Society, Law & Politics

Richer people have an edge when it comes to getting national park permits

Yvaine Ye — Tue, 06 Oct 2026 16:22:52 +0000

Richer people have an edge when it comes to getting national park permits Yvaine Ye Tue, 10/06/2026 - 10:22

Hallet's Peak reflected in Lake Haiyaha at dawn in Rocky Mountain National Park. (Credit: National Park Service)

Yvaine Ye

Many outdoor enthusiasts have spent hours in front of a computer, racing to reserve a campsite, backpacking permit or national park entrance ticket. A recent study suggests that the way these reservation systems are designed can favor higher-income visitors.

In a paper published in Nature Communications, CU �Ǹ�Թ� economist Jonathan Hughes found that people from higher-income neighborhoods in the United States are more likely to successfully secure the most competitive permits, including timed-entry reservations for Rocky Mountain National Park.

Jonathan Hughes at Canyonlands National Park. (Courtesy of Jonathan Hughes)

The park ends its timed-entry permit system for the season on Oct. 18.

“The parks are trying to come up with ways to manage finite resources,” said Hughes, professor in the Department of Economics and a fellow at the Renewable and Sustainable Energy Institute (RASEI). “But if you look at the founding document of Yellowstone National Park, our first national park, it is to be ‘set apart as a public park…for the benefit and enjoyment of the people,’ not just rich people.”

National parks in the United States have seen steady increases in visitors since around 2013, with the COVID-19 pandemic pushing visitation even higher in recent years. In 2024, more than 331 million people visited national parks.

Crowds can put pressure on park infrastructure, impact the ecosystem and make emergency response more difficult. In response, many parks have introduced online reservation systems for parking, popular trails and entering the park at certain times.

For example, during peak hours from mid-May to mid-October, Rocky Mountain National Park requires visitors to obtain a permit for $2 in addition to the entrance pass to enter the park during a specific time window. The park releases some permits on the first day of each month for the rest of that month, while another batch becomes available the evening before each entry date.

Hughes has navigated many of these reservation systems himself over the years. He recalls coming to campus early to take advantage of the faster WiFi connection and using two computers to give himself the best chance of securing a permit.

“It made me think about who has the ability to participate in such a process. Not everyone can plan months ahead, is comfortable with technology or has access to a fast internet connection,” he said.

Hughes has previously studied the river permit system in the American West, which allows visitors to boat and fish through a combination of lotteries and an advance reservation system. He found that people who managed to secure a permit through advance reservation tend to have higher incomes than those who got the permit through the lottery.

He wondered if reservation systems at national parks show a similar bias.

Hughes examined 11 reservation systems covering more than 5 million reservations at seven national parks, including Rocky Mountain National Park, Glacier National Park and Yosemite National Park.

By tracking the ZIP codes associated with reservations, he found that among systems that offered advanced reservations, visitors who secured permits weeks or months ahead tended to come from higher-income areas than those who obtained permits the same day or a day in advance.

Particularly for highly competitive permits, where most tickets sell out within five minutes after they become available, successful reservation holders came from ZIP codes with median household incomes about 3% to 6% higher than those associated with less competitive reservations.

Hughes said this could be because higher-income visitors have more flexibility to plan trips months in advance, are more familiar with the reservation system and tend to be more tech-savvy.

As parks continue to adjust their reservation systems, Hughes said the findings could help managers consider different ways of distributing permits. For example, parks could experiment with how many permits are released months in advance versus closer to the visit date. In some cases, random lotteries may provide a more equitable alternative.

“For many years, the people responsible for stewarding our public lands have worked to give everyone equal access,” Hughes said. “Income is just one indicator. Education, age and race could also play a role. Any indication that some people have better access than others runs counter to that goal.”

As Rocky Mountain National Park prepares to end its timed entry system for the season, a new study shows that higher-income people are more likely to secure permits.

Traditional

Hallet's Peak reflected in Lake Haiyaha at dawn in Rocky Mountain National Park. (Credit: National Park Service)

White

Hallet's Peak reflected in Lake Haiyaha at dawn in Rocky Mountain National Park. (Credit: National Park Service)

A landmark �Ǹ�Թ� climate case is heading to SCOTUS. What's at stake?

Yvaine Ye — Thu, 24 Sep 2026 14:31:56 +0000

A landmark �Ǹ�Թ� climate case is heading to SCOTUS. What's at stake? Yvaine Ye Thu, 09/24/2026 - 08:31

The Suncor refinery in Commerce City, Colorado. (Credit: Nico Goda/CU �Ǹ�Թ�)

Yvaine Ye

The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a landmark lawsuit next month in which oil and gas companies argue that state courts cannot decide who pays for damages caused by climate change.

The court’s decision, expected before next summer, could set a precedent for dozens of similar climate accountability lawsuits around the country.

“This is a historic moment where our home is going to be presenting these issues to the United States Supreme Court,” said Chris Winter, an environmental attorney and executive director of the Getches-Wilkinson Center at Colorado Law. “Here in Colorado, we are experiencing the effects of climate change firsthand. This is a case that’s happening in our backyard.”

On Oct. 5, the court will hear arguments on a petition filed by Exxon Mobil and Suncor, a Canadian oil giant. The city and county of �Ǹ�Թ� are suing the companies, alleging that they knowingly concealed the environmental dangers of their activities, and that their actions contributed to a shifted climate that made wildfires, droughts and floods worse.

After the Colorado Supreme Court allowed �Ǹ�Թ� to advance the case in the state legal system last year, Suncor and Exxon Mobil brought the case to federal court. The companies argue that climate change is a national and international issue, and federal law preempts, or overrides, state law on the issue.

“What the Supreme Court will decide is not whether the oil industry is ultimately responsible for climate change, or if they were deceptive in their marketing practices. Instead, they will decide whether state courts are properly equipped to play a role in deciding how we allocate the costs of responding to climate change,” Winter said.

The �Ǹ�Թ� case is one of about three dozen lawsuits filed by state, local and tribal governments across the U.S. seeking to hold the oil and gas industry liable for climate change. None of them has progressed to trial yet.

The Supreme Court has previously declined to hear similar petitions. It took up the �Ǹ�Թ� case as the administration doubled down on efforts to shut down other climate accountability lawsuits nationwide.

Last year, the U.S. Department of Justice preemptively sued the states of Michigan and Hawaii to prevent them from suing oil companies. Federal judges have dismissed both cases.

CU �Ǹ�Թ� Today sat down with Winter to talk about the �Ǹ�Թ� case and the ruling’s potential implications.

What does the petition by Exxon Mobil and Suncor argue?

The oil and gas companies argue that whether they’re responsible for climate change damage is an issue that should be decided by federal law or Congress, and that federal law pre-empts state authorities. The companies believe the federal Supreme Court can step in and basically kill the case before it's able to go back to the state trial court.

Why does Exxon Mobil and Suncor want the case before the Supreme Court?

The core of their argument is that state law has been pre-empted by federal law, and they are therefore asking the Supreme Court of the United States to kill the case.

But the industry’s broader strategy is to avoid liability for causing climate change and to protect its financial interest in continuing to produce fossil fuels. Congress, our law-making body, hasn’t enacted a comprehensive climate change law. Thus, if federal law pre-empts state law, but Congress hasn’t implemented effective climate laws at the federal level, we could end up in a situation of not having any meaningful climate policy.

Could the Supreme Court establish a precedent for similar cases in the country?

Possibly. But there is another possibility. The oil industry is asking the Supreme Court to step into the case very early, before there’s been any trial or rulings on the merits by the state court. This is an unusual ask.

So, it’s possible that the Supreme Court may send the case back to the state courts and ask them to do more work before the federal courts can review it. In that case, we will be left without a clear answer on the question of preemption.

Have other climate lawsuits moved forward in other jurisdictions?

There has been extensive climate litigation in the United States and around the world, and some of those cases have moved forward.

For example, in the case of Held v. Montana, a group of young people successfully sued the State of Montana under the Montana Constitution for failing to protect their right to a clean and healthful environment. After an extensive trial on the merits, the trial court ruled in favor of the youth, which was upheld on appeal by the Montana Supreme Court in 2024.

There are also examples from other countries around the world. In, KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz, or the Senior Women for Climate Protection, an advocacy group in Switzerland, sued the Swiss government for insufficient action to curb climate change, leading to extreme weather that threatened their health. In 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Switzerland’s inaction violated human rights.

In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court won’t be looking to those other examples as precedent. The �Ǹ�Թ� case involves allegations of fraud and deceptive business practices under state tort law, which is a unique legal theory.

What does �Ǹ�Թ� hope to accomplish by progressing this case?

Local municipalities are spending a lot of public money to take care of their citizens, to protect infrastructure, and to protect local economies in the face of increased drought, fires, floods, and heatwaves. �Ǹ�Թ� wants the oil industry, which profited from the marketing and sale of fossil fuels, to share in those costs.

Congress has failed to pass meaningful climate legislation at the federal level. �Ǹ�Թ�’s case is critically important, because without action by the courts, the costs of climate change will be imposed on all of us, and the oil industry will not have a sufficient financial incentive to protect the climate.

To hold the oil companies accountable, �Ǹ�Թ� hopes to get to a trial where the science of climate change and the evidence of the oil industry's deceptive practices, can all be put before a jury. Then we can have a determination in a court of law on whether those activities are causing climate change and causing harms.

Beyond the preemption question, what is at stake in this case?

Climate change is hurting people in Colorado and across the country, and those effects are accelerating. Fundamentally, we’re trying to get an answer to this bigger question of who is going to pay for the enormous costs of adapting to climate change?

What �Ǹ�Թ� is asking is that we need some monetary help from the oil industry to adapt to the effects of climate change, because the oil industry caused the problem, knew it was causing the problem, intentionally deceived consumers about it and then profited to the tune of trillions of dollars.

What are the broader implications of this case?

This case will potentially say something about the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court takes an aggressive stance in support of the oil industry, it will indicate something troubling about how the Supreme Court is thinking about its role in our constitutional system. The Supreme Court has long upheld the role of states to protect their citizens from wrongful corporate behavior. If the Supreme Court sacrifices this bedrock constitutional principle to serve the ends of the oil industry in this case, we should be very concerned about corporate influence over the rule of law.

CU �Ǹ�Թ� Today regularly publishes Q&As on news topics through the lens of scholarly expertise and research/creative work. The responses here reflect the knowledge and interpretations of the expert and should not be considered the university position on the issue. All publication content is subject to edits for clarity, brevity and university style guidelines.

Can state courts decide who pays for damage from climate change? As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to consider the question, an environmental law expert explains the case's far-reaching implications.

Traditional

The Suncor refinery in Commerce City, Colorado. (Credit: Nico Goda/CU �Ǹ�Թ�)

White

The Suncor refinery in Commerce City, Colorado. (Credit: Nico Goda/CU �Ǹ�Թ�)

AI used to be a nemesis confined to science fiction. Will it really destroy us all?

Scott Franz — Mon, 21 Sep 2026 22:24:26 +0000

AI used to be a nemesis confined to science fiction. Will it really destroy us all? Scott Franz Mon, 09/21/2026 - 16:24

Server racks are pictured in a data center. (Credit: Adobe Stock)

Scott Franz

Fears about AI going rogue and turning against humanity have been around since the days of Skynet, the superintelligent neural network in the 1984 film, the Terminator.

But this month, those fears reached a chilling new high.

An AI researcher quit and warned that the systems he was helping to develop could get "out of control" and wipe out humanity.

Martha Palmer, a professor of computer science and linguistics at CU �Ǹ�Թ�, said the warning isn’t science fiction.

“AI systems can find the loopholes. They get out, and then they do all kinds of stuff that nobody expected them to do,” Palmer said. “How many warning signs do we need before we slow down and take action?”

Palmer is one of the two U.S. representatives on the United Nations Independent International Scientific Panel on Artificial Intelligence. The group issued a report last summer on AI, its risks and its opportunities.

Palmer recently spoke to CU �Ǹ�Թ� Today about the latest AI fears.

Could AI really destroy us all?

Absolutely. I don’t think that’s hyperbole at all. AI is this incredibly powerful engine. But it’s sort of like we’ve developed some kind of fantastic new jet airplane with this amazing engine in it that can go faster than ever before, but we haven’t put a lot of thought and effort into the landing gear.

We need to understand the technology better. We need to get a much better grasp of how to really understand why it's doing what it's doing, and how to train it so that it will always prioritize what it knows to be good behavior. And they're not being trained like that right now.

How would AI destroy us?

There are so many different directions it can go. You can’t say, ‘this is what’s gonna happen.’

I think the danger of a bad actor coming up with some kind of bioweapon right now is frighteningly realistic.

You can also say the ability for AI to hack infrastructure makes all our utilities vulnerable. It makes all our financial systems vulnerable and our schools and all our hospitals and our private information vulnerable. Everything. And it’s vulnerable in two different ways:

One is if a bad actor gets hold of this AI and decides to maliciously try and hack those things. But it’s also vulnerable if the AI has been given a goal, and along the way it gets the notion that the best way to achieve that goal is to, for instance, cut off the power to a hospital.

That’s not what any human ever intended for it to do, but it doesn’t know that. And at the moment, it doesn’t have sufficient guardrails that would tell it that’s off limits and it should never do that.

Why are AI doomsday warnings being taken more seriously now?

Because we’ve gotten so close to the AI improving itself. And if it’s improving itself, and it’s got this sort of fuzzy notion of what good behavior is, then the behavior is not going to get any better.

It’s already changing its behavior when it knows it’s being tested. It will give different answers during an evaluation than it will give when it’s being deployed. It’s gotten very good at deception.

How do we stop that from happening then?

Martha Palmer

There are all sorts of brilliant computer scientists and people out there who have really good ideas about how we can slow this down a bit and rethink how we’re doing the training of AI. We really need to be training them more thoughtfully and with more carefully curated data. We could also change the priorities a bit.

I think we need guardrails in the next six months, if not the next six weeks. We need a little bit of a slowdown. We need to do this right. The risk of doing it wrong is too high.

Can we afford to slow down? Will we lose our competitive edge?

To make this work, we need to have some very serious conversations with China. I think the Chinese are more aware of the risks and more ready to deal with them than we have been.

They stopped letting their children have access to AI. We’re just now getting around to that. They’re not allowed to have AI in toys. We still have all kinds of AIs with toys. They’ve been focused on making sure the Ais they’re developing cannot harm their people more than we’ve been.

I would really like to have some conversations with them about what kind of truce or negotiation we need to have so we can all do this more safely.

Can we avoid AI doomsday?

I’m quite sure we can from a technical perspective. I’m not as sure about what the powers that be will do. But I have to be optimistic about it because we absolutely need to have it.

We can still stop this. We can stop this race to oblivion, but we have to act now.

Fears about AI going rogue and turning against humanity have reached a chilling new high following an AI researcher's warning.

Traditional

Server racks are pictured in a data center. (Credit: Adobe Stock)

White

25 years after 9/11: The persistence of stereotypes, the willingness to build understanding

Megan M Rogers — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 12:17:34 +0000

25 years after 9/11: The persistence of stereotypes, the willingness to build understanding Megan M Rogers Fri, 09/11/2026 - 06:17

In the weeks following 9/11, CU �Ǹ�Թ� sociologist Lori Peek was in New York City hearing the stories of Muslim Americans navigating suspicion, hostility and questions of identity and belonging.

Traditional

White

CU historian offers view on how 9/11 changed the Middle East

Megan M Rogers — Thu, 10 Sep 2026 15:50:19 +0000

CU historian offers view on how 9/11 changed the Middle East Megan M Rogers Thu, 09/10/2026 - 09:50

Twenty-five years after the terrorist attacks, Middle East expert John Willis says 9/11 did not fundamentally reinvent U.S. policy in the region, but it did remove political constraints and accelerate changes.

Traditional

White

Rethinking Mao Zedong's rise and legacy, 50 years later

Megan M Rogers — Tue, 08 Sep 2026 17:44:27 +0000

Rethinking Mao Zedong's rise and legacy, 50 years later Megan M Rogers Tue, 09/08/2026 - 11:44

Five decades after his death, Mao Zedong remains the face of modern China, yet CU �Ǹ�Թ� historian William Wei argues his rise to power was never inevitable and neither is the verdict on his legacy.

Traditional

White

'Like driving off a cliff at 2 mph': A water expert's take on what's coming for the Colorado River

Scott Franz — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 12:00:00 +0000

'Like driving off a cliff at 2 mph': A water expert's take on what's coming for the Colorado River Scott Franz Wed, 09/02/2026 - 06:00

The Colorado River flows through southern Utah upstream of Lake Powell in June, 2026. (Credit: Scott Franz/CU �Ǹ�Թ�)

Scott Franz

The Colorado River is on the brink of collapse because of climate change and overuse of water.

Reservoirs supplying water to tens of millions of people in the southwest reached record lows this summer. The nation is racing to refill them with conservation measures so they can still generate hydropower and reliably deliver water to users downstream.

Fish are struggling. Rafters are having trouble navigating low water.

Despite all this, the seven states sharing the water supply remain at a yearslong impasse over how to conserve the river.

“The Colorado River is in as bad a shape as it’s ever been,” said Doug Kenney, chairman of the Colorado River Research Group at CU �Ǹ�Թ�’s Getches-Wilkinson Center.

The Interior Department announced Aug. 21 it will significantly cut back the amount of water that will flow to the lower basin states of California, Nevada and Arizona for at least the next two years.

“To the people who really study this river, everything that’s happening this year has been expected for decades,” Kenney said. “This is a classic, slow-moving crisis. I’ve equated it to driving a car off a cliff at 2 miles an hour. You can look out the windshield and see that cliff coming. And we’re now right at the edge.”

Kenney spoke to CU �Ǹ�Թ� Today about the latest efforts to conserve the river and what he thinks is coming next.

Are these cuts to the lower basin states enough to save the river?

There’s nothing in this plan that will save the river. It hasn’t made it to the ocean since the 1960s. That’s not going to change. What they’re really trying to accomplish is to prevent the reservoirs from going even lower. They’re trying to avoid further disaster. And the cuts they’re anticipating for the next two years—I don’t think are going to get us there.

If we have a good water year or two with heavy snowpack, we can maybe hold where we’re at. But by the time we get to year three and beyond, those cuts will probably have to be about twice as big as they are now.

Nevada is suing the federal government to stop the cuts. What’s at stake?

One of those stakes could be that the Bureau of Reclamation is told to go back and redo its plan to cut water to the lower basin states. That would be chaotic. The last thing water users want is chaos. They want to know how much water they can expect.

Doug Kenney

With lawsuits starting, is there any hope left for states to agree on a plan?

There are two problems on the river. One is stopping the current trajectory of reservoirs dropping. And that’s a heavy lift. But if you manage to do that, then there’s the other problem of rebuilding those reservoirs. Which requires even further conservation and cuts.

We have to rebuild some storage in those reservoirs. At the moment, we’ve decided let’s just deal with what we have to deal with immediately—this short term crisis—and even that’s proving to be a lift that the states can’t do themselves. And the federal government has had to step in.

Their plan doesn’t force water cuts for upper basin states like Colorado. Can we get out of this crisis without mandatory cuts in the upper basin?

The upper basin is tricky here in that it uses significantly less water than it was promised. And people in the upper basin will tell you, this is the deal they made a century ago in the 1922 Colorado River Compact.

So when you talk to the upper basin states about conserving water on any sort of permanent basis, that’s the sticking point that you’re going to get is people saying ‘we were promised this water.’

The scientists will say this is a different river than 100 years ago. So you have that sort of impasse. If the upper basin could just cap what they’re using today, long term, that would be tremendously helpful. And that might very well happen. But I don’t think the upper basin would want to commit to that in any sort of formal way.

Then how do we get out of this crisis?

A truly long-term sustainable solution has to look at the fact that we’re using 75 percent of the water in agriculture. And some of that agriculture I think is going to just have to go away. So the policy decision there is: Which agriculture goes away? And does it just go away through bankruptcies, and let the market do what the market does? Or do we do that in a structured and more humane manner, such as a federal program to buy out large amounts of it?

But when you start talking about retiring a lot of agriculture, that’s not popular. There’s no easy way out of this.

Is the fate of the river heading to the US Supreme Court?

I would guess we end up in interstate litigation. I’m not sure of that, but I think the odds of that happening are greater than 50-50 in my mind. But you have to appreciate that no negotiation and no court fight creates water. The weather systems create water. And as long as the earth continues to heat, this basin figures to get drier and drier.

Twenty years from now, we’re gonna look back and say, ‘Oh, those were the days when we got healthy snowpack,’ and ‘Oh boy, we had it good back then.’ That’s the trajectory we’re on in terms of the climate part of this.

Is there anything that gives you hope for the river’s future?

Hope comes from the fact that at some point, Mother Nature imposes cuts. At some point, the water just isn’t there and people have to be creative and do more with less or at least try to do the same with less. And there’s a good track record of doing that.

The southwest is a great example. Las Vegas over the last 30 plus years has been the fastest growing big city in America. And during that period, they slashed their water use dramatically. Other cities have been on the same trajectory: Denver, Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix and Tucson have shown that they can use a lot less water. And that’s really encouraging.

It’s tougher to save water in agriculture. But there are some things we can do to adapt. Some of it’s technology. Some of it’s using different systems for irrigating crops. It’s also changing to different crops. There are tools in the toolbox here.

But it’s really hard to get that sort of adaptation going as long as you’re still in the mindset that the other guy is the problem, and what I do is fine. That mindset stops a lot of good innovations from happening.

There are 30 tribal nations with a stake in this river as well. What can we learn from them?

They say, ‘Why is there a table with seven chairs. Why is it only seven states negotiating? There should be at least 37 chairs.’ They should be involved in this process at every level. And by and large they aren’t.

The Colorado River Indian Tribes have dubbed their portion of the river as basically having personhood status. It is a living independent being. It’s important, I think, to challenge the rest of the users in the basin to think about the obligation we have to the river itself. Because that’s just not a viewpoint that comes up in these negotiations, but it really needs to.

The federal government just unveiled an aggressive plan to help conserve the mighty Colorado. Will it work? And if not, what will? Water policy veteran Doug Kenney offers insight.

Traditional

The Colorado River flows near the Hite Marina in Utah. (Alexander Heilner/The Water Desk with aerial support from LightHawk)

White

The Colorado River flows near Hite Marina in Utah. (Credit: Alexander Heilner/The Water Desk with aerial support from LightHawk)

Chernobyl disaster still casts a shadow 40 years later

Megan M Rogers — Fri, 28 Aug 2026 18:19:15 +0000

Chernobyl disaster still casts a shadow 40 years later Megan M Rogers Fri, 08/28/2026 - 12:19

Forty years ago this month, Soviet officials issued their first formal report on the Chernobyl nuclear disaster—four months after the accident. CU �Ǹ�Թ� political scientist Sarah Wilson Sokhey says the underlying lesson of the catastrophe is that the risk has not gone away—and such disasters don’t recognize national borders.

Traditional

White

When leaving isn't a choice, staying becomes one

Megan M Rogers — Thu, 27 Aug 2026 14:28:06 +0000

When leaving isn't a choice, staying becomes one Megan M Rogers Thu, 08/27/2026 - 08:28

Who decides to stay behind when climate disaster strikes? CU �Ǹ�Թ� sociologist Lori Hunter examines how gender, social expectations and other factors shape the choice—or ability—to leave.

Traditional

White

Open house: Giving communities a voice in housing decisions

Megan M Rogers — Thu, 27 Aug 2026 14:23:21 +0000

Open house: Giving communities a voice in housing decisions Megan M Rogers Thu, 08/27/2026 - 08:23

In a new book, CU �Ǹ�Թ� communication scholar Matthew Koschmann examines participatory housing in the Philippines and the broader lessons it offers for involving communities in decisions that affect their lives.

Traditional

White

Society, Law & Politics

Richer people have an edge when it comes to getting national park permits

Related Articles

A landmark �Ǹ�Թ� climate case is heading to SCOTUS. What's at stake?

What does the petition by Exxon Mobil and Suncor argue?

Why does Exxon Mobil and Suncor want the case before the Supreme Court?

Could the Supreme Court establish a precedent for similar cases in the country?

Have other climate lawsuits moved forward in other jurisdictions?

What does �Ǹ�Թ� hope to accomplish by progressing this case?

Beyond the preemption question, what is at stake in this case?

What are the broader implications of this case?

Related Articles

AI used to be a nemesis confined to science fiction. Will it really destroy us all?

Could AI really destroy us all?

How would AI destroy us?

Why are AI doomsday warnings being taken more seriously now?

How do we stop that from happening then?

Can we afford to slow down? Will we lose our competitive edge?

Can we avoid AI doomsday?

Related Articles

25 years after 9/11: The persistence of stereotypes, the willingness to build understanding

Related Articles

CU historian offers view on how 9/11 changed the Middle East

Related Articles

Rethinking Mao Zedong's rise and legacy, 50 years later

Related Articles

'Like driving off a cliff at 2 mph': A water expert's take on what's coming for the Colorado River

Are these cuts to the lower basin states enough to save the river?

Nevada is suing the federal government to stop the cuts. What’s at stake?

With lawsuits starting, is there any hope left for states to agree on a plan?

Their plan doesn’t force water cuts for upper basin states like Colorado. Can we get out of this crisis without mandatory cuts in the upper basin?

Then how do we get out of this crisis?

Is the fate of the river heading to the US Supreme Court?

Is there anything that gives you hope for the river’s future?

There are 30 tribal nations with a stake in this river as well. What can we learn from them?

Related Articles

Chernobyl disaster still casts a shadow 40 years later

Related Articles

When leaving isn't a choice, staying becomes one

Related Articles

Open house: Giving communities a voice in housing decisions

Related Articles