News
Elbert 7.18.13
Elbert County
July 18, 2013
75 cents
A Colorado Community Media Publication
ourelbertcountynews.com
Elbert County, Colorado • Volume 118, Issue 25
County rejects oil and gas regulations Unsettled matters put issue back on drawing board By Deborah Grigsby
dgrigsby@ourcoloradonews.com The State of Colorado has regulations for oil and gas exploration — and it looks like Elbert County is going to rely on them pretty heavily. In a shocking 2-1 vote July 10, the Board of County Commissioners rejected an
amendment to current land use regulations that would have better defined the county’s application and issuance process for oil and gas exploration permits. The move left many residents who have followed the document for the past 30 months, including District 3 Commissioner Larry Ross, scratching their heads. “I’m not really sure where this leaves us as a county,” said Ross, who cast the dissenting vote. “I, like everyone else, have been left to speculate on what happened.” Although some believe the decision was
a direct slap in the face to the all-volunteer planning committee that helped craft and edit the document, District 2 Commissioner Kurt Schlegel said the decision was based more on not duplicating existing state laws. Grant Thayer, a retired petroleum engineer and member of the planning committee, resigned in light of the decision, stating in a letter submitted to the board that “without providing any leadership in the development of the proposed regulations, the commissioners have signaled a clear lack of confidence in the planning commis-
sion, its leadership or its recommendations to the BOCC.” Thayer, who could not be reached for immediate comment, described the board’s vote as an “unexpected ambush.” According to Ross, the vote takes Elbert County back to square one. “The road map that so many people worked on is now in the trash,” he sighed. Schlegel suggests the state already has regulations that govern oil and gas exploraGas continues on Page 4
Sides reach deal on two gun issues Lawsuit still going forward to challenge new statutes By Vic Vela
vvela@ourcoloradonews.com
Braylon Briddle of Elizabeth poses with “Moose,” an exotic teacup pig, shortly before the July 6 Patriotic Pet Parade in downtown Elizabeth. A handful of pets, including ducks and dogs, marched down Main Street as part of a community event put together by volunteers.
Furry, feathered fun Photos by Deborah GriGsby Local pets took to the streets of Elizabeth July 6 for the town’s first Patriotic Pet Parade. Dogs, pigs and even a duck were among more than two dozen entries donning flags and other celebratory wear. The event was organized by Connie Lewis and Nora Nikkel of the Elizabeth Downtown Advisory Committee. Local vendors offered additional shopping, and a performance by Elbert-based Circus-Your-Way helped create the feel of a traditional hometown celebration.
Acrobatic artist Brianna Martinez, 14, shows off her skills during an impromptu performance July 6 in downtown Elizabeth. Martinez is a performer with Circus-Your-Way, based in Elbert. POSTAL ADDRESS
Printed on recycled newsprint. Please recycle this copy.
“Nibbles” takes in some attention from Shelby White at the conclusion of the Patriotic Pet Parade in downtown Elizabeth. The harnessed and costumed duck was the crowd favorite among 28 entries.
It’s pretty rare when both sides of a guncontrol debate — much less a lawsuit — walk away happy. But that’s what happened recently, after parties who are tangled in a lawsuit over recently instituted Colorado gun laws came to an agreement on a couple of areas of contention. The agreement was limited to clarifying language having to do with limits on gun ammunition magazines and whether gun owners could allow anyone besides themselves to handle those magazines. The agreement had nothing to do with the meat that’s left in the lawsuit, which deals with whether the gun laws — which were passed by the Democrat-controlled Legislature and signed into law by Gov. John Hickenlooper earlier this year — violate the Second Amendment. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Hickenlooper — which are made up of gun-rights groups that include 55 county sheriffs — were set to ask a federal judge on July 10 to block parts of the gun laws, specifically one that limits large-capacity ammunition magazines to 15 rounds. But, the night before the hearing, the two sides ended up coming to an agreement that clarifies which magazines are banned under the law, and clears up confusion over issues pertaining to the temporary possession of gun magazines by someone besides the owner. “We were ready for what we thought would be a big battle,” said plaintiffs’ attorney Dave Kopel. “As it turned out, 24 hours from the hearing, we had everything we were asking for.” Hickenlooper, a Democrat, and Attorney General John Suthers, a Republican, had drafted memos outlining how the gun laws should be enforced. But the plaintiffs argued that the memos regarding the magazine limit law needed clarification. The plaintiffs were concerned that the law banned magazines with removable baseplates, which are “designed to be readily converted” to hold more than 15 rounds. This, they were set to argue, could have ended up banning nearly all ammunition magazines. The plaintiffs also were concerned that language in the law that requires gun owners to be in “continuous possession” of their magazines would essentially bar anyone else besides the gun owners from handling them. The state’s attorneys agreed to make technical language adjustments in the Guns continues on Page 4