Poison in our drinking water?
The other morning I found myself praying for our planet, but primarily for our precious, life sustaining water. In the spring, the City of Boulder and the Northern Colorado Conservancy District plan to put the herbicide triclopyr in the Boulder Reservoir in order to combat the infestation of the Eurasian watermilfoil.
As noted in the Daily Camera, the Northern Colorado Conservancy District is already applying this herbicide upstream of the reservoir It will continue to be used in the reservoir “on an as-needed basis,” according to the city.
As usual, we are given many reassurances that it will be a very minimal amount and it will be harmless to humans. “Triclopyr was reviewed and approved for targeted EWM control in the Boulder Reservoir by the city’s Integrated Pest Management Program,” the city writes on its project webpage.
[Editor’s note: Triclopyr acid was found to be slightly toxic when ingested or absorbed through the skin, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, which classifies the pesticide — in use since 1979 — as having Category 3 toxicity. It is also a Category D chemical, meaning there is no evidence it causes cancer in humans.]
Poison in our drinking and recreational waters seems like a very bad idea to me. Surely there must be alternatives to helping control these weeds.
The past few years, the staff at the reservoir has been attempting to control the weeds by pulling them by hand, but their employees are very limited. What if several hundred concerned citizens showed up to pull these weeds? This would not only increase awareness about the difficulties we face with global warming, but provide us with concrete ways we could help.
Instead of feeling helpless, we could build community and participation.
What about those weeds too deep for hands to pull? We could call on organizations that teach and certify scuba divers to tackle these areas. We need to involve the University of Colorado, with its resources and scientific brain power, to investigate these issues.
We need new ways of thinking as to how we as humans will work with global warming and its manifestations. The old ways won’t work and in fact are part of the problem.
— Ellen Stark, Boulder
Wage hike won’t help
I read both Ms. Speer’s article (“Wisdom for the wages”) and “It’s time to demand a living wage” (Aug. 22) with interest, as someone who grew up in Boulder and deeply mourns the loss of affordability, and also as a small-business owner who squeaks by in the city.
The point that is unaddressed by both articles is that the proposed minimum wage increases will increase prices for consumers throughout the city — further stymieing affordability. Ms. Speer advocates passing along wage increases to consumers, but neglects the fact that should the city mandate significant wage increases, those consumers will be all of us, at every business we frequent. She also cites an example of a highly specialized organization, one whose products and services are not quickly supplanted by cheap, online alternatives. (Hello, Amazon, whose wages for workers will not increase.)
I recently bought a bagel with cream cheese for double what it cost 2-3 years ago. I shudder to think what my bagels (and groceries and other necessities) will cost if the minimum wage is doubled across the board.
If the true villains here are, as the second article suggests, landlords and sky-high rents (which my business currently pays), I have to think that a minimum wage increase will do nothing to affect affordability in Boulder. As wage increases are passed on to consumers, prices will rise and the circle will go around again. Unfortunately, no amount of minimum wage increase will help a minimum wage worker afford payments on a million dollar home (currently the basement price in Boulder) or rents that eat up half a paycheck.
To me, it seems that the true key to affordability in Boulder starts and ends with affordable housing and business rents. Until these are tackled, doubling the minimum wage will only exacerbate the problem (and require further minimum wage hikes).
Nearly doubling the minimum wage by 2030 seems like a drastic and overly simplistic solution to a complex problem that fails to address its root cause.
As a reader and voter who is invested in affordability, I would appreciate further discussion from the Boulder Weekly about this issue as the election approaches, especially from the perspective of inflation and cost of living.
— Elizabeth Chitty Sandoval, Boulder
A better way to pick a president
The electoral college is pretty unpopular — a 2023 Pew Research Center poll says that two-thirds of Americans want to get rid of it so that the winner of the popular vote becomes president. In 2000 and 2016, the GOP candidate who won in the electoral college lost the popular vote.
Assuming the moderately democratic nature of the U.S. survives the next year, we need to do something about this undemocratic system. It is undemocratic to create even a small degree of equality between the big states and the small states. California should have more voting power than Wyoming does, because it has more people.
Even if undoing that wasn’t part of the ultimate fix, addressing the problem with the electoral college would move the U.S. political system closer to the small-d democratic end of the spectrum.
I somewhat support the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would require participating states’ electoral college voters to support whoever won the popular vote. As of April 2024, 18 states with a collective 209 electoral college votes, 38.8%, have signed the compact: 270 are needed for it to take affect.
A permanent solution might be elusive. But I would like to see the electoral college reformed so that the votes are based solely on the number of congressional districts. Until we get there, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a good idea. It’s flawed, but a lot better than the status quo.
— Tom Shelley, Gunbarrel