New York Times should be investigated for impersonating a newspaper
Fixed it.
In Colorado it is cloaked as Proposition 112. Supposedly a "minimum safe distance" measure to protect "vulnerable" areas. If adopted, it would forbid energy work within 2500 ft of areas designated as "vulnerable" areas. What constitutes a "vulnerable area?" Well:
Vulnerable areas are defined by the initiative as "playgrounds, permanent sports fields, amphitheaters, public parks, public open space, public and community drinking water sources, irrigation canals, reservoirs, lakes, rivers, perennial or intermittent streams, and creeks, and any additional vulnerable areas designated by the state or a local government.
Anyone familiar with Colorado knows that this definition effectively closes off the entire state. There are intermittent streams virtually everywhere. As a mountain State, everyplace drains into one of the major rivers leaving the State: Colorado, Rio Grand, Platte, Arkansas, San Juan, etc. All of these rivers are used for agriculture and drinking water. Hence, every stream, every creek in the state is a drinking water source. Even out on the western slopes in the high-dry parts of the Colorado Plateau there are intermittent streams after rains. That roughly half mile restriction applies everywhere.
This is a blatant attempt by forces outside Colorado to shut down energy production in Colorado.
“Were still riding a nearly unprecedented energy boom in the United States, but the New York Times found “
Hmmmm....sure couldn’t tell by the price of gasoline lately
What a Surprise! NOT!!