House Agriculture, Water & Natural Resources [Apr 20, 2026]

Present.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. We really appreciate your patience and allowing us to continue to have good conversations on this bill. And we do have an amendment that we had worked on, and I would love to pass it to members. We're not going to move it to the bill today, but we do want to share the efforts that we had before coming to committee. so we explored amendments reducing or eliminating fees associated with licensing and that would that would create a fiscal note which at this time is not possible nothing will pass with a fiscal note. We also had good conversations with rural school districts. And we, you know, this amendment is around the limited use designation, but we do believe that this is not a durable policy solution because it regulates distribution rather than the point of risk, which is application. Restricting as regards to licensed dealers does little to change real world outcomes if untrained end users can still purchase and deploy these products without oversight and without training or licensing. The exposure pathways driving concern, including improper placement, continuous baiting, and secondary poisoning occur after the point of sale and would remain largely unaffected. As a result, limited use is unlikely to produce measurable reductions in risks to children, pets, or wildlife, and it does not align with the risk-based trajectory signaled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In practice, this creates a high likelihood of a policy failure where continued incidents or lack of impact necessitating future correction action. So that corrective action would almost certainly involve transitioning to a restricted use framework that directly governs who can apply the S-GARs and under what conditions, meaning limited use, would function as an interim step rather than a final solution. And we also wanted to share that we also explored another approach which was codifying existing EPA regulations into the state law And that option is not viable because the EPA regulates manufacturers labeling and distribution at the federal level And states do not have the authority to duplicate or enforce those manufacturer-level controls. So simply adopting that language would not produce an enforceable framework at the state level. So because of that, we had worked on the amendment to regulate the distribution. But I think the point of this bill really was about public safety and making sure that only trained professionals were going to be able to be utilizing these products that are harming our wildlife, that are harming community members. especially when they don't realize that they bought 16 pounds over a denticide. So we really appreciate this committee. We appreciate the time that Yael gave us to continue working. And at this time, we would love to ask for this bill to be postponed indefinitely.

Thank you both very much. I want to thank you for working on this and for staying in communication as you have. I know it's been very difficult, and the amendment that you were potentially going to propose, I think as I was digging into it, that it wasn't going to achieve the intended outcomes where it could potentially shut down some access but open up access that's not there now, which also concerned me as thinking that more people would be able to have access to this product that don currently And that so I appreciate that you looked into what that amendment would actually do and just appreciate all your hard work on this. Any other comments from committee before we move to final action?

Representative Story. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I too want to thank the bill sponsors for your immense amount of work. I think it's incredibly important that we figure this out in order to better protect humans as well as wildlife. that, you know, comments that were provided that had been shared over time about how people were utilizing the ESCARS in ways that is, you know, that they are not supposed to be using tells me that there are plenty of users out there that aren't following the rules on the labels that come with the product, and that's a huge issue. And when the outcomes or the detrimental effects of them could be so critical in terms of life, that is a huge problem. We should not just have chemicals out there readily available to the public who are not going to generally follow the rules because they just didn't read the label. And when it has such detrimental effects, that's a huge problem. It's a public health safety issue. So I am fully supportive of wanting to get to a place where we can better restrict and ensure that people recognize that they have to follow the rules and the regulations and the policy and the process, or they can't have the product. So I look forward to this coming back and us figuring it out. And thank you so much for all your work.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, bill sponsors. I really appreciate the thoughtfulness in what you put through this bill. Not only California condor, but the peregrine falcon have had to deal with the aspects of chemicals and the environment and how it moves down the food chain. But at the same time, I also understand public health, and we don't want our schools to be overridden with rats or our barns. But what I want to also point out about this is as far as what goes on in this building This I feel is an example of where the time was taken to think about legislation and to say maybe it is time to hold it and to do what we need to do to make it better so that we can come back and have a discussion where we can all agree that this is the right piece of legislation for this state. So don't give up. and I hope that the proponents and opponents can come together because I think we all want the same thing here. We want safety and we want the environment to be not affected adversely by it. So thank you.

I move to postpone indefinitely, Senate Bill 62.

Yes.

Respectfully, yes.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

At the response request, yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Today we're going to be hearing Senate Bill 136, reporting of missing livestock. And this is about protecting working families, strengthening rural communities, and ensuring that when someone's livelihood is threatened, government responds with urgency, transparency, and accountability. For many families across Colorado, livestock is not simply property. It represents generations of labor, economic stability, and the ability to sustain a family business. For small producers, ranchers, and agricultural workers, the loss of livestock can mean the difference between staying afloat and financial crisis. When animals go missing, whether through theft, loss, or unexplained disappearance, every hour matters. Delayed reporting creates barriers to recovery. We can trust in the system and leave working families carrying the burden alone. As the bill was amended in the Senate, it directs the Division of Brand Inspection with the Department of Agriculture to establish clear and responsive procedures by December 31st, 2026, for handling reports of lost or stolen livestock. These procedures must ensure strong coordination with law enforcement, require suspected livestock theft reports to be provided to the appropriate law enforcement agency within 24 hours once theft is suspected. It ensures public notification of missing or stolen livestock and allows flexibility for implementation based on regional needs. That flexibility is important because rural Colorado is not a monolith. The realities on the eastern plains differ from those on the western slope in southern Colorado and in our tribal and agricultural communities. Effective policy must reflect local realities rather than impose one-size-fits-all solution. The amendment strengthens the bill by allowing the division of brand inspections to directly implement procedures instead of requiring lengthy formal rulemaking. That means less bureaucracy, fast action, and a government response that meets people where they are. This bill is not about creating unnecessary regulation. It is about making sure working people are protected when systems fail them. It is about accountability, transparency, and building stronger partnerships between producers, communities, and law enforcement. When livestock is stolen, delayed action often means permanent loss. Faster reporting improves recovery, strengthens public awareness, and helps protect the economic backbone of rural Colorado. Supporting agriculture means supporting families. Supporting families mean ensuring they are not left behind when crisis happens. This is a smart policy, equitable policy, and responsible policy. And with that, I respectfully ask for your support on Senate Bill 26136. And I will turn it over to my co-prime, Rep. Sucla.

Thank you, Madam Chair. You need to turn your mic on where it plugs into your right hand. Keep going over. Wait, wait, wait. Follow the plug. There you go. We had a dummy mic in the middle, and apparently I was the dummy that was using it. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative English. So for me, this is simple. I grew up in a cell barn, and this bill is about urgency. This bill is you'll open the trailer, you get pairs, you let them go, the baby calves, their first instance is to run, and they can run through every fence that there is. and so if everybody knows if if the uh the law enforcement knows the brand inspector is the first one that gets called but as soon as law enforcement knows and then it can be publicly noticed we can find that baby calf and get it back to its mama and their cattle are getting to be worth more and more because we have the lowest cow herd in 70 years and and so they're very very valuable. People can see an easy way to steal them. This is a good bill. It has no physical note. It's just about urgency and getting the property back to the owner and I would encourage a yes vote and we'll answer any questions.

Thank you Madam Chair. So I'm just curious. You mentioned calves can run but I mean what are other reasons why livestock go missing other than calves Representative Zucla

So how does that happen generally? I mean, like when calves are born, are they generally in close to the ranch, like when that's happening? Or I don't know, just help us understand how they go missing. Like how does somebody come steal livestock? Wouldn't they have to have a truck and a trailer? And how do they not get noticed? Like, I don't know. How does it happen?

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for representing the story. So I'll give you an example. On our ranch, we went on 33,000 acres. The nearest neighbor is 30 miles away. So they wait till dark. That means that, and I live 80 miles from the ranch. So they're running on 33,000 acres. And they'll wait till dark or, I don't know, I've never sold any cattle, so I don't know how they do it. But if I was putting myself in their shoes, this is what I would do. So I would wait until almost dark. I would locate the cattle. I would drive down the road during the day, find out where the cattle are on the 33,000 acres, and then I would wait until just about dust, and then I would have a horse loaded in there, and I would go in there, and I'd set up a temporary corral, and then I would load them up. And then after I loaded them up, I'd drive all night to a state that doesn't have a brand inspection, which would be Kansas, because they don't have a brand inspection. And as long as you can get around the ports, you can get them into Kansas, and then you could resell them and you got away with the theft.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And, yeah, I do recall reading about two different cases where a lot of cattle were stolen. I'm just wondering, at what age are calves typically branded? Because if they're not branded, how easy is it to identify if they run off to somebody else's property? Representative Sucla?

is they have what they call spring calvers. And spring calvers means that they start calving in March until June. and so usually when you put the bulls in, you know, nine months later you're going to have the calf, so then they usually start branding the calves. They might be, if you had a calf that was early and it was born in February, it wouldn't get branded until April, so it's out there with no identification for two months, and then in April you brand them. Then you're always going to have a late cow that didn't have the calf that's not going to be branded until usually you gather them up. The way we do it is we run them in the desert in the winter, and then we run them in the mountains in the summer. And so when you gather them and you have to get them off and go from the desert to the mountains, then you do what they call a cleanup, and you brand the rest of them. But because of the value of the livestock, there's still an old, young, and everything in between.

Thank you Madam Chair So how prevalent is this scenario Like across the state of Colorado how many livestock individual livestock go missing in a year time Representative Zucla I don know the answer to that question

just a second? Yes, go ahead. So what, I mean, are there ways to set up livestock so that they can be tracked like GPS collars or chips or something like that, that allow you to know like where they are? So, I mean, if you, if you lose cattle to death for some reason, they, succumb to some kind of sickness or whatever and they die out there on the 33,000 acres of land that range land where they are, I mean, it'd be nice to find them and kind of know what happened, you know, come to the revelation that, you know, X number of them died and maybe you can figure out why or they fell off a cliff or I don't know, like, do you track them? Representative Sucla,

Oh, okay.

Well, it'd be great to know how many cattle we're talking about across the state of Colorado, even if there's a trend going in one direction or the other, how many cattle we're talking about in terms of loss that are missing. If you can find that out, that'd be awesome. It might be possible that the Department of Ag might have some data on that for you if we need to dig into that data Any other questions from committee All right seeing none we move on to witness testimony

My name is Kellen Lanier with Yorkson Public Affairs. and I'm here representing the Colorado Farmers and Ranchers Association. So this should be a feel-good bill, right? It's quite simple and I'm going off script here. This is why I'm... But when a rancher realizes an animal is gone, the clock starts then. However, there are a few things that have to happen. They have to realize that that animal is gone. Then they have to make contact with the brand inspector and the authorities to get that notice out there. So if we're talking about cascading effects, these are the things, these small things that start adding up into larger effects. So what this bill does is to start shortening the window, the critical window here, and that's why it mentions the 24 hours. Currently what happens is all best efforts can be said to be made with 24 hours. However, given the leeway with discretion and other things that go on, sometimes that 24 hours turns into 48 or 72 or 100 and something. And if any of you have seen first 48, then you know how important a critical window is when we're talking about useful recovery. And what that means downstream for people that may not be a rancher or farmer or something like that is the price of beef. So if ranchers, farmers, producers, I should say, are constantly losing animals in small amounts or large amounts, what can we expect? How do they recover that loss, typically in pricing? And so we see incremental price increases for Colorado beef. And for a person on a fixed income, that 50 cent increase is very important and can be the make or break. You know, they're either buying beef from Colorado or they say, you know, But that went up 50 cents, and I'm just going to go grab some pasta instead. And what does that mean economically for all of us? So this is a bill that is a very small change that has a very large downstream effect. And for that reason, I would ask you to support this bill. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. My name is Median Schaffner, and I get to serve as the CEO of the Epitome of Black Excellence in Partnership. And we are an organization that pays attention to what is happening in the community across the state of Colorado. And so when we were asked to be a part of this outreach to you all, we took some time to really just simply be strategic, methodical, but also empathic of what does it mean when we have individuals that are in agriculture who are it's a dedication. Right. And I'm actually going to call it a calling because I could not imagine even like scratching the surface of what it means to be a part of something like this. But I do know that those who are in their calling and are leading into that dedication, they're investing in each and every one of us. They are the ones and the reasons why we are able to put food on the table to break bread with our family, to fellowship with our community, and to just simply be neighbors. And so while there were inquiries about how often it happens, one thing is undeniable, it happens. and as state legislators if you ignore creating a pathway to ensure that this doesn't what are you asking of the people that are sacrificing and investing in the livelihood of you and your family we should not be asking them to make that kind of sacrifice knowing that there are shortfalls and things that are happening that are creating hardships of what they're trying to do. Because again, they are leaning into a calling that many of us would not do. And so when you talk about something like this happening, and now we're talking about discretion or suspicion, now we're inviting in a complexity that does not have to exist discretion invites in the burden of those who are impacted to have to prove their lived experience and it also invites in someone to retell their story as if the harm is not good enough So the invitation that each and every one of you have is to rebuke asking someone to prove that they are being harmed and stand firm in your responsibility to protect them because they're not doing it just for themselves. They're doing it for all of us.

So you can introduce yourself and you have three minutes Just let me get situated here Hi everyone My name is Nicole Mallory. I am here representing Freedom Acres Ranch. I am a United States Marine, so I am a veteran farmer. I also am a proud member of the Colorado Farm Bureau, the Mile High Cattle Women Association, the Colorado Cattlemen Association as well. And I also love my cattle. And I'm going to share something very personal with you today about the experience that I had had a few times. I walked out to my pasture and they were gone. No warning, no sign, no answers, just empty ground where my cattle should have been, where my calves should have been playing, running amok and just enjoying life. that moment stays with you as a united states marine i failed i failed them they looked to me to take care of them and i realized that i failed as soon as i realized that i got on the phone and i started with my brand inspector it was in that moment as i dealt with that system that i realized that there were some things that were broken but i didn't just complain i made these same solutions that we're here seeking today, two years ago. And it fell, unfortunately, on deaf ears. My brand inspector was not in town when my cattle went missing. He was on vacation. And so guess what? My report was on vacation. My report didn't get made until maybe 28 days later. But I want you to understand that I still got a bill. It's not free when your cattle are stolen. You pay for them to be listed. This morning, actually just a few minutes ago, I checked the Colorado Department of Agriculture site. The last stolen report, July 18th, 2025. This is Facebook. This is a free system that can be used to notify counties, to notify your fellow cattlemen, to notify everybody in the community that something and someone is amok and cattle rustlers are among us. Nothing. so I'm here today because I've asked for those updates and there's been no meaningful change and it's not just frustrating it's just unacceptable we bring in over five billion dollars a year as cattlemen and cattle women in the state of Colorado and we can't continue to lose cattle honestly if if Freedom Acres Ranch continues to have stolen cattle there will be no more Freedom Acres Ranch. That is how dire it is. That is how important it is. We can't lose one. We can't lose two. We can't lose three. So every cattle matters to every cattle rancher. Anybody here who has a pet, who has a child, who has a cell phone, you understand those seconds when you can't find that item. And so we want it to be treated like this.

Thank you. So we're not asking for anything special. We're asking for just to do your job. If a brand inspector is on vacation, let's get that report made because those seconds matter. Those minutes matter. Those hours matter. And once they get across that Kansas line, we are not getting them back. And so this whole bill is designed to make sure we getting things out in a timely manner 24 hours is not something extra to ask of the brand inspector to do that Thank you Thank you for your time

I'm CW with Freedom Acres Ranch, and Nicole is my wife, my partner at Freedom Acres Ranch. and everything she pretty much hit on everything on why the bill is important. We're here today because we experienced theft and the lack of accountability through the system. So there needed to be some changes made with the bill in regards to the recovery process. and there still are some changes and you know there's just some this is just for one of many and you know our ranch is maybe eight, nine hours from the Kansas City border so that's why it's an importance of time and recovery. So vote yes for the bill please. Thank you very much

Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Todd Engley. I'm the brand commissioner of the State Board of Stock Inspection.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It was a question that I thought of after the bill introduction, but anybody can answer. Maybe it's for Mr. Ingle. It could be maybe for one of the witnesses here. Does the bill create any new liability or mandatory actions for livestock owners who choose not to report through the state system versus local law enforcement? I'll go with Mr. Ingle.

Amel Winter.

Ms. Mallory. Last year alone, we lost about $30,000.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's hard for me to catch names, but the individual that's online, Mr. Ingley. I just need a list of all the witnesses.

Like the volume seemed a little bit down on your end. Can you say what your title is and who you work for one more time?

Yes, ma'am. Can you hear me now? We can. Much better, thank you. Okay. Yeah. My name is Todd Ingley. I'm the brand commissioner for the State Board of Stock Inspection. That's under the Department of Ag. Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So can you share with us what the process is with the brand inspectors? when somebody that owns livestock reaches out about missing livestock like how that process works Mr Ingley Yes ma so typically what happens if somebody finds animals that are missing we we encourage them to contact their local brand inspector

shows that they might be stolen. Then that report is shared with a much broader group, including the brand board, brand inspectors, Colorado Cattlemen's Association, Colorado Livestock Association, county clerks, county sheriff's offices, the International Livestock Identification Association, which represents 17 western states that have mandatory brand laws, as well as the Livestock Marketing Association, which is the sale barn, the association that represents sale barn livestock markets. So that's the current process now. And then basically what happens is that that's the notification process, the notification system. Not long after I started in 2024, I felt like we needed to do some more of some some more in related to these missing missing livestock. We started a process of revising our standard operating procedures for the stolen livestock process. I'd be happy to share some of that if you're interested in what that entails.

Mr. Engle.

Thank you, Mr. Ingley.

Yes, ma'am, that's correct.

AML Winter, you had a question? Oh it was answered Anyone else with a question Not seeing any further questions So thank you all very much for your time and testimony today We appreciate you And that was the last call for anyone that wanted to testify on Senate Bill 136. I hope I didn't miss anyone. So that ends witness testimony for this bill. We'll move on back to the bill sponsors. to see if you all have any amendments. All right, any amendments from the committee? Seeing none, that ends the amendment phase. We'll go ahead and wrap up your bill. Who would like to start? Representative Zucla.

Representative English.

Thank you both. Representative Zucla, would you like to move your bill to the Committee of the Whole?

Second. Any final comments from the committee? Representative Story.

All right, seeing no further comments, thank you for your work on this. Ms. Kelly, please call the roll. Representatives Garcia-Sander.

Kohlstein.

Johnson.

yes

yes Madam Chair yes and that passes 13 to 0 and you're on your way to the Committee of the Whole all right we will move on to our next bill which is House Bill 26-1340 with Representative Winter, and Representative Morrow is going to be joining AML Winter on this bill.

Representative Morrow. Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee. And I'd like to thank my co-prime for his months and months and months of work on this bill, and I'm happy to be here today. This did mention we will have a strike below. you do not have it yet, but what we're speaking to is the strike below that you'll be getting prior to taking action on Thursday. At its core, this bill does four things. It sets clear expectations, ensures accountability, provides flexibility for compliance, and protects the land, neighboring landowners, and rural communities that are left behind when the water leaves. Let me briefly walk you through the key components. First, the bill requires that when irrigation water is permanently removed from farmland, the owner of the changed water rights is responsible to ensure that the land is either successfully revegetated or converted to dryland farming with adequate weed and erosion control. There are exemptions for land that will be re-irrigated or developed for other uses. Second, it requires that site-specific revegetation criteria and scientific and objective evaluation methods be identified during the water court process and adopted into the final decree so that everyone understands what success looks like from the beginning. Third, it allows the land to be converted to dry land farming if desired but requires it to actually occur, closing an existing loophole that could be used as a way to separate vegetation. Fourth, it incorporates local input. If a county has adopted re-vegetation criteria or established it through an associated 1041 permit those are incorporated into the water court decree without the county having to go to the expense of participating in water court If not criteria are developed in the water court during the change of use case This is important because it creates a direct link between counties who have to bear the long-term impacts of poor reclamation and the water court where the decisions are made on what will happen in those counties. The rural counties where irrigated farms are dried up typically don't have the staff bandwidth or resources to participate effectively in water court. This bill helps bridge the gap by allowing counties to proactively develop re-vegetation criteria that work locally, rather than relying on negotiations in water court that may not be applicable to their area or ensure successful reclamation. The bill also establishes independent oversight. A neutral third-party expert appointed by the court conducts annual field reviews and provides status reports to the court on progress. Once revegetation is established, there is a defined five-year maintenance period to ensure that it is sustainable. If revegetation has regressed, the court has the ability to provide additional time for compliance or in cases of extreme neglect, adjust the amount of water that can be used for newly decreed uses. This maintenance period provides protection to the local communities that the reclamation will last long term. Importantly, the bill provides three options to incentivize compliance for the owner of the changed water rights. Provides financial assurances such as a bond or other security to the local land use authority or link the amount of water available for new uses to the amount of land successfully reclaimed while still allowing all of the water to be used for existing uses or link the amount of water available for the new uses to the amount of land successfully reclaimed as established through an associated 1041 permit. This allows flexibility for different situations while still ensuring that reclamation actually occurs. Finally, to be clear, this bill applies, excuse me, prospectively only. It applies to new change of use decrees in Water Division II, which is the Arkansas River Basin, starting in 2027. It does not affect existing water rights or past decrees. At its core, this bill is about responsibility. When water is permanently removed from the land, the responsibility to address the impacts should follow that action. Too often, that burden falls on neighboring landowners, counties, and rural communities who may have had no influence on the original transaction. This bill is intended to correct that going forward, and we ask for an aye vote.

and then the water right purchaser then pays for that over however long it is. I'm just curious who those people are and how much work is there for them out there. ML Winter. Those people do exist, but I would ask that you ask that of Mr. Knapp and Mr. Goble.

Amal Winter.

Any other questions?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for saying this story. This would be independent people that would be hired, and there's been some change in an amendment to that, but there are independents that come in, and what they want to do is make sure and see if they're actually meeting the benchmarks that's been laid out, what will be laid out in the decree. To kind of give you all an example of like the real-world examples that I can give you of what we're facing, we talked about the auto accident a little bit, but a lot of people don't realize it's like you have a fence, okay? Your neighbor sells off the water to their place. The tumbleweeds collect on the fence. It collects dirt. then next thing you know you have to put a new fence over the top of it you know ditches filling with silt ditches filling with tumbleweeds that what your neighbors deal with but what we've seen is is we've seen these degrees come and then the you know they take the water off of the land they say they're going to dry land farmer they never meet that revegetation requirement at the end of the day exasperates those problems so the whole idea behind bringing these individuals in and make sure that these benchmarks that that have been said are actually being done and that they don't just strip the water from the land and then the locals are left to deal with the effects.

AML Winter. Usually that's decided in the decree.

general manager of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District in Southeast Colorado. And for those of us who live in the Arkansas River Basin, the basic protections that this bill would provide our communities are long overdue. Today, tens of thousands of acres of once irrigated farmland now sit largely barren. It's tragic to think that this could have been avoided if even basic requirements would have been included in the associated water court change decrees, but they weren't. As a result, these lands have become a serious burden on counties and neighboring landowners, with invasive weeds spreading and valuable topsoil blowing onto adjacent land, county roads, and state highways. If I can point your attention to the second page of the handout that Representative Winter handed out earlier, You'll see the percentage of acres lost, irrigated acres lost between 1978 and 2022 in the five-county lower Arkansas Valley. This data from the USDA's National Ag Statistics Service shows the scale of permanent dry up in our region. Crowley County alone has lost 92% of its irrigated farmland. On page three, you'll see two aerial photos of the same area of farmland served by the Colorado Canal in Crowley County. one from 1987 and one from 2024. The change is dramatic. From over 50,000 irrigated acres to now less than 4,000. Page four shows what much of that land looks like today. This was once some of the most productive farmland in our area, with prime soils that supported thousands of acres of orchards, row crops, and produce. Today, most of it remains barren decades after being dried up to supply water to front range cities. As mentioned earlier, the most common response we hear from our communities is simple. They wish something like this would have been in place decades ago. The costs of poorly reclaimed land have been significant and long lasting, impacting county budgets, neighboring property rights and public health and safety. In our 2022 study of 10 major water transfer cases in the Arkansas River Basin, we found a wide range of outcomes. Some lands dried up 50 years ago are still dominated by weeds and blowing soil, while others have been successfully revegetated and now support livestock grazing and wildlife habitat. That contrast informed this bill. It's important to note that the most successful projects had even stricter requirements than what is proposed here. This bill sets a clear baseline for reclamation while still allowing flexibility across different conditions to comply. At its core, this is about making sure that when farmland is permanently dried up, it is responsibly reclaimed, so counties and communities are not left dealing with the consequences for decades to come. Thank you for your time and attention.

Okay. Good afternoon, committee. My name is Bill Long. I'm a lifetime resident of Bent County in the Lower Arkansas Valley and a business owner in Bent County for over 48 years. I served as a Bent County Commissioner from 2005 through 2016. I fully support the proposed House Bill 261340 and would encourage passage of such. 1972 when there was no vet re vegetation requirement the last animus town ditch located in a county so older water rights off of nearly 2,000 acres adjacent to the city of Los Animas 54 years later nearly every acre of that previously irrigated land is still nothing but undesirable weeds and non-native plants land has little or no production value and is highly susceptible to dangerous wildfires these can condition a similar situation i'm sorry a similar situation exists on the highland canal also in bink county the water on this ditch was sold in 1997 and after nearly 30 years only 39 percent of the previously irrigated land has been re-vegetated to a minimum standard and again the remaining lands are primarily nuisance weeds problematic for neighbors and continue to create the unnecessary risk of dangerous wildfires these conditions exist in nearly every county in the lower Arkansas Valley where water has been purchased and removed from irrigated farms I understand this bill will not address dry ups that have occurred previously But there is no question that there will be additional agriculture water sales in the future that removes water from the land. There needs to be some reasonable expectation and requirement that previously irrigated lands are returned to an acceptable state. Reclamation of disturbed lands and soils is not a common or unreasonable requirement. The Colorado Land Reclamation Act requires mining operations to return disturbed lands to that of the natural vegetation of the surrounding area. Why would there be no requirement to return lands that have been irrigated for the past 150 years to a state similar to that prior to being irrigated? Otherwise, these lands will remain only as weed-infested fire hazards and an unnecessary nuisance and danger for neighbors. The entities that are purchasing and removing the water from these irrigated farms generally have far greater financial, legal, and technical resources than the counties where the water is being removed from. Creating a minimum standard is necessary to ensure the well-being and safety of rural communities and the environment. Again, thank you for the opportunity to speak today, and I would encourage the passage of the bill.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair McCormick, members of the committee. My name is Patrick Wells, and I'm here today representing Northern Water in support of House Bill 1340. Northern Water's mission is to develop, collect, protect, and deliver reliable water supplies to over 1 million people and 600,000 acres of irrigated land in northeastern Colorado. Forces from outside northeastern Colorado pose a significant threat to our agricultural economy and to the native water supplies that have contributed to our economy, environment, and quality of life for decades. While northern water believes it is of utmost importance not to tread on private property rights or interfere with transactions between willing buyers and sellers of land and water rights, We do feel strongly that there needs to be a statewide conversation about how to address the impacts to agriculture and local communities when water departs from a region to serve

McGee. Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Frank McGee. I am the Southeast Region Manager for Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and I'm here to testify on behalf of the Department of Natural Resources, of which CPW is a division. First, I want to thank the sponsors and the bill proponents for their work on this important issue. At CPW, we see firsthand the negative effects on wildlife habitat and communities when revegetation of formerly irrigated lands is conducted haphazardly or not at all. Some of these concerns include blowing dust, invasive weeds, soil erosion, and decreased native wildlife habitat quality and increased fire risk. While revegetation requirements are often included in decrees for water right change cases in Water Division 2, standards are not applied evenly and often require the engagement of outside parties such as county governments with limited capacity to engage. The changes in the bill will ensure more even application of re-vegetation requirements across Division 2. I want to thank sponsors and proponents for their robust work with the stakeholders on this bill including the Division of Natural Resources Department of Natural Resources. Proponents have We've listened when issues are raised and have shaped the bill to address concerns. We appreciate the effort to provide clarity on the process for implementation of new requirements in Water Court and beyond. The Department of Natural Resources also appreciates amendments being offered today that removed from the bill provisions that would have provided statutory authority for third parties to access private property. In conclusion, Colorado Parks and Wildlife and the Department of Natural Resources urge a yes vote on House Bill 26, 1340, and look forward to seeing the changes on the ground as a result of this work Thanks again to the chair the sponsors and the bill proponents and happy to answer questions when appropriate Thank you for your testimony Next up is Jessica

to hear everyone's stories. I do not envy your jobs, but I admire how hard you all work for the state of Colorado. My testimony is more of telling a story. My name is Jessica Mills. I am a fourth generation farmer in the lower Arkansas Valley. I am here to ask for your support of House Bill 26-1340 because of the deep impact it has had on my family from the devastating effects that buy and drive creates when farmland does not get revegetated. My 90-year-old grandpa was born and raised in Sugar City, Colorado. In the 1900s, Sugar City was one of the fastest growing towns in Crowley County. As my grandpa puts it, it was a booming town. There were stores, restaurants, the sugar factory, beer joints, and pool halls. It was the place to be and where everyone wanted to grow up. The water sales started in the 1970s when my grandpa was only in his 30s. He didn't finish school because he dedicated his life to farming and his family. He farmed during the spring and summer with his father and then worked at the sugar factory during the winter. He didn't get much of a say when the water sales took place or what happened to the farmland afterwards. Because of the substandard and careless attempts to revegetate the land due to the lack of a more robust revegetation guidelines, Sugar City has all but been wiped off the map. It has one cafe left that is hanging on by a thread. It breaks my heart to hear my grandpa talk about the town he loved and still loves so deeply. His exact words were, everything's gone. It makes me sick. I hate to even drive around it anymore. He lost everything and had to restart his farming career elsewhere because the place he called home took one of the biggest economic hits in the history of Colorado. I have a four-year-old feral toddler whose whole life is farming. He doesn't want to go to preschool most days, but he wants to go with daddy to farm. You ask him what he wants to be when he grows up, and without hesitation, he says a farmer. Like, that's the stupidest question you could have ever asked him. That is the generation I am now trying to advocate for to prevent the economic devastation that comes with buy and dry when farmland is not responsibly reclaimed. Because without proper revegetation, dust, weeds, and erosion will take over the land that we are charged to take care of. And it is my opinion that anyone or any entity that doesn't support this bill does not support agriculture in the lower Arkansas Valley or the future generations of farming in the lower Arkansas Valley. Thank you for your time.

Mr. Goble. I wanted to just find out a little bit more about the expertise and who the people are that would be tasked with this third-party oversight and inspection and what kind of costs that would add to the transaction. I realize the new water ride owner would own that, and I guess it would be different in every case. But I just want to know a little bit more about who these people are and what exactly do they do Mr Goble Thanks Madam Chair Yeah so these people are out there They definitely in Water Division 2 which is the Arkansas River Basin because we had

Great. Thank you for that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Question I asked earlier, are there any unintended barriers to volunteer water sharing or conservation projects that might happen? And I guess a second question for northern, up in northeastern Colorado. This seems like a bill that's really targeting the Arkansas Valley, but how would this affect us up in northeast Colorado? So that question, two-part question for two people, I think.

Thanks, Madam Chair, and Representative Garcia-Sander. Appreciate the question. So in our view, no. It wouldn't have any barriers. If there is a temporary water sharing deal or land is temporary fallowed and the water is removed in a temporary fashion, this bill would not be affected at all because it's only permanent change of use through the water court. If there was a permanent change of use through the water court, then it would apply. but there's already a precedent for revegetation criteria and guidelines to be part of those decrees anyway. And so, in my view, no.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for your question, Representative Garcia-Sander. You are correct that this bill has been limited to be specific to just Water Division II. I would note that I believe Mr. Goble correctly stated that the Arkansas basin is probably, unfortunately, 20 to 30 years ahead of the South Platte Basin in experiencing the devastating effects of buy and drive of irrigated agriculture. And as a state, I don't believe that we have established criteria thus far that are predictable, that are consistent, that are science-based, and that are objective. So my hope is that by advancing the science with this bill, one day similar standards may come to northeastern Colorado because we are facing, have historically faced large water acquisitions and buy-in. such as the Thornton lands where they acquired over 18,000 acres of land that will be dried up but won't be held to this same sort of standard as well as other future dry-ups that we know are on their way and are occurring. So by setting this standard as a template in the Arkansas Valley, I think it really bodes well for additional water divisions who want to have these objective science-based standards in the future. So for that reason, Northern Water supports this bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not sure who this goes to, but what I think I'm understanding is that when somebody, a property owner, decides to go dry farming or do the revegetation piece, especially the revegetation piece, It sounds like they hold on to a portion of their water rights in order to make that, to establish that, and maybe in an ongoing basis, but I'm not really sure if that's true or not. Can somebody answer that?

Yeah. Thanks, Madam Chair, and Representative Story for your question. So typically, when water is sold off of a field or a farm or whatever the scale may be, it's done in 100%. So the land is completely dried up and the water is removed to be used in other locations for other uses.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So then how is the revegetation going to be successful?

Go ahead. Thanks, Madam Chair. And Representative Story. So great question. There are a lot of opinions around that. Some feel strongly that you have to irrigate the species and the revegetation to get them started and established and then wean it off of water. Others think that if you start it that way, then you're doomed because you're only going to get species that live when they get water. And so we were really careful in this legislation to not put that in statute, whether or not you have to use water or not to revegetate it. but it would absolutely be plausible under this if, in our view, starting it with irrigation, starting the revegetation with irrigation leads to more success. So we would encourage it. We just didn't want to put it in statute, and that would be doable within the current bill.

One more question. So potentially a property owner might revegetate before they sell off the water rights and get that revegetation process going and then sell the water rights with the hope that it stays. Mr. Goble.

Yes, that could absolutely happen. And even if, let's say, a farmer sells the water off of his farm and, let's say, a city purchases it, which is most common, and they file for a water court case, which they would have to change the use from irrigation to municipal and industrial or whatever uses they need, the court process is not quick. And so a lot of times what you see is that water is removed as soon as they file it under what's called a substitute water supply plan. It an annually approved by the state engineer office approval for them to allow that water to be used for other uses on a yearly basis And so you know I would say it might take like a five period from when they apply to water court to get through to have the legal use for M uses And so they could start on the revegetation in that period. Or in your example, they could do it before they even prepare to sell it. But that's less common.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, gentlemen, for coming. It's good to see some of you again. My question, because I have a concern on the private property of water rights. So my question is, what gives the government the right to say that the land is tied to the water, even for temporary purposes for revegetation? And how long does that go out for how many years? Because we're facing drought, how long is that revegetation tied to that private property of water after the sell?

Thanks, Madam Chair and Representative Johnson. So the bill, well, first of all, our position is, just as statute says, water rights are private property right, so are land. And there's a process in the water court to remove those, separate them from each other for water to be used in other places. But there's not necessarily a requirement in the bill as it's drafted to require any water to stay behind. Like I just mentioned, it could be revegetated with no supplemental irrigation water. There's three options in the bill to incentivize compliance. One would be to provide a financial security in the form of a performance bond to the local land use authority, which most of the time that would be a county, and they could use the water right away for all their uses and have no ties of the water to the land. the other two options would limit use of the water for the new uses, but they would still have it all for irrigation uses. And in those examples, the water could be held back at least in percentage, but initially we had drafted the bill to say 50% of the water was not available for the new uses, but we got a fair amount of pushback on that, and so we've taken that out of the bill and just said, will allow you to sort it out on a case-by-case basis in water court. So a water ride owner that's purchasing the water could just put up a performance bond and be able to use all the water right away. If they didn't want to go to that expense, then they could go the other routes of limiting their water use until revenge is successful.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And apologies, I also want to hear the full time. I was presenting another bill. but I stepped in hearing voluntary program and incentives, but because of the bill itself, and I don't know what the amendments coming forth are, but it doesn't really seem voluntary if a bill is coming forth. What is the penalty if they don't do one of these options? It seems kind of like a force through this.

Because we say voluntary, but then we say you have the option of these, but you have to choose one of them. Mr. Goble. Thank you, Madam Chair and Representative Johnson. It may have been in the context of voluntary water sharing, And if there was any limitations on that, so maybe that's where the word voluntary came from. I'm sorry, what was the rest of your question?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Where are the penalties? Like we're saying we're supposedly giving options when you buy this water, right, whether you use the water, whether you use a bond, what you go forth. But it's kind of a force of you have to choose one of these. What happens if you don't?

Thank you So yes it would be We are trying to set it in statute where there an expectation that when that water is permanently removed from that formerly irrigated farm that that land has to be reclaimed and that that is not an option Now, you could convert it to dry land farming, which is doable within the bill. You could also re-irrigate it with another source of water as long as it's, you know, allowed by the water court. Or you could develop it for other uses. You could build a Walmart out there or whatever. But we think it's important not only for the adjacent neighbors and the counties that have to deal with the aftermath if it's not reclaimed, but also for the environment and wildlife habitat to have that ground reclaimed so it's not just a forever nuisance. And so we do feel it's important that it's a requirement for that land to be reclaimed, again, unless it's exempted by being re-irrigated or developed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have one follow-up and then one more question. Understand what it's saying they have to do, but what is the punishment? What is the recourse if they don't do that?

Thanks, Madam Chair. Yeah, so the way it's currently drafted, including the amendments, there would be three different options for compliance. Again, one would be that they would post a performance bond or some other form of financial security to the county in most cases, the local land use authority. So that would be one. And if they walk away from it, then the county would then have the funds to hire out to have that revegetation actually completed. Now, you're not likely going to see a city just walk away from it, but a water speculator, highly possible. That's option one. Option two would be some sort of limitation on the water for the new uses. Again, existing uses, they could continue to use it for irrigation, but a tie to the success of the revegetation or the conversion to dry land farming tied back to the water's ability to be used for new uses. So that's option two. Does that make sense?

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I get the options. What is the penalty? What is the recourse if they don't do those options or they don't follow through with it? What is going to happen if they don't do any of that?

So in option one, if they don't do anything, they'll lose their financial security, whether it's a bond or whatever. And in option two and three is very similar. Two is just water limitations are sorted out in the water court process, which is commonly what happens today in Division II. And then option three, which would be new, is if there was an associated 1041 permit from the county that has water use restrictions tied to successive reclamation, then the court will adopt those. So the second and third ones are very similar. But depending on, and again, those are case by case basis, But depending on what the water use restrictions are there, if they just walked away from it, there's a possibility that they would walk away from the ability to use the water for the new uses, depending on how that's sorted out in the case-by-case basis. So either money is tying them to doing it or use of water for the new uses is tying them to doing it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Last question. I've heard from some of my farmers worried that when you add requirements onto a private property and a sale, that it's actually going to decrease the value of that sale. Have you seen that played out where their water right might be worth X amount but because we going to require A B or C with this that we might see the water sell for less to make up for that compensation of the requirements being added on to this uh water right uh what's your response to that mr goble yeah that's that's possible um in division two

All right. I think we're going to move on to the next panel. Thank you all very much for your time and testimony today. I will call up folks that did sign up in an amend position, if you are here or online. This is Dawn Jewell, Brandon Melnikoff, Zane Kessler. Anyone else in the room in an amend position? Now is your time to come forward. And I will start on my left this time with Mr. Kessler. When you're ready, your microphone needs to be on, and you'll have three minutes.

Thank you very much. Mr. Melnikoff.

Yes, sir. When you're ready, go ahead and introduce yourself. And you want to go first. Okay. Madam Chair. Great. Go ahead with your testimony.

and such regulation will result in even greater barriers to keeping farmland in agricultural production. Aurora already struggles to find farmers who are willing to continue farming, and keeping lands in agriculture will become more difficult with additional regulations and restrictions on farmers. We believe dryland agriculture should continue to not be subject to revegetation orders of the court. Thank you very much. Okay, now it's your turn. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Steve Sims. I'm a water lawyer at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Shrek in Denver. I have 45 years' experience. I've negotiated and litigated revegetation plans in Water Division II before the water court, ditch boards, and 1041 proceedings before the Otero, Bent, and Prowers County Board of County Commissioners. Today I represent Aurora Water concerning this Bill 26-13-40. Like Ms. Jewell, who is one of my bosses, said, we thank Representative Winter. Representative Winter, you've been very responsive for many of Aurora's concerns raised over the last 18 months of negotiation. We've come a long way. However, Rural Water continues to have concerns about the final three compliance sections that Mr. Goble talked about that Representative Morrow also noted in her comments. We feel that these three provisions dangerously affect the discretion and power of the Water Court to protect water users from injury Let me go through these three sections just briefly First of all, these are all in Roman numeral 6ABC in what we think the strike below will be. Paragraph A requires the water court to determine the amount and type of financial assurances the court deems necessary to cover the cost to revegetate the formerly irrigated land. Paragraph B requires the water court to determine the timing or percentage of use of the water right for new uses. And paragraph C is the dangerous provision. It removes the water court's power to determine the amount and type of financial assurances required for paragraph A or the timing or percentage of use for water right required in paragraph B if the water user has a 1041 permit or an IGA that establishes these terms. In essence, this allows the applicant to make a deal with the county that may be injurious to other water users or landowners. This is the type of term that a water court judge must enforce under the terms of this bill. Normally a water court would have exactly the opposite obligation. If he's confronted with an injurious provision, he would not be able to approve that. Water judges are selected due to their expertise in considering deciding technical injury issues. That's the reason the General Assembly gave water rights or water judges exclusive jurisdiction to determine water matters. This would be the first water matter removed from the exclusive jurisdiction of the water court since the water courts were founded in 1969. A real water urges you not to adopt paragraph C of what we think the strike below will be. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Do we have questions for this panel of witnesses? Representative Smith. Thank you, Madam Chair. I had a question regarding, you mentioned Aurora has a robust re-vegitation plan, but other water buyers do not, and I'm just wondering who those might be, other cities or? Ms. Jewel? Thank you, Madam Chair, Madam Representative. I'm not exactly sure who the other entities are. That might be a question better for Mr. Goble. Representative Goldstein? Not sure who this is for, but I'm wondering. If the farmer or the landowner decides to go back to native vegetation, what did southeastern Colorado look like before we started farming it? If nobody wants to or can't answer it, that's fine. Mr. Sims? Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Goldstein, one of the things that will be provided by this particular bill is use of what we call a reference parcel. And what the court will be doing as part of establishing the scientific criteria for the dry-up, we will identify a parcel of land that is similar or close by to the revegetated land. then there will be a quantitative assessment of what that looks like Not just an objective guess at what it looks like but they will measure exactly what types of vegetation how sparse it is, the percentage of cover, all those issues. That will be used to then compare the results of the revegetation. Thank you. Representative, oh, you're good? All right, I'm not seeing any other. Oh, sorry, Representative Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. My question – I'm going to get the last name wrong – Mr. Milikoff, Farm Bureau. My question in the conversations with this in the Colorado Farm Bureau bylaws, where does the private property stand in this? I know you're amending right now and you want the dry land, but the whole overall conversation kind of – can you fill us in a little? Mr. Milikoff. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Johnson. Certainly private property is certainly a priority of Farm Bureau. And I think that the most recent version certainly strikes a nice balance there and addresses our concerns, especially with the easement language that's being taken out. All right. I'm not seeing any other questions. So thank you all very much for your time and testimony today. We appreciate you showing up. Next panel are folks that have signed up in support, and I think I can call everyone up together. Catherine Carter, Gerald Knapp, Tim Nabinshu, Rob Oquest, Gina Lucrezia. Some of those folks are remote. Anyone else that's in the room? There's seats available at the table. Come on up. I am in opposition to the right. Oh, you are? Okay. Why don't you sneak over here on the side, and I'll just have you go first. Anyone else in opposition or in amend position? Okay. I still, well, okay. Tell you what. You go. We'll see if there are any questions, and then we'll move on. So hang on, you people that are up there remotely. We're going to have this witness go. So when you're ready, go ahead and introduce yourself, and you'll have three minutes. I appreciate that. No, I'm glad you said something. My name is Richard. Hang on a second. Your microphone plugs into the table way by the plug, little gray button. There you go. Now you're on. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Richard Marin. I'm a water rights attorney with the law firm of Moses Wittemeyer, Harrison & Woodruff in Boulder. I have more than 25 years of experience working with agricultural water users in Water Division II, and I am here today to testify on behalf of my client, the Lower Arkansas Water Management Association, against House Bill 1340 regarding revegetation of formerly irrigated land in Division II. Although we are in opposition to the bill today, we do appreciate all the efforts that the proponents of the bill have made to work with us over the last three months, six months or so to address many of our concerns, but in its current form, we are in opposition to it. I'm going to refer to the Lower Arkansas Water Management Association as LAMA. We are an association of farmers in southeastern Colorado. We rely on groundwater wells to irrigate along the Arkansas River. More than 30,000 acres of land down there, primarily in Benton and Prowers County. Our mission is to provide well augmentation services to allow our farmers to continue operating in the basin. Now, LAMA owns a large portfolio of surface irrigation water rights that have been changed to augmentation and replacement uses, and we've been through this process over the last 25 years, not from the municipality side, but from the farmer's side in terms of converting senior water rights to augmentation use to allow our farmers to continue irrigating. So a different circumstance than what we've heard about today with cities buying and drying. but agriculture users have similar needs to buy and dry senior water rights to allow their operations to continue, to allow Colorado to stay in compliance with the Arkansas River Compact. We oppose the bill primarily because LAMA believes that it is unnecessary, and all of what the proponents have been discussing here today can already be accomplished and addressed under the existing statute. For example, the proponents have stated that House Bill 1340 is needed because the current revegetation statute does not ensure that revegetation is completed. Well, that's just contrary to the plain language of the statute. The statute requires revegetation to be accomplished, and my client has been working hard to do that over the years. Another example is that the proponents state that the current revegetation statute does not define responsibilities or accountability for revegetation. That's also not true. When a water court enters a decree with revegetation terms and conditions, that the applicant in that decree is obligated to comply with those terms and conditions. And in many instances, that applicant is the water right owner. Therefore, we think House Bill 1340 is simply unnecessary. Having said that, we've also been working on amendments to the legislation, and I know I'm running out of time here, so I won't be able to touch on those, but I'd be happy to do so at another time. Thank you. Thank you very much, since you're up here all by yourself. I'm going to ask you a question. And so you said there at the end that you are or have been working on amendments. Are those the same or different amendments that we have heard about from the bill sponsors? Mr. Marin. Yes, Madam Chair. There were basically four amendments we have been working on, and I'll go tick through them really quickly here because some of them have been touched on, some of them have not. One, picking up on this reference parcel methodology that Mr. Sims raised with the committee here today, the proponents have said that this House Bill 1340 will set, quote-unquote, clear standards. Well, it doesn't do that. It simply requires the water court to adopt scientific and objective standards, but no standards are laid out in this bill. One of the amendments that we have proposed and believe is important is to move the ball forward a bit on the standards as to require this reference parcel method be incorporated into the bill. That is similar to what the oil and gas producers are required to do under their regulations. another another amendment we have been discussing would be to provide again some further standard in the legislation for soil erosion and the control of reeds right now the legislation just says the weeds and soil erosion has to be adequately controlled we believe this statute should be amended to require weed control and soil erosion control consistent with state law there are state laws out there on weed control on soil erosion control and we think those should provide a baseline for the standards that should be adopted by the water court Fourth, on the maintenance period, we think the maintenance period is not supported by the science. We think at a minimum it should be shortened to two years, but our position on the maintenance period is once this land is revegetated to the standard, then it's going to act like a native parcel of ground. It's going to have improved revegetation during wet cycles. It's going to have maybe denigrated revegetation during dry cycles, but overall it will act like a native parcel. And then this has been touched on, but this is also an important issue for Lama, and I appreciate the opportunity. The requirement of the bill for an independent third-party expert, my client has been working through revegetation issues. we think it's going to be very difficult to find a quote-unquote independent expert. We believe the expert that should be required should just be a third-party expert. Folks that have been working in the valley, for my client, for the counties, for Lower Arc, they would all potentially be available. And in my view, that's going to be much more efficient and save costs for the water right owner. So with that, I will be quiet. Thank you. Thank you. I have one more question for you. Are you seeing successful revegetation projects through your client? Are they having success in what they're currently doing? Yes, I would say we have seen success. It has been a long process. Some of the lands are more difficult than others to revege. The Highland Canal was brought up earlier today. We've been working to revege that land. It's about 40% revegetated. That's a complex situation with multiple landowners that we are working with. but my client has been at it and has been spending a lot of resources to get that done. We have significant success down in Prowers County with revegetation. Thank you very much. Any other questions for this witness? All right. Thank you for your time and testimony today. Thank you for taking me out of work. You bet. All right. We'll go back to the last panel that I was calling forward, Catherine Carter, Gerald Knapp, Tim Navishu, Rob Oquest, and Gina Lucrezia, all in favor of the bill. Is there anyone else in the room that's in favor of the bill that did not sign up that would like to testify? All right, not seeing any. So I'm going to start with the folks that are here in person. Yes, ma'am, when your mic is already on, you can pull it closer to you. You can pull the microphone closer to you so that you're not having to stretch. And introduce yourself, and you'll have three minutes. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Catherine Cotta, and I am special counsel for the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District. This bill would provide clarity and certainty to everyone involved and impacted by changes to agricultural water rights. It will make the water corp process more efficient and less expensive by clearly defining what kind of reclamation terms the change decree must include and ensuring cohesion with local land use regulations without being overly prescriptive to allow flexibility to respond to the existing environmental conditions. Enacting this bill would not be a sea change that upends years of expected practice in Division II. It would codify and simplify much of what already happens through protracted negotiations in court. The reclamation evaluation process and the incentive options proposed here have been included in some form in all major change use decrees in Division II that involved permanent dry But those provisions were only included after lengthy and expensive negotiations negotiations which counties are often not a part of Respectfully, the Lower Arkansas Valley disagrees with the legal position you just heard from Council for Lama. There is no enforcement mechanism in the statute as it exists. The language of the statute says that the court must consider conditions that are designed to accomplish free vegetation, but there is no teeth included. Likewise, we respectfully disagree with the legal position put forth by Aurora's council. Any water project would have to comply with local land use and environmental regulations and obtain the necessary permits. There is established legal precedent that requires municipalities obtain 1041 permits for water projects from the impacted county, and we do not believe that the provision as included here raises a separation of powers issue or other constitutional violation. Including the reclamation criteria established by the county in the change decree will provide greater clarity for everyone impacted by the removal of agricultural water and the permanent dry up of irrigated land. I would like to reiterate that this bill applies to permanent dry up, conservation projects, and water sharing agreements usually, if not always, involve temporary following not the water experts exports subject to this bill and so they would not we do not foresee any impacts to those types of arrangements this bill will set clear expectations for the parties to the change case defer to local control experience and solidify basic requirements into statute it will not change long-standing precedent in division two thank you for your time and attention and i would be happy to answer any questions thank you for your testimony yes sir when When you're ready, your mic is already on, so go ahead and introduce yourself. I'm Jerry Knapp. I've been involved in revegetation in almost any kind of capacity for about 35, nearly 40 years. I'm more focused on the technical parts of this bill, so I want to touch on a couple of items, and then I'll respond to a couple of comments that have been made. This bill needs and does specify that the revegetation criteria and the associated evaluation methodology must be included within the decree. We have too many decrees that don't do that. Very few of them include an evaluation methodology. Those kind of left out provisions just lead to a lot of fights, a lot of expense, a lot of wasted time. If we don't have something like this, we can't have accountability. And we must have accountability. And it must be associated with the water right owner, the buyer of the water. In many cases, including some that have been referenced here a few minutes ago, the buying party put the responsibility to revegetate onto the landowner, the seller. And I want to tell you that in many of our areas down in southeastern Colorado, the value of revegetated land is less than the cost of the revegetation. so when you put that responsibility on the landowner there's no incentive for them to get it done that what leads you right into the need to have incentives to get this done the best incentive to get the revegetation accomplished is to tie the new uses of the water to the completion of the revegetation in one form or another. And there are a couple of different models out there on how that can be done. But those are the kind of things that need to be added here. I want to just address this idea of reference parcels Contrary to some folks' statements, I'm not opposed to reference parcels, but this bill was designed so that you could have site-specific local criteria and evaluation methodologies put into place. It doesn't preclude those reference areas being used. But if there's other methods that folks in the local area want to use, they should be allowed to do it. We need the flexibility within the statute, not a one-size-fits-all. I would just say that LAMA, I've worked with them because I work for Bent County. They're 17 years into the revegetation program that's required under the Highland Canal case, and they're 39% complete. having to wait 17 years to get revegetation or how long it's going to take is unacceptable. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. We'll go online. I can't. Let's see. Read. Okay. Gina Lucrezia, go ahead and unmute your microphone and give us your testimony. You have three minutes. Thank you. You can hear me? We can. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair and member of the committee. I'm Chafee County Commissioner Chair Jean LaCrette, speaking on behalf of Chafee County, and I'm testifying in the support position today on HB 26-1340. I'd also like to note that I'm part of the CCI Working Group on the Amendments and believe the amendments address the concerns of my colleagues. Thank you to the bill's sponsors, Representatives Winter, Henrichson, and Pelton, as well as the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservation District. This bill addresses a critical need for responsible revegetation after water is permanently removed from the land, ensuring deserved protection from ripple effects on neighboring properties, the environment, and a likely economic burden shared by the entire rural community. Chaffee County experienced its own buy-in-dry case study with the Hill Ranch dry-up. The revegetation process has taken multiple years and still has a ways to go. If a policy was in place at the time of the sale, it would have saved time, money, and hardships for all parties involved. It's undeniable that municipalities will continue to seek out rural community water rights with the intent to support their population growth. Ironically, much of that population growth is driven by ideals and daydreams of the West, the ranch and farm lifestyles, outdoor recreation, the iconic pictures depicting the very heritage and heart of Colorado. If we truly care about the environment, rural communities, and the heritage of the great state of Colorado, Bill 1340 is a clear safeguard in ensuring thoughtful and responsible processes that take into account critical needs for buy and dry impacts. This bill does not prevent water right purchases or change in use, but it does ensure a future for the land and community after the is forever removed. I respectfully urge you to support Bill 1340 with a yes vote as your vote truly determines the future of many small rural communities in southeast Colorado. Thank you for your time and consideration, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have when the time is right. Thank you for your testimony. Next up is Mr. Oquist. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present to you today. My name is Rob Oakwist and I am the Otero County Commissioner and I'm happy to support this bill. I've lived in Otero County my whole life. My family has owned a plumbing business for over 65 years and I have worked for most all of the farmers up and down the valley. And I saw in my younger years when the valley was green and beautiful and now it's starting to turn a little brown. It's really struggling because so many have taken water away from the valley. Not that I'm against them coming, but they need to help us keep the land and keep it the way it needs to be. Re-vegging the land is a tough thing in the Arkansas Valley. We just don't get a lot of rain. We don't get a lot of moisture. We're not lucky to have that opportunity. So, you know, in the old days, someone asked what happened before all of this started. Well, we had the Dust Bowl. My family lived through the Dust Bowl, and it was a tough time. We don't want to get back to that again, and a lot of it is happening. And that's why I really feel that this bill is important, to make the people who take the water at least have to help revegetate that land and keep it to where we won't have that. Now that I'm a commissioner and see what happens with all of the blowing dirt and people calling and struggling and the neighbors getting it, and it's just something that we really need to make sure that it is taken care of. And in my mind, I'm like Cherry Knapp. The only way that you can take care of this is to put it on to the people who take the water off of the land to revegetate it. And if they have to leave a little of the water on the land, they're going to make sure that it gets done. So I am in support of this bill, and thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. Committee, do we have questions for this panel of witnesses? All right. Oh, Representative Story. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Knapp, I have a couple of questions for you, and it might be helpful if you bring the microphone base a little bit closer to you so that you'll pick up on the mic. Thank you. Um, so I'm, uh, I'm going to ask a couple of questions that I think I asked a couple of other people before. Um, but how does revegetation take place if the water rights are sold off? Um, just in, you know, with your experience that you have and, um, what are our alternative options for successful revegetation, um, you know, to take place? and are these efforts whatever they are for revegetation are they known to be successful And I mean you know to last for an extended period of time Mr Knapp Thank you for the question I think it's more like five or six questions. I'm sorry. I'll try to get through it. There's different thoughts on how to do the revegetation, whether or not you want to irrigate the grass seeds, primarily grasses, to get it started, or if you want to try to do it dry land. A dry land proponent once told me that you can get to the same place, but if you dry land revegetation, it's going to take longer. I'm a proponent of irrigating the grass to start. I mean, everybody here, I think, has heard that this lower southeastern Arkansas Valley, I mean, we don't get a lot of rain down there. If you want to assure yourself that you're going to get it started, you need to be able to provide moisture to those seeds and seedlings when they need it. And you need to protect the soil from solar radiation and wind erosion. You're really protecting the moisture source for the plants you're trying to grow. That's the way I have always proposed it. on the projects that i've worked on now that said i'm absolutely fine if somebody wants to do a dry land revegetation program this bill allows them to make that choice we don't tell them how to do it what we are trying to put here is a requirement on what the end product needs to be and that needs to be included in the decree so that all parties to the transfer to the change of use case understand what is expected. So that may have gotten partway. I'm sure there's some other parts of that question that I'm forgetting. Representative Story. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think you did cover, you know, how does revegetation take place if water rights are sold off? And it does sound like it's the owner of the new water rights that is responsible for this piece of it, for revegetation. So you can do it with water on the front end, and then I presume ultimately you back off and don't water it. but also dry land, which will take longer is what I think I'm understanding. My other question was, you know, what are, are these efforts sustainable? Like whichever is chosen, does it, does it last or does it, you know, after two or three years, then it's done and it goes back to invasive species and, you know, so forth. like is it proven to be a sustainable approach? Mr. Knapp. Thank you. It imperative to understand that the responsible party should be the water rights owner which in most cases is the purchaser That does not preclude them from working with the seller or other farmers to actually do the activities on the land to do the revegetation. So I think there was some questions earlier related to that. But we must keep the responsibility on those who are benefiting from the water. They can spend some time irrigating a year or two after the decree to get the grass started and then pull the water off. These native grasses are generally very slow-developing plants. they may take three to five years to fully establish generally when we evaluate for establishment we're doing that earlier in the process I don't like to try to evaluate a grass stand until it's at least two years old and has gone at least a year with only natural precipitation. So we can get to a point of establishment, but even at that point, those plants are not fully established. They will continue to develop their root zones and become more vigorous over time. That's why we want to have a maintenance period after a determination of establishment so that we can assure that those plants are the right species that are going to last through the conditions in that specific area. It's also a great opportunity for the water rights owner to demonstrate good management of these revegetated fields. I don't believe that previously irrigated land is as good as native prairie, and therefore the revegetation is more fragile than our native prairies are. And you need to have a greater level of management of those to sustain that revegetation. I think there's another part to that that you mentioned, and that's the weed management, really. Most of these fields have had over 100 years of irrigation. There's weed seed in that field that's going to continue to show up year after year. even though you get the plants to an established state, you still are going to need to do continued weed management for the benefit of your revegetation. And that can be done and should be done through that maintenance period. Ultimately the grass stand will be viable enough to continue to exist and thrive on its own It do better through wetter periods and do less good during the dry periods like any other grassland. But it can be done. We have shown it can be done. And there's no magic bullet. But the other part of the weeds are that the existing statute really refers just to noxious weeds, and nuisance weeds are probably more of a problem to most of us than the noxious weeds, and we need to control those as well. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Garcia-Sander.

Mr. Knapp. Thank you. That's an interesting question. The short answer is yes, but there's a maybe and an asterisk there too. When we design revegetation projects, we expect a percentage of it to be redone through the process. I also had a project that when we went in and through the 2002 drought, the stands regressed, and I was really worried that I'd lost everything. And we did some reseeding, and we actually re-irrigated a little bit to get that started. Yes, it is possible. But once you get final establishment, if you manage it for the health of the plants, they're going to be there. All right. I'm not seeing any other hands raised. So thank you all very much for your time and testimony today. We appreciate you. and I'll call the bill sponsors back to the table. Oh, and that ended the witness testimony phase, just to be official. So, bill sponsors, we've heard some talk about some amendments. Would you like to tell us what you'd like to do?

All right. At the bill sponsor's request, we will lay this bill over a fraction only on this coming Thursday. All right. Seeing no further business in front of our committee, we are adjourned. Thank you.