House Agriculture, Water & Natural Resources [Mar 12, 2026 - Upon Adjournment]

Representatives Garcia-Sander.

Goldstein.

Johnson.

Lindsay.

Lukens.

Martinez.

Smith.

Stewart.

Story.

Sucla.

Winter.

Oh.

Excuse. Madam Chair.

Wonderful. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. It's good to see you again. My name is Allie Morgan. I'm the policy director for the Colorado Association of Local Public Health Officials, or CALFO. We represent Colorado's 56 local governmental public health agencies. We are here in response to an ask for a brief educational presentation on raw milk to share some ongoing concerns and considerations related to expanding availability of that product. I'm joined by three, I think, public health colleagues online, including food safety and consumer protection leads and a medical doctor, as well as by a colleague who can speak to the industry perspective. So I'll turn it over to them in just a few minutes. I wanted to first set up the panel by clarifying that there was money set aside in the governor's fiscal year 2026-27 budget proposal for expanding direct-to-consumer sales of raw milk. Our understanding is that this effort, which would have been supported by $175,000 from the General Fund, is no longer moving forward this year. However, raw milk seems to be a perennial topic of conversation, and so we hope this information still feels relevant and useful to all of you. I'll note that we continue to see significant interest in loosening oversight or encouraging food freedom efforts. These are nuanced conversations, and we hope public health and scientific perspectives continue to be included. As much as I'd love to be sitting here talking about something other than food safety with all of you, maybe someday, we truly appreciate your emphasis on ensuring that these policy conversations balance established protections with greater consumer choice around products that are inherently higher risk. On raw milk, we know that it is already available to people in Colorado through arrangements that are widely publicized online. We know that certain groups including tragically infants and young children are the most susceptible to devastating illness if milk is contaminated We know there some confusion among consumers as evidenced by the interchangeable use of the terms raw milk and whole milk in some recent public discourse. And we know that the lack of pasteurization drives a large share of problems linked to dairy products, with unpasteurized dairy causing 840 times more illness than pasteurized dairy products. The other speakers will provide more details on these things. So thanks so much for your time today. I look forward to continuing to work with all of you and identifying ways that CALFO can support you all in your work as an objective resource on public health issues going forward. Thank you very much.

Hey, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the House Ag Committee. My name is Brock Herzberg. I'm a contract lobbyist here in the building, and one of my clients that I represent and act as their executive director is Colorado Dairy Farmers. we represent Colorado Dairy Farmers represents all of the dairy farm families here in Colorado which to give you a sense of where and how industry is shaped up when I started representing them about 20 years ago there were about 170 dairy farms in Colorado of all sizes and now fast forward 20 years we are just under 100 dairy farm families a lot of that has been due to consolidation. Some of it has just been due to some people exiting the industry, but our numbers are fewer, but we're still milking a pretty good number of cows here in Colorado. Colorado is actually one of the top milk producing county or states in the country. Weld County has been one of the top producing counties in the country for decades. And we do it with fewer farm families, but our facilities and our farms are a bit different than what you would see, especially on the East Coast. As far as raw milk goes, and I appreciate the chance, Chair McCormick is right. Two years ago, we kind of gave a talk about this out at CSU Spur, I think. Industry in 2000, beginning in 2003, 2004, and then finally in 2005, worked with some of the raw milk proponents. And instead of opposing everything that came up in this building, which I know you've all heard about it, but these discussions, I don't want to call them fights, these discussions have been ongoing for decades on how, and this was before Colorado had a system, killing bills down here, but then continuously dealing with them. Industry engaged in what is, and we engaged with the raw milk advocates, consumers and farmers, to come up with what is widely known as the cow share program, herd share program here in Colorado, that does allow for access to raw milk. I think a lot of what we hear is that Colorado is a non-raw milk state, that we don't have any rules or regulations around it. That is just fundamentally not true, and it hasn't been true since 2005. we as industry and the raw milk advocates and our partners at the local health departments and the CDPHE came together and put together this cow share program. There's some accountability with it when me as a consumer goes to buy that raw milk. And then there's accountability on the producer side as well as having to register with the state that they are a facility that does this. Part of the reason for that is consumption of raw milk can cause some foodborne illnesses that can spread. I think we had kind of a lull here in Colorado of talking about it but recently the last couple years when we talking about bird flu which I know you guys heard from the state vet Dr Baldwin about those are things and diseases that can easily transmit some diseases associated with raw milk So again, 2005, we set up the program. I will just up front say there is no provisions in Colorado that allows for raw milk at the sale of a farmer's market or at your local grocery store. And part of that was done by design in order to keep track of what was going on here and not giving people the impression that raw milk and pasteurized milk that you might see at your grocery store are the same things. Pasteurization, like it or not, does kill a lot of the diseases and bacteria that when milk is coming out of a cow, it immediately goes from that cow and is sent through a system in order to get it down to a temperature that does neutralize those. And that's what makes it safe for consumption, not just for drinking, but what's in your yogurt, what's in your cheese that's on your pizza. So we intentionally in those negotiations in 2005 just said we don't think it should be branched out any further than the cow share program. And that is, again, something that the industry came together with, with public health departments, the state health department, and the advocacy community around this. I know that there's been talk about expanding some of that. It is something that we feel uncomfortable with as industry, especially now with some of the advents of bird flu and a few other things that can easily transmit this, not just farm to farm, but off of farm to people. So again, always happy to have the conversation. I know we had the conversation when the money had been put in the governor's budget. We worked with a lot of you. We worked with some folks in the Senate and the governor's office and the Department of Health to talk about, is now the right time? Should we be doing this? But I just wanted to be able to offer you a perspective from industry. And just as a reminder that there is a cow share program in Colorado. This is not a state where you cannot not access raw milk. It's just a 20-year-old program that seems to have been working just fine. And people can access the product if they so choose. So I appreciate the chance to be here and talk to you guys, and I appreciate the conversation. So thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. We'll go online. I don't know if

you just came off mute and on camera. So go ahead and give us your presentation. Great, thank you. Madam Chair, committee members, good afternoon. My name is Dylan Garrison, and I am an environmental health manager here at Arapahoe County Public Health, where I oversee our retail food program. My colleagues and I really appreciate your time today, and we're grateful for this opportunity to share some thoughts and some concerns regarding raw milk here in Colorado. I'll start by saying that animal milk is widely pasteurized for a very good reason. The pasteurization process effectively destroys a wide range of harmful organisms that might otherwise make people very sick and potentially lead to death. In fact the range of bacteria and viruses that can live in raw milk are particularly dangerous to young children to the elderly and anyone with a weakened immune system In addition there is clear evidence that the avian influenza or bird flu can live in raw milk for several days, and it's sounding new alarms about the dangers posed by consuming raw milk. Drinking raw milk is inherently more dangerous than drinking pasteurized milk, and expanding access to raw milk only increases the likelihood of related outbreaks. On the topic of raw milk outbreaks, my colleague Zach Lusgarden will share in more detail a case study from Boulder County, but with my few minutes, I simply want to acknowledge that now is not a good time at all to increase our access to raw milk. With major budget cuts squeezing Colorado's limited resources and public health departments already understaffed and under-resourced, time and labor-intensive outbreak response equates to an unfunded mandate for local government and pulls resources away from routine state-mandated work. And of course, there are the health consequences which can most seriously harm people like children who are not in a place to make their own decisions about what they consume. All this being said, I understand and I respect that Coloradans highly value the freedom to decide on their own what they eat and what they drink, and that some would just as soon see less regulation. To this point, and for those who feel strongly about consuming raw milk, I offer that several options already exist to obtain it. While the direct retail sale of raw milk remains illegal in Colorado, interested consumers can readily participate in herd-sharing agreements or farm clubs, as was just recently discussed. Given this, if raw milk is already available for those who wish to consume it, despite the risks, I'm left to ask what problem are we aiming to solve? Given the health risks associated with consuming raw milk and given the high costs and staffing burdens shouldered by local public health departments during related outbreaks, I believe we need to be very deliberate and cautious about potential efforts to expand access to raw milk. In closing, I'd like to again thank Madam Chair and the entire committee for this opportunity and for your collective time and consideration. I look forward to addressing any questions the committee might have at the conclusion of the panel. Thanks for your time.

All right. Hopefully you can all see me. Madam Chair and members of the committee, my name is Zach Lustgarten. I'm the food safety team lead at Boulder County Public Health. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm here to share what an actual raw milk outbreak looked like on the ground and how it impacted families and taxpayers in Boulder County. In 2010, Boulder County Public Health responded to a raw milk outbreak. The initial cases were a 39-year-old man and his two-year-old son. An investigation was immediately launched by our department, and over the following days, many more cases were identified as nearly 50 individuals who participated in a raw milk or raw goat milk dairy share were interviewed. Ultimately, 30 confirmed cases of gastrointestinal illness were discovered. This included Campylobacter and E. coli. Children were among the most severely affected. One young girl was admitted to Boulder County, or I'm sorry, Boulder Community Hospital with kidney failure and had to be airlifted to Children's Hospital in Denver. There she was placed in intensive care. Several days later, her young brother also became ill and went into kidney failure. Both children were on dialysis for two weeks. One of the children was hospitalized for 17 days, while the other 21 days. Their family was terrified. The children were in significant pain. Thankfully, they did both survive, but it was a traumatic experience. The public health response to this outbreak was extensive as well. It required over 550 hours of Boulder County Public Health staff time and more than 125 hours from Colorado Department of Health, or CDPHE. That included interviews, lab coordination, alerts to the community, traceback investigations, and interagency response. There were also significant financial costs. The health care costs for affected patients totaled approximately $315,000. The outbreak investigation itself cost Boulder County Public Health $22,000 and $17,000 for CDPHE for a total cost of $352,000. That was 16 years ago. Adjusting for inflation in today's figures, the total cost would be over about $523,000. If a similar outbreak were to occur today, it would be even more challenging for my team to respond. An outbreak of this nature requires coordinated engagement across the agency, from food safety to epidemiology to communications and leadership, and not to mention the coordination with state. With recent budget cuts to public health, our team's food safety work is largely regulatory and funded through restaurant and retail food establishment fees. If a raw milk outbreak were to occur today, our capacity would be severely constrained. We would be required to pull staff from other critical regulatory and consumer protection activities in order to respond, creating a risk not just in one area but across our system. For all these reasons, we see raw milk as a significant public health threat. But to be clear, public health is not anti-choice. Our role is to prevent avoidable illness and avoidable public expense. This outbreak is just one clear example of how raw milk carries real documented health risks as well as real financial consequences for communities. Thank you for the opportunity to share this perspective. Thank you for your time.

Yeah, thank you, and good afternoon. My name is Dr. Bob Belknap. I'm an internal medicine physician and infectious diseases specialist. I'm the chair of the Public Health Institute at Denver Health, and I'm the chief medical officer for Boulder, Broomfield, and Jefferson counties. And I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today. Raw milk poses a well-documented food safety risk because the milk can be contaminated, as you've heard, with bacteria that are common in the farm environment. These bacteria, including Listeria, Campylobacter, E. coli, live in the intestines of cattle and can contaminate milk during normal farm operations. Now, for most healthy adults, infection will likely be a self-limited illness. But for children, pregnant women, or people who are immunocompromised, they can be severe, as the example you just heard. So the severe disease, hospitalizations, chronic medical complications, or even death. Last month, there was a newborn in New Mexico who died from listeria that was associated with unpasteurized milk that the mother consumed during pregnancy. Other organisms like brucella and tuberculosis can cause silent infections in cattle. These are not detected through traditional bacterial screening. They can also cause severe disease in people But unlike the bacteria that typically cause gastrointestinal infections the infection from these organisms may occur may manifest in disease much later As more states have allowed the sale of raw milk, we've also seen what happens. We've seen increases in outbreaks and recalls associated with the products. Importantly, the recalls, though, occur after the contamination has already happened and often after consumers have already purchased and consumed the milk. Because it's a fresh product, much of it is consumed before contamination is detected. So, you know, some have suggested that improved training or routine testing can make it safe. Unfortunately, evidence shows that these strategies cannot eliminate the risk. Contamination of milk is often sporadic. The pathogens may not be evenly distributed within a batch, testing only samples of a small fraction of the milk produced. And results often take days, so they return too late for many people who have already been exposed. And even very low levels of pathogens can cause illness from some of these bacteria, particularly in vulnerable populations. And bacteria like listeria can grow even at refrigerated temperatures. It's also important, I think, to note that there are no proven nutritional advantages of raw milk compared to pasteurized milk. Claims that the raw milk protects against allergies or asthma are likely related to other exposures common in traditional farming environments and not the milk itself. The evidence for this is the lower rates of allergies and asthma in Amish but not Mennonite communities that have similar rates of raw milk consumption but different rates of farming. So pasteurization is a simple proven public health intervention that effectively destroys the pathogens while preserving the nutritional value of milk. So replacing a technology that reliably eliminates pathogens with practices that only attempt to reduce risks, leaves consumers vulnerable, particularly children and other high-risk individuals. For these reasons, the public health and food safety communities continue to recommend pasteurized milk as the safest choice for consumers. Thank you for your time and happy to take any questions.

So I'm not sorry. And Brock Herzberg here, Colorado dairy farmers. I'm not exactly sure of the spread throughout the state of it. And most of, and I can just say this because it's, you can't really deny it. Most of the cows, dairy cows in Colorado are in northern and northeastern Colorado, where I think is where we see some of these.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and good afternoon, and good afternoon to the most wonderful Ag Committee. This bill concept was presented to me by stakeholders, including one of our fine state senators, who will be our Senate sponsor for this, that's Senator Kirkmeyer, while working with the Town of Mead and other stakeholders. Though it doesn't solve a problem that was had by the town of Meade anymore, who is one of my district municipalities, it has been called the Good Government Bill, and I believe it is so. I see this as a bill that preserves taxpayer dollars and protects small towns that have limited resources. This bill directly accomplishes two main things. One, it requires disconnection by ordinance, not court decree, if property proposed for disconnection is located within an urban renewal area, not boundaries of an urban renewal area, or within boundaries of an affected special district, like a metropolitan district. And second, it requires conferral with the affected urban renewal area authorities and special district before a town or city may disconnect by ordinance. At the most basic level, this bill promotes good regional planning and cooperation amongst local government entities. The bill does not preclude a property owner from seeking disconnection of agricultural or farmland utilizing the existing by ordinance path as set forth in Part 5 of Article 12. The key difference between disconnection by ordinance and disconnection by court decree is that the disconnection by ordinance path permits an opportunity for the municipality to consider the best interests of the municipality and responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars. Conversely, the disconnection by court decree process provides no discretion for the court to consider the interests of a municipality or an affected URA or special district. And this outcome runs contrary to regional to good regional planning. Currently under Part 6 and Part 7 of Article 12 and Title 30 of Title 31, when the facts required by the statute to be established have been proven, it becomes the duty of the court to enter a decree disconnecting the territory. However, under Part 5, Disconnection by Ordinance, the governing body of the municipality shall give due consideration to the disconnection application, and if such governing body is of the opinion that the best interests of the municipality will not be prejudiced by the disconnection of such tract, it shall enact an ordinance affecting such disconnection. So this bill ensures that the affected parties, the municipality, affected special districts, and the urban renewal authority that has an adopted urban renewal plan encompassing the area proposed for disconnection, and the property owner has a seat at the table and may discuss and negotiate whether the proposed disconnection should be approved. if a property is located within an affected special district or urban renewal area this often signals that the municipality and loan and landowner were preparing the property for urban level or non level development this level of preparation including but not limited to voluntary annexation annexation of subject property into the city or town inclusion into urban renewal area formation of a special district to finance horizontal infrastructure to support urban level development adoption of local and regional plans, establishment of zoning, approval of development plans, negotiation of intergovernmental agreements takes a lot of time and a lot of resources. Successor owners have noticed when they acquire property that it is located within an urban renewal area and or a special district. Towns, cities, urban renewal authorities, and special districts incur real costs and have real financial impacts when urban renewal plans and special districts are established and amended. These bodies will incur additional costs and financial impacts when a disconnection by court decree necessitates exclusion from a municipality, which in most cases will trigger the need for a subsequent amendment to the boundaries of an urban rural plan area or a special district. So consider planning and consultant costs, legal and administrative expenses, public infrastructure investments, debt issuance and financing costs, and implications for tax increment financing will the base be affected. What are the impacts on incremental revenues foregone on a town or city or sales property tax increment and intergovernmental negotiation and compliance costs? In statutory towns, disconnection by court decree is available only for agricultural land. Since 2010, Colorado urban renewal law has significantly restricted inclusion of agricultural land in urban renewal areas. So at least as to urban renewal authorities in statutory towns, the bill's requirements should rarely be triggered. Again, this bill promotes good regional planning and cooperation amongst local government entities and is an efficient use of local government resources. We ask the committee to recommend 1253 for approval as amended, which I believe the amendments have been presented or will be.

I did.

Representative's Law. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes and yes, and I will also say that there are experts that will speak to this, as well as, I believe, the mayor of the municipality that brought this to me, I think, signed up to be a witness, so they can get into some of the more detailed details of this. But it does – because of the nature of there being multiple agencies or special governmental districts and things that are affected by this, because it's an intergovernmental agreement, it would remove the disconnection by court decree from that because of that reason. it's not meant to be a step on property owners or anything like that but because of the agreements that have been made we feel that it's necessary very improper for them to continue to work within those intergovernmental agreements.

AML Winter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Rep Sloss, you said there would be an abrasion between this and private property rights.

Any other questions for our bill sponsor? Not seeing any, so we'll go ahead to the witness testimony. I have two people signed up, and I have Bev Stables from CML and Colleen Whitlow remotely. Is there anyone else in the room that wanted to testify on House Bill 1253? All right, great. Well, we'll start with you, Ms. Stables. Since you're here in person, when you're ready, go ahead and give us your testimony. You'll have three minutes.

Thank you for your testimony. We'll go online to Mayor Whitlow. When you're ready, go ahead and give us your testimony. You'll have three minutes.

I thank you very much for your time, Chair. Thank you for your testimony. Any questions for either one of these witnesses from our committee?

The stables. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for the question. So first of all, to clarify, the reason why we are seeking and the town is seeking statewide legislation is because Meade is a statutory municipality. So statutory municipalities derive their authority from state statute, whereas a home rule municipality does not have those same constraints. So that's that piece of it. I will say in terms of irregular boundaries or how this impacts other members of the community, I actually think without this legislation, you have a greater impact, a negative impact on residents because their tax dollars have already been spent to start the redevelopment process of this property. and then if it is disconnected, you are no longer benefiting from the potential economic redevelopment of the property, so your tax dollars in a way have, I guess, gone to waste for the benefit of the community.

AML Winter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ma'am, other than Mead, how many other communities have had an issue with this?

Representative Garcia Sander Thank you Madam Chair This could be for either Mayor Whitlow or sorry Ms Stables If properties disconnect from municipalities, could it reduce the revenue needed to fund services and infrastructure?

AML Winter. Thank you, Madam Chair. One more question. So if they want to disconnect, no matter what, they're going to be able to disconnect. So basically, if you have somebody that's set on disconnecting, will they be able to disconnect?

Am I a winter? Yeah. I just dialogue one second. I'm just trying to figure this out. You go right ahead. So the way I look at this is through private property rights, okay? This to me is building a case against them to disconnect in a way where they could go to the court decree and have it held there. But as we have a jump through the county district and urban renewal, at this point, looking at straight through a private property lens, this is setting hurdle after hurdle after hurdle in front of them. So when they go to the court decree, I think it may make them harder to disconnect. Would you, I mean, I see what you're trying to do with the bill, but would you think this would make it harder for them to disconnect other than just going through the court decree, even though it's not a guaranteed? And then that's the last question. I'm just trying to figure it out. Go ahead, Ms. Stable.

No, you're fine, AML Winter. Go ahead. So I'm new to all this, so I have one more question. Could there be a transfer of ownership? So I own a piece of property. I sell it to somebody that wants to buy it that had no plans with it. So it may not even be a thing. I own the property. Dusty wants to buy it. I sell it to her. She had no beginning with what the improvements that have been made. Can it even be sold to somebody else first and foremost that may want to change the use of it? I guess that's the question I have. And then at that point, do you think that if somebody new bought it, if it's possible to buy it, that they should be liable for the agreement that was made prior.

if we're talking about like change of zoning, that's of course a different process. Go ahead, Amel, Winter. So say it's agricultural land. I decide that I want to do it with it. Dusty's my grandkid. She wants to take it over and make an apple orchard out of it. I guess that's more of what I'm asking is. So since I had an agreement with y'all for the use of it, Dusty either inherits it or I pass it down, sell it to her dollar for however it goes, and she wants to make an orchard out of it. Does that, I mean, do you think this will preclude from her from wanting to do with that private property that she wants to do compared to what I as a generation above her wanted to do, I guess, is the question. Yes.

Any other questions? Representative Johnson.

Ms. Stables? I would say our position is we would disagree with that, but specifically for the purposes of this legislation, we are trying to just ensure that the local government taxpayer dollars are being used wisely. So when we make a decision regardless of what like maybe the you know personal components of a landowner and the town are that the local government that has already allocated resources to redeveloping this property that those don go to waste by then having this disconnection process circumvent the local government So that where we trying to be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars All right.

So, yeah, AML Winter, I hear that you are. Go ahead. I guess my question would be what type of improvements are we talking about?

thank you so you mean infrastructure is somebody's running a water and sewer line up the main road in front of it correct is that about all i mean but you're talking about actual improvements to property itself is there any dollars to improve that property itself or is it just like utilities

Any other questions? I don't see any other questions. Thank you both for your participation today. We appreciate it. Seeing no other folks that wanted to testify on House Bill 1253, We will end the witness testimony phase and bring our bill sponsor back. All right. Representative Slaw, do you have any amendments?

All right. I will entertain a motion from.

Second.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I forgot. I sit in this room on other committees so often that I forgot that I'm not on this committee, so I can't move this amendment.

So this bill, or this amendment, cleans up a lot of language. It makes, that's the primary thing, is it cleans up some of the language and makes it a little bit more explicit as to when and why and how these actions are taken. That's how I would quantify it.

No, Madam Chair.

I will. Thank you. Thank you, committee, for hearing this bill. As I believe you all know, I am a small-town guy. I grew up in a small town in my district. I live in a small town in my district. I've raised my kids in a small town in my district. And this bill, though it is not necessarily explicitly for a small town in my district, it came to me from one. And I believe that this bill and the implications of some of the things that could be applied to any municipality throughout the state And I do believe that it is important when we have small towns that take the land ownership and their agreements with land owners seriously and invest in those property owners improvements and in making their small towns better. I believe that it is worthwhile and incumbent on property owners to make sure that they also do what I consider just to be the right thing to do, and that is to make sure that they work with the small towns that they're a part of. I don't think that they're... I understand and recognize the concerns potentially that were brought up by my good colleague about how small towns sometimes are, but that's not what we do in law, is worry about necessarily about the personal relationships. We have to make sure that we have the framework and the structure in place to be able to do the right things by taxpayers and by those who've invested in the land. And with that, I urge an yes vote. Thank you.

I move House Bill 1253 as amended to the Committee of the Whole. Thank you.

Any comments from the committee?

All right. I don't see any comments, so Ms. Kelly, please call the roll.

Yes.

Yes.

Pass.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Excused.

Yes, for today.

Yes.

No for today.

Yes. That passes 11 to 1 with one excused, and you're on your way to the Committee of the Whole. And that ends our business for today. Our committee is adjourned.