House Agriculture, Water & Natural Resources [Mar 16, 2026]

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

Present.

Excused.

Excused.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Yes.

Excused.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, members, this is a very exciting bill that we are going to talk to you about today. And there's a lot of information about it. This is a topic that covers a lot of different aspects of law and data privacy and commodities. All kinds of different things really fall into this. And I sent around to everyone a folder full of information on a Google Drive folder. There was a document there. You could have looked at all of the different research papers that are there. I just added another one today, which is a presentation, which is on the README first file. And if you're a computer nerd like me, the README file tells you what to start with, and that's why I called it that. But I don't know if you got that, so I want to make sure you knew. So we're talking about security issues. ownership, some statistics, and a whole bunch of other things. And 1270 is a bill that is going to have a real big impact on farmers because there's an enormous industry here that farmers are not able to tap into. So we'll note that you were provided four amendments that were passed around. I'll go over those a little bit later. But a lot of you have heard about the right to repair and had that conversation in 2023. And some of you were here then. And now we are working to fight for the rights of agricultural data. There's an immense debate and research on this topic. A lot of the information I've gathered to give you a better insight into this. I provided to you in that drive document. And there's a lot of background here, and this is often out of sight for most farmers. So this bill was inspired by a lot of research and extensive work from repair.org. You hear from a witness who will be walking in the door briskly here in about 20 minutes And he will be one of the people you going to want to talk to about a lot of the detail in this bill And as you know, I am a tech nerd, and it is my pleasure to make this case to you today and to pass a wonky, nuanced policy to protect the interests of farmers. So to fully grasp the landscape of precision agricultural data, we're going to give you some background on what it is and how it's used. We are currently navigating the fourth industrial revolution in farming, Agriculture 4.0, where data is now a vital part of a farm success, just as soil, seed, and rain. And by 2033, the global precision agricultural markets projected to exceed $33 billion in revenue. And our producers are using those sensors, autonomous machinery and AI things to monitor every acre in real time. And that does give them an increase of about $163 per hectare. And that's really good. However, there's a dark side to the digital revolution. Because our legal framework that we have currently, was not designed for this sort of thing. It was designed for physical assets, but agricultural data currently exists in this legal gray area. This allows the agricultural equipment manufacturers to – this bill will give them the ability to take advantage of that data that they're actually producing. Raw farm data often fails to meet the inventive step, which is required for patent protection and copyright protection, which usually only protects the arrangement of the data of the raw facts. And this is a vacuum. A few massive agricultural technology providers, you'll hear this term referred to as ATPs, have stepped in to write their own rules on this. So it's important to understand what the agricultural data is and how it's used, and I will let Rep. Velasco talk about that, and then I will go into a little bit more of the technical aspects of the bill after she goes over what the data is.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and colleagues. I miss y'all. So we're going to be talking about data, but I also wanted to bring up, you know, how data has brought us together. We have seen multiple efforts to protect data. One of them comes from Rep Bacon and Rep The Graph, as they're protecting data against being shared by the government. We also have seen it in personal identifying information where we want to make sure that that information is not shared without a federal warrant. We're also looking at algorithms, pricing, hiring, and how all of those things are being decided now by data that is sold across different industries. So farming today is not just about tractors and soil anymore. It's also about data. Modern equipment sensors software collects large amounts of information about crops soil conditions weather and how fields are managed And this information helps farmers make better decisions It can help increase yields reduce waste lower costs by applying water fertilizer or pesticides only where they are actually needed. But while farmers generate this data, they often do not control what happens to it once it's collected. And right now, much of that information is stored by large technology companies that provide the equipment and software used on farms. Once the data leaves the farm and goes into those systems, farmers can lose visibility into who is using it and how it's being used. This raises several concerns. Privacy and control. Farmers should know who has access to information about their land and operations. Fairness in the marketplace. Companies collecting data from thousands of farms gain insight on individual farmers, and they should not be doing that. Also, competition. Farmers can become locked into certain platforms if they cannot easily move their data. Market impacts. Large aggregated data assets can influence supply forecasts and commodity markets. So this bill is about restoring balance in that relationship and making sure farmers have meaningful rights and protections around the data generated in their own farms. So I'm going to go into the wonky definitions in the bill. But PAA is a precision agriculture data, and this is the digital content that fuels the ongoing transformation of farming and is often referred as digital agriculture. By enhancing the collection, exchange, analysis, and application of information to automate and optimize farming tasks, this data is fundamentally dependent on geospatial coordinates from global navigation satellite systems, such as GPS, which allow technology providers to link physical locations in a field to specific data points. And the types of precision agriculture data can be categorized into seven primary types. Yield data is collected by in-cab yield monitors. And this includes mass flow, which is the grain flow, moisture content, georeference locations recorded during harvest. Another category is soil data. and this encompasses chemical properties like nutrient levels, pH, organic matter, and physical characteristics like texture, water holding capacity, drainage, and is derived from core samples or sensors. Imagery data remotely sends information from satellites, aircrafts, or drones, often used to monitor crop health and vegetation density through indices like the NDVI. Operational and machinery data. Information on machinery diagnostics, seeding depth as applied, rates of fertilizers and pesticides, and field geometries. Environmental data. Data on topography, precipitation, temperature, and wind speeds. Big data. The aggregation of these geo-referenced production activities across millions of fields to reveal patterns undetectable in a single field. and some of the uses and utilization of this data varies between the farmers who generate it and the third parties who often process it So farmers use this precision agriculture data for decision support like creating yield and soil maps to identify variability within fields and making for management choices. They also could use it for data-driven equipment adjustments, implementing variable rate technology to customize the application of seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides to specific subfield zones, which can lower costs and reduce environmental runoff. Automatization, utilizing guidance and auto-steer systems to reduce overlaps and skips, thereby saving fuel and reducing operator fatigue. On-farm experimentation, like conducting in-field trials to compare different fertilizer rates or seed varieties. And third parties, which are Consultants, dealers, and tech firms are using the precision agriculture data to develop prescriptions. Technical services use field data to provide site-specific advice and crop management recommendations to farmers. They also use it for product development. Large input firms like Bayer or John Deere collect data directly from fields to refine machinery, software, and insurance products. And also data aggregation. Aggregators compile big data to create broader markets insights and predictive models. So what are some of those risks and challenges that arise when data is no longer under the direct control of farmers? And the first one is privacy and security. As data moves to the cloud or third-party servers, farmers face risk regarding data ownership and anonymity. While data is a non-rival good, one person using it doesn't prevent another from doing so. So it becomes non-exclusible. One shared, meaning the farmer can no longer easily control who benefits from it. Another risk is potential for abuse. So these are concerns that third parties could use a farmer's data against their interests, such as in land lease negotiations or by limiting competition through brand-specific data silos. The digital divide. There is a risk of a growing gap between technologically savvy operators and those who are not. This divide often favors large farms, potentially accelerating structural consolidation and making it harder for smaller, less tech integrated farms to compete. Data quality and accessibility. Third-party data collection may not always be accurate if equipment isn't calibrated, and the micro data held by large firms is often inaccessible to public researchers or policymakers, hindering the study of broader societal benefits like environmental sustainability. Forfeit of network benefits. Farmers who opt out of data sharing to protect their privacy may lose out on the network benefits that come from large-scale data pooling, which is necessary for the most advanced predictive analytics. Precision agriculture data can be used to gain insight into and potentially predict commodities markets primarily through the process of data aggregation into big data. While individual farmers use their data for site-specific management, the sources highlighted that when this information is pooled across millions of fields, It reveals useful patterns and trends undetectable at a single field level. And now I'm going to talk about how this data informs market predictions. So real-time supply visibility. Aggregated data includes highly detailed information on yield measurements, mass flow, and moisture content recorded during harvest across vast geographic areas. areas. Production activity tracking. Big data in agriculture encompasses millions of data points regarding planting and tillage states, seeding rates, and the timing and quantity of fertilizer and pesticide applications. This allows for a real-time assessment of the progress and potential success of a national crop. Environmental and stress monitoring. By combining field data with precipitation events, temperature, and wind speeds, analysts can predict how weather patterns will impact final yields before the harvest even occurs. Private data pools. Large input firms and technology providers, such as Bayer or John Deere, are increasingly collecting this data directly from farmers' fields via telematics and cloud-based systems, and these firms possess massive, high-resolution datasets that reflect the status of the digital farm economy. So what are some risk and information asymmetry? This could impact our access to public lands. Unlike USDA, National Agriculture Statistics Service, reports, which are public and non-excludable, the microdata held by large private firms is generally inaccessible to public researchers, policymakers, and to the farmers themselves. Market imbalances. There is a concern that if only a few large technology providers hold the aggregate big data for millions of acres, they may have a significant information advantage over other market participants, including the farmers who generate the data. Forfeit of benefits. Farmers who opt out of data sharing to protect their privacy may avoid potential abuses, but also are forfeiting the network benefits that come from being part of this large-scale predictive analysis. Because PA data tracks the velocity and variety of production activities at a meter-by-meter level, it serves as a powerful leading indicator for national crop supply, which is a fundamental driver of commodity market prices. This can impact the price of food and exacerbate the already challenging affordability problem at the grocery store. Representative Chetum.

I do want to report that Representative Johnson, Goldstein, and Story are now here. I do have quite a few questions, and I'm not really – And I appreciate all the work that you put into this. This is a very important conversation to be having. I've spent quite a bit of time over the last week with all of the resources you sent me, the questions that I sent you I appreciate you know having some answers to those ahead of time but I think it is important to get quite a bit of this on the record So I want to just start with a question for you, and we can certainly defer to your witnesses, but those of us on the committee have heard through this discussion that there has been a long process happening in our neighbor state, Nebraska, and that they have come down with a little bit of a different approach. I'm wondering, for the record, if you could speak to the differences of approach between what's happening in Nebraska and the discussion that they've had over a much longer period of time and the approach that your bill is taking.

Before I ask any other questions, I wanted to see any committee members have questions for our bill sponsors. Representative Stewart, be brave.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I'm sure that the witnesses can certainly elaborate more on it. But there are a lot of programs in the federal government that actually incentivize the purchase of precision ag machines. There's a deliberate, small, very low interest loan program that was created to incentivize this. In the current version of the farm bill, there's even more incentives to try to get more precision ag thing. So they want more people to get precision ag. It is a way for us to get more out of every farm, that every farm has it. But at the same time, if everybody's using precision ag to get all this data, we're still not solving the problem of the farmer being left out of the conversation. So the machinery is going to be sold. They're going to make all they're always going to be selling more and more and more advanced versions of it so I don't this bill will not impact the sale of any of the machinery that's something that's going to focused on what happens after the machine is sold and then the data is collected and we're trying to say that out of all the billions of dollars everybody's making, why can't the farmer get a little bit of something for their efforts that they're putting in because they're working very hard and getting really nothing for it.

I'm going to put us into a brief recess so our bill sponsor can go take a vote across the hall. recess. Thank you. Thank you. All right. more questions from committee for our bill sponsors representative

I don't know if I have an answer for that. I mean, the farmer's not buying the data, they're creating the data.

that farmers are looking for an answer to this problem? Representative Titone. Yes.

damn i'm sure no it doesn't account for that and uh you know when we did right to repair that also incurred a cost on the manufacturers to do things that they weren't normally doing and we told them to do it and last year well well two years ago when we did the right to repair Apple had to change their entire chip set to comply with the bill, and we made them do that. So this is not a big thing to ask for companies that are making billions of dollars to protect the farmer's data and to actually give them what they actually deserve to get, or buying the very expensive machine, paying for all the subscriptions, collecting all of that data, and then they're getting nothing for it. So this is a small ask for them to build a system that actually helps them get something that they deserve to get.

Don't you see it happening, Reptotone? It's very possible that that could happen. But if we do it now, when the cost of that is less, then we're passing less of a cost on. If we wait in the future and we ask them to do it then and it costs more, then we're passing more cost on. It's like the value of a dollar today is a lot more than the value of a dollar tomorrow. So we have to make sure that we are acting now before this industry gets really, really big. And then all those changes have to be made. So we're trying to get ahead of a lot of that to eliminate some of the cost.

AML Winter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I might have to ask this question to somebody else. What percentage of Colorado farmers are using high-tech compared to farmers that are still using low-tech in the state?

Representative Lukens. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for bringing this bill. One of the things, so I have, my question is a two-part question. one of the things that I'm grappling with is just how wide reaching the impact of this bill would be if if passed so that my first question is how what would what how wide reaching would the impact of this bill be if passed And then my follow question to that is how does this connect to our research universities I'm curious to know the impact it would have on data associated with various research projects and if there's any connection there.

Representative Tatum. Yeah, I think some of our witnesses will be able to talk a little bit more. One of the witnesses, I say, is a professor who does a lot of research on this topic and they may have some more insights on that. Representative Story.

Representative Tatel. Yeah, and a lot of the things we were saying in the opening remarks were about the telemetry data, like every soil that's like put in the ground, like it's put in a certain depth into the ground, the moisture of the soils measured, the topography of the ground. There's visual data. There's data that's collected on the collar of a cattle that's in a field, and that has vital signs and temperature. I mean, there's a multitude of all these different things. And that data is collected, and some of the equipment companies were saying, well, we don't sell it, but they have data licensing agreements with other companies. So they're not selling it per se, but they're licensing that information out to people to use it. And as we explained they using it to say oh well you know we know how much fertilizer you going to need because we know that your soil is not as good as it could be because we know how many things you planted and how much got cut down and you didn't get the yield you were anticipating. So when we know you're going to need more fertilizer and now we're going to charge as much as we know we can give you that price so that way we can get more money out of you. So surveillance pricing is one way. And then Another thing is if someone wants to buy a farm, they could actually use this information to predict how a farmer is doing based on their yield. If they have bad yield over a certain amount of years, they might be struggling, and they might know that or predict that they might be so they could buy their farm at a lower price. So there's a lot of things that can be used against the farmer, and there's a lot of ways that they use it to help them. And one of those things are those prescriptions, which tells the farmer, well, if you put more fertilizer here and more pesticide here or less pesticide here and this whole thing, that the equipment can then actually deliver that. They're buying back the data they just collected and they made into this thing. So it's like if you sold someone the raw ingredients to a product, well, they stole the raw ingredients to the product and then sold it back to you and you had to buy it to make sure that you were able to make more raw ingredients for them. That's kind of the situation that we have.

Representative Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Sponsors. My question is, is it the job of the legislator to deem that money acquired by a private business using prior prior purportory algorithms for the purpose of providing services to producers that those funds are owed to another private business? Essentially, is it the role of the government to come into private business and tell them what they can and can't do? Senator John.

Representative Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I really do appreciate this conversation. It is so complex, and I continue to work to wrap my brain around all of this. and please know that I am not a subject matter expert when it comes to cattle, although I pretend like I am. No, I'm kidding. I love fluffy cows, right?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question. And in the original bill, the idea was to apply the data to the land kind of as a surface or mineral right. But because of those complexities of leased farms and cattle grazing on public land, that does not actually work in practice. So, Amendment L-001 changes the ownership to the producer that produces the crops. And maybe we need to change that to crops or livestock, or if crops does actually include that, I don't, we'd have to go back to the definition. But that the intention of L001 is to make sure that if the owner of the actual agricultural product let say is actually getting the data All right I not seeing any other questions AML Winter

you madam chair and i i think as far as i as far as i know of how a lot of these lease agreements work, if you are the landowner and you lease land to a farmer, you're basically giving them the ability to apply fertilizer and pesticide and everything else at the discretion of the person leasing the land. So in that respect, you are giving full access to the land to the person who who's farming the land. That would mean that if the farmer was doing all of those activities and using machinery that was collecting that data, that that should be owned by the person who's actually applying all that. And that is usually in the contract that the person does with the lease should have all of that outlined in it as far as I understand. I would refer to the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union for any maybe additional detail on that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So when you're looking at, you know, the leasing of land, mineral rights don't come with the leasing of land when someone wants to go and put crops on. So I'm confused when you mention that farmers are producing crude oil because they're not the ones producing the crude oil. That has to do with split estates, mineral rights, everything else. And so when you're separating the data usage on this technology and it could be affecting other things, I just want to make sure that we're getting the facts right with how these land leases work. mineral rights, what our agricultural producers are actually producing, what they're not producing, and just making sure for those listening in that we are putting the right facts out there.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's just an analogy. It's not a perfect analogy. It's more, you know, let's not think of it as actual crude oil because data is not like a physical thing that we're pumping out of the ground. And there is, there are laws and legal aspects to that type of product. It's more of the metaphor of saying that crude oil is really has the least value of anything when you take it out of the ground. It's the least valuable when you transform it into jet fuel, diesel fuel, gasoline, plastics, pharmaceuticals, fertilizer, all those other things where you make it from that. That's where the money is really made. The crude oil itself is actually the cheapest of the things and that's what the raw data we're talking about in that metaphor is just that it is that metaphorical crude oil the the land owner does not have any right to it with the amendment in this bill it is to the farmer who's producing this data from the machines that they have

Representative Tuchel.

Representative Garcia-Sander

Representative Tuchel

Representative Johnson.

Representative Tom.

Seeing no further questions, sponsors, do you have a preference on your witness order? We could do some in favor and then opposition. and then if we have enough in favor after that to go, let's alternate until we're exhausted. Okay. There probably won't be any alternating, as I can tell you. So do you want to start with against or start out with? Let's start out with the opposition, and then we'll go to the support after that. Okay. Well, then we might be able to alternate. Okay. I will start with calling up witnesses that have signed up against the bill, and I have four chairs up here. So I'm going to call you up in order. Mr. Russell Ball, Justin Murray, Damon McGeary, Stephen Richardson. I have online Dr. Amy Cherkowski. So I'm missing a, I have an empty seat, so I'm going to call somebody else. Let's call up Mr. Rick Ballinger. Are you here? All right. I'm going to start from my left to my right and then go online. So for everyone that's sitting at a chair in front of me, there's a tiny little gray button where the plug plugs into the table. you're going to want to make sure that is on and the light is green and then give us your name who you represent and you'll have three minutes so I'll start with you and you can start when you're ready good afternoon Madam Chair Vice Chair

You've got a full two and a half minutes. You can tell us what you think. Oh. This is your chance.

I think I would rather let that. Okay, that's fair. Nobody's going to make you. Just a farmer. Thank you. Love that. All right. When you're ready, go ahead. Give us your name, who you represent, and you'll have three minutes. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your testimony. Yes, sir. When you're ready, go right ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair.

ready go ahead introduce yourself you have three minutes thank you my name is rick ballinger i'm

Thank you for your testimony. I'll go online to Ms. Tchaikovsky. When you're ready, go ahead and unmute your microphone, and you'll have three minutes.

Thank you for your testimony. I have a couple of questions, so I'll start. The first question is for, I think it was for Mr. Ball. You had mentioned one of the questions I had in my head. You actually started to speak to it this arrangement of sharing this data for machine health diagnostics and how would that work in actual practice You laid it out pretty clearly I wanted to hear more about how that actually works now. You mentioned a call out, and I don't actually know what that is though you alluded to that so if you could talk a little bit more about what a call out is and how often that data sharing happens because it sounds like it might happen quite frequently and and then that purchase and reselling of data back and forth sounds problematic so just give me a little bit more on that real life visualization visualization thank you thank you madam chair and i apologize for for not making myself clear using terminology uh so a

Thank you. I have one more question for Mr. Ballinger. You had talked about this issue with federal preemption and copyright law. Further questioning that I had along that same line was, could you talk to us about, I'm assuming you're an attorney. I am an attorney.

the commerce clause and the federal statutes governing interstate commerce as well as the federal arbitration act preemption concern can you speak to both of those briefly

I don't know the Arbitration Act.

All right, that's fine. Thank you. A different lawyer. Further questions for this panel?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

In terms of does it have to have the data to do, only if you're doing certain things. So we have combines out now with predictive ground speed control, which they're using AI cameras looking out in front of the machine, making sure that it knows how much mass flow is coming into the machine so it knows how to set the speed prior to getting there. They do that to optimize that machine so that it has the exact right amount of throughput the whole time. So if you wanted to use that data, you absolutely have to have that data flowing all the time. You don't have to. You can push a button, turn that off, run the stick yourself, go back to old school, however you want. So, yeah, I mean, and we've still got in my trade area, Mr. Winner's area down there, there's a lot of machines that have no data. I mean, they still work and run every day. How important it is to a grower depends on the grower widely. A lot of them, you get into the high dollar crops, the veggie crops, not really my area, but they have to, I mean, they use the data all the time to optimize their equipment. I hope that answers your question, and I am a little hurt that Chair McCormick did not assume that I was a lawyer, but that's okay. I mean, he does come off a little smoother than me. I do get it. I'm a wannabe lawyer.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And this question is for Ms. Tchaikovsky.

Okay.

concerns with this bill? Dr. Tcharkovsky. Yeah. Yes, I have. And it would not just be CSU. There There are also people at the University of Colorado who work with agricultural producers because it overlaps You know agriculture is business Any place with a business college or interested in environmental issues will be likely working with farmers So this is going to broadly impact university research in Colorado. Like I said, I very much believe as a researcher that this is an important issue that needs to be addressed. But I think it would help to do it in partnership with the people who have spent decades doing this. And I hope I hope that that's a next step here. And I want to really emphasize I'm testifying as a citizen and not as an employee of anybody.

I'm just going to say go Rams and the buff to my left stole my question.

AML Winter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Ballinger, I have a quick question for you. I'm sure you're keeping an eye on Nebraska right now. And I know that they've done extensive stakeholding over the last year. They put their bill off to make sure that they got that done. And it seems like the Nebraska Farm Bureau is still saying that even though with the governor pushing this, that there's going to have to be some other big changes. Can you kind of, I don't know, compare and contrast kind of the two different bills? Is that possible?

Mr. Ballinger, I have to call on you for all the thousands that are listening so they know who's talking, even though we know you're talking, they don't know you're talking. Mr. Ballinger.

Representative Stewart.

My question is from Mr. Ball.

Mr. Ball?

Representative Story.

um thank you thank you for the question uh yeah so there's a lot of agronomic data that flows in all the time now we do use that all the all the time to help them in optimization optimizing their equipment so that it handles the the hopefully the better yields that we produce um there's a lot of groups uh that do soil testing they do i mean multiples um now they can share that data up through the John Deere Operations Center if they choose to or not. It's up to them entirely. But, yeah, there's an immense amount of data out there. My particular field, I use the agronomic data to help with optimization, and I use the machine health data to keep that machine moving. There is tons of other data out there, but I don't personally touch that very much. I really couldn't speak to what anyone does with that. I'm sorry if that doesn't quite answer your question.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a question for the farmer from Baca County. You're not just a farmer from Baca County. You're really important, probably one of the most important people in this room, so thank you. I'm just curious, after you've heard our questions and some of the responses, sometimes that generates things that, oh, I wish I could have said that, or I should say it. I just want to know if you have anything that you want to share with us now.

Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question. I do agree with their standpoint on, you know, our data sharing. There's, I wasn't, I can't say that I'm just a farmer either. I have worked in the industry as well. I did precision ag. I was actually his precision ag technician. And that data that us now as producers share to the dealerships, they actually help us become more efficient. I don't know how many times I've called our dealerships asking for pointers or if they can pull a code up for us. that way we can either fix the problem order parts or anything like that and they do it at no cost to us And I think if this bill does make it that far to where it does pass I think that will put a huge damper on producers in the state of Colorado.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and it's great to see southeastern Colorado in here. Appreciate you gentlemen making the drive. Based off of kind of what Ms. Tchaikovsky had talked about, which is stakeholdering, you know, other than the church and the sporting event and the diner, usually one of the other places that farmers congregate is the parts house and the tractor dealership. And my question to you is, is how often is this subject brought up by the farmers in southeastern Colorado, and are they talking about it? That's for Mr. Richardson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Rep. We have not really had a discussion about where our data is going. It's not something that we worry about. We have a million other things to worry about right now with the market volatility. I mean, corn prices up and down, wheat prices up and down, water shortages, chemical prices going through the roof. obviously with everything going on overseas it's driven prices up drastically and I think I do a lot of paperwork and the last thing I want to do is more paperwork and I do believe that you know like they said if we sell that data to them they're just going to turn around and send the cost right back to us capitalism is its finest I mean that's just the way it works i think we all know that mr ball thank you madam chair thank you rip winner for the question the the simple answer is up until this bill dropped two weeks ago it was never discussed i never had anyone ever come in and ask me you know what what's going on with my data other than you know a specific question did you get enough information to get me a solution since the bill dropped i have reached out and asked several of the producers and said what do you think of this? And they said, what problem are we trying to solve? He said, everything's working right now just fine for me. They are not enamored with the idea of turning their data over to the state of Colorado. And I hope I didn't misrepresent the bill. I don't really know how that works. But no one seemed overly excited about that. Certainly at the time we were discussing that we're not excited about an excise tax on anything that they sold through that. None of them appear to have any ambition to file another report with the state of Colorado, which I assume you'd have to do through this bill if you billed someone for data. Nobody seems too fired up about that. But honestly, it never came up until I got wind of the bill a couple of weeks ago, and I actually went out and asked. Thank you for the question.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I would like to say that we all take care of each other down in southeastern Colorado. So the question I have is, do you see massive fluctuations in fertilizer and seed costs that you think are based off of data that comes out of, you know, that comes from this equipment? Do you see those fluctuations in southeastern Colorado that you think that would be driven from data collection? For Mr. Ball?

Thank you Madam Chair, thank you Rep You know, that's a very intriguing question. You know, the seed costs go up and up. Fertilizer costs go up and up. How much of that is data-driven? A lot of it. The seed companies are using the data to sell the seed, and they say, you know, this seed will grow better in an arid climate. if you're planting dry land corn in your area in southern colorado eastern colorado it's going to be an arid climate usually um so they definitely and now where they get that data i i do not know i'm sure they share uh our growers our producers within the john deer and i i assume case h is the same they can share that with their seed guy they can share it with their fertilizer guy and they can certainly use it to try to get the optimal seed on that particular piece of ground. The other thing on the fertilizer question, one of the things that is really happening through the sea and spray technologies, we're trying to just spray the weed and not spray every acre of ground to keep the producer's chemical costs down and keep the chemical in our soils down for better soil health. So they definitely use that data every minute of every day to help them with that. As far as the costs, I mean, you know, I don't know what it costs to produce seed. They certainly charge for it, but there is a lot of stacked seed, you know, that is heavily data-driven for sure.

My name is Jacob Asari and I represent the associated equipment distributors. You know, we're not opposed to transparency or clarity for farmers and we deeply respect their labor and their input. The challenge is that the data is tied to proprietary software, which is built inside the machines by the manufacturers. So this bill in its current form creates a lot of ambiguity around the definition of ownership. It doesn't define what happens once the farmers own the data, and also risk raising pricing on the equipment, damages partnerships and dealer agreements that are already in the community. So we obviously don't want to see a collapse in rural businesses. We represent a lot of small and medium-sized businesses all throughout the state of Colorado, and we don want to force a lawsuit or trigger any unintended tax hikes So ultimately our goal is to have a balanced approach by referring this bill to a study group or a task force so that we can craft a reasonable solution that keeps the farmers empowered but also protects the entire ag economy from disruption.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm Paul McGarry, farm in southeast Colorado down by Springfield. I purchased my first equipment, if you would call it, for the availability to collect any of this data in 2008. In the last 18 years, we had really simple things, and they've gotten way better over the – I mean, this has gotten way better in the last 18 years. I guess to not take up a whole bunch of your time, but in that 18 years, I've never, ever had anybody come knock on my door and want to buy my data. If I could sell it for $100,000, I'd probably sell it for $100,000, but it hasn't happened yet. So I'll just yield to you guys, and I'd probably be better answering questions than making speeches.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Parker White, and I serve as the director of the Colorado Competitive Council, representing business and organizational partners across the state in service of maintaining a competitive economy and business climate here in Colorado. We are in opposition to House Bill 26-1270. The most important way to understand this bill and to understand our position is to look past the word agricultural every time it appears before the word data. Once Colorado establishes the principle contained in this bill, the next step and the next expansion beyond agriculture and into other sectors of the economy will be incredibly damaging. House Bill 26-1270 creates a new concept in Colorado law, a state-established property right and operationally generated data that can override existing contractual terms of service. Today, those relationships are governed by contracts, often the click-through agreements that define how platforms and users interact and how data generated through those platforms can be used. The challenge is that the logic of this bill doesn't stop at agriculture. That same principle could easily apply to smart meter data from utilities, broadband and telecom usage data, vehicle telemetrics, wearable health devices, retail transactions and loyalty programs, social media activity, and industrial equipment data. That matters because the modern digital economy rests on a very simple bargain. Consumers receive services for free or at very low cost, and in exchange, platforms are allowed to use the data generated through that activity, subject to Colorado's already robust consumer data privacy rules. Email, maps, social media, and many other tools rely on that bargain. Data is used, and in exchange, those everyday services are free because the data helps subsidize those services. If statutes begin overriding those agreements and creating compensation rights for operationalized data, the economics change very quickly. Platforms would face three choices, pay users, charge users, or exit markets. In most cases, services would simply move to subscription models. That does not make the internet or those services more equitable. It makes access to basic digital services dependent on the ability to pay, which risks pricing out the very consumers who benefit from today most ad services For those reasons we respectfully urge the committee to oppose House Bill 26 Thank you Thank you for your testimony Yes sir when you ready give us your name and you have three minutes

My name is Eric Wareham. I am Vice President of Government Affairs for the North American Equipment Dealers Association. We represent 3,500 farm, industrial, and outdoor power equipment dealers across North America. I want to make a point right off the bat that we, for our association, I think the other association here, all the dealers and the manufacturers have expressed a strong desire to work with producers on this issue. I don't want to downplay at all the nature of protecting your data, ensuring data privacy, and also who can control it and who can access it. The difference is that Nebraska has spent 18 months on this bill. As Representative Winter pointed out, we've had this bill for 18 days. It's very complex. It brings in other aspects that we're not even considering as far as other product categories, other concerns beyond agriculture. But I want to take my time to reiterate a few things and make it clear. One is you've heard multiple times, at least for the dealers, they do not sell data. I think if we heard it once, we heard it a dozen times, that there's billions of dollars in data. There's money pouring in, raining down from the sky on data sales. Our dealers don't have any involvement in that. The manufacturers have represented their publicly traded companies. You can look at their financials. They do not sell data. So I don't know where that is coming from. I think this bill is based on some misconceptions. And misconceptions sometimes lead to misguided legislation that comes up with absurd results. And what you've heard is dealers would be in the position, if this bill were to pass, that they would have to charge their customers for data or pay their customers for data to help them perform repairs on their own equipment. That's an absurd result. So I think given the data privacy law that's intact, the framework of private legal agreements that currently exist, there is plenty of data protection. If we need to do more, we're more than willing to do that. But I would say that this bill, with the multiple late amendments that we've seen, that we weren't even aware of coming into today, it demonstrates that there's a lot of work that needs to be done here. This bill is not ready for prime time in our opinion. And also I want to bring up a point that hasn't been made. All of these reporting requirements, the voluminous amount of reporting that's required under the bill, if we look at the enforcement actions under this, there is a private cause of action created that would allow dealers to be sued for basically doing their job. And the penalties are rather stiff. I encourage you to take a look at that with my time remaining. I'll concede.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Brandon Melnikoff, and I'm here testifying on behalf of Colorado Farm Bureau, the state's largest grassroots agriculture organization with over 20,000 members. First and foremost, we generally support the idea of farmers and ranchers having the right to control and expect privacy of their data However we are here today testifying in a monitor position on this bill It certainly a strange place to be to testify this way but many of you have asked where we are in this bill, so we thought that it was appropriate to testify. And as we've conveyed in our conversations with committee members, we are struggling to understand the impacts and utility of this legislation. We've talked to numerous members, and a common response was that this policy could hinder the efficacy, availability, and cost of our inputs, research, finance, and support services. We immediately turned to our members and partners for guidance. We met with ranchers, farmers, small agriculture startups, researchers, and family-owned agriculture technology companies to understand what this bill does for them and how it will affect our industry. The people we talked to also struggled to comprehend the intent and desired results of this legislation, while recognizing that this is an extremely technical and complex subject that deserves a thoughtful conversation. That has been reaffirmed by the recent physical note that underscores the complexity of this framework with substantial incurred costs for both the Department of Revenue and the Department of Agriculture. I would like to make it clear that we think that this is certainly an important conversation and are willing to roll up our sleeves and figure it out. But to get this policy right, it is critical that a robust stakeholding process and thoughtful conversation be had. We strongly believe that with enough time and the right people at the table, we can come up with a strong policy for Colorado's farmers and ranchers. Great policy is made when stakeholders are empowered to clearly convey their position, whether that be support, oppose, or amend. Ultimately, that is our reason for a monitor today. Thank you for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you Madam Chair.

process of this piece of legislation?

Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you Representative Winter. There was one stakeholder call after the bill was introduced and there's been no follow-up since so we would certainly love to be engaged with prior to the session and prior to introduction.

Are any of you attorneys?

And I guess as I understand it, part of the fiscal note that came down, I think a substantial portion of it was attributed to the AG defending this law in federal court. And that's because of the preemption. So federal law is supreme law of the land, states in certain areas, whether it's Field preemption or conflict preemption, states are not allowed to pass laws that conflict with federal law. Here, as counsel for Deere pointed out, there is a clear preemption argument because copyright law is a field preemption. States are not allowed to make law even, it's not just as a floor, but it's also the ceiling. It occupies the entire field. And so here, generally speaking, the state is not allowed to pass legislation, certainly that conflicts. And I think counsel did a good job talking about how the idea of ownership conflicts with federal law, which is focused on the idea of control and privacy. I hope that answers. Thank you.

You'll have three minutes. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Madeline Robertson. I'm the Director of State Government Relations for Rocky Mountain Farmers Union. We represent family farmers and ranchers through our grassroots policy process. Rocky Mountain Farmers Union supports House Bill 26-1270. This legislation is a crucial step in empowering Colorado's agricultural producers by providing them with clear ownership and control over the data they generate. For far too long, our farmers and ranchers have been relinquishing valuable data without fair compensation or control, often through opaque terms of service. This data is integral to modern agriculture by providing insights that drive efficiency, sustainability, and profitability. This data is worth billions annually, yet producers are not capturing its value. This bill rectifies that imbalance. It clearly establishes that producers own their raw agricultural data and, importantly, retain ownership of transformed agricultural data, the value-added intellectual property derived from their raw data. This empowers producers to not only access and control their data, but also to monetize it in various markets, ensuring they receive fair market value compensation. This bill places vital restrictions on data service providers, preventing them from monopolizing this data, restricting producer markets, or engaging in unfair practices. This fosters a more competitive and innovative agricultural ecosystem. This bill is not just about data. It's about fairness, economic vitality for our agricultural sector, and the future of family farming in Colorado. I urge you to pass House Bill 1270. Thank you.

and some consumers throughout the country with some people, members in Colorado. I'm also a professor of international relations at San Francisco State University in California. and also my family has a dairy farm in Wisconsin, so that's a bit about me and where I come from. I speak in favor of the legislation because there's a variety of reasons. One is that in terms of data, in terms of ownership and control, I think farmers, particularly this fight for control over data, has been ongoing for years. I know that your state's been at the forefront with things like the right to repair legislation. And this legislation falls in line with that. And I think that one issue particularly here is competition. There's a way that this legislation empowers farmers, producers, not just as consumers, but as producers to fight back against a lot of the imbalance in markets that we see. I've done research on not just information technology in agriculture, but also on competition. If anybody would like any of that research in terms of papers or books or anything, I can share that information with you. There's also publications from a group called Farm Action on competition that goes into, I think someone on the panel mentioned some of the negative comments about what kind of data is being collected. And it's not just implements, but it is animal health, it's seeds, it's fertilizers, and all those industries are heavily concentrated in different varieties. By the HHI measurement, those industries are over four firms in each of those areas control well over 40% of the markets. And when you have areas that are so concentrated, those companies then can control what farmers do, what products that they have. And so while there's contracts and they can sign things and they can click things and so on, they're already locked into those agreements. There's really little choice to be made. So this legislation pushes back on that in some way by empowering farmers to have more control over their data, over what they produce. And they can maybe try to find other producer or other service providers to essentially level the playing field a little bit more. And some of the other comments I've heard about, will this impact machinery sales? I don't think so. There's a lot of resources. Look at the current farm bill. There is so much resources being put forward to promote precision agriculture. And so there's a lot of interest in this. I can tell you from other farmers in our membership, people have been going to international conferences about data protection and conferences in the U.S. as well. So that's it. I'm at time.

thank you chair my name is willie kade i am a board member of repair.org last time i was here we i testified in favor of right to repair so i want to say thank you to all of you legislators for making that happen um i have submitted a written report to you but i wanted to briefly jump into a couple of the questions and answer those that came up One of the ways that the data is used in 2021 22 and 23 John Deere decreased its warranty payouts by a total of billion They instituted a new product improvement program that called Fixes Fail. They were using this data to understand if a particular problem with the machine could go past warranty and then be paid for, that repair be paid for by the equipment owner. So there is very real, very real dollar amounts that people are taking, that the equipment manufacturers are taking advantage of during that same time period of those three years. the inflation rate for repair of equipment went up 42%, twice the national average. So these dollars are very real. This is a very real asset. I was particularly pleased to note that the opponents to this legislation do want to give and make sure that the farmers have access and control. And in my book, Access and Control is Ownership. And I note that the lawyer from John Deere, Mr. Ballinger, I believe it was, said that they started with it as the producer owned the data, but then they changed it in the click agreement without any concurrence on anyone who had previously signed it. So that is kind of the problem here that we're having with these click agreements, these turn your key agreements is in that agreement is we can change it anytime we want. And what seems like a small change from you own the data to you have the right to request it being deleted is actually a very big deal. John Deere, in their 2024 LEAP ambitions, have stated that this data, precision agriculture, is more than $150 billion incremental value that will be created. We're not saying you take it away. We're saying at least allow the farmers to participate in that market. Thank you.

Oh, sorry. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. My name is Andrew Brandt. I'm the executive director of an organization called Elect More Hackers. And you may wonder why Hacker is addressing the Ag and Natural Resources Committee, but this is one of those cases in which I believe that our interests align with the farmers and people who are doing agribusiness. So one thing I haven't heard in this committee is that the data that is being collected by the equipment in these farms is itself a natural resource. And it is something that is being produced by the farms and the farmers who own them with the help of the manufacturers of this equipment. So all of this I view it as a story of data enrichment Now data enrichment is a concept that is very common in technology and information security But let me take a little history lesson to go back 140 years and talk about a way that data enrichment improved the lives of everyone in Colorado So going back to the late 19th century in Colorado, there was a company called the Sanborn Fire Insurance Company. Now, Colorado had its own surveyors and mapmakers who were producing maps of streets of the towns and cities in Colorado at the time. But the Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps were incredibly valuable then, and they continue to be valuable even today to history researchers because of the data enrichment involved in the creation of those maps. because they were a fire insurance company, the maps were created specifically to detail the manufacturing materials that were used in structures, whether they had porches, whether they had awnings or other things that could catch fire. And that data made them special and unique across the state and throughout history as a way of researching in detail, in depth, how those structures could pose a threat and would help set the rate for fire insurance. When you're talking about the farm data that these folks are discussing, we're not just talking about the telemetry and the functioning of a tractor. We're also talking about the amount of moisture in the soil, the amount of fertilizer in the soil, the production of every square foot of an agricultural field. And if it's not really obvious, that is incredibly valuable data for the farmer to understand, but also to the irrigation company to know where they need to work on a part of the field that's really wet or really dry, or a seed company that might have a special seed that works better in this particularly hot area of their field. All of this data is incredibly valuable. And what the tractor companies are doing is they're basically overlaying a virtual farm on top of the existing farms, and they are farming that data off of the farmers themselves. We just ask that the farmers have access to that data and governance over that data. Thank you.

Representative Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is for Mr. Cade. Are you a farmer or an attorney?

AML Inter? I have a couple questions. Is that okay? Yes. Go right ahead. Thank you. Ms. Robertson, like I asked, Colorado Farm Bureau, when did you see language on this legislation?

Ms. Robertson.

We had known that the idea of this bill would be coming, but we saw the language along with everyone else. AML Winter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Cade we've heard two of the largest farming organizations in the state said they didn't see this bill until it dropped don't you think that this bill should be stakeholder with the actual farmers that and the organizations that represent them at some point Mr. Cade thank you chair um I

Let me go to – I'll come back to you.

Yes, sir. And the second one was that the companies might use the data to prolong a part that might be failing as long as they can get it past the warranty. Where did you get that information at? Mr. Cade. The first figure comes from John Deere's 2024 report on page seven. I think it's their sustainability report, but I may have the name of it wrong. And it speaks to that precision agriculture is $150 billion incremental opportunity for John Deere. And in terms of the fix-if-fail PIPs, they're called product improvement programs, we have been seeing and studying those through farmers. They did not come up, to my knowledge, prior to 2021. And in 2021, when you take a look at the SEC reports on warranty payouts by John Deere and other manufacturers, there's a statistic anomaly of a four standard deviations decrease in the warranty payouts to the dealers that represented over those three years $1.25 billion. And I'd be happy to share the data with you on that.

Mr. Brand. Thank you. Yeah, thank you for the question. So the real issue here is whether the farmer has a choice in which agribusiness that they want to do business with to buy those seeds. If they are working with a particular ag equipment manufacturer and that ag equipment manufacturer has a relationship in which they doing data sharing with seed brokers or with companies that do fertilizer provisions or who provide irrigation those companies can work together and that data is shared within that closed ecosystem within that walled garden of data that being kept What I think the big issue here is and what all of you should be thinking about is that with greater portability of that data and access to the raw data itself, farmers have the ability, and the ag companies that do repairs and do service on the equipment also have the ability to shop around and to compete on a more level playing field for price and services and other things without being encased in this wall of garden where they don't really have a choice over who they're able to work with because the data is only being shared within the group of companies that are part of this partnership. It's something that we've seen work well with, for example, HIPAA. When you want to change to a different doctor's office, you can go to your old doctor and ask for all of your medical records and have them delivered to you so you can bring them to your new doctor, and then they have access to your entire history. This is essentially the same thing that we're doing, but we're asking for it for farmers so that they can take the information about their fields, their cows, whatever the agricultural product they're working on, and be able to take it to the place that will give them the best price and the best deal.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will write a draft for you on that one because it's not something I can present immediately here. But I will get a brief for you prepared by our team, okay?

And that's all I'm going for, Mr. K. In this context of raw data, not copyrighted data, not transformed data, there really is new ground being broken, as Representative Titone talked about. And so the real question is, is this raw data like weather data that if copyrighted would create all kinds of issues? Or is this data like a digital camera that takes a picture, which is clearly copyrightable? So that's the kind of boundary that we're working on here.

Thank you Madam Chair And this is to the question of the gentleman to the far left mentioning all these numbers I just curious have you talked boots on the ground with farmers or ranchers or is this all speculation based on data you seeing online I just really concerned when I haven heard about this from my northeast district I have the top ag producing house district. I haven't heard of this need. And then I took the I went and vetted this out with my folks once this bill was introduced, which is only a couple of weeks. I haven't heard of this until this came out, and it's very concerning the ag groups haven't been looped in until now or just a couple weeks ago.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Representative Smith? Thank you, Madam Chair. And this question is for Mr. Cade. So we are the Ag Committee. And none of us are attorneys. And, you know, I studied this over the weekend. And the fact that this bill, if it passes, we potentially will be in arrears with the federal government over copyright laws, which to me sort of sounds like something that should go to judiciary or that the attorney general should be, you know, talking to the bill sponsors. So do you see if we pass this bill that, you know, the state of Colorado might be at risk to go to the state Supreme Court and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court?

Thank you for the question. Any further questions from the committee?

Are you directing that to a particular person?

Mr. Brandt.

working. Mr. Cade. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do not believe that that would be the case. I think what would happen is the data environment for agriculture in Colorado would become competitive. And there would be lots of small businesses, there'd be large agribusiness, and that would be a very rich environment for innovation and, quite frankly, greater profitability for farmers. I want to also address that it is my understanding from the data that I've been able to look at for farmers represented on page seven of the machinery, that there is data that is being withheld from the producers about their machines, specifically the level of NOx, NOx, that is produced by those machines, which is a very important element because farmers can be on the hook if they're polluting to the tune of $4,459 for such an instance. So we don't know what data is being held. I'm very suspicious that that data is not being shared. And what else isn't being shared? So just back to the notion here is control and access. for me, that screams ownership. Now, if I want to work with my dealer and give my dealer all my agronomic data, et cetera, happy to do that. But agronomic data associated with all the other data can be a very sensitive piece of information for farmers. And farmers are not, I don't think that they want that data out there for the highest bidder.

AML Winter. And I just have to stress this. You have to understand something. You keep saying, I don't think farmers would. I don't think farmers would. I think we should ask the farmers. I know they're busy planting fields, and I understand that. But, I mean, you know, there's a lot of times in these committees we talk about stakeholdering bills, and there's a lot of times that people say, well, I don't think this bill's been stakeholder good enough with the people that it affects. And maybe there's other things farmers want in this bill. Or maybe there's things that the data that you see don't show that might benefit farmers, but you don't know unless you talk to them. And when you're trying to pass a piece of legislation that affects a group of people and they haven't even been brought to the table, I don't know. It's a little confusing for me. And it seems like it's unfortunate, but in rural Colorado, we get a lot of this people that know what's best for us without asking us. So I would just ask that, you know, don't you think farmers should have been brought to the table more? And we've seen another state spend over a year stakeholdering something like this with farm organizations. So don't you think that that would be beneficial to even in your research? I mean, you're looking at the data. You said you're not a farmer. I understand that. But don't you think as you aggregate that data, there might be some input the farmers have that point out something that you might have not seen in the data or think of? So as we writing legislation that going to affect them I think that they should be at the table to at least chat with you Mr Cade Thank you Madam Chair There has been reference to the work on Nebraska LB 525

So thank you. All right. May I answer that as well? Oh, yes, Mr. Brandt.

Thank you. Thank you all for your time today. We appreciate you showing up and being here for our committee. Last call for anyone in the room that wanted to justify on House Bill 1270. Seeing none, that ends the witness phase of our hearing, and I'll call the bill sponsors back up for the amendment phase. I believe we do have amendments that have been passed out to the committee One amendment we all got well in advance because it was a multi amendment So committee, you should have had that, L003. But sponsors, which one would you like us to start with? And we'll move it, and then you can tell us about it.

Representative Morrow. I move L-001 to House Bill 1270.

All right, that's been moved and seconded. Representative Titone.

Any questions on L001? Any objection to L001? Seeing none, L001 is adopted.

Representative Morrow. I move L004 to House Bill 1270.

Seconded by Representative Martinez. Tell us about L004.

Any questions on L004? Any objection to L004? Seeing none, L004 is adopted. Representative Titone. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let's move L-005. This is the petition clause.

Second.

Representative Morrow. Move L-003 to House Bill 1270.

Second by Representative Martinez. L-003, Representative Tatum. Thank you, Madam Chair. So this is really the part of the bill that gets us to cut through the legal issues with traditional ownership where you have copyright and trade secrets and things like that So we know we cannot use those as part of this kind of ownership. This approach is a novel approach of using a fiduciary duty like a financial person would have for – if you were to have them be a custodian of your money, that you would want them to have a return on investment for it. We're looking at this because the farmer and the producer is creating this data. They don't really have an option to make a contract and have that negotiated with the owners of these companies. And as a result, all of this data that's collected as the metaphor of the oil is being used for all kinds of different purposes. And the producer gets nothing for it. So what this is really about is having the duty of loyalty, the duty of care, the duty of disclosure, and the duty to account. So the folks who are getting the data are the ones that are collecting it and applying it to a farmer's account. And then if that data is used or stolen, if there's a data breach, or if they're using it or having another entity have another relationship with them to use the data, that they're getting something for it. And that's what this amendment is really about. This becomes the real core of how we can get around the raw data as not being copyrightable or to be a trade secret, that this is actually just being treated as that kind of raw commodity in and of itself with a duty to the folks that are using it.

this fiduciary duty? Representative Titone. Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, to your second part of the question, that goes to page four, which is the penalty breach of fiduciary duty. That goes to court proceedings that you might have that you would have to prove that this breach happened. So that is an outline in the bill about the breach. As you said, which line? 19 through 24? On page 226 through 29. That's just one example.

So the fiduciary must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest before any data transaction with a third party. because they don't want the producer's data to be used to benefit the producer's expense. So if it was being used to do surveillance pricing against the producer to say, well, we know how well your farm is doing or how not well your farm is doing and we're going to sell you fertilizer at a higher price, that that would be a breach of the fiduciary duty because that would be using their data against them.

Any other questions on L-003? Any objection to L-003? Seeing none, L-003 is adopted. Any further amendments, sponsors? Any amendments, committee? All right, seeing none, that ends the amendment phase. We're back to you, Representative Velasco.

Representative Chetown.

Thank you. Sponsors, Rep Morrow, if you would go ahead and move the bill for us. I move. To the Committee on Appropriations. I move House Bill 261270 as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Second.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, sponsors. Thank you, all the witnesses. It was really important for me to listen to everybody today. I can see the tensions, you know, in trying to, in the nuance in dealing with this issue, but I think I come to it from the point of view of it feels like we are constantly trying to catch up with the implications that advancing technologies are having on all areas of our lives. And even in this work, I think sometimes we are learning because I feel sometimes behind on whether it's AI or data collection or how we deal with social media or any of this stuff because it's miles ahead. And we see the impacts of it. And then we are trying to do our best either from a privacy perspective or for consumer protection perspective. I just feel like we're always playing catch up. And sometimes we get there and sometimes we don't. And in this case, it's sometimes with a lot of technology of like what we don't even know, we don't know, or how this is interacting with our lives or livelihoods or whatever. And so I think this is a very interesting issue. And I just think it's so much of our time and this will be taking up so much of our legislation in the future. And importantly, I think it must. And so I'm really glad to see you bring this. I think even myself, I'm constantly learning and trying to make sure that I'm understanding what exactly is happening and the impacts on people or communities. But I think that this is something that we just can't let go, kind of unfettered, just to continue working the way that it is. And so I really appreciate you two bringing this at this time. It makes me... concern for the future is we have like our technology experts terming out of the legislature of making sure that we like carry the torch and make sure that we have expertise on these issues as we move forward because it is tricky and I think that from a consumer protection perspective yes of course everyone should read contracts big and small but a lot of the work that we do here whether in housing or business or here, the businesses know the psychology of people and how they either don't read contracts or aren't lawyers. And that is a real benefit to them. And so we have to, I think it is our job, as policymakers and government, to be fighting for the regular folks out there that are not lawyers, that are not, you know, super educated in business and contract law, that that is our job to also protect those folks. And so with that, thank you for bringing the bill, and I will be a yes today.

Representative Story. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the bill's sponsors for bringing this. It was a fascinating discussion, and I think I got a lot out of it too. But I think it is incredibly important that we focus on providing what's best for the people in Colorado. And I think it's telling that was mentioned earlier that Rocky Mountain Farmers Union is farmers and that they were here and they are supporting the bill. the farmers union is farmers and manufacturers so they have you know both it was a farm viruro did i say it wrong my my bad and so to me there's somewhat of a conflict there internally regarding that situation and this one And I think it's also somewhat telling that the industry came with attorneys to present. And I think that means a lot, and it should mean a lot, that it requires attorneys to be here to explain why this is bad policy. and I would guess that a lot of farmers aren here right now just individual farmers because they out in their fields doing their work And to take a whole day off to sit here trying to figure out when a bill might come up is probably not, you know, not where they can put their priorities, I guess. And I also have issues that with, you know, if the data is so readily available to the farmers and they can have it whenever they want, then why is the spill such a problem? Because that's what the spill is trying to do is ensure that they have full access to it, not unlike the blueberry farmer was, or the blueberry farming story was shared, that it was open access. Like we have open access textbooks for institutions of higher ed for the students there because that's a better deal for the students. And, you know, if we're going to, if all this data is going to be collected from the work that farmers are doing on their farms, then they should be able to get online and find it and access it whenever they want, even if it means they hire somebody internally for their farm or their production to be able to look at that data for them and pick out what is going to be important for that farm. And they shouldn't have to request it and go through any kind of hoops or loops to get it. It should just be readily available to them. So I am a yes on this bill. I'm sure there are some things that could be changed and updated and edited and amended in whatever, but I think this is a good start, and I think the focus is on the farmers where it needs to be.

AML Winter.

I just, for me, it makes it really hard because you all know I'm in my district all the time. And when I mean all the time, all the time, and never once have I ever even heard of anything about this until this bill come on the docket. And I spend tons of time and I have some pretty, I mean, rocky forward. I have areas where there is some major farming going along And if the bill makes it out of committee, it'll give me time to stakeholder with these people and actually chat with them about it. If it does make it out of committee, it's hard for me to understand something that, I mean, I appreciate your willingness to, your quest to help farmers. I just have to talk to the farmers. I mean, I said, no disrespect, but not once have I heard this in district over the last four years I've represented. So I just wanted to put that on the record. Thank you both.

Did I miss somebody? Representative Goldstein, sorry.

All right. We have a motion ready to vote. Ms. Kelly, please call the roll.

No. Goldstein.

No. Lindsay yes

Martinez yes

Winter.

Morrow. Yes.

No. Madam Chair.

Representative Lukens.

Representative Martinez when you're ready. Thank you Madam Chair and thank you members of the committee. So I want to refresh the memories as to how we got here with this resolution, why we're having this resolution heard in committee and where we are moving forward. So this summer in the Water Resources Agricultural Review Committee, we heard from – we got a presentation from our Farmers Market Association, the Colorado Farmers Market Association, CFMA, in regards to some of the struggles that they were going through with their organization and really a push to, like, really wanting to need some additional help. And I think one bill that came out of that conversation as well as others was the bill that we previously ran around the Colorado-grown products that Representative Soper and myself sponsored and is going through the process. Well, with this, when it came time to working on the bills for that committee that we were drafting, I took that upon myself to say, hey, what if we frame this around what New Mexico does? And New Mexico has incorporated their Farmers Market Association within their Department of Agriculture, just due to the produce that's there, the work with the producers, and then being able to get that product out into their markets. While we were going through that process, it actually turns out that it is already in statute that Colorado Department of Agriculture should be working with the Farmers Market Association throughout the state. And so with knowing that information and knowing that we were in a tight budget year this year, we didn't want to put any, A, undue burden onto the Department of Agriculture and having to take on another area. But then, two, this really allows for the Colorado Farmers Market Association to work with Department of Agriculture in this regard and hopefully find a solution that works beneficial for both them or both departments, Department of Agriculture and the Colorado Farmers Market Association. So when we were going through that process, we decided what is the best solution. What is the best avenue to be able to approach this? And so that's why we have this resolution instead of a bill that kind of outlines what I said before is, you know, just really encouraging the Department of Agriculture to work with the Farmers Market Association is really putting that emphasis on why farmers markets are beneficial to the state of Colorado, both for the individual towns, the producers, the consumers. and really, again, asking them to work together to be able to create a better environment for them. So that is why that resolution is here for you today, and that is why we are voting on it because that came out of our year-long agriculture, water, and our natural resources committee. So I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, that is one thing that we discussed while we were drafting this in the year-long committee was because it's coming out of the committee, that the committee has voted that out, that they are treating it as a bill, even though it is a resolution. So that's why they wanted to have a committee hearing in the committee of reference before it went to the House floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I reading the bill text and it says that in 2024 there were more than 120 farmers markets operating the state with thousands of small businesses participating during the market season returning approximately $1.62 to local communities for every dollar spent. How is that data collected?

Representative Goldstein.

Representative Martinez. Thank you, Representative, for that question. Is it this bill or the previous bill that we had passed, such as the agriculture products?

Thank you for the question. So the agriculture products came with this conversation. So essentially, this was one of the struggles that the Farmers Market Association said that they did have in working with different producers is that they found it difficult to really track where that initial produce was coming from. and that they had flagged on a few occasions where those market managers had said that, you know, that they would get like Palisade peaches or a leaf of sweet corn in, and they knew it was out of season. And so they, i.e., they're like, this is one reason why they needed that support from Department of Agriculture to help them out. So because these are two separate issues and that one really just is pertaining from that conversation that stemmed from that, I would like to have that bill continue on through the process Thank you Any other questions All right Seeing none we don have any witnesses signed up

Representative Martinez. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, in wrap-up on this, I think that this is a prime example of something that I think one shows the benefit to our year-long committee and the Water Resources Agriculture Review Committee in the summer being able to bring forth or bring into light some of these issues, right? Like we got a presentation from this. It was something that was worthwhile that we wanted to dive into and then coming to come to find out it's like, well, this is already in statute. And like, so then being able to make that review and then go back and say, what is the most reasonable step to make sure that a you know i think that the the committee felt that there was still a value to having that in statute one but then two um how do we move forward knowing that we're in a tight budget year so i think that that shows the value of a um the the year-long committee that we have but then be uh showing that what we can do to be um supportive and help continue to push along uh the departments to being able to being able to enact some of that again my guess is that it was written in that statute and a bill and probably just not being able to be reviewed in a certain period of time, I think, is really what caused this. So I think this is a reasonable step to really helping out our farmers market associations and really, again, showing the value that they bring to the table, being able to really hit that farm-to-table model that we like and we want to continue to see. And I think that once we get some additive support I really encouraged to see what kind of uh um places that that that they can go moving forward so with that i move um to the full house yes so i move

seconded by aml winter um not seeing any comments oh aml winter wants to say something please um thank you rep martinez for bringing this actually this weekend on my way home friday i had a discussion with simpson's local market in trinidad and one thing we talked about was the double up bucks and i think it's wildly important is we try to support our local producers that let's be real that they can go get those vegetables, their homegrown vegetables, their vegetables that have been grown in our communities. And even though I'm appreciative of the box stores that we have because you know living in a small community that they're very important for us, it's nice to see that these dollars that are there, they're going. People are getting more vegetables, which is good for them, and it's helping local producers. So I appreciate you bringing this. It's really awesome, and I support you 110%. Thank you.

Representatives Garcia-Sander.

Goldstein.

Johnson.

Lindsey.

Lukens.

Martinez.

Smith.

Stewart.

Story.

Sucla.

Winter.

Morrow.

Madam Chair.