Dear Editor,

I'm perplexed by the BOT's decision to repeal the Town's Rights of Nature Resolution without public consideration of arguments against repeal. Every comment submitted to the Board on that Action Item opposed it, including one from the chair of the Sustainability Advisory Board.

Here are some of the questions that need to be discussed publicly. I hope you will bring the repeal back before the Board for consideration of these and other questions.

1. The RON is not legally binding, and the Guardians have no legal authority other than the responsibility to provide the BOT and Town staff information on the health of the Middle Boulder Creek Watershed and potential impact of Town decisions on that health. Where is the evidence the simple existence of the RON resolution will impede the Town's ability to pursue its application with the Water Court?

2. There have been two amendments to the original RON. The first amendment, which Gary Wockner and his partner NGO agreed to, removed language against the building of new dams. The second amendment, as far as I recall, restricted the RON to cover Middle Boulder Creek only within the Town's boundaries.

3. According to Gary Wockner's press release, Nederland's RON wasn't even mentioned in his NGO's comment to the Water Court.

4. Nederland filed arguments against the Eldora Ski Resort's application to draw more water from the creek. Why do the BOT and Town Administration consider it "beyond the pale" for anyone to file a similar argument against the Town's application to the Water Court? I find it odd that the AIM arguing for repeal included the Eldora Ski Resort as a "neighbor" also threatened by the RON, when Nederland has argued against their water claims.

5. Mayor Giblin stated that repealing the RON in no way diminishes the Town's commitment to the environment-- that Town will act to protect the environment through the Sustainability Advisory Board. But the chair of the SAB filed a formal comment AGAINST repeal, and the BoT didn't consider her arguments any more than the other citizen comments. If your decision to repeal reflects a fear that consideration for the health of the river, with no legal commitment, prevents you from acting freely on the town's water rights, then I think it's very clear that repeal means the Town is rejecting a grounded responsibility to consider watershed health, and the Sustainability Board will have no power to ensure environmental concerns are properly considered.

6. Nederland has very limited staffing, unlike the county, which employs experts in many different areas. Having RON Guardians provides Town with a kind of knowledgeable volunteer staff, who can offer the Mayor, BOT, and Town Administrator data and information on watershed health and potential impacts of Town decisions on its health--something far beyond the ability of our small Town staff. This is one more decision in a line of town decisions rejecting any obligation to seriously consider expert advice, especially on the environment and limits to growth, as evidenced especially in the Town's recent rejection of its IGA with the county on comprehensive development.

Respectfully yours,

Susan Wagner, Nederland