Colorado LegiSource

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

Author: olls

  • ICYMI: A Refresher on the Legislative Rules

    With the end of the second full week of the legislative session, committees of reference are looking at calendars full of bills and both houses will soon be spending hours debating bills in committee of the whole and on third reading. While there’s still a little breathing room, we at LegiSource decided it would be helpful to provide a quick refresher on the legislative rules: in general, for committees of reference, for committee of the whole, and for third reading. This collection of articles from the LegiSource archives provides a relatively short primer on the rules and quick references to the rules that are most often invoked. Remember: You can’t play the game if you don’t know the rules!

    The Principles of Parliamentary Procedure – a Stepping Stone to Learning the Rules

    Obviously, there are many legislative rules, and it’s difficult to learn and remember all of them. You may want to start by learning the basic principles behind legislative procedure. Knowing the principles may help you understand and remember the purposes behind the rules, even if you can’t remember each specific rule. The introduction to Mason’s Manual sets forth these ten principles for group decision making:

    • The group must have the authority to take the action it is trying to take.
    • The group must meet to take action.
    • All members of the group must receive proper notice of the meeting.
    • A quorum must be present at the meeting.
    • There must be a question before the group that the group is authorized to decide.
    • There must be opportunity to debate the question.
    • The question must be decided by taking a vote.
    • For an action to be taken or a question decided, there must be a majority vote of the group.
    • There can be no fraud, trickery, or deception resulting in injury to any member.
    • To be valid, an action or decision by the group must not violate any applicable law or constitutional provision.

    Making Sense of Committee Rules

    As the committees of reference swing into action for the 2014 regular legislative session, some legislators may be struggling to raise their committee rule IQ. This article is a short overview of the more important committee procedural rules to help guide you through the coming hours of committee hearings.

    Second Reading and the Committee of the Whole

    The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines “committee of the whole” as “the whole membership of a legislative house sitting as a committee and operating under informal rules.” But just what are those rules and how informal are they?

    Third Reading – Overview of Rules

    The legislator’s bill has passed the committee of reference, passed the Committee of the Whole on second reading, and is finally calendared for third reading and final passage. There are fewer third-reading rules to learn, but knowing these rules is crucial if the bill sponsor wants to ensure that the bill safely finishes its journey through the House or the Senate.

  • Are Temporary Legislative Rules of Procedure Really Temporary?

    by Sharon Eubanks

    On January 7, 2015, the Senate and the House of Representatives of the 70th Colorado General Assembly convened amid much pomp and circumstance. The day was filled with a multitude of activities in each chamber – reading the election results for the appropriate chamber as certified by the Secretary of State, calling the roll of members, administering the oath of office, electing a presiding officer, and, of course, delivering speeches. The chambers were filled with Representatives and Senators, their families and friends, legislative staff, and members of the media. It was a headline-making day full of anticipation and excitement.

    But both houses performed one activity on opening day that received little notice and is probably even less understood. This activity was adopting the legislative rules of the previous General Assembly – in this instance the 69th General Assembly that first convened in January 2013 – as the temporary legislative rules of the 70th General Assembly.

    Wait…what?

    It is the long-standing custom and practice of both the Senate and the House to adopt a simple resolution on the first day of session that makes the rules of each chamber of the previous General Assembly the temporary rules of that chamber for the newly convened General Assembly. This year, they accomplished this by passing House Resolution 15-1001 and Senate Resolution 15-001. Also, by adopting a joint resolution, the Senate and the House make the joint rules of the Senate and the House of the previous General Assembly the temporary joint rules of the Senate and the House of the newly convened General Assembly. This year, they passed Senate Joint Resolution 15-001.

    While you now know how the General Assembly adopts temporary legislative rules on opening day, you are probably still wondering – why did this legislative custom and practice develop? And when do the temporary rules become permanent?

    As to why, the answer is simple. Procedural rules adopted by one legislature are not binding on a subsequent legislature. In fact, the legislative rules adopted by the previous General Assembly automatically expire when a new General Assembly convenes. Once the 70th General Assembly convened on opening day in accordance with constitutional procedures, (see Colo. Const. Art. V, Secs. 2 & 7), neither the Senate nor the House had any legislatively adopted rules to govern their proceedings – no rules on the order of business, the preparation of a calendar and a journal, bill introduction deadlines, motions, voting, or committees. On the first day of the first legislative session, both chambers need to adopt rules for their proceedings as authorized by Colo.Const. Art. V, Sec. 12, and the easiest and quickest way to do so is to adopt the legislative rules of the previous General Assembly as the temporary rules of the new General Assembly.

    Sometimes a chamber will change the temporary rules it adopts by amending the rules in the same resolution used to adopt the temporary rules or in resolutions introduced later in the session. For example, it has long been the practice of the House to specify in the same resolution that adopts the temporary House rules that the temporary House rules may be amended by the affirmative vote of a majority of the members elected to the House until the House adopts permanent rules. This is a significant deviation from House Rule 47, which requires a 2/3rds vote of all House members to amend, suspend, or repeal any House rule.

    Likewise, the Senate resolution that adopts the temporary Senate rules provides that the temporary rules may be amended by the affirmative vote of a majority of the members elected to the Senate. Otherwise, Senate Rule 34 (a) requires a 2/3rds vote of all members elected to the Senate to amend or repeal a rule unless a Senator gives three days’ notice, in which case a vote of only the majority of members elected is required.

    So making the temporary legislative rules of a chamber permanent makes it more difficult to amend or repeal the rules of that chamber, which may help explain why the General Assembly rarely makes temporary legislative rules permanent. In fact, during the last fifty years, the General Assembly and its houses have almost always operated under temporary legislative rules for the entirety of each General Assembly. Which leaves us to ponder the true nature of a temporary legislative rule.

  • Legislative Legal Services: The Variety of “Services” We Provide Beyond Bill and Amendment Drafting

    by Dan Cartin

    Legislative Legal Services provides a variety of written materials and services to legislators in addition to their bill and amendment drafting needs. We hope each legislator will learn about and make full use of these ancillary services available from our staff during the 2015 session. Our homepage is located at http://leg.colorado.gov/agencies/office-of-legislative-legal-services.

    Legislative Legal Services is the General Assembly’s nonpartisan legal staff agency. We have a statutory and ethical duty to represent the General Assembly as a whole. And we are obligated to serve the best interests of our institutional client, the General Assembly, as distinguished from the individual interests of any specific legislator. We balance that obligation with our statutory direction to prepare bills, amendments, and other documents for individual legislators and to maintain strict confidentiality when doing so.

    In addition to our primary function of drafting bills, resolutions, and amendments, the Legislative Legal Services staff, upon request, can provide legislators with written materials to help them understand the current state of the law and what other states are doing and to help them explain their bills. Our attorneys may not always be able to respond quickly to every legislator’s request due to the time constraints created by bill and amendment drafting demands. But we will do our best to provide the requested materials as soon as practicable, time permitting and on a first-come, first-served basis. Examples of ancillary materials available upon request, time permitting, include:

    • More detailed, written explanations of bills;
    • Summaries of changes made to a bill in committee, in the first house, or in the second house;
    • Tables comparing bill provisions;
    • Explanations of state or federal statutes;
    • Summaries of case law relevant to a bill;
    • Summaries of case law interpreting a particular statute or issue;
    • Legislative histories of issues or bills;
    • Legislative histories of constitutional or statutory provisions;
    • Comparisons of Colorado law with the law of other states on particular issues;
    • Lists of all Colorado statutes addressing an issue; and
    • Legal opinions regarding legislation.

    With regard to legal opinions, occasionally a legislator will ask us for a legal opinion on an issue that relates to pending legislation. We hold these requests in strictest confidence. We will not release a written memorandum to other persons without the permission of the legislator who requested it. And we will give the same answer if another legislator asks us the same question, which will result in identical legal opinions for different legislators.

    There are some limitations on the materials and services we can provide to legislators due to our role as nonpartisan legislative staff. Examples of the documents and tasks that Legislative Legal Services is not allowed to provide include:

    • Voting records on an issue or bill;
    • Talking points advocating or opposing a policy position;
    • Carrying messages that encourage a legislator to vote for a bill or discourage a legislator from voting on a bill;
    • Soliciting legislators as joint prime sponsors, cosponsors, or second house sponsors;
    • Violating confidentiality, e.g., telling a legislator about amendments prepared for other legislators to his or her bill; telling a legislator what another legislator said or told others about the legislator’s bill; telling a legislator what legal advice our office gave another legislator;
    • Assisting a legislator in counting votes; and
    • Advocating for passage or defeat of legislation on policy or any other grounds.These lists illustrate the materials or services we can and cannot provide, but they are not exhaustive. If a legislator has a request for materials or assistance, please ask us. If it’s something we can provide, we will.

    Please visit the Legislative Legal Services website for a better idea of the types of services and products we can help with. The link for “Legal Topics”, among others, is an especially good resource for information concerning recurring legislative legal topics and issues.

    We are here to help all of the members of the 70th General Assembly achieve a successful legislative session in 2015. We encourage legislators to fully utilize the Legislative Legal Services staff for all of their legislative needs during the session, including those described here that go beyond bill and amendment drafting.

  • Constitution Controls the Start and End of Regular Legislative Sessions

    by Patti Dahlberg

    Why start the legislative session so early — January 7 — this year? Because it’s the law! The convening date for a legislative session, the length of the legislative session, how much time the Governor has to act on bills as they are passed, and other dates and time periods that come into play during a legislative session are determined by the Colorado Constitution.

    Some of the constitutional provisions governing the legislative session have been around since Colorado was a territory. And the citizens of Colorado have voted more provisions into the constitution since Colorado became a state 139 years ago. Either way, constitutional provisions are the ultimate law of this land.

    The constitutional provision that determines when the legislative session annually convenes is section 7 of art. V, and requires the General Assembly to meet in regular session at 10 a.m. “no later than the second Wednesday of January each year.” This year, the General Assembly is actually convening on the first Wednesday in January. ConstitutionThis is necessary because section 1 of art. IV requires the Governor and Lieutenant Governor to take office by the second Tuesday of January. But section 3 of article IV requires the General Assembly to declare the winner of the election for Governor and Lieutenant Governor or to decide who the winners are if the general election ends in a tie or is contested. To declare the winners, the General Assembly must be in session. So, each time a Governor is elected, the General Assembly must convene before the second Tuesday of January.

    Each regular legislative session can last no longer than 120 days, including Saturdays and Sundays and any other days the General Assembly may decide to take off (section 7 of art. V). A regular legislative session can last fewer than 120 days, which has happened as recently as 2008. Section 7 also allows the General Assembly to meet outside of a regular session when convened in a special session by the Governor or by written request of two-thirds of the members of each house. During a special session, the General Assembly can consider only the specific subjects listed in the Governor’s call or in the written request. For more information on special sessions, see “Frequently Asked Questions concerning Special Legislative Sessions”.

    Other constitutional provisions regarding the timing of legislative sessions include:

    • Section 15 of art. V: During a legislative session, neither the House nor the Senate may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other house.
    • Section 22 of art. V: Before a bill can become law, the votes on the bill must be taken on two separate days in each house.
    • Section 11 of art. IV: The Governor has 10 days during the legislative session in which to sign a bill, veto and return it, or allow the bill to become law without a signature. The Governor has 30 days to act on bills that the General Assembly sends to him or her for signature during the last 10 days of session.

  • A Holiday Message

    Holiday Collage 2HAPPY HOLIDAYS FROM THE OLLS!

    Holiday 5

  • The Publications Bill: A Little Bill with a Big Job

    by Nate Carr

    Each year a small, one-page bill works its way through the legislative process. It’s typically at the front of the legislative bill line, so to speak, and frequently has the honor of gracing the Governor’s desk before many of the other bills have even been heard in the first committee. This bill doesn’t trigger front-page headlines; it rarely, if ever, even makes the news. Why then, does this seemingly insignificant little bill get pushed through the legislative process so quickly?

    Well, this little bill has a big job – enacting the compilation of the state’s laws known as the Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.). Each year the Committee on Legal Services, the legislative committee responsible for overseeing the publication and printing of the Colorado Revised Statutes, sponsors this bill. It is formally titled as a bill Concerning the enactment of Colorado Revised Statutes [Year] as the positive and statutory law of the state of Colorado; however, it is commonly referred to as the “publications bill.” The publications bill enacts the official printed version of the C.R.S. as the positive and statutory law of the State of Colorado. But why is it necessary to enact the C.R.S. annually?

    2012 Colorado Revised Statutes/Photo by Ashley Zimmerman
    2012 Colorado Revised Statutes/Photo by Ashley Zimmerman

    The answer to that question requires some background information. Once the General Assembly adopts a bill, the enrolling room and the Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS) prepare the bill in Act form for presentation to the Governor. Bills that the Governor signs, or that he does not veto, become law and are known as Acts. In the months following the adjournment of each legislative session, the OLLS staff, under the direction of the Revisor of Statutes, incorporates the newly enacted laws into the body of law published in the preceding year’s C.R.S. In addition, staff makes revision changes to correct nonsubstantive grammatical or punctuation errors, harmonizes conflicting bills, and adds voter-approved statutory changes. The Revisor also ensures that the C.R.S. are properly constructed, annotated, and indexed. The authority and guidelines that the Revisor follows to prepare the C.R.S. are located in articles 4 and 5 of title 2 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. Once the publications process is complete, the OLLS sends the data with the new, updated body of law to the state’s official contract printer who prints and distributes the updated sets of Colorado Revised Statutes.

    At the legislative session following the printing of the C.R.S., the General Assembly and the Governor move quickly to pass the publications bill. The bill does not change substantive law and may not be used as a vehicle to repeal or otherwise amend legislation enacted by a prior General Assembly or to amend a bill being considered during the same legislative session. Passage of the publications bill usually occurs within a few weeks after the start of the legislative session. Once enacted, the updated C.R.S., as printed by the state’s official contract printer, is deemed to have been properly collated, edited, revised, and constructed. The text of the newly updated C.R.S. becomes legal, irrefutable evidence of the state’s statutory law in a court of law. Without passage of the publications bill, provisions of the published C.R.S. are merely prima facie evidence of the statutory law that may be contradicted or rebutted by other evidence.

    Back to the question, why is it necessary to enact the C.R.S. annually? Enactment of the publications bill ensures that there is one, comprehensive body of primary statutory law for the state of Colorado on which courts and the public may rely. Without passage of the publications bill, all other bills would need to amend not only the last enacted version of the C.R.S., but also the Session Laws for each subsequent year in which a bill amends the same section of law. Eventually, it would become virtually impossible to know or understand what the statutory law of the state actually is. The publications bill may be a little bill, but it achieves a giant result!

  • Bill requests submitted? Then it’s time to decide the bill introduction order

    by Patti Dahlberg

    According to Joint Rule 24(b)(1)(A), each session a legislator is allowed five bill requests. These five requests are in addition to any appropriation, committee-approved, or sunset bills that a legislator may choose to carry. Seems simple, doesn’t it? Not so fast. To keep these five bill requests, a legislator’s requests must also meet specific bill introduction deadlines.

    Bill introduction deadlines:
    A legislator may forfeit a bill request if the bill does not meet specific introduction deadlines.* Before each session starts, a legislator must decide which one of his or her bill requests will be a prefile bill, which two will meet the early bill deadlines, and which two will meet the regular bill deadlines.

    1 plus 2 plus 2The prefile deadline is five days before session starts and usually falls on the Friday before the convening date of session. This year the prefile deadline is Friday, January 2, 2015. Each legislator must have one bill delivered to the front desk of the House or the Senate by this date or risk forfeiting a bill request.

    The remaining House and Senate early and regular bill introduction deadlines vary by chamber and are listed below:

    2015 Bill Intro deadlines

    Bill order
    A legislator’s “bill order” is the order in which his or her bills are introduced. Joint Rule 23 (a) indicates that a legislator should choose his or her prefile bill and two early bills from the three requests made by the December bill request deadline. But the rule also allows a legislator to choose a bill request submitted after the December request deadline to meet the early bill introduction deadlines.

    A legislator’s early bill requests are usually the first three bills the legislator introduces, because a bill submitted by the earliest request deadline is more likely to be further along in the drafting process than a bill request that’s submitted later. But sometimes an early bill request might be more complicated than expected. In this case, the legislator may choose a relatively simple “regular” bill request (i.e., a request submitted after the December deadline) to be one of his or her early bills; then the legislator has more time to work on the more complicated early bill request.

    The Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS) encourages legislators to designate their prefile bill and early introduction bills (i.e., the bill order) as soon as possible so that the bill drafters can prioritize these bills to meet the early introduction deadlines. If the OLLS does not have a legislator’s bill order on record, they will contact the legislator for this information and will continue contacting the legislator until they get the information.

    * A legislator can ask for permission from the Committee on Delayed Bills to put in additional bill requests or to waive a specific bill introduction deadline to a different date.

    designate bill order

  • After the Bills Pass: The Importance of Legislative Oversight

    by Patti Dahlberg

    “Legislative oversight” generally refers to a legislature’s review and evaluation of selected activities, services, and operations and the general performance of the executive branch of government. The legislature exercises Oversight definitionthis oversight to ensure that the executive branch administers new and existing programs efficiently, effectively, and in a manner consistent with legislative intent. Oversight has long been the focus of certain legislative statutory committees and has also become a required part of the hearings and work of the standing committees of reference.

    According to a National Conference of State Legislatures article on the Separation of Powers – Legislative Oversight:

      • “Legislative oversight takes many forms. Most often, legislative standing committees are responsible for continuous review of the work of the state agencies in their subject areas. Legislatures also have created special committees or staff agencies designed specifically to evaluate agency operation and performance. In addition, legislatures may review (and sometimes, veto) the rules and regulations developed by executive agencies to implement law.”

    In Colorado, ongoing legislative oversight of state agencies occurs through the following methods:

    Committee on Legal Services – review of administrative rules – §24-4-103, C.R.S.
    The legislature’s review of administrative rules is one way in which the General Assembly exercises legislative oversight of the executive branch. A “rule” is a formal written statement of law that a state agency adopts to carry out statutory policies and administer programs. The General Assembly’s role in the rule-making process is in authorizing an agency to make rules and then reviewing and, if necessary, invalidating rules that are not within the agency’s statutory authority or that conflict with state law. The Committee on Legal Services exercises some of the General Assembly’s rulemaking oversight responsibilities by tracking legislation that requires the adoption of rules and notifying sponsors when required or authorized rules have been adopted and by annually introducing a bill that extends rules that are within the agencies’ statutory authority and allows rules to expire that are outside the agencies’ authority or that conflict with law. For more information on the rule review function of the legislature see “Legislative Oversight of State Agency Rule-making”.

    Joint Budget Committee – fiscal oversight of state budget and finances – §2-3-201, C.R.S.
    The Joint Budget Committee (JBC) is charged with analyzing the management, operations, programs, and fiscal needs of the departments of state government as part of creating a balanced budget, which the state Constitution requires. The Governor reviews the executive-branch budget requests, sets priorities for funding, and sends the executive-branch budget request to the JBC for consideration. The JBC reviews the Governor’s proposed budget and holds public hearings with each state agency and institution to discuss priorities and answer questions. Based on the information gathered in these hearings and other information provided by the JBC staff, the JBC drafts the annual general appropriations bill, which is introduced during the second half of each legislative session.

    Legislative Audit Committee – review of agency performance – §2-3-101, C.R.S.
    The Legislative Audit Committee (LAC) assists in overseeing state government by reviewing the audits that the State Auditor performs of all departments, institutions, and agencies of state government and of other public Auditagencies, as well as reviewing other reports the State Auditor may prepare. In addition, the LAC reviews a number of annual performance audits required by §2-7-204, C.R.S., and conducted by the State Auditor’s office. According to Wikipedia, “an independent examination of a program, function, operation or the management systems and procedures of a governmental or non-profit entity to assess whether the entity is achieving economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the employment of available resources.” Based on recommendations from the State Auditor, the LAC may introduce legislation to create or clarify statutes identified in the audit reports.

    Legislative oversight of principal departments – §2-7-101, C.R.S.
    Section 2-7-101, C.R.S., better known as the SMART Act,* requires each legislative joint committee of reference to conduct hearings with assigned executive-branch departments regarding each department’s performance plans, regulatory agendas, budget requests, and associated legislative agendas – before each session. The goal of these hearings is for legislators to get a better sense of what is going on in the executive branch by asking questions, making sure that the departments are implementing laws as expected, and learning about departments’ legislative agendas before the legislative session starts. The appropriate joint committee of reference is notified when a department does not complete state auditor recommendations in a timely manner and when a department does not adopt legislatively required or authorized rules. The JBC will also use the departments’ performance plans to help prioritize departments’ requests for new funding. For more information regarding the SMART Act, see “So you think you’re so SMART?”

    Sunset Review Process – review of regulatory agencies and functions – §§2-3-1203 and 24-34-104, C.R.S.
    A number of entities, functions, boards, and advisory committees within state government are scheduled to terminate each year due to statutory repeal or “sunset” provisions. Under the sunset process, the Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) regularly reviews the functions of each state regulatory agency, division, or board, and each advisory committee, before its termination date, to determine whether the agency, division, board, or advisory committee should continue performing its functions with or without modifications. DORA issues a report to the General Assembly that a committee of reference reviews during the legislative session in a public hearing, which can include testimony from the program’s administrators and interested members of the public. The General Assembly must act by bill to continue the functions provided by an agency, division, board, or advisory committee. If the General Assembly does not act, the agency, division, or board goes into a one-year wind up period. If the General Assembly does not pass a bill to continue an advisory committee, the committee is repealed on the scheduled sunset date. For additional information regarding the sunset review process in Colorado see “The Sunset Process: Legislative Review of Regulatory Agencies and Functions” and “Sunset Reviews Conducted by Standing Committees”.

    * State Measurement for Accountable, Responsive, and Transparent (SMART) Government Act

  • 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.