House Agriculture, Water & Natural Resources [Mar 30, 2026]

The House Agriculture, Water, and Natural Resources Committee will now come to order. Ms. Kelly, please call the roll.

Present.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Excused.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, this bill is our annual Colorado Water Conservation Board funding bill that comes through every year. That's what annual means. And I didn't get a lot of sleep last night. This is a really critical bill, though, for us as our job as legislators to bring this bill forward and pass it through, realizing that all of the funding that you see in this bill has zero impact to the general fund. This uses the CWCB cash funds. and most of these funds are available as the result of interest that has been earned on water project financing, so loans throughout the year, which is great. So we just keep that money flowing to projects and it flows back in with interest. And this really helps us fund our state investments in water and it helps us match funding from the federal government as well. It takes quite a bit of time to come up with the projects that are in this bill. It goes through an eight-month process that includes approval by the CWCB board, and this board represents each major water basin across the state, so the entire state is involved in these decisions. I hope you've looked at all the different sections in the bill. Each one kind of tells you a little bit about where that money goes. and really wanted to also point out that we are, there is a CWCB litigation fund that helps us stay in compliance with all of the compact water compacts that we have across the state. And we're making sure, especially in this time of water pressures across our state and across the West, that we're making sure that that fund is really healthy going forward. So I urge your aye vote on the bill. And we'll have about four or five different people coming forward that can speak to specifics. Thank you.

implementation of Colorado water plan God bless you and we ask for an aye vote on this year projects and we be open to any questions Thank you representatives Committee is there any questions from the committee Seeing none, we will move on to the witness phase. We have four people signed up, two in person, two in remote. So we'll just call everybody up all at once. We have Lauren Riz, Kirk Russell. Those should be in person. and then online Heather Dutton and Anthony Sandoval. Thank you. We can start with you, ma'am. If you'll state your name and who you represent, and you have three minutes.

And sir, if you'll state your name and who you represent, and you have three minutes.

Great. Thank you. We'll go up remote now, and Heather Dutton, if you will take yourself off mute, introduce yourself for the record, and you have three minutes.

So thank you so much. Thank you. And Anthony Sandoval, if you'll please unmute yourself. Introduce yourself, state who you're representing for the record, and you have three minutes.

Great. Thank you. And thank you all for testifying. I will ask anyone in the room who hasn't testified who would like to testify or online. Seeing none, our witness portion is closed. Oh, sorry. My apologies. Committee, do you have any questions for the panel? No? Okay. Well, you guys did a great job, so thank you very much. And so the witness portion of the hearing is closed. and we will have the sponsors come back up. Representative McCormick.

Great. Committee, do we have any amendments for the bill sponsors? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Wrap up. What committee does this go to? Oh, the proper motion is to appropriations.

Second that. Any wrap-up? Great. Any comments from the committee? Okay. Seeing none, Ms. Kelly, will you call the roll?

Yes.

Yep.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

13-0. That passes and will go to appropriations. Thank you very much. And thank you for everyone who came to testify. And we will take a brief moment while we switch chairs. All right. The next bill on our agenda is Senate Bill 26 I believe our bill sponsor is just now arriving So give her a few minutes to get settled All right. Looks like you're ready. Representative Velasco, tell us about your bill.

Okay.

Hello. Thank you.

Thank you. Representative Brown, welcome to the Ag Committee.

Representative Velasco.

I just wanted to give you a little more information around the license for applicators and the program that already exists. And we also have the Department of Ag here. If you have any questions about the current program, they are currently supporting the bill. So Colorado currently has 4,000 active private applicator license holders, along with licensed commercial and public applicators across the state. The low-cost licensing is available for agricultural producers, public employees, and small businesses who choose to do their own pest control. A private applicator license costs $75 every three years. The one-time in-person test is currently $41.50, and study materials are available at no cost through the CSU extension. Renewing a license requires continuing education credits that are widely available through CSU extension and typically costs between $60 and $120 and can be completed online or in person. So I would love for you all to ask questions of everyone that comes and testify and ask them to share, you know, what are those costs that they are perceiving would be impacting their industries. Yeah, but we are asking to lay over for action only at a later date, so we'll be hearing testimony today.

Representative Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair. And there was a couple questions in there, so I apologize if I missed one. But I think that, you know, first of all, I think there have been steps in the first generation anticoagulant rodenticides. You know, the packaging with which they are presented is certainly protective. And while these second-generation rodenticides are not strictly marketed in the same way, they are available for anybody to use. And that's why it's important. Or sorry, they are available for anyone to obtain. And that is why I think it's really important that the people who are obtaining them and using them have appropriate training. And that's where we get into this question about restricted-use pesticides and why I think it is precisely because they are so much more potent and effective that we need to have an appropriate level of training in order to handle that. So that's why I think this is the appropriate balance that will allow for us to, you know, continue to use them in the appropriate settings, but make sure that those who are handling them have the appropriate training. There might have been another question in there. It was the Internet question. The Internet question, yeah.

AML Winter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to start off, like I appreciate some of the letters that you read, but one of them, just before I ask my question, I'm just trying to level set, one of them said that they were eating this and taking a couple steps and dying. it's like off of a lethal dose it's four to 14 days to kill them so to claim that they're taking a bite and walking three steps and dying is not even in the realm of reality i just want to level set with that but what scares me is the ranching and farming community that we are is is i i understand what you're trying to do but you threw out a lot of numbers like it's going to cost 75 and then 45 and then 60 and then 120 and then a day off of work and then driving to wherever you have to take the test that don't work for rural Colorado. So my question is, and you talk about the professionals that do this, I would say the people in rural Colorado are professionals at this. They've been doing it for generations. So have you ever thought about making any type of carves out for the people that are already doing it and that know how to do it effectively? Because I agree with the chair. You've got the metroplex and then farmland borders the rest of the states you've got kansas new mexico utah wyoming and then you're just going to have neighbors saying hey we're driving to kansas you want us to bring back a trailer full of rodenticide um so i'm just figuring out a way i mean i that we might be able to look how to carve rural colorado because when you throw all those numbers out and then you try to take a rancher a farmer off of his rancher farm for a day or work you've just compounded a lot of money and his inputs are higher and higher for rural colorado that that's my main concern that's where i represent so have you thought about carving out rule in frontier counties representative Brown

follow up AML Winter thank you so another question I have is have you thought since CSU has an extension office in every county have you thought about giving the training for free

Next up is Representative Johnson.

Representative Brown. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative Johnson, for the question. And I do think it is important to get the facts correct, so I appreciate that. They have not taken action. They have not made these pesticides, restricted-use pesticides, although they did propose it back in 2022. But I also think it is important to recognize that the APA has taken action over the last 20 years or so, and those actions have made a difference, and that the 2022 findings were supposed to be the next step in making these pesticides even safer. So their original actions go back to 2008 and that the 2008 to 2015 actions removed ESGARs from consumer-labeled retail products and restricted them to professional agricultural and structural uses. However, in practice, consumers still can obtain ESGARs through certain pathways, online realtors, some farm and feed supply stores. And so that creates sort of a gap between the regulatory intent and the real world access to these particular things. I think that is why in 2022, that is why they proposed an interim decision to reclassify ESGARs as a restricted use pesticide. Obviously, the politics at the national level have changed a bit. And so, you know, we believe that that would have been an appropriate step. And had they taken that step, obviously the bill that we are proposing today would not have been necessary. But given that they have not taken that step and we don't believe that the current federal administration will do that, we think that it is important to protect Coloradans in this way.

President Johnson, you had a follow-up. I do. And I just want it on the record, too, because I know one of the sponsors mentioned this current administration not doing it, pointing out the administration of Obama and Biden also did not do it. So this is an ongoing multiple administration at the national level. My question, though, is you mentioned dangers from the product due to exposures. However, we have a memo from Rocky Mountain Poison Control Center stating that the information being distributed about the dangers of eschars is being misrepresented, that the exposure data doesn't equate to negative impacts. In fact, with almost 3,000 exposures reported in 2024, only three were judged to have major negative impacts, but there were no deaths. So my question is where you're getting your data or where you're looking at statistics.

Representative Velasco. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Johnson. And I just wanted to share some of the information that we have is coming from America's Poison Center that indicates that children five years old and younger account for 75 percent of approximately 3,100 annual human exposures to escars reported from 2019 to 2023. And that is part of the legislative declaration on the bill.

Representative Brown. Yeah, thank you very much. You know, I certainly appreciate that. I have some information about exposures actually from specific types of ESGARs broken down by, I have a wonderful policy fellow who works in my office. She's an amazing study and researcher, and she's put together a whole bunch of information about human exposure incidents. I will spare you that. I'm happy to follow up with you afterwards. But it is hundreds of human exposure incidents, you know, from 2010 to 2015, and then it is also hundreds of exposure incidents from 2015 to 2019. so you know we and I can get to the exact statistics if you like but I save the committee the lengthy answer

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and thank you so much, Representative Garcia Sanders. And I think that the point that you brought forward is definitely valid. We definitely want to get rid of pests and we don't want people to be around pests. And I think that this point around equity is a very strange one for me. We know that in the law, it says that if there's a pest in somebody's home and that's been rented, that the landlord has the responsibility of taking care of that pest before even charging rent from the tenant. So I would say that many of our marginalized communities are already living in areas with worst air quality, worst water quality, And now they're being exposed to toxic chemicals. And, you know, one example that was brought forward was what about a single mom that has a mouse at home and, you know, she's not going to buy 16 pounds of rodenticide. She's going to maybe get a trap and take care of it herself. And if it's a pest, then that's when you call a professional. So a professional should already have a license. So we don't believe that this is an equity issue.

Representative Story. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the sponsors for working on this policy. I appreciate it. Talking about restricted use, and you mentioned, and it's in the bill, about the licensing and the training, and I forgot what the 4150 was for. I jotted it down, testing to be able to utilize it. So in the real world, how does this carry out to ensure that before it's sold that the buyer has, you know, managed and taken on this process of getting licensed and going through the testing and all of that? I'm just curious if we know that.

One quick follow-up. Go right ahead, Representative Story. Thank you, Madam Chair. So if this bill passes, when this bill passes, and the effective date and all of that, it would end being available on Amazon or in your local Target or your local hardware store or whatever, where you'd have, like you were saying, specific retailers that would also be licensed to be able to sell it, I presume.

Yes. Thank you.

Madam Chair, yes. Representative Brown? I believe that is correct. I think the additional layer here is that the people then who would be able to use it and buy it would have appropriate training and licensure at this point.

I'm Mark Searles with Project Coyote, and I respectfully ask for your support of SB62. ESGARs carry elevated risk that should only be used, and should only be used by those with at least base level training. When a product or activity has a higher potential for harm, we regulate it. Anyone seeking to fill their freezer with a prized Colorado elk must first take a hunter safety course. Every forklift operator at a local home improvement store has gone through ocean-certified training. Need antibiotics? You must go to a healthcare professional to obtain them. Like antibiotics, eschars face efficacy issues when they are overused. Many species, whether found in a city or on the 30 million acres of Colorado land used to produce our food and that provides important habitat for so much of Colorado's diverse wildlife, suffer from eschars. In the EPA's own analysis, eschar use is associated with jeopardy findings for two species listed that occur in Colorado. Beyond them, an untold number of Colorado's wildlife are also exposed to these toxins. Are these species populations at risk from exposure? Unlikely, but I'd like for you to think about it this way. If your beloved dog ate rat poison, what would you think if your vet said, well, I'm not going to do anything. After all, there are thousands of golden retrievers. Your dog dying isn't going to hurt their viability. We would never accept that answer and reclassifying ESGARs can reduce these types of unintended exposures whether to threatened or common wildlife or to our pets and our children with minimal hurdles for those seeking to use them responsibly Thank you, and I welcome any questions.

All right. Thank you, Madam Chair, and good afternoon, almost evening, committee members. My name is Jordan Beasley. I'm the Deputy Commissioner of External Affairs at the Colorado Department of Agriculture. First, I want to thank the bill sponsors and the proponents for working with the department and other stakeholders on amendments that were made in the Senate. Rodent control is necessary for many reasons, as has been discussed, but including reducing the spread of diseases to and from humans, livestock, pet animals, wildlife. Ensuring that rodent control tools are available when needed is vital to controlling the spread of those diseases. Just as controlling rodent populations is critical, so is doing so in a way that minimizes this potential harm from rodenticides to non-targeted species, which happen to be those same ones we're trying to protect from disease with rodent control in the first place. This bill would restrict the sale and use of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides to licensed applicators, ensuring they are used by someone with specialized knowledge and that regulatory oversight is in place to ensure they are used in accordance with their labels. Without the requirement for a license to use these, the department has very limited tools to ensure that they are being used properly and according to their label by unlicensed parties. The department's position is that while SCARs do play a role in rodent control, they should be used in limited circumstances by trained professionals, thus ensuring an appropriate balance between the benefits and the potential harms that can arise from their use and misuse. We've heard concerns about the additional burdens that this may place on certain parties, such as ag producers, rural schools, and others. The amendments in the Senate work to reduce these burdens as much as possible while still providing protections. We believe that the Senate compromise strikes the right balance of increased protections while minimizing impacts. We're more than willing to continue to engage with any party to find additional ways to reduce the impact while further while maintaining the appropriate protections. Again, I want to thank the sponsors and all the stakeholders that have been involved in the discussions on this bill, and I urge your support. Thank you.

Hello. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. My name is Lisa Didion. I was a former animal services officer here in Colorado, and I have responded to numerous calls involving sick, suffering, and dying animals, where the poisons being used are causing slow, painful deaths, not only for the animals that they were intended to kill, but also for the ones that they are not. I was not authorized to humanely euthanize wildlife, which meant that I often had to witness prolonged suffering without the ability to intervene. These animals were weak, disoriented, unable to move, and struggled to breathe. And we all know that these are symptoms of the anticoagulants. And we are unintentionally killing the animals that play a critical role in naturally controlling rodent populations. And we must take responsibility for that. Approaches such as proper sanitation, sealing entry points, habitat modification, address the source of the problem without putting our communities, pets, and wildlife at risk. We have the responsibility not just to our own communities, but to the environment that we share and the animals that we coexist with. We need to do better, and the passage of this bill will ensure the appropriate sales and use of rodenticides in a way that will mitigate its harms. I urge you to vote yes on this bill and I thank you for the opportunity to testify today Thank you for your testimony And when you ready there a tiny little gray button next to the plug And go ahead

Hi. Thank you. My name is Deborah Taylor. I'm a community cat volunteer in Denver. I've been one for about 15 years. And I'm also a former homeowner in Taylor County. But first of all, as a community cat volunteer, I've had to beg at my area and not spend any more time. And we started off with well over 100 cats some years ago, bound to ten cats. Taking care of a feral cat colony requires setting the traps, getting them mixed, and being manipulated, and making sure that they are fed. If you ever get them to where we can pet them, we can take them to a shelter. Picking up dead animals is difficult, and I've done that several times. I think it boxes into gold to determine how it built. As for taking care of problems like mice up in the mountains, I moved into an 1800s work with a cabin at 8,700 feet and had mice. they had rat poisons in the fall space. They had rat poisons from the other areas and I collected all of those to be exposed of.

So anyway, I had a mouse problem myself. I also was well read up on diseases carried by mice as I volunteered for many years in a medical library. And so I was also concerned about that. But having picked up dead animals in alleys, I was more concerned about my dog or my cat up in the property getting access to an animal that had been poisoned. And so I'm pulling from an area about the National Pesticide Company, and it says secondary poisons does not cause instant death because eschars are designed to take days to kill the rodent. But they also end up do killing the next second generation, the predators, the hawks, the owls, the foxes. and they accumulate high levels of poison in their system. And so I just wanted to say that the agony that these animals go through in dying is extremely cruel, and it just makes – thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair McCormick and members of the committee. My name is Laura I'm McCain, and I'm a senior policy advisor with the Animal Welfare Institute. I'm here representing our members in Colorado. I am also a Colorado resident myself. We support SB62. SB62 is a crucial step for Colorado to address the inhumaneness of second-generation anticoagulant poisons, or ESGARs. The bill will help mitigate the risk of eschars present to humans, pets, and non-target wildlife because it will ensure that these chemicals are used properly. Because it can take several days for rodents to die due to lag time between ingestion of eschars and death, rodents often eat multiple doses, allowing for super-lethal concentration of the rodenticide to accumulate in their bodies, and thus in any non-target predator who consumes that rodent as well, such as a raptor. Eschars have been found in bald and golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, vultures, barred owls, eastern screech owls, greyhorned owls, burrowing owls. Several Colorado imperiled bird species of greatest conservation need are at risk, including burrowing owls, paracan falcons, and American kestrels. Death from escars can be painful and prolonged. Symptoms of ingestion largely involve bleeding, which can manifest as internal bleeding, bruising, or hematoma, while weakness, shock, and immobility can also occur. Chronic exposure to escars can cause osteoporosis in birds and higher frequency of bone fractures. Birds that experience sublethal symptoms from secondary poisoning are more vulnerable to vehicle strikes, predation, problems reproducing and caring for their young, and some other symptoms. Mitigating the risk of eschar poisoning to raptors is important because these birds provide important ecosystem services valuable to people. They reduce exposure to diseases such as anthrax, rabies, and botulism by eating carcasses. When a viable population levels, they can control rodents and reduce the need for chemical rodenticides in the first place. We therefore respectfully request that you vote in favor of this legislation, and I thank you very much.

Representative Story. Thank you, Madam Chair. for Jordan Beasley, I think. So I appreciate that Department of Ag is supporting this policy. And then I have just two associated questions. So if those who already have an applicator license, then they don't have to get additional licensing. This would be part of that. And then for those who may not be licensed, what rodenticides are? Well, I don't need to know specifically, but are there other rodenticides available without having a license that are, I don't know, better in a different way, I guess?

This could be by anyone, but I'm going to address it to CDA Beasley. Can you please provide us with a clear definition of what qualifies as exposure?

Representative Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. So to follow up with that, because there is no set definition, so we really don't know who's been exposed or not based on severity, when looking at the label and you happen to, you know, have some brush because of wind, it touching your hand with the label, would that be exposure then for what the department looks at?

I have a question regarding the private applicator license that you mentioned. Do you happen to know how many active licenses there are, and are these just for agricultural users, or is a private license also available to an apartment complex user, a landlord, or restaurants? Who all can get a private applicator license, and how many are there? Mr. Beasley.

We'll follow up. What would those other steps be if someone has like a whole bunch of apartment complexes and they want to keep using this product? If they can't be eligible for a private applicator license, what would be their alternative?

Representative Sucla. Thank you, Madam Chair. So this is for Mr. Beasley. I'm trying to look at the physical note here. Where does the revenue from the licensed applicators and the different – where do the fees go to?

Representative Sucla. Thank you, Madam Chair. So this is for the lady on the, I'm sorry, ma'am, I don't remember your name, but did you, do you still own the cabin and how did you get rid of the mice?

representative story thank you Madam Chair just going back to the question about exposures to ESCARS and I don't know who this is best for so whoever steps up. But in the ledge deck, it mentions statistics from America's poison centers, all in caps, indicating that it's a real entity, indicate that children five years old and younger account for 75% of the approximately 3,100 annual human exposures to escars. I presume because it's America's poison centers that is referencing those numbers, meaning 2,325 five-year-olds and younger is 75 of the approximately 3 Those annual human exposures don have anything to do with just getting a whiff of wind or just barely brushing by and touching some. It must be more significant if it's America's poison centers that are recording those contacts. And what might that look like? Just curious.

All right. Thank you. That's all the time we allotted for this panel. Thank you all for your participation today. We appreciate you showing up to testify. I will call forward a panel of folks that have signed up against the bill. If you're in the room, please come forward. Mr. Andrew Hamrick, Jessica Nelson, Teresa Conley, Rachel Lee. I had all those people. Oh, and also Katie Swift online. I think that's four people in person. Great. All right. I'll actually start with Katie Swift online. If you're ready, go ahead and unmute your microphone and you'll have three minutes when you're ready.

Ms. Swift, I'll have you hold for questions. Okay, thank you. Yeah, so stay tuned for questions. I'll start from my right to my left. When you're ready, go ahead. Oh, your mic is already on, so give us your name, and you'll have three minutes.

Ms. Lee I'm chair members of the committee pleasure to be in front of the

Yes, when you're ready, you got it. You'll have three minutes. Okay. Madam Chair and fellow members

thank you for your time thank you for your testimony and yes when you're ready you'll have to borrow her microphone thank you all right good afternoon thank you madam chair and members of the committee

Thank you for your time and your consideration. Thank you for your testimony. I'm going to start with the first question for Katie Swift online. Something you said triggered a question for me. You had mentioned that restricted-use pesticides at the national level has a very specific definition. My question is, does the Colorado state definition currently match the national definition? And with this bill, would our definition then not match the national definition? Ms. Swift?

Though my question now, the things that we have restricted use in our state have currently, have they gone through a similar process to be labeled restricted use or have they been labeled that way through legislation?

rigorous classification system. Okay, thank you. Representative Garcia Sander. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a question for Jessica. What's the approximate cost of hiring

Representative Garcia-Sander, follow-up.

Miss Nelson, I just, people are listening, so they want to know who's talking.

chair my question is for miss lee with the rural schools alliance i was wondering if you could explain perhaps specific examples of if there is a rodent situation at a school what currently would be done and to what extent are ESGARs used or at what point would they be used? And then if this bill passes, how that process would change?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Lukens, thanks for the question. So to start out with, as you know, we as schools take student safety very seriously, and so rodent problems fall within that category of significant concerns that we need to address immediately. And so we do a variety of different things. We do preventative measures to keep mice at bay, whether it be, you know, baiting stations to have them feed and taste something horrible and realize they don't want to maybe come back. So there's preventative measures that are, they're employed. And then when there is a rodent problem, we would use a variety of different tools in the toolbox. You might use traps You might use different rodenticides I think it depends on the situation on how you would employ those tools and what that situation is calling for ESGARs, as I understand it, are not like the first line of defense when we're dealing with rodent problems. Those are kind of your second step that you would employ to deal with a more persistent rodent issue that would need a little bit more. And so in that case, if we are then utilizing these second-generation ESGARs, instead of our facility managers being able to utilize those in the way that we do today, we would have to likely call professional companies to now come and take care of them. And as you've heard earlier, just a minute ago, that is anywhere between multiple treatments probably over the course of months to make sure that that problem is addressed. or we would have to go through the process of getting our maintenance people certified, licensed, not certified, licensed, which is, which would then be in and of itself another process for those people to, one, get licensed and then continue to hold their license, which I understand requires continuing education credits that they would have to continue to maintain that licensure, which they don't have to do today.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This question is from Ms. Swift. We've heard a lot of discussion about the rate of exposures. Can you please tell us what is considered an exposure?

that an exposure is any physical contact to the product and since many products actually are contained within bait stations it could even involve just handling of that plastic exterior station. And so they also specify that the majority of pediatric cases do involve simply handling of the product without ingestion of a significant amount.

Thank you for the question. We understand that the EPA limited these products to professional and agricultural use markets rather than general consumer sales, and that included the farm and tractor type stores versus the big box retailer. In practice, that means they're sold through more specialized channels that serve agricultural and rural customers, not typical consumer settings.

Ms. Connelly. This would limit their ability to handle more serious infestation problems or situations that they need to pivot quickly. We not talking about situations that they could use a first product on a single mouse in the house or in the shop for instance that would be protecting the Colorado food source If there something in our feed piles if that could affect our livestock even just general livelihood situations for our rural customers. If there's a mouse infestation when you go to service your combine, I mean, they're million-dollar machines now that makes a serious impact on our customers' livelihood.

Ms. Lee? I'm happy to start. From a school's perspective, as I noted, we take our obligation to keep students and children safe as our highest priority. And so our maintenance facility personnel are not utilizing these products just willy-nilly or irresponsibly. The products themselves also have to be deployed in child-resistant containers, boxes, bait stations. Sorry. So there's already those protections in place for those products as well because they have to be deployed in a specific manner, particularly when they are having the potential for children to access those products. And so twofold for us is they're being used in accordance with their requirements for being around children, and then they're not the first line of defense that we are utilizing to address our rodent problems.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The primary difference between an unsafe application and a safe application is the use of these plastic boxes to control the size of the living thing that can get to the poison. And when you call a professional pesticide person out for rodent treatment, that's what you're going to get. You're going to get this poison delivered in a plastic trap box, which is something that the consumer can provide for themselves. And that's the reason that both the delay and the expense is so impactful and problematic for our industry.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. All right. Thank you for the question. as a representing retailer safeguards for our customers using as necessary and on label I can speak for every customer but generally our customer base the bigger the problem the more informed they are about the product that they are purchasing Also, we have continuously trained team members on our sales floors that are helping our customer base understand what on-label use means for all of our products, whether it's first-generation products, second-gen products, or even a sticky trap, just helping our customers understand.

My name is Eric Frank. I'm a fourth-generation farmer from northern Colorado and here representing the Colorado Sugar Beet Growers Association. We understand that the bill has been changed from its introduced version. However, the bill as it is now is still problematic because it takes critical rodent management tools away from the approximately 35% of the farmers in my group that are not private applicators. Farmers always use the least impactful, least expensive pesticides that they can to get the job done. However, when there is a situation where the rodent problem is severe or we have a zero tolerance threshold for rodents, we need to have the option to use escars. Sugar beet farmers around the state right now are waiting to plant beets any day based on weather conditions that might allow. The technology that's found on current equipment, mainly tractors and planters, is packed full of delicate wiring harnesses that would be especially appetizing to rodents. And these harnesses are critical to the performance of the equipment that we have. On my family's operation, our planting equipment is ready to go to the field right now. This is getting to be perfect time to plant beets. It is on standby in our cold storage building, waiting for favorable conditions that may present themselves as close to this weekend. And it's imperative that we are able to plant our crop in a timely manner. And the challenges that we have at some points is when the equipment is being stored in our cold storage buildings, we have it ready. We're ready to go. and then if rodents are able to get in and chew on some of those wiring harnesses and not let our equipment run when we need to, it affects our livelihood. Not only is the equipment several hundred thousands of dollars, but on my family's farm, if we're planting 400 acres of beets, which they should gross $2,000 an acre, and I plant those beets in three days' time, And any sort of downtime, whether it's my fault or nobody's fault, is especially problematic. And we need to be able to use ESGARs as a tool in our toolbox to keep those rodents at bay. And I just wanted to say thank you for allowing me to testify.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. My name is Roger Lauer, and as the immediate past president of the Colorado Pest Control Association, I'm here today to ask you to vote no on SB 62. Altering the access of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides used to treat rodent infestations in homes, businesses, schools, and other public buildings will be felt by all Coloradoans, including the constituents you represent. I want to share a little bit about the pest control companies in our state. They range from operations from one to two-person to large national branches. Now, by restricting these products to licensed companies and professional applicators, you might assume that it would drive up business for our industry. While this could happen, we anticipate the negatives of SB 62 outweigh positives our industry could receive. The negatives would be the restricted products being purchased over the Internet or in the neighboring state, as discussed before, by an unlicensed individual and used incorrectly. And there's rumors of that happening in California right now. The restricted-use nature of the products, increasing the product, the cost of services, and pricing out vulnerable populations who need professional management for their rodent infestation. Restricted use increases reporting requirements and could create unnecessary burdens on small companies. It will increase the cost to the state because they will need to watch the documentation. And also with the licensing that has been discussed earlier today, it's about $320 per individual of companies that can get the license. That's not the private applicator license. The private applicator license is only available to agricultural entities. The license that we require, you look at about $100 in binders. You look at it's $40 per test and then $100 to get licensed by the state. I actually sent some of my guys today to get different licenses. With our company, we've done that, so we're about $3,000 into getting our team licensed in preparation for anything that might happen It a big cost The one thing with the license that people don understand is you have to have 120 hours of field and 40 hours of classroom to be able to get the license through the Department of Ag. So the QS or the CO license is the license that you can just do the applications. The Qualified Supervisor license, you have to be in the business for two years before you can access that license to oversee people that use that license for the materials. So you can't just go out and say, hey, I need this license for my house or for my apartment building or things like that. And that's what puts a big burden on some of the other people, the schools and things like that.

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Stacia Foreman, and I'm here on behalf of the Apartment Association of Metro Denver, representing over 300,000 rental units and residents across the metro area. We appreciate the intent of this bill, protecting public health and safety, and the committee's efforts to narrow its scope. However, even as amended, SB 2662 still creates real challenges for housing providers responding to rodent infestations in real time. this bill creates a legal tension under colorado's warranty of habitability providers are required required to maintain safe habitable housing including addressing rodent infestations promptly but this bill limits access to certain tools creating a disconnect between what the law requires us to do and the resources available to do it quickly and most effectively in multi-family housing speed is critical in these situations rodents don't stay contained they move quickly through shared walls, ceilings, and in common areas. Even short delays allow infestations to spread into neighboring units. Early access to all effective tools is what allows providers to contain problems before they escalate into something much bigger. These challenges are especially significant for smaller providers. They often lack staff, vendor access, and financial flexibility and are unlikely to hold a private applicator's license. As a result, they must hire licensed professional adding time and delay to a time sensitive issue at this time rodents cause real damage to wiring insulation and plumbing increasing both safety risks and repair costs in smaller buildings a minor issue can become property-wide a property-wide issue we support the goal of improving safety but in practice protecting residents requires the ability to act quickly and use all effective tools available as amended this bill still creates barriers to the response and may worsen outcomes it is trying to prevent. For those reasons, we respectfully

Chair McCormick, members of the committee, my name is Erin Spohr, Executive Vice President of Colorado Cattlemen's Association here in opposition for Senate Bill 62. At its core, this bill removes a critical targeted tool from the toolbox for managing severe rodent infestations. Eschars are not products of convenience. They are tools of necessity in specific situations, especially when rodents will not reliably feed multiple times or when there's zero tolerance for infestation around feed, livestock, and food systems. And I want to speak from direct experience. Working on my family's livestock operation, maintaining animal health and limiting animal disease concerns is highest priority, and rodents can be a vector of those diseases So ensuring that we have adequate control is number one I have also worked in meat processing facilities in quality assurance and food safety and pest and rodent management is not optional. It's a required part of keeping those facilities operating. If pest control fails, facilities can go and do get shut down. It's essential to pass third-party food safety audits and maintain export verification to access international markets. If pest management is compromised, you risk failing those audits and losing the ability to export altogether. That has real economic consequences, not just for the food processors, but for producers across the supply chain. When we are producing one of the safest, highest quality food products in the world, like U.S. beef, we cannot afford to limit access to effective tools that help us maintain those standards. We all share the goals of protecting wildlife and public health, but this bill removes the flexibility from those closest to the problem. So we respectfully ask for you to oppose SB 62. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Travis Grant. I'm the CEO at the Colorado Livestock Association, and I'm here testifying on behalf of our more than 350 member families and ag operations statewide, two of which you'll be hearing from next. We are in opposition to Senate Bill 062. Rodents are not a minor nuisance in agricultural operations. For many, Colorado livestock producers, rodenticides are not an optional tool. They're an essential component in ensuring the health and safety of their livestock, their employees, their families, and themselves. Beyond that, the management of rodents is critical to responsible land stewardship and safety in the food supply chain. Beyond the damage they can cause to structures and supplies used on our members' operations, they present a serious biosecurity hazard. Rodents are consistently linked to carrying diseases such as HPAI, the highly pathogenic avian influenza, and causing those diseases to spread beyond what they might with the strategic use of rodenticides. When zoonotic diseases get on operations, they threaten the welfare of both livestock and people who are present on the operation, and rodents add an additional risk of spreading an outbreak beyond the gate, putting neighbors and their ag operations at risk. Beyond the animal welfare concerns, transmission of diseases from rodents to livestock have caused $19 billion in production losses in the U.S. In its current form, SB 26062 presents a likelihood of significant increases in the cost of rodenticides and the added burden of producers seeking additional licensing from the state. This bill would add to the cost burden that all Coloradans are feeling from inflation while risking disease outbreaks on livestock operations, which can lead to public health crises and disruptions in production, leading to higher prices at the grocery store. The Colorado Livestock Association is in strong opposition to SB 26062 and respectfully asks the members of this committee to vote no to ensure that producers have the proper tools to protect their livestock, their employees, their families, and their families from the harm that rodents bring. Thank you for your time today and for hearing the concerns of our members.

Good afternoon, Madam Chairman and Committee. I feel like I might be an expert in this subject for the following reasons I worked in the environmental field for over 30 years Ten of those years was working at the Northeast Colorado Health Department I was the person in charge of all investigations into plague in animals and humans. Bubonic plague is an infectious spread mostly to humans by infected fleas that travel on rodents. called the Black Death. It killed millions of Europeans during the Middle Ages. Prevention involves reducing your exposure to mice, rats, squirrels, and other animals that may be infected. According to CDC, there are seven cases on average per year of plague in humans, and many of these cases come from two regions. Guess what? Colorado is one of those regions. Hanna virus pulmonary syndrome is rare but a serious disease through contact with infected rodents, leading to severe respiratory issues and potentially life-threatening complications. There have been over 119 cases in Colorado since monitoring started in 1993, and 44 of those people died. I now work for a company that has wastewater permits and have received documentation from the Environmental Ag Program at CDPHE to eliminate prairie dogs before they damage our wastewater lagoons. If a breach of a lagoon occurred, that would cause a larger public health emergency by contaminating water. In addition, our feed mill is required to follow the Food Safety Modernization Act to comply regarding rodent elimination. Key points are to eliminate a hazard, establish preventative controls, routine pest management, and comprehensive pest plans. A comprehensive pest management system consists of the following techniques, a biological control utilizing natural predators, cultural practices modifying farm and environmental practices to reduce establishment, physical and mechanical methods that is using such barriers such as traps and chemical control. Target specific pests while minimizing impacts on non-target organisms and the environment. We are at risk of causing a public health emergency if we allow this one tool in our toolbox to be eliminated. Do you believe our residents will be able to identify these zoonotic diseases that are carried by rats, mice, and prairie dogs before they become ill? I'm asking you to vote no on this bill.

Good afternoon. Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to provide testimony against this bill. My name is Cheyenne McInduffer, and we have a cow-calf operation, feed yard, and dry land and irrigated farm ground in northeast Colorado, plus three kids, one dog, and three cats. I also do hold a pesticide private applicator's license issued by CDA. The two most commonly used baited grain products labeled for prairie dog control, at least that I see in this area, already require you to have an applicator's license to buy and use because they're already a restricted-use product. I'm also required to keep records on how much and where I have applied it. Thus, there is already a robust purchase and record-keeping system required to use these baited grain rodenticides labeled for prairie dog control, as well as a seasonal use element to help protect non-target species. The Great Plains of North America are one of the last large remaining grasslands in the world. Plains cattle producer will tell you we're very proud and very protective of our prairie land, especially the native buffalo grass sod. Prairie dogs may be native, but that does not mean that with displacement from urban sprawl and left without any form of population control, they cannot turn very destructive to native and cultivated prairie very quickly. Left completely unchecked, they'll remove all grass, plant, and even weed material from an area, leaving it to look like a desert bad land. This leads to major wind and water erosion when there there is no organic material to hold our minimal topsoil, leading to further air and water issues. Grazing habitat for not only cattle, but also wandering wildlife like pronghorn and deer are gone. And this is not just a few acres. This can quickly multiply tens, hundreds, thousands of acres across the state. Our prairies can sequester as much carbon below the soil in their root systems as forests can in their canopies. But when you lose thousands of acres of vegetative material in prairie dog populations, there are no routes to sequester carbon, and all that is left is high-risk land. left to erosion and further desertification. The way I read this bill is concerning because of the public health emergency language. Prairie dogs are a rangeland health issue in my opinion, but I'm not clear that a state agency would declare them a public health emergency for rangeland and thus allow SGA are used for that purpose. The electronic monitoring justification piece is also concerning, among many other components of this bill. So I am very concerned that this current bill does in fact remove this tool that we use to help manage these populations to a scale and in a way that protects our prairies. The cost that we're done aside, added to the extensive time it takes to apply to so many acres, means that use is very targeted. We cannot and do not apply to every single prairie dog population, but rather focus on areas that are higher risk for vegetative loss and erosion. This is an invaluable tool in our toolbox to steward these amazing grasslands, and I urge you to please research the impact of prairie that a yes vote on this bill will have for the health and sustainability of the High Plains Gratzlands, I respectfully urge you to oppose this bill. Thank you.

Representative Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And just a quick Northeast Colorado shout out to this panel. It's great. My question is to Mr. Frank. You live in a rural community. I don't think there's been enough said about the equity problems this bill would create. Can you talk about some of the difficulties this would cause for your neighbors if they had to pay for professional pest control to deal with severe rodent issues or couldn't even get pest control to come to help them?

licenses which i was trying to dig into earlier you talked about a private applicator license is only available to um ag producers and that if you're anything else school or apartments or restaurants or anything else, and you had access to these tools before, you would have to go get a commercial license just for yourself, not necessarily to run a business where you're overseeing people. What does that require for me to just go get my own commercial license? Mr. Lauer. So with the commercial license, when you go to the state, You have to be, I've always done it under an entity for the 23 or the 32 years that I've been doing this. So I have my company, they're my sponsor. So you've got to have something that shows where you've had the training, how you've done all this, because you can't just do the hours on your own. So the 120 hours of field. So that's always with another person. The 40 hours a classroom is given by somebody like myself or somebody within the company to get that through the Department of Ag. And then the continuing education credits, you have to have, I think, 18 over a three-year period. The private applicator license, reading it in the state through the state ag, It's only for ag people or people that are not charging for the services. So you've got to find that gray line. So like the apartment association, which it would be a huge burden for them to have to go through that process. If it's private applicator or the commercial applicator, you're still talking about thousands of dollars to do the process. And that's where it builds and builds.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to go to the Scottish named ladies on the wall. Ms. McCaleb or Ms. McDaffer. I'm just curious, what do you pay for rodent control if you have somebody come in and do that service for you?

That is, hang on, Ms. McCaleb. I just have to identify you because of all the people listening. Go ahead.

Any other questions for this panel? Representative Johnson.

Yes, thanks for the question. And I think Travis answered it in his testimony of talking about the devastating, you know, zoonotic diseases or HPAI or the, however you say it, HANA virus. And I think when we think about the vectors that they bring in of not only into feedstuffs, water, all of that for livestock, I think it raises a major concern of just bringing those diseases. And I think Travis also mentioned it in his testimony, but also the biosecurity hazard. When we're looking at cattle operations or other livestock operations, our number one concern is animal diseases, and it's maintaining our biosecurity. And so I think when we look at that, one of those control methods is through the use of rodenticides in order to control rodents.

That's for Ms. McEnter-Daffer. Yes, kaput prairie dog is a SCAR, and that is the more affordable option. of the two restricted-use beta-rodinocytes that we see used. Rosal is not a second generation, which may be what you're thinking of.

Apologize, getting off mute. So the density, for example, when we went out this spring and looked, it varies on if you do any management before that. So you can get 30 to 50 burrows per acre. It could be less than that. So that will vary And again you see the more significant total vegetation removal in those more significant populations There are predators like you said could be birds snakes to small prairie dogs I believe We do have coyotes. We have quite a few coyotes out here as well. We do not have the black-footed ferret in northeast Colorado, which is also another predator. So there are predators here, you're right, but the level of the populations do not allow that to, I would say, be in sync with what we are seeing here to the populations that they are. And like I said, what we're talking about is just management. It is definitely by no means eradication. There are many out here.

Thank you. And this is for the folks on the wall. Is there any concern about when you use this with prairie dogs that it's going to accumulate in those higher level animals if they eat them? Because it could take a while for the prairie dogs to die from the anticoagulants. quaggots. That is a good question. Go ahead. I jumped ahead. I apologize. Good question. So if

Right. Thank you all very much for your time and testimony today. We appreciate you showing up. I will go to the last panel of folks that signed up in support. I have one person that signed up in a neutral position, so I'll also call him up. So Alan Lewis, Dr. Laurel Suresh online, Jeffrey Hirsch online, Ryan Sedgley online, and Jeffrey Hirsch twice. That's it. Is there anyone else in the room that wanted to testify in favor of this bill or against that I forgot? Okay. We will find those online people, but meanwhile, we have one person in person. So we'll let you start. If you'll turn on your microphone, tell us your name and if you represent anyone, and then you'll have three minutes. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. I do have Mr. Hirsch online. We're just trying to get you to accept being promoted to a panelist. So if you see that ask, please accept that request so that we can hear your testimony. And Dr. Laurel Saries and Ryan Sedgley, we don't have them online. All right. Now I see you, Mr. Hirsch. When you are ready, you can unmute your microphone and you'll have three minutes to give us your testimony.

Thank you for your testimony. Do we have any questions for either one of these witnesses? I'm not seeing any questions, so thank you both very much for showing up and providing us with your testimony.

We need a separate way to look at agricultural practices Then this elegant thing of calling these restricted uses works great until you look at the CDA rules in which case so many agriculturists wouldn be able to use it If an organic grocery store occasionally needs this to protect the public health, certainly agriculturalists need it too. But we don't have a separate approach. and given the budget issues. And, I mean, this is the original state constitution of Colorado, which says, man, our rural people are going to struggle and our urban people are going to be asked to coordinate and support with them, and there's just constant tension there. And I don't think this is resolving that or supporting solutions for both populations. I'd also point out that I can buy Tomcat with bromethylene online right now and pick it up in Firestone, Colorado from Home Depot. So any thought that this is not readily available to homeowners, this is a very significant problem. Neutral on the bill because we're not addressing everyone's needs. But the typical reaction of a homeowner, my last statement, Madam Chair, is that they will grab this stuffed tomcat off the shelf and throw it somewhere, hoping that their mice go away or the rat goes away or something. And then you have this cascading negative effects, whether it's kids or coyotes, foxes, raptors, whatever.

Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Winter, I don't know how you're using the word carve-out, but I'm also not going to dodge the question, but there needs a separate set of rules and expectations and perhaps record-keeping, the way I have to keep records of all of my issues with rodents in this case, to show that at the point where I am deploying these chemicals, that it is justified. That's something that a good farmer is going to do anyway, the record-keeping piece. but a carve out saying exempt that's probably too far for me but I also think as a practical point of view farmers are extremely responsible and they could handle a written justification for why they're doing this I'd also lastly point out that the CDA has an impeccable record of common sense regulation of rural areas in Colorado They're not going after anybody. They're not attacking anybody. They're not creating unreasonable rules. And somewhere in the middle there, there's a solution for those families.

I know earlier you asked for us to consider laying the bill over.

Yeah, thank you so much, Madam Chair, and thank you committee members for your patience and your thoughtful questions for everyone that came to testify. And as we heard, there's a lot of stakeholders involved in this policy and we're still trying to make sure that we're reaching out to all of them to see what the concerns are and if there's any chance to change how they're registered, especially those against. So we're still having conversations with CEA. We look forward to also making sure that we're following up with all the ones that changed positions from the Senate. So I ask the committee to lay it over for action only as we're still having those conversations with stakeholders and making sure that we're as prepared as we can for the final vote.