FINAL LEGISLATIVE REPORT
May 30, 2001
Jo Evans
Jen Boulton
WILDLIFE
Audubon worked on 6 wildlife bills this session. We supported 2, both of which
passed, and opposed 4, all of which failed. Additionally we enjoyed an excellent
working relationship with the Division of Wildlife.
*HB1012 ENTERPRISE STATUS FOR DOW
(Stengel, Dyer)
Position: Support
Status: Passed
HB1012 passed 2 House committees and the floor of the House unanimously and
without amendment. It then passed Senate Ag, and the floor of the Senate. It has
been signed into law.
DOW will now be able to spend its revenue without bumping into the TABOR cap.
SB6 HABITAT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
(Dennis, Larson)
Position: Support
Status: Passed
SB6 passed the two Senate committees and the floor of the Senate. It passed the
House easily, and is awaiting the Governor's signature.
*HB1054 RELEASE OF DESTRUCTIVE RODENTS
(Webster)
Position: Oppose
Status: Dead
HB1054 required the state of Colorado, its agencies, and political subdivisions
to obtain the approval of the board of county commissioners before releasing
destructive rodent pests within a county. (Prairie dogs)
The sponsor withdrew HB1054, but introduced HB1350 as a substitute.
*HB1350 RODENT PEST CONTROL
(Webster, Hillman)
Position: Oppose
Status: Dead
If an adjacent landowner felt that relocated prairie dogs are a nuisance, the
county would have had to notify the landowner housing the prairie dogs, and
require abatement of the nuisance. If the landowner did not abate the nuisance,
the county would have had to do so and would have billed the landowner. If the
landowner did not pay the bill, the county would have
placed a tax lien on the property to be paid with the property tax bill.
The Division of Wildlife already has strict regulations governing prairie dog
relocations. It is already illegal to simply dump prairie dogs. A permit is
required for any relocation.
HB1350 passed the House. It was killed in the Senate Judiciary committee.
Voting Yes: Arnold, Hillman, and Dyer (Littleton)
Voting No: Gordon, Hernandez, Linkhart, and Windels
HB1162 CONTROL OF PREDATORY ANIMALS
(Spradley, Dyer)
Position: Oppose
Status: Dead
HB1162 established that the predatory animal fund should receive dollars
annually from the general fund, $500,000 in the first year. Disbursements from
the fund should have included "new predatory control programs" as well as
existing predatory control programs.
HB1162 passed the House Ag committee. It was killed on a bipartisan vote in
House Appropriations.
HB1233 PREDATOR MANAGEMENT STUDY
(Johnson)
Position: Oppose
Status: Dead
HB1233 appropriated $365,000 from wildlife cash for the DOW to conduct the first
year of a predator management study. The entire study was estimated to take 8-10
years, and to cost $2.6 - $3 million.
HB1233 was killed in House Appropriations.
Voting Yes: Reps. Stengel and Young
Voting No: Reps. Berry, Lawrence, Lee, Madden, Paschall, Plant, Saliman,
Scott, Tapia, and Vigil.
TAKINGS
*HB1092 PROTECTION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS AGAINST REGULATORY IMPAIRMENT
(Johnson)
Status: Dead
Position: Oppose
We are pleased to report that the House Local Government killed the bill on
Monday, Feb 5.
Voting against takings: Kester, Mace, Plant, Ragsdale, Veiga, Webster,
Weddig, and Scott
Voting for takings: Hoppe, Decker, and Swenson
WATER
Audubon followed 8 water bills, prioritizing 4. Results are mixed. We
succeeded on water quality and water banking, but saw a major reduction of an
existing tool to keep water in the streams.
*SB66 INCREASED PROTECTIONS FOR WATER QUALITY IN CHERRY CREEK RESERVOIR
(Gordon, Clapp)
Position: Support
Status: Passed
SB66 has passed the Senate and the House.
SB66 requires the Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority to spend a minimum
of 60% of its annual budget on construction and maintenance of Pollution Control
Devices, and prohibits the Authority from spending its revenues to further relax
the water quality standards in Cherry Creek
Reservoir. Further, the authority must submit a plan for water quality
maintenance to the Water Quality Control Commission within one year.
*SB216 RECREATIONAL FLOW RIGHTS
(Entz, Spradley)
Status: Oppose
Position: Passed
Colorado water law permits water to be kept in the stream for
recreational/environmental purposes. ("In Channel Diversions") SB216 makes these
rights much harder to obtain and limits who can hold the rights.
Under existing law, individuals may put water to beneficial use through the use
of recreational, in-channel diversions. Under SB216, only local governments and
water districts may hold in-channel diversion rights; conditional rights may not
be converted to recreational rights, and applicants must seek CWCB approval.
Recreational rights become second class water rights.
All other water rights applications simply go to water court. The court
impartially determines whether the water use is legal, reasonable, and will not
harm any other water right. SB216 requires that recreational water rights
applicants go before the CWCB, pass a different set of standards and secure the
CWCB's approval. The CWCB's ruling is rebuttable in water court, but the court
must apply the rules the board creates.
Current statute already addressed both the reasonableness of water rights
applications, any potential injury to existing water rights, and any potential
impact on interstate compacts. Recreational water rights are completely
nonconsumptive and are a necessary and legitimate component of our water rights
system.
The Senate amended the bill to grandfather in applications, which are already
pending in Water Court, but the bill remains fatally flawed. Unfortunately it
passed on the final day of the session.
*HB1354 WATER BANKS
(Hoppe)
Status: Passed
Position: Support as Amended
HB1354 creates a pilot water-banking project in the Arkansas basin. We support
the concept of water banking, but had concerns with the implementation of this
project. Primarily, we wanted to add language which would ensure that additional
water could not be imported into the basin from
the Frying Pan - Arkansas project, banked, and exported to cities along the
Front Range.
After several rewrites, during which time, the sponsors repeatedly told us that
any language was unnecessary, as they had no intention of banking "Fry - Ark
water, but this language was unacceptable, we finally reached a compromise. The
current language prohibits any banking activity, which increases the diversion
from the West slope.
*SB161 WATER BANKS
(Evans, Young)
Position: Oppose
Status: Dead
As introduced SB161 called for 3 water studies and also provided for the
creation of 5 water banks. Conceptually and philosophically we support the
concept of water banking, but we had significant concerns with aspects of the
water banks as suggested in 161. The Ag Committee struck the entire banking
section from the bill. SB161 became a water studies bill.
The first study, to be done by the state, looked at future demand, both
consumptive and instream, sources to meet the demand and constraints on future
water development. There are volumes of water supply studies in existence. The
state would actually be reviewing existing data. We didn't see a harm to
reviewing the information, but didn't see much need to do so. The more
significant problem with this first study was that there were no constraints on
"demand". Was it what a water user would simply like to have? There needed to be
criteria to temper "demand" (What were the growth projections on which a
potential transbasin diverter based his "need" determination? What efficiencies
were in place to reduce demand?)
The second study was all about how to do water development, regardless of
impacts or constraints. A consultant, hired by the state, would have looked at
means to address impediments to water development, recommended changes to state
law to facilitate development, and identified potential projects, including
state sponsored water projects and state funding for projects.
We flatly opposed this portion of the bill.
The third study would have been done by the state engineer and looked
specifically at interruptible supply plans. The state engineer was to define
interruptible supply, identify constraints on its use, and identify a pilot
project.
We attempted to work with the sponsor to make the bill into one that we could
support. Ultimately, we were forced to oppose the bill.
SB161 was killed in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
SB2 EXTENSION OF THE SPECIAL WATER COMMITTEE
(Perlmutter, Paschall)
Position: Support
Status: Amended into HB1240
The special water committee was created to study the need for augmentation to
mitigate the impacts of wells in the Denver basin on the South Platte. By
extending the committee, SB2 also postponed the date by which augmentation must
replace out of priority depletions until 2006. While Audubon supports the study,
implementation has been postponed previously. We urged that the study be
completed as soon as possible and not continue to be postponed.
SB2 passed the Senate but the House sponsor, Rep. Paschall, requested that the
bill not be prioritized for funding since he believed it would fit under the
title of Rep. Hoppe's standing water committee bill At the sponsor's request,
SB2 was not prioritized, effectively killing the bill. Also see HB1240 for
additional information.
HB1240 WATER RESOURCES LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
(Hoppe, Entz)
Position: Oppose as introduced FYI as amended
Status: Passed
HB1240 creates a standing water committee. Originally, the seven-member
committee would have been composed of 4 senators and 7 representatives. The
membership was weighted toward the Front Range (only 4 members need reside on
the Western Slope). The committee would have reviewed ALL water issues, and
recommended between 3 and 11 bills to the legislature each year.
The sponsor added SB2 (extending the Special Water Committee) into her bill.
The House modified the bill. As it left the House, the bill required that the
committee be comprised of 10 members, 4 from the West slope, 5 from the East
slope, and 1 from the San Luis Valley. Additionally, a two-thirds majority was
required to refer legislation to the general assembly.
Since the bill was prioritized as an interim committee, it was funded, but only
for one year. Citing concerns with future funding availability, the Senate
further amended the bill to be only a one-year interim study.
HB1111 INCENTIVES TO CONSERVE WATER
(Madden)
Position: Support in concept
Status: Dead
HB1111 attempted to provide incentives for increased agricultural water
efficiency measures. It failed on a 7-4 vote.
Voting Yes: Hodge, Jameson, Plant, and Tochtrop
Voting No: Alexander, Johnson, Miller, Rippy, Snook, Webster, and Hoppe.
SB126 REPRESENTATION ON THE CWCB
(Andrews)
Position: Oppose
Status: Dead
SB126 would have biased the Colorado Water Conservation makeup. The board would
have been changed to include representation from each congressional district.
This change would have produced a board with fifteen voting members. Of the
fifteen, 5 would have been from the west slope and 10 would have been from the
east slope.
GROWTH
In all, the legislature considered 48 growth or growth related bills: 18 bills
were introduced in the main session, 30 in the special session.
Main session comprehensive growth bills:
· HB1165 COMPREHENSIVE GROWTH PLANS (The Environmental Marker bill )
Support
Died in House Local Government Committee.
· HB1305 LAND USE PLANNING (planning only bill).
Support
Passed House but held on the House floor until the last 48 hours of the session.
Never heard in Senate. Reintroduced in Special session. Killed in House Local
Government Committee on party line vote.
· SB148/HB1225 GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Initially:
HB1225, The Developers' bill, was strictly the developers' entry.
SB148, the Forum bill, was based on HB1225.
What happened next is perhaps most easily understood through a timetable.
1. The Senate passed SB148. (We could not support 148 as it passed.)
2. The House made HB1225 even worse and sent it to the Senate.
3. A House committee killed SB148 on a party line vote.
4. A Senate committee struck all of HB1225 and substituted SB148.
(From here on HB1225 is both 148 and 1225, but it is rewritten at each step and
just tracking it is a full time job.)
5. Senate further amends HB1225.
6. Re-revised HB1225 (an amalgam of HB1225 and SB148) passes to House.
7. House rejects Re-revised HB1225. Conference committee is appointed.
8. Conference committee is unable to come to agreement.
9. Legislature adjourns.
10. Governor calls special session.
SPECIAL SESSION
The extraordinary session on growth convened 12 hours after the adjournment of
the main session. 30 bills were promptly introduced. All but 4 were re-runs
from the main session. 23 were part or all of the various stages of
SB148/HB1225 from the main session. 3 were variations on HB1305. The only truly
new bills were: transferring additional money to the Office of Smart
Growth, referring impact fee authority to a vote of the people, creating 20 year
corridor easements, and creating a land court to review land use disputes.
Negotiations actually centered on a version of HB1225, which was never
introduced, in either the main session or the special session. It was an
attempted compromise crafted at 3am on the last day of the main session by
leaders of the Colorado Forum and known henceforth as the "3 am draft" We
opposed the 3am draft, but it was the starting place for negotiations in the
special session.
No legislation passed in the special session.
OTHER GROWTH ISSUES
HB1211 CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT
(Johnson, Matsunaka)
Status: Passed
Position: Oppose
HB1211 modifies the requirements of the existing clustering law. Current statute
allows clustering of 2 houses per 35 acres with 66% contiguous open space.
HB1211 changes the requirement to one house per 17.5 acres, and eliminates the
contiguity requirement.
HB1211 passed the House and Senate. It was signed into law.
HB1159 GROWTH IMPACTED LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
(Rippy)
Status: Dead
Position: Support
Rep Rippy's revenue sharing bill was essentially the same as Rep George's bill
from last year. The bill set up a program by which revenues could be shared
between jurisdictions. More affluent counties could vote to increase local sales
taxes. If approved, the state sales taxes in the county would be reduced by the
same amount. This method would create a net "wash" in sales tax to local voters.
The amount of the local increase would be used to fund needed facilities in
poorer, neighboring counties based upon intergovernmental agreements.
The bill died in House Finance for lack of a second. The only votes against the
motion to kill were Reps. Garcia and Jahn.
*HB1207 IMPACT FEES
(Vigil, Perlmutter)
Position: Support
Status: Dead
HB1207 authorizes counties to collect growth related impact fees. Additionally,
the bill specifically permits schools to spend money collected through impact
fees from either cities or counties without jeopardizing their State funding.
The bill is an excellent way for new growth to help mitigate the impacts it
creates for existing residents.
HB1207 was heard in House Local Government on Feb 7. It failed on a 5-5 vote.
The motion to kill the bill also failed on a 5-5 vote. This left the bill in
limbo. It was deemed killed due to deadlines. Voting yes: Mace, Plant, Ragsdale,
Veiga, and Weddig
Voting no: Hoppe, Kester, Swenson, Decker, and Scott
Rep Webster was excused.
CONSERVATION EASEMENTS
HB1082 PROTECTION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS
(Romanoff, Dyer)
Position: Support
Status: Passed
Specifies that the county execution of tax deed to the purchaser of a tax lien
shall not affect the existence of any conservation easement claimed or existing
prior to the execution of the deed.
HB1082 has passed the House and the Senate. It has been signed by the Governor.
HB1090 INCREASE TAX CREDIT FOR PERPETUAL CONSERVATION EASEMENTS
(Spradley, Owen)
Position: Support
Status: Passed
As introduced, HB1090 increased the maximum available income tax credit for
donation of a conservation easement to $500,000 and includes in the credit 50%
of the transaction costs. It permitted the transfer of the tax credit and
allowed transferees to claim an unlimited number of credits.
The House Finance Committee significantly amended the bill over the objection of
the sponsor. Rep King removed the language allowing the tax credit to be
transferred. He also changed the increased portion of the credit ($400,000 -
from $100,000 to $500,000) to be 50% of the market value, rather than 100%.
In House Appropriations, Rep Spradley amended the bill back closer to its
original form. The credit is again transferable. The new portion of the credit,
however, will be 40% of the market value. As the bill passed both houses,
individuals who donate perpetual conservation easements are eligible for a tax
credit of 100% of the market value of the easement up to $100,000. They would
also be eligible for an additional tax credit of 40% of the market value of the
easement between $100,000 and $500,000. If the individual doesn't have enough
tax liability to use the credit, he may transfer it to someone who does.
AIR
HB1270 EMISSIONS CREDITS
(Swenson)
Status: Dead
Position: Oppose
HB1270 authorized metropolitan planning organizations to create repositories for
the registry, sale and transfer of emissions credits. It required each
organization to cooperate with air pollution control authorities in order to
maintain compliance with the Clean Air Act. HB1270 also authorized the
organizations to offer technical assistance to both the generators and the users
of emissions credits.
The sponsor withdrew HB1270.
INITIATIVE PROCESS
Five attempts were made to weaken the initiative process. All were defeated.
HB1121 CONCERNING COUNTYWIDE BALLOT ISSUES
(Hodge)
Position: Support
Status: Dead
HB1121 granted county electors initiative and referendum powers with respect to
countywide issues.
The House Local Government committee killed the bill on a party line vote.
SB25 FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENTS FOR INITIATIVES
Dyer (Littleton)
Position: FYI
Status: Passed
SB25 adds to the requirement from last year that initiated and referred measures
with "significant" fiscal impacts include a fiscal impact statement in the blue
book, which is mailed to voters. SB25 broadens the requirement to include all
initiated or referred measures.
The bill passed the Senate and the House, and was signed into law.
HB1198 REQUIREMENTS FOR PETITION CIRCULATORS
(Dean, Dyer - Durango)
Position: Oppose
Status: Dead
HB1198 prohibited the use of paid petition circulators unless the circulators
lived in the area where the petition was circulated. It required volunteer
circulators to live in the area where the petition was circulated. All
circulators, volunteer or paid, would have been required to be eligible to vote
in the area where the petition was circulated.
HB1198 Died in the Senate Government, Transportation and Military Affairs
committee.
Voting Yes: Dennis, Dyer, and Teck
Voting No: May, Nichol, Takis, and Tupa
SB85 INITIATIVE PROCESS CHANGES
(Dennis, Lawrence)
Position: Oppose
Status: Dead
SB85 required initiative proponents to collect signatures from 5% of the
electors in each judicial district of the State; the bill also required a filing
fee of $200 for each proposed initiative. Further, the bill required that all
signatures be submitted 120 days prior to the election, rather than 90 days as
required by current law. Finally, the bill required that all petition
circulators be qualified electors (residents over 18) of the State of Colorado.
SB85 passed the Senate Government committee
Voting Yes: Dennis, Dyer, May, and Teck
Voting No: Takis, Tupa, and Nichol.
SB85 was killed in the Senate Appropriations committee.
Voting Yes: Chlouber, Owen, and Teck
Voting No: Hernandez, Lamborn, Linkhart, Nichol, Phillips, Reeves, and Tate.
HCR1001 INITIATIVE SIGNATURES
(Stengel, Dyer - Durango)
Position: Oppose
Status: Dead
HCR1001 required that signatures for ballot initiatives be gathered
proportionately in each congressional district.
HCR1004 INITIATIVE PETITION VOTING REQUIREMENTS
(Rippy)
Status: Dead
Position: FYI
HCR1004 required that changes to the constitution receive 60% of the vote in
order to pass. No changes were made to the requirements for voter initiated
statutory changes.
SCR001 GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION ON INITIATED MEASURES
(Evans, Clapp)
Status: Dead
Position: Oppose
SCR001 required that the legislature consider every proposed initiative before
proponents could begin gathering signatures. The legislature could approve or
deny the proposal. If they approved the proposal, the measure could NOT be
placed on the ballot. It could also be amended, or "fixed" by the legislature at
any time. If the legislature denied the proposal, signatures could be gathered
to put the measure on the ballot.
GOCO
*HB1375 BONDING AUTHORITY FOR GOCO
(Scott, Teck)
Status: Passed
Position: Support
HB1375 authorizes Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) to seek voter approval to issue
revenue bonds. The amount of the bonds is limited to $115 million. We support
the concept of bonding for GOCO because it allows GOCO to take advantage of
those "once in a lifetime" deals, which might not be feasible with existing
resources. For example, if the owner of a large ranch on the
Front Range dies, his heirs may be forced to sell the ranch in order to pay
estate taxes. GOCO may not have sufficient resources in hand to acquire the
ranch, but could do so with the help of bonds.
We worked with the sponsor to add language clarifying that bond revenue can only
be used for acquisition of property or permanent conservation easements, not for
administrative costs.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
*HB1087 CONCERNING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
(Sanchez)
Position: Support
Status: DEAD
HB1087 would have required the Office of State Planning and Budgeting to consult
with other agencies and coordinate efforts under federally funded programs to
promote environmental justice. Environmental justice is defined as the fair
treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to
environmental laws and policies. HB1087 was killed in House State
Affairs on a party line vote.
BUDGET ISSUES
State Parks budget this year sought to add 47.3 new FTE. The pressures of growth
on our parks and the need to expand services clearly warranted staff increases
for parks. The problem was that in order to offset some of the costs for the new
staff; Parks requested the elimination of the natural areas program and the
environmental education coordinator funded by GOCO. The
Natural Areas Council would have remained but the heart and soul of the program
would have been gone. The GOCO dollars allocated for both the Natural Areas
Program and interpretative funding would have been shifted into personnel, as
would the other funding for the natural areas program. (State and federal) The
JBC denied State Parks request to eliminate the funding and staff for the
Natural Areas Program.
HB1353 MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR NATURAL AREAS
(Kester, Dennis)
Status: Dead
Position: Support as amended
Separate legislation was introduced which would have changed "Natural Areas"
into short term management agreements (12 years) for which the landowner
received tax credits. The natural areas criteria included simply not developing
"prime" agricultural land or protecting watersheds from development. The natural
areas council would have been transferred from State Parks to the executive
director's office and would have been charged with evaluating tax credits for
owners of these temporary natural areas.
We opposed HB1353 as introduced. We offered amendments to address our concerns.
The definitions were tightened and made environmentally explicit. Specific
oversight and accountability were added. As amended we supported the bill.
BILLS OF INTEREST
HOUSE
1012 DESIGNATE DOW AN ENTERPRISE (WILDLIFE)
1013 WILDLIFE LICENSE FEES DECREASE AUTHORITY (WILDLIFE)
1018 WASTE TIRE RECYCLING PROGRAM
1054 COUNTY PEST CONTROL (WILDLIFE)
1082 PROTECTION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS (CONSERVATION EASEMENTS)
1087 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE)
1092 PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION (TAKINGS)
1106 CATHODE RAY TUBE DISPOSAL RECYCLING
1111 INCENTIVES FOR CONSERVED WATER (WATER)
1121 COUNTYWIDE BALLOT ISSUES (INITIATIVE)
1139 REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD
1159 REVENUE SHARING (GROWTH)
1160 LIGHT POLLUTION
1165 COMPREHENSIVE GROWTH PLANS (GROWTH)
1191 MATCHING GRANTS COMMUNITY MEDIATION
1195 UTILITY SITING
1198 PETITION CIRCULATORS (INITIATIVE)
1207 IMPACT FEES (GROWTH)
1211 CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT (GROWTH)
1225 GROWTH MANAGEMENT (GROWTH)
1233 PREDATOR MANAGEMENT STUDY (WILDLIFE)
1240 WATER RESOURCES REVIEW COMMITTEE (WATER)
1246 WASTEWATER CONSTRUCTION GRANTS (WATER)
1247 WATER UTILITIES DEREGULATION (WATER)
1249 DOW TOTAL LICENSING PROJECT
1270 EMISSION REDUCTION CREDITS (AIR)
1295 RESIDENTIAL WATER CONSERVATION
1305 LAND USE PLANNING RELATIONSHIPS
1350 RODENT PEST CONTROL (WILDLIFE)
1381 ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES
SENATE
002 EXTEND SPECIAL WATER COMMITTEE (WATER)
006 HABITAT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (WILDLIFE)
025 FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENTS (INITIATIVE)
038 FAIR SHARE REIMBURSEMENT
054 WILDLIFE DAMAGE TO PRIVATE PROPERTY (WILDLIFE)
057 SEARCH AND RESCUE FUNDING
066 CHERRY CREEK RESERVOIR WATER QUALITY PROTECTION (WATER)
085 INITIATIVE PROCESS CHANGES (INITIATIVE)
086 COUNTY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR TRAILS
097 REGIONAL PLANNING FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT
126 CWCB MEMBERSHIP
148 GROWTH MANAGEMENT (GROWTH)
157 CWCB CONSTRUCTION FUND LIST
161 WATER BANKS
171 WILDLIFE AND PARKS FINANCIAL RECORDS