Senate Agriculture & Natural Resources [Mar 12, 2026]

Senator Catlin. Here.

Senator Kipp. Here.

Excused. Senator Danielson.

Oh, it was hidden.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, members of the committee. Thank you for your consideration for two reappointments and one new appointment to the Water Quality Control Commission. My name is Amy Conowal, and I work as the administrator for the Water Quality Control Commission at the Department of Public Health and Environment. I would like to start by briefly describing the work of the commission and introduce the appointees before you today. The Water Quality Control Commission is made up of nine volunteer commissioners from around the state with diverse experience, including technical, regulatory, and agricultural expertise. The Water Quality Control Commission adopts rules to promote clean and healthy water for Colorado's residents and visitors. The commission's primary responsibility is to adopt rules as directed by the state legislature and pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act and the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act. These rules protect public health and the environment while also balancing the regulatory and economic burdens placed on the regulated community. Staff support for the Water Quality Control Commission comes primarily from the Department's Water Quality Control Division along with support from the Office of the Attorney General. Our rulemaking hearings are conducted pursuant to the state's procedural rules which facilitate participation in our rulemaking hearings by a diverse set of parties, including those represented by municipalities, industry, environmental groups, and others. The Water Commission carefully considers public comments and input from parties in each rulemaking hearing before making a final decision. I want to thank all of our appointees today for dedicating their time and energy to this important work. I will first introduce Christine Johnston. Ms. Johnston is a resident from Littleton, Colorado. Ms. Johnston is up for reappointment for a second term. Ms. Johnston has served as a senior environmental analyst for Xcel Energy for 25 years. She is in the corporate environmental services group and oversees permitting and compliance with discharge permits. She also coordinates on construction-related permits and drinking water compliance. Next up is Nicole Ponsulate-Johnson, who lives in Livermore, Colorado and works in Fort Collins. Ms. Ponsulate-Johnson is up for reappointment for a second term. Ms. Ponsulate Johnson is the Executive Director of the One Water Program for the City of Fort Collins. Commissioner Ponsulate Johnson has been working for more than 25 years in the water and wastewater industry And finally I would like to introduce Charles Garcia who spends time in both Grand County and Denver Mr Garcia was recently appointed by the governor and this would be his first term on the Water Quality Control Commission Mr. Garcia is a lawyer licensed to practice in the state of Colorado. He most recently served on the Great Outdoors Colorado Board and before that on the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission. Mr. Garcia worked as a CPA with Arthur Anderson in Price Waterhouse and was also a Colorado State Public Defender where he was office head for the Denver Trial Office. Again, thank you, Mr. Chair, and we appreciate the Commission's time today.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Nicole Ponzilette-Johnson, and I'm the One Water Executive Director for the City of Fort Collins. I really appreciate the opportunity to serve the state of Colorado, again, as a commissioner of the Water Quality Control Commission. I bring a curious and holistic lens to support the well-being of the environment, our residents, and our economy. That is, I think I've proven that as the lead negotiator and principal investigator for the Denver Water Lead Variants that ultimately protected public health and the environment through a lot of research and negotiations, not only at the state level but at the federal level. I have 25 years of experience in the construction, operation, and management of water, wastewater, and stormwater. utilities. And again, I'm just happy to serve. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Senators, for the opportunity to introduce myself to you today and for your consideration of me to serve another term on the Water Quality Control Commission. I just completed one term or one year on the commission serving out an unexpired term, and I'm looking forward to serving a full term. As Amy indicated, I currently work in XL Energy's Corporate Environmental Services Group, where I focus on water quality permitting and compliance associated with our generation facilities in Colorado. I also do wetlands permitting as well as support our water team on construction related permits and drinking water. And then I also support our Colorado hydroelectric facilities with compliance of our Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licenses. My career has provided me an opportunity to have a direct impact on the protection of the state waters. And I think I can continue to do this as my role as a commissioner. And I think as the Commission considers changes, regulations, it's important for us to consider the end goal and think about how we can accomplish that goal to ensure permittees are able to have a pathway to comply that will have a meaningful environmental benefit and protect water quality. Thank you again for your consideration.

Sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Charles Garcia. I'm a 45-year resident of Colorado. the last 30 years also Grand County where I spend about half my time. I'm a lawyer and a CPA, past president of the Colorado Bar Association I have served on the Civil Rights Commission for two terms and served on the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Commission and served on the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission and very outdoors Colorado the last two of which I was confirmed by this very committee. So it's good to be back. I currently serve on the boards of Colorado Trout Unlimited, as well as their local chapter in Ground County, the Headwaters chapter, and also as an environmental representative on Denver Water Board Citizen Advisory Committee. so I believe my background was particularly Parks and Wildlife and Great Outdoors Colorado provided to me with a unique background that would help me in this position and my years with those two groups also has given me a very unique perspective on dealing with farmers and ranchers and the agricultural community is something that I feel very strongly about So thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Chair, excuse me. We, as far as controlling the timeline of the permits, that's the division's responsibility. but what I have seen is very intentional improvements to reduce the permit backlog or at least create a structure that will reduce the permit backlog. So as a commissioner, I have been impressed with some of the changes that the division has shared with us over the last couple years, especially the last year.

Seeing no further questions, if I can, I'll turn to Senator Hendrickson for a motion.

Thank you all for your willingness to continue serving for both of you, Mr. Garcia, in this new role. Thank you for your continued service to the state. And with that, Ms. Jackson, please poll the committee.

Aye.

Kip. Yes.

Pelton R. excused. Danielson excused.

Senator Catlin or Senator Roberts? Who would like to go first? Senator Roberts. Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, colleagues. excited to be here with Senator Catlin to present House Bill 1031 and he certainly knows more than I do about growing Colorado Proud products but that's what this bill is about is protecting our state's agriculture industry from folks who might want to take advantage of the Colorado label when they're not when they shouldn't be able to this bill came out of the Water Resources and Agriculture Review Committee last year I believe has enjoyed unanimous support as it's gone through the process. But what we're looking to do is make sure that people are honestly calling their peaches Palisade peaches or their chilies, Pueblo chilies, or their potatoes, San Luis Valley potatoes, or their sweet, sweet corn, Olathe sweet, sweet corn. And there have been instances that we've learned about of people mislabeling these products as Colorado grown or attributing Palisade or Olathe or San Luis Valley to that food when it didn't come from there. And so what we're looking to do is create some sort of enforcement mechanism through the Attorney General's office and local DAs if and when that might be needed and really promote and protect Colorado agriculture. So fairly straightforward bill, and I'll pass it over to my colleague.

questions for the sponsors seeing none will go to the witness testimony phase we We have four people signed to test up. Would Brandon Melnikoff, Madeline Robertson, Diana Orff, and Ian Johnson please come up to the table. Mr. Melnikoff, whenever you're ready.

Ms. Robertson.

Thank you. Mr. Johnson, you're registered in a neutral position, so I'm going to go to Ms. Orff first and then we'll come back to you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Diana Orff and I'm here representing the Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado We are four counties and there are three associate counties on the western slope as well as many of the municipalities contained therein Colorado has a certain cachet and brand Songs have been written about it, Rocky Mountain High. Guess he'd rather be in Colorado if you want to go all the way back to Peter, Paul, and Mary in the 60s. Certain products are similarly iconic and associated with regions such as San Luis Valley potatoes, Palisade peaches, Olathe sweet corn, et cetera. Just saying that a product is grown in Colorado carries a certain expectation of quality, and those products are priced accordingly. That expectation of value should not be diluted or diminished through intentional misrepresentation. The Colorado Proud labeling should mean something, and those expectations upheld. We support House Bill 1031, and last year I was in a grocery store where a woman was carefully examining the boxes, you know, of peaches there, And she said, are these really Palisade peaches? Are these really from Colorado? And we were looking. You know, I said, well, there's the label, Colorado Proud. It has to mean something. And she said, you know, I just moved here, and I didn't think there was a difference. But then I tried them, and there is a difference. So when the consumer has an expectation of what they're going to get, and some of these products, when they're first in season, are not cheap. But certainly the expectation of value should be upheld. So we do support House Bill 1031, and we ask for your vote. Thank you. Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon to the members of the committee. My name is Ian Johnson. I'm a college senior here to speak about House Bill 1031. At its core, this bill addresses the marketing of agricultural products as Colorado grown. The goal is to prevent sellers from falsely advertising products as local. This is meant to protect consumers who pay price premiums for Colorado produce. It also aims to protect the Colorado farmers themselves. However, from an economic perspective, the effectiveness of this policy depends heavily on enforcement. Colorado already has laws that prohibit deceptive trade practices. Under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, businesses are not allowed to mislead customers about the origin of products they sell. Because of this, the main policy question isn't whether misleading labels should be illegal. It already is illegal. Instead, the important question is whether the bill strengthens enforcement or just clarifies existing rules. Even when laws exist, enforcement can be difficult in practice. Agricultural products often pass through multiple distributors before reaching retailers. Once products move through the supply chain, verifying exactly where they were grown becomes complicated. In addition, enforcement often relies on complaints, inspections, or investigations. If enforcement resources are limited, misleading labels may still occur even after stricter legal protections. For that reason, credible enforcement is essential. If the probability of being caught is low, some sellers may find it profitable to still mislabel products. If existing customer protection laws already address most of these cases effectively, then this bill may function more as a clarification rather than a major policy change. Although the intent of this bill is understandable, the bill fails to address enforcement concerns. I respectfully oppose this bill in its current form. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Colleagues, questions for this panel? All right, seeing none, we will go ahead and retire this panel. Thank you for being here. That's the only panel signed up to testify. So, Senator Roberts, Senator Catlin, do you all have any amendments?

Committee members amendments on House Bill 1031 Seeing none the amendment phase is closed Closing comments Senator Roberts

Senator Catlin.

Is there a motion from? Make it. You make it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1031 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation. That is a proper motion. before we vote I will just say that my reservation real quick with this is the petition clause because if you come from New Mexico and you try to pawn hatch Chile as Pueblo Chile it's a matter of public safety to be certain it becomes one very quickly right so it is with hope and faith that we can avoid emergencies for an additional 90 days that I will be a yes on this bill today Ms. Jenshaw, please pull the committee. Senators Catlin. Well, I might mention that it might be dangerous for the seller of non-poiler. We care about public safety even if you're a New Mexican. Yes.

Senator Pelton B. Aye.

Senator Roberts. Aye.

Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If there's no objection, I would ask for the consent calendar.

Okay, Mr. Melnikoff. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Brandon Melnikoff, testifying again on behalf of Colorado Farm Bureau, the state's largest agriculture grassroots organization. First and foremost, we support the humane treatment of animals, and we encourage ongoing research and education on best management practices for treatment and handling of animals. Colorado Farm Bureau opposes this bill as it would take away the most humane and practical method of depopulation currently available. While the situation in which our producers have to cull their herds are certainly unfortunate, it is important that it is done efficiently and effectively, as that is the most humane way to mitigate extremely harmful disease outbreaks and ultimately achieve the highest level of animal welfare for our flocks at that time. We do not believe it is good policy and are not fans of locking animal husbandry standards into statute. Livestock producers and most importantly the state veterinarian should have the flexibility required to make timely and effective animal health decisions Thank you for your time today I would be happy to answer any questions Thank you Ms Robertson

Thank you. Mr. Wilkins. Good afternoon, Chair, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'm Jerry Wilkins, past president of the Colorado Egg Producer Association and proud representative of Colorado's commercial egg farmers for about 25 years. Colorado has experienced significant impacts from highly pathogenic avian influence, also known as bird flu or HPAI. from an outbreak that began in 2022. 2026 is the fifth year of this terrible avian virus, which has resulted in the loss of nearly 160 million egg-laying hens nationwide. HPAI remains an ongoing threat to poultry production in our state and across the nation. Already in 2026, the U.S. has lost more than 15 million birds from the nation's egg farms, And there is every reason to believe this outbreak will continue to be a clear risk to Colorado's flocks. During the 2022 outbreak alone, Colorado is among the hardest hit in the country with more than 5 million commercial laying hens affected by this. Each infected premise requires an immediate response directed by USDA APHIS Veterinary Services operating within foreign animal disease preparedness and response plans and coordinated with the Colorado State Veterinarian. Our experience in Colorado has shown that HPAI moves rapidly and unpredictably. Delays in response can allow the virus to spread to neighboring farms and USDA says whenever possible an infected flock should be depopulated within 24 hours of positive confirmation of HPAI. This prevents the virus from spreading to otherwise healthy flocks and prevents lateral spread to other farms in neighboring areas. Depopulating is gut-wrenching to a farmer Their birds are their livelihood The decision to depopulate a flock is the most difficult choice an ag farmer can make But HPAI is fatal to poultry flocks And rapid depopulation is a critical tool to contain these deadly outbreaks HPAI is considered an animal health emergency by USDA That agency, along with State Departments of Agriculture and Animal Health oversees controlling and eradicating the disease HPAI response is federally authorized supervised by veterinarians and implemented under structured incident command systems Approved tools include water-based foam systems, whole house CO2 gassing, containerized gas units, and in limited emergency circumstances, ventilation shutdown plus, or VSD plus, as we have stated today. These methods are selected based on housing type, flock size disease progression, and urgency required to stop the virus. With this said, the Colorado producers take an opposing position on SB123. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Dr. Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Maggie Baldwin. I'm the state veterinarian and director of the Animal Health Division at the Colorado Department of Agriculture. I'm testifying today in an amend position on this bill, and I want to thank Senator Cutter for engaging the department and listening to our perspective. As many of you have already heard today and have heard me talk about previously, we have been experiencing a large ongoing outbreak with highly pathogenic avian influenza impacting more than 11 million domestic poultry in our state. One of the unfortunate decisions that we have to face with diseases such as HPAI is the need to depopulate affected flocks. This is not a decision that's made lightly. HPAI is a disease that causes up to 100% mortality in affected flocks. If we do not depopulate the birds, they will become infected and suffer, and they will eventually die from the disease. The decision for depopulation is one that is made between the producer, CDA, and USDA. This considers a number of factors to ensure the most humane method of depopulation is utilized, including characteristics of the premises of the individual barns to be depopulated, availability of equipment and trained personnel, infectious disease concerns, disposal options, and human safety. Ventilation shutdown alone has not been used in the state of Colorado, and we will not use ventilation shutdown alone by itself. Ventilation shutdown plus heat is one of the methods that has been used in limited circumstances in the state. We have followed the AVMA guidelines for depopulation as well as USDA guidance for VSD+. It is used when no other methods are available and we need to expedite depopulation. This is often when we see the virus getting ahead of us on a premises and we want to ensure the birds do not succumb to the virus, which will also minimize the amount of virus that is shed and spread in the environment. Colorado will continue to be a leader in the nation working with our producers and federal partners to ensure the most humane method of depopulation is implemented. We will continue to follow guidance coming from AVMA and the requirements from USDA. As new tools become available that are developed, we look forward to implementing them as feasible. However, we want to make sure that we are not limiting our already limited toolbox. We appreciate your consideration, and I'm happy to answer questions on this bill. Thank you. Thank you so much. Committee, questions for any of the panelists?

Dr. Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Senator, for the question. This, as I mentioned, is something that we have only used in limited circumstances. As an example the last facility that was affected had more than 40 barns on that facility We only used VSD plus in four of those That was very limited and it was only when the virus had been detected in those barns and we could not get in with any other method quick enough to ensure that we depopulated those birds. That prevents those birds from suffering from the virus. There is, I will tell you, one of the hardest things is to walk into a barn that is full of infected birds with highly pathogenic even influenza. Those birds are suffering. And so our goal is to depopulate them before they're suffering from the disease. So we already do follow the guidance. We already do follow this only in limited circumstances only. And I'm proud to say that we really can say that in Colorado. We don't rely on this as a sole tool. It is only used when we have no other choice. Thank you.

Dr. Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Senator, for the question. We are seeing other technologies and other methodologies that are being tried right now. They're being field trialed, something like whole house nitrogen gassing is something that's currently being explored and shows promise. So we do see other tools coming on the scene, and we hope that at some point in time we're able to implement other tools. Again, we don't have a lot of really great options on a large scale right now, and this is one of the very limited tools that we use. So I don't know what a timeline is. Something like whole house nitrogen gassing, which is currently being field tested, is something that there's not even approval method through USDA to implement that. So I couldn't tell you a timeline on when we would see those other technologies coming available. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Zach Strong, here representing the Animal Welfare Institute. We support SB 123 and regret that it has to be postponed, but appreciate the opportunity to testify. One thing I think is really important for us to recognize is that bird flu is not going away anytime soon. Infections and depopulations are going to continue to occur in Colorado. That means depopulations are not unanticipated emergencies, and instead they have become predictable aspects of poultry production. We think that means we have a responsibility to plan ahead for these events, including by preparing to use the most humane depopulation methods available to us. VSD plus is one of the least humane depopulation methods. as Dr. Baldwin mentioned as an aside as Dr. Baldwin mentioned, VSD alone has never been used in Colorado that we know of, so VSD alone is not the concern. The concern is VSD Plus and the immense amount of suffering that its use has caused. So the question becomes, how can we plan ahead to ensure that Colorado no longer needs to resort to VSD Plus? If we tell ourselves, well, we'll just keep following the AVMA and USDA guidelines, then nothing will change. Colorado will inevitably use VSD Plus again and again. The good news is that we have a better option than that. We think that given a reasonable amount of time, say three years, the poultry industry could transition away from having to resort to VSD plus by instead adopting nitrogen-based depopulation methods that are more modern, more humane, more effective, and that can be rapidly deployed. And that was what this bill was trying to accomplish. so we hope this policy can be reconsidered in the future thank you thank you miss granger

Thank you. Dr. Reyes?

Thank you, doctor. Committee, any questions for these panelists? Senator Kitt.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, thanks for the question, Senator, and I would encourage my colleagues to weigh in here as well. And even if it's true that eventually these animals will be killed at the end of their egg-laying cycles or for human consumption, they're sentient beings and capable of suffering severely. And I think we owe it to these animals to treat them as humanely as we possibly can. And that's currently simply not happening in Colorado. Colorado has an opportunity to embrace nitrogen depopulation methods in addition to the carbon dioxide methods that it used in past depopulations And I think that would help the state become a leader in the nation in moving toward a higher welfare way of treating poultry in the state

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks for the question, Senator. Yeah, there are a number of states that have not used VSD+. Of course, there are many states that don't have the same size poultry flocks that exist here in Colorado and other states. But I think that any state that has poultry, including Colorado, could consider using higher welfare methods, including nitrogen-based methods. And we think Colorado would actually be particularly well-suited to use those methods because of a number of companies that exist here in the state that actually run these air separation plants that extract nitrogen from the atmosphere and are able to sell it commercially. and we think that would be an ideal set of circumstances to enable producers here to use that technology. Senator Kipp.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the questions. Senator. Yes, AVMA guidelines on depopulation do exist. USDA takes them into consideration when they're developing their policies on depopulation. But to answer your question as to whether codifying AVMA policy would benefit animal welfare, I would say no, it would not. First, the categorization of VSD plus as a tier two method during the most revision cycle of the guidelines was extremely controversial. There are thousands of vets who oppose this method, oppose the guidelines for this reason, and they do not consider VSD plus to be either ethical or humane. Nowhere in the guidelines is VSD plus characterized as humane, nor do the guidelines reference any scientific evidence that points to the fact that VSD plus creates good animal welfare outcomes. On the contrary, the opposite is true. All available evidence that we have suggests that VSD plus results in immense suffering. So for those reasons, simply codifying AVMA guidelines would not help animals. It's the AVMA guidelines and USDA policy that has enabled use of VSD plus to the extent that it has. So simply putting them into law would not change this at all. Thank you.

Can you hear me?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Dr. Monica Bondo. I'm a veterinarian, a Fort Collins resident, and a registrant with the American College of Animal Welfare, which confers board certification in animal welfare to veterinarians specializing in this area. I am testifying in full support of the Modernizing Depopulation Act. I've dedicated the past 16 years of my career to improving animal welfare, and as a veterinarian, I have a responsibility, sorry, I'm nervous, to speak out against the immorality of ventilation shutdown and ventilation shutdown plus. It is easy and perhaps convenient for us to forget that chickens are sentient individuals with unique personalities who are playful, curious, smarter than we realize, and share our capacity to experience pain, fear, anxiety, and distress. While humans often lose consciousness during heat stroke, sparing them from ongoing suffering, chickens have unique vessels in their brain to protect against heat stress, which can keep them conscious for far longer. When ventilation shutdown is carried out in commercial settings, birds are exposed to temperatures at or above 128 degrees Fahrenheit for hours. It takes hours for most birds to die, and there are often survivors. In some farms, birds survived for five days before being killed by secondary means. At these extreme temperatures, chickens try desperately to cool off, holding their wings away from their bodies, open mouth breathing to dissipate heat as they cannot sweat. Their cells start dying, blood vessels become damaged, and multi-organ failure ensues. Hours of distressed panting causes inflammation, tissue damage, and bleeding in their lungs, leading to respiratory distress and panicked gasping for air. They experience severe pain as their intestinal lining sloughs off and their muscles break down. It is undeniable that birds subjected to ventilation shutdown and Ventilation Shutdown Plus suffer hours and hours of unimaginable agony. Colorado has an incredible opportunity to be the first state to demand implementation of more humane alternatives. We can and must do better. I urge you to please prohibit ventilation shutdown for poultry. Thank you.

Hi. Good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Aubyn Royal, and I am the Colorado State Director for Humane World for Animals, formerly Humane Society of the United States. I urge you to support Senate Bill 123. Our country is approaching a grim milestone, nearing 200 million poultry killed to control highly pathogenic avian influenza since the outbreak began in 2022. The egg industry alone has now lost 150 million hens. The most recent APHIS analysis shows that Ventilation Shutdown Plus has become the default method for the mass killing of hens kept for egg production. From 22 to 23, 71% of laying hen facilities were depopulated using VSD Plus as the primary method. VSD involves turning off the life-supporting air and temperature controls in a fully enclosed barn, slowly killing the animals by hyperthermia. VSD methods are inherently inhumane, causing prolonged suffering. VSD plus takes hours or days to kill the animals, and the method of death is heat stroke and massive organ failure. VSD plus can also be ineffective. The aim during an emergency disease response is to depopulate infected premises within 24 to 48 hours. Yet, APHIS's most recent analysis found that it can take five days to completely depopulate some facilities. This is because VSD plus was never designed for the scale at which it's being used. Often secondary depopulation methods are required. When animals survive, personnel must enter the house to kill each infected bird individually or gas them in carts filled with carbon dioxide. This ineffectiveness poses a human health risk and a risk for further disease spread. HPAI has jumped from poultry to mammals, and fears are that it could spark the next deadly human pandemic. An alternative, more effective and humane approach is urgently needed, and we have one, nitrogen gas. The The newly released AVMA guidelines list nitrogen-based methods in Tier 1, those given highest priority to be utilized preferentially when emergency response plans are being developed. Using this method would not only reduce the suffering animals, but also the psychological toll on emergency responders.

Honorable members of the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, My name is Brianna Lombard, and I am a concerned Colorado resident and a student at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. Today, I urge you to vote in favor of SB 123. The practice of ventilation shutdown, or VSD+, induces death by heat stroke and suffocation and causes severe, prolonged animal suffering. Not only is it brutal, but it's ineffective at meeting 100% lethality standards. For example, the American Veterinary Medical Association has published experimental studies demonstrating that laying hens live an average of 3.75 hours after ventilation shutdown. That struggle is unacceptable. Beyond preventative measures like improved living conditions and emergency preparedness, there are higher welfare alternatives to VSD that result in quick loss of consciousness, such as methods talked about today, high expansion nitrogen-filled foam and nitrogen whole house gassing. Phasing out VSD over time will allow industry to work with air separation plants and pursue these alternatives and other alternatives that have been mentioned. A vote yes on SB 123 will mark a considerable step toward a more humane, efficient food system for Coloradans. Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Chandra Fuller. I'm a resident of Colorado, and I am here on behalf of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and our over 100,000 members and supporters across the state. I'm saddened to hear about the postponement of Senate Bill 123, a bill to prohibit ventilation shutdown as a mass killing method for birds on farms, and urge you to support the strongest version of this bill when possible. BSD Plus involves trapping thousands of animals in a barn, blocking airflow, and raising the temperature as high as 130 degrees Fahrenheit until they die from hyperthermia or heat stroke. The excruciating process can take hours, and animals often writhe, gasp, and desperately thrust themselves against the walls in an attempt to escape. This bill is long overdue, as over half of the more than 11 million birds who have been mass killed during this current avian flu outbreak in Colorado have been subjected to a prolonged and painful death through VSD+. Please pass the strongest version of this bill to end this crude and incredibly cruel practice. Thank you.

CHRISTAL HEATH. DR. CHRISTAL HEATH. DR. MY NAME IS DR. CHRISTAL HEATH. I'M A VETERINARIAN AND THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF OUR HONOR WE A NON VETERINARY ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION THAT SUPPORTS ONE HEALTH ALIGNED POLICY THIS BILL IS URGENTLY NEEDED TO PROTECT NOT ONLY FARCERS BUT THE FAMILY AND THE FAMILY AND honor We a non veterinary advocacy organization that supports One Health aligned policy This bill is urgently needed to protect not only farmed animals but workers and veterinarians involved in depopulation. The ongoing allowance of VSD means producers do not have to put plans in place to use less cruel and more effective methods like nitrogen gas and high expansion nitrogen foam. That results in unconsciousness in a few seconds and death in a few minutes. And we've heard that from testimony today from people who are opposed to this bill, that they felt the need to, that they must protect the use of VSD because there was no other option. But there's no other option because these industries have failed to put plans in place to use other methods. And they will not do that until VSD plus is banned. The current incentive structure of animal-based protein production gives producers no financial incentive to plan to implement more effective methods. They are even punished financially for investing in these methods when their competitors aren't making those same investments. There's no financial reason for them to do the right thing in the animal's final hours. And unfortunately, the American Veterinary Medical Association has also failed to take a stand against VSD, even though in a poll of more than 3,000 veterinarians, only 1.1% believed that VSD was an ethical and humane method of depopulation. The AVMA even barred veterinarians against VSD from attending their Cargill-sponsored Humane Ending Symposium, while non-veterinarians like Jeff Piggott, a self-described bacon activist and executive at the National Pork Producers Council, was able to attend. It is these reasons why we must take legislative action to ban BSD. Thank you.

Chair Roberts, members of the committee, my name is Dr. Sarah Shields and I'm an animal behavior scientist. I studied at the University of California at Davis, and I served on the committee that developed the newly updated AVMA guidelines on the depopulation of poultry. These were just released in February. I'm here to express my strong support for SB123. While I was working in the AVMA panel, I had the luxury of reviewing all of the scientific literature related to poultry depopulation. And I can confirm what's already been said here today. Ventilation shutdown, even with added heat and humidity, is extremely inhumane. It's a drawn out process that takes hours to kill the animals and causes immense distress. We can do better. We absolutely can do better. We have the tools. We have the technology. We have the experts who can help us do this. And I implore on you to call on me, to call on us if there's any questions that this can be done, because there's no doubt. When I was on the AVMA panel, we heard directly from the technical experts who are already using whole house nitrogen gassing and high expansion nitrogen filled foam to depopulate poultry flocks. This is going on every day. It can happen. The evidence is unequivocal. Nitrogen based methods are far more humane. They're practical. They're cost effective. They're achievable. As long as there's advanced planning and preparation, and that may be what's missing here. It was an obvious decision for the AVMA poultry panel to place nitrogen methods in the Tier 1 category Those should be given the highest priority and utilized preferentially Please call on me to connect you to the experts who can implement these nitrogen methods and I urge the committee to move SB123 forward. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Mr. Chair and committee members, thank you for the opportunity to speak in favor of this bill. My name is Dr. Kathleen Cooney, and I've been a veterinarian for 22 years, a Coloradoan for 30. I'm a boarded specialist in animal welfare and an expert in death techniques who has written three books on the subject, as well as contributed to many end-of-life guidelines. I'm the animal welfare instructor for CSU's veterinary program as well. I am here representing myself and wish to thank poultry producers for their efforts to provide food for both people and animals. I am a consumer of poultry products myself. I have given considerable time to reading our national guidelines on slaughter and depopulation and spent much of the past six years in conversation with colleagues about ventilation shutdown and ventilation shutdown plus. I've never heard anyone say they like it or want to utilize it. Mention of these methods actually causes a sense of embarrassment that we in the U.S. even allow it to happen. It is a brutal death for animals and causes emotional hardship for the workers. It's not just an example of poor animal welfare. It is the pinnacle. An animal's welfare is dictated by how it responds to the resources provided to it. They experience positive, neutral, or negative feelings. All VSD goes against the foundation of animal welfare because it intentionally places an animal in a severe negative state for an extended period of time, so physically damaging as to cause death. We have better options, so relying on VSD is like saying that extreme suffering is acceptable. Let's prevent bad from becoming normal and give producers a finite time to move away from all VSD methods with as much support as the state can give them to be successful. Let's encourage Colorado to take the lead on a sixth freedom in animal welfare, the freedom to die a good death. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Dr. Ellen Carlin. I'm a veterinarian and policy expert on zoonotic diseases, and I'm here in my capacity as senior policy advisor to the Veterinary Association for Farm Animal Welfare. VAFA supports the Modernizing Depopulation Act. Heat stroke-based depopulation methods, as we've heard today, severely compromise animal welfare. Animals who die of fatal hyperthermia likely experience severe overheating, fear, frustration, pain, nausea, helplessness, malaise, and finally, exhaustion and respiratory distress. The United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, the EU, and other countries have essentially ruled out the use of these methods. Some argue that VSD Plus is approved by the AVMA and is therefore a method appropriate for implementing in Colorado. The AVMA is not a regulatory body. I am a member of the AVMA and I question the legitimacy of its depopulation guidelines. Because of errors, omissions, transparency issues, and stakeholder exclusion, VAFA recommends against the unconditional incorporation of the AVMA depopulation guidelines into policy Higher welfare depopulation methods are affordable and accessible as we heard Modern nitrogen-based methods better protect animal welfare, mitigate psychological harm to the human workforce, and require little or no animal handling, thus limiting exposure to zoonoses. USDA policy permits the use of VSD plus in constrained circumstances, yet failing to prepare for other methods creates these exact constrained circumstances. Depopulation has become so normalized that we can no longer treat it as a rare emergency for which it is difficult to adequately prepare. Poultry operations responsible for tens of thousands or even millions of animals must be prepared to end the lives of those animals humanely. This bill would provide the incentive needed for Colorado poultry operations to transition to more effective higher welfare methods. I ask you to reference our written submission for further details. Thank you very much.

Senator Kitt. Yes, I was wondering if the veterinarians might be able to comment on, and I know they've already mentioned some better methods for doing this, but I guess I'm really curious to know what was mentioned in the state veterinarian's testimony was that part of the reason for using this was to prevent other suffering. So I don't know what that other suffering looks like compared to this VSD plus method. And I wonder if the doctors could potentially comment on that. Who would like to take that? We have several doctors.

I think regardless of illness, I think death by ventilation shutdown plus is essentially an abhorrent way to go. So I think that trumps any death by, I'm not saying that death by disease is better, but I think we absolutely cannot rely on a more cruel method of depopulation. Senator Kidd.

So I absolutely agree that in the face of a disease outbreak, there is an absolute need to safeguard those animals, and particularly when there's infectious disease that poses a risk to widespread transmission, there is a need to have effective and humane methods of depopulation in place. I think what a lot of people on the supporting side of this bill are in agreement with is that there are a number of countries that have found alternative ways of depopulation, and I think there's been a failure in the current system to ensure that producers have adequate contingency plans in place. Outbreaks are not new to commercial farming industries, so we know that there is always a risk of disease outbreaks, particularly when you're confining animals in conditions that are very conducive to the development and spread of infectious disease. So I think the bottom line is that there has been a failure to ensure that there are humane and effective contingency plans in place. Ventilation shutdown and ventilation shutdown plus are the easiest methods to institute to ensuring that you can implement more humane methods using nitrogen or carbon dioxide and other methods. And so it does require some planning. But again, we have proof that there are producers that have been using alternatives and do not need to use Ventilation Shutdown Plus. Does that answer your question?

Thank you. Hello, Mr. Chair and committee members. I am Cheryl Kolas, a veterinarian in Fort Collins. I am completing a five-year animal welfare study program, and I'm a volunteer with the Veterinary Association for Farm Animal Welfare. As a veterinary student at CSU, I helped perform a necropsy, or animal autopsy, on a dog who had died of heat stroke. I vividly remember the professor explaining that heat stroke is a horrible way to die. And I think you would all agree. In fact, in Colorado, we have laws protecting dogs and cats from heat stress. For example, leaving an animal in a hot car constitutes animal cruelty in the county of Denver. And yet we sit by while potentially millions of other animals, birds in this case, are intentionally killed by heat stroke. It's true that higher welfare depopulation methods require more preparedness than VSD+. The AVMA's 2026 depopulation guidelines emphasize the high importance of advanced planning, including investments in equipment, supplies, training, and prearranged contracts with providers of carbon dioxide or nitrogen. So why isn't this being done? I recently watched two videos. One showed egg-laying hens being killed by nitrogen gas in a depopulation. They acted normally with no signs of distress until they sat, became unconscious, and then died. If dying can be pleasant that was an example The other video used VSD plus in a laboratory setting with a hen It showed her lying on her side panting heavily Then she jumped up shook her head looked around and tried to fly This was repeated over and over, lying down and jumping up again, all the while with extreme panting. That video still haunts me. My ask is that poultry producers start planning now to ensure that their next depopulation uses high welfare methods and that this Senate committee supports higher welfare depopulation moving forward. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Emily Torres, and I'm an attorney representing the nonprofit Animal Partisan. I am here to support this bill because it is an opportunity to lessen the suffering of millions of animals across the state. It is undeniable that bird flu is a serious threat, one we will be dealing with for the foreseeable future. How we address that threat is critically important. Depopulation, or mass killing, is a cruel dystopian practice in and of itself. The specific types of depopulation we're talking about today are the worst of the worst. Both BSD and Ventilation Shutdown Plus are abjectly cruel. We hold the lives of these animals in our hands. The choices we make while holding the power of life and death deserve urgent, serious, and thoughtful consideration. When one of these two mass killing practices is used, we're typically talking about thousands, tens of thousands, or even millions of birds being killed in one fell swoop. As we've heard today, death caused by BSD Plus is not quick and far from painless. In 2025, we filed a cruelty complaint in Minnesota court based on government records showing it took between three and four hours of suffering before thousands of turkeys died of VST+. When a dog left in a closed car on a blazing hot day dies, many of us are understandably outraged. VST and VST+, intentionally cause an unimaginable number of living, feeling animals to die of suffocation or heat stroke, often over the course of several hours. These horrific mass killing methods have been controversial for years now. Colorado has the opportunity with Senate Bill 26 to be a trailblazer in addressing this issue head on I and my organization implore you to pass this important bill Thank you for your time and attention Thank you so much

No.

Yeah, thank you. Thank you all for listening. I found that incredibly difficult and gut-wrenching to listen to. I don't, as many of you know, I don't eat meat, but I do understand how producers might look at animals raised for food differently than I do. That's the world that we live in. But it is really a sad and shocking realization that the welfare of these animals before they're used into the food chain just doesn't seem to matter. I understand the difficulties in having to depopulate and appreciate the conversations. I know farming and being a producer is a tough life. We heard that there are promising alternative tools. You heard that from several people and that they might be adopted in the future. I hope that's true, but I'm not sure why stakeholders resisted compromises to create legislation that would not prohibit VSD+, but would just help phase it out as more options became available. The American Veterinary Medical Association's 2026 guidelines list the nitrogen-used methods you heard about as Tier 1, the least cruel. VSD is listed as tier three, the most cruel option available. In the EU, VSD has been used extremely rarely as a last resort, but it has also come under increasing heavy scrutiny for welfare concerns. And this is important I think The EU also requires that animals are to be stunned to minimize pain and suffering no matter what the method of depopulation I know that change is hard It's easier to go about business as usual if there is not an incentive or a requirement to do something different. We listened, again, and understand the difficulties of producers when faced with an outbreak of bird flu. Again, we were open to compromise with legislation aimed at working towards other methods, but sadly that just was not supported ultimately by stakeholders. Avian flu has plagued Colorado poultry operations for years. Sadly, depopulation events should not be regarded as unforeseeable emergencies, but as routine aspects of poultry production. The modernizing depopulation act would have set Colorado apart in its commitment to farmed animal welfare through prioritization of more humane depopulation methods and a more modernized approach to disease control. You heard some really powerful and descriptive testimony today. When we know better, we should do better. There will be a day, I hope, when torturing animals is unacceptable, and I'm so disappointed that Colorado will not be leading the way. Thank you again for listening today.

Mr. Chair, I move the postpone indefinitely Senate Bill 123.

Senators Catlin.

Henriksen.

Kip.

Hilton B.

Pelton R.

Danielson excused.

Aye.