OUR VIEW

0 Comments | Gazette, The (Colorado Springs), Feb 9, 2008

A smelly lawsuit

The Sierra Club should back off

Sierra Club leaders don't seem to care much about keeping local utility rates in check, or preventing sewage spills into Fountain Creek. If they did, they wouldn't be pressing a federal judge to hammer Colorado Springs Utilities with needless enormous fines.

A U.S. District Court lawsuit, filed in 2005, says the cityowned utility violated the federal Clean Water Act with more than 100 sewage spills into Fountain Creek and its tributaries since 2001, 40 of which have occurred since 2004. The utility has paid fines totaling $270,000 for recent spills. Several of the spills were caused by severe storms, which can flood the system, vandalism and other unforeseen circumstances. They were not the direct fault of Utilities.

The cost of protecting the creek is considerably higher than the fines Utilities has already paid. The agency is spending more than $300 million on infrastructure improvements in order to prevent future spills.

Having learned from past mishaps, officials at Colorado Springs Utilities have begun expensive maintenance routines that exceed industry standards and regulations. Instead of cleaning pipes every four years, for example, the agency cleans them every two years. It has a robotic inspection program matched by few other utilities. As a result of these and other measures, sewage overflows are on the decline.

But none of this seems good enough to appease the apparent litigious inclinations of Sierra Club leaders. They want U.S. District Judge Walker Miller to impose fines of up to $32,500 per day per spill. They want the judge to order the city to speed up an upgrade plan that's slated to span the next 16 years. They want the court to soak Colorado Springs Utilities. What they either ignore or don't care about is that such penalties ultimately mean sticking it to ratepayers -- including those who can barely make ends meet.

The creek is important, and it's obvious that leaders of Colorado Springs Utilities know this. They've demonstrated that in the aforementioned efforts to address the problem. But people who need affordable heat are more important than the creek. Bizarre fines that will hurt them -- all in the name of sending a message that has already been heard -- will not help the common good.

Socking it to Utilities, while the agency is taking extraordinary measures to respect the creek, is like suing some schmuck for polluting the air when he's spending all his money getting a clunker to pass an emissions test. It's counter-productive. Allow Colorado Springs Utilities to continue pouring money into improvements, rather than fines. To avoid needless rate hikes, ask the Sierra Club to call off this fight and find a better cause -- like reducing the massive carbon footprint of Al Gore, a man the club endorsed for president.

An intentional remark

Every good trial lawyer knows the trick: Introduce the forbidden comment, knowing the judge will get mad and sustain an objection; then the attorney apologizes profusely. What matters most is that the jury heard it. All instructions by the judge that the comment be ignored are meaningless. Words cannot be unsaid.

When state Rep. Larry Liston referred to unwed teen mothers and fathers as "sluts," he meant what he said. Even in his quick apology, Liston defended his sentiment that society should shame teenage boys and girls who have children.

"If I've said something that offended somebody, I'm sorry, because we all say things and don't always think about them," Liston said in an interview with The Gazette.

But he did think about it.

His words came during a speech Wednesday after GOP legislators had been discussing Colorado's high teen pregnancy rate. His comment pertained directly to a topic he had assessed throughout the meeting. It was his crude way of saying it's not OK to be single, unwed, and pregnant -- a sentiment that's hard to oppose.

Liston also said: "It was not directed at any one group or individual, and I think I've learned a lesson."

But it was directed at a group. It was directed at pregnant teens and those who impregnate them. It was also directed at individuals - - all those individual teens who are pregnant and the individuals who impregnated them.

It appears Liston is sorry that his comment resulted in outrage, because the anger directed at him was unpleasant. He apologized not because he felt badly for the groups and individuals he offended, but because he wanted to diffuse criticism.

Liston shouldn't have used the term "sluts," because it's cruel, unsophisticated, and it fails to win hearts and minds. But he said it, the jury heard it, and it can't be taken back. It makes Liston a heartless enemy to those he seeks to persuade.

What's sad is that Liston has a legitimate concern, which could have been made in a manner that would have been helpful rather than divisive.

Liston could have said that unwed children shouldn't have sex, and that babies do best with two parents in stable households. He could have urged fellow Republicans to examine ways to spread the message of abstinence, finding ways to make it catch on.