Data centers: What good are they for Colorado?

Re: “Dueling policies for data centers,” March 1 news story

The Denver Post article about two competing bills in the legislature regarding new data centers in Colorado seems to start with the presumption that we want the data centers.

Why do we want them and who wants them? Is it the politicians wanting bragging rights about our state becoming another Silicon Valley? Perhaps they want more businesses so they can collect more taxes from the new residents. Alternatively, they just want more power in Washington by increasing our population. Has anyone stopped to ask why we want to attract more people to our state?

Colorado is in a fight with other Western states to obtain more water for our growing population. Our wildlife is being crowded out by the increased urbanization. The roads are so crowded that it is not uncommon to come to a complete stop on our interchanges during rush hour. We have a serious housing shortage. The air is being polluted by the increased number of cars. These are all the result of a growing population. Did anyone stop to ask why we want more people?

During my 53 years living in Colorado, I have never heard anyone (other than politicians) say, “We need more people.” On the contrary, the conversation is more often about how we are becoming overcrowded. I would like the politicians to explain why we need more businesses and more people in our state. It should not be a presumption that more is better! Are our elected representatives truly reflecting the wishes of their constituents?

Doug Hurst, Parker

Anger and disbelief were our reactions when we read about House Bill 1030, which is under consideration at the statehouse. This outrageous corporate welfare bill would provide some of the world’s wealthiest corporations with massive state tax reductions to build monstrous resource-thirsty data centers. Analysts projected a $92.5 million tax loss in just three years if a bunch of these data centers are built. Just one 160-megawatt facility would gobble up as much power as 176,000 homes once completed. Consider for comparison that the entire DIA airport uses around 45 megawatts of power!

As the state legislature grapples with bone-deep budget cuts, we cannot afford to exempt data centers from paying their own way nor allow their unregulated construction. Taxpayer-funded corporate handouts would entail massive hits to tax revenue that should be used for our schools, roads, infrastructure, and valid state needs. What essential services will potentially be cut or axed to cover the lost revenue to the state from this corporate giveaway?

These data centers also demand massive amounts of our water. A CoreSite data center in Denver alone will use approximately 805,000 gallons of water per day to air-condition its computers. That is the same as the average daily indoor water use of 16,100 Denver homes.

I pray our state legislature will condemn HB-1030 to the corporate welfare hell where it belongs in. Instead, they should support Senate Bill 102 that will hopefully properly regulate these tax-eating, water-wasting, and electricity-gobbling monstrosities.

Terry Talbot, Grand Junction

As a pediatrician, I’ve noticed one key issue missing from the data center debate: public health.

Data centers are extraordinarily energy- and water-intensive. Nationally, they already consume about 4% of U.S. electricity — a figure expected to more than double by 2030. Much of that power still comes from burning fossil fuels. Without strong safeguards, that growth means more air pollution. In my clinical practice, I see firsthand how health is shaped by the air we breathe. More pollution means more asthma attacks, heart disease, and premature deaths, especially in communities already burdened by poor air quality.

Water use is another concern. Large data centers can use enormous amounts of water for cooling. In a drought-prone state like Colorado, this raises serious questions about long-term drinking water reliability and heat resilience.

Energy affordability is also a health issue. When infrastructure is built to serve massive corporate users, costs can shift to households. I see the effects of energy insecurity in families forced to choose between cooling their homes, buying medication, or putting food on the table.

Colorado has an opportunity to get this right. Senate Bill 102 would establish guardrails to protect ratepayers, limit pollution, and ensure large electricity users pay their full infrastructure costs. Other states, including Michigan and Virginia, are reconsidering generous tax incentives after seeing how quickly public costs can outpace public benefit.

Colorado can welcome innovation without sacrificing clean air, clean water, affordable energy, and community health. Public health must be a priority, not an afterthought.

Clare Burchenal, Denver

As the story makes clear, data centers in our communities have real impacts on our health, our pocketbooks and our quality of life. I’m a mom of two small children who are counting on the adults in the room to make responsible decisions that impact their futures. It’s dizzying to see the pace of data centers sweeping the country and confusing as to why leaders are rushing to accommodate them without taking into consideration all of the impacts these massive industrial complexes have on communities.

It’s critical that data centers are powered by clean-burning renewable energy, not fossil fuels. We are in a no-snow winter in Colorado, and we have no safeguards in place against data center water use. Energy infrastructure should be paid for by the billion-dollar big tech companies that will profit from it, not by unfair rate increases for our families and small businesses.

There is a way to do this right. Senate Bill 102 has some important protections for our families and communities while still allowing for the responsible construction and operation of data centers built in appropriate places in our state. It is unacceptable that our leaders do nothing to protect us from big tech excesses. SB-102 will protect all Colorado kids – and their parents and communities. Join me in urging our legislators to pass this important bill.

Sara Kuntzler, Arvada

U.S. women’s hockey players above the game and politics

Re: “Trump tore athletes down on the world’s stage,” March 1 commentary

Dear Megan Schrader,

Thank you for your column on how the president disrespected the U.S. women’s Olympic hockey team. Your excellent commentary hit and sent the puck into the back of the net, so to speak.

To take it a step further, I believe the women’s choice not to visit the White House was more than meets the eye. Ostensibly, they declined the invitation because of the timing, specifically the resumption of play in the professional women’s hockey league.

Yet, I would like to believe it was more an expression of contempt for the president and his policies.

The women were smarter and braver and truer to their values than were the men’s Olympic hockey team, who, with the same timing issues, chose to accept the invitation to the White House. That visit and the visit to the State of the Union Address only helped bolster the president’s optics. An exception was the Colorado Avalanche’s own Brock Nelson, who declined to accompany the men’s team because he valued his family time more than a public charade.

In sports — as in life — we need more people like the women hockey players who will elevate their values above the games and politics.

Bill Allegar, Denver

Backing up to park for safety?

Re: “Do you back into a parking spot or back out?” March 1 feature story

I read this with slight amusement. For someone who has traveled a bit, and especially in Asia (Japan in particular), backing into a parking space is a very common practice (not a new trend) and has been for decades. On my first trip to Japan, around 1992, I was told it was what most people did.

As for the company Imminent Threat Solutions recommending “tactical parking” because they should “prevail against all threats,” seems like marketing hype of the biggest kind, building fear into your daily life of running errands and going to work. Has there been bad behaviour, shootings, and whatnot in a parking lot? Sure, but let’s not build fear for something that happens rarely to the average individual.

Randy DeBoer, Denver

To add to the parking procedures article in Sunday’s paper, there is another option, one that I use and recommend; it’s the “drive-through” to an open space.

After having been hit and having a rental car damaged (a three-month hassle to resolve) by a driver who backed out of an opposite space without looking, I don’t drive into a parking space if I can help it. What I do instead is find an open space where I can drive in straight and continue to a back-to-back adjoining space where I can park and then drive ahead to depart. These parking spots are typically a longer walk to my destination, and I benefit from the additional steps.

G. E. Cole, Centennial

I enjoyed your article on discussing whether to back in or pull straight into parking spaces. Our oldest son is a backer-inner, and I am starting to be one too. What is missing from your analysis, though, is the grocery store, much less Costco or Home Depot. Almost nobody is a backer-inner in these places, since you’re typically loading stuff in your backseat, hatch, or pickup bed. I guess the backer-inners are just not going to be able to escape as quickly once they’ve picked up 50 pounds of dog food, 25 rolls of paper towels, or five sheets of 4′ x 8′ plywood. Hope they survive.

Tim Hickisch, Highlands Ranch

You can support immigrants and the law

Re: “Faith communities show support for immigrants,” Feb. 22 news story

Faith communities do show support for immigrants. I don’t agree with those who stand against the law and ICE. While we may support all people made in the image of God, we should not be for illegal immigrants. They have broken the law, and some are doing great harm while living here. Legal immigrants, please come. Illegal immigrants, please go home and come here legally.

Deanna R Walworth, Brighton

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Eating out four times a week on taxpayer money, or as the case may be, drinking out, is not acceptable behavior for stewards of a foundation dedicated to Denver’s mental health.

The City of Denver auditor released a report that found employees at Caring for Denver – a foundation voters created in 2018 – had spent $28,000 on meals and drinks over three years and $3,000 on expensive alcohol including high-end $20 cocktails.

Denver voters should start the difficult process to sunset the .25% sales tax we authorized for mental health care for the homeless and suicide.

Oversight of the foundation has been difficult. The group has a dedicated revenue stream of tax dollars but operates outside the regulation or oversight of the City of Denver. It was always going to be a recipe for disaster.

And this is not the first negative audit or report.

Caring for Denver, we are sure, has accomplished good during the past eight years, doling out grants to nonprofits already working to care for Denver’s mental health. But because the foundation is simply a pass-through of taxpayer dollars to entities that are actually doing the hard work of caring for Denverites, we think it will be simple to unwind.

When your only job is to make sure money goes to others who are doing hard work, fiscal accountability and being good stewards of taxpayer dollars is the only job qualification. This audit, in addition to other reports, indicates that the employees at Caring for Denver have failed.

“These expenses show a disregard for fiscal accountability,” Denver Auditor Tim O’Brien said in a news release. “I question whether it is best practice for taxpayers to foot the bill for alcohol and meals in the amount and frequency we discovered.”

Lorez Meinhold, executive director of the foundation, defended the spending by saying a large part of her and her staff’s jobs were to “meet grantees where they are and what they’re comfortable with.”

Meinhold herself spent $3,130 on alcohol over the three-year period audited. That included 70 drinks that cost more than $20 each at the glitzy cocktail lounge Death & Co. So we are supposed to believe that many of the nonprofit leaders who Meinhold was trying to encourage to apply for grants all suggested one of Denver’s more expensive bars as the place they should meet to discuss mental health grant applications.

Does Meinhold think we are stupid?

To give some credit where credit is due, this is better than the alternative, which would be Meinhold getting wined and dined by grant applicants hoping to tilt the scales in their favor so millions could flow to their nonprofit.

That form of corruption would be worse than living large on the taxpayer dollars when many Denverites have had to forego eating out entirely to try and remain in the city and under budget.

Denver relies on sales tax for almost all of its operations – including police, fire, roads, bridges and snow removal. Tacking on an extra .25% sales tax onto every sale in the city is a big deal. This is money that could give struggling small businesses a boost, or help residents save money, or that the City of Denver could tap into during an economic recession if sales tax receipts plummet and voters approve an increase.

The path forward to revoke the sales tax revenue from Caring for Denver is complicated. Either motivated citizens will have to collect signatures and get the repeal on the ballot or Denver City Council will have to refer the measure to voters. But hopefully outrage over years of mismanagement culminating with gross disregard for taxpayers will help motivate the effort.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

This column was published as a pro-con about clemency for Tina Peters. Read the other side of the issue here.

Stockholm Syndrome? Maybe that explains Gov. Jared Polis’ willingness to bow to the man who has held our state hostage.

For more than a year, Colorado has been the target of President Donald Trump’s abuse. Leaving Polis off the guest list of a recent governors’ dinner at the White House was the latest slap in the face of many that include rescinded federal grants, a vetoed water bill, rejected disaster fund requests, and the loss of two federal agencies.

Our tormentor is angry the state chose Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024 and has not met his demands to stop mail-in voting and release his supporter and fellow election denier Tina Peters from prison.

Polis seemed to be bearing up okay under the strain until this week, when he inexplicably signaled that he might grant Peters clemency. The former county clerk is serving nine years for illegally granting a fellow election conspiracy theorist access to voting equipment to advance Trump’s false narrative about the 2020 election. Her failed scheme to discredit the county’s voting equipment violated multiple laws and cost Mesa County taxpayers $1.4 million. This figure does not reflect the human toll of her crimes. Election officials received death threats, and her lies continue to undermine faith in democratic processes to this day.

Polis’ attempt to compare Peters’ nine year sentence to the lighter sentence of probation and community service received by former Colorado state Sen. Jaquez Lewis does not add up. She treated her aides poorly, and when caught attempted to influence members of the Senate Ethics Committee with fake letters of support.

Peters received a tougher sentence within the sentencing guidelines because her crimes and their impact were far worse.

Matt Crane, the head of Colorado’s bipartisan County Clerks Association, told me that the symbolism behind a pardon is dangerous.

“If Polis grants Peters clemency, that would signal that it’s okay for people to undermine election integrity and break the law so long as Polis and Trump can issue a get out of jail free card. Rather than worry about appeasing the president by siding with a convicted felon, Polis should stand with election officials who uphold the law and conduct reliable elections for the people of Colorado,” Crane said.

Peters’ sentence also reflects her complete lack of remorse and contempt for the law. On Twitter, she calls herself the “Fmr Election Official Whistleblower with 7 Felonies and 5 misdemeanors for exposing the traitors of our country” and either she or someone connected to her continues to post lies about elections. Freed, she will no doubt claim exoneration and will continue to undermine confidence in American democracy as we head into an election.

A blue wave of disaffected voters will pulverize the seawall of Republican hegemony in Washington this November, and MAGA will be desperate to blame losses on nonexistent voter fraud. Sowing doubt in our election systems and division among Americans will be all the easier for election conspiracy theorists with a celebrity denier in their midst.

Better to let Peters serve her sentence until she is up for parole in 2028. Perhaps she can manufacture some remorse before the parole board and walk out a free woman.

Until then, Polis must remain steadfast in upholding justice. Trump has granted clemency to all manner of criminals from violent January 6 rioters to corrupt politicians and fraudulent businessmen. No matter how much pressure he puts on our state, we must hold out against his demands.

Krista Kafer is a Sunday Denver Post columnist.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Listening to the nearly reflexive statements coming from Colorado’s Democratic congressional delegation in response to the joint U.S.–Israel strike on Iran’s military infrastructure, I cannot help but wonder whether “Vietnam Syndrome” still exerts a quiet but powerful hold on the party.

Vietnam Syndrome — the deep reluctance to project American power abroad after the trauma of the Vietnam War — was first widely recognized as a driving ideology within Democratic circles just as I arrived in Washington, D.C., to begin my career. The mood of the city then was shaped by the revelations of the Vietnam War, the publication of the Pentagon Papers, and the findings of the Church Committee, chaired by Frank Church, on which Colorado’s freshman senator, Gary Hart, served. Americans learned of CIA overreach, covert interventions, and hard truths about government deception. The national psyche shifted.

By the time the Iran hostage crisis unfolded under President Jimmy Carter, the Democratic Party was deeply wary of military force. Carter chose negotiation and restraint as 52 American diplomats were held for 444 days by the new Islamic Revolutionary regime. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his approach, it reflected a broader hesitancy shaped by Vietnam’s shadow.

That hesitancy has never fully disappeared.

Today, as the United States and Israel act together to degrade the military capabilities of the Iranian regime — a regime that has funded and armed proxy militias across the region for decades — I am struck by the cautious, almost antiseptic language coming from many Democratic leaders.

For example, Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet said this week: “Any use of military force must be consistent with our constitutional framework and avoid drawing the United States into another open-ended conflict in the Middle East.” That concern is understandable.

No American wants another Iraq or Afghanistan. But when constitutional process becomes the primary lens and the strategic objective becomes secondary, it echoes the old reflex: avoid strength for fear of entanglement.

Rep. Jason Crow, a former Army Ranger, emphasized that “Congress must be consulted before further escalation,” underscoring the need for oversight and warning against “another prolonged regional war.”

Rep. Joe Neguse similarly stressed that “the administration must clearly articulate its legal authority and strategic objectives before expanding military engagement.”

Process, process, process. Deflection from the embrace of American strength to rid the world of the worst of the worst.

I write this not as a detached observer. I spent formative years in Washington working in pro-Israel politics, engaging both Democrats and Republicans, and watching firsthand how internal party debates over strength and restraint played out. In the year 2000, I ran as the Democratic nominee in Congressional District 6 now held by Jason Crow. Yet today, I view these events from the front row.

Six years ago, I became a dual U.S.–Israeli citizen and now spend most of my time in Herzliya, just north of Tel Aviv. Since Saturday morning, much of our community life has shifted underground. We move between home and reinforced shelters as Iranian ballistic missiles — fired from roughly 2,000 miles away — target civilian neighborhoods. These are not symbolic gestures; they are designed for mass casualties. The families in these shelters are not abstractions in a policy debate. They are neighbors.

From this vantage point, the debate in Washington feels tone-deaf.

When Iran’s leadership vows Israel’s destruction and arms groups who are committed to that goal, deterrence is not theoretical. It is existential. The current joint operation — undertaken by President Donald Trump in coordination with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — may be politically controversial, and both leaders are undeniably flawed. But the strategic objective of preventing a violent theocratic regime from expanding its destructive reach is neither reckless nor novel. It is long overdue.

This is where Vietnam Syndrome still lingers — not as a slogan, but as a mindset. The instinct to lead with caution rather than clarity. To emphasize process before principle. To worry first about overreach rather than about the consequences of inaction.

I do not expect unanimity. I do not expect cheerleading. But I do expect moral clarity when civilians are under sustained attack and when a regime that has destabilized a region for nearly half a century is finally facing meaningful consequences.

From Washington, these questions are strategic. From Herzliya, they are personal. The Democratic Party once prided itself on combining moral leadership with pragmatic strength. The challenge now is whether it can rediscover that balance — not abandoning caution, but refusing paralysis. History shows the costs of both overreach and retreat. The test of leadership is knowing the difference.

Ken Toltz is a 3rd-generation Denverite, long-time political activist, and a former Democratic nominee for Colorado’s 6th Congressional District. He now lives in Herzliya, Israel.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Denver never stops seeking more water for its burgeoning population. But Durango, a town of 19,000 people across the Rockies in southern Colorado, is taking a wait-and-see approach.

You might call this unusual because Durango has access to a backup supply. In 2011, voters approved spending $6 million to buy 3,800 acre‑feet of water storage in a reservoir called Lake Nighthorse. The rationale was simple: The town could build a pipeline and ship that water into its system whenever dry times occurred.

But since then, not much has happened.

Former city manager Ron LeBlanc tried to move the project forward before retiring in 2019. An engineering study in 2023 concluded that the town should connect Lake Nighthorse to its system using one of three possible pipeline routes. Still, no construction began.

Durango’s mayor, Gilda Yazzie, says the city paid for its share of a pipe at the base of the dam, along with what’s called a manifold — a device that would split water among the four users of Lake Nighthorse. But nothing has been built to connect that manifold to Durango’s water system.

Lake Nighthorse itself is the scaled‑down result of the Animas–La Plata Project, authorized by Congress in 1968. That project would have covered the Animas and La Plata river valleys with canals, pumps and pipelines. Instead, the final plan built just one dam and one pumping station, leaving the Animas River free‑flowing.

That decision helped protect the area’s natural beauty while also attracting more people to Durango. Some of those new residents have since moved into fire‑prone areas. Many Western cities have learned the hard way about not securing enough water to fight wildfires. Fires racing through Los Angeles in 2025 wiped out entire neighborhoods. Water storage ran out and hydrants went dry.

Durango water engineer Steve Harris has 52 years of experience in the field and is known for promoting water conservation. He thinks Durango is making a serious mistake by not connecting a pipe to Lake Nighthorse.

“The city has a century of the Animas and Florida Rivers being so good to them with steady year-around flows that they don’t even know they need storage,” he said. “They may only find out during a water crisis.”

Right now, Durango has 10 to 30 days of water stored in its Terminal Reservoir, which holds 267 acre-feet. That’s annual water consumption for about 600 households; Durango has over 9,000 households. The city depends mainly on the Florida River, with large draws of summer water from the Animas River. When the two rivers flow normally, the taps run. If both rivers dry up or clog with debris from fires, the city could run out of water within weeks.

Climate change and a 25‑year drought highlight this risk. In the last eight years, on 34 days, the Animas River averaged less than 100 cubic feet per second, a low level reached only twice in the previous 120 years. Close calls have already happened. In 2002, the Missionary Ridge Fire filled both rivers with ash and debris and forced the city to cut back pumping. In 2015, the Gold King Mine spill sent millions of gallons of waste into the Animas River, stopping city pumping for a week.

When Harris spoke at a Durango Neighborhood Coalition meeting last year, residents expressed overwhelming support for more water storage. That message hasn’t reached city leaders. Mayor Yazzie said voters were happy to support a $61 million sales-tax–funded municipal building and popular new recreation projects. But she said raising taxes for a major water project would be difficult.

“We are looking at a potential water and sewer fee increase to keep the toilets flushing,” Mayor Yazzie said. As for building a pipeline to Lake Nighthorse and a much-needed new water treatment plant–an investment water engineer Steve Harris estimates at about $100 million—“it all depends on how much the citizens are willing to pay for water. “

Durango’s reluctance to invest in its water system stands out in the West, where water storage is usually characterized as urgent. Las Vegas for example, built three separate intake tunnels into Lake Mead to make sure it could keep taking water even as the reservoir dropped.

Durango’s Lake Nighthorse pipeline remains a paper concept. This winter, with snowpack in the San Juan Mountains the lowest recorded in generations, it’s time the town acts to guarantee more water. Fighting flames with empty hoses would be a sorry sight.

Dave Marston is the publisher of Writers on the Range, writersontherange.org, an independent nonprofit dedicated to spurring lively conversation about the West. He writes in Durango, Colorado.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

A bill before the Colorado legislature, House Bill 1095, would allow public notices to be satisfied solely by posting them on government websites in certain circumstances.

That should not be allowed in any circumstance.

Public notice exists to protect the public. It informs residents about zoning changes, property tax increases, special district elections, annexations, construction bids, water rulings, foreclosure proceedings, and other actions that directly affect property, neighborhoods, and taxes. It is not simply about putting information somewhere online. It is a carefully constructed legal safeguard built on independence, permanence, verifiability and accessibility.

At the heart of public notice law is a simple principle: governments must inform the public through independent platforms they do not control.

Allowing a government entity to declare its own website legally sufficient turns that safeguard upside down. It puts the fox in charge of the henhouse.

Colorado has well over 4,000 governmental entities. Each may operate its own website, with its own navigation, formatting, search tools and retention practices. If notices are allowed to move solely onto government websites, residents could be forced to search multiple separate platforms just to stay informed: one for the county, one for the city, one for the fire district, one for the school district, one for a metropolitan district, one for parks and recreation, one for sanitation, and so on.

That is not transparency. It is fragmentation and obscuration.

Even well-intentioned governments make mistakes. In a recent Colorado example, a major municipality’s website returned 404 errors on crucial budget documents at the very time officials were asking voters to approve publishing notices exclusively on its website. Websites change vendors. Pages are reorganized. Links break. Content can be altered or removed, whether intentionally or not. A printed legal notice cannot be quietly changed once published. It becomes part of a fixed public record and is uploaded to a centralized, statewide online repository that aggregates notices across Colorado.

Colorado already has a modern system. Legal newspapers publish notices in print and online, and every notice is uploaded to a free, searchable statewide website. That system combines local visibility, digital access and independent verification.

The provision in HB 26-1095 that allows government-only publication is being described as a narrow fix for rare situations. That framing is misleading. Colorado law already provides structured solutions for situations where no legal newspaper is based in a county. In fact, during this very legislative session, the Colorado Press Association worked closely with counties and other stakeholders to modernize those provisions and expand placement options within the independent system.

Compounding the problem is the language of this provision. The proposal allows bypassing newspapers where the government deems a paper “unavailable” or where an adjacent-county publication would not provide “adequate notice.” Those terms are undefined and subjective. Under this language, the same government that is required to give notice could declare an independent publication insufficient and substitute its own website.

That is not how public notice law currently operates.

Public notice statutes are detailed, structured and precise. They regulate formatting, type size, frequency, duration and proof of publication through sworn affidavits that courts rely upon. Notices intersect with hundreds of statutory provisions involving elections, property rights, tax sales, zoning approvals, creditor claims, and special district actions. The law creates clear standards because due process depends on certainty.

Allowing government website posting to satisfy “all publication requirements” sweeps aside that structure with a vague override.

In 2023, Florida allowed limited government-run website publication for certain notices. A major academic study from faculty at the University of Chicago, Texas A&M University and Yale University, released in January of this year, examined the results. It showed that when notices are removed from newspapers and placed only on government-operated platforms, civic engagement declines and fewer people show up at public meetings.

When notices left independent newspapers, fewer people saw them and fewer people showed up. Moving notice off independent platforms does not increase awareness. It reduces it.

Colorado residents trust local newspapers and their websites as primary sources of public information. A statewide survey in 2022 found that 80% of adults cite local newspapers and newspaper websites as their most trusted source for public notices, and nearly two-thirds report reading notices in print or online local publications. Public notice works because it appears where people already look for information.

Reform may be appropriate as technology and usage evolve, as we have demonstrated repeatedly over the years. But reform must always preserve independence, aggregation, permanence and clarity. It must not allow the government to replace independent publication with self-publication based on vague and subjective standards.

Public notice is too important to let governments control how and where it reaches the public.

Tim Regan-Porter is CEO of the Colorado Press Association, which represents print and digital newsrooms throughout Colorado.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.