| Coal Ash Contamination | What is a Progressive? | Save SoBo | Home Rule |

Dear Neighbors;

Hello!

We hope that you are having a truly wonderful summer in our beautiful part of the world!

A recurring theme from our contributors is the co-opting of certain language that promises one thing but delivers something else. One such instance is how the word ‘progressive’ has been used as part of the name of a local political group to gain control of our city council. This group promotes interests that are not connected to the true meaning of the usual understanding of that word - and seldom supports and fights for issues that do.

This issue will become even more relevant as we head toward November's local elections, and Boulder Action will be at the forefront of helping the voting public understand how the Boulder Progressives do not follow a progressive philosophy. 

• Boulder’s Coal Ash problem. Cindy Warren supplies some very important and timely information about the disposal of this power-station generated coal waste and what is being done to address its potential side effects. She notes (with supporting clickable sources) that the most polluted coal ash site in Colorado exists right here in our very own city at the Valmont Power Station. A situation that a truly ‘progressive’ city government should be on the vanguard of addressing.

• We’re not the only ones concerned that the word ‘progressive’ has been co-opted by a political group calling themselves ‘progressive’ - a group who’s behavior Steve Lynton believes is far from what most of us think the word ‘progressive’ actually means. An ex-Washington Post reporter who has been closely following our local politics, he offers his take on this groups true motivations.

• We have an update on the Save SoBo situation - their leadership has again provided a very complete explanation of the status of its efforts.

• The elimination of ‘home rule’ - at least as it applies to local zoning - has raised the temperature of some municipalities like Lafayette. Laura Osborn reacts to a recent Camera article that highlights a lawsuit being filed by concerned towns and cities in the state - but of course not joined in by the Boulder Progressives-controlled Boulder City Council - who are in favor of having our town’s zoning dictated by the state.

• Finally, we’ve retained last month’s article on the revision process to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) as we believe it is extremely critical that ALL citizens remain engaged in the proceedings that are underway.

CURRENT TOP CRITICAL ISSUES

• BOULDER VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW

• SAVE SOUTH-BOULDER

• SAVE IRIS FIELDS

Boulder’s Current Coal Ash Situation

By Cindy Warren

Coal ash has recently become a significant issue in Boulder due to an upcoming massive coal ash remediation project at Xcel’s Valmont Power Station. The Power Station is located at 1800 63rd Street, between Arapahoe Road and Valmont Road.

Coal ash is the mineral residue left after coal is burned to produce electricity in coal-fired power plants. Coal ash contains a number of substances harmful to human health including heavy metals; some of the most noxious metals are arsenic, chromium, mercury, lead and selenium. Coal ash also contains the radioactive elements uranium and thorium and their decay products. Additionally, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are present as well. Long-term exposure to coal ash is very serious and can lead to lung disease, cardiac disease, heart attacks, liver damage, kidney damage and neurologic problems as well as a large variety of cancers including lung, kidney, bladder, liver, thyroid and bone among others. It is also very toxic to wildlife and aquatic ecosystems.  

There were no coal ash regulations prior to 2015 and the approach power plants generally took to coal ash was to deposit the ash in unlined landfills where it often contaminated underlying groundwater. Xcel followed this approach; its landfills are unlined and at least one is currently contaminating groundwater. The contaminated groundwater is moving offsite and, per the County’s website, there are several privately owned wells on nearby properties that are affected. However, details of the extent of the problem are unknown to the public at this time.  

Of note, Valmont Power Station is the most polluted coal ash site in Colorado, (1 with 1.8 million tons of coal ash waste.(2 The remediation process is estimated to take 10-12 years (the completion date is estimated as 2037).  The cleanup involves excavating the majority of the coal ash from one of Xcel’s landfills near Valmont Road, transporting it by truck to Valmont Station and processing it there to produce a product sold into the concrete market. Additionally, 200,000 tons of coal ash from Cherokee Generating Station will also be processed. All steps of this procedure will result in the release of coal ash into the air. Boulder County’s website states "Boulder County Public Health recognizes the potential air quality concerns related to the excavation and processing of the coal ash.”

Valmont Station is within a few miles of several residential neighborhoods.  Additionally, there are sensitive locations less than one mile from the remediation site including Columbine Mobile Home Park (0.2 miles), Sombrero Marsh - a Critical Wildlife Habitat (0.4 miles), Boulder Technical Education Center (0.5 miles) and Stazio Softball Fields (0.7 miles).  

Coal ash toxins travel through the air, so impacts will not be limited to the immediate area of the Power Station. Determining with precision the area of impact would require a dispersion model that uses local meteorology as well as aerosol physics; this information is not available. However, research and published reports often cite a 5-10+ mile radius (considerably larger with wind) as the area of potential impact. A 5-mile radius includes much of the city of Boulder.

The regulators (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment - aka CDPHE) will issue an air permit (among others) to Xcel prior to initiation of the cleanup. The permit will specify what procedures must be followed during the remediation. Currently CDPHE does not anticipate air quality monitoring will be required. Additionally, Xcel has recently stated “Currently, no additional monitoring above the requirements of the permit is planned to take place”; this would indicate that if air quality monitoring is not required on the permit, Xcel does not intend to provide it.

Many concerned citizens believe that no air quality monitoring associated with the remediation is unacceptable, and that adequate air quality monitoring should be required to ensure the safety of Boulder residents and wildlife.  

CDPHE will likely need to be convinced to require air quality monitoring. As the process moves forward, it will be very helpful if citizens contact CDPHE, Xcel, Boulder County Public Health, County Commissioners, City Council and elected state officials with their concerns. Additionally, CDPHE has indicated that comments received during the public comment period associated with the air permit will be taken very seriously; comments to CDPHE during this time will be especially significant. The CDPHE public comment period will likely occur within the next few months; Boulder Action will announce the dates once they are released.

Cindy Warren, M.D.

_________________________________

1 coloradonewsline.com/2022/11/05/coal-plant-ash-cleanup-report/

2 xcelenergy.com/staticfiles/xe-responsive/Environment/Coal%20Ash%20Management/Valmont%20Public%20Meeting%20May%2023,%202023%20Ash%20Recycling%20for%20Beneficial%20Use%20in%20Concrete%20Presentation.pdf

Note that Xcel says in the document above that they're removing 1.8 million tons of ash, although they plan on leaving approximately 15% of the total ash in place, meaning the total amount of ash present is actually over 2 million tons.  Additionally, they plan to simultaneously process 200,000 tons of coal ash which will be imported from Cherokee Generating Station, so in aggregate the remediation involves processing approximately 2 million tons of coal ash at Valmont Station.

Below is a list of additional references:

3 boulderreportinglab.org/2023/12/11/hidden-hazard-boulders-million-ton-coal-ash-problem-has-no-local-watchdog/ 4 earthjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/coal-ash-primer_earthjustice_2023.pdf

5 earthjustice.org/article/ash-in-lungs-how-breathing-coal-ash-is-hazardous-to-your-health

6 sierraclub.org/wisconsin/coal-ash-pollution

7 earthjustice.org/feature/coal-ash-contaminated-sites-map

8 sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147651323014094

9 environmentalintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Poisonous-Coverup-11.03.22.pdf

10 earthjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/ash_in_lungs_1.pdf

11 environmentalintegrity.org/news/facts-and-history-groundwater-contamination-from-ash-dumps/#:~:text=According%20to%20EPA%2C%20there%20are,serious%20damage%20to%20the%20environment.

12 mobilebaykeeper.org/blog/a-new-book-on-the-kingston-coal-ash-spill/

13 earthjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/coal_ash_addendum_new_final_email.pdf

14 earthjustice.org/feature/coal-ash-closure-cleanup

15static1.squarespace.com/static/5e22ffdfa732e601799afba2/t/62bf751a4a79686cac070b1b/1656714531001/%27Toxic+habitat%27+a+threat+to+wildlife_Newcastle+Herald_July+2nd.pdf

16 arcadia.com/blog/7-ways-coal-impacting-wildlife

17sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004565352402112X#:~:text=Chronic%20exposure%20too%20elevated%20Se,maternal%20transfer%20to%20the%20eggs.

18 archives.boulderweekly.com/news/something-fishys-going-valmont-reservoir/

What Exactly IS a ‘Boulder Progressive’?

By Steve Lynton

• A "Boulder Progressive" is someone who's in favor of environmental protection - if it promotes development and real estate investment (like 15-minute cities).

• A "Boulder Progressive" is someone who's in favor of environmental protection - as long as it only causes problems for someone else (like wolves in western Colorado where cattle ranchers pay the price). But a "Boulder Progressive" is not at all in favor of environmental protection when it happens to interfere with development or urban sprawl here in Boulder (like CU South).

• The "Boulder Progressives" have endorsed both Lauren Folkerts and Nicole Speer. Both of these council-persons have gladly worn their support of the groups interests.

  Basically "Boulder Progressives" pay lip service to environmental protection, as long as it doesn't get in the way of whatever "Boulder Progressives" want--and that's mainly profits for real estate investors and developers. 
  

  _____________________________________________________________
  

  Editor: 2 noteworthy items…

• Council members Lauren Folkerts & Nicole Speer were and are endorsed by "Boulder Progressives" 

• See what REAL BOULDER PROGRESSIVES are concerned with: www.realboulderprogressives.org

Update on Save South Boulder Lawsuit

By Marki LeCompte and Harlan Savage

You may have read that Judge Katlarczyk recently ruled against the Save South Boulder lawsuit on the City’s motion for a summary judgement. But we’re not worried. We’ve got a plan. We met with Randy Weiner, our lawyer, immediately after the ruling and have decided to appeal the judge’s decision. The judge’s decision focused on who benefits from the $66 million South Boulder Creek dam and spillway along Hwy 36, ruling that everyone in Boulder would benefit from it. Save South Boulder doesn’t agree; we’ve argued that while every utility ratepayer in Boulder will pay for the dam, only a very tiny percentage of residents will actually reap its benefits. In fact, some areas will actually experience increased flooding risk, even though residents there will still the pay increased fees for the dam. We will point this out in our appeal, and we’ll also show that we raised other more important points that the judge didn’t address at all. We’re first filing a motion for reconsideration, and if that’s denied, we’ll appeal. We are confident that we will prevail.  

So, there’s a lot of work to do.  We’re sending out this urgent email because Save South Boulder needs help right now

First and foremost, Save South Boulder needs money to pay the legal fees for this case. We are fighting because the Boulder City Council has over-reached its authority:

• In trying to float a bond issue before it has even obtained the documentation needed to substantiate such a request;

• In declaring an emergency to approve the bond issue when no emergency existed;

• In trying to eliminate public input on the dam construction and its finance.

Once again, City Council is making crucial unilateral decisions about how our city funding is used for controversial projects without approval from the voters.

SOBO’s lawsuit is the only way right now to stop the City’s refusal to produce a better, more effective, less environmentally destructive and cheaper flood mitigation project. We are fighting against this dam because it won’t work as promised.

• Its design is flawed and doesn’t match the conditions of the damaging storm that produced the 2013 flood.

• There are better, more effective alternatives to the construction of a regulated dam and spillway to protect downstream residents, but the City has never adequately considered any other solutions. Alternatives have been successfully implemented for Boulder Creek, so there is precedent for re-evaluating the South Boulder Creek project.

We have mounting legal fees. Currently, we have nearly $19,000 in legal fees to pay. Lawsuits are expensive, but right now they are the only way citizens can stop ill-considered projects when governments ignore their citizens. Whatever you can contribute will help.

And so, please send a check payable to Save South Boulder, indicating the check is for the lawsuit. Send an email to margaret.lecompte@gmail.com so we will know how much is coming. We will also then have your snail mail and email addresses for updates. Your donations are not tax deductible – we wish they were! Please mail checks to:

Margaret LeCompte

Save South Boulder

290 Pawnee Drive

Boulder, CO 80303

Save South Boulder and its allies are not against flood control. What we are against is the current dam project. Why?

• The City has been misleading the public for years about the dam’s effectiveness and safety, the degree to which it will provide insurance against flooding, and its environmental impact. 

• The dam will actually increase flooding on the east side of Foothills Parkway, because all the floodwaters detained by the project will be diverted away from the west side to the east side neighborhoods on Foothills Parkway.

• The dam won’t protect homes on the west side of Foothills Parkway from floods larger than a 100 year flood.  And we know that climate change means bigger floods will happen.  

• The dam will cut impact South Boulder Creek’s groundwater flows. An untested groundwater conveyance system will be used to pass groundwater through the impervious dam. If it doesn’t work as hoped the wetlands on both sides of Hwy 36 will be devastated.

• This project will curtail timely flood mitigation in all other parts of the City because all funds will be spent repaying the bonds for this project.  

The City Council has tried to advance this project for years  without considering the alternatives called for by community experts and citizens. Save South Boulder believes that even while pushing its agenda, the City has to play by the rules.  When it declared an emergency and approved the bond issue to pay for the dam overnight, it violated rules spelled out in the City Charter. An emergency isn’t created just because the City failed to act properly in figuring out how to finance the dam.  Council can’t simply declare an emergency as a way to speed up the process, avoid public input, and bypass long-established procedures for passing ordinances. The fact that Council announced its emergency a full three weeks before its meeting is clear evidence that there was no real emergency!

So Please:  Donate.  If this dam is built, it will define our community forever, drastically degrading the environment and our quality of life, putting our lives and property at risk, and at great financial cost to every resident and business in the community.  And everyone in Boulder will have to live with those impacts for years and years to come. 

As always, we appreciate your support and encouragement! With many thanks -   

Marki LeCompte and Harlin Savage, For Save South Boulder.

Boulder’s Home Rule Authority

Forwarded by Laura Osborn 

The Daily Camera reported recently on a lawsuit by Front Range cities against the state and Governor Polis: "Lafayette has joined other Front Range municipalities in a lawsuit against Colorado and Gov. Jared Polis to secure the city’s home rule authority and land use code management.

"Lafayette has joined Aurora, Arvada, Glendale, Greenwood Village and Westminster in the lawsuit, according to a [May 19] news release. The news release says that House Bills 23-1255, 24-1304 and 24-1313 violate the city’s home rule authority by overreaching and telling home rule municipalities how to manage their land use. Home rule is a type of governance that allows for more local control, with residents writing a city charter, rather than a statutory municipality where all local authority is based on state statutes.

"In March, the Lafayette City Council discussed it would be analyzing its home rule authority following a state law that would mandate dense housing along state designated transit corridors and communities." (Daily Camera, 5/19/25, by Andrea Grajeda)

Boulder resident Laura Osborn likes the stance of these municipalities. "These forward-thinking cities are not bending to the will of our dictatorial Governor Polis, who asserts that he has the right to abolish zoning regulations, overrule Boulder's home rule status and tell us how we are to manage local affairs including housing choices, if I understand this lawsuit correctly. However, we have our esteemed Mayor Brockett who gets up on the stage with 'the esteemed Governor' to render his support in abolishing all zoning regulations in Boulder. 

Osborn continues, "If these cities can defy Polis, so can Boulder. We need to elect new Council members who will support our single-family zoning and vote to preserve our long-time neighborhoods. Boulder could also support this lawsuit and assert its will to become independent of Polis and his foolhardy edicts. We need to let local voters know that there are alternatives to what Brockett and the Boulder Progressives are pushing on local residents. 

We need to elect Council members who will support neighborhoods and vote for the re-establishment of 'home rule' and land use code management.”

Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Revision

By Allyn Feinberg

Have you been following the City Planning Department’s roll out of the 2025 update to our Comprehensive Plan? Do you know why the Comprehensive Plan matters to you? Because its policies are the basis for almost all city decisions.

Every 10 years the Comprehensive Plan undergoes a major revision. This sounds like so much boring city bureaucracy until you understand that the policies in the plan govern how much density will be allowed in your neighborhood, whether “road diets” and “no parking requirements” are going to be in your future, and if we will be able to continue to protect Boulder’s Open Space from destruction by excessive growth.

If this has caught your attention, you will be interested to know that the Planning Department’s engagement with the citizens so far has offered vague generalities that have only resulted in hope and wishes for rainbows and unicorns.

The Planners say that the process will turn the current comp plan’s huge number of fluffy, aspirational policies into something concrete to provide strong direction for the next 10 to 20 years; however, there is nothing in their rollout schedule that shows a place where the public will have input to that direction. That is, until the draft plan that the Planners come up with Is given to the boards and City Council for their review and approval. Then you can comment.

Many of us are convinced that this is an inadequate approach and have ourselves undertaken to identify needed data for critical community issues, like Greenhouse gases, affordable Middle Income Housing, the adequacy of our water supply in the face of another 50,000 residents or more, and the potential of gridlock of our local traffic.

We are reaching out to local citizens to join us to examine the issues and offer their input for new, revised policies for the 2025 Comprehensive Plan that will result in meaningful action. Please watch for notices of opportunities to join us in this important effort.

Here are some upcoming Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan events hosted by the City and an organization called YOUnity:

July 15 – Building Our Voices to Shape Boulder’s Future, 6 to 8 pm Fairview High School Cafeteria. This will be an interactive in-person workshop related to developing skills to engage meaningfully in a discussion about Boulder’s Future.

August 19 – From Vision to Action, 6 to 8 pm, virtual. A presentation will be made to the full virtual group, then smaller groups will break out to discuss “big ideas” the city planners are proposing for comprehensive plan changes. You can gather a group of participants from your organization, your neighborhood, or circle of friends. The small groups will rejoin to share your ideas.

September 9 – From Vision to Action, 6 to 8 pm, Casey Middle School. You will hear the “big ideas” and discuss which ones to proceed with, and alternatives you might recommend.

Check the City’s comprehensive plan website https://a-boulder-future-boulder.hub.arcgis.com for more details. You can also send comments to this web site any time. Check in with Boulder Action for new information and ways to engage with the decision making.