Colorado Public Radio reports that Colorado’s congressional delegation is stepping into the long-running fight over a proposed expansion of the Mid-Continent Limestone Quarry above Glenwood Springs. The Glenwood Hot Springs Protection Act, introduced by Republican Rep. Jeff Hurd and Democratic Sens. Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper, would prevent the Department of the Interior from processing or approving an expansion of the quarry.
The concern is not difficult to understand. Opponents say expanding the quarry could affect the geothermal groundwater system feeding the hot springs, threatening an attraction that is practically welded to Glenwood Springs’ identity and economy. That does not mean the public record proves the quarry expansion will damage the springs. It means the potential consequence is serious enough that Colorado’s representatives are asking Congress to take the option off the table before the federal permitting process produces a very expensive, very permanent “whoops.”
And here is where this gets interesting for those of us who generally prefer Washington to keep its hands out of Colorado business: the quarry is on Bureau of Land Management property. So the federal government is already sitting at the table. The question is not whether Washington gets involved. Washington already owns the chair.
The Bullet Point Brief
- The bill would shut down the expansion path. The Glenwood Hot Springs Protection Act directs the Interior Department not to process or approve applications expanding mineral operations at the Mid-Continent Limestone Quarry. This is not Congress suggesting that bureaucrats “study it harder.” It is Congress telling them, “Nope.”
- Colorado has bipartisan sponsors on this one. Republican Congressman Jeff Hurd joined Democratic Senators Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper in backing the legislation. Apparently nothing builds bipartisan fellowship quite like the possibility of explaining to Colorado voters how Glenwood Springs ended up with fewer Glenwood Springs.
- The alleged risk is substantial, but it remains an alleged risk. Critics contend expanded mining could disturb the geothermal groundwater network that supplies the hot springs and, in turn, damage one of Glenwood’s signature economic assets. That deserves serious scrutiny. It is not the same thing as proof that catastrophe is inevitable.
- This is bigger than the usual “mining versus environment” bumper sticker. Hurd has explicitly framed himself as pro-mining and pro-resource development while questioning whether this particular expansion, in this particular place, justifies the risk. That is a considerably more adult question than choosing between “dig everything” and “touch nothing.”
- And yes, the feds matter because this is federal land. The Bureau of Land Management is part of the federal permitting equation, and the proposed legislation would bind the Secretary of the Interior. Local officials can object, advocate and raise hell, but they cannot simply wave a county resolution and erase federal jurisdiction. Welcome to the public-lands West, where even local control occasionally requires a permission slip from Washington.
My Bottom Line
My first reaction is simple: why in the hell is Congress deciding whether a quarry outside Glenwood Springs should get bigger? This feels exactly like the sort of land-use question that ought to be settled as close to Glenwood Springs as humanly possible. The people who live there will deal with the trucks, the dust, the jobs, the economic benefits and, if the opponents are right, the consequences to the springs. A senator in Washington will not.
But there is an inconvenient fact for us local-control types: this is BLM land. The federal government is not swooping into an otherwise local dispute because Congress suddenly discovered an uncontrollable passion for municipal planning. Federal officials already have authority in the process. So saying “keep the feds out of it” is a little like asking the landlord to stay out of a conversation about what happens to his building.
That does not automatically make this congressional bill good policy. I would much rather see a federal system that gives genuine weight to the local governments and communities forced to live with these decisions instead of replacing one Washington decision with another Washington decision. If Glenwood Springs and the surrounding community believe the quarry presents an unacceptable risk to an irreplaceable local asset, federal land managers ought to have to answer that concern with evidence, not bureaucratic shrugging.
And that is where the burden belongs. Nobody should pretend the quarry has already been proven guilty of murdering the hot springs. It hasn’t. But when the potential downside involves damaging the natural feature your town is literally named after, “we’ll find out afterward” is not much of a permitting philosophy. Protect the springs, demand the receipts, respect the locals, and maybe ask why Washington owns so much of the decision in the first place.
Source: Colorado Public Radio
Now It's Your Turn...