the decision was not tied to this year’s turbo-charged anti-Planned Parenthood abortion politics but was simply the results of new rules governing grantee eligibility, specifically new rules that precluded organizations under investigation from receiving Komen cash.

The congressional investigation that moved Planned Parenthood off Komen funding lists, however, was very much a product of the anti-Planned Parenthood politics that shaped this year’s House Republican agenda. It was launched by anti-abortion Florida Rep. Cliff Stearns and based on a specious and mostly debunked report by anti-abortion group Americans United for Life.

The Komen policy changes seemed transparently motivated by the House investigation, especially in light of the fact that leadership at Komen has recently included strong anti-abortion, anti-Planned Parenthood figures such as Senior Vice President Karen Handel and Komen Advocacy Alliance board member Jane Abraham.

As the Washington Post reported, however, Komen CEO Nancy Brinker just hours ago walked back reference to the Stearns investigation, saying the new funding rules “had very little to do with the ongoing congressional probe” and were based on the fact that not all Planned Parenthood clinics provide mammograms.

“We have decided not to fund, wherever possible, pass-through grants. We were giving them money, they were sending women out for mammograms. What we would like to have are clinics where we can directly fund mammograms.”

Northern Colorado Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains clinics will continue to draw funds, as will clinics in Texas and Southern California, she said, because “they are the only provider” of breast health services in the areas they serve.

Denver Komen gave Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains $125,000 last year, or 4.3 percent of the nearly $3 million Denver Komen spent fighting breast cancer here, but Komen got big bang for those bucks. Planned Parenthood detected nearly 20 percent of all of the cases of breast cancer discovered through Denver Komen spending.

Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains serves patients whose health-care options are severely limited. Roughly 84 percent of PPRM patients have no health insurance and 62 percent live at or below the federal poverty line.

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

The letter comes on the heels of news that roughly two dozen of Udall and Bennet’s colleagues in the Senate have signed on to a letter strongly urging Komen, the high-profile marketing firm behind the breast-cancer pink-ribbon campaign, to reverse the decision it announced this week to cease funding Planned Parenthood breast cancer screening and education efforts.

The Senate letter has reportedly drawn support from a wide spectrum of Democrats, including moderates like Montana’s John Tester. It decried the Komen decision as the latest front in the partisan political battle launched against Planned Parenthood this year that has driven moves inside and outside of government to strip funds from the reproductive healthcare and abortion provider.

“It would be tragic if any woman– let alone thousands of women– lost access to these potentially life-saving screenings because of a politically motivated attack,” the letter reads.

The support the letter has garnered reflects the increasingly high-level pushback Komen has received this week. News outlets have reported the intense back-and-forth that erupted in the wake of the announcement as it unfolded and as it played out on the internet, where supporters and detractors have waged furious social media messaging battles.

Denver Komen is one of select foundation affiliates across the nation that have asked for a waiver from the controversial decision to cut Planned Parenthood funds and has made the case in its public statements for its continuing to fund Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM), pointing to the vital role the embattled organization plays in fighting breast cancer here.

PPRM provides distinctly cost-effective service for Komen. Its Front Range clinics were responsible for 19 percent of all the breast cancer detected through Denver Komen funding last year and it received only $125,000 or 4.3 percent of the $3 million Denver Komen awarded to nonprofits spread across the region, from Douglas County just south of Denver north to the Wyoming border.

Komen also notes that the state budget this year was slashed for the Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Program provided by the Women’s Wellness Connection Program, leaving nearly 5,500 women in Colorado without access to services and opening the door to nearly 90 cases of cancer. In such an environment, Komen suggested, cutting off Planned Parenthood funding would be irresponsible.

There is no word yet on whether members of the U.S. House will weigh in formally on the Komen funding question. Calls to members of Colorado’s delegation were not immediately returned.

Colorado Congresswoman Diana DeGette is the head of the Pro-Choice Caucus and has been a lead critic of the often specious attacks on Planned Parenthood launched on Capitol Hill this year.

Indeed, although Komen has said its decision to pull funding from Planned Parenthood was not motivated by abortion politics, it cited as the cause a controversial congressional investigation launched by Florida Republican Rep. Cliff Stearns into twenty years of Planned Parenthood finances. Komen said that its new grantee criteria preclude funding any organizations under investigation.

Yet the Stearns audit of Planned Parenthood was spurred mainly by anti-abortion activists working off of a largely discredited Americans United for Life report brimming with lurid accusations that, for example, Planned Parenthood abetted human trafficking and child prostitution operations.

DeGette, together with California Rep. Henry Waxman, denounced the congressional investigation as “unwarranted” and as a legalistic cover to “harass and shut down an organization simply because Republicans disagree with the work that it does.”

“We are aware of no predicate that would justify this sweeping and invasive request to Planned Parenthood,” Waxman and DeGette wrote in a letter to Stearns last September as the investigation was being proposed. “It would be an abuse of the oversight process if you are now using the Committee’s investigative powers to harass Planned Parenthood again. Your fervent ideological opposition to Planned Parenthood does not justify launching this intrusive investigation.”

In a Thursday call with reporters, Komen CEO Nancy Brinker walked back reference to the Stearns investigation. The Washington Post reports Brinker said the decision not to continue funding Planned Parenthood “had very little to do with the ongoing congressional probe” but was based primarily on the fact that some Planned Parenthood clinics do not provide mammograms.

“We have decided not to fund, wherever possible, pass-through grants. We were giving them money, they were sending women out for mammograms. What we would like to have are clinics where we can directly fund mammograms.”

Northern Colorado Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains clinics will continue to draw funds, as will clinics in Texas and Southern California, Binker said, because “they are the only provider” of breast health services in the areas they serve.

News outlets and blogs have pointed to the fact that national Komen leadership has been tilted recently by a growing number of hardcore pro-life executives and board members, such as Senior Vice President Karen Handel, who came on last April after running as an anti-Planned Parenthood candidate for governor in Georgia’s Republican primary, and prominent Komen Advocacy Alliance board member Jane Abraham, who is also general chairman of the anti-abortion lobbying organization Susan B. Anthony List.

Leadership at Susan B. Anthony includes former arch-social conservative Colorado Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave. The group has played a key role in the effort to “defund” Planned Parenthood nationwide. This year it kept a running state-by-state scorecard tracking the roughly $60,399,000 in federal and state funding stripped from Planned Parenthood affiliates in eight states.

“Our efforts during the federal budget fight gave Planned Parenthood a black eye,” the organization boasted.

The Atlantic reported today that sources inside Komen are beginning to confirm that the new policy cited to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood– whether ultimately tied to on-site mammogram services, congressional investigations or something else– was adopted specifically to cut off Planned Parenthood and that that effort was spearheaded by anti-abortion personnel led by Handel.

Ties among Komen executives and Congressional Republicans are sure to be scrutinized in the coming days.

Komen board member Jane Abraham’s husband, Spencer Abraham, for example, may draw looks. He was Energy Secretary under George W. Bush and last year joined Republicans in the House, including House Energy Committee member and Planned Parenthood investigator Cliff Stearns, in denouncing the government program that guaranteed loans to Solyndra solar panel company. Abraham’s law firm recently teamed with Florida law firm Roetzel & Andress to form DC-based lobby shop Abraham & Roetzel, which has offices in Columbus, Ohio and Tallahassee, Florida.

Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains told the Colorado Independent this week that the Denver Komen affiliate has been a “strong advocate” for the work Planned Parenthood does in Colorado.

More than 80 percent of PPRM patients have no health insurance and 62 percent live at or below the federal poverty line.

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

Rep. Scott Tipton

Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, on the other hand, issued a statement after the State of the Union address to say he was “encouraged to hear the President talk so much about clean energy, as Colorado is leading the nation when it comes to renewable energy research and development. Many of the new jobs the President talked for this industry will be created in Colorado – and we are ready.”

Despite his stance on the Keystone XL oil pipeline, Obama touted the millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration that have been approved under his tenure and directed his administration “to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources.” American oil production is the highest it’s been in eight years. “That’s right — eight years,” he said to applause in the chamber.

But noting that the United States has only 2 percent of the world’s known oil reserves, Obama pledged to end subsidies for oil companies and instead “double-down” on “an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy.”

In last year’s State of the Union speech, the president also emphasized domestic energy production but never climate change. This year, he briefly acknowledged the problem.

“We can also spur energy innovation with new incentives. The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change. But there’s no reason why Congress shouldn’t at least set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation. So far, you haven’t acted. Well, tonight, I will. I’m directing my administration to allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power 3 million homes,” said Obama, adding the Department of Defense will also purchase enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year.

“Clean energy,” however, means different things to different people. In the past, the White House has used the term to include nuclear power, natural gas development and other controversial fuels.

Obama paid special attention to natural gas, noting that America has an almost 100-year supply and that his administration “will take every possible action to safely develop this energy.” He estimated natural gas could create more than 600,000 jobs in the next decade.

U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colorado, applauded what she heard in the State of the Union.

Rep. Diana DeGette

The president’s pleas for Congress to rise above partisanship were heard loud and clear by U.S. Senator Michael Bennet, D-Colorado, who, after the State of the Union, remarked “… One place we can find common ground is on the responsible development of clean-burning natural gas, which Colorado has in abundance, as part of a transition toward clean energy and away from overseas oil.”

U.S. Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colorado, also issued words of encouragement for Obama’s speech.

“President Obama tonight outlined not only a blueprint for an economy built to last but an action agenda that reflects what Coloradans have been telling Congress to address for months: create jobs and strengthen the economy; reform education for our children and economic future; make college more affordable; invest in clean renewable energy to make us energy independent; and ensure that all Americans have a chance to work hard and succeed,” Polis said. “These are all practical, common sense solutions to our most pressing challenges that Congress should embrace, and I look forward to working with Democrats and Republicans this year to make progress for Colorado and America.”

Colorado U.S. Sen Mark Udall was an early critic of the bills and welcomed news that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had pushed PIPA off the senate agenda.

“I want to thank the many Coloradans who spoke out loud and strong on this critically important issue,” Udall was quoted to say in a release. “Internet piracy is a serious problem, but the Protect IP Act would have had serious unintended consequences to innovation, cyber security and free speech that we simply can’t risk. Thanks to the millions of Americans who have made their voices heard, Senate leaders have decided to look for a better balance that will protect intellectual property while maintaining the open Internet. I stand ready to work with any of my colleagues to ensure whatever legislation we ultimately consider protects Internet-based innovation, security and free speech.”

In the end, the Colorado delegation, led by Udall and Rep Jared Polis (CD2), overwhelmingly came out against the bills, including Republican Reps Scott Tipton, Doug Lamborn and Mike Coffman. Senator Michael Bennet, originally a co-sponsor of the bill, retreated in response to concerns raised by constituents, he said.

Bennet was not alone by a long shot. Support for the bills swung wildly to opposition over the last two days, seeing traditional hundred-million-dollar lobbying efforts in support of the bills crumble under the weight of aggressive pushback from the tech industry and citizens from across the political spectrum.

ProPublica graphs visualizing shifting positions among lawmakers on the bills from Wednesday to Thursday as the bills were set to come up for votes rocketed around digital social networks.

The entertainment industry has long been working to remake the internet to restrict the “frictionless” sharing of material that defines it, working to bolster the country’s already sweeping copyright laws to give legal teams broad power to shutdown sites and wring settlements from startups and individual web users.

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

The three members of the Colorado delegation were together praising Garcia in the same release.

“I am proud and honored to present the Congressional Badge of Bravery to Deputy Herman Garcia for his heroic actions in upholding our laws and securing the safety of his community every day,” Udall said. “Deputy Garcia went above and beyond the call of duty—something I suspect he does more often than just this one instance—and this Congressional Badge of Bravery is a symbol of our gratitude for his service.Coloradans are proud to have such a brave and honorable deputy serving them.”

“Deputy Garcia embodies the very best qualities of Colorado’s law enforcement community – courage and heroism in the line of duty – and our gratitude for his service can’t be overstated,” Bennet said. “In acting selflessly to uphold the law and protect his community, he has rightfully earned the respect of his peers and the recognition of our country.”

“It’s an honor and a privilege to join in presenting Douglas County Deputy Sheriff Herman Garcia with this commendation, as he is the living embodiment of why the Congressional Badge of Bravery program was created,” Coffman said. “His grace under fire and courage in the face of possible death serve as an inspiration to us all. We should all be grateful and proud to have such a hero as a part of our community.”

The Congressional Badge of Bravery was created in 2008 and is awarded to officers who exhibit “exceptional courage, extraordinary decisiveness and unusual swiftness of action—regardless of their own personal safety in an attempt to save or protect human life.”

Udall, Bennet and Coffman will together host a reception in Garcia’s honor, Friday, January 27, at 1 pm at the Douglas County Sheriff’s office.

Deputy Sheriff Herman Michael Villalobos Garcia, a hero to the law enforcement community and a hero to the fading spirit of political bipartisanship.

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

The litigation is the culmination of a water war between ski areas and the Forest Service that has gone on for years. The dispute bubbled to the surface in early November when the new policy took effect and National Ski Areas Association attorney Glenn Porzak complained about it to Congress.

A dispute over a new Forest Service clause concerning water rights surfaced when Powderhorn in Colorado sought a new ski area permit. (Photo by Casey Day)

Forest officials maintain the interim directive for ski area permits is needed to ensure that water for snowmaking and other resort activities remains available regardless of ownership changes. Without the clause, foresters worry the water rights could be sold to third parties for non-ski-related purposes.

“Our interest is in maintaining the ability to provide ski areas with water into the future and to protect the public’s interest by making sure that communities, often small rural communities, that are linked to ski areas can rely on that into the future,” Jim Pena, acting deputy chief for the national forest system, previously told the Colorado Independent. “… We are just trying to ensure the viability of the ski industry over time. That is what this is about; it’s not about taking away rights or assets.”

The fight over water rights, which have an estimated value in the tens of millions of dollars, caught the attention of U.S. Sens. Mark Udall, Michael Bennet, both Democrats from Colorado, along with Rep. Scott Tipton, R-Colorado, Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colorado, Gov. John Hickenlooper and other lawmakers who asked the Forest Service to suspend the new clause until it could be studied further.

The Forest Service declined to do so. The new clause has been incorporated into recent ski area permits issued to Powderhorn in Colorado and resorts in California and Washington.

Ed Ryberg, who coordinated the Forest Service’s ski area program from 1992 until his retirement in 2005, stoked the flames when he wrote a letter last week to Udall excoriating the “unscrupulous” ski areas that he alleges NSAA represents and who he claims “welshed on their agreements with the United States, and obtained water rights, justly belonging to the American people, through fraud and deception.” Ryberg alleged the ski industry exploited the “lax regulatory environment” under President Bush in 2004 to obtain joint-ownership rights with the Forest Service. He commended his ex-colleagues for redressing “the abuses of crony capitalism” and not caving into political pressure.

Porzak wrote Udall today alleging that Ryberg’s letter contains “numerous inaccuracies” and “major relevant omissions.” In his letter (pdf), Porzak states that the pre-2004 water right clause “was not limited to water rights involving the ‘diversion of water directly from NFS lands’ as Mr. Ryberg states. The Forest Service sought all water rights used in connection with the ski area regardless whether they arose on the ski area Forest Service lands, other federal lands or private lands. … Another major inaccuracy of his letter is that the new water right permit clause does not only apply to water rights that arise on the ski area Forest Service lands. Like the pre-2004 clause, the new clause impacts water rights on non ski area permit lands regardless of whether they are federal or private lands. … Finally, Mr. Ryberg makes the statement that the new clause seeks to correct ‘the problems with the 2004 clause with respect to Colorado.’ I am aware of virtually every ski area water right in Colorado and the cases involving those water rights. There has not been a single instance where the 2004 water clause was in conflict with or caused a problem with respect to Colorado law.”