May 7, 2026 · Agriculture & Natural Resources · 15,195 words · 16 speakers · 137 segments
It's been a while. We have two bills on our calendar. We're going to start with House Bill 1033 and then move to House Bill 1340. Just for everybody who's here or watching online, it's that time of session where committee members are going to be in and out, going to other committees. So that explains their absence, but we'll get folks back here if and when we are voting. So let's get started with House Bill 1033 by Senators Rodriguez and Pelton, who are before us.
Senator Pelton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Today we bring before you House Bill 1033. This bill modernizes and strengthens the Colorado College Cottage Food Act by expanding opportunities for small-scale food entrepreneurs while maintaining appropriate public health safeguards. By allowing the sale of refrigerated and certain meat products, the bill reflects evolving consumer demand and opens the door for producers to offer a broader range of goods, supporting local economies and entrepreneurship. Eliminating the $10,000 revenue cap allows producers to grow beyond hobby scale into viable small businesses, increasing access to authentic Colorado-made goods. The bill still requires registration and targeted food safety training for high-risk products and protect consumers, additionally granting local health agencies enforcement authority and insurers' accountability and oversight at the community level. This bill, additionally, the CCFA currently allows producers to sell a limited range of non-hazardous, non-refrigerator foods produced in their own home kitchens such as pickled fruits and vegetables, spices, honeys, teas, and more. We like to call it the tamale bill. So that's what we've been calling it. So this actually came to my attention after watching some news stories about individuals coming and selling food in Denver and watching some of the stuff that happened with that. So So it's just seeing where we can actually open up the law a little bit to allow these folks to be able to do business and move forward. So that's what I have. I'll turn it over to my co-prime.
Mr. Majority Leader.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, committee. It's always nice to be back here in the Ag Committee. House Bill 1033, or known as the Tamale Act, not the Tamale Bill, updates Colorado's Cottage Food Act to better reflect the way many Coloradans actually cook, sell, and share food in their communities while adding guardrails to protect public health. Current law allows Coloradans to sell certain homemade foods directly to informed consumers, but it generally limits those sales to foods that do not require refrigeration. The bill expands that framework by allowing home producers to sell certain packaged foods that require time and temperature control for safety, including foods like tamales, burritos, and tortas. The bill does not create an unlimited exemption. It created a controlled pathway. Producers who sell these foods must complete additional food safety training focused on time and temperature control, maintain proof of completion, follow cooking, cooling, holding, and transportation safety requirements, avoid barehand contact with ready-to-eat foods, and package the products appropriately. The bill also limits what can be sold. A producer may sell only one type of refrigerated food product at a time with up to five variations. The bill expressly excludes higher risk products such as raw milk, low acid canned foods, certain fermented or acidified foods requiring refrigeration, alcohol products, cannabinoid products, or foods preserved through smoking curing or reduced oxygen processing For foods containing meats or meat products the bill requires that the meat come from lawful inspections exemption such as applicable federal poultry or meat processing exemptions This is intended to ensure the bill supports small producers without undermining existing meal safety laws The bill also modernizes the Cottage Food Act by increasing the revenue limit to $150,000 in gross revenue per year, adjusted annually for inflation, and prevents producers from creating multiple entities just to avoid the cap. Producers must register with the department, receive a registration number, and include that number on product labels. On enforcement, the bill gives CDPHE and local public health agencies clear but limited tools. They may inspect or investigate when there is misbranding, a consumer complaint, suspected injury, or a foodborne illness concern. Finally, the bill creates a cottage food cash fund and appropriates funding to CDPHE to administer the expanded program. there's been some misinformation floating around with this claims that it pulls from other programs within CDPHE. We have provided you with a memo from the department that dispels the claim. This bill supports small food entrepreneurs, immigrants, and family food businesses and local consumers who want access to culinary important homemade food like tamales while putting reasonable food safety training, labeling, registration, and enforcement standards in place.
Thank you. Senator Pelton. Yes, we also have an amendment that actually talks about has uh with the federally inspected um meat and also satisfies the exemption for inspections when you use like a um like a local uh meat producer or that sort of thing so we do have that amendment we also have an amendment this also amendment uh takes out the the home inspections and also spells out the um that the health health agency may implement local response procedures and corrective actions if they're going outside the rules. So that's an amendment that we'll have that we'll bring during the amendment phase.
Okay. Thank you. Committee members, any questions for the bill sponsors?
Senator Danielson, Madam Vice Chair. Thank you. I don't know to either one of you.
On the amendment, did you say you're removing the home inspection piece? Senator Peltin. That's my understanding, yes. That's what we talked about.
Okay, thanks.
Any other questions? Okay, seeing none. So we have a mix. We have folks against, amend, and in favor. Do you have any preferred order? Okay. So we will start with those who are signed up in opposition to the bill. Joan Lopez, Gary McCarty, and Ben Davis.
Good afternoon, thank you for being here. And just so everyone's aware, for this bill and the next bill, we have a good number of
witnesses signed up. We're also busy this afternoon, so I'm going to limit testimony to two minutes, if you can try to keep your comments within two minutes, and then we'll allow for questions after each panel as well. So whoever here at the table would like to start, please go ahead, introduce yourself, and then your two minutes will begin.
My name is Joan Lopez.
Okay, thank you.
My name is Joan Lopez. I am the Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder. I am here in my personal capacity. My husband and I own a food truck commissary. Well, a food commissary. It food trucks and regular business owners that are selling food outside of our operation Most people don know that they have to have a commissary letter This is requiring all these companies to go through the health department and make sure that they have a kitchen commissary, that they're not cooking at home. Our facility gets regular visits from the health department. They measure temperatures of the food, the cleanliness of the building. They make sure that they have the food safety certificates, and they also make sure that they have insurance. We spend about $6,000 alone just in cleaning chemicals, dish chemicals, just to even clean their cookware. And there's so many other things that go into it. The health department has access to our building to inspect it at any time. They make sure that the temperatures are well regulated in our freezer and our refrigerator. I'm really concerned if we allow people to cook from their kitchens and from their homes. I mean, there's a lot of things that go into that as far as, like, they have pets. Are they running a business out of their own home as far as, like, daycares? The state does not have the capacity to regulate everybody, and anyone that wants to cook food in their home, like I said, we spend thousands of dollars just in cleaning equipment, which is required by the state. it's regulated with us. They make sure that we have all those products. And according to the CDC, 48 million people got food poisoning last year, 48 million throughout the nation. 128,000 people were hospitalized and 3,000 people died.
I will pass it on to Gary McCarty. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair. Mr. McCarty.
Hi, Gary McCarty. I own the Foothills Commissary Kitchen. We have within our facility 45 different companies coming from the smallest of single businesses, single owned businesses, and all the way up to companies that have four trucks and 10, 12 employees, things like that. We've helped over the last 10 years that I've been in this business, we've helped more than 15 businesses build their business and get brick and mortars and get out on their own away from food trucks or just pop-ups and things like that. We provide everything for them at the commissary. I don't believe that allowing people to cook in their own kitchen is a very good idea. They don't have grease traps to stop the grease from building up in the sewer lines throughout the neighborhoods, and we're required to have that, and we do have that. We have Ansel systems for fire protection, hoods, we recycle grease, and we monitor everything that they do. And when people are in our building, not only do they learn best practices, safer procedures, they're also in a building with 20 or so other companies working at the same time. They learn how to do things correctly. Having somebody do it at home they don even have the opportunity to talk to other business owners and promote their business in that way So I don believe there any good side to this rule and this law expanding the Cottage Act It just seems unsafe to me for so many reasons. And the health department employees that I've talked to, none of them like it. They're all worried about how they're going to inspect the home. All you have to do is not answer the door. As my wife pointed out, they all have the code to my building. Walk in any time you want. Catch people doing whatever they're doing at the moment. And that's the way it should be. Be inspected. Be safe. And I don't think this adds to any kind of safety.
Thank you, Mr. McCarty. All right, Mr. Davis. I think, yeah. Just press the little gray button where the cord goes in. No. Yep, there you go. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. My name is Ben Davis, and I'm a registered environmental health scientist. I've worked at three different health departments across the country, including DDPHE. I'm also a very much support-free enterprise. I'm actually here in my own capacity today. I no longer work at the health department, but I own a wholesale manufacturing food company, and we actually work at the commissary that Gary mentioned. I really see this as a step backwards. The Cottage Food Act is intended for people to be able to serve non-potentially hazardous food. When we start introducing cooking from raw, there's a lot of things that can go wrong. And one of these amendments doesn't even allow for the health inspectors to go in. I'm originally from Lancaster, Ohio, and I have a news report here from about 10 years ago. This isn't just a matter of health and safety. It's life or death. Ten years ago, a woman cooked home canned potatoes and made them into a potato salad for a potluck. Two people died because of this. More than a dozen people were hospitalized. It was very serious. Like I said, I'm very supportive of free enterprise, but I think that this is a step backwards. We want people to be safe. We want people to be able to have a business. But that doesn't necessarily mean we should just open it up and it be a free-for-all. 48 million people getting sick we're not just talking about tummy aches we're talking about people potentially dying from salmonella, E. coli botulism was the case in Lancaster, Ohio where that happened these businesses may be registering and we may know about them but when there's an issue or a food outbreak it may be too late people will already be sick some of the people that are immunocompromised could be dead by the time that we get to the bottom of what happened. And I'll also add that my wife is an inspector, a public health investigator at DDPHE currently. She's not able to be here today to testify, but I can tell you, they're already stretched thin at the health department. I'm not sure that this is a step forward. I think it's a step backwards. Let's not forget that health and safety, sanitation and hygiene was the reason for the bubonic plague, and that killed two-thirds of the population of Europe. So I don't think that this is something that we couldn't do, but I think that we really need to look at this a little bit more in depth and see if there isn't more safeguards. I don't think not letting the inspectors go into someone's home. I've performed inspections on private properties in the past. People are not happy when someone shows up at your door to do an inspection. You know, that's your home. Whereas with a business, you know, that's, like I said, to go in and do those inspections at any time.
All right. Thank you so much. Okay, committee members, any questions for this panel? Senator Catlin.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In regards to your commissary, is that a large, like, warehouse, and people have sections in there, and they create their foods and work from there? I'm not familiar with the commissary.
So we rented a building that was previously a village inn. There's no seating. It's all stainless steel work tables that are clean, clean, scrubbable, hard vinyl floor. We have a cleaning crew that comes in for two to three hours every day. And then the back is all kitchen. So we have a lot of commercial cooking equipment, all of which is stainless steel and all of which is above standards.
All right. Thank you. Forty-five companies working in there. And at times, there's 30 of them in the building at the same time. Thank you. You're welcome. Any other questions for this panel? Okay. Seeing none, thank you all so much for being here today. We appreciate your testimony. Thank you. Okay. Next, we're going to move to folks that have signed up in an amend position. Maricela Bravo. Angel Merlos and Nick Robles. And then I'll ask, is there anybody else here that's opposed or in an amend position on the bill that wants to testify? Nobody online. All right. Welcome. Thank you all for being here. Whoever at the table would like to start, please begin and introduce yourself. Your two minutes will begin.
Good afternoon, my name is Marisela Bravo. I have 25 years in the business of food lunches. I'm based on this, I'm saying what I'm saying. I'm in support of this law, and the reason is that it will create a business and it will create a opportunity for both sides. I would continue to be in support completely, Solo que me gustaría que las inspecciones en casa se modificaran y las razones por la inseguridad que esto crearía para las familias, por todo lo que está sucediendo aquí en Colorado. Mi petición sería que todos los representantes que están en apoyo o en contra de esta ley consideraran el impacto humano y el impacto emocional que crea que alguien entre a tu casa con no muy seguras intenciones, and that this, instead of helping, becomes a problem for families.
Okay. Lo siento porque no está una persona para hablar en inglés para la gente aquí. Entonces, momento. that anybody can answer. Estoy tratando. To be clear, she said she was opposed, yeah. Opposed, amended, but what did she say? Okay In the meantime we welcome our next witness If you could please introduce yourself and remind the committee who you represent today.
Good afternoon, Chair and Committee members. I'm Nick Robles, Policy Analyst with Boulder County. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and explain Boulder County's amend position. Boulder County appreciates the intent of the expansion of the Colorado Cottage Foods Act and welcomes opportunities that improve economic opportunity and self-sufficiency for all. Having said that, Boulder County does have amendment considerations for the current version of the bill. To begin, we appreciate the amendment that Senator Pelton mentioned today about reinserting into HB 1033 the provision that requires meat to be from an approved source. Secondly, the current language creates confusion related to the number and variations of food products that will be allowed to be sold. Simple changes can be made to ensure that cottage food vendors sell one food product, such as tamales, and sell five variations of that one food product at a time. Thirdly, we appreciate that the bill includes a registry where cottage food vendors selling foods that require time and temperature control, provide basic contact information. Boulder County requests that this registry be a dynamic working document allowing timely sharing of information between CDPHE and local health departments, including a mechanism to log occasions in which a cottage food vendor is not compliant with labeling or food safety requirements. This will help with a transparency for consumers and Colorado's local public health agencies. Also, as a nominal fee could be described as the cost of doing business, we respectfully ask that the bill be amended to grant the authority to local health departments to charge a fee to cottage food vendors preparing food in their jurisdiction. Under the Colorado Food Protection Act, local public health agencies must use retail food license fees to inspect and respond to food safety concerns at restaurants and other licensed establishments. Cottage food vendors are not retail food establishments, which means restaurants and grocery stores are currently subsidizing the time spent supporting cottage food operations with no mechanism for cost recovery. Despite this, Health Department provides technical assistance to cottage food vendors. Finally, we appreciate the House Amendment to include a two-year sunset review. Boulder County believes good governance includes evaluating implementation of new and expanded programs to allow for course corrections and would ask that this review remain in the bill. In conclusion Boulder County appreciates the intent of the cottage foods expansion and respectfully asks for the consideration of amendments. Thank you.
Thank you.
Dear Chair Roberts, Vice Chair Danielson and members of the Senate Agriculture Natural Resources Committee. On behalf of the LIBRE Initiative I submit the following comments in support of amended HB 26-1033, expanding the Colorado Cottage Food Act. 1033 expands what home-based producers can sell and raises the revenue cap, opening real economic pathways for low-income households, immigrant families, and rural Coloradans who lack access to commercial or commissary kitchens. Unfortunately, the bill's inspection provisions undermine the promise and must be removed. As written, agencies can conduct random inspections of home kitchens with the entire burden of proof on the producer and no realistic way to prevent the search from expanding beyond the food product These provisions constitute worthless home entry and direct violation of the Fourth Amendment Allowing health departments to conduct random home inspections of home kitchens is not a food safety measure, but rather a framework for government intrusion that we cannot support. This bill is meant to help low-income families, immigrants, and rural Coloradans without access to commissary kitchens. still they are the most likely targets of enforcement overreach and the least equipped to push back. They are disproportionately unlikely to have legal counsel or be fully aware of their rights. Libre also poses a sunset provision and urges its removal. A program designed to expend opportunities should not be forced to prove itself on a two-year clock. Libre appreciates the legislature's work on HB 261033 and urges the committee to remove the inspection provisions and the sunset clause so this bill can be and do what it was meant to do, expand opportunity for Coloradans. Thank you.
Thank you so much. Any luck? I can give some translation or I just, I won't be able to give it word for word. So I was hoping you guys had a translator, but I could give a summary. She was signed up in an amendment to what I heard. No, she's not opposing. Can we just have her do just a little summary, please?
My name is Marisela Bravo and the reason I'm here supporting this law is because for 25 years I have a business business and I have been through everything I've heard here. I had to have all my officers, I had to have inspections from the health department. And what really is happening here in Denver is that people are also out of the law selling and doing a life.
So can you just relay that basic concept to the rest of the committee, please? Yeah, so she's saying that she has gone through everything that's been heard here today that these producers had to go through. She's been in the food truck industry for 25 years, and before then she was actually operating from her home. And so she had to go through those same struggles. And then I believe she's mentioned that she supports opening this opportunity for these producers.
Y también que su apoyo. to make a business. And regularizing us to all is a win for the world, for all this, for Colorado, principalmente. I would like to that the inspection in home, I think that at this moment, with everything that is happening here in Colorado, would be a very big impact for families to not have the security of who you are giving permission to enter your house. So if I'm right, she basically echoed some of the concerns that you had about in-home inspections, especially at this time in this place.
Correct that. But that it would be in her opinion she said a win for people who are trying to begin their own business She supports only if it amended Only if it amended Okay Yes I sorry for the ad hoc and probably not great translation but we wanted to understand because you came here today.
So gracias a usted.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you for indulging me in that. All right. Are there any other questions for this panel? Okay. Seeing none, thanks again for your time. Thank you. Okay. At the sponsor's request, we'll just move now on to proponents of the measure, supporters of the measure. So last call for anyone who's in opposed or amend. You may come forward at this time. Thank you. And you can introduce yourself and proceed with your two minutes. Welcome. Is it on? It is, but you have to put it very close. Good afternoon, Chair Roberts and members of the community.
My name is Heather, and I'm here today as a Colorado cottage food producer asking you to please amend this bill. Right now, CSU Extension has around 3,500 active cottage food certification holders. Since certifications last for three years, that doesn't necessarily mean all 3,500 are actively running businesses today. But it does mean thousands of people followed the law, got certified, and did everything the state asked of them. And now many of us feel like we're getting scraps by only allowing one category of temperature-controlled food. Colorado has a population of about 6 million. Even if we estimate there are 7,000 cottage food producers total, that's only about one-tenth of 1% of the population. And despite these very small numbers, Colorado cottage food producers have not caused widespread illness or outbreaks. The public is not shy about calling out businesses on social media. It is in our best interest to practice safe food handling. We want to sell the same food we feed our families. The amount of regulations placed on such a small group of home businesses is simply too much. Most of us are not getting rich working from home. We're trying to support our families, pay bills, and build something meaningful in our community. States like Texas, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Oklahoma already allow cottage food producers to sell a much wider range of temperature-controlled foods. Those states have not had outbreaks or public health crisis because of it. We are simply asking for the opportunity to responsibly grow our businesses and have a wider range of items we can sell. Thank you for your time.
Thank you. Are there any questions for this last witness? Okay, thanks again for being here today. Alright. Okay, I'm just going to call in order of how you signed up. So if we could please welcome Heather Wilder, Elizabeth Alvarez, Azarell Madrigal, Kelly Duffy. Is it just this many? We could probably pull them all up together, right, since they're all online? And one in person? Is anybody in person in favor of this measure? House Bill 1033? Okay. How many do we have on remote? Oh, just one? Well, then we'll bring them all up at the same time. Okay. All right. Well, there must be something really exciting after this bill. Okay. Well, if anyone joins us, we'll bring them up. Okay. Ms. Duffy, if you would like to begin, just keep your eye on the timer for the two-minute clock. Introduce yourself and remind the committee who you represent today. Sorry, give me a second. I'm trying to do this. There we go.
Okay. My name is Kelly Guppy and I have been a cottage food producer here in the state of Colorado for five years. Prior to that, I have worked every restaurant job since the age of 15 from chef to to everything. I've done everything prep. I can tell you right now, I understand the worry about foodborne illnesses. There are currently three ways you can do your certification here in Colorado to be a food. One of them is going to be obviously the CSU extension course. Another one is a food handlers card. And the other way is to go down to your health department and take their course. I currently hold a food handlers card being in the restaurant business, which does go over temperature control and everything else. And the CSU extension will increase their knowledge to the people doing that. I think with training, we talk about foodborne illnesses. So let's talk about that for a minute. Let's talk about McDonald's. We had a gentleman die here in Mesa County from Tainted Onions. Not from the cleanliness. I can count five restaurants here in Mesa County that have been shut down because of their cleanliness or of their sanitary. My kitchen's cleaner than any kitchen I have ever worked in. My sanitation is daily, multiple times a day, in between things I produce. Right now I do dry rubs, pickled items, and popcorn salts. You guys, I understand the worry of this, but there's multiple states that have done this without any problems. It's a matter of training. It's a matter of getting these people certified. Because I can tell you right now, let's just talk about tamales for a second. They're not going to stop selling them. You can go to any grocery store in the Denver metro area, and I guarantee you, especially off of federal, there's somebody selling tamales. Let's give them the chance to be able to expand their business and actually do it right. Teach them what they need to do. Teach them the right proper methods. Allow them to do and support their families. Thank you.
Thank you so much. Erin Meshke.
Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Erin Meshke. I live in Boulder and represent myself. The cottage food industry is an important part of food security and local food sovereignty, so I ask for your yes vote on HB 26-1033. I don't make tamales, but frequently spend time canning gallons of bone broth and meat stock, as well as applesauce, peaches, and pears. As I said in the bill hearing last year, some things I make, like water kefir, kombucha, sauerkraut, and lacto-fermented items like pickles and jalapenos, start without refrigeration, but refrigeration is necessary to stop the fermentation. These products should be allowed at some point in the Cottage Food Acts because this is how food has been safely preserved for millennia. CDC food poisoning data was presented in the first opposition panel, but those numbers were for overall sickness, not from cottage foods alone. There is a much higher per capita risk of and rate of foodborne illness in grocery store items and restaurants. We see those outbreaks and recalls all the time I have never been made sick by my own food but I have gotten food poisoning from a couple restaurants While some cottage food producers may have a broader reach with their food I think most of their patrons know or quickly get to know them. I'm not currently selling anything, but people who have purchased food for me in the past weren't concerned about my safety practices because they know me. The cottage food industry is incredibly personal and has a vested interest in safety because if customers get sick, you can lose immediate and future income. At the end of the day, you take a risk every time you eat, whether that is at a restaurant, a friend's house, or even in your own kitchen. But most outbreaks happen in licensed stores and restaurants. If the oversight of public health was truly a necessity, how have humans survived for all these millennia? Hyper-local food options are important and provide valuable income for some Coloradans, so I ask for your yes vote on HB 261033. Thank you.
Thank you. So, Madison DeBrun.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Madison DeBruni, and I'm a community organizer at Metro Caring. That is an anti-hunger organization here in the Denver metro region. We have supported small businesses and cottage food producers in our organization since 2018. And I'm here today in strong support of HB 1033. This bill addresses significant economic barriers by increasing the annual revenue cap with adjustments for inflation. This change recognizes that cottage food businesses are not just informal side work. They are small businesses that can meaningfully support household income and economic stability. For many Coloradans, particularly those in low-income, rural, and culturally diverse communities, the Cottage Foods Program is one of the most accessible pathways to entrepreneurship. Yet under current law, many home-based producers are unable to legally sell culturally significant foods, such as tamales, prepared meals, or refrigerated traditional dishes. As a result, they're often pushed into informal markets or forced to bear the high cost of commercial kitchen spaces, which can range anywhere from $1,000 to over $4,000 per month, in addition to licensing and compliance expenses that are out of reach for many families. We know that home-based food businesses are often an entry point into economic mobility. They allow people to build income from their skills, traditions, and recipes that are already rooted in their communities, while keeping dollars circulating locally and strengthening Colorado's food system. Finally, I want to address the sunset provision. While oversight and evaluation are important, the current sunset that has been added to the bill creates uncertainty for small business owners who are trying to plan, invest, and grow. Removing the sunset would provide needed stability and signal Colorado's long-term commitment to supporting entrepreneurship and economic opportunity in the sector. So I please ask for a yes vote on this bill. Thank you.
So, Jordan, or Lusor Jordan.
Yes, good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Lukor Jordan, and I work at MetroCaring, an anti-hunger organization here in Denver. I'm here today to testify in support of HB 261033, expanding the Cottage Foods Act. When I started working as a young adult, I learned that my many years of cooking at my mother's elbow translated into my most marketable skill. I was a cook and I had generations of culinary knowledge at my fingertips Since I was 18 I worked in commercial kitchens and improvised camp kitchens as a camp cook hours from the nearest town I learned that in any situation no one shows up more consistently and with more commitment to every aspect of quality than a business owner whose livelihood is tied to their reputation. I worked in commercial kitchens that had informal procedures to prep in the short time between when an inspector arrives and when they review logs, workstations, and storage areas, and to call other locations to let them know to be ready just in case. I say this not Not to disparage commercial kitchens, but to remind everyone that consumers experience the commitment to quality that occurs each moment of each day. And for a small business startup such as those who will benefit from the Cottage Foods Act expansion, a reputation for safe, delicious food is essential. In my work with Metro Caring, supporting small food-based business startups, I've been able to see that building your brand and customer base takes time. People have to see the consistency in your execution. they trust you, they rave to friends and family. They keep coming back, and you can invest in your dream until you can grow to the next phase, whether that's renting a commercial kitchen space for catering, opening a food truck, or establishing a brick-and-mortar restaurant. And while now I work in the Denver metro area, I've also spent years learning about and exploring rural food systems as an applied anthropologist. Throughout Colorado's rural communities, the Cottage Foods Act is essential, as representatives serving those communities can attest to. Our brave entrepreneurs are bringing their skills and commitment to quality. We need to bring a certainty of a Cottage Food Act that doesn't pull the rug out from under them with a two-year sunset. Expanding the Cottage Foods Act and removing the two-year sunset will enrich our local food system and expand the opportunities that people have to build and grow their businesses while ensuring that food producers receive the trainings necessary to maintain food safety and build consumer trust. I urge the The committee to vote yes on HB 261033. Supporting this bill would be an investment in Colorado's economic future by supporting Colorado's small businesses and home-based entrepreneurs through expanding business opportunities and promoting economic equality. Thank you for your time and consideration. I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Mr. Jordan. All right. Anybody else online for this one? No? Last call for witnesses on this bill? Seeing none. Okay. Okay, the questions for this panel from anybody? Okay, I've seen none. And with that, the witness testimony phase is closed. Okay, we are to the amendment phase. We have L20 in front of us. Either of you could move it. Senator Rodriguez?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L20.
All right. Any further discussion on this one?
Yeah, just this is the amendment that we talked about before on introduction. This removes the random inspections due to legal concerns of entering people's private homes. It clarifies language around the meat coming from sources that meet federal state inspection or exemption requirements. It reinstates the January 1, 2027 implementation date to give the Department of Public Health Environment a runway to hire staff and stand up the registry. And it removes the two-year sunset.
All right. Any questions? Madam Vice Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So that was what I was going to ask is why the differences in the different sections of implementation data, did I catch the end there? It's just to give the staff, the departments time to figure it out?
Yes.
Okay, thanks.
Seeing no further questions, is there any objection to this amendment? Seeing none L20 is adopted Bill sponsors any more amendments No Any from the committee Seeing none The amendment phase is closed Wrap up comments Bill sponsors Senator Pelton
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We heard a lot from restaurants. I've heard a lot from restaurants in my own districts about this bill. And the safeguards that we put around them, we're doing everything we can to make sure that it's fair and balanced across. The only thing that I had concern. I had Fourth Amendment concerns with the inspection in somebody's homes. And I know that we talked about that in a meeting that we had. So that was concerning. But I will say that working construction, as long as I've worked construction, we always cut our morning breakfast from a very nice burrito lady. That's what we called her. so we we would always i would always get the bean and chicharroni burritos and um they were awesome until the health department shut her down so i really appreciated her uh bringing the that food around to our construction site and it was nice to be able to have that so um because sometimes especially in in those kind of jobs we don't have the opportunity to stop and get food so we or or even make our own food in the mornings because we're leaving late or there's other problems And so I will just say that I really appreciate the college food folks. We eat a lot of college food out in rural Colorado. My grandma used to make lots of bread. She never sold it, but she did give it a lot of it away. And I understand. If somebody does get sick, they're not going to get this food anymore from those individuals. That's something that will happen. And then also we put provisions in the bill that says if you're going to complain, if somebody complains about it, they're going to give you the same penalties that they already give restaurants. So I get that aspect. So, but again, I think broadening the horizons and broadening this bill will help these entrepreneurs and move forward and then maybe even open up their own restaurant one day. And I appreciate that. So I just ask for an aye vote. Thank you.
Mr. Majority Leader.
Thank you. Thank you, committee, for hearing comments. I mean, it's hard. It's somebody who's older, and I've worked in outdoor industries, and, you know, there's always a burrito person or somebody selling them. and I've had people come to my job that would sell burritos at work and it's complicated and I've had people I've co-worked with that I don't buy something that I don't know about and those are choices people got to make. But I was talking to my co-sponsor here during some of the debates. I remember when they used to call these things roach coaches and those names were given for a reason and we've expanded it. And I think trying to give opportunities to somebody to start a business that they could grow up to maybe buy a food truck or go to a commissary and do the work is the work we have to do whether the fight was over jams and preserves it. You could make an argument, have more instances of illness that could be done with it. I think this is just trying to take a step forward to give people an opportunity to do something that they love, and sometimes it's a buyer beware, but we did try to put some good exemptions and some good controls in here from the introduced bill. While it's not everything, there's some people that don't like the fact that we've implemented more, and we've kept some of the stuff from the controls for the department. So I think we're trying to meet a good balance here. You know, not everybody's happy about everything, but, you know, we're trying to give somebody an opportunity to start. So ask for an aye vote. Thank you.
Some one of you could make a motion as amended to finance.
Senator, Mr. Majority Leader.
Finance or approves?
Unfortunately, it says finance. There's a cash fund transfer. Darn it. Why am I at this committee? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1030 3 is amended to the Committee on Finance.
That is a proper motion. Are there any comments before we vote?
Madam Vice Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, sponsors. I had received some really good feedback from my constituents because this is something that resonates with most people, and I hadn't heard any pushback on the policy until pretty recently. I want to thank the folks who came today and also apologize for the lack of translation services, It's not right, but I'm grateful for your time. And I think most of those were addressed in L20. Wow, okay, L20. There's a big fight in the house. Yeah, I can tell. But I want to acknowledge Clerk Lopez because I hadn't heard of it, and it came quickly. And I understand what you're getting at. I do. and I had made a commitment to the sponsors pretty recently just given the positive response from my actual constituents. I think most of you in the room know that we don't hear too much very frequently from constituents. We hear a lot from lobbyists. And this is just something that resonates with people in my neighborhoods. And so I will be a yes for today because of my understanding of what I understood the bill to be trying to accomplish was to help keep those people who were doing that safer. I understand the concerns that you've raised today. And so maybe we can continue to address them moving forward. And I just wanted to explain that we heard you, I hear you, and this came quickly. I understand that too, but that folks in my district are very supportive, and these are just friends and neighbors, not being organized by an organization or a lobbyist, which is pretty rare. But you can tell why. It's because we've all had these, I guess, entrepreneurs either on our job sites, in our offices, at the ball game, or maybe late night at a bar. Not saying me. But to try and get at the safety of it and to take into consideration some of the concerns that were raised today moving forward, I thank you for that. and I will be a yes for today, but acknowledge the concerns and also the time that was spent coming to us today.
All right, see no further comments. Mr. Becker, please poll the committee. Senators Catlin.
Yes.
Hinerson.
Aye.
Pelton B.
Aye.
Pelton R.
Aye.
Rodriguez.
Aye.
Danielson.
Yes.
And Mr. Chair. Aye. That passes unanimously. Good luck over in finance. All right. We'll get our sponsors up for House Bill 1340. Thank you. Okay. All right Good afternoon This is House Bill 1340 sponsored by Senators Pelton R and Henriksen
Who would like to begin? Senator Pelton. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, committee. Before you today is a committee that, or a bill that has been a long time in the works. It originated 18 months ago in an interim committee. The water, anyway. So there's been a lot of work done. This bill has really evolved since its inception. But in the lower arc, we have a pretty unique situation down there over the past several decades. more than 100,000 acres of irrigated farmland has been permanently dried up. And most of that water has gone to municipalities miles away. When that water leaves the land, it impacts it in a very negative way, especially down in southeast Colorado. You guys were all given a handout that shows some of the pictures of what that land looks like afterwards, some of the effects with the blowing dirt, the weeds that fill up the ditches, and frankly cause a fire hazard. So, you know, people ask why not just use the current law. Under current statute, which was adopted way back in 1992, it says changes of use of water rights from agricultural irrigation purposes to any other beneficial use shall include reasonable provisions designed to accomplish re-vegetation and noxious weed management. But in practice, that language has not been enough. It does not require criteria that define what success looks like. It does not provide a consistent process. It relies on case-by-case negotiations in Water Court, often between parties with unequal resources and bargaining power. It lacks meaningful enforcement mechanisms to hold parties accountable if free vegetation efforts fall short. In addition, conversion to dry land farming can function as a loophole without clear oversight from the Water Court to ensure it actually happens. The result is that too many acres have been left in poor condition, too many rural communities are forced to suffer the long-term consequences. Before walking through this bill, it's important to note that this proposal reflects extensive stakeholder outreach. Over the past 18 months, the sponsors and proponents have worked hard to address concerns from a wide variety of over 50 stakeholders across the state, and we believe we have a very thoughtful and balanced bill because of it. it's really been narrowed down it's only a district two bill now we've been able to fully address the concerns from nearly all of these stakeholders and went as far as we could with the others while still protecting the farmers ranchers communities and local governments in the arkansas river basin we realize this may be used as a template in the future i think this drought that we are in currently may really spark conversation in other districts so that's why they worked really hard to try to get it as right as they could with that weight of it maybe being used in the future as a template So with that I turn it over to my co Senator Hendrickson Thank you, Senator Hendrickson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Senator Pelton. So what this bill actually does is a few things. It requires that when irrigation water is permanently removed from farmland, farmland, the owner of the changed water rights is responsible to ensure that the land is either successfully revegetated or converted to dry land farming with adequate weed and erosion control. There are exemptions for land that will be re-irrigated or developed for other purposes. It requires that site-specific revegetation criteria and scientific and objective evaluation methods be identified during the water court process and incorporated into the final decree so that everyone understands from beginning what successful reclamation looks like. It allows land to be converted to dry land farming if desired, but requires it to actually occur, closing the existing loophole that could be used as a way to sidestep revegetation. We see this in the lower Arkansas Valley, particularly with water speculation. fourth incorporates local input the county has adopted revegetation criteria or establish it through an associated 1041 permit those are incorporated into the water court decree without the county having to go to the expense of participating in water court if not criteria are developed in the water court during the change of use case This is important because it creates a direct link between counties who have to bear the long-term impacts from poor reclamation and the water court where decisions are made on what will happen in those counties. The rural counties where irrigated farms are dried up typically don't have the staff bandwidth or resources to participate effectively in water court. This bill helps bridge that gap by allowing counties to proactively develop revegetation criteria that work locally rather than relying entirely on negotiations in water court that may or may not fit local conditions to ensure successful reclamation. importantly the bill provides three options to incentivize compliance for the owner of changed water rights when this occurs it can provide financial assurances such as bond or other security to the local land use authority or they can link the amount of water available for the new uses to the amount of land successfully reclaimed while still allowing all of the water to be used for existing uses, or they can link the amount of water available for the new uses to the amount of land successfully reclaimed as established through an associated 1041. And this allows flexibility for different situations while still ensuring that successful adequate reclamation actually occurs. And finally, to be clear, this bill only applies prospectively. It applies to new change of use decrees starting in 2027 and does not affect existing water rights or past decrees. Thank you.
All right, committee members, any questions for the bill's sponsors? All right seeing none we move then into witness testimony phase On the first panel could I yes Senator Pelton
We would request the first panel for comments.
Yep. Then oppose and amend. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay, first panel, Jack Goble, Amy Parks, Frank McGee, Rob Oquist, and Phil Hemphill. Okay, great. All right, good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for being here. We'll start here at the table. Sir, if you want to get started, introduce yourself, and then your two minutes will begin.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Jack Goble, and I'm the general manager of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, located in southeastern Colorado. For those of us who live in the Arkansas River Basin, the basic protections in this bill are long overdue. Today, tens of thousands of acres of once irrigated farmland sit largely barren. this could have been avoided if even basic requirements would have been included in the associated water court change decrees but they weren't as a result these lands have become a serious burden on counties and neighboring landowners with invasive weed spreading and valuable topsoil blowing onto adjacent land county roads and even state highways if i can point your attention to the second page of the handout you'll see the percentage of irrigated acres lost between 1978 and 2022 across the lower arkansas valley this data is from the usda's national agricultural statistics service shows the scale of permanent dry up in our region crowley county alone has lost 92 percent of its irrigated farmland on page three of the handout are two aerial photos of the same area of farmland served by the colorado canal in crowley county one from 1987 and one from 2024. the change is dramatic from over 50,000 irrigated acres to now less than 4,000 page 4 shows what much of that land looks like today this was once highly productive farmland today most of it remains barren decades after being dried up to supply water to the Front Range as mentioned earlier the most common response we hear from our communities is that something like this should have been in place decades ago the costs of poorly reclaimed land have been significant impacting county budgets neighboring private property rights and public health and safety this bill is based on what worked and what didn't work in actual water transfer cases it sets a clear baseline for reclamation while allowing flexibility thank you for your time and attention and i'm happy to answer any questions when appropriate thank you mr pearson
Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Nate Pearson, and I'm Assistant Director for Water at the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. And I'm here to testify in support on House Bill 26, 1340 on behalf of the department. First, I want to thank the sponsors and the bill proponents for their work on this important issue. At DNR, we see firsthand the negative effects on wildlife, habitat, and communities when revegetation of formerly irrigated lands is conducted haphazardly or not at all. some of these concerns include blowing dust soil erosion invasive weeds decreased native wildlife habitat quality and increased fire risk while revegetation requirements are often included in degrees for water right change cases into water division two standards are not applied evenly and often require the engagement of outside parties such as county governments with limited capacity to engage. The changes in the bill will ensure more even application of revegetation requirements across Division 2. I want to thank sponsors and proponents for their robust work with stakeholders on the bill, including DNR. Proponents have listened when issues are raised and have shaped the bill to address these concerns. I do understand that amendments will be offered today, and the DNR will have to review the extent to which these materially changed the bill, but we appreciate the efforts to provide clarity on the process for implementation of these new requirements in water court and on the ground. So in conclusion, the DNR urges a yes vote on House Bill 26, 1340, and looks forward to seeing the changes on the ground as a result of this work. Thanks again to the chair, sponsors, and proponents. Thank you.
Ms. Parks.
Hello. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present to you today. My name is Amy Parks and I am representing Northern Water in support of House Bill 261340. We appreciate this bill because we feel strongly that there needs to be a statewide conversation about the impacts to agriculture and local communities when water departs from a region to serve new purposes away from the location of historic use. Those who will benefit from the water that is changed for new uses should bear greater responsibility for the long-term impacts that often occur when water is permanently removed from farmland. This bill takes an important step to ensure that when water leaves an area, the duty for future care and stewardship of that land remains. The Northern Water Board of Directors supports HB 261340 because it establishes clear, consistent criteria for how to accomplish revegetation in a responsible manner. These criteria appropriately balance certainty and flexibility for water rights owners, local land use authorities, and other interested parties. While this bill does not encompass revegetation requirements for Water Division 1, where we are located, many of these issues this legislation seeks to address are common to many areas of Colorado. Northern Water remains supportive of efforts to improve the science, policy, and regulation involving revegetation of historically irrigated lands and believes this bill is a step in the right direction for properly mitigating impacts to local communities when water must depart. We extend our thanks to the Lower Arkansas Water Conservancy District, the bill sponsors, and other key stakeholders for engaging with us as we work towards solutions to longstanding revegetation issues that have plagued Colorado for many years. Thank you for your time today, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Ms. Parks.
Commissioner Oquist. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present to you today. My name is Rob Oquist, and I am representing Otero County, and I am supportive of House Bill 26-1340. In Otero County, when water leaves, we don't ever see it come back. Once it's gone, we don't see it again. So we feel like that the re-veg needs to be tied to the people who take the water. Whoever takes the water needs to be able to leave a certain portion, I feel like, on that land until it is reveged. In the Arkansas Valley and Otero County, we don't get enough rain in a year that it's really, really tough to be able to revege. So if it's not reveged with some water still on the land, then it's going to be years and years of fighting to try and get it reveged. And if it doesn't, then it just turns to dust. And all we do is fight the blowing dirt from year to year which that what we doing in certain areas now So our feeling is that whoever buys the water needs to leave a certain portion of it at least on the land, until it is reveged and it's okay for Otero County to release it. That is my feeling, and I am asking for your support on this bill.
Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Hemphill.
Hello. Yeah, my name is Phil Hemphill. I'm a county commissioner here in Bent County in the lower Arkansas River Basin. I'm also a farmer. So I've been a farmer for over 50 years. So today I'm going to wear my farmer hat. I've seen the effects, the devastating effects of farm ground that's been dried up and hasn't been revegetated with the blowing soil, the water erosion and an endless tumbleweeds and they are they are safety hazards so i uh we vegetation would help mitigate that um you don't have to look very far up the road from us to see one of our neighboring counties where the water was taken off 30 years ago or more and there's still it's still a lot of it's just a wasteland so i am very much in support of of of House Bill 261340. And I hope that we can get this bill passed for our future generations. Let's don't pass the bucks, let's get this passed so that the burden is not put on our younger generations. And I'd be glad to answer any questions. I wanna thank the panel for hosting me today.
Thank you so much, commissioner. Okay, that's our panel committee. Any questions for this panel?
Senator Pelton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Mr. Goble, three minutes is pretty quick to really digest something this major. Would you have anything you'd like to add to let the committee know?
Mr. Goble. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Senator Pelton. Yeah, I'd just keep it short and say you mentioned in your statements, but we've been working on this for the better part of two years now. we're almost 60 stakeholder groups that we've been in contact with and and really worked hard to try to form this into something that's a really solid bill balanced but solid we know firsthand how important it is we got support from the colorado water conservation board back in 2021 to do a study and we looked at 10 of the major water transfer cases in our basin and we we talked THE FOLKS THAT REMOVED THE WATER THAT STILL HAVE IT, TYPICALLY CITIES, THE FOLKS THAT WERE LEFT BEHIND IN THE COUNTIES. WE DID SITE VISITS AND WE DID A DEEP DIVE INTO THE ACTUAL WATER COURT DECREES TO LOOK AT WHAT REQUIREMENTS WERE IN THERE FOR REVEGETATION. AND THEN WE, BECAUSE WE WANTED AN EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACH, BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY OPINIONS ON REVEGETATION, AND SO WE TOOK THAT APPROACH JUST TO TRY TO TAKE OUT THE BIAS AND BASED THE FRAMEWORK OF THIS BILL on that study and the experience that we've seen in the valley. So we feel that it's based in good factual data, and again, we've worked hard to take that and then shape it to where just about all of those nearly 60 stakeholders feel comfortable with the bill. And the other ones we're really close on. So thank you for the extra time.
Senator Catlin.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you guys for being here my question goes to operations for the guys that are left Looks to me like some of these ditches would be awful hard for me to get my water down if all of my neighbors had sold out. How are you dealing with those problems in your country?
Mr. Goble. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Senator Catlin. That's a real challenge. It is, and we see it on the Colorado Canal right now where that's the images in your in your handout that I handed out there lateral ditches that take water off the main ditch to to reach different farms that used to carry thousands of shares of water now carry a hundred shares of water and their water disappears on the way there so really that's a major issue and fortunately in more recent water cases there's a requirement to leave enough water behind to hopefully make up for those transit losses. But as you know, it's never perfect, but it is a big challenge.
Senator Catlin.
Well, I guess one of the questions would be the guys that are trying to run water down the ditch to their place that they haven't sold out, if the ditch won't service them, pretty soon they're going to figure out maybe I ought to sell my place too, right?
Mr. Gobel. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, Senator Catlin. We have seen that. Yeah, that's true. And we talk about this domino effect. And that's exactly what you see is you've got the guys that are willing, guys and gals that are willing to stick around and try to keep a go at farming as, you know, all the challenges they have against them. But there's this domino effect that eventually enough water is bought out of the ditch that it's difficult to operate the ditch for ag uses. It's more directed for, you know, the municipal uses. And even if they don't want to sell out, like you said, the challenges come with not only just getting the water delivered, but all the maintenance that it takes to get that water there, not just the seepage losses, but burning weeds and ditches and clearing things like that are left just on those few farmers, and eventually they throw their hands up and say, it's not worth it. Thank you.
I have a question for Mr. Pearson.
You mentioned that this has been a challenge in Division II, but we know that change cases and diversions aren't happening just in Division II. Is our revegetation requirements working better in other divisions, or how is the state ensuring that if this bill passes, it's only going to apply to one division? How are we ensuring that these harmful impacts aren't happening elsewhere in the state?
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question. I think as Director Goebel has described, the challenge has been particularly acute in the lower Arkansas Valley. It certainly happens elsewhere. There are numerous programs for revegetation. So I know you're familiar with work in the Republican River Basin to retire irrigated agriculture.
Many of that ground is under federal programs for revegetation where CPW has input. And so we are seeing it work in other parts of the state. It's not to say there couldn't be improvements in other parts of the state. I would defer to the proponents and sponsors on the decision to limit it solely to Division 2, but it's certainly a challenge elsewhere. There are some solutions elsewhere, but we're excited to see this step being taken in Division 2. Great. Thank you. Senator Peltz and B.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I notice there one two three four five counties here that you given us on the decline in the lower Arkansas Valley irrigated farmland from 78 to 2022 I from Cheyenne Wells too so I remember how lush that these places used to be My question is, is in those counties, they all have 1041 powers. I mean, they could already do this in county by county basis with their 1041s, because we were asked as Logan County Commissioner when I was up there that we could have our 1041s and actually prevent water from leaving our county if we choose to do that. Have any of these counties showed interest in doing that?
Mr. Goble. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Senator Pelton.
So 1041 regulations allow for counties to ensure there's mitigation for water being removed, but they can't stop it in particular. and yes all of those counties except Crowley County have 1041 regulations on the books and Crowley County is about to get them on the books as well and so they do have those that as you know is a completely separate piece of the statute that we're not touching with this where this excuse me where this is all dealing with the with the water court and what you run into is there's a lot of times in a 1041 you've got a set of requirements and then out of the water court you've got another set of requirements and so we're coming at it from the idea that the folks that are in those counties know best what works in their area and they should have a say in that in the water court as well not just in their 1041 powers and that also avoids the entity that's removing the water to have two different sets of requirements that they've got to meet And so this kind of bridges that gap. But a lot of the 1041 powers could get most of the way there, but this just really makes it to where they're aligned with the water court.
All right. Seeing no further questions for this panel, thank you all so much. We appreciate your time this afternoon. Thanks. All right. All right, we're going to transition now to a panel of folks. We just have folks in amend position. James Henderson, Don Jewell, Katie First. And then is there anybody else who is opposed to the bill or in an amend position that wants to testify? All right, good afternoon, everybody. Here at the table, whoever would like to start, please go ahead. Mr. Henderson? Ms. First? Okay. Mr. Henderson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee for the opportunity to testify today. My name is James Henderson. I'm here to testify on behalf of Colorado Farm Bureau, Rocky Mountain Farmers Union. I'm a farmer rancher from the San Luis Valley, but more importantly, I get to represent our 20,000 members of the Colorado Farm Bureau as their vice president. It's absolutely critical that we address this very real challenge. and that every single piece of this policy be examined and tested. This body knows well that the importance of not creating new problems when solving existing ones. I'm here today to further ensure that as we expect this conversation has been mentioned already here today as it goes statewide, that we get this policy correct now. I want to be extremely clear. We are not anti-revegetation. WE ARE NOT SAYING THAT THERE SHOULDN'T BE A PLAN IN PLACE, BUT AS As the bill was introduced, Farm Bureau Farmers Union had major concerns. Significant gains have been made in the House, in the Strike Below Amendment that was adopted there, to preserve things like private property rights and preventing the acceleration of buy and dry and establishing some much-needed safeguards on the third-party verifier. In our recent conversations with our membership, two main concerns have come up, the desire for the utmost local control and the maintenance period. CCI has some efforts to really buoy up that local control, and we would support them in their efforts there. The second is the maintenance period. Whether the bill specifies a specific period or is on a case-by-case basis through the water court, we remain steadfast in our belief that regardless of the format or authorizing entity, this extra wait-and-see period constitutes a takings per our council's analysis and would establish the water court as a land use authority outside of their jurisdiction. and would continue to exacerbate the buy and dry as the bill seeks to mitigate. We ask that any reference to an extended oversight or maintenance period beyond the determination of successful revegetation be removed. Simply put, it locks up both land and water, delays or severely limits economic opportunities for our producers and forces those private property owners to ask the state, mother may I, after the court has determined that revegetation has successfully been established. Without clear language and powering local control, and if necessary oversight of private property, unnecessary oversight of private property remains, we feel the legislation lacks the critical safeguards needed to get it right. That would force both Colorado Farm Bureau and Rocky Mountain Farmers Union to have very serious conversations about opposing this bill. I'd be happy to answer questions. Thank you.
Ms. Jewell.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Dawn Jewell, and I am the South Pot Basin Water Resources Manager for the city of Aurora. I've been working with agriculture in the South Pot Basin for over 15 years. Aurora is honored that our 35-year revegetation program in the Arkansas Basin has become the model for this current proposed legislation. The Arkansas River Basin has a unique agronomic condition. It's hotter, drier, windier, and has harsher soils and geology than other areas of agriculture in the state, and that makes revegetation and dry land farming more difficult. Due to these reasons, the legislation was written to address those unique issues around water conversions being faced by residents of Division II, which others in the state may not be facing. The biggest issue Aurora has with this legislation is the erosion of water court authority, which we think should be protected. This legislation should not restrict judicial authority, and yet paragraphs 4.7a, 2a, and b, as well as 4.7a, 5c, require the court to accept facts, terms, and conditions determined by a political body. The water court has jurisdiction over all water court matters, and its authority to determine facts and prevent injury to water rights should not be undermined. An easy solution to this change is the word shall in those paragraphs, changing it to the word may. The change protects judicial authority and prevents conflating policy determinations with judicial determinations. This option will not undermine the land use authority power of the counties to set standards to which the water rights owners must adhere to. It simply prevents those standards from being forced upon the water court. The court can still adopt them, but it retains its independent authority. Finally, the limitation to Division II is important because of the devastating impact this could have on dryland agriculture outside Division II Aurora is concerned that regulating dryland farming in the Arkansas Basin will lead to regulating dryland farming in other parts of the state and we concerned that creating standards by which someone else determines whether a dryland farmer is successful will be the beginning of the end to dryland farming on converted lands. Aurora already struggles to find farmers in areas like Weld County who are willing to continue farming. Keeping lands in agriculture will become more difficult when the farmers are being judged by someone who normally sits behind a desk or worse considers themselves an expert in dry land farming. Dry land farming is too important to continue agriculture to allow these restrictions outside of Division 2.
Thank you. Thank you. Ms. First.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, committee members. Katie First with Colorado Counties, Inc. CCI is in an amend position on House Bill 26-1340. Generally, while counties are comfortable with the backup of water court in these change-of-use cases, we do believe that the county's regulations, based off of our 1041 powers should take precedence over the revegetation or dry land farming standards and methodology. One of our amendments is coming forward today at the bottom of L3. That language ensures that a bond in addition to water usage requirements that are imposed through a county's permit or 1041 codes are sufficient to fulfill the obligations outlined in that portion of the bill. Without this addition And counties fear that there could be multiple bonds required, which would be unfair to landowners. In a perfect world, we definitely would have liked to see some different language about the water court's utilization of the county 1041 regulations over the dry land farming or re-vegetation standards and methodology. but have come to an agreement with the proponents that this is the language and that it will be the direction of the water court. And we just want to make sure that the water court is, in fact, relying on what it is that we have adopted through our 1041 process since we are closest to the land. Oh, and I think with that and with those amendments and that understanding with the proponents, CCI is supportive of the bill.
Thank you so much. Thank you. Committee members, any questions for this panel? All right. Seeing none, thank you all so much. We'll move now to, I think, our final panel. Gerald Knapp, Catherine Carter, Tim Nabenishu, Jim Yon, and Bill Long, as read by Brett Moore. Brett Moore's here. And then is there anybody else online that wants to testify? Anybody else in the room that would like to testify? Okay. Okay, here at the table, whoever would like to begin, please go ahead. You just pulled that microphone close to you. Thank you. Yes. I have to turn it on, maybe. There's a button on top. It's on. Oh. I don't know. Yes. All right. Thank you.
Good afternoon Mr Chair and members of the committee My name is Catherine Cotta and I Special Counsel for the Lower Arkansas District There are several legal aspects of this bill that I would like to address today First, water courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine matters related to the use of water in the state, and they have ancillary jurisdiction to adjudicate issues that are directly related to the right to use that water. The water court has jurisdiction to include revegetation conditions in a decree because dry up is the direct product of the change in the type and place of use of the water right. We do not believe that directing the Water Court to consider a county's existing 1041 regulations raises a separation of powers issues. These laws already exist in harmony, but they are siloed. An applicant for a change of water rights must comply with all applicable environmental and local land use laws. In no instance does a change of use decree exempt or supplant an obligation to comply with 1041 regulations in that county. There is established legal precedent that requires water rights owners, including municipalities, obtain 1041 permits for water export projects, and that says the county is within its authority to approve or deny those permits pursuant to its regulations. This legislation will ensure that water rights change applicants are not overburdened with contradictory requirements, while still giving the Water Court discretion to ensure the success of reclamation is evaluated in a scientific and objective manner. I want to make clear that nothing in this bill amends local government's land use control powers. Second, there seems to be confusion about the conditions the Water Court would consider and whether it would be forced to adopt, quote, injurious terms under this bill. Injury in a Water Court context is a term of art that refers to protecting the vested rights of other water rights owners by ensuring any change of water right does not disrupt or adversely change stream conditions. This determination is unimpacted by this bill and remains squarely under the discretion of the Water Court. Finally, the oversight period does not infringe on private property rights. The landowner is not prevented from making reasonable use of his property during that period, and this bill does not prescribe any manner or prohibit other legal uses or results in any permanent encumbrance on the land. Colorado and federal law is clear. A regulatory taking only exists when the regulations are so onerous that the landowner is precluded from any reasonable use of the property. That is not the case here. Thank you for your time today, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you. Sir. Sir.
Good afternoon, Chairman and Committee members. My name is Jerry Knapp, and I've been involved in basically all aspects of revegetation over nearly the last 40 years. I've implemented, I've designed, I've actually done the field work on multiple revegetation projects. I also have done investigation of the quality of revegetation, whether or not it was established. I have been and currently am doing consulting work on revegetation issues. So I just want to add a few things that have been touched on here this afternoon. first I want you to realize that this is also an environmental benefit bill the revegetation of the land is the protection of a work of our soil resource and the preventing of the blowing of dust and the establishment of weeds on these lands which create additional issues for the counties second I think I think it absolute must that we have a statute that requires criteria establishment criteria and the associated scientific and objective evaluation methodology into the decrees We don't want to put that specific criteria into the statute, but we want the flexibility so that it can be done locally. it's already been mentioned we need to have the water right owner as always responsible for this revegetation there's examples of why that we could get into but in the end this supports the rural communities the rural counties it allows them to put together their 1041 permits with the regulations and if they are scientific and objective they will be included into the decree that keeps the county and the local communities from having the added expense of participating within the water court process which quite frankly many of our counties in southeast Colorado cannot do
thank you thank you mr. Moore
Is that working? Yes. There we go. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Brett Moore, and I'm contract lobbyist for the Lower Arc. But I am here today reading some testimony from Bill Long, who regretfully couldn't be here today, but is another great local voice in Division II that we thought you should hear from. Good afternoon, committee. My name is Bill Long, and I am a lifetime resident of Bent County in the Lower Arkansas Valley and a business owner in Bent County for the last 48 years. I served as a Bent County commissioner from 2005 through 2016. I fully support the proposed House Bill 26-13-40. I'm going to encourage passage of such. In 1972, when there was no revegetation requirement, the Los Animas town ditch located in Bent County sold the water rights off of nearly 2,000 acres adjacent to the city of Los Animas. 54 years later, nearly every acre of that previously irrigated land is still nothing but undesirable weeds and non-native plants. The land has little or no productive value and is highly susceptible to dangerous wildfires. A similar situation exists on the Highlands Canal, also in Bent County. The water on this ditch was sold in 1997, and after 30 years, only 39% of the previously irrigated land has been revegetated to a minimum standard. And again, the remaining lands are primarily nuisance weeds and problematic for neighbors and continue to create the unnecessary risk of dangerous wildfires. These conditions exist in nearly every county in the lower Arkansas Valley where water has been purchased or removed from irrigated farms. I understand this bill will not address dryups that have occurred previously, but there is no question that there will be additional agriculture water sales in the future that removes water from the land. There needs to be some reasonable expectation and requirement that the previously irrigated lands are returned to an acceptable state. Reclamation of disturbed lands and soil is not an uncommon or an unreasonable requirement. The Colorado Land Reclamation Act requires mining operations to return disturbed lands to that of the natural vegetation of the surrounding area. So why would there be no requirement to return lands that have been irrigated for the past 150 years to a state similar to that prior to being irrigated? Otherwise, these lands will remain only as weed-infested fire hazards and an unnecessary nuisance and danger for neighbors. The entities that are purchasing and removing the water from these irrigated farms generally have far greater financial, legal, and technical resources than the counties where the water is being removed. Creating a minimum standard is necessary to ensure the well-being of a rural and the environment. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.
Thank you for allowing me to read his testimony. Thank you. And then Commissioner Navinshue, please go ahead.
Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Tim Navinshue, and I am a commissioner here in Otero County, and I am testifying today in support of House Bill 26-1340. And I just don't want to reiterate what everybody said already, but if you think of water in Otero County, think of it as the greatest commodity that Otero County has to support its economy. And when that greatest commodity is taken from us, then you can imagine how difficult it is to economically function. We do recognize that water rights belong to the ranchers and farmers, and it's private property rights, and they have the ability to do what they wish with those property rights. However, to function as a county, the commissioners need to make sure that we are protecting public safety, public health, and then also the way that our land is used. And so we just want to make sure that that's recognized and that, you know, we are neighbors to Crowley County. So we saw the effects of not having something like this re-veg or 1041 in place and what that would end up looking like. We fully support that we do have 1041s currently in place. We don't believe this legislation contradicts 1041s, but it just helps us to enforce it. And as mentioned earlier, we recognize that in WaterCourt, we don't have the resources, the money, the time, the personnel to effectively be a voice in WaterCourt. So we just think that this legislation, 1340, just helps us to have a bigger voice in support of this REVEG and how it takes place. And so I thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of this legislation.
Thank you, Commissioner. All right, committee members, any questions for this panel? Senator Catlin.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hang on a minute. I'd like to ask your attorney, why is it that you folks don't think that that's a taking?
Ms. Carter.
I'm sorry, I missed your name, Ms. It's working. Are you looking to the water? I couldn't hear that. Are you looking to the water right or to the maintenance? To the water rights.
So the water rights? Any limitation on the use of the water, we believe. Yeah, put that one here. I think, well, so any limitation on the use of the water for a new beneficial use is not an intaking or an infringement on private property rights. For one thing, a water right is not an ownership in the molecules of the water. It's an owner right in the ability to use that water at a certain time. And that right is always subject to the administration of the state, determinations of the water court. And so in this case, the water right owner has applied to change the decreed use and place of use of that water right. We are not impacting their ability to use their water right on the irrigated land at the time at which it was decreed The only limitation would be on the ability to use that water for a new use in a new place which they do not have a vested interest in. So we don't believe it's a taking. They haven't obtained that property right yet.
Thank you. Seeing no further questions for this panel, thank you all so much. Final call for witnesses on House Bill 1340. Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. Yes, we all have L3. Okay. To the amendment phase. Who would like to, if you want to make a motion, then we can talk about it. Senator Pelton.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move amendment L-003.
All right. To the amendment. Thank you.
Through consultation with CCI and Farm Bureau, we couldn't quite get all the way to what they wanted, but this amendment does kind of help a little bit. It removes requirement for a mandatory five-year maintenance period after revegetation or conversion to dry land farming is successfully established. Instead, the bill gives the water court limited time-bound discretion to require additional oversight only where there is a substantial risk that reclamation efforts could regress. It clarifies that when a related 1041 permit or intergovernmental agreement already requires the applicant to provide financial assurances sufficient to cover the cost of completely revegetating, the water court shall incorporate these existing requirements into the final change of use decree. This is to prevent the applicant having to provide duplicate bonds or financial security. And it clarifies that nothing in the bill alters or limits local government 1041 regulation authority, which continues to be governed by section 2465.1. And it clarifies that references to a permit in the bill refer specifically to a 1041 permit.
Thank you. Any questions about this amendment? Any objection to L3? Seeing none, L3 is adopted. Any further amendments from the bill sponsors? No. From the committee? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Wrap-up comments, bill sponsors.
Senator Pelton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We heard a lot of good testimony. The River District did not testify today, but they've came a long way on this bill, and they think this will be beneficial on down the road There may still be some concerns but I think this bill is at a good place now and it is per the title very narrow in District 2 With that, I would ask support from this committee.
Thank you. Senator Hendrickson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This bill is an important step. to ensure that we don't keep sliding backwards on the very precious ecosystem that we have in southeast Colorado. I know that everybody's district is special to them. Every part of this state is special, genuinely so for different reasons. We are blessed with quite a diverse state, the likes of which most states cannot compare with. One of the things about southern Colorado, I mean, Pueblo is home, but the entire Arkansas community is connected. and, you know, I reside in Pueblo, but I would feel fairly comfortable calling, like, La Junta home too because I'm there so often because if you live in Pueblo and you don't know somebody in La Junta or somebody in Lamar, you're not really a Puebloan. And the same goes true in the reverse. These communities are so connected. They are such a special part of my life. I'm really one of the best decisions that my wife and I made was when I got out of the army and we accepted job offers in southern Colorado and decided that this was where we were going to raise our son. And there's a chance that there's one other bill, but I'm done trying to prognosticate what the House is going to do. That's a fruitless endeavor. So there's a real chance that this is the last bill that I ever have in committee, and it is something that gives me great gratitude. That is something that will protect the land that has come to be home going forward.
Thank you. All right. Either of you, a motion to the Committee of the Whole as amended would be in order.
Senator Pelton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1340 as amended to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendations.
That's a good motion. Are there any comments before we vote?
Senator Pelton B. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate this bill, and I appreciate what you're doing with southeast Colorado. I know there's still some concerns, especially with some of the Farm Bureau folks, so I know you're going to be working on the floor. So I'd like to see some more amendments moving forward. I'm going to be a no today, but it's only because we've got to make sure that all the landowners are taken care of. So I appreciate it, and I appreciate what's going on down there. in Southeast Colorado. So, but I'll be a no today, but that's the only reason why. And I know you're gonna work on it. So there's still another chance to vote on it.
So thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I'll echo my thanks to the sponsors and all the work. I know this has been an issue that been going on for a couple of years now and you doing a great job representing your district This is absolutely what you should be doing As somebody that comes from a different part of the state that sees a lot of Trans Mountain diversions and other types of change cases, it does concern me a little bit that this bill is confined just to one water division when we know that this is an issue across the state. so I hope the passage of this bill doesn't get in the way of looking at this from a statewide perspective. We know that every basin has its own differences and those should be treated as unique but this is a statewide issue and so that does give me a little bit of pause but I know how important this is immediately right now for the lower arc and division two so thank you for working on this policy. For the record, he's talking about my district with the Trans Mountain diversion. That's correct. Yes. Just being a brief recess. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we're back. Motion has been made on House Bill 1340. Mr. Becker, please poll the committee. Senators Catlin. Aye. Henderson. Aye. Pelton B. No. Pelton R. For the Rocky Ford Mallons, yes. Rodriguez. Aye. Danielson. Yes. And Mr. Chair. No. That passes 5-2. Congratulations. All right. I believe the gavel will fall on our final Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee for this session. But in case it is, thank you, everybody. I appreciate it. And thank you to Mr. Becker for all your work. For maybe one final time, we are adjourned.