Opinion: Our state and local governments are failing us on air quality

This summer’s air quality here in the Denver metro region has been appallingly bad. According to AirNow.gov, almost every day we in Boulder have fairly high levels of pollution. As I write this, both PM 2.5 and PM 10 levels have the warning, “If you are unusually sensitive to ozone, consider reducing your activity level or shorten the amount of time you are active outdoors.” This has been the situation for most days for the last few months. How bad must it be in places like Commerce City?

There was a recent Camera story about how Colorado’s Air Quality Control Commission has provided new escape clauses in its rulings, in spite of the 2021 state law (HB21-1266) which supposedly encourages stronger enforcement of existing laws. I looked up the main state law on air quality (CRS 25-7-102, passed in 2019), and, no surprise, it has huge holes in its language: 

“To that end, it is the purpose of this article 7 to require the use of all available practical methods which are technologically feasible and economically reasonable so as to reduce, prevent, and control air pollution throughout the state of Colorado; to require the development of an air quality control program in which the benefits of the air pollution control measures utilized bear a reasonable relationship to the economic, environmental, and energy impacts and other costs of such measures; and to maintain a cooperative program between the state and local units of government.” 

What do we expect, when the AQCC is provided with ready-made excuses to avoid enforcement like “practical methods,” “economically reasonable,” “reasonable relationship to the economic, environmental, and energy impacts and other costs,” etc.?

To make matters worse, the Commission’s current proposal is to allow companies to “pay to play” by buying credits rather than cleaning up their emissions because these companies complain that otherwise they would have to move elsewhere. This reminds me of when I was on the City Council decades ago. Ball Aerospace complained about some new rules and threatened to move from Boulder. While their president was speaking, I did the math and then pointed out to him that the costs of moving far exceeded the cost of compliance. That ended that discussion.

Our Legislature and governor need to get serious. They need to stop giving “outs” to polluters, and actually reach our clean air goals and GHG emission reduction targets. It may cause some economic pain to a few but will provide health benefits to many. For starters, the Legislature should rewrite CRS 25-7-102 to state these goals as quantitative requirements. Provide short timelines for achievement. The only escapes should be for those few days a year when wildfires, etc., make non-attainment unavoidable. That may require limiting traffic and overall growth, but so be it. Polling results indicate that a majority of Coloradans want little to no growth anyway.

Locally, the “progressives” on the City Council need to stop jamming more and more development down our throats without ever giving us citizens a vote on limiting Boulder’s growth so we can preserve our quality of life. The council’s recent changes to the land use regulations will allow a lot more development but provide no mitigation of its impacts on air quality, traffic or our water supply, just like at the state. Apparently, these folks have completely bought into “supply side” economics, as if somehow building more will bring prices down, even though demand here far exceeds any conceivable supply increase.

Bizarrely, the recently revealed plans for the eastern part of Boulder Junction appear to provide enough job growth to use up all the plan’s proposed housing expansion, even without the afterthoughts by council members to also attempt to preserve existing businesses. So that plan will likely cause the “housing crisis” to get worse, as will traffic levels and air pollution.

The “progressives” have also failed to update Boulder’s inclusionary zoning rules, which require a certain percentage of permanently affordable housing. The current 25% (which allows “cash in lieu” and off-site units) is totally inadequate to meet the need for price-controlled housing, as are the Jobs-Housing Linkage Fees for new workers.

CU’s 2.9% growth spurt this year added over 1,000 additional students (CU is already a large fraction of Boulder’s population), further stretching the university’s housing supply for students. If this continues, Boulder’s housing efforts will be futile. The council should lean on the Legislature to get CU to slow down and, more importantly, spread its growth to other areas of the state.

Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of the new co
Read more

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Much of what has made Boulder such a great place to live has been the work of people half a century ago. These people recognized what I call the “ ratchet effect ,” that bad development decisions cannot be undone, so policies needed to be put in place to prevent, or at least limit, the damage that a growth-at-all-costs majority of the council could do. These policies include charter limits, like the Blue Line that prevents city water for development from being supplied above a certain altitude, the 55-foot height limit that has prevented high-rise development from cutting off our views, and the open space referendum process that allows a 60-day window for citizens to challenge disposals of open space. Other constraints include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s requirement for Planning Board agreement for land-use changes in the area inside the city limits (Area I) and additional agreement by the county commissioners and county Planning Commission for urban development further
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ
Read more