AUDUBON LEGISLATIVE REPORT
#2
March 17, 2001
Jo Evans, Jen Boulton
Audubon priority bills
are marked with an *.
Bills previously
reported are simply updated with action noted.
WILDLIFE Updates
*HB1012 Enterprise
Status For Dow
(Stengel, Dyer)
Position: Support
Status: passed the
House
HB1012 passed the House
and Senate Ag committee without amendment and will be heard next on the Senate
floor..
SB6 Habitat
Partnership Program
(Dennis, Larson)
Position: Support
Status: Senate
Appropriations
SB6 passed the Senate
Ag committee, and was assigned to the Senate Appropriations committee.
HB1054 Release of
Destructive Rodents
(Webster)
Position: Oppose
Status: DEAD
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.
NEW WILDLIFE BILLS
*HB1350 RODENT PEST
CONTROL
(Webster, Hillman)
Position: Oppose
Status: Senate
Judiciary
While the latest
legislative entry into wildlife management is arguably less onerous than HB1054,
it remains problematic.
Last year, the
legislature passed SB111, requiring county commissioners to approve relocation
across county lines. HB1350 makes the commissioners a prairie dog police force.
If an adjacent
landowner feels that relocated prairie dogs are a nuisance, the county must
notify the landowner housing the prairie dogs, and require abatement of the
nuisance (abatement is not defined). If the landowner does not abate the
nuisance, the county will do so and bill the landowner. If the landowner does
not pay the bill, the county will place a lien on the property and attach it to
his property tax bill.
One has to wonder why
county commissioners would want to be in the prairie dog police business, but
more fundamentally, why the legislature continues to feel it necessary to inject
itself into wildlife management issues.
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. To obtain a permit, a species management plan must be approved,
including provisions for both release site preparation and escape controls.
Prairie dogs are
important to the larger ecosystem. Other species are dependent on prairie dogs
from raptors and burrowing owls, to kit foxes and ferrets. While it is true that
prairie dogs can be a problem for agricultural producers, it is also true that
the alarming decline in numbers of black tailed prairie dogs has prompted
consideration of listing the species as endangered.
HB1162 Control of
Predatory Animals
(Spradley, Dyer)
Position: Oppose
Status: House
Appropriations
Establishes that the
predatory animal fund shall receive dollars annually from the general fund,
$500,000 this year. Disbursements from the fund shall include "new predatory
control programs" as well as existing predatory control programs.
HB1162 passed the House
Ag committee, and is awaiting a hearing in Appropriations.
HB1233 PREDATOR
MANAGEMENT STUDY
(Johnson)
Position: Oppose
Status: House
Appropriations
HB1233 appropriates
$365,000 from wildlife cash for the DOW to conduct the first year of a predator
management study. The entire study is estimated to take 8-10 years, and will
cost $2.6 - $3 million.
The plan involves two
areas on the West slope. During the first phase, the DOW will attempt to
eliminate coyotes from one area. It will observe mule deer populations in both
areas for two years. The areas will then be given three years for both species
to "normalize". Finally, DOW will reverse the process.
There is no provision
in the plan to determine baseline populations of mule deer in either study area.
There are no control mechanisms for confounding variables such as habitat loss
or disease. There are no scientifically valid ways to determine if a deer
carcass was killed by a coyote or scavenged.
HB1249 Division of
Wildlife Total Licensing Project
(Rippy, Phillips)
Position: FYI
Status: Senate Ag
HB1249 Authorizes the
Division of Wildlife to contract with out of state vendors for the sale of
Colorado licenses. The bill also sets up the commission structure for out of
state vendors.
HB1249 has passed the
House and is assigned to the Senate Ag committee
TAKINGS Updates
*HB1092 Protection
Of Property Rights Against Regulatory Impairment
(Johnson)
Position: OPPOSE
Status: DEAD
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
Updates
SB2 Extension of the
Special Water Committee
(Perlmutter, Paschall)
Position: Support
Status: House Ag
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 postpones the date by which augmentation must replace out of priority
depletions until 2006. While Audubon supports the study, implementation has been
postponed previously. We urge that the study be completed as soon as possible
and not continue to be postponed.
SB2 has passed the
Senate. It has been assigned to the House Ag committee.
*SB66 Increased
Protections For Water Quality In Cherry Creek Reservoir
(Gordon, Clapp)
Position: Support
Status: House Floor
SB66 has passed the
Senate and the House Ag Committee. It will be heard on the floor of the House
March 16..
The Cherry Creek Basin
Water Quality Authority was created to protect and maintain the water quality in
Cherry Creek Reservoir. Unfortunately, the Authority has spent more time and
money attempting to relax the standards than to enforce them.
SB66 requires the
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.
*HB1111 Incentives
To Conserve Water
(Madden)
Position: Support
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.
NEW TAKINGS BILLS
*SB161 WATER BANKS
(Evans, Young)
Position: Working
Status: Senate
Appropriations
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.
Audubon has concerns
with the first study, strongly opposes the second study and enthusiastically
supports the third study. We have taken amendments to Senator Evans. So far
he has not decided to accept them.
The first study, to be
done by the state, looks 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 will actually be
reviewing existing data. We don't see a harm to reviewing the information, but
don't see much need to do so. The more significant problem with this first study
is that there are no constraints on "demand" Is it what a water user would
simply like to have? There need to be criteria to temper "demand" What growth
projections is a potential transbasin diverter using? What efficiencies are in
place to reduce demand?
The second study is all
about how to do water development, regardless of impacts or constraints. A
consultant, hired by the state, would look at means to address impediments to
water development, recommend changes to state law to facilitate development,
identify potential projects, including state sponsored water projects and state
funding for projects.
We flatly oppose this
portion of the bill.
The third study would
be done by the state engineer and looks specifically at interruptible supply
plans. The state engineer is to define interruptible supply, identify
constraints on its use, and identify a pilot project.
Background (For those
of you now asking "What is interruptible supply?")
A water user interrupts
his use so that it may be used, temporarily, by someone else. For example, the
water that Farmer Jones uses to irrigate his crops may be far more valuable than
the crops. Thirsty City needs more water, particularly during an unexpected heat
wave. Thirsty City could enter into a financial agreement with Farmer Jones to
use some of his water when they really need it. Jones would interrupt his use
and temporarily supply the water to the city. Jones keeps farming. The city does
not need to build storage.
There are problems, of
course, in implementing such a program, for both the farmer(s) and the city. A
study on how and where interruptible could work is an exciting idea.
SB126 REPRESENTATION
ON THE CWCB
(Andrews)
Position: Oppose
Status: DEAD
SB126 would have biased
the Colorado Water Conservation makeup. The board would have had 15 voting
members. Of the fifteen, 5 would have been from the west slope and 10 would have
been from the east slope.
HB1240 WATER
RESOURCES LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
(Hoppe)
Position: Oppose
Status: House Floor
HB1240 creates a
standing water committee. The committee would be composed of 4 senators and 7
representatives. The membership is weighted toward the front range (only 4
members need reside on the Western Slope). The committee would review ALL water
issues, and could recommend between 3 and 11 bills to the legislature each year.
Establishing interim
water committees when needed with a legislative direction regarding the scope of
the committee's purview is a more appropriate. There have been interim water
committees in 8 of the last 9 years. As a former legislator noted: It is simply
an opportunity for endless mischief.
HB1246 WASTEWATER
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
(Hoppe, Dennis)
Position: FYI
Status: Senate Ag
HB1246 allows counties
to obtain grants for construction of wastewater facilities on behalf of small
communities (under 5000) within their jurisdiction. HB1246 has passed the House.
GROWTH Updates
3 comprehensive
planning bills have been introduced. The Environmental Marker bill (HB1165), The
Developers bill (HB1225) and the Colorado Forum bill (SB148)
The Enviros’ Bill:
*HB1165
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANNING
(Plant)
Position: Support
Status: Dead
Rep. Plant bill
introduced HB1165 on behalf of the environmental community. It represented how
we believed that the state should deal with growth. It failed by only 1 vote.
HB1165 required all
local government to adopt enforceable and comprehensive plans, and was
environmentally explicit. It provided for urban growth boundary between urban
level development and rural lands. Development in rural lands was limited to
traditional agricultural uses or clustered development with 75% of the
development preserved as open space in furtherance of environmental goals. It
repealed the 35 acre rule. The provisions of the act expressly did not apply to
the lawful exercise of 1041 authority.
HB1165 died on a 5-6
vote:
Voting yes
Plant, Ragsdale,
Swenson, Veiga, Weddig
Voting no:
Decker, Hoppe, Kester,
Mace, Scott, Webster
The Developers’
Bill, amended in local government committee but still a bad bill:
*HB1225 GROWTH
MANAGEMENT
(Stengel, Perlmutter)
Position: OPPOSE
Status: House
Appropriations
As introduced, HB1225
was clearly a developers' bill of rights. The House Local Government Committee
amended out some, but not all, of the more egregious portions of the bill, and
added some elements from Rep Plant's bill, HB1165.
HB1225 required
mandatory plans, but only for limited elements. Open space and environmental
issues were not even required to be addressed in the plans. Local Government
added the environmental planning elements from HB1165, a change for the better.
However, whenever a local government designates an area for open space buffers
or conservation, it must compensate property owners. 1225 also now limits the
ability of local governments to expand environmental regulations beyond state
and federal requirements
The bill still includes
a Land Market Monitoring system requiring local governments to monitor the
supply of land available for development and amend their land use regulations to
"demonstrably increase the likelihood" that there will be sufficient land
available for development. In fact, local government plans must include 15-25%
more land for development than their population projections would indicate is
needed to accommodate 20 years of growth. Impact fees are limited to a takings
standard. Growth boundaries and urban service areas, while ostensibly required,
are drawn in invisible ink. They may be changed at any time a developer seeks to
build something outside the line.
Within USA's, there was
a very strong and onerous "presumption of buildability." Site-specific
conditions were not allowed. Basically development simply had to be approved.
This language was removed, site-specific conditions are affirmatively allowed,
and 1041 powers, previously trumped by 1225, are now protected. This change is
critically important, so much so that we need to share the committee vote on
this particular amendment, successfully offered by Rep. Tom Plant:
Voting for the
environment and to remove the presumption of buildability:
Mace, Plant, Ragsdale,
Swenson, Veiga, Weddig
Voting no: Decker,
Hoppe, Kester, Scott, Webster
The “Forum Bill,”
amended in committee but still needs work:
*SB148 GROWTH
MANAGEMENT
(Perlmutter, Stengel)
Position: no position
yet
Status: Senate
Appropriations
The Forum took the
Developers bill (discussed above) as an initial template and amended it. SB148
is the result. There are some things about SB148 that we like very much; some
things not so much; and some things which we do not like at all.
We support requiring
enforceable comprehensive planning and the mandatory inclusion of environmental
elements in the comprehensive plans. We support the inclusion of well defined
urban service areas, rural areas, and urban growth boundaries as important tools
that along with clustering should be a part of comprehensive planning. SB148
does all of this.
We can not, and do not,
support the presumption of buildability. We also do not support the restrictions
on moratoria, restricting local environmental regulations to only those required
by state or federal law, and the inclusion of a land market monitoring system
which requires local governments to inventory lands available for development
and adjust their regulations as needed.
The sponsor's committee
amendment (20 new pages to be read with the existing 70 page bill) improved the
bill in some ways but made it worse in others.
Committee Improvements:
In committee, the
sponsor tightened up the growth boundaries, addressed the 1041 concerns, removed
the overt takings language, tweaked the presumption language a little, clarified
the impact fee language (status quo cities, improved for counties), allows
schools to receive impact fees for capital construction, added an appropriate
direction that local governments consider water efficiency, and improved
clustering development by adding the language from Rep. Plant's bill.
Committee Problems:
Unfortunately the
committee amendment also added an entire oil and gas section which is
regrettably not supportable, limited the ability of local governments to expand
environmental regulations beyond state and federal requirements, and added
utility siting issues to the mix.
What is a "Presumption
of buildability?" It varies according to the bill we discuss, but in concept it
means that development which follows the rules should be allowed to be built.
The rub is, what rules?
It is appropriate to
require that local government plans must be comprehensive, addressing specific
elements, and regulations must be adopted to enforce the plans. This requirement
confers an appropriate presumption of buildability for development. Local
governments must plan and the plans mean something. This is precisely what Rep
Plant's bill did.
The presumptions in
1225 as introduced and still in SB148 go much farther, and in doing so
unnecessarily restrict the ability of local governments to put appropriate and
necessary environmental conditions on development.
OTHER GROWTH ISSUES
NEW
BILLS
HB1211 CLUSTER
DEVELOPMENT
(Johnson)
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. Proponents claim that the bill is necessary to help Larimer County
in its land use process. On a 180-acre parcel, current law permits 8 houses
(four 35 acre parcels x 2 houses). The proposed change would allow 9 houses on
the same 180 acres (nine 17.5 acre parcels x 1 house).
Larimer County
testified that it uses transferable development rights in conjunction with the
clustering act. For example, if an individual owned a 180-acre parcel of land in
the rural area of the county and a 70 acre parcel adjacent to town, he would be
permitted to build 13 houses on the 70 acre parcel.
Audubon feels that the
open space contiguity requirement is an important aspect of clustering
development. While HB1211 is well intentioned, we believe that some refinements
would be helpful. When the preserved open space is separate from the parcel
developed, there should be some sort of statutory assurance that the open space,
collectively, is of a sufficient size to warrant the density bonus being
created.
HB1159 GROWTH
IMPACTED LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
(Rippy)
Status: DEAD
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: IN LIMBO
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 leaves the bill in limbo. It will be
reconsidered at a later date.
Voting yes: Mace,
Plant, Ragsdale, Veiga, and Weddig
Voting no: Hoppe,
Kester, Swenson, Decker, and Scott
Rep Webster was
excused.
CONSERVATION EASEMENTS Updates
HB1082 PROTECTION OF
CONSERVATION EASEMENTS
(Romanoff, Dyer)
Position: Support
Status: Governor's Desk
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 is waiting for the Governor's signature.
HB1090 INCREASE TAX
CREDIT FOR PERPETUAL CONSERVATION EASEMENTS
(Spradley, Owen)
Position: Support
Status: House
Appropriations
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 ($200,000 - from $300,000 to
$500,000) to be 50% of the market value, rather than 100%
INITIATIVE PROCESS Updates
HB1121 CONCERNING
COUNTYWIDE BALLOT ISSUES
(Hodge)
Position: Support
Status: DEAD
Grants county electors
initiative and referendum powers with respect to countywide issues.
HB1121l was killed in
the House Local Government Committee.
HB1198 REQUIREMENTS
FOR PETITION CIRCULATORS
(Dean, Dyer - Durango)
Position: Oppose
Status: Senate Gov
Prohibits paid petition
circulators unless they live in the area where the petition is being circulated.
Requires volunteer circulators to live in the area where the petition is
circulated. All circulators, volunteer or paid, must be eligible to vote in the
area where the petition is circulated.
NEW INITIATIVE PROCESS BILLS
SB85 INITIATIVE
PROCESS CHANGES
(Dennis, Lawrence)
Position: Oppose
Status: Senate
Appropriations
As introduced, SB85
merely allowed a person to remove his or her name from a petition if he or she
decided that they had signed a petition in error. It also required Legislative
Legal Services to create a standardized form for the submission of initiatives.
In the Senate
Government committee, Sen Dennis radically amended her bill. It now requires
initiative proponents to collect signatures from 5% of the electors in each
judicial district of the State. Elector is defined as someone who voted for the
position of Secretary of State in the preceding general election.
The bill also requires
a filing fee of $200 for each proposed initiative. Further, the bill now
requires that all signatures be submitted 120 days prior to the election, rather
than 90 days. This requirement removes the chance to settle problems
legislatively, since initiatives must be filed, and signatures collected while
the legislature is still in session.
Finally, the bill now
requires that all petition circulators be qualified electors (residents over 18)
of the State of Colorado.
SB85 passed the Senate
Government committee and is now in Senate Appropriations.
Voting yes: Dennis,
Dyer, May, and Teck
Voting no: Takis, Tupa,
and Nichol.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Update
*HB1087 CONCERNING
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
(Sanchez)
Position: Support
Status: DEAD
HB1087 was killed in
House State Affairs on a party line vote.
BUDGET ISSUES
*NATURAL AREAS
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 warrants staff increases for parks. The problem
is 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 remain but the heart
and soul of the program would be gone. The GOCO dollars allocated for both the
Natural Areas Program and interpretative funding would be shifted into
personnel, as well as the other funding for the natural areas program. (state
and federal)
Audubon objected to the
elimination of the Natural Areas program. We are pleased to report that the JBC
rejected the elimination of the natural areas program, but the issue resurfaces
in a late bill just introduced.
Related issue:
*HB1353 MANAGEMENT
OF NATURAL AREAS
(Kester, Dennis)
Position: Oppose
Status: House
Appropriations
HB1353 would change
"Natural Areas" into short term management agreements (12 years) for which the
landowner would receive tax credits. The natural areas criteria would include
simply not developing "prime" agricultural land or protecting watersheds from
development. The natural areas council would be transferred from state parks to
the executive directors office and be charged with evaluating tax credits for
owners of these temporary natural areas.
BILLS IN NUMERICAL ORDER
HOUSE
1012 DESIGNATE DOW AN
ENTERPRISE (WILDLIFE)
1013 WILDLIFE LICENSE
FEES DECREASE AUTHORITY (WILDLIFE)
1018 WASTE TIRE
RECYCLING PROGRAM
1024 FIGHT WHIRLING
DISEASE (WILDLIFE)
1032 DURATION OF
POLLUTION DISCHARGE PERMIT (WATER)
1054 COUNTY PEST
CONTROL (WILDLIFE)
1063 DRAINAGE
AUTHORITIES (WATER)
1077 NOTICE OF WATER
RIGHT APPLICATION (WATER)
1082 PROTECTION OF
CONSERVATION EASEMENTS
1087 ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE
1091 CLEAN SCREEN
PROGRAM (air)
1092 PRIVATE PROPERTY
RIGHTS PROTECTION
1106 CATHODE RAY TUBE
DISPOSAL RECYCLING
1111 INCENTIVES FOR
CONSERVED WATER (WATER)
1121 COUNTYWIDE BALLOT
ISSUES (INITIATIVE)
1132 SPECIAL DISTRICT
ANNEXATION POWERS (growth)
1139 REGIONAL PLANNING
BOARD (growth)
1159 Revenue sharing
(growth)
1165 COMPREHENSIVE
GROWTH PLANS (growth)
1191 matching grants
COMMUNITY mediation
1195 Utility siting
1198 Petition
Circulators (INITIATIVE)
1207 IMPACT FEES
1211 CLUSTER
DEVELOPMENT
1225 GROWTH MANAGEMENT
1233 PREDATOR
MANAGEMENT STUDY
1240 WATER RESOURCES
REVIEW COMMITTEE
1246 WASTEWATER
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
1247 WATER UTILITIES
DEREGULATION
1249 DOW TOTAL
LICENSING PROJECT
1250 DITCH PROTECTION
1254 WATER RIGHTS
NOTIFICATION
1270 EMISSION REDUCTION
CREDITS
1295 RESIDENTIAL WATER
CONSERVATION
1305 LAND USE PLANNING
RELATIONSHIPS
1326 STATIONARY SOURCE
EMISSIONS
1345 SITE RECLAMATION
TRUST FUND
1346 FAST TRACK SIP
REVISIONS
1350 RODENT PEST
CONTROL
1353 NATURAL AREAS
1354 WATER BANK PILOT
PROJECT
Senate
2 EXTEND SPECIAL
WATER COMMITTEE (WATER)
6 HABITAT PARTNERSHIP
PROGRAM (WILDLIFE)
25 fiscal impact
statements (INITIATIVE)
44 SAN LUIS CONFINED
AQUIFER STUDY (WATER)
54 WILDLIFE DAMAGE TO
PRIVATE PROPERTY (WILDLIFE)
66 CHERRY CREEK
RESERVOIR WATER QUALITY PROTECTION (WATER)
85 INITIATIVE PROCESS
CHANGES (INITIATIVE)
86 COUNTY EMINENT
DOMAIN FOR TRAILS
94 GAS TAX REVENUE FOR
HOT LANE CONTRACTS
97 REGIONAL PLANNING
FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT (growth)
126 CWCB MEMBERSHIP
144 ENERGY EFFICIENCY
145 ENVIRONMENTAL REAL
COVENANTS
148 GROWTH MANAGEMENT
157 CWCB CONSTRUCTION
FUND LIST
161 WATER BANKS
171 WILDLIFE AND PARKS FINANCIAL RECORDS