March 26, 2026 · Finance · 7,462 words · 16 speakers · 66 segments
The committee will come to order. Please call the roll. Representatives Brooks. President. Camacho. Excuse. DeGraff. Excuse. Garcia. Here. Gonzalez. Here. Hartsock. Here. Marshall. He should be online. Can you sign up the link? I signed up the link. Excuse. Stewart. Excused. Zocay. Here. Tatum. Here. Mr. Chair. Here. We actually have a quorum, and we're going to get started. First up, House Bill 1111, Representative Mara.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. We appreciate your time today. House Bill 1111 is a Colorado pesticide disposal program. It's a new Colorado pesticide disposal program is proposed to provide a solution for commercial pesticide applicators and private farmers and ranchers that have not had an economical means to dispose of bulk or restricted-use pesticides. The program's goal is to safely dispose of unused unwanted pesticides and recycle associated containers. It addresses a long-standing issue, the lack of a viable, cost-effective disposal method for agriculture and commercial partners. The target groups are commercial and private agricultural applicators that have not had a viable, cost-effective disposal option, and it's directed toward agriculture products disposal with the ability to still dispose of other commercial and private individual pesticide products that may be being used. The main goals, safe yet economical disposal of unused and unwanted pesticides is the main goals. And I will hand it over to my co-prime who I appreciate doing this with me.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, this is setting up a self-funding enterprise through the Department of Ag where the primary funding source will be the pesticide product registration fees which all of these companies already pay. So this would be an additional fee that they would pay. This is a successful model that's been used in other states. And then they will set up multiple disposal and recycling events throughout the state at convenient locations for farmers and ranchers to be able to get many of these products that have been sitting in containers for decades in their sheds and garages, posing a risk to human health as well as environmental, soil, and watershed health. We're looking at about a $10 per product fee for an option for disposal, so it's very much more affordable for the farmer or rancher, and then potentially about a $30 increase to the registration fee for the manufacturer or the company that's selling in our state. So it will be funded by the ag and commercial pesticide industry, and it will serve the commercial and agricultural industry. And we will be bringing an amendment to the committee report today during the amendment phase.
Committee, any questions? Representative Brooks.
Sure, thank you. Is there any private industry or any local programs that provide a similar service that wouldn require then you know state expenditures and FTE Representative McCormick
Thank you for the question. There is a hazardous waste disposal option. The problem is that these options are very expensive for our farmers when they may just have one or two products, and it's hard for them to get to these hazardous waste events. and this is a way to really be able to take care of those products in a more efficient, cost-efficient way because the cost barrier has kept these things in their sheds and garages for so many years. And so this is a way for us to open up an opportunity to recycle and also dispose of those products in a safe, environmentally friendly way.
Any other questions from the committee? I just have one real quick. So I see on L007, if we can talk about the amendment, and I assume you plan on bringing it, it says that the fee is capped at $50, adjusted for inflation, and inflation is pegged to CPI. And I just, do you have any information as to annual cost increases for the disposal? Like, does that generally track CPI or does the cost of disposal perhaps outpace CPI? Do you have any information on that?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Not completely clear on your question. I know that the amendment wants to cap the product registration fee. at $50 per year so that they at least have an idea of what they are looking at as far as cost to sell a product in our state. And when we passed that amendment through the Agriculture, Water, and Natural Resources Committee, the cap was mistakenly applied to the wrong fee. So the amendment actually puts it where it's supposed to be. So as far as your question about inflation, perhaps I might defer to the Department of Ag to dig into that for you.
Okay, I'll ask them. Any other questions from the committee? All right, seeing none, we're going to go into the witness testimony phase. We have about two panels. If I can get first, Ryan Pessa, Brian Loma, Christopher Finarelli, Rachel Setsky. Yeah, those folks. Thank you. Always looking out. We have Christopher Finarelli. Is Brian Loma here? Brian's online. Brian's online. What about Ryan? No Ryan. No Ryan. All right. Ms. Setsky, if you could kick us off. Unmute yourself. Floor's yours for three minutes.
Thank you. So thank you Chair Woodrow and committee members for your time. I'm Rachel Setsky, I'm the Senior Policy Advisor at EcoCycle, one of the nation's oldest nonprofit recyclers. EcoCycle is the contracted operator of the Boulder County Recycling Center and we operate the Center for Hard to Recycle Materials or CHARM in Boulder where we collect materials that should not be placed in regular curbside recycling systems Pesticide containers, as has been mentioned, should be taken to hazardous waste facilities or special collection events, and they should never go in regular recycling facilities. Well, EcoCycle supports the bill's intention. We are in an amend position today, simply because we are asking for an amendment on the House floor. We recognize it won't happen today, but on the House floor to add language that would align this bill with Colorado's existing definition of recycling under the Producer Responsibility Act for Recycling Packaging. It's critical that Colorado maintain a single consistent definition of recycling that counts only the materials that are actually recycled into new products. Colorado's current definition rightfully does not allow materials that are used as a daily cover in landfills or those that are incinerated or turn into energy to count as recycling. Maintaining this clear definition reduces consumer confusion, which builds engagement in the recycling practices, and it also sets clear guidance for packaging producers, underscoring that Colorado supports the circular economy and resilient supply chains by keeping materials in use for as long as possible. We thank the bill's sponsors and the Colorado Department of Ag for their work to create this system that will protect our waterways from excess pesticides and to provide farmers with a safe, cost-effective way to dispose of pesticides. We support HB 261111 and look forward to seeing an amendment on the House floor to add a recycling
definition consistent with existing Colorado statute. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Please hold for questions. Mr. Loma, nice to see you. Please unmute yourself. Stay here testifying on behalf of floor is yours for three minutes. Thank you, chairman and committee members. My name is Brian Loma. I am the hazardous materials and waste diversion advocate for Green Latinos Colorado. And I also am testifying today in a amend status. As Ms. Setsky indicated, the impacts of recycling language statewide. We really believe that there needs to be some consistency in this. And we applaud the Department of Agriculture and the bill's sponsors for this policy of capturing the pesticides to keep them out of our waterways, to keep them from containers that are deteriorating in people's homes for being hard to or farms for being hard to dispose of. We have also worked very hard in our state to improve recycling programs, noting paint care, battery recycling, stewardship is forthcoming as well. These programs are designed to make sure that the manufacturers of materials are responsible for their capture of those materials, keeping them out of the landfill and and keeping them out of the center readers. And so we also are seeking that in support of seeking the amendments on the floor to make sure that the definitions of recycling and the reporting piece in this in this piece of legislature as well would show the differences between what materials are recycled or incinerated as it may be. And I will remain available for questions thank you thank you committee members do we have any questions for these witnesses oh I see that we been joined by mr Finarelli mr Finarelli please unmute yourself say to your testimony on behalf of floor is yours for three thank you so much uh members christopher finnarelli on behalf of the household commercial products association appreciate the opportunity to testify remotely today just to get to the point on this committee members the legislation before you establishes a program for private commercial applicators, which we do not oppose. But the fee that is applied under the program is a universal fee on pesticides. And not everybody understands that pesticides are many things. Yes, they are agricultural products, for example, but they are also the disinfectant wipes that are used in the Capitol building. They are the mosquito sprays we spray on our body when we go camping. And right now, the bill starts with the premise that those products will be applied to feed. And we appreciate the addition of the amendment that allows for an exemption process, but we feel that this bill needs to go a little bit further and provide direction on what they are going to exempt. So not just that they can exempt, but why are they going to exempt products? And we provide of language to the committee in our written testimony. And I would direct your attention to that written testimony and appreciate the opportunity to testify today. Happy to answer any questions. Okay, thank you. Committee, any questions for this panel? All right. I would ask Ms. Setsky, or really anyone, he just briefly, top of the waves, tell us how are pesticides disposed of in an appropriate facility? Who wants to take that?
I'm not sure if Mr. Finarelli can take it. That is outside of the scope of what EcoCycle handles. We're not a household hazardous waste or hazardous waste facility, and I might actually defer that. Some Department of Ag is going to be talking later. So they might be better able to answer that. We're really concerned about the packaging is why we are asking for the consistent definition on recycling.
Mr. Finarelli, any insight on how pesticides, you know, and let's just stick with agriculture. I know that your testimony was that includes like disinfecting wipes, but do you know how they're disposed of and what the related costs might be? So, Representative, we do not represent those products. So I would also defer to the Department of Agriculture what I can say as far as our products go. Many of those products are recyclable once used, and they are also brought to household hazards waste facilities by consumers. And what I'll just really quickly add is that this program is going to have a fee upon use. And consumers, even if the bill allowed for it, which as it's written, we don't see that being the case, would not pay to bring products like the consumer products to those facilities. So they're really they're not going to be using this new waste stream. Madam Vice Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This question is for Mr. Finarelli. Does your company sell products to consumers and commercial products as well? I mean, because that's what I understand is that's how some of your products are getting wrapped up into this, is because there's an overlap of the use? Certainly. The Venn diagram is going to cross over a little bit. Thank you for the question. There are institutional and commercial uses that could be used by private and commercial applicators. But, again, our amendment would get to that. Our amendment says that the board, when making these exemptions, should look at what nexus of the product is there to this program. Will this product be used in this program? That's the question. I don't think there's any disagreement about ensuring the nexus between the fee and the product, but it's not represented in the bill. Mr. Loma. Thank you, Chair. To answer the question, the process of destroying pesticides often incurs a chemical process that neutralizes the pesticides themselves to make the liquids less toxic. They are often then contained in the landfill. There are some situations where they can be incinerated, but generally it starts with a chemical neutralization. Great. Thank you very much. Okay. Any other questions from the committee? Seeing none, thank you all for your time this afternoon. We're going to go to our next panel of witnesses, Jordan Beasley, Madeline Robertson, Ryan Call, and then online we have Aaron Meshke. Robert, if we could start with you and then we'll go to Mr. Beasley and then we'll go to our folks online. Great. Thank you, Mr. 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 1111. This bill represents forward-thinking ideas for the environment, public health, and agricultural communities in Colorado. HB 1111 directly addresses the lack of accessible and safe disposal options. This bill is particularly vital for commercial and private applicators. These professionals often cannot utilize standard household waste programs for their pesticide-related materials due to volume or the specific nature of the products. Furthermore, existing disposal facilities can be geographically inconvenient, making proper disposal a costly and burdensome endeavor. This program will make it easier for them to meet their obligations and to contribute to a more sustainable agricultural industry. This will provide tangible services, organizing disposal and recycling events across the state, offering vital outreach and education on best practices, and ultimately creating a more efficient and environmentally sound system. RMFU supports that this program is voluntary and cheaper for our agricultural producers to dispose of chemicals. We urge you to pass this bill and help Colorado lead the way in sustainable pesticide product management. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Robinson. Mr. Beasley. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, committee members. My name is Jordan Beasley. I'm the Deputy Commissioner of External Affairs at the Colorado Department of Agriculture. Several years ago, we began receiving requests from our licensed applicators and members of our pesticide advisory committee to help them find a solution to the challenge of affordable, safe, and accessible pesticide disposal. These licensees often located in rural areas cited quotes in the thousands of dollars from the private disposal companies to dispose of their pesticides When safe disposal is cost prohibitive we know what often happens with these chemicals They are either dumped in a pit, burned, or end up in the county landfill. This bill creates an enterprise to help our pesticide manufacturers and licensed applicators pool resources to bring down the cost of disposal. This model has been adopted by at least 20 other states. Pesticide manufacturers that already pay to register their products for sale in Colorado will pay a modest new fee of $31 per year, approximately a 15% increase over current fees, putting Colorado right in the middle of all states in terms of product registration costs. I want to thank the pesticide industry groups that have collaborated in drafting this proposal, including CropLife America, RISE, or the Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment, and the American Chemical Council. I also want to thank our Colorado-based agricultural organizations, including the Colorado Livestock Association, Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, and Colorado Farm Bill for supporting the bill. Finally, I want to make it very clear that this bill doesn't create any new regulatory requirements for our pesticide manufacturers or our licensed applicators. And only products that are eligible to be for disposal will pay that fee. The bill, as it was amended in the first committee, sets up a process through rulemaking to determine that the products that are not eligible and thus will not pay a fee. This is a complicated and nuanced process that requires broad stakeholder input, careful analysis, and consideration. While we understand that this doesn't give certain folks as much certainty as they want, we believe it is a good compromise with other industry partners to address their concerns. And specifically, too, I just want to also mention kind of the inherent nature of an enterprise is the fee only applies and can be applied to those that are benefiting from the service. And so if there is a product that is not going to be benefiting from the service, it does need to be excluded from this, which is why we created that process through a rule to address, again, the concerns that you heard from some members on the first panel. I urge your yes vote today and be happy to answer any questions. Great. We're going to go online to Erin Meshke. Ms. Meshke, nice to see you. Please unmute yourself. The floor is yours for three minutes. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Erin Meshke. I live in Boulder and represent myself. I missed my opportunity to speak on HB 261111 in the Ag Committee, so I'm grateful to have another opportunity today in finance. As far as I understand, there is already a method for ensuring empty pesticide containers are disposed of properly, but unused chemicals are not part of that. Widespread pesticide use has been one of the most damaging practices ever allowed. With the promise of more or better crop yields, health took a backseat to profits, and now we see autoimmune and gut issues in almost every American that were not prevalent historically. Pesticide approval, regulation, and labels are supposed to be protective, but almost everyone has been harmed by pesticide use in some way, especially since glyphosate began to be ubiquitously applied to subsidy crops in 1996. I was shocked by data in the fiscal note assuming pesticide applicators would be disposing of 100,000 pounds of unused pesticide each per year, with estimates of an additional 100,000 pounds for some applicators. That incredible amount needs proper disposal. I normally don't like new programs, but chemical and pesticides are uniquely harmful, and if there are to be tens of millions of pounds of projected pesticide waste each year, the citizens of Colorado need this additional protection. Manufacturers and applicators may object to the additional costs but with these fees the program pays for itself and proper disposal is necessary So I ask for your yes vote on HB 261111 Thank you Did we have Ryan call I know that we had someone else from EcoCycle. Okay. Any questions, committee, for this panel? I'll just ask Mr. Beasley. So I've asked, I'm sure you've heard the other witnesses, just to understand a little bit about the fee, the increase of $50, the cap of $50 with increases pegged to CPI, is that sufficient? I mean, do we know enough about the annual increases in the cost of disposal to know that pegging it to CPI would be sufficient? Yes, thank you for that question, Mr. Chair. So from the department's perspective, we do believe that it is sufficient because if you look at the fiscal note, we anticipate that the fee will be set at $31 initially. So with that cap at $50, that gives us, again, a $19 buffer to start with. And then that does increase with CPI going forward. So the combination of that buffer plus the CPI, we believe, is more than sufficient. Great. Thank you for that insurance. Anything else from the committee? Seeing none, thank you so much for your time this afternoon. Last call for witnesses on 11-11. Make a wish. Seeing none, witness testimony phase is closed. Bill sponsors amendments. We have one amendment. Representative McCormick, tell us about L007.
L007, as I referred to earlier in Ag Committee, the cap for the annual product registration fee was put to the wrong fee, so this amendment corrects that. It also moves up the date to when the enterprise can begin collecting those fees. It was going to start in January but needs to start in November, which aligns with the annual product registration renewal period. So we want to make sure that we capture when these products are being registered. And that runs from November 15th to December 31st of every year. So we want to move that date up to November 1st. And because of that, we need to add a safety clause to allow for that time, for allow for rulemaking to occur, as you heard the need for, and also to make sure that we can start collecting that fee in a timely manner so that the department will have the fees on board to begin the program and not be trying to backfill.
So that's what the amendment does, and we ask for an aye vote. Committee, any questions on L007? Madam Vice Chair. I move L007 and ask for it to be displayed with a martini. Shaken, not stirred. Is there a second? Second by Representative Stewart. Any objection to L007? Seeing none, L007 is passed. Any further amendments? Thank goodness. Committee, any further amendments? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Wrap up, bill sponsors. Representative Morrow.
Thank you, committee and Mr. Chair. I just want to say that the reason I'm on this program is because I grew up on an 800-acre farm, and I still own a farm. And I can assure you we have barrels and buckets of old fertilizer, well, fertilizer too, but pesticides that we don't know how to dispose of properly. And they just sit there literally for decades and they even get handed down to the next generation So I think this is a great program to give an opportunity to get all of those out of sheds and garages And what's really cool about it is it's a mobile thing, so it can go different parts of the state and make it more convenient for our farmers and ranchers. So I urge an aye vote. Thank you.
Representative McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm on this bill to help Representative Morrow dispose of her unused pesticides. It's about time we got them out of her garage and into the right disposal program. So I urge an aye vote.
Closing comments from the committee. Madam Vice Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I mean, I think that this is important, right? You have things stored in your garage or your shed, and, you know, if there's a fire that happens, those things really put a lot of toxic smoke in the air, and it can really do a lot of damage. So I think getting these things out of circulation for any kind of situation is a good way to do it, and I'm hoping that the rulemaking process addresses some of the concerns that the other people had. Committee, any other closing comments? I just want to thank you both for bringing the bill. Obviously, this is very important. My questions that I asked of the witnesses were merely to ensure that the amount of money being collected is sufficient to cover the costs associated. All too often, I think, as a body, we peg things to CPI, even though what we're governing doesn't track the consumer price index. And so at some point, there might be a gap in funding, and that's all I was trying to address. I appreciate the department's assurances, and I'll be an excited yes vote today. A proper motion, routes 1111 to the Committee on Appropriations as amended. Madam Vice Chair. I move House Bill 1111 as amended to the Committee of Appropriations. Second. Second by Representative Garcia. Please pull the committee. Representatives Brooks.
No. DiGraf.
Yes. DiGraf. Excuse. Garcia. Yes. Gonzalez. No. Martzak. No. Marshall. Yes. Stewart. Yes. Zocay. Yes. Tatone. Yes. Mr. Chair. Yes. That passes 7-3-1. Excused. Good luck in the probes. Next we have 11-32. Freulein. She's on her way. We're just going to take a moment and wait for our bill sponsor to get here. I hear she's on her way. yes Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. I agree. Oh, oui. Simpatico, sir. All right. 1132. Who wants to kick us off? Representative Froelich, nice to see you. Thank you very much Mr. Chair and Finance Committee for allowing us to talk about the money behind the honey. Our bill that proposes for native plants to be used when possible on state lands in order to foster water conservation, good environment, and help with our pollinator population. And we're happy to talk about the financial aspects of it, which I will just sort of bury the lead. We worked diligently with CSU and with the departments, and departments have come back saying that they are able to do this within existing resources. The fiscal note, which seems alarming, is less so because they are able to do it within, because of, and I underlined the key phrase, excuse me, sorry, continuously appropriated cash fund sources. We will be going to appropriations and they'll make that determination whether those continuously appropriated cash fund sources are indeed an appropriate and designated place for the Parks and Wildlife and CDOT and all of our agencies to get the funds to plant native plants from. But for the purposes of today's discussion, the reason we landed here is because we have suggested to CSU that they don't need to do this until they get the funds and that they're able to get gifts, grants, and donations for this, just the portion that they're responsible for, which is the training portion. But we have people here who will explain it more. I do have an amendment that I should have passed out. Sorry. the amendment is we thought it would be nice for CSU to be able to do this in stages CSU said they didn't really think that was that nice and that was not what they wanted so we have an amendment that just says they don't have to start until they get the funds Representative Lindsay Thank you Mr. Chair Thank you committee I love pollinators I'm a big fan I brought out all the stops with my pollinator shirt and jewelry because they are so critical to obviously how our environment works. If anyone has seen the bee movie really really important I also so much of this touches on my work with Capital Development Committee where we go and tour a lot of the state facilities as they are working on new projects and so it really exciting to be on a bill that this will be you know considered when new projects are underway. Also, I've had the opportunity through CDC to also go to CSU and tour the tree nursery up there with the Forest Service, and it's such a beautiful place, and so, so excited that we're doing all of these great things and that we're figuring out the financing of it because it is very very important um and with that urge an eye vote representative garcia thank you mr chair thank you sponsors um i guess i'm curious about and if this goes if if there's a witness that can answer this like what is currently happening with pollinators or even like creating like the plant life for pollinators to to do what they do best. And why then, if there's stuff that's currently happening and what this bill is intending to do is simply prioritize native in-state Colorado sourced plant life, why is there any cost at all if it's simply just a prioritization of what sounds like it's already happening? Representative Froehlich. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the question, Representative Garcia. In the pollinator space we've been trying for a long time to do a series of things that would promote our pollinator population. But one of our big successes was this pollinator study that we did as a result of Senate Bill 22199. And so they came back with what is on page four, several priorities. much to the chagrin of the ag committee i have brought a couple pesticide bills we're unable to get any of those through the legislature and i think there was some trepidation when i brought a pollinator bill with my name on it to ag committee but this is not addressing pesticides which is priority number four but rather going after one two and three and then priority five is this concept of ongoing training within the department so that we have advocates when they go about planting materials that they are always trying to prioritize native plants there was some pushback in that this was a more expensive proposition or that the training would cost money etc etc that those plant materials are more expensive than what they're currently using. But at the same time, the department came back and said that they can do this with existing funds. And then we sort of found out through the process that by using existing funds, they meant using continuously appropriated funds. And that's what's landing us in a propes. Any other questions for the bill's sponsor? You may dialogue. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I guess, thank you for pointing us back to page four. I guess what I am curious about, and if the fiscal analyst is here, but here the way that it's even phrased, like monitor and support native and managed pollinator health, you know, mitigate. I guess when I looking at this and I trying to figure out I don see where in the bill unless you can point me to this part also I don see where in the bill we actually requiring the creation of anything new So the department already has to train on this work So they don but not on native but don't they already have to provide training? And so then why would this be so much more, even with continuing appropriated cash funds, when it's just using different plant life or when the training itself exists, when a training itself exists already. You're dialoguing. Oh, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Garcia. I would leave that to the folks who are going to testify. And DNR, so Department of Natural Resources, will be here to discuss that. But the idea was that in some cases native plants are more expensive. In some cases the training doesn't exist specifically for native plants, but rather folks are just landscapers in charge of maintenance. We sure try to keep the cost down. And I guess there is some cost with planning for a certain percentage for native plants ongoing and in the future. And perhaps costs associated with signage, with maintenance, particular to the fact that we're asking folks not to mow down some things that they maybe wanted to mow. We're just trying to be as flexible as possible and not make them do anything because we can't afford it while making them do stuff that we can't afford. Anything further from the committee? All right.
Representative Brooks. Thank you, Chair. Where in the bill Do we have any mechanisms for accountability To show that The obligations that this creates Are not diverting away from Core land management work, from DNR's case From road safety From CDOT How do we know that we're not Diverting resources really Where we need them
Representative Froehle Thank you Mr. Chair, thank you Representative Brooks, DNR will be here so I'll let them explain. I will just say the agencies in our long negotiations with them and stakeholding have been stoked about this from the get-go. They recognize that using native plants is smarter for water and maintenance and with the added benefits to the environment. So it wasn't a hard sell. It was just hard to find a way to make it happen without huge expenditures. Any follow-up? Still pounding ghost. Okay. All right, we're going to move to the witness testimony phase. We have four witnesses signed up. If we can get Ryan Skulczak, Joyce Kennedy, Aaron Meshke, and David Porter. Mr. Skluzak, if you could hit the little button, make sure it's green. Introduce yourself, who you're testifying on behalf of, and the floor is yours for three minutes. Mr Chair members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to speak today My name is Ryan Skluzak and I am an economics student at the University of Colorado Boulder here to testify for the amendment of House Bill 26 Pollinators are not just an ecological asset they economic infrastructure Every bee, butterfly, and native pollinator quietly sustains millions of dollars in agricultural productivity and supports the health of the ecosystems that make Colorado's beautiful landscapes possible. When pollinators decline, both ecological stability and economic resilience decline with them. From an economic perspective, pollinator habitat is a public good. The benefits of restoration of pollinator habitats extend beyond the individual landowner, meaning private actors capture only part of the total value. As a result, restoration occurs at levels below what is socially efficient and pollinator populations decline, a problem made evident by the Colorado Native Pollinating Insects Health Study, which reported that roughly 20% of the state's native bumblebee species are now being considered for Federal Endangered Species Act protection. 1132 seeks to address these problems by expanding native state plannings on state-managed lands and strengthening interagency coordination because Colorado already manages millions of acres of trust lands and hundreds of thousands of acres under Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Modest adjustments in vegetation management could measurably increase pollinator habitat at relatively low marginal cost. These changes help correct underinvestment where private markets fail to act. However, the bill can be strengthened through the addition of targeted amendments. First, measures directing restoration efforts toward biodiversity hotspots and high-use pollinator corridors would ensure that public resources generate the highest possible ecological return per dollar spent. Second, incorporating cost-sharing programs or structured subsidies for private restoration would encourage private landowners and local partners to participate, expanding restoration beyond state-managed lands. Third, establishing formal regional priority mapping and centralized planning would reduce fragmentation, improve habitat connectivity, and increase the scale and stability of pollinator networks. Finally, considering a tailored Pigouvian tax on activities that degrade pollinator habitat, such as intensive land clearing or excessive pesticide use, could internalize the external costs of habitat loss while generating revenue to reinvest in restoration. Together, these measures would align restoration efforts with their full social and ecological value, ensuring that this bill delivers maximum benefits to both Colorado's ecosystems and its agricultural economy. With the addition of any of these targeted amendments, 1132 will serve to more efficiently protect Colorado's native pollinators, enhancing both ecological resilience and the economic productivity that depends on them. Thank you for your time. I welcome any questions. Thank you. Please hold for questions. Ms. Kennedy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. I'm Joyce Kennedy, Director of Colorado-based People and Pollinators Action Network. P-PAN supports this bill and appreciates your consideration of its fiscal design. At its core, as you've heard, the bill encourages the use of native plants on state-owned lands. Because native plants aren't just part of Colorado's natural beauty, they're essential as they provide the critical habitat for pollinators as identified in the native pollinating insect study. They strengthen watershed health, improve drought resilience, and support biodiversity across the state. The native plant study element of the bill, which is really why we're here today, would give the state a better understanding of the supply and demand aspects of native plant material and really identify some of those gaps across the state and provide recommendations for how we can approach improve that so that we can have more native plants in the ground. And so importantly, the Colorado State University Extension study that's proposed by the bill carries no general fund obligation. It's contingent on gifts, grants, and donations. and CSU Extension as well as PPAN are in a good position to seek out sources of funding for this study and we're committed to doing that. In addition, this element, the study element of the bill will sunset in 2031 if funding isn't found, ensuring there's no long-term fiscal commitment. So we designed the bill really with budget realities in mind. It is flexible in that it provides agencies to implement provisions using existing resources and aligning with their current operations. It also encourages this coordinated purchasing of plant materials, And that can reduce costs over time, as well as the benefits of native plants, which will require less water, fewer resources. So we're presenting this bill as fiscally responsible. It avoids new financial obligations, and it builds on the good work already underway by our agencies. And it supports sustainable, cost-effective land management. And we respectfully ask you to support this and move it forward, please. Thanks very much.
Thank you. Please hold for questions. We'll go online to Erin Meshke. Ms. Meshke, nice to see you again so soon. Unmute yourself. Floor is yours for three.
Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Erin Meshke. I live in Boulder and represent myself. While pollinators and other insects are small in size, they are absolutely integral to our food system. Over 80% of flowering plant species and 87 of the leading global food crops rely on pollinators for seed production, which corresponds to 35% of the global production volume of crops grown for human consumption. Reduction in pollination has led to 3% to 5% loss of fruit, vegetable, and net production, which impacts food availability. Insufficient pollination can also lead to lower yields with potential losses of 10% to 30% of total agricultural value. Pollinators increase yields of 75 of crop varieties and are critical to growing healthy foods This is not just an environmental issue but impacts health and economics as well Pollinator populations have seen alarming declines over the past 60 years as pesticide use has risen, but especially in the last four decades as pesticides have become used in greater commercial quantities. Glyphosate began wide commercial use in 1996, and we see major declines in pollinators and stark increases in cancer rates and autoimmune conditions from that time to now. 22.6% of over 1,500 of the best-studied vertebrate and insect pollinator groups have elevated risk of extinction. And with 1% to 2% annual declines of insect populations, some are warning of an insect apocalypse in the coming decades. Colorado's 2024 pollinator study showed many things that inform more legislative decisions and CDA directives. Increasing native plants is important, but reducing pesticide use is a much bigger need that should be addressed on an ongoing basis. Coordinated purchasing makes sense as bulk discounts can benefit agencies across the state, while these encouragements also make strides to protect our pollinators. So I ask for your yes vote on HB 26, 1132. Thank you.
Great. Thank you. And I understand we have David Porter here from Colorado Parks and Wildlife for questions only.
That's correct. Thank you, Chair. David Porter, and I'm here from Parks and Wildlife and for questions only.
Okay, committee, three witnesses, and Mr. Porter here to answer your questions. Any questions from the committee? Representative Garcia.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure who is best for this question. I am curious about the concerns that have come up from cattlemen and noxious weeds and if maybe you could address that.
Ms. Kennedy.
Thank you for the question. We have heard about those concerns. I think they mostly pertain to the use of milkweed, which is a native plant. However, it can be noxious to cattle some varieties of milkweed, not all. and we feel the agencies are really well suited to know what's appropriate to use in seed mixes. We wouldn't want the wrong kinds of milkweed used in those circumstances. And CPW has developed a really great new seed calculator that they're using for particular land uses, which will hone in even better what plants will be used in certain conditions Mr Porter did you want to add anything No I could not on that case
Okay. Any other questions for this panel of witnesses? All right. Seeing none, thank you so much for your time. Mr. Sklozak, good luck with your studies. Thanks for coming down. Thank you. Final call for witnesses on 1132. Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. Amendment. Bill Sponsor.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. You have before you L3, which satisfies some concerns from CSU, as I mentioned in my opening, that they don't have to do anything unless they receive their gifts, grants, and donations, or unless the program is fully funded, they don't have to do it. And we ask for an aye vote on L3.
Any questions on L3? All right, seeing none. Madam Vice Chair.
I move Amendment L-003.
Second by Representative Garcia. Any objection to L-3? Seeing none, L-3 is adopted. Any further amendments? Bill sponsor. Committee, any amendments? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Wrap up, Representative Froehlich.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Committee. I think you saw no opposition. this is actually a lovely way to approach this the need to support our pollinators and to save water and to increase our land management projects we've tried really hard to do this within existing resources we think we've found a path and we respectfully ask that we please continue on and go to appropriations
okay committee any closing comments representative gonzalez and please add your favorite pollinator in your closing case. Yeah, you don't get to tell me that. Okay, so I
appreciate the intent of what you're trying to do. I think my only concern is just the fiscal note when we're going to have to face cuts elsewhere. I like the idea. I want to get behind just the fiscal notes which restraining me, but it will be a respectful note today.
Representative Brooks,
favorite pollinator. Chair, can I go with least favorite? Sure. Mosquito, because I believe mosquitoes actually do pollinate. I think it's a thing. I didn't know that. Looked it up once. I actually had done some research about what in the world could a mosquito possibly be good for. And I think that's a... No, it's lovely. I love being an ag committee. I've always wondered what it was like to be an ag. So now we're here.
Here we go Thank you Yeah I be a no today Because this isn ag right This is finance. And I've got some concerns around full-time equivalents and mission creep off of some of these departments. I think we ought to try to keep them on the straight and narrow and focus on what they're good at. And I'm hoping that the apocalypse can maybe wait until we've got things figured out a little bit in a better financial standpoint. So thank you. Any further closing comments? Yeah, real quick. Representative Garcia.
The yellow jacket.
Oh. What? What? Representative Sokai.
The honeybee.
Nice. That's so cliche.
Now I'm going to pile on also honeybees.
Representative Camacho.
I'm going to go with the hummingbird.
Classy.
Madam Vice Chair. Bumblebee.
Okay. Mine is the kinkajou. Look it up. Okay. Rev. Hartzett?
The Honey Bee.
There we go. So Honey Bee passes on a vote of... Okay. A proper motion routes 1132 to the Committee on Appropriations as amended, Madam Vice Chair.
I move House Bill 1132 as amended to the Committee of Appropriations with a buzzing recommendation.
Second goes to Representative Garcia. Please poll the committee. Representative Brooks.
No.
Camacho. Yes.
DeGraff. Excuse.
Garcia.
Yes. Gonzalez.
Respectfully, no. Artsook. No. Marshall.
Yes. Stuart. Yes.
Zokar. Yes.
Tom. Yes. Mr. Chair. Yes.
That's a 7-3-1 excuse. Okay, great time in finance today. See you all on Monday. Please check your calendars. Next week is in a little bit of flux. Finance stands adjourned.