Connect with us


Guilty Knowledge – PULP’s three month investigation into pollution at the old Colorado Smelter Site

In the ruins of the old Colorado Smelter lies a few bricks, a slag heap and the struggle to know how to protect a community.



In the ruins of the old Colorado Smelter lies a few bricks, a slag heap and the struggle to know how to protect a community.

Part One

0. The Investigation


Much of the brick and mortar that was Pueblo’s Industrial Cerberus lay in ruins on the city’s south-side; the neighborhoods that sustained the once titanous Colorado Smelter have since their revolutionary age quieted; a necropolis of hills of slag remain and have become commonplace; and to Puebloans the old slag piles and waste around the sites of the city’s historic steel mill and smelters hardly even register to the senses as they drive past them on the way to work or home.  

The Federal Environmental Protection Agency’s and State of Colorado’s top scientists, local healthcare leaders, and academics warn slag and toxic waste are a very real danger to public health for Pueblo which sit invisibly in the soil, taking the form of arsenic and lead contamination.  

In revisiting the issue of lead and arsenic contamination near the site of the old Colorado Smelter, including the Bessemer and Eilers neighborhoods, it seems in order to start at the beginning.  

 1. The Old Colorado Smelter

Sites such as this weren’t uncommon in the golden age of Pueblo’s steel industry. This image is from the 1950s where slag is being dumped east of the CF&I. This scene would be similar at the Colorado Smelter, just north of the current Eiler’s neighborhood, where the smelter dumped slag into a nearby ravine. The smelter ceased operations in 1908 but the slag remained. Photo courtesy the Bessemer Historical Society / CF&I Archives. 

Sites such as this weren’t uncommon in the golden age of Pueblo’s steel industry. This image is from the 1950s where slag is being dumped east of the CF&I. This scene would be similar at the Colorado Smelter, just north of the current Eiler’s neighborhood, where the smelter dumped slag into a nearby ravine. The smelter ceased operations in 1908 but the slag remained. Photo courtesy the Bessemer Historical Society / CF&I Archives. 

The Colorado Smelting Company  (Eilers Smelter) began operating in 1883. It was constructed in a ravine between Santa Fe Avenue and the D&RG railroad tracks near what is now I-25. The owners of the Madonna Mine, located in Monarch, built the Colorado Smelter in order to smelt the extracted silver-lead ore in a cost effective manner.  

By 1889 the smelter operation consisted of eight blast furnaces, along with two furnaces for desulphurization of ores and one fusing furnace used to slag the flue dust. Twenty kilns were used to desulphur crushed matter from the blast furnaces.  The blast furnace smokestack stood 132 feet tall.  

During the years of smelter operation, various heavy metal contaminants were exhausted through the smoke stacks and dispersed through the air pathway onto the surface soils near the site.

The Colorado Smelter closed in 1908. Some of the slag from the smelter was used as track ballast for the D&RG track constructed between Florence and Canon City.  In 1923, bricks from the blast furnace smoke stack were used to construct the St. Mary School.  At present, there are still large slag piles in the ravine at the Colorado Smelter site. The nearest residence is located approximately 200 feet from the Colorado Smelter slag heap.  

An estimated 3,500 acres of wetlands are located within four miles of the Colorado Smelter site, including Runyon Lake.  This area is a designated State Wildlife Area, and is located between one quarter and one-mile northeast of the smelter site.  

The Arkansas River Valley, east of the smelter site, has been classified as a potential conservation area due to its rich biodiversity.  Several threatened or endangered species call Pueblo’s ecosystems home.  

Metals including cadmium, arsenic, lead and zinc have been found at alarming levels in residential areas surrounding the Colorado Smelter site.

2. Study of the site – How it all started

In 1989, a passerby noticed orange slug coming out of the Santa Fe Ave. culvert. This photo was taken January 2013, over twenty years after someone alerted officials of the discharge. Just yards away sits the St. Charles Mesa intake.

In 1989, a passerby noticed orange slug coming out of the Santa Fe Ave. culvert. This photo was taken January 2013, over twenty years after someone alerted officials of the discharge. Just yards away sits the St. Charles Mesa intake.

1989: Red Discharge in the Arkansas and the Pueblo County Health Department

Scientific attention was originally directed at the region near sites of Pueblo’s old smelters in 1989 when a concerned citizen reported, to the Pueblo County Health Department, seeing a red-orange discharge into the Arkansas River coming from an eighteen inch culvert.  This culvert extends from the levee on the south side of the Arkansas River, directly below the Santa Fe Avenue Bridge.  Pueblo County proceeded to collect a grab sample of the discharge on September 26, 1989.

Results of the first samples confirmed that there were in fact elevated concentrations of several metals in the flow coming from the Santa Fe Bridge culvert. This information was reported to the CDPHE.

1991: A Preliminary Assessment of Pueblo and a History of Smelting

A preliminary assessment of the geology, climate, wildlife, ecosystems, population, and history of Pueblo near the Santa Fe Bridge culvert area was compiled by the CDPHE in 1991, preceding further sampling and inspection.

CDPHE discovered that six smelters had operated in the vicinity of the Santa Fe Bridge culvert between 1878 and 1921.  The sites of these old smelters would become target for dangerous metals research.

1994-1995: A First Stab at Sampling and Analyzing First Field Research

In 1994, samples of soil were first collected from the sites of Pueblo’s historic smelter activity, including the Colorado Smelter, and sampled once again after the first results were released by the CDPHE, which raised alarm when each of the 33 samples collected reported levels of Arsenic exceeding the EPA’s threshold for cancer risk to humans.

Also in early 1995, an EPA contractor performed soil sampling and research on lead and arsenic levels on slag piles, including eight samples from the slag pile at the site of the former Colorado Smelter.  Again, the detection limit for the arsenic was reported at levels significantly above the EPA threshold for cancer risk and also the Residential Soil Cleanup Table Value Standard, which was established by CDPHE in 1997 to better protect public health.

On August 16, 1995, another EPA contractor conducted sampling on the Colorado Smelter slag pile and nearby soils. Eighty-eight samples were collected and analyzed for arsenic, cadmium, and lead.

Seventeen of these samples were sent to an independent laboratory for confirmatory analysis.  Very poor correlation was observed between the analysis conducted by the EPA contractor and the independent laboratory for both arsenic and cadmium, making the data for arsenic and cadmium useless.

However, the EPA contractor’s lead analysis correlated well with the independent laboratory’s lead analysis.  Fifty-nine of the 88 samples collected exceeded the cancer risk threshold and cleanup standards for lead.

2006: CSU-Pueblo’s Research May Point to Larger Problem

 Sampling and analysis was also conducted on Pueblo soil by Professor of Biology at Colorado State University-Pueblo, Moussa Diawara.  Sixty-eight soil samples were collected at 33 locations and analyzed for arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury.  All 68 samples exceeded the carcinogenic risk threshold for arsenic.  The study concluded that a higher-density geochemical survey would be needed to identify smaller and possibly higher amplitude “hotspots” of toxic metal contamination around Pueblo.

2010-2011: Lead and Arsenic Pollution in Soil from the Colorado Smelter

Due to the sporadic and unsystematic nature of the first round of research conducted around the Colorado Smelter site, the scope of contamination remained largely unknown to scientists.  Over a decade later, the CDPHE and EPA returned to conduct a second round of sampling and analysis on the Colorado Smelter site, at which time a clearer portrait of a lead and arsenic contaminated hotspot in the Santa Fe Avenue, Bessemer, and Eilers neighborhoods was presented.

The research was comprised of samples from a total of 47 residential lots, three vacant lots, and one frontage road near the Colorado Smelter.  Samples were collected June 21-23, 2010.

Seventy-three samples were collected from residential properties or vacant lots that exceeded three times Pueblo’s average concentrations for lead in soil.  Three samples collected from 15 unique properties contained concentrations of lead in excess of 400 parts per million, the EPA threshold for cleanup and remediation.

Six samples, collected from four unique properties, exceeded both three times Pueblo averages and the EPA cleanup and remediation level for arsenic.  Although because of an analytic difficulty most of the arsenic results had to be tossed out; scientists were lead to believe arsenic contamination is potentially more widespread and severe than the current data reports.

3. The Issue of Lead and Arsenic in Pueblo’s Soil

The issue of lead and arsenic contamination in the soil of neighborhoods around Pueblo most recently entered public consciousness with the EPA’s 2010 study of hazardous metal concentrations in soil around the Bessemer and Eilers neighborhoods.  The study showed of the 78 samples collected 73 contained levels of metals that exceeded the cancer risk threshold and Superfund threshold, i.e., the federal environmental cleanup process.  Two metals detected at poisonous and carcinogenic concentrations were arsenic and lead.  Other metals found at levels between one and three times the Pueblo soil averages were cobalt, copper, iron, manganese, and zinc.

The 2010 research compiled by the EPA and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) is neither the first nor the only data that brings to attention the issue of soil and surface water contamination on Pueblo’s south-side associated with historic steel-making and smelting operations. There exists extensive data documenting soil and some surface water contamination of Pueblo south-side that spans over twenty years.  

4. The Health Concerns of Lead and Arsenic

From a public health perspective lead and arsenic contamination in residential areas is extremely problematic.

Lead poisoning affects nearly every system in the body, and often occurs without noticeable symptoms. Arsenic is the highest priority and most poisonous chemical listed on the EPA’s Priority List of Hazardous Substances.

While lead poisoning affects adults, children are especially vulnerable to the adverse effects of lead.  Lead enters the body through either ingestion or inhalation.  Low but chronic exposure, as can be the case with lead contaminated soil, can affect the developing nervous system in subtle but persistent ways.  In children, blood-lead levels as low as 10 to 15 micrograms per hundred milliliters can stunt growth rates, affect attention span, cause learning disabilities, lower IQ scores, damage hearing, and cause behavioral problems.  The most common way for a child to ingest lead is by putting objects in the mouth, i.e., toys or hands that have lead-contaminated dust or dirt on them.

Arsenic is classified as a known human cancer-causing agent.  Effects from ingestion and skin exposure to arsenic most often appear as discoloration and lesions on the skin, but also create problems in the gastrointestinal tract, causing chronic nausea, diarrhea, and abdominal pain.  Ingestion exposure has also been linked to cancer of the skin, bladder, liver, and lungs.

5. 2013: The Burden of Leadership

Currently, the city of Pueblo and the EPA are at a stalemate between the first and second stage of the Superfund process.

The decision to stand still or move forward with working on the issue of lead and arsenic contamination from the Colorado Smelter lies primarily with the leadership of the seven members of Pueblo City Council.

Around Pueblo City Council is a circle of expert advisers: local, state, and federal, from the fields of science, health, and academia; all parties involved have an opinion on how to move forward in dealing with the paramount issue of lead and arsenic soil contamination in Pueblo neighborhoods.

Still, no tangible progress has been made to begin the cleanup or deem it unnecessary.

What follows is an in depth investigation into not only where city, state, and federal leaders currently stand on how to move forward with the issue of lead and arsenic contamination from the Colorado Smelter, but also in doing so to present a portrait of the internal dynamics of local leadership and decision-making in the face of potentially major public health dangers.

6. The 23 years of Denial and The Fivefold Path to Remediation:

The Superfund process, which Pueblo has been involved in since the first preliminary assessment conducted in 1991 by EPA and CDPHE, is a fivefold path to a federal cleanup of a contaminated site posing health risks to citizens.

The first step in the Superfund Process is the Preliminary Assessment and Site Inspection (PA/SI) of a potentially contaminated area and a thorough inspection of the potentially contaminated site.  Based on data from the PA/SI, a Hazard Ranking System (HRS) score is given to a site based on human health and environmental risks.  If that score is above 28.5, then the area qualifies as a Superfund caliber site.

Second, meetings should then be scheduled by the EPA with the community, local health departments, local elected officials and other stakeholders to explain the benefits of being listed as a Superfund site. The EPA must gain community acceptance and a letter of support from the elected officials requesting the Governor’s support for Superfund designation.

Third, the site is then proposed by the EPA to the NPL and an announcement of its listing is published in the Federal Register.

Fourth, after being added to the NPL and designated a Superfund site, a remedial investigation and feasibility study is conducted to determine how to best tackle a cleanup of the site.

Fifth, once recommendations for remedial action have been made, the EPA goes on record to the community with a plan for remediation.  Finally, a remediation design is engineered and cleanup of the contaminated site occurs.

Part Two

7. EPA: The Case for Cleanup

The EPA has expressed it wants to work with city council to find a way to make progress toward cleaning up dangerous concentrations of lead and arsenic in the soil around the Colorado Smelter site.

Sabrina Forrest, EPA National Priority List Coordinator in charge of the Colorado Smelter site, explained, “At this point we really don’t know what the overall threat of contamination is.” But what is known by the EPA is of the homes and the remaining slag area sampled there are dangerously high concentrations of arsenic and lead, above health-based screening levels, as well as alarmingly above normal levels for Pueblo soil.

Forrest elaborated, CDPHE and EPA focused on a sampling radius about a quarter-mile around the smelter site and downwind from the Colorado Smelter smoke stacks, the most likely area for smelter fallout.  According to Forrest, resources are limited to pay for initial site screenings to prioritize what are NPL caliber sites.  After a site is listed on the NPL much larger technical and financial resources become available.

Although an HRS score is assigned to areas that undergo the Superfund process’s Preliminary Assessment and Site Inspection, currently this information for the Colorado Smelter case is confidential, explained the EPA.

Forrest assured a draft of the Colorado Smelter area’s HRS score is greater than 28.5, the threshold for designating an area an NPL, Superfund caliber site.

Chris Wardell, EPA Community Involvement Coordinator for the Colorado Smelter case said that the “most recent outreach we have done was conducted on September 24-26, 2012.”  Wardell explained the EPA teamed up with local groups to go door to door in the Bessemer and Eilers neighborhood to ask a variety of questions about the Colorado Smelter issue.

These groups passed out information about the dangers of high lead and arsenic levels in soil, for children and adults, as well as fact sheets on the Superfund effect on property values.  They also asked residents if they supported listing their neighborhood on the NPL.  Wardell continued, of the residents who answered that question “45 said it was a good or great idea, 29 were supportive, 15 answered favorable, and 17 said no.”

The EPA would not comment on how long a cleanup of our relative scale might take.  Nor would they comment on what a cleanup might entail, what it might be projected to cost, or whether Pueblo would be responsible for any of the cleanup costs.  

CDPHE did comment that the city of Pueblo might be responsible for paying to cleanup the park next to St. Mary’s Church that is located in the contamination area.

Forrest concluded her past experiences with the Superfund process have taught her that sites where a collaborative process comes in early tend to move along more rapidly.  The key to a successful and efficient experience with the Superfund process is putting together a strong group of stakeholders, who want to create a vision for their community.

Wardell commented, “We’ll work with everybody through this process and people do not need to be afraid of the Superfund stigma.  There is a lot of benefit for this neighborhood that can happen if the site becomes listed.”

8. Comments from the Academy: The Defense of Inconclusive

The next step in understanding the Colorado Smelter contamination case is to breakdown the third party, independent, academic opinion. 

Professor of Biology at CSU-Pueblo, Moussa Diawara is an independent, academic scientist who studied levels of dangerous metals in soils around Pueblo in association with low-income and racial minority neighborhoods.

City council has lobbied for money to be granted to the work and research Diawara is compiling. City council is also partial to the inconclusiveness of Diawara’s data when refuting the most recent research compiled by EPA and CDPHE on the Colorado Smelter area.

Diawara confirmed his research does not rule out the possibility of lead poisoning.  What the study does show, Diawara explained, is that “based on EPA standards there was no requirement for cleanup [of Pueblo broadly], however levels were high enough to raise concern.”  But when Diawara spoke about standards for cancer risk rates he urged caution in interpreting the data.  As far as he is concerned any level of cancer causing chemicals in Pueblo soil is dangerous.

Diawara elaborated, “Any level can raise concern… But our study [2006 Study] did not actually show that Pueblo was above cleanup levels of EPA standards.”

From a scientific perspective Diawara admitted, “it would not be feasible to use his 2006 study to refute the research compiled in 2010 by the EPA.  Our data was localized to Pueblo alone,” said Diawara, “and showed that Pueblo has higher levels than national averages for dangerous metals, that is a microcosm right there,” then within that zone EPA did some more sampling recently in 2010, and what they actually did find were higher levels inside of some specific areas of our sampling zone, “so that is another microcosm.”

Diawara expressed respect for the EPA data, but explained that bio-monitoring of blood-lead level data, which he had recently conducted on 169 children around Pueblo, would be the kind of data that could sway his opinion.  He confirmed that his blood-lead level studies did put a degree of focus on lead and arsenic hotspots identified by his and EPA’s research and that some children from the Eilers neighborhood did show elevated blood-lead levels.  

“If we do have elevated levels of lead and arsenic, and we are also seeing that the kids in these areas are at greater risk, then I would support the concept of cleanup,” Diawara said. 

The difficulty is great, explained Diawara, in translating actual health risks from scientific data, “You cannot sample every specific spot and you do have to estimate.”  Diawara added that even with the bio-monitoring sampling he has been conducting there can be difficulties.

Diawara admitted, he can’t be sure of the cause and effect relationships his research shows.  

“It is not enough to conclude a site needs or does not need to be cleaned based on what his data shows; unless he knows how long the children tested have lived in a specific area, for example, or if they might have moved into or out of the area recently.”

Diawara hopes to fully summarize his data and go public near March 1st, 2013.

9. City Council: The Official Positions

City council identified three areas of concern when it came to listing the area as a Superfund site. While city council does take into consideration the health effects, they are also weighing the potential economic and political ramifications. 

Councilman Chris Kaufman spoke strongly on the economic issue. From his experience with transfers of property titles in the neighborhoods EPA calls hotspots for high contamination, Kaufman made clear, Superfund designation would diminish the reputations of those areas.

Kaufman added the EPA “is making a mountain out of a molehill” and more pointedly, “There is verifiable proof from CSU-Pueblo professors that there is no lead poisoning” and because “there are no hard stats from anybody,” city council is not behind a cleanup.

City Council President Steve Nawrocki deferred to Councilwoman Sandy Daff, whose district is home to the Colorado Smelter site and Bessemer and Eilers neighborhoods, when asked for his official position on the possibility of a NPL for these areas.

With health concerns of her constituents on her mind, Daff sees both sides of the Colorado Smelter contamination issue, and articulates the second and third points of objection City Council maintains with EPA, the political and the public health arguments.

Daff admitted her first reaction to the 2010 EPA study showing dangerously high levels of lead and arsenic around the site of the Colorado Smelter was “We need to take care of it.” She sympathized with the public health concerns posed by the research.

At the same time, Daff worried, if city council moved ahead with supporting listing the area on the NPL, “Who knows if we would ever fall off that list?”  

“Who wants to invest in that neighborhood?” said Daff, referring to the future of the  area being deemed a Superfund  site. 

She understood that city council and the EPA are in the situation together and motivated by the same cause, public safety; but much of Daff’s frustration was with EPA’s process itself.  She expressed concerns going forward with listing the Colorado Smelter area on the NPL when in her opinion the city doesn’t have proof the site is contaminated. 

Daff poses the question, why should city council agree to move forward with a federal-scale remediation process when the kind of explicit evidence the council wants will not be gathered or given to them until they agree to hand over their project-managing power over to the federal government?

What Daff concluded could move City Council to act in supporting a NPL listing is more community outreach from the EPA and more third party analysis from scientists like Moussa Diawara from CSU-Pueblo.  

Councilman Chris Nicoll echoed Daff’s desire for more third party analysis, more federal research money, and frustration with the EPA Superfund process.  

“We [City Council] are concerned about putting the cart before the horse, but if we could get the EPA to present conclusive data, I would support cleanup,” Nicoll said. 

Eva Montoya and Ami Nawrocki could not be reached for comment. 

As it stands now, Council President Steve Nawrocki has deferred to the position of Sandy Daff, “The area is in her district… she will represent our [Pueblo City Council] current thoughts on this.” Sandy Daff requests more third party analysis, more community involvement, and disagrees with the EPA Superfund process.  Chris Nicoll would like to see more federal research money as well as conclusive evidence of contamination before supporting a cleanup. And Chris Kaufman is opposed to the Superfund designation for economic reasons.

10. CDPHE and Pueblo County Health Department: The Physician’s Dilemma

The voices of the health care leaders face the reality that it may be impossible to provide city officials and community members with irrefutable proof that there are cases of Puebloans sick with symptoms characteristic of lead and arsenic, and also, associated with pollution from the Colorado Smelter.

Where local and federal government disagrees on the health risks posed and studies cannot provide irrefutable evidence of health risks to the community, the message coming from state and local public health leaders is clear and consistent.

Janine Natterman, CDPHE Public Information Officer, communicated plainly, “We know from the data that lead and arsenic levels (in the soil around the Colorado Smelter) are high enough to make it a Superfund area.”

Dr. Christine Nevin-Woods, Director of the Pueblo County Health Department, similarly expressed, “I know there is concern that there isn’t good enough data (that exists studying the issue of contamination from the Colorado Smelter) but we have the best scientists from EPA, and they are saying they are very concerned.  So why can’t we trust their judgment on this?”

As a physician, Nevin-Woods added, with regard to the difficulty of diagnosing lead and arsenic poisoning, if she had a patient who lived in a lead and arsenic hotspot neighborhood that approached her with high blood pressure, her first reaction is not to say, oh, I think the symptoms are caused by lead and arsenic, because those symptoms are so prevalent anyway.  Also the outcomes of lead and arsenic exposures are not so rare that it would be easy to study.  

Natterman emphasized the point that with the data available the EPA, CDPHE and the city have “Guilty Knowledge” of environmental contamination at levels dangerous to public health.

“The burden is on us” said Nevin-Woods; “the community leaders, state health, Pueblo County Health Department, and EPA need to do a better job  explaining the situation because we know it is dangerous.”

The CDPHE’s prescription for moving forward on the issue is summarized in Natterman’s assertion that getting the Colorado Smelter listed as a Superfund site is the next step, so more money can be used to determine how to remediate the area.

Nevin-Woods confided leaders in public health have not clearly explained the situation in a way that the average person understands the risk.  She claimed there is scientific evidence of the dangers of arsenic and lead contamination and there is evidence of contamination in the soil in around the site. 

“It’s in the soil; it can cause disease. So, let’s clean it up.” said Dr. Nevin-Woods.

11. What’s next

A sinister orange sludge lines the Santa Fe Avenue Bridge Culvert.  The concrete from culvert to the river’s edge is damp and stained from decades of seepage.  The culvert releases a steady flow of a peculiar smelling polychromatic discharge through cracks in the eroded concrete that soon reappears as a cancerous cloud in the Arkansas River.

The infamous culvert, the little landmark that started all the controversy, a living example of the pollution problem Pueblo refuses to face, with the word “COPE” tagged in bubble letters on the mural above it, remains hidden in plain sight.

The site remains the same as it did from the beginning, almost as a metaphor to the progress made over the debate of what should happen next.

It is difficult to know what the next step will be for these neighborhoods on Pueblo’s south-side. Will there be another proposal in April, the next time the EPA can propose a clean up? Do economic risks outweigh the health risks? Will another study persuade city council to send a letter to the Governor?

The next occasion the issue of contamination from the Colorado Smelter will be discussed will be held on February 21, 2013 at St. Mary’s Church in Bessemer. Members of EPA will make themselves available for questions and concerns on the issue and to promote public awareness around the issue.  

Matthew Ramirez can be contacted at [email protected] or Kara Mason at [email protected]


Continue Reading
1 Comment
  • Mistie Mosely

    Excellent piece ! Just to add my thoughts if you a a form , my business saw a sample version here


Why are teachers in the Steel City prepared to strike: ‘Teachers are walking into classrooms that are not funded’



Teachers in Pueblo are prepared to join a national movement of educator activism and walk out of their classrooms later this year if their demand for a 2 percent raise isn’t met.

Members of the Pueblo Education Association, the southern Colorado town’s teachers union, voted last week to authorize a strike after the local school board rejected a third party recommendation that the district provide the cost-of-living pay increase the teachers were seeking during this year’s contract negotiations.

As part of its rationale for rejecting teacher raises, the board cited other budget priorities, a desire to protect funding reserves, and raises given to most teachers in the past two years. The average teacher salary this year in Pueblo is $47,617, according to state data.

The board’s vote came after the district recently decided to go to a four-day week, in part as a cost-saving measure.

The extraordinary vote — the last teacher strike in Colorado occurred in 1994 — took place as teachers across the country have left their classrooms over demands for better salaries and more school funding. So far, teachers in West Virginia and Oklahoma have staged weeklong strikes. Arizona teachers are also preparing to leave their lesson plans behind.

“I think both movements, both nationally and locally, show that teachers have had enough,” Suzanne Etheridge, the Pueblo teachers union president said. “Teachers are walking into classrooms that are not funded.”

For the moment, Pueblo teachers are still in their classrooms. A strike can’t take place until after the state decides in early May whether it will step in to broker a deal.

Etheridge, in an interview with Chalkbeat, discussed the circumstances that led teachers in the 16,000-student school district to take such “drastic” action, how the national climate is fueling their effort, and how the looming strike could be resolved.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity. (Click here to read the district’s statement on the union’s vote to strike.)

Negotiations between the union and the district have been tense before. What’s different this time? Why did you go all the way to taking a vote for a strike?
I think what’s different this time is the true lack of openness during this round of bargaining. Although the district has accused us of never coming off our demand for 2.8 percent, which was our initial request, they also stuck to zero the whole entire time. There were also some issues, some discussions we should have had but never happened. We were invited to one budget summit that consisted of a sit-and-listen to somebody lecture the school board. So, it was just the real lack of openness and transparency through this process.

What finally tipped the balance was when the school board took its vote. Some of the comments made really angered our teachers. It felt like we were being publicly lectured asking for a cost-of-living increase. One of our board members went on about the value of younger teachers versus more experienced teachers, when we’re all valuable. There should be none of those lines drawn. We felt like some of the comments were very caustic in nature. I watched teachers’ faces at that board meeting. I watched the disappointment. I watched the hurt. I watched the anger. Our members after that were very, very upset.

You said in another interview that this wasn’t just about money, but about respect. How have Pueblo teachers been disrespected?
Educator voices are not part of the decision-making in our schools right now. At one of our schools, which is in turnaround status, they just had their lesson plan format changed for the sixth time this year. It’s the middle of April! We have very little input at the district level. We have made three open records request for the district’s staffing model for next year. And still, we’re just told no, that it’s still fluid. When they ask questions, they’re very often met with not only resistance, but are sometimes punished. It’s those sorts of things that have just added up for teachers.

There’s a five-member board. Two of the members were endorsed by the union. How did your relationship with the board break down?
The board members who voted against the fact finder report aren’t hearing teachers. What we’re trying to tell them is that a budget is about choices. And we don’t agree with some of the choices they’re making right now. One of the choices was that the instructional budget was cut, but business services had their budget increased, so did human resources. That’s a choice. The district is spending a lot of money on a law firm out of Boulder. That’s a choice. Administrators received a cost-of-living increase this year, teachers are not. More importantly our paraprofessionals have not. It’s those kind of choices we’re looking at in our budget analysis and saying, “Wait a minute.” We’ve also found money where we believe the district is over-budgeting and has some money available.

The school board president, Barb Clementi, a former teacher whom you did endorse, wrote an editorial recently about her vote against giving teachers a raise: “There is no question that our employees deserve more, and yet we are in a grim financial situation. Since three educators were elected to the board, teachers, paraprofessionals and other educators have seen two raises and three step increases in pay. We are struggling to continue to fund those increases in the coming budget and will undoubtedly see cuts to staff and programs in order to do so. It is fiscally irresponsible to dig an even deeper financial hole by raiding our reserves, which are meant to cover one-time emergency expenses, or by further cutting staff and programs.” I know you’re suggesting that the district doesn’t need to use reserves to pay for these raises, but more broadly, why is she wrong? Is it just possible that it’s just not the teachers’ turn for a raise? Was a guarantee of a raise next year never part of the conversation?

No, it was not. At least not until now, after all this has got rolling. We still have next year’s contract hanging out there. It’s been mentioned in some informal conversations, “Well, there’s next year.” The problem is, those raises, the past two years only came after this same process — long, drawn-out negotiations. Steps (or years of tenure) are not a raise for all of our employees. There are some places people are frozen. What the district also fails to recognize, is that in all of its years, it’s never once been on the state’s watchlist for fiscal risk. They’ve always been very healthy financially. They’ve maintained stable ground. We’ve tracked reserves through the years, and this is the first year you can see a little bit of a decrease. But that’s because the district made a choice to move some money to address facility issues, which we also understand. The other thing they neglect to mention is that the district continues to get more money from the state despite declining enrollment. They are getting additional money, and they’re set to get more money. School finance is looking a little better in Colorado for next year.

Should teachers expect to get raises every year?
I think there are ways that we need to start looking at our traditional salary scales. That should be something on the table at a future point. Do I think some of the structures of our salary schedules are a little outdated? Yes. I think there are ways we can change that to make the money a little bit better. What people also need to understand is that schools are funded by the state based on cost of living. So, I think it’s reasonable for there to be something. Does it need to be a 10 percent raise? Not necessarily, because we are dependant on state funding.

Teachers, in a lot of cases, have the same level of education as attorneys, physicians assistants, nurses. And those people can expect raises. They have a high level of education and so do our teachers. Teachers have been deprofessionalized by the lack of funding, by the lack of raises. Do I think teachers deserve to come into a profession and take care of their own families, to pay off their own students loans? Absolutely.

We’re at a moment of national unrest and action by teachers. Do you think your members are feeling embolden by that? Would your members have voted to strike if it there wasn’t this national conversation?
I think we’d still be heading here, even without the momentum. But do I think the national momentum has helped? Absolutely. I think both movements, both nationally and locally, show that teachers have had enough. Teachers are walking into classrooms that are not funded. We have teachers who (can only make) 100 copies a month from the building copier. And yet, they see 125 to 150 students a day. That’s the kind of thing teachers are tired of. My daughter-in-law, she’s a teacher, the decorations in her classroom are bought with her own money. Teachers for the last five to seven years have been put in the situation of having to buy basic supplies such as paper and pencils because schools have been so underfunded. It’s all part of the same issue. It’s about respect. No other professional would be asked to buy their supplies like teachers do.

Pueblo is the only urban school district in the state to not have voter approval for additional local funding for its schools. What do voters in Pueblo and Colorado need to know about how the financial situation is contributing to this moment?
Colorado has fallen further and further behind in school funding. Current estimates suggest we’re either 46th or 48th in funding schools. Which is really tragic considering our economy — at least in the northern part of the state — has been healthier than it’s ever been.

The other piece of this, for districts like ours that have not passed a tax increase: We’ve hurt ourselves. School districts have had to pass local tax increases to keep the cash flow coming in to do things like keep up facilities, supplies, and technology.

We desperately need one. We need a long-term, well-thought-out plan for a mill levy override and perhaps a bond issue to be able to get our schools up to date. There was supposed to be a committee to get this started. And we were supposed to be part of that committee. But it hasn’t happened.

Getting back to the potential strike, teachers at a local middle school recently staged a “sickout.” One parent responded: “If the teachers want to strike, fine: strike like the steelworkers strike where they don’t get paid a damn dime. But for them to use sick time and screw over all these kids, who’re aren’t in school today because of that? That’s wrong. And they expect the community to take them seriously?” What do you say to that parent? Are you at all concerned that this could backfire, are you worried that the district could just drop the collective bargaining all together?
That’s always a concern. That’s something we hope doesn’t happen. The association did not plan what happened at Corwin International Magnet School. I didn’t even know about it. I read it on Facebook and in the news like everyone else.

What I would say to that parent is that we’re not walking out to harm our students. In reality, we’re planning a strike to help our students. One of the things that this district struggles with is high teacher turnover. It’s one of the highest rates in the state. We have positions filled this year by teachers who have come out of retirement for limited contracts. We have teachers in classrooms on alternative licenses. Finding a special education teacher in the city of Pueblo is like finding a needle in a haystack. We believe that if we can get back to work openly, honestly, and collaboratively with the school district, where we can compete salary-wise with districts surrounding us, then we can keep highly qualified teachers in our classroom. That’s what we’re after. Our goal is not to harm students. But we feel like to benefit our students, we have to take drastic opinions right now.

What is the long-term solution, so a strike can be avoided and you’re not here next year?
We have made a conscious decision: We feel a 2 percent raise is fair. It’s off of our initial proposal by almost a full percent. We’d like to be able to come back to the table with some sort of real labor-management partnership collaboration agreement so we’re not here again. It’s going to take some real work. It might even take some outside help to repair our relationship. However, when we do come to the table again, I’d like to see come forward a real partnership agreement. Not one that is just written on paper.

What’s the nationwide or state solution to this moment of educator unrest?
Funding formulas across states need to be changed. States need to take a long hard look at how they fund schools. I believe Colorado’s is archaic. Will money solve everything? No. But it’s a big piece of it. We also have to get teachers to the table when education decisions have been made.

Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

Originally posted on Chalkbeat by Nic Garcia on April 23, 2018

Continue Reading


More than just pie, the Pecan industry sets sights on snacks



The humble pecan is being rebranded as more than just pie.

Pecan growers and suppliers are hoping to sell U.S. consumers on the virtues of North America’s only native nut as a hedge against a potential trade war with China, the pecan’s largest export market.

The pecan industry is also trying to crack the fast-growing snack-food industry.

The retail value for packaged nuts, seeds and trail mix in the U.S. alone was $5.7 billion in 2012, and is forecast to rise to $7.5 billion by 2022, according to market researcher Euromonitor.

The Fort Worth, Texas-based American Pecan Council, formed in the wake of a new federal marketing order that allows the industry to band together and assess fees for research and promotion, is a half-century in the making, said Jim Anthony, 80, the owner of a 14,000-acre pecan farm near Granbury, Texas.

Anthony said that regional rivalries and turf wars across the 15-state pecan belt — stretching from the Carolinas to California — made such a union impossible until recently, when demand for pecans exploded in Asian markets.

Until 2007, most U.S. pecans were consumed domestically, according to Daniel Zedan, president of Nature’s Finest Foods, a marketing group. By 2009, China was buying about a third of the U.S. crop.

The pecan is the only tree nut indigenous to North America, growers say. Sixteenth-century Spanish explore Cabeza de Vaca wrote about tasting the nut during his encounters with Native American tribes in South Texas. The name is French explorers’ phonetic spelling of the native word “pakan,” meaning hard-shelled nut.

Facing growing competition from pecan producers in South Africa, Mexico and Australia, U.S. producers are also riding the wave of the Trump Administration’s policies to promote American-made goods.

Most American kids grow up with peanut butter but peanuts probably originated in South America. Almonds are native to Asia and pistachios to the Middle East. The pecan council is funding academic research to show that their nuts are just as nutritious.

The council on Wednesday will debut a new logo: “American Pecans: The Original Supernut.”

Rodney Myers, who manages operations at Anthony’s pecan farm, credits the pecan’s growing cachet in China and elsewhere in Asia with its association to rustic Americana — “the oilfield, cowboys, the Wild West — they associate all these things with the North American nut,” he said.

China earlier this month released a list of American products that could face tariffs in retaliation for proposed U.S. tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods. Fresh and dried nuts — including the pecan — could be slapped with a 15-percent tariff, according to the list. To counter that risk, the pecan council is using some of the $8 million in production-based assessments it’s collected since the marketing order was passed to promote the versatility of the tree nut beyond pecan pie at Thanksgiving.

While Chinese demand pushed up prices it also drove away American consumers. By January 2013, prices had dropped 50 percent from their peak in 2011, according to Zedan.

U.S. growers and processers were finally able in 2016 to pass a marketing order to better control pecan production and prices.

Authorized by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, federal marketing orders help producers and handlers standardize packaging, impose quality control and fund research, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees 28 other fruit, vegetable and specialty marketing orders, in addition to the pecan order.

Critics charge that the orders interfere with the price signals of a free, unfettered private market.

“What you’ve created instead is a government-sanctioned cartel,” said Daren Bakst, an agricultural policy researcher at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Before the almond industry passed its own federal marketing order in 1950, fewer almonds than pecans were sold, according to pecan council chair Mike Adams, who cultivates 600 acres of pecan trees near Caldwell, Texas. Now, while almonds appear in everything from cereal to milk substitutes, Adams calls the pecan “the forgotten nut.”

“We’re so excited to have an identity, to break out of the pie shell,” said Molly Willis, a member of the council who owns an 80-acre pecan farm in Albany, Georgia, a supplement to her husband’s family’s peanut-processing business.

Continue Reading


Navajo Nation marks 150th anniversary of return to homeland



A long-lost original copy of a historic treaty signed in 1868 by leaders of one of the nation’s largest American Indian tribes and the U.S. government will go on display later this year as the Navajo Nation commemorates a dark, but significant chapter of history.

Navajo Vice President Jonathan Nez and other tribal officials gathered Tuesday in Albuquerque to detail some of the events that will mark the signing of the treaty 150 years ago.

That treaty is what cleared the way for tribal members to return to their homeland in the heart of the American Southwest after being rounded up years earlier by the U.S. cavalry and forced to make an arduous and deadly trek hundreds of miles to a camp in eastern New Mexico.

Nez recounted the hardships of what came to be known as the Long Walk, saying many Navajos died along the route to Bosque Redondo. He also talked about those who stayed behind and hid in canyons and on mesa tops, often foregoing the warmth of a fire to avoid capture.

“We want our younger generation to know about our history,” Nez told a room packed with tribal officials and reporters.

He also talked about problems facing tribal communities, from suicide to alcoholism, drug addiction and violence. He said he wants to tap into the resilience of those Navajo ancestors who endured the hardships of the 1800s.

“What this will do is inspire, encourage our people out there that they can’t give up, to jump back up, dust themselves off and to fight even harder than ever before for what they believe in,” Nez said.

Navajo President Russell Begaye has said this year’s commemoration is also about telling the story of the Long Walk, the signing of the treaty and the return home from the perspective of Native Americans. He and other tribal officials say one goal is to address what they called a “legacy of misrepresentation” that has stemmed from that era.

Before research and planning began for this year’s events, there were only two known copies of the historic treaty. The whereabouts of one is now a mystery and the other has been kept by the National Archives and Records Administration.

The third copy turned up only recently when the relatives of a peace commissioner who was involved in the negotiation and signing of the treaty in 1868 found the document in a trunk in the family attic.

It was rolled up and bound with the original but faded ribbon. It was in pristine condition along with notes and other documents that historians hope might fill in some of the blanks from that time.

Pages of that copy will be on display starting in June at the Bosque Redondo Memorial near Fort Sumner, New Mexico.

The National Archives is partnering with the Navajo Nation to display the other original copy at the Navajo Nation Museum in Window Rock, Arizona, for the month of June.

It took more than two years of planning to make the exhibition possible as this marks only the second time an original treaty has gone back to a homeland.

Museum director Manny Wheeler said the treaty is more than just a document to the Navajo people.

“When I saw the document and I saw the marks of all of our leaders on that paper, it is a powerful thing and it is very much so opening up dialogue among all Navajos about who we are, where we’ve come from and where we’re going,” Wheeler said.

Wheeler suggested that as much as the document was key to the Navajos’ past, it also has the power to change the future by awaking tribal members to the importance of preserving their culture and language.

The leaders of the Navajo Nation’s three branches of government signed a proclamation earlier this year declaring 2018 as the year of the treaty, and the tribe launched a website .

The commemoration also includes a day of prayer across the Navajo Nation, cultural nights, tours of the tribal council chambers and a run that will span more than 400 miles (644 kilometers) from Fort Sumner to the Navajo capital.

Continue Reading