Boulder County farm (photo by Meaghan Huffman)

At a PLAN-Boulder forum on Monday, January 30, a panel of five Boulder County farmers, moderated by a CSU extension agent, related, among other details, that their practices have changed significantly over the years so that they plow much less — thereby depleting the soil of less moisture — and apply less pesticides.

The five panelists — Keith Bateman, Jason Condon, Dan Lisco, Paul Schlagel, and Jules Van Thuyne — reflected in a general fashion about their lives as farmers and the state of agriculture in Boulder County. Between them they grow wheat, corn, barley, sugar beets, alfalfa hay, grass hay, organic vegetables and small grains, and cattle. Lisco also raises, rents, and sells horses.

All of the farmers declared that they liked farming. Each of them is descended from a multi-generational farming family — two of which settled in Boulder County in the late 1850s. Most of them lease land from the Boulder County Parks and Open Space Department and/or cultivate land encumbered by a conservation easement held by the department. Several of them claimed that they would not have been able to farm in Boulder County without the county open space department, because farm land would have become too expensive to own or lease.

Some of them recounted that agriculture in Boulder County changed dramatically in the 1970s. They said that the county had contained many dairy farms, which closed. A John Deere dealership in Longmont shut down. A seed store moved away. Feed lots disappeared. A Kuner canning plant closed. A sugar mill was shuttered. Later on, in the 1980s and 1990s, the vegetable farms around Longmont that were owned by Japanese-American families collapsed. The number of farmers dropped significantly, and the famers who hung on began to cultivate much more acreage. Schlagel commented that up through the middle of the twentieth century, “80 acres used to be enough to support a family.” Very few farmers have moved into Boulder County from other areas.

One panelist commented that the changes had meant that he needed to stock many more spare parts for agricultural machinery. Others said that they led to much more time driving to and from Greeley to obtain parts. Van Thuyne observed that he spends a large portion of his time serving on ditch boards and agricultural committees, because there are fewer farmers to share the burden of collective action.

Most of them claimed that their biggest challenges are labor and water. A few of the panelists mentioned the difficulty of retaining skilled labor to operate complicated, expensive machinery and sometimes make critical farming decisions. The one organic farmer on the panel, Condon, said that he employs up to 30 laborers at a time, and that locating convenient housing for them was often difficult. Lisco cited “weed pressure” as a major problem, which he asserted often originated from seeds in irrigation water and from weeds growing along the side of roads.

All of them listed water as a critical concern, because they are often unsure whether they will have enough when they need it. Some, however, indicated that the Colorado-Big Thompson Project, by providing late season water, had helped to lessen the problem. One panelist, though, commented that the Boulder County Parks and Open Space Department had often blundered when buying properties by allowing their Colorado-Big Thompson water rights to be stripped off and transferred elsewhere.

Bateman claimed that the location of his farms in southeast Boulder County made water management particularly tricky. He claimed that until the Denver Water Board built Gross Reservoir, South Boulder Creek used to provide significant irrigation water into early August. Condon related that he has to water his vegetables every day of the growing season and that, after his ditch rights are depleted, he depends upon buying water from the City of Boulder and other municipalities.

Adrian Card, the moderator of the program, claimed that the experience of farming east of Highway 95 is quite different from that of farming west of it. Most of the panelists said that they have to coordinate the movement of their agricultural machinery along roads and highways with rush-hour traffic, sometimes having to work fields at night to accommodate vehicular transportation. Lisco, who, among other operations, runs Sombrero Ranch north of the City of Boulder, said that he used to be able to drive his horses from pastures south of the city along roads to the ranch. But for many years he has had to carry them in trucks.

Condon, the organic farmer, disclosed that retail marketing demands a lot of his attention. He said that he sells his produce to retail stores — including, occasionally, Alfalfa’s, to restaurants, to a “CSA” (community-supported agriculture), and at a stand. Almost all of it is sold between Fort Collins and Denver. He commented that the stand requires a lot of labor time to staff. He also noted that he feels obligated to provide the CSA with a variety of crops, some of which entail a loss or no profit.

The others said they generally sold their crops to processors or bulk consumers. Some sell corn to a large egg farm in Platteville that markets its eggs under the “Morning Fresh” brand. Shlagel said he sells beet sugar to Great Western Sugar, which, after bankruptcy many years ago, emerged as a producers’ co-op. Schlagel and another panelist said they sell barley to Miller/Coors. A couple of the farmers sell wheat to Con Agra in Commerce City. Lisco said he supplies forage on a retail basis to local cattle and chicken producers.

The conventional farmers indicated that they are deterred from organic farming by the paucity of markets. For instance, they claimed that only one mill will buy organic, Boulder County wheat, which is fairly low in protein.

The conventional farmers reported plowing much less than was formerly the custom, practicing “conservation tillage,” and leaving stalks and other residue on the surface of the land. This relatively new approach conserves moisture in the soil. Van Thuyne said that he has the soil in every part of his properties tested every year, so he knows exactly how much fertilizer to add.

Condon, however, observed that conservation tillage is usually not feasible for vegetable farms, because surface residue is detrimental.  “Getting enough nitrogen through organic sources is probably the biggest challenge of organic vegetable farming,” Condon commented. He asserted that vegetables heavily deplete the soil of nitrogen, and that to compensate for the loss he must spread on his farm large volumes of composted manure.

The conventional farmers claimed that they use pesticides more sparingly than in the past. A couple of them disclosed that they used to apply “pre-emergent” herbicide to the soil at the same time they seeded, but no longer. Van Thuyne remarked that seeds are now better than before, and that he avoids pesticide use by monitoring early plant health. He observed that corn and other crops can be planted in narrower rows by using GPS technology and that the narrower rows lead to a thicker plant canopy that discourages weeds. He asserted that Round-Up is the only herbicide that he uses on corn.

Schlagel said that he sometimes has to spray his barley to combat Russian wheat aphids. Lisco declared that he sprays his alfalfa with a synthetic, organic compound, sold as “Warrior,” to fight the alfalfa weevil. He claimed that he always consults with neighboring bee-keepers before he sprays to avoid harming the insects. Others recounted that they had to use special spraying techniques near residential areas to prevent dispersal of the chemicals.

Condon uses no pesticides. Consequently, he said that he sometimes loses entire crops.

Drill rig at Fairview and Hwy 119 in Weld County (photo courtesy Teresa Foster)

On Monday, February 6th, the City of Longmont will host a Community Open House to ask the public to respond to carefully framed questions regarding the city’s revision of Longmont’s Oil and Gas Regulations. This orchestrated format precludes meaningful options for responsible regulation.

Most Longmont residents want regulations that protect our health, safety, well-being, and property values. We don’t want fracking near our homes, schools, churches, and sensitive environments. We want responsible regulations that sustain our rights, but we will not be given an opportunity to vote on fracking in Longmont.

Monday’s Community Open House allows us to be seen and heard, without having to speak up or stand out.

Please attend the February 6th Open House to participate in a unified response.

LongmontROAR representatives will be outside to greet you when you arrive. We will have information and instructions on how to deliver a surprising and respectful message to our City Government. Your presence will be the voice of our community.

We would like to have an estimate of how many people might attend. Please signup here or at LongmontROAR.org. The website has additional information about the City Open House, the issue of Oil & Gas Wells and Fracking in Longmont, how this threatens Longmont residents, and what we can do.

When: February 6 th, 2012. 4:30 pm to 6:00 pm

Where: Longmont Civil Center, 350 Kimbark Street, Longmont CO 80501

Why: To demonstrate that we expect Responsible Oil and Gas Regulation.

We hope to see you there,

LongmontROAR

“One of the key elements that will ultimately determine how many millions of dollars will be spent cleaning up contamination that originated from milling operations once located on the City of Boulder’s 103-acre Valmont Butte property is whether or not adjacent properties were also contaminated by those operations.”

Read the entire article at the Boulder Weekly: Valmont cemetery families say city in danger of digging up human remains.

“Ever since the city of Boulder purchased its Valmont Butte property, city taxpayers have been picking up the tab to pay for the environmental sins committed by more than a century’s worth of long-departed users at the site. And that tab may be getting bigger as more ghosts from the property’s past continue to reveal themselves.”

Read the entire article at the Boulder Weekly: The ghosts of Valmont Butte.

Although we have frequently and enthusiastically commended Boulder County Commissioners Will Toor and Cindy Domenico and former County Commissioner Ben Pearlman on their work for Boulder County over the past years, we are compelled to express our disappointment in and disapproval of their recent decision to appoint Mr. Pearlman as Boulder County Attorney. A conflict-of-interest is inherent in a decision by a small public body to select one of its own members for a position that it controls, particularly when all of its members are part of the same political party and are generally allied on the issues which have arisen before it. This conflict results in an appearance of impropriety that seriously weakens the public trust in the fairness and openness of local government.

The appearance of impropriety created by the Pearlman appointment is exacerbated by similar, past personnel decisions by prior sets of Boulder County Commissioners. The damage is further compounded by the cascade of replacement appointments, precipitated by the Pearlman selection, which has and will be made by a relatively small core of Democratic Party workers, instead of voters in primary and general elections.

We question the need for the apparent haste with which Mr. Pearlman was appointed and submit that a more prudent course of action would probably have been the designation of an interim County Attorney, followed by a permanent selection after two new Commissioners are elected next fall. We also urge the current County Commissioners to adopt—and current and future County Commissioners to enforce—a rule that would prevent a sitting Commissioner from being appointed to another County position during his or her term in office or immediately after it ends.

Serving on a city or county board or commission is one way to give back to your community and participate in some tough decision making.

For the City of Boulder, the 2012 annual recruitment period opened January 4 and will close on February 16.  Application information is available on the city’s website.  The city is recruiting residents for the following boards and commissions:

• Arts Commission
• Beverage Licensing Authority
• Board of Zoning Adjustment
• Boulder Design Advisory Board
• Boulder Urban Renewal Authority
• Colorado Chautauqua Association
• Downtown Management Commission
• Environmental Advisory Board
• Housing Authority
• Human Relations Commission
• Landmarks Board
• Library Commission
• Open Space Board of Trustees
• Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
• Planning Board
• Transportation Advisory Board
• University Hill Commercial Area Management Commission
• Water Resources Advisory Board

Boulder County is also recruiting residents for positions on advisory boards and commissions.  To view descriptions of the various boards and commissions or to download an application, visit the Advisory Boards and Commissions page of the Boulder County website. The deadline to submit applications is 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Jan. 31.  For more information, call the Boulder County Commissioners’ Office at 303-441-1688.  The following county boards and commissions have open positions:

• Adult Protection Review Team
• Aging Advisory Council
• Board of Adjustment
• Board of Health
• Board of Review
• Citizen Review Panel
• Community Action Programs Administering Board
• Community Corrections Board
• Core Services Board
• Eldorado Springs LID Advisory Committee
• Extension Advisory Committee
• Fire Code Review Committee
• Historic Preservation Advisory Board
• Mosquito Control Advisory Board
• Parks and Open Space Advisory Committee
• Planning Commission
• Resource Conservation Advisory Board
• WorkForce Development Board

Sisk conservation easment locations (from Boulder County Commissioners' agenda packet)

This year, Boulder County spent almost $600,000 purchasing conservation easements. The county has spent more than $23 million over the past decade and around $66 million since the conservation easement program began. Meanwhile, county commissioners are considering a proposal that threatens to devalue all those easements—perhaps even render them worthless.

Near the intersection of Highway 36 and Boulder County Road 71N two miles northwest of Lyons is a 1,500-acre property that is under conservation easement (Boulder County staff memo). It is a beautiful piece of foothills land, and it’s one of the largest parcels under conservation easement in the county. It provides great wildlife habitat. Deer and elk herds regularly pass through. Elk bugle there every fall. Bobcats and coyotes roam the property, and mountain lions and bears occasionally make an appearance. The land is uninhabited, it’s quiet, and at night it’s completely dark. For five successive years in the 1990s, Boulder County bought a series of five conservation easements on this property. Total taxpayer spending on the easements was $1.5 million. Neighbors of the property who knew the landowner at the time say her primary goal was to prohibit any and all residential development in order to preserve the land for wildlife. For the past 15 years, that goal has been accomplished. Now it is at risk.

Sisk conservation easement (foreground) from Blue Mountain Road. Photo by the author.

Someone else now owns the property, and this week county commissioners are considering rewriting the five easements so that they become one easement—one easement that allows the landowner to build a 6,000-square-foot house on the property. Boulder County Parks and Open Space has offered two primary explanations for the county’s consideration of this change. One is that if the current owner wanted to, he could sell each of the five easement properties to different individuals, and “Boulder County staff is concerned about the potential impacts that separating the property into five pieces might have on the habitat the property provides for wildlife.” The current conservation easements don’t regulate fencing on the properties, but the new, consolidated easement wouldn’t regulate fencing either. How, then, would wildlife be impacted if the conservation easement land were owned by five different people? Why would elk care who owns the land they’re grazing?

The other explanation the county has tendered for rewriting the conservation easements is that the landowner’s lawyer claims the easements are ambiguous and could be interpreted as allowing the landowner to build a separate house on each of the five parcels. I’ve read the contracts, and they expressly prohibit residential construction—naming as a prohibited use of the property “the construction, reconstruction, or replacement of any structures…” There is a little more legalese to the prohibition, but the wording is not ambiguous. Perhaps the county feels it will avoid a lawsuit, saving taxpayers money, if it simply rewrites the easement now. But what’s to stop the current or future owners of this property from suing (or threatening to sue) the next time they want a change to the easement? How can taxpayers have any confidence that the county will work more vigorously to uphold the new conservation easement than it’s to working to uphold the current set of easements?

What’s going on near Lyons has ramifications for conservation easements throughout Boulder County. After all, what does a conservation easement buy for taxpayers? It doesn’t provide ownership rights in the property. It doesn’t give taxpayers the right to hike or bike on the property, or to use it in any way whatsoever. We have no more right to step foot on this land than on any other private property in the county. A conservation easement is nothing more than a contract prohibiting certain uses of a piece of land by the landowner. If the county is willing to rewrite that contract to remove those prohibitions just because the landowner asks it to, the contract has no teeth. Does the conservation easement, then, have any value at all?

I’m outraged that the county is considering allowing residential construction on this land. I live near the property and would love to see it remain pristine. But I’m more upset as a Boulder County taxpayer. The county paid $1.5 million to prevent residential construction here, and now—for no significant benefit to taxpayers or wildlife—the county is considering rewriting the easement to allow residential construction. What message would that send taxpayers, whose money the county continues to pour into new conservation easements every year?

Worse, what kind of precedent would it set—not just for this agreement, but for all the other conservation easements that the county has invested so much money in? What’s to prevent every other property owner with a Boulder County conservation easement from hiring a lawyer and petitioning county commissioners to make changes? Would the county fight harder to preserve smaller easements than to preserve 1,500 acres in which it’s already invested $1.5 million?

And for owners of large properties who are currently considering selling the county a conservation easement, shouldn’t a major revision in the terms of the Lyons-area agreement be reason to pause? The county seems to be saying that regardless of what’s written into a conservation easement contract today, commissioners might well revoke its most important provisions once ownership of the property changes hands. All the owner has to do is ask in the right way.

I see this proposal as a threat to the value of all the easements my (and your) tax money has paid for over the years. If it strikes you the same way, please join me at the hearing to discuss the issue on Tuesday morning, December 20, at 11 a.m. in the Commissioners’ Hearing Room, Third Floor, Boulder County Courthouse, 1325 Pearl Street, on the Pearl Street Mall in Boulder.

The yellow arrows point to Section 16. The dotted red line indicates the route of the proposed Jefferson Parkway. The Candelas project is the cross-hatched area. From http://www.boulderblueline.org/2010/11/21/jefferson-parkways-layers-of-complication/ (click to enlarge)

It’s been quite a week on the Jefferson Parkway front. Consider:

Fish & Wildlife clears the way for the Jefferson Parkway

Deciding against an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Parkway/land-transfer matter, FWS (Fish and Wildlife) published their Environmental Assessment (EA) with  a “Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI). They’re ready to transfer a 300 foot-wide strip of land along the eastern downwind edge of Rocky Flats (Indiana St.) to the Jefferson Parkway Authority for construction of a private tollway in exchange for adding Section 16 (a plot at the southwest corner of the Rocky Flats site) to the Wildlife Refuge. The EA (500 or so pages) is on line at http://www.fws.gov/rockyflats/ea2011.html. Though the EA was signed on Dec. 2 it was not released until Dec. 15, and even on the following day was not posted on the web site of FWS. The timing and failure to do a news release on a matter of such public concern is puzzling.

Superior takes FWS to court

A lawsuit filed in federal court on Dec. 15 by the Town of Superior accuses FWS of violating the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act as well as the National Environmental Policy Act in several respects. Here is a summary of main points of the lawsuit:

• The Sec’y. of the Interior lacks the statutory authority to transfer land.
• The EA issued by FWS failed to assess the environmental impacts of construction of the highway with respect to contamination and urban sprawl.
• The EA failed to assess the environmental impacts of adding Section 16 to the Refuge.
• The EA failed to assess the environmental impacts of the Parkway on other transportation corridors.
• The EA relies on the Northwest Corridor Study issued by the Colo. Dept. of Transportation in 2008, though this study was never submitted to the public for comment nor did it include an EIS.

For these reasons and more, the Town of Superior finds FWS’ issuance of the FONSI “arbitrary and capricious” and “not in accordance with law.” Superior seeks a full study leading to an EIS.

A deal to end Golden’s opposition to the Parkway

The Jefferson Parkway Authority and the Golden City Council are evidently close to finalizing a deal that will end Golden’s opposition to the Parkway. Though a final document has not been made available, the deal would, among other things, provide funds to “improve” Hwys. 93 and 6, the routes through Golden that would be utilized by traffic to and from the Parkway. On Thurs, Dec 15,  the Golden City Council heard comments. Opponents of the deal expect a council vote very soon, and they are not optimistic. A few months ago the Boulder City Council and Boulder County Commissioners accepted a deal to end their long-standing opposition to the Jefferson Parkway in exchange for helping pay to add Section 16 to the Rocky Flats Wildlife Refuge. Now the deal-making ball has been passed to Golden.  For more on the opposition, see http://www.gothebetterway.org/.

Results from sampling at Rocky Flats

Those of us involved in Rocky Flats Nuclear Guardianship (a project of the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center) are very familiar with the map produced in 1970 by AEC scientists P. W. Krey and E. P. Hardy showing high concentrations of plutonium in soil on and off the Rocky Flats site.

Plutonium distribution in 1970

The route of the proposed Jefferson Parkway passes through the heart of the most contaminated area along the eastern border of the site. We therefore thought that construction of a highway in this area would stir up clouds of plutonium-laden dust. Accordingly, last spring we asked FWS to allow specialists in our hire, Marco Kaltofen and a colleague from the Boston Chemical Data Corp., to visit the Rocky Flats site to collect soil samples in the area being considered for the highway. The samples would be analyzed for plutonium content. FWS denied this request. So when our specialists came to Colorado in September they collected samples outside the Refuge fence along Indiana St. On Dec. 15, in the midst of dealing with the three items mentioned above, we received Kaltofen’s report on the sampling. Plutonium was present in six samples collected along Indiana St. Four of these samples showed plutonium at levels in the range of what federal and state agencies regard as average background deposits locally from global fallout — 0.04 picocuries per gram of soil (pCI/g). But two of the samples showed elevated levels, one about 7 times average background (0.270 pCI/g), another almost 40 times background (1.579 pCI/g). When I shared this information with Michael Dixon, an official of FWS, he said he was “relieved to see that the levels are not above the action threshold for the remedy that the EPA selected.” His statement brings to mind the words of Ulrich Beck in Risk Society: “Whoever limits pollution has also concurred in it. . . Acceptable values may indeed prevent the very worst from happening, but they are at the same time ‘blank checks’ to poison nature and humankind a bit.”

Locations where samples showing plutonium were collected (2011) along Indiana St.

Concluding reflection

The findings from our soil sampling are disturbing in several respects. First, the levels of plutonium are much lower than we expected, given the large concentrations Krey and Hardy had recorded in 1970. Since the plutonium used at Rocky Flats has a half-life of 24,000 years, it is dangerously radioactive for at least a quarter-million years. In human terms it poses an essentially permanent danger. The plutonium Krey and Hardy found in 1970 is still dangerous. But where is it? If it’s no longer present in the surface soil near Indiana St., it has either percolated down to deeper levels or it’s been blown away by the strong winds common at Rocky Flats. The first of these possibilities points to the need for the EIS FWS doesn’t intend to do. The second means the plutonium has been carried by the wind throughout the Denver area and beyond, some of it undoubtedly into the lungs of unsuspecting people. If they get cancer 20 or 30 years later, they’ll not know what hit them. This reality, of course, is part of the tragedy of Rocky Flats historically. Plenty of plutonium in the form of particles too small to see but not to small to do harm has been released across the metro area over the years. Yet there has never been any direct health study or medical monitoring of people who live or work in areas contaminated with plutonium released from Rocky Flats. Hence, no one really knows the actual health effects. This is a cost that has never been counted. And now the cards are stacked in a way that may prevent us from knowing the effects of building a highway along the edge of the Rocky Flats site. Carelessness trumps caution.

I learned from emeritus CSU professor Ward Whicker about 20 years ago that background deposits of plutonium from global fallout in soil along the Front Range of the Rockies in Colorado averages 0.04 pCi/g, plus or minus a factor of 2 (ranging therefore from 0.02 pCi/g to 0.08 pCi/g). I believe the determination of this number was made in the 1970s. The late Ed Martell, NCAR radiochemist, insisted that some people would become ill and die as a result of exposure to background plutonium distributed around the world. Here in the Denver area we’ve always wanted to know the effects of Rocky Flats, so we’ve tried to distinguish between background plutonium deposits and the plutonium released from Rocky Flats. If in fact plutonium released from Rocky Flats that was detected in the soil forty years ago by Krey and Hardy has blown away, what has happened to so-called background deposits? Hasn’t it blown away as well? With the decline of atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons less plutonium is available from fallout. We need a new study to determine current average levels of plutonium in soil from global fallout along the Front Range. I suspect such a study would demonstrate that we are comparing current plutonium soil sampling results with an average background  number that is inflated because it is outdated. It may be that samples that we regard as “no more than background” in fact are well above background. Who would like to join me in asking EPA and CDPHE to conduct such a study?

“The Altona Grange building out there north of town, seemed to stand for that whole experience of farming, farming within a community. Community: that’s the key word. These pioneers of Boulder County joined forces to survive and prevail, out here in the Boulder valley, not just for the economic success of their individual farms, but to establish a genuine and deeply human society and culture. They had ready to their hand the model of the typical lodge or fraternal order, so prevalent in the nineteenth and most of the twentieth centuries. It was a way, an organization, of belongingness, in a common cause, cultural, economic, social, and spiritual.”

Read the entire essay at the Bouldercreek Angler: Discovering the Altona Grange-In the Nick of Time for Christmas.

Boulder County market farm (photo by Meaghan Huffman)

Democracy is decidedly out of fashion in 21^st-century American political culture. Indeed, one could argue that democracy has been out of fashion for decades. At this time, it seems almost truistic to note that what is often styled “representative government” is all too frequently representative of little more than private interests, special interests, and corporate interests. We have become narcotized to the contemporary reality that corporations and lobbyists often dictate law and policy—and unabashedly do so to a most disturbing and unprecedented extent.

The reasons for the demise of American democracy are not far to seek. For decades, tens of millions of Americans have routinely abdicated their right and responsibility to vote. Long work hours, incessant entertainment, bread and circuses of all kinds have kept many, if not most, Americans entirely out of the political process. And from at least as early as the 1970s, American corporations have been rapidly consolidating power and influence at the expense the American people. In his well-received 1995 book, When Corporations Rule the World, David C. Korten noted: “what we are seeing is a frontal assault on democratic pluralism to advance the ideological agenda of corporate libertarianism.”[1] The above-mentioned influences—and there are many others—have spawned our current political system, an impenetrable network of bureaucracies which have little desire or use for public “intervention”: we the people are expected to leave policy to the politicos.

This is no longer acceptable, as if it were ever acceptable. The evidence is all too clear: blind faith—or any faith—in our current political process and leadership is neither prudent, responsible, nor democratic. The nation-wide “Occupy movement” would seem to be an inevitable consequence of the decades-long status quo of corporate control of our political institutions. Meanwhile, here in Boulder County, an epicenter of all things organic, the presence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on the county’s publicly owned open space has been a source of alarm to the majority of residents of Boulder County in recent years. Boulder County citizens, highly informed and deeply concerned about the irrefutable dangers of GMOs, have found themselves consistently “shut out” of the crafting of public policy, and the governing bodies of Boulder County have consistently resisted public input.

In response to this unacceptable and undemocratic state of affairs, a local gathering of concerned citizens has recently forged The Citizen’s Cropland Policy, which is based upon the policy statement proposed by Boulder County Parks and Open Space. The Citizen’s Cropland Policy significantly improves and expands upon the original document in such a way as to preserve and sustain tens of thousands of arable acres of open space for future generations.

Context and Chronology

To better understand the background of the Citizen’s Cropland Policy, it might be helpful to briefly revisit the recent history behind the current GMO controversy in Boulder County. In 2003, local farmers were given permission by the Boulder County Commissioners to plant genetically modified BT corn on land they leased from open space in Boulder County. From 2001 to 2011, the area allotted for Bt corn expanded from 347 acres to over 2000 acres. At the time, few Boulder County citizens were aware that GMOs were being grown on 25,000 acres of their Open Space croplands.

The watershed year in the controversy was 2009.  That year six Boulder County farmers sought permission from the Boulder County Commissioners to plant genetically modified sugar beets on Boulder County Open Space. The still unresolved request ignited a public outcry, raised local awareness of the presence and implications of GMOS on publicly owned open space, and precipitated regional, national, and international press coverage.

To address mounting discontent throughout Boulder County, the Boulder County Commissioners created the Cropland Policy Advisory Group to assist the staff at Parks and Open Space. Two central goals of the consortium were: 1) to explore the purported benefits and potential risks of GMOs; and 2) to apply findings to the end of creating cropland policy. In 2011, the nine-member Cropland Policy Advisory Group (CPAG) comprised “three conventional farmers, two organic farmers, a representative from an organic dairy, and three at-large citizens.”[2] And in February, they began the process of crafting the policy. The 2011 Boulder County Parks and Open Space Cropland Policy Draft notes the following:

CPAG meetings were open to the public for observation; public comments were taken in written form and forwarded to CPAG for review; at the request of members of the public, a public input session was added the to CPAG schedule.[3]

In spite of such “appeals” for public observation and input, not a few Boulder County citizens felt their presence and input decidedly unwelcome at the CPAG meetings held in Longmont, Colorado in 2011. Moreover, their pleas for caution and their own extensive research—over 1000 pages of peer reviewed studies, articles, and public comments providing information on the dangers of GMOs—were summarily ignored in the final CPAG documents. And aside from minority reports filed by a few members of CPAG and a mere two articles, no documentation was to be found other than sources provided by Monsanto. Clearly, a new vision was in order.

So in true democracy fashion, a group of citizens, scientists, growers, farmer and policy wonks, took it upon themselves to craft the Citizens’ Cropland Policy to put forth as an alternative management policy for the 35,00 acres of Boulder County citizen owned Parks and Open Space agricultural lands. The eight guiding principles for the management of Boulder County Open Space agricultural lands are as follows:

1.  Boulder County Open Space (BCOS) agricultural lands will be managed with a focus on soil quality and health & sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices.
2.  The use of BCOS agricultural lands will be prioritized for food, fiber and fodder production that support local markets and provide direct benefit to the citizens of Boulder County.
3.  A multi-characteristic mapping and inventory of all BCOS agricultural lands shall be conducted and maintained to identify and rank the Highest and Best Use of all parcels.
4.  Testing and monitoring for soil health and other factors will be performed yearly and the data maintained as part of the mapping and inventory of all BCOS ag lands.
5.  GMOs are prohibited on BCOS agricultural lands.
6.  Glyphosate and neonicotinoid pesticides are banned on BCOS agricultural lands.
7.  A moratorium on the use of biosolids (sewage sludge) will be implemented until a thorough evaluation can be completed on the risks to BCOS agricultural lands.
8.  As with cropland, grazing land and livestock operations should be preferentially managed using sustainable and regenerative agricultural production principles and prioritized for local food and fiber production.

The Citizens’ Cropland Policy was grafted alongside and within the original CPAG document so the two documents may be compared side-by-side. This table can be accessed at www.bcccp.info.

On Thursday, December 8^th, the County Commissioners will be holding a public hearing beginning at 6:00pm at The Longmont Conference Center, 1850 Industrial Blvd in Longmont to hear public testimony regarding the Open Space Cropland Policy. Sometime this month, they will decide if they will continue to allow the planting of GMOs on Open Space lands.

Conclusion: A Call to Action

A critical joint meeting of the Boulder County Parks and Open Space Advisory Committee and the Food and Agriculture Policy Council took place in Longmont, Colorado on November 15th. The Citizen’s Cropland Policy was presented and was met with immediate praise that evening. Twenty-four hours later, the Boulder County Food and Agriculture Policy Council rejected the continuation of GMOs on Boulder County Open Space, advocating a phasing out of the undesired technology. And 24 hours after that, the Parks and Open Space Advisory Council voted 5 to 4 for a phase out of GMOs from Open Space land.

Shanan Olson, an organic farmer and member of Boulder County’s Food and Agriculture Policy Council stated:  “In my lifetime, this is an unprecedented act of democracy that I’ve never seen before.” As Americans struggle to reclaim their long lost freedoms, let us hope that what is now “unprecedented” may one day become the norm.