Colorado's Senate adjourned after having failed to appoint a replacement for the late Senator Charles J. Hughes. There would be only one Senator from Colorado until January 20, 1913.
It was a Saturday.
Last edition:
Showing posts with label Colorado. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Colorado. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 6, 2026
Friday, May 1, 2026
Monday, May 1, 1911. Light v. United States. "All the public lands of the nation are held in trust for the people of the whole country."
U.S. Supreme Court
Light v. United States, 220 U.S. 523 (1911)
Light v. United States
No. 360
Argued February 27, 28, 1911
Decided May 1, 1911
220 U.S. 523
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Syllabus
United States v. Grimaud, ante, p. 220 U. S. 506, followed to effect that Congress may authorize an executive officer to make rules and regulations as to the use, occupancy and preservation of forests and that such authority so granted is not unconstitutional as a delegation of legislative power.
At common law, the owner was responsible for damage done by his livestock on land of third parties, but the United States has tacitly suffered its public domain to be used for cattle so long as such tacit consent was not cancelled, but no vested rights have been conferred on any person, nor has the United States been deprived of the power of recalling such implied license.
While the full scope of § 3, Art. IV, of the Constitution has never been definitely settled, it is primarily a grant of power to the United States of control over its property, Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 89; this control is exercised by Congress to the same extent that an individual can control his property.
It is for Congress and not for the courts to determine how the public lands shall be administered.
Congress has power to set apart portions of the public domain and establish them as forest reserves and to prohibit the grazing of cattle thereon or to permit it subject to rules and regulations.
Fence laws may condone trespasses by straying cattle where the laws have not been complied with, but they do not authorize wanton or willful trespass, nor do they afford immunity to those willfully turning cattle loose under circumstances showing that they were intended to graze upon the lands of another.
Where cattle are turned loose under circumstances showing that the owner expects and intends that they shall go upon a reserve to graze thereon, for which he has no permit and he declines to apply for one, and threatens to resist efforts to have the cattle removed and contends that he has a right to have his cattle go on the reservation, equity has jurisdiction, and such owner can be enjoined at the instance of the government, whether the land has been fenced or not.
Quaere, and not decided, whether the United States is required to fence property under laws of the state in which the property is located.
This Court will, so far as it can, decide cases before it without reference to questions arising under the federal Constitution. Siler v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 213 U. S. 175.
The Holy Cross Forest Reserve was established under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1891. By that and subsequent statutes, the Secretary of Agriculture was authorized to make provisions for the protection against destruction by fire and depredations of the public forest and forest reservations, and to
"make such rules and regulations and establish such service as will insure the objects of such reservations -- namely, to regulate their occupancy and use and to preserve the forests thereon from destruction."
26 Stat. 1103, c. 561; 30 Stat. 35, c. 2; Act of Congress February 1, 1905, 33 Stat. 628, c. 288; 7 Fed.Stat.Ann. 310, 312, and Fed.Stat. Ann.Supp. 1909, p. 663. In pursuance of these statutes, regulations were adopted establishing grazing districts on which only a limited number of cattle were allowed. The regulations provided that a few head of cattle of prospectors, campers, and not more than ten belonging to a settler residing near the forest might be admitted without permit, but, saving these exceptions, the general rule was that "all persons must secure permits before grazing any stock in a national forest."
On April 7, 1908, the United States, through the district attorney, filed a bill in the Circuit Court for the District of Colorado reciting the matters above outlined, and alleging that the defendant, Fred Light, owned a herd of about 500 cattle and a ranch of 540 acres, located two and a half miles to the east, and five miles to the north, of the reservation. This herd was turned out to range during the spring and summer, and the ranch then used as a place on which to raise hay for their sustenance.
That between the ranch and the reservation was other public and unoccupied land of the United States, but, owing to the fact that only a limited number of cattle were allowed on the reservation, the grazing there was better than on this public land. For this reason, and because of the superior water facilities and the tendency of the cattle to follow the trails and stream leading from the ranch to the reservation, they naturally went direct to the reservation. T he bill charged that the defendant, when turning them loose, knew and expected that they would go upon the reservation, and took no action to prevent them from trespassing. That, by thus knowingly and wrongfully permitting them to enter on the reservation, he intentionally caused his cattle to make a trespass, in breach of the United States property and administrative rights, and has openly and privately stated his purpose to disregard the regulations, and without permit to allow, and, in the manner stated, to cause, his cattle to enter, feed, and graze thereon.
The bill prayed for an injunction. The defendant's general demurrer was overruled.
His answer denied that the topography of the country around his ranch or the water and grazing conditions were such as to cause his cattle to go on the reservation; he denied that many of them did go thereon, though admitting that some had grazed on the reservation. He admitted that he had liberated his cattle without having secured or intending to apply for a permit, but denied that he willfully or intentionally caused them to go on the reservation, submitting that he was not required to obtain any such permit. He admits that it is his intention hereafter, as heretofore, to turn his cattle out on the unreserved public land of the United States adjoining his ranch to the northeast thereof, without securing or applying for any permit for the cattle to graze upon the so-called Holy Cross Reserve; denies that any damage will be done if they do go upon the reserve, and contends that if, because of their straying proclivities, they shall go on the reserve, the complainant is without remedy against the defendant at law or in equity, so long as complainant fails to fence the reserve, as required by the laws of Colorado. He claims the benefit of the Colorado statute requiring the owner of land to erect and maintain a fence of given height and strength, in default of which the owner is not entitled to recover for damage occasioned by cattle or other animals going thereon.
Evidence was taken, and, after hearing, the circuit court found for the government and entered a decree enjoining the defendant from in any manner causing, or permitting, his stock to go, stray upon, or remain within the said forest or any portion thereof.
The defendant appealed and assigned that the decree against him was erroneous; that the public lands are held in trust for the people of the several states, and the proclamation creating the reserve without the consent of the State of Colorado is contrary to and in violation of said trust; that the decree is void because it, in effect, holds that the United States is exempt from the municipal laws of the State of Colorado, relating to fences; that the statute conferring upon the said Secretary of Agriculture the power to make rules and regulations was an unconstitutional delegation of authority to him, and the rules and regulations therefore void, and that the rules mentioned in the bill are unreasonable, do not tend to insure the object of forest reservation, and constitute an unconstitutional interference by the government of the United States with fence and other statutes of the State of Colorado, enacted through the exercise of the police power of the state.
MR. JUSTICE LAMAR, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the Court.
The defendant was enjoined from pasturing his cattle on the Holy Cross Forest Reserve because he had refused to comply with the regulations adopted by the Secretary of Agriculture, under the authority conferred by the Act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stat. 35, c. 2), to make rules and regulations as to the use, occupancy, and preservation of forests. The validity of the rule is attacked on the ground that Congress could not delegate to the Secretary legislative power. We need not discuss that question, in view of the opinion in United States v. Grimaud, ante, p. 220 U. S. 506.
The bill alleged, and there was evidence to support the finding, that the defendant, with the expectation and intention that they would do so, turned his cattle out at a time and place which made it certain that they would leave the open public lands and go at once to the reserve, where there was good water and fine pasturage. When notified to remove the cattle, he declined to do so, and threatened to resist if they should be driven off by a forest officer. He justified this position on the ground that the statute of Colorado provided that a landowner could not recover damages for trespass by animals unless the property was enclosed with a fence of designated size and material. Regardless of any conflict in the testimony, the defendant claims that, unless the government put a fence around the reserve, it had no remedy, either at law or in equity, nor could he be required to prevent his cattle straying upon the reserve from the open public land on which he had a right to turn them loose.
At common law, the owner was required to confine his livestock, or else was held liable for any damage done by them upon the land of third persons. That law was not adapted to the situation of those states where there were great plains and vast tracts of unenclosed land, suitable for pasture. And so, without passing a statute, or taking any affirmative action on the subject, the United States suffered its public domain to be used for such purposes. There thus grew up a sort of implied license that these lands, thus left open, might be used so long as the government did not cancel its tacit consent. Buford v. Hout, 133 U. S. 326. Its failure to object, however, did not confer any vested right on the complainant, nor did it deprive the United States of the power of recalling any implied license under which the land had been used for private purposes. Steele v. United States, 113 U. S. 130; Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Pet. 513.
It is contended, however, that Congress cannot constitutionally withdraw large bodies of land from settlement without the consent of the state where it is located, and it is then argued that the Act of 1891, providing for the establishment of reservations, was void, so that what is nominally a reserve is, in law, to be treated as open and unenclosed land, as to which there still exists the implied license that it may be used for grazing purposes. But
"the nation is an owner, and has made Congress the principal agent to dispose of its property. . . . Congress is the body to which is given the power to determine the conditions upon which the public lands shall be disposed of."
Butte City Water Co. v. Baker, 196 U. S. 126.
"The government has, with respect to its own lands, the rights of an ordinary proprietor to maintain its possession and to prosecute trespassers. It may deal with such lands precisely as a private individual may deal with his farming property. It may sell or withhold them from sale."
Canfield v. United States, 167 U. S. 524. And if it may withhold from sale and settlement, it may also, as an owner, object to its property being used for grazing purposes, for
"the government is charged with the duty and clothed with the power to protect the public domain from trespass and unlawful appropriation."
The United States can prohibit absolutely or fix the terms on which its property may be used. As it can withhold or reserve the land, it can do so indefinitely. Stearns v. Minnesota, 179 U. S. 243. It is true that the "United States do not and cannot hold property as a monarch may, for private or personal purposes." Van Brocklin v. Anderson, 117 U. S. 158. But that does not lead to the conclusion that it is without the rights incident to ownership, for the Constitution declares, § 3, Art. IV, that
"Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or the property belonging to the United States."
"The full scope of this paragraph has never been definitely settled. Primarily at least, it is a grant of power to the United States of control over its property."
"All the public lands of the nation are held in trust for the people of the whole country." United States v. Trinidad Coal Co., 137 U. S. 160. And it is not for the courts to say how that trust shall be administered. That is for Congress to determine. The courts cannot compel it to set aside the lands for settlement, or to suffer them to be used for agricultural or grazing purposes, nor interfere when, in the exercise of its discretion, Congress establishes a forest reserve for what it decides to be national and public purposes. In the same way and in the exercise of the same trust, it may disestablish a reserve, and devote the property to some other national and public purpose. These are rights incident to proprietorship, to say nothing of the power of the United States as a sovereign over the property belonging to it. Even a private owner would be entitled to protection against willful trespasses, and statutes providing that damage done by animals cannot be recovered unless the land had been enclosed with a fence of the size and material required do not give permission to the owner of cattle to use his neighbor's land as a pasture. They are intended to condone trespasses by straying cattle; they have no application to cases where they are driven upon unfenced land in order that they may feed there. Lazarus v. Phelps, 152 U. S. 81; Monroe v. Cannon, 24 Mont. 324; St. Louis Cattle Co. v. Vaught, 1 Tex.Civ.App. 388; The Union Pacific v. Rollins, 5 Kan. 176.
Fence laws do not authorize wanton and willful trespass, nor do they afford immunity to those who, in disregard of property rights, turn loose their cattle under circumstances showing that they were intended to graze upon the lands of another.
This the defendant did, under circumstances equivalent to driving his cattle upon the forest reserve. He could have obtained a permit for reasonable pasturage. He not only declined to apply for such license, but there is evidence that he threatened to resist efforts to have his cattle removed from the reserve, and in his answer he declares that he will continue to turn out his cattle, and contends that, if they go upon the reserve the, government has no remedy at law or in equity. This claim answers itself.
It appears that the defendant turned out his cattle under circumstances which showed that he expected and intended that they would go upon the reserve to graze thereon. Under the facts, the court properly granted an injunction. The judgment was right on the merits, wholly regardless of the question as to whether the government had enclosed its property.
This makes it unnecessary to consider how far the United States is required to fence its property, or the other constitutional questions involved. For, as said in Siler v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 213 U. S. 193,
"where a case in this Court can be decided without reference to questions arising under the federal Constitution, that course is usually pursued, and is not departed from without important reasons."
The decree is therefore
Affirmed.
The decision still makes Bob Ide and Bill Allemand cry.
There was a major snowstorm in Nebraska.
May Day a Snow Day in 1911
Not from 1911, but 1912:
Last edition:
Sunday, April 30, 1911. Fire in Bangor, Maine.
Labels: 1910s, 1911, Disaster, Francisco I. Madero, Maine, Maine (Bangor), Mexican Revolution, Mexico, Porfirio Díaz
Friday, April 10, 2026
Monday, April 10, 1876. The Army enlists Curly, Denver celebrates with beer.
Colonel John Gibbon enlisted 23 Crow men at Crow Agency (then located on Mission Creek, present day Livingston, MT) to serve as scouts for his Montana Column moving east along the Yellowstone River.
These included the famous Crow Scout Curly (Ashishishe).
He passed away of May 22, 1923.
Married twice, he had one daughter. He has a large number of descendants.
Early Colorado brewers celebrated the centennial with a commemorative bock beer
This week in 1876: The Denver Brewing Company markets its ‘peculiar and superior beverage’ to local saloons
Last edition:
Monday, March 23, 2026
Railhead: Cheyenne Railroad Historian Rushing To Save Abandoned Rail Line Before It Disappears
Railhead: Cheyenne Railroad Historian Rushing To Save Abando...: Cheyenne Railroad Historian Rushing To Save Abandoned Rail Line Before It Disappears
Wednesday, March 18, 2026
Railhead: The Nightcrawler. The train from Denver, Colorado, to Billings, Montana.
Railhead: The Nightcrawler. The train from Denver, Colorado...: I had no idea that this is what this train was called. Thanks go out to MKTH for letting me know! I've been looking into local passen...
The Nightcrawler. The train from Denver, Colorado, to Billings, Montana.
I had no idea that this is what this train was called. Thanks go out to MKTH for letting me know!
I've been looking into local passenger train travel as part of my efforts with a novel. What I found is that I knew very little about it. Probably more than your average bear, but that's about it. I'd long assumed that a person could board a train in Casper in 1916 and take the train to Douglas or Cheyenne, and then return that evening, but the more I looked into it, that was just an assumption.
I'm not the one who figured out how it really worked. That goes to MKTH. the result is fascinating.
It turns out I was right sort of. The Burlington Northern ran a train from Denver Colorado, to Billings Montana, and vice versa, daily. This article takes a look at it.
What I imagined, for novel purposes, was boarding in Casper, and traveling to Douglas. I may, as I work at it, make it Cheyenne.
Union Station, Denver Colorado
Union Station, Denver Colorado
Union Station as viewed from in front of Denver's Oxford Hotel.
Anyhow, this is a really interesting article and give a really good look at what traveling on the Denver to Billings night train was like, complete with stops for food, which is something I hadn't considered. It also picked up mail, and my source indicates, cream, something I also hadn't figured, but that may explain why the creamery my family owned was just one block from the Burlington Northern. In fact it probably does.
Jersey Creamery Inc.
The trip took 19 hours. It take 8 hours today by car, assuming good weather conditions, and not figuring in stops for food, etc. The train moved about 34 miles an hour.
We'll look at the return trip first. The train having come up from Cheyenne boarded there at 12:49 in the morning. Uff.
It got to Casper at 6:20 in the morning, having made a couple of stops along the way.
Burlington Northern Depot, Casper Wyoming
What I imagined?
Not really. And I also had no idea that there was a major cafe right off the railroad. This article deals with the early 1960s, but I can see that some variant of it was there decades prior. That makes piles of sense, really. Of course there would be. How else would people eat if they were making the long journey?
It simply hadn't occurred to me.
In my imaginary trip., that'd be it. If I stuck with the Douglas variant of this, my protagonist would be boarding the train in the early, early morning hours and get in a couple of fitful hours of sleep, probably interrupted by a stop in little Glenrock. Indeed, this train stopped everywhere to pick up mail, and a few passengers.
What about the other way around?
Well that was a day trip, but as we can see, the 19 hours the train traveled in total meat that it took a good 6.5 hours to travel just from Cheyenne to Casper. Going the other way would mean the same thing, and likely a bit in reverse. The 6.5 hour trip from Cheyenne to Casper was the second major leg of the trip (it'd still stop in numerous small towns in between), the first being Denver to Cheyenne. Going the other way around meant that the Cheyenne to Denver leg was about five hours. The article notes that the train actually arrived from Billings 40 minutes before its 7:00 p.m. departure. So it arrived, more or less, at 6:00 p.m. and changed crews. That would have meant that it left Cheyenne, on the way to Denver, at about 1:00 p.m. or so, which makes sense. Passengers traveling all the way to Denver would have eaten lunch there.
By extension, however, that meant that the train left Casper at about 6;00 in the morning, approximately.
These times are almost unimaginable now. When we had good air travel to Denver I'd frequently board United Express here about 6;00 a.m. and be in Denver about 8:30, and take the train downtown and be to work by 9. I'd be back in Casper on the redeye about 10:00, or if I was lucky, 6:00.
And when I go to Cheyenne, I drive. Normally that takes me a little under three hours. I haven't stayed overnight in Cheyenne for years, although I recently had an instance which should really cause me to.
Anyhow, if I'm looking at 1916, why not just drive?
Well, in 1916 most Americans, including most Wyomingites, didn't own automobiles, and those who did, didn't normally make long trips with them. They frankly weren't that reliable, even though they were simple. Roads also tended to be primitive, and not really maintained for weather. Could a person have driven from Casper to Cheyenne in a Model T, the most likely car they would have had? Yes, but it wouldn't have been any faster. It may well have been slower, quite frankly, as well as much riskier.
Saturday, March 14, 2026
Tuesday, March 14, 1876. The draft of the Colorado Constitution.
Colorado's constitutional convention wrapped up, having produced a draft of the foundational document which Colorado still uses.
Last edition:
Saturday, February 7, 2026
Monday, February 7, 1876. Colorado women get to vote.
The Territory of Colorado granted women the full franchise. Wyoming had done the same in 1869.
It didn't make the front page of this Denver newspaper, but then, this was probably a morning addition.
Saturday, February 5, 1876. Doc Holliday arrives in Cheyenne.
Labels: 1870s, 1876, 1880s, 1887, Catholic, Frontier Wyoming, Personalities, religion, South Dakota (Deadwood), The Frontier West, Wyoming, Wyoming (Cheyenne)
Wednesday, December 31, 2025
In Memoriam. Ben Nighthorse Campbell.
Former Colorado Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell died yesterday at age 92. He was an enrolled member of the Northern Arapaho tribe and a Korean War veteran of the U.S. Air Force.
Campbell was originally elected to the Senate as a Democrat, but later switched to the Republican Party.
Wednesday, November 26, 2025
Monday, November 26, 1945. Now's the Time, Wolves and War Brides, Questionable claim about Goering, Test tube babies in Virgin hospitals, Japanese social insurance, ties for Christmas.
Recorded on this day in 1945:
The Sheridan Press reported on wolves and war brides.
The story on the big wolf is ironic in a contemporary context. Wolves were wiped out in Colorado, probably and in Wyoming, probably, until the major reintroduction effort of the 2000s began. It's been a huge success in Wyoming, for which I'm glad, in spite of my initial skepticism. An ongoing effort is occuring in Colorado, which is meeting a lot of opposition in the anti nature Freedom Caucus era.
The Rocky Mountain News, which I remember from the 70s, 80s and 90s, when it was the best, in my view, of the two Denver papers, was a bit sensationalist at the time, which I've only recently come to appreciate. It was always a "tabloid", with that sort of paper format for some reason having a reputation of that type. I've never heard of the story related by the headline here:
A little digging finds that this claim was flat out untrue.
The News also reported on, oddly enough, test tube babies, something that is way earlier than I'd have ever supposed.
The first "test tube" baby was born in 1978. That person Louise Brown, is still with us. The first example of IVF in a mammal did not occur until 1959. Apparently the proponent of this suggestion was well ahead of her time in terms of scientific knowledge.
It's notable that the suggestion had a strong eugenics characteristic. That drive is also now very much coming into fruition, with designer babies now becoming a thing.
On the underlying concern, the explosion in births and the drop in the average age for a woman to first give birth that commenced at this time shows the concern was misplaced. As a Catholic, of course, I regard IVF as both unnatural and immoral. The bizarrely pro natalist Trump administration is all in on it.
The News also reported on Japanese social insurance, something being brought in by the progressive and distributist MacArthur occupation.
The cartoons of the day.
A classic gift was suggested.
British troops swept the Sharon plain in reaction to a prior days terrorist attack.
Ezra Pound was indicted for a second time on 19 counts of treason.
Last edition:
Saturday, November 22, 2025
Monday ,November 22, 1875. The death of Vice President Henry Wilson.
Ardent opponent of slavery and career politician Vice President Henry Wilson died in office at age 63.
GENERAL ORDERS, NO. 97
WAR DEPARTMENT,
ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE
I. The following order announces the decease of Henry Wilson, Vice-President of the United States:
EXECUTIVE MANSION,
Washington, November 22, 1875.
It is with profound sorrow that the President has to announce to the people of the United States the death of the Vice-President, Henry Wilson, who died in the Capitol of the nation this morning.
The eminent station of the deceased, his high character, his long career in the service of his State and of the Union, his devotion to the cause of freedom, and the ability which he brought to the discharge of every duty stand conspicuous and are indelibly impressed on the hearts and affections of the American people.
In testimony of respect for this distinguished citizen and faithful public servant the various Departments of the Government will be closed on the day of the funeral, and the Executive Mansion and all the Executive Departments in Washington will be draped with badges of mourning for thirty days.
The Secretaries of War and of the Navy will issue orders that appropriate military and naval honors be rendered to the memory of one whose virtues and services will long be borne in recollection by a grateful nation.
U. S. GRANT
By the President:
HAMILTON FISH,
Secretary of State.
II. On the day next succeeding the receipt of this order at each military post the troops will be paraded at 10 o'clock a. m. and this order read to them.
The national flag will be displayed at half-staff.
At dawn of day thirteen guns will be fired. Commencing at 12 o'clock noon seventeen minute guns will be fired, and at the close of the day the national salute of thirty-seven guns.
The usual badge of mourning will be worn by officers of the Army and the colors of the several regiments will be put in mourning for the period of three months.
By order of the Secretary of War:
E. D. TOWNSEND, Adjutant-General.
He had been born Jeremiah Jones Colbath and born to extremely impoverished circumstances, growing up partially as an indentured servant to a farmer in his region. At age 21 he changed his name, although the reasons really aren't known. He became a shoemaker, and then entered politics as a Whig. He was one of the organizers of the Free Soil Party in 1852 and became a U.S. Senator in 1855. He served in the Union Army during the Civil War and exited the war back into politics as an advocate of the rights of freed slaves.
On the same day:
Executive Order—Expansion of Ute Indian Reservation TerritoryNovember 22, 1875EXECUTIVE MANSION, November 22, 1875.It is hereby ordered that the tract of country in the Territory of Colorado lying within the following-described boundaries, viz: Commencing at the northeast corner of the present Ute Indian Reservation, as defined in the treaty of March 2, 1868 (Stats, at Large, vol. 15, p. 619); thence running north on the 107th degree of longitude to the first standard parallel north; thence west on said first standard parallel to the boundary line between Colorado and Utah; thence south with said boundary to the northwest corner of the Ute Indian Reservation; thence east with the north boundary of the said reservation to the place of beginning, be, and the same hereby is, withdrawn from sale and set apart for the use of the several tribes of Ute Indians, as an addition to the present reservation in said Territory.U. S. GRANT.
Last edition:
Saturday, October 4, 2025
NIMBY? State Board of Land Commissioners denies Prism Logistics lease renewal on Casper Mountain and other ponderings.
This is an interesting story.
State Board of Land Commissioners denies Prism Logistics lease renewal on Casper Mountain
I'm glad this isn't going forward. It shouldn't, because of where it's located.
But because of where its located is where it drew attention.
In Natrona County, over the past year, residents have risen up in opposition to this gravel mine, a proposed solar farm in the western end of the county, and a proposed nuclear generator manufacturing facility north of Casper. In Gillette there's some sort of controversy going on over some sort of nuclear facility. And there's a big debate on a wind farm in Laramie County.
It's hard to know what to make of all of this.
What is clear is that local politicians respond to the controversies. I'm sure if you asked any one of the Natrona County Commissioners if they supported energy, they would say yes. And they'd all say they support mining. But when the votes come, they're voting like they're members of Greenpeace.
And one local legislature says that his nickname is now "No nuke" for his opposition to the nuclear generator facility.
Nuclear energy is the safest and most efficient form of power generation we have, and until the mysteries of fission are unlocked, if ever, it'll continue to be. In a rational world we'd have a five year plan to replace every coal burning plant in the country with nuclear power.
Indeed, going one step further, we'd mandate the retirement of petroleum fueled everything in that time frame, or perhaps ten years.
The reason we don't is because, for the most part, even though we're the smartest animal on the planet, we're not anywhere near as smart as we like to think we are. If we were, we'd make decisions based on logic. Most people don't. Most people make decisions based on emotion.
It's easy to understand why a person would emotionally resent a gravel pit in their backyard, more or less, or solar panels taking up acres of land. The same with windmills. Nuclear? Well, the opposition to nuclear is due to our having used the bomb to murder thousands of Japanese civilians. It's stuck with us and we fear it, as that was our first use of it. People will tell you they are worried about contamination and the like. Bah. It's Hiroshima and Nagasaki they're worried about, even though that can't happen.
I'm old enough to remember when we had open pit uranium mining in Wyoming. In the early 1980s I knew a few guys who worked out at the Shirley Basin mine site, including one who lived in the little, now abandoned, town of Shirley Basin. I also knew some who lived and worked in Jeffrey City, where they worked in uranium mines. When they closed down, the state was distraught.
Now it seems nobody remembers that, and the thought of anything nuclear drives people into fits of despair.
I think a lot of it is fear of change.
That in fact explains a lot about populism And it explains why the current heavily right wing populist in Natrona County are adamantly against something that the populists in Washington D.C. reading Uglier Home and Paved Garden are for.
Change, we're told, is inevitable. If it is, it's because we will it so, much of it through our absolute laziness. We want our lives to be easier and more convenient just for us, but at the same time we want things to stay the way they are.
Which for a person like me, whose an introverted, introspective, agrarian, is particularly amusing in some ways.
I really hate change, myself, and I also want things to be the way they were. But not five or ten years ago, like so many of the people who protest on these matters. Indeed, many are quite new imports.
Victor Colorado, 1900. One of these houses was my great grandparents'.
I'd like them to be like they were in 1879 when my family first arrived in this region. . . or even earlier if possible. I'd settle for 1963, when I personally arrived.
I won't get those wishes.
I will note, however, a nuclear powered America might look more like American in 1879 than the one of 2025 does. As I look out at all the protests I'm struck by how many people in Wyoming are absolutely wedded to the oil and gas industry. It wasn't always so.
Back in the 1960s (I have a long memory) a lot of locals remained pretty skeptical about the oil and gas industry, in part because the state had recently been shafted for its reliance upon petroleum. People loved it again in the 1970s but when that boom collapsed people swore to never be reliant upon it again.
We apparently got over that.
Now we fear what we know to be true. Petroleum and coal won't last forever. The dirty little secret of the petroleum industry in Wyoming anymore is that drilling is really for gas far more than petroleum oil. Petroleum is on the way out, like it or not, and the United States is an expensive oil and gas province to drill in. Absent actually prohibiting its import, which I wouldn't put past Donald Trump, Saudi petroleum will always be cheaper. For that matter, Russian petroleum will always be as well and thinking you can really prohibit India China from importing it is absolute folly. Coal, which we've dealt with extensively, in a slow but accelerating death spiral.
The sort of imaginary world so many in MAGA wish to return to. Big powerful cars, driven by guys of course, but at the same time don't want to return to, as living without as much as these people did, compared to us, would be uncomfortable.
Donald Trump may say "drill baby drill", and put thousands of acres up for coal leasing, but Trump in many ways is the last dying gasp of of the 1950s.
And the 50s of our imaginations never existed. But we fear that it didn't, as we fear the thought that our oil stained hands will reach the point where we'll have to grab a bar of Lava soap and scrub it off, forever. The jobs will go away.
Funny thing is, from time to time, there's been serious proposals to put in something related to local agriculture, which was here in the beginning of our statehood, and still is. Wyoming hadn't really supported a big ag project since the 1930s, and indeed local municipalities oppose things related to agriculture. It's short sighted.
But then, perhaps I'm romantic about for various reasons that recent migrants to the state don't share.
.jpg)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)