Senate Agriculture & Natural Resources [Apr 30, 2026]

go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good evening, members of the committee. I am pleased to be here representing House Bill 1342. This is a bill brought forward in partnership with CPW and DNR.

I'll stop. Currently, Colorado is facing a record number of human-bear interactions. We have a high volume of tourism and are seeing increased development, which also exacerbates things. These conflicts are increasing as our wildland-urban interface is expanding, and people continue to push into historical bear habitat. In 2024, there were over 5,000 statewide reports of human-bear conflict, which are interactions where bears encountered human-inhabitated areas that resulted in property damage, safety risks, or intervention by CPW. Of the 5,000 reports, over 50% were linked to trash. So this puts in his mint strain on CPW, which has had to dedicate an increasing amount of time and resources in response to human-bear conflicts in recent years. In 24, the division spent nearly 6,000 hours of staff time responding to human-black bear conflicts and spent nearly $800,000 in supplies, grants, and salaries related to human-black bear conflicts. This bill is not intended to add additional work to the place of CPW officers or local law enforcement, but rather will allow CPW to more effectively enforce the law when they receive calls about human-bear conflicts that result from the mismanagement of food and edible waste. House Bill 1342 equips CPW and law enforcement with stronger tools to deter the behavior that puts both humans and bears at risk. Under current statute, officers must prove an individual had the intention of luring bears in order to issue a violation, and that is a near impossible standard to meet. House Bill 1342 fixes this issue by authorizing CPW to issue penalties to individuals who knowingly place food or edible waste in the open in circumstances where there's a reasonable probability of luring a wild bear. It aligns this statute with how the agency manages other human-wildlife conflict by removing the mandate for a first-time warning, and it raises the penalty for third and subsequent offenses from $2,000 to $5,000 to deter repeat behavior. I want to be really clear that proving knowing behavior is a high legal bar. The DA must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person knew they were placing food or edible waste in the open, and they knew that there was a reasonable probability of luring a bear. The introduced version was less strict, and it formally allowed officers to issue a violation to a person whose actions constitute criminal negligence. negligence However at the request of both the county sheriffs and the criminal defense bar the bill was amended in the House to raise the culpable mental state to knowingly which is an even higher bar to prove than criminal negligence. I would also like to address some of the misconceptions about this bill. This bill does not make inadvertent everyday actions a criminal offense. Under this bill, Coloradans can still put up bird feeders. They can still go outside and grill a burger. They're not going to be penalized if they don't have a bear-proof garbage can. What this bill does is it just requires what any good neighbor and bear country resident already is doing. They're avoiding leaving food or edible trash outside in the open when they know there's a strong chance it'll attract a bear. The only people who could be cited under this bill are those who know they are placing food or edible waste in the open when they know there is a reasonable probability of luring a bear. Those people are putting themselves, their neighbors, and our wildlife in danger, and this bill gives them an incentive to change their behavior. I would also like to point out there is an existing exemption for agriculture in statute that ensures that Colorado's food producers will not be negatively impacted by this law. Ultimately, this bill is a step in the right direction for holding people accountable for behaviors that create human-bear conflicts, and it gives CPW the tools they need to protect our communities and our wildlife. With that, I'd ask for the committee's support, and I'm happy to take any questions.

Okay, how's that?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Thanks for the opportunity to comment, and thank you guys for your service. So I am Bill Bryant, and I live in Golden up in the foothills. I'm in the middle of bear country, and I support the concept of the bill and what the agency is trying to do, but I don't agree with all due respect with the analysis that was just given about what is covered and what isn't covered. So like specifically with trash cans what lures bears and the language in the bill focuses on the words knowingly and luring which just means attraction So when I put out my trash can even though it secured it still going to attract a bear and therefore be covered by the knowingly standard So there's a real simple solution for that in the bird feeders and grilling burgers and all the things that were just said. But there's a real simple solution, and that's that Section 2 of the bill currently has a written exception to exempt basically vegetable gardens and chicken coops. So what's the harm in just putting one more amendment on that that adds everything that was just stated? Bird feeders, grilling burgers, putting trash out that is reasonably secured. I think that would clarify it, easy to do, and if that's done, then I am a strong supporter of it. Thank you very much, and I'll answer any questions you might have.

Yeah, thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Dean Seifert, and I represent the collective ownership of Wild Birds Unlimited stores in the Front Range area. Together, we operate nine small businesses across the state from the western slope to the front range, serving tens of thousands of Colorado citizens. We share the sponsor's goal of ensuring public safety and protecting our wildlife. We fully support the intent of this bill to address the negligent management of food waste and attractants, and we want to be partners in a bear smart Colorado. However, we're concerned that the current language creates an overly broad standard that will negatively impact the 1.7 million Coloradans who participate in bird watching. By replacing intent with a standard of knowingly places in circumstances where there's a reasonable probability of luring and simultaneously repealing the mandatory first offense warning, the bill creates a net that catches law-abiding hobbyists rather than bad actors. Under a negligence or knowing standard, a resident could be prosecuted simply because a bear was attracted to the scent of a feeder, even if the feeder was placed out of reach and was physically inaccessible to the animal. Under this language, a resident... Under this language, a resident who knowingly hangs a hummingbird feeder in a neighborhood where bears are reasonably probable has technically committed a misdemeanor. Without a required warning, a homeowner could face a criminal record for their very first hummingbird feeder of the season. So for the millions of people who engage in this hobby, the current language doesn't distinguish between a bad actor with an unsecured trash and a responsible citizen with a clean hummingbird or songbird feeder. And beyond the economic impact of bird feeding and bird watching to Colorado's economy, bird watching and feeding provides a critical mental health benefit to all of our citizens. Peer-reviewed research proves that the abundance of birds in our neighborhood is a primary factor in reducing clinical depression, anxiety, and stress for urban and rural residents alike. Furthermore, supplemental feeding serves as a vital safety net for species like the broad-tailed hummingbird during our late spring snowstorms. We believe this bill can still achieve its safety goals without penalizing this community. This legislation already recognizes the need for exemptions for agriculture and chicken coops. We're simply asking for that same consistency for bird feeding. Our proposed amendment to Section 33.6131.2 is very straightforward. This section does not apply to the placement or maintenance of bird feeders or hummingbird feeders. This allows our state to focus on managing food waste while protecting the rights of Coloradans to engage responsibly with the natural world. Thank you.

Ms Raymond Ms Raymond Unmute. So sorry, had to find the unmute. So I agree with Bill Bryan. I think that this is a little broad in its structure, and I think that with the what we could be doing is adding the exceptions for the chicken coops and vegetable gardens are already there. I would like to add fruit trees to that as well, as well as bird feeders. And someone has, Dean Seifert had pointed out, bird feeders are necessary for the enjoyment of our mountain communities. And we already, I live in a community that's been here for 25 years. I've had bird feeders for all 25 years. And the only time we had a bear was once, and it came to the fruit trees at the edge of the neighborhood. So I think this is a bill that could be used neighbor against neighbor, and I don't want to see that happening, and I think some neighbors would use this as a tool because the language is too broad. Um, knowingly versus intentionally, uh, to me is, it leaves an opening, a gap where I knowingly know that, uh, the birds are that, sorry, that the bears will come to bird feeders. But that doesn't mean that I am drawing bears to my yard by having those bird feeders up or by having those fruit trees on the edge of my property. So I would just like that to be those thoughts to be added to this bill. I think it's too broad and then not specific enough for exclusions.

I am the same reasons that have been already addressed. I think it's a broad and vague and to identify myself I am

Small business.

Frank McGee, Chief Executive Officer of the Committee. Good afternoon Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I am Frank McGee, Southeast Region Manager for Colorado Parks and Wildlife here today in support of House Bill 1342. This bill is the result of a diverse stakeholder group that's been working to find a solution of a growing statewide concern. The number of citations on the current law that's been issued in the last two years was zero. The current intent standard is a significant barrier to our effectiveness as it is a nearly impossible standard to meet and prove that someone intended for a bear to enter into their trash or waste. When a bear becomes habituated to human food sources, typically through unsecured trash or food, relocation and hazing is often no longer an option. To protect human health and safety, officers are forced into euthanizing the animal. By moving to a knowingly standard, officers can intervene more effectively when the risk is created, providing better tools to protect both people and bears. Increasing the fine for third and subsequent offenses from $2,000 to $5,000 will also help us further deter repeat behavior. I would like to thank Senator Marchman for working with us on this bill, and we thank representatives Stewart and Lukens for their leadership on this important legislation. This bill allows officers to be proactive instead of reactive, prioritizing public safety and professional integrity of wildlife management in our state. With that, I respectfully ask for your support today on House Bill 1342 and happy to take any questions the committee may have.

Just one second. Are we using the big mic or the...

Can you hear me?

My name is Melinda Marquis. I am a birder but would never believe my desire to see birds supersedes the priority of not luring bears. I want to share the story of one bear and her cub. The people in Pinebrook Hills neighborhood of Boulder called the bear tripod because she had an injured paw and walked on only three paws. She had been living much of her life in Pinebrook Hills from 2022 to 2025. There was a lot of discarded high-calorie food in Pinebrook Hills, especially unsecured trash, as well as bird seed and apples growing on trees. When tripod arose from hibernation in spring of 2025, she had a cub. She and her cub found a lot of high-calorie food in Pinebrook Hills that spring and summer. One day, Tripod's cub went inside a person's house. The person felt scared and called CPW. CPW was afraid that the mother might hurt a human, so CPW killed Tripod. CPW did not find the cub, who weighed only 20 pounds. The cub likely starved to death Tripod and her cub would not have lived in the neighborhood if people had not provided them with food Neighbors have been chatting about Tripod on social media for years Many people enjoy seeing birds and bears. They fail to see how their behavior kills bears. This bill may educate people and encourage them to secure their garbage and other attractants so that bears have no reason to be in areas of human development. This bill is good for bears and people. Please vote yes.

Hello, Chair Roberts and committee members. My name is Brenda Lee, and I'm the founder and executive director of Colorado Bear Coalition. We work with communities, local governments, and law enforcement across Colorado to reduce human-bear conflict. I've been doing this work for 15 years. Human bear conflict is a human problem, not a bear problem. This bill is about giving Colorado's law enforcement officers tools that actually work and ensuring that one person's repeated negligence doesn't put an entire community at risk. Under the current standard, officers must prove a person intentionally lured a bear. In practice, that standard is nearly impossible to meet in court. No one admits intent. Under this bill, officers can still issue a warning on a first encounter, and that warning actually becomes a powerful evidentiary tool. If the person continues the behavior after being warned, it is much easier to demonstrate they acted knowingly. That is far more a prosecutable case than trying to prove intent ever was. This bill addresses the enforcement gap directly. In addition, eliminating the mandatory first offense warning means officers are no longer required to make multiple trips before any accountability kicks in. But they retain the discretion to issue one when appropriate. And raising the fine for repeat offenders creates genuine deterrence. and just given the work I've done and the many incidences in which there are chronic offenders and the tools available to law enforcement is not good enough and they need to be able to do their job by having this tool in their toolbox. This really is a law enforcement issue and it will allow CPW to better manage wildlife and keep people safe as well. Thank you.

Am I on? Okay. Hi, thank you for letting me speak today. My name is Christy Green. I am the founder and president of Wild Aware. We are a nonprofit up in the Evergreen area, unincorporated Jefferson County. I'm speaking in favor of House Bill 1342. Our mission focuses on reducing wildlife-human conflict. Our work involves providing printed materials for newcomer groups, speaking at civic groups, schools, businesses. We have website resources. We have a strong social media presence. We also collaborate with CPW on human-bear conflict reduction through electrification of chicken coops in our community. Because we engage with our community and social media we can see the kind of emotion and trauma that comes from discussing wildlife We know that CPW needs to have additional resources to deal with these things and we know because people post very proudly videos of bears coming into looking in the window or maybe trying to come into the garage, or getting into the bird feeder on the grill, so they're not taking it seriously, and I think that's part of the thing. Bears are cute, and it's fun when they come around the house. But the truth is that letting them be habituated to people is very dangerous. While we will always need education in our toolbox, and that's what Wild Aware is about, we know that education alone does not work, and that's why we support this bill so that we can enable our wildlife officers to have better tools to manage those who would endanger themselves, neighbors, and bears by ignoring all attempts to change behaviors through education and example. For less turmoil in our neighborhoods, respect for wildlife officers and more bears living their best wild lives. Wilderers supports this bill. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. McGee, my question for you is, so I lived in Old Snowmass for 15 years. We dealt with bears all the time. Can you walk me through an investigation that you guys would go through if you felt like this was happening on somebody's property when you had to remove a bear?

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Thank you, Senator. And just so I'm understanding the question, are you asking what we would do to investigate or how we would make a determination to move a bear?

Sure.

Senator Pelton.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair and Senator Pelton. Right now, this is the only law that we have where there is no discretion. Officers are required to issue a warning on a first offense. I think in most cases, we are still planning on issuing warnings on first offenses. this removal of the requirement to give someone a warning allows someone to be prosecuted if we have a particularly egregious or problematic case where you know candidly it doesn't make sense for us to give them a warning there are other ways for us to get to a knowingly standard aside from giving someone a warning if we knock on the door and we talk to the person and they tell us yeah i put out that trash and i knew that it was probably going to have a bear get into it and maybe the complaint is that this has been an ongoing problem there, maybe a warning is not appropriate. The idea would be just like every other violation in Title 33 that discretion lies with those officers.

Thank you, Madam Chair. my question would be if you get to the point where somebody's going to be fined five thousand dollars do they have to go in front of the judge and and is it handled like any other criminal case

One more.

Mr. Minkie. Thank you. So the law right now is for a first offense, 200, second offense, 1,000, third offense, 2,000. The bill would change it from that to 200, 1,000, and 5,000.

Thank you. That's all.

My name is Clint Talbot and I am a resident of Nederland, Colorado and a native of Montrose, Colorado. I represent Science for Colorado Wildlife. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair, for hearing my testimony today. I'm here in support of House Bill 26-1342. Last year, as has been mentioned, CPW recorded more than 5,000 reports of conflicts with bears and that was a 15% over the year prior to that. Over 57% of those were linked to trash, 18% to livestock and chickens, and 16% to bird feeders and the like. Every year, CPW issues a press release noting that most human-bear conflict is due to the negligence of humans. And every year, basically, nothing changes. House Bill 26-13-42 would help change this. The bill would amend current law, which punishes, quote, intentional luring of bears. Most people don't intend to lure bears. Most people who lure bears are just ignorant of how their trash, beehives, or bird feeders lure and ultimately, unfortunately, kill bears. The current law is rarely enforced. CPW has issued 14 warnings and zero citations for intentionally luring bears in the last two years. Records that I obtained via the Colorado Open Records Act show that between 2019 and 2022, CPW issued 32 warnings 8 citations and 2 summonses During the same period 110 bears were relocated and 419 bears were killed by CPW What this means is that the rate of enforcement of this law has slowed just as human-induced bear conflict has increased and just as hundreds of bears died because they were carelessly lured with human sources of food, including bird feeders. HB 2613-42 is a modest but important step toward placing the blame for trash-related bear mortality where it belongs, on humans. I urge you to support this bill, and thank you for hearing my testimony.

Madam Vice Chair, committee members, my name is Roland Halpern. I'm the Executive Director for Colorado Voters for Animals. A fed bear is a dead bear. It's blunt, but it's true. When people knowingly or negligently leave out food, trash, bird seed, pet food, or other attractants, they're putting that animal on a path that can end with its death. And whenever a bear is euthanized, my phone rings off the hook, my mailbox gets flooded with emails. It's mostly from people who are infuriated. CPW has, quote, killed, unquote, another bear. But their anger is usually misdirected. It should be directed towards folks like you and me if we're not taking simple, common-sense steps to avoid attracting bears in the first place. Bears are intelligent. Once they learn there is an easy food source, they will return. Over time, their fear of people vanishes, they become bolder, they may break into homes, or even threaten public safety, eventually classifying them as dangerous or a nuisance. And at that point, there are a few options left, and the bear may be euthanized, not because the bear did anything wrong, it was just being a bear, but because people failed to secure their food waste. And failing to secure food waste can create other problems. In 2023, CPW was forced to euthanize a 400-pound black bear after finding it was suffering from a severe intestinal blockage after consuming trash that clogged its intestines. The garbage included food wrappers, wipes, paper towels, onions, and french fries. The involved wildlife manager stated, we could not leave a sick bear like that, knowing it was suffering and struggling to survive. When you have a very fat 400-pound bear, it will take ages to starve to death. Right now the problem is more urgent. It's no surprise we're facing serious drought conditions which will reduce natural food like berries, acorns, nuts, and other forage. In looking for food, bears may travel even further into human territory. This bill is common sense prevention. It asks people to take reasonable responsibility before bear conflicts occur, before the bear becomes habituated. A fed bear is a dead bear. I'd ask for your yes vote on this bill. Thank you.

Oh, hang on. Okay, can you hear me now?

Thank you. My name is Laura Zeiss. I work for the City of Aspen Parks and Open Space Department as their wildlife coordinator. From May till November, approximately 95% of my time is spent providing education and enforcement on our trash storage ordinances. We currently require that waste haulers only provide wildlife containers and that they have to be latched This takes a lot of effort to be consistent all summer and fall year in and year out As humans push into bear's habitat, they're moving into new communities in search of human-provided, high-calorie food. Just because a community doesn't have bear activity today doesn't mean they won't have bear activity next week, month, or year. We initiated our first trash storage muni code in 1999 and have made a lot of revisions since then. It took several years before we killed enough bears in town that we were able to pass a code requiring proper storage. Many people wanted CPW to just keep killing the bears that were getting into unsecured trash. Some summer, CPW killed as many as 30 bears within Aspen City limits, a job no wildlife officer wants to do. The answer isn't killing bears, it's changing human behavior. Since enacting and updating our codes, our community mindset has changed. people no longer ask for lethal removal of bears. They just ask what more they can do to secure their waste. Last summer was the first summer in memory where we didn't lethally remove a bear from the city limits of Aspen. We can keep doing our best, but if the communities around us are not, we're still going to have their bears come through town because, as you know, their range is quite large. We allow bird feeders if they're kept out of reach of bears and kept clean below. This bill would allow CPW to issue citations to those who aren't willing to attract bears. Once they get comfortable in close proximity to people, they may begin entering homes through unlocked windows and doors in addition to entering cars in search of human food. Do we all want to sleep with our windows locked tight in the middle of the heat of the summer? Or do we want to give CPW tools to keep bears out of neighborhoods and keep them wild and foraging in nature? I urge a yes vote. Thank you. Thank you. Committee members,

Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to present to you today. My name is Colleen Walsh, representing myself and my neighbors in Basalt, Colorado. I am in favor of House Bill 1342. I closed on my home on September 26, 2025. If I could show video or photo of what I've witnessed in the last seven months, it would reveal the following. Dead birds in my yard and surrounding yards regularly. A bear in the yard across the street about a week and a half after my closing. 50 birds flying out of the yard across the street regularly. Wild turkeys flying over the fence into the yard across the street regularly. Squirrels being hand-fed peanuts by the owners across the street. Peanuts being placed in the trees by the owners across the street regularly for animals to retrieve including bears A huge container of food a huge scoop to put food in open bowls and in feeders in the yard across the street Animals regularly eating food off the lawn below the board feeders in the yard across the street. I do not have photos or video, but the people that live next door to the residents across the street indicated they had a family of bears, including cubs, living in their front yard from evening to morning for a large portion of the fall. I consider CPW to be the experts as it relates to negligently luring bears. Among other information, the articles I've read indicate the following. The majority of human bear conflicts occur as a result of human attractants and management of these attractions. Bird feeding mentioned specifically. Bird feeders lure predators. They are hot spots for disease that can sicken and kill. and bird feeders are only appropriate in winter months when bears are hibernating. Every article I've read indicate that my neighbors across the street are negligently luring bears due to excessive feeding of birds and not following recommendations of CPW. I kindly asked them to relocate the feeders or for us to come up with a resolution. They refused and no one can currently hold them accountable. All the while, birds are dying. There are threats of disease transmission, larger predators around our home, becoming more emboldened around people due to access to human food source.

Thank you. I have no amendments.

Thank you. I'll be really quick. I just want to thank the proponents who have a bear group, who work on this regularly and brought this forward. Many of them are here today. I also want to thank those who joined to weigh in. It was a weird day in the Senate. So their afternoon plans turned into evening plans. And I want to thank the committee, bill drafter Jerry, and fiscal analyst Colin. This is a pretty simple bill. I am not a lawyer like Mr. Chair is, but I will say I looked up the difference between intentionally and knowingly because I use both of those words pretty regularly, and they made something different. intentionally means the result is the goal. I wanted this, whereas knowingly is I knew this would happen and I did it anyway. A result is a side effect of what I did. And so that's the mental state level that we're at. There's no fiscal. I'm excited to hopefully save some bears with this bill. And I would ask for your I vote today. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Excuse me. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1342 to the Committee of the Whole.

I'm not quite there. It'll be no for today. Anderson. Aye. Yep.

Excused. Danielson? Yes. And Mr. Chair? Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you, committee, for hearing my bill tonight. The bill focuses on increasing pollinator habitat on state-managed lands by directing four state agencies, the State Forest Service, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Personnel, and Department of Transportation, to prioritize Colorado-sourced, ecoregionally appropriate native plant materials in vegetation products or projects. The key provisions are there's a native plant priority, so covered agencies are encouraged to use in-state, ecoregionally specific plant material that supports pollinators when conditions allow. Coordinated purchasing. Agencies are required to coordinate with each other on purchasing for practical and training programs. Each agency must establish training for relevant land managers and maintenance staff on pollinator supportive practices subject to available funding. That qualifier was added by an amendment in the House. And mowing and grazing practices. Agencies are directed to integrate mowing and grazing schedules based on a 2022 DNR study on pollinator habitat. State Capitol Complex. The Office of the State Architect is directed to support pollinator-friendly development and renovation of state buildings and leased properties. And on the native plant availability study, the CSU Extension must conduct a Colorado native plant study availability study, but that's only from gifts, grants, and donations, so only if that can be secured. And, you know, here's the reason this is important. When I converted my own yard in Fort Collins, replacing most of the grass with native plants and pollinator habitat, our water use dropped from about 25,000 gallons a month to around 10,000 gallons a month. That's a 60% reduction, and I'm not unusual. According to Northern Water, warm season native grasses can require 50% to 80% less supplemental irrigation than Kentucky bluegrass. Colorado Springs Utilities has documented that similar results in park conversions. Native grasses use about a third of the water of a traditional lawn, and on the front range, that matters enormously. Water savings are a compelling reason on their own, but this bill does something more. It addresses the habitat crisis that is driving pollinator decline across our state and country. The 2024 Colorado Native Pollinating Insects Health Study identifies habitat loss and the lack of diverse native plants as the primary causes of that decline. This bill responds directly to the study's recommendation to expand and connect high-quality pollinator habitat at scale by directing state agencies to prioritize Colorado-sourced, ecoregionally appropriate native plants when undertaking vegetation projects on state lands. This isn't a mandate to rip out everything overnight. The bill is designed to be practical, balancing pollinator goals with wildfire mitigation, and noxious weed control agriculture production and public safety It promotes coordinated purchasing across agencies to reduce costs and build market confidence for native plant growers It requires training for land managers and it directs CSU Extension to do the study that I mentioned before Colorado has a chance to lead here by example on our own state lands, and I urge your support of this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Kipp, thank you for bringing this bill. I'm reading in part of it that is a little frustrating where it says to the extent practicable, each covered agency shall integrate mowing and grazing based on recommendations included in the 2022 study commissioned by the Department of Natural Resources pursuant to Senate Bill 22199. grazing like on state land board land I mean that would be a huge issue but does each department decide on what is to the extent practicable

Senator Pelton.

I hear you, and I encourage you to ask them those questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. I'm Joyce Kennedy, Executive Director of People and Pollinators Action Network. The KIPP, you've taken most of my testimony, so I will try not to reiterate much, But basically, this native pollinating insect study provided us with a wealth of recommendations on how we can improve habitat across the state. And this bill is really looking at those issues that were highlighted in the study and it the basis of the bill It advances the recommendations to expand and connect high habitat and support biodiversity across our scenic landscapes by encouraging agencies to prioritize native plants when available and financially feasible, and this does lead to water and cost savings and will improve drought tolerance. Importantly, it builds on the ongoing efforts by departments to incorporate native plants into projects. It really is formalizing and helping to coordinate those efforts, coordinating between departments with growers, shared training resources, and thoughtful purchasing practices, all aimed at improving outcomes. The bill also recognizes that land management requires balance alongside of wildfire mitigation, noxious weed control, agricultural activities, and public safety. And this flexibility will help with implementation so that it's practical and site-specific, especially during difficult budget cycles, and should avoid strain on agency staff. The bill is about steady progress with native plant solutions to strengthen supply change, codify good agency work, and advance Colorado forward with common sense solutions. Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman Roberts. Committee members, my name is Roland Halpern. I'm Executive Director for Colorado Voters for Animals. When pollinators decline, it doesn't stop at honeybees. It ripples upwards through insects, birds, small mammals, and the predators that rely on them, while also reducing pollination services that agriculture and healthy ecosystems depend on. Pollinators are responsible for Colorado's peaches, apples, and other tree fruits, melons, squash, pumpkins, cucumbers, some vegetable seed crops, sunflowers, and alfalfa seeds. According to the USDA, Colorado's peach crop alone represents about $34.6 million annually. A 2022 collaborative study on native pollinating insects concluded pollinator status in Colorado is tenuous, owing to habitat loss and land management practices. The study emphasized that increasing native plants is our biggest opportunity to sustain pollinators, especially in agricultural and urban habitats. Just as importantly, this bill is a water conservation bill, critical right now given our pending drought conditions from climate change and low snowpack. Increasingly, the availability and diversity of native plants used in landscaping and restoration helps conserve water resources, improves drought resilience, and protects watershed health. Native plants evolved here, adapted to Colorado's climate, soils, and hydrology, meaning they generally require less irrigation once established and support healthier more stable watersheds. In short the bill strengthens ecosystems from the ground up supporting pollinators the wildlife that depends upon them and the agricultural and water systems that depend on them as well. I would ask for your yes vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Roberts, members of the committee. My name is Tim Brass. I'm the Assistant Director for Parks Wildlife and Lands at the Department of Natural Resources and I here today on behalf of the department to support House Bill 1132 as amended I joined virtually by CPW staff members Casey Cooley the Habitat Conservation Supervisor and Adrian Carper the Pollinator Conservation Program Manager, to help answer any questions that you may have. House Bill 1132 builds on CPW's current efforts to protect and conserve pollinators and their habitat across the state. CPW conducts habitat reseeding on 800 to 1,000 acres annually, using primarily native plant material on both private and public lands. A recent example of one of these projects is the recent reseeding efforts that CPW led in response to the elk, lee, and sow belly wildfires in western Colorado. CPW has been working diligently to implement House Bill 24-1117, which this committee passed just two years back with the leadership of Representative McCormick. Since the passage of this bill, CBW has hired six new full-time staff members and five part-time staff members to study and conserve Colorado's invertebrates and and rare plants. The team has hit the ground running and earlier this year they incorporated 235 invertebrate and 195 rare plant species into the 2025 State Wildlife Action Plan or SWAP. This will guide CPW's work in the coming years. They've also installed pollinator gardens at state parks across the state. We understand that an amendment will be brought forward here today to make a technical fix that provides further clarity for the covered agencies that will be implementing this bill. And we urge the committee to vote yes on this amendment and also want to thank the People and Pollinators Action Network for the continued partnership on this effort. With that, I ask for your support of House Bill 1132 along with the amendment, and our team is

Hello, good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Amanda Martinez, and I am here representing Audubon Rockies, a regional office of the National Audubon Society that serves approximately 35,000 members in Colorado. And I'm speaking today in support of this bill. I am the Senior Coordinator of Habitat Hero, which is our popular gardening program, which promotes the creation of native plant gardens to support birds, pollinators, and people in response to the significant habitat loss many of us are noticing across the state. Our program offers guidance on native plants and certifies gardens as wildlife habitat. Our 410 certified Habitat Hero Gardens across the state illustrate that Coloradans are eager to see and use native plants in their landscapes and enjoy benefits such as enhanced biodiversity, resulting in more bird and pollinator sightings, increased resilience to drought, healthier soils and watersheds, reduced water usage, fewer chemical inputs, and an increased aesthetic appeal. One notable habitat hero is an HOA managing 250 condos that replaced non-native plants and turf with native plants in their landscape, saving them 15 million gallons of water in the first year and immediately attracting more hummingbirds and pollinators. This program engages a variety of land managers and its success in promoting native plant use provides context for how this bill can position state agencies in strong leadership roles to not only create more pollinator and bird habitat, but also to conserve water and reduce maintenance needs. 2,700 native plant species, over 2,700 native plant species, offering state agencies of ample variety. Many native species benefit not only our wildlife, but also our domesticated animals. Many of our native grasses and perennials, which naturally grow in the eastern plains, provide highly palatable and nutritious forage. So this bill creates a positive ripple effect that increases native plant and seed availability, which are limited in many parts of the state. This will benefit many Coloradans. Audubon Rockies is excited about the potential for this bill, and we strongly encourage your support due to the broad benefits to birds, pollinators, and people, as well as increased leadership opportunities for our state agencies. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is for people in the room. Why put grazing in the bill? If somebody is leasing land from CPW, why would you? I mean, CPW is not going to let the ranchers overgraze, but why would you want to put that in the bill?

Thank you for the question. It all relates back to the native pollinating insect study and the in-depth research and inventorying that the folks that worked on that study did, talking to state agencies about what are current practices that best support pollinator health and what can be done to just improve and tweak those practices. Grazing comes into account in certain circumstances. However, it's generally referenced as, you know, often a way to support fire mitigation. And I would also encourage you to potentially ask a question of Adrian Carper who online because he one of the authors of the study and he may have additional information regarding that

Thank you, Madam Chair. Grazing also is part of the $47 billion industry that's in the state of Colorado, and these farmers and ranchers rely on leasing this land. I mean, I just want to recognize that CPW will not let us overgraze if we're using that land. And I'll ask Ms. Carpenter that question. Why put grazing in the bill? It kind of seems like it's a not necessary in here with land management managers and wildlife managers like CPW that know what they're doing. I don't know why we would need to call out grazing in the actual bill. Mr. Carper?

Ms. Kennedy.

Senator Catlin.

Would anybody want to answer that? Yes, Mr. Cooley. Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you all so much. We appreciate your testimony. Last call for witnesses on House Bill 1132. Nobody online, nobody in the room. Witness testimony phase is closed. Senator Kipp, we have L4 in front of us, if you would like to move that.

All right. Any discussion?

All right. Any questions? Any objection? Seeing none, L004 is adopted. Senator Kipp, any more amendments?

Any from the committee? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Wrap-up comments.

All right. Thank you. Committee, Senator Kipp, if you'd like to make a motion as amended to appropriations.

All right. As a proper motion, are there any comments before we vote? Seeing none, Mr. Becker, please poll the committee. Senators, Catlin?

Henrickson?

Kip?

Pelton B?

Pelton R?

Danielson?

And Mr. Chair? Aye. That passes four to three. All right. we don't have any more business today it's likely we will have a meeting next week stand by for whether it's on Wednesday or Thursday but for tonight we are adjourned Thank you.