Colorado LegiSource

An informational and educational resource for the Colorado General Assembly by the Office of Legislative Legal Services.

Month: November 2014

  • Water Your Plans? A Primer on the Colorado Water Plan

    By Jennifer Berman

    There are numerous demands on Colorado’s water supply. Colorado has a population of 5 million people, and some forecasts project that number will almost double by 2050. Additionally, Colorado’s rivers serve the water needs of 18 downstream states and the United Mexican States.

    Whiskey Water ImageGiven Colorado’s unique water challenges that include extensive population growth, downstream state users, drought, wildfires, and the geographic divide between water supply and water demand1, collaboration is imperative to meet Colorado’s future water needs. Recognizing that need for collaboration among competing water users such as agricultural users, municipal and industrial users, tourism and recreational interests, and environmental interests, Governor Hickenlooper, in May 2013, issued Executive Order D2013-005 directing the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) to create a Colorado Water Plan (CWP) to develop strategies for meeting Colorado’s competing water demands. The CWP will also focus on maintaining what Representative Randy Fischer, Chair of the interim Water Resources Review Committee (WRRC), describes as our “healthy watersheds and environment, robust recreation and tourism economies, vibrant and sustainable cities and viable and productive agriculture.”

    The governor’s Executive Order directs the CWCB to develop a CWP that specifically addresses:

    • The gap between our water supply and water demand, which is estimated by some forecasts to exceed 500,000 acre-feet of water by 20502;
    • The impacts of agricultural “buy and dry”, which is the transfer of ownership of all of the water rights associated with an agricultural water use to a water user who uses the water for non-agricultural purposes3. One study estimates that Colorado might lose 500,000 to 700,000 acres of currently irrigated farmland by 2050 due to “buy and dry.”
    • Water quantity and quality issues conjunctively;
    • Colorado’s drought conditions; and
    • The nine interstate water compacts and two equitable apportionment decrees that require Colorado to deliver almost 10 million acre-feet of water per year to surrounding states. Failure to adhere to these water-sharing charters is costly; in 2005, Colorado paid Kansas $34 million for a breach of the Arkansas River Compact.

    The CWCB, in consultation with the Water Quality Control Division and other state agencies engaging in waterDry Basin protection or administration, began working on the CWP shortly after the Governor issued the Executive Order. The CWCB released the initial draft sections of the CWB in March and additional draft sections in July. The CWCB has encouraged public comment on the draft CWP and has received more than 1,100 comments so far.

    The CWCB also called upon the state’s nine basin roundtables, which are local groups formed in each of Colorado’s main water basins for the purpose of developing local water policy and planning, to develop basin implementation plans (BIPs)4 to be incorporated into the CWP. The BIPs, for which drafts were submitted to the CWCB in July, identify the specific water needs and challenges faced in each water basin and propose projects and methods for addressing the basin’s specific needs and challenges.

    The General Assembly has played a role in the CWP as well. Last session, it passed Senate Bill 14-115 authorizing the WRRC to hold public hearings in each of the geographic regions associated with a water basin to collect public feedback on the “scope, fundamental approach, and basic elements” of the CWP. This past summer the WRRC conducted nine such hearings throughout Colorado that, in the aggregate, were attended by more than 500 people. The WRRC provided the CWCB with summaries of the public comments it received for consideration in developing the CWP.

    The CWCB will deliver a full draft of the CWP to the governor this December. From there, the basin roundtables will submit their final BIPs in April 2015, and the CWCB will accept public comments on the full draft of the CWP until May 2015. The WRRC will conduct another round of public hearings during the 2015 interim and will provide the CWCB with summaries of the public comments it received and its own comments on the full draft of the CWP. The CWCB will then release a second full draft of the CWP in July 2015 on which the public may comment until September 2015. The CWCB will submit the final version of the CWP to the governor in December 2015.

    Through the CWCB’s online form for submitting feedback and the WRRC’s 2015 public hearings, there is still time to review and comment on the CWP.

    1. Approximately 70 percent of Colorado’s surface water is located west of the Continental Divide, but 70 percent of the state’s water demand lies east of the Continental Divide.↩

    2. An acre-foot of water is the amount of water it would take to cover an acre of land one foot deep. Often, it is described as the approximate amount of water that two households would use in one year.↩

    3. Under Colorado’s prior appropriation system, water is a transferable property right separate from land ownership.↩

    4. Examples of the basin roundtables’ basin implementation plans include the Colorado Basin Implementation Plan and the South Platte Basin Implementation Plan.↩

  • The Resolution Might Be Televised: General Assembly Contemplates Remote Testimony

    by Kate Meyer

    Colorado, the nation’s eighth-largest state by land area, is justifiably renowned for its iconic landscapes, topographic variety, and diverse climate. However, with legislative sessions spanning treacherous winter and unpredictable springtime months, these quintessentially Coloradan features often conspire to impede the ability of the state’s citizens to travel to Denver to testify on legislation. Additionally, time, money, and accessibility concerns can deter residents of more distant locales. As a result, residents hailing from the more far-flung areas of the state can be underrepresented at legislative hearings. To address this inequity, there may soon be an alternative to the requirement to appear in-person in order to give testimony.

    Last session, the General Assembly passed House Bill 14-1303, which enables and directs the Executive Committee of the Legislative Council to promulgate policies that facilitate the receipt of public testimony from remote locations around Colorado. The bill is the General Assembly’s latest effort to adapt modern technology to the legislative process, but don’t expect to see citizens using FaceTime to testify on every bill when the legislature convenes this January. Like many of its forays into the new era of communication, the legislature will implement this bill cautiously and, likely, incrementally.

    What does HB14-1303 do? The bill directs the Executive Committee to “consider, recommend, and establish policies allowing legislative committees to take remote testimony from one or more centralized remote sites located around the state.” If the Executive Committee ultimately approves the use of remote testimony, at least one of those remote sites must be located on the Western Slope. And the Executive Committee is authorized specifically to contract with state institutions of higher education, which are typically well-known and well-equipped, that are willing to serve as those centralized remote sites. Further, the use of video conferencing can be implemented in phases.

    What doesn’t HB14-1303 do? Although HB14-1303 will allow some remote testimony, logistical circumstances, fiscal realities, and technological uncertainties require that the scope of the bill be somewhat limited. Therefore, HB14-1303 also put a number of crucial limitations on the way in which remote testimony will be accepted. Specifically, the bill does not:

    • Require every committee to take remote testimony, on every bill, at every hearing;
    • Erode the General Assembly’s ability to establish and enforce rules of procedure and decorum;
    • Allow citizens to provide remote testimony from any location they wish (say, their kitchen tables or Waikiki Beach); or
    • Require two-way video-conferencing capabilities.

    Other states allowing remote testimony. Two states currently permit remote public testimony. Like Colorado, these states’ capital cities are located in areas that often present geographic and meteorological challenges for many citizens.

    • Alaska’s Legislative Affairs Agency has set up 23 remote Legislative Information Offices throughout the state, which, in addition to providing general legislative information, allow members of the public to participate in committee hearings taking place in Juneau.
    • In 1991, the Nevada legislature appropriated moneys to set up a video conferencing link between committee rooms in the legislature and a room at the Cashman Field Convention Center in Las Vegas, the state’s most populous city.

    What are the next steps? Legislative Council Staff (LCS) is now in the process of evaluating potential vendors for the technology that will be involved with remote testimony. Three committee rooms are being adapted to allow for remote testimony, and LCS is developing related policies for the Executive Committee to consider.

    On September 5, 2014, the interim Water Resources Review Committee participated in a “trial run” of remote testimony. The committee met in the state Capitol, and received testimony from Hanna Holms at Mesa State University’s Water Center in Grand Junction. This “real-world” experience will undoubtedly inform the policies being developed.

    The General Assembly will be checking in on committees’ use of remote testimony through the next two sessions. HB14-1303 requires the director of research at LCS, before August 1, 2016, to submit to the members of the General Assembly a report detailing the extent to which remote testimony has been utilized, the costs associated with offering remote testimony, and any technical or other issues that arose in connection with remote testimony.

  • Bill Request Deadlines Looming — Even for New Legislators

    by Patti Dahlberg and Julie Pelegrin

    The 2014 election is finally over and the first bill request deadlines are just around the corner! One might think that returning and newly elected legislators would have a little time to take a breath and relax awhile before the 2015 legislative session starts. Unfortunately, the legislative rules don’t allow for much relaxation. The bill deadlines require legislators to complete the bulk of bill drafting in December before the first day of the legislative session.*

    Returning legislators have until Monday, December 1, 2014, to submit their first three bill requests to the Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS). Newly elected legislators have a little extra time — but not much — to get their session legs. They must submit their first three bill requests to the OLLS by Monday, December 15, 2014. But if all legislators submit their bill requests now, or as soon as possible, drafters can work on rough drafts sooner and work out any drafting kinks long before the first day of session — Wednesday, January 7, 2015.

    What all legislators need to know about requesting bills [Joint Rule 24(b)(1)(A)]:

    • The Joint Rules allow each legislator five bill requests each session. These five bill requests are in addition to any appropriation, committee-approved, or sunset bill requests that a legislator may choose to carry.†
    • To reach the five-bill-request limit within the bill request deadlines, legislators must submit at least three bill requests to the OLLS by the December deadlines. Legislators must submit the last two requests by January 13, 2015.
    • If a legislator submits fewer than three requests on or before the December deadline, he or she forfeits the other one or two requests that are due by that date.†

    The first bill request deadline is still a few weeks away so some legislators may feel they have plenty of time. But if a legislator waits until December to submit the first three bill requests, he or she will, almost immediately, have to provide sufficient drafting information so that the drafters can draft all three bills at once, and the legislator will have to very quickly decide which of these requests will be introduced on the first day of session. Although the legislative rules allow newly elected members of the General Assembly more time to request their first three bills than a returning legislator has, these rules do not actually allow a new legislator more time to have his or her bills drafted.

    If possible, every legislator — even the new ones — should try to submit at least one bill request ASAP. This bill request can touch on any subject matter and does not need to be completely conceptualized. The bill drafting process allows for potential issues or problems to rise to the surface making it easier for the legislator to decide whether his or her idea is “workable.” If it becomes apparent that a request isn’t working, the legislator can withdraw it and replace it with a new request, as long as he or she makes that decision on or before the December 1 deadline for returning members or the December 15 deadline for new members.

    The OLLS encourages legislators to submit more than three requests by the December deadlines. By doing so, a legislator preserves the flexibility to withdraw and replace at least one of his or her requests after the December deadline without losing a request. For example, if a legislator submits only the three-request minimum by the December deadline and later withdraws one of those requests, the legislator forfeits the withdrawn bill request because the rules allow a legislator to make only two bill requests after the December deadline and before the January deadline. On the other hand, if a legislator submits four bill requests by the December deadline and later withdraws one of those requests, the legislator is left with three bill requests that meet the early request deadline plus the legislator can submit the two requests that are allowed after the early bill request deadline — for a total of five bill requests.

    Bill Requests 2

    * Every legislator’s first bill must be introduced on the first day of the legislative session (Wednesday, January 7). Every senator’s next two bills must be ready for introduction on the 3rd legislative day (Friday, January 9), and every representative’s next two bills must be ready for introduction on the 7th legislative day (Tuesday, January 13).

    † A legislator can ask permission from the House or Senate Committee on Delayed Bills to submit additional bill requests or to waive a bill request deadline. Permission to introduce an additional bill request or a delayed bill in the House requires the approval of at least two of these three persons: the Speaker of the House, the Majority Leader, and the Minority Leader. Permission to introduce an additional bill request or a delayed bill in the Senate requires the approval of at least two of these three persons: the President of the Senate, the Majority Leader, and the Minority Leader.