Rep. Randy Fischer, D-Fort Collins, sponsor of House Bill 1003, told members of the House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee that graywater—water previously used for non-organic purposes such as showers, baths and laundry and then repurposed for uses like watering lawns—should be available  for those who want to conserve.

“This is water that is slightly used,” said Fischer. “I know it’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but this would give them the opportunity to use graywater if they so choose.”

Fischer’s bill states that current statute is unclear regarding whether, and under what conditions, graywater may be used. The bill would have authorized the state Water Quality Control Commission to develop standards for the use of graywater; local governments also would have had to authorize graywater’s use in a given community.

Wastewater from toilets, urinals, kitchen sinks, nonlaundry utility sinks and dishwashers would have been prohibited under the bill for reuse as graywater.

Yet, Rep. Larry Liston, R-Colorado Springs, said passing legislation granting local governments the authority to set up guidelines for graywater infrastructure could open the door for mandates on new home construction and industrial sites.

“We see it time after time all over the place,” said Liston. “I’m wary that a local government or state government may try to mandate this.”

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

Senate Bill 12, sponsored by Sen. Steve King, R-Grand Junction, and Rep. Joe Miklosi, D-Denver, changes the frequency of the audits from every 90 days to twice a year.  Additionally, it allows for more frequent covert, undercover, inspections to be done at the discretion of the Department of Revenue, which oversees the program.

Federal law requires the auditing to be done on a twice-annual basis, and King says it’s redundant to conduct the audits more frequently.

“Doing this above and beyond federal requirements is redundant and ineffective,” said King.

Yet, Weld County Republican Sen. Scott Renfroe, of Greeley, says he voted against the measure because he believes the entire program is redundant in light of evidence Renfroe says shows consistent air quality above and beyond Environmental Protection Agency standards.

“I don’t like the program at all,” said Renfroe. “When there’s not a problem that needs fixing—I have a problem.”

Committee chair Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Arvada, said the reduction in audits shows good governance.

“This is good-government bill that allows us to focus on areas that need improvements and not over-inspecting areas that don’t,” said Hudak.

The measure now heads to the full Senate for consideration.

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

Rep. Wes McKinley, D-Walsh, and Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, D-Sterling, are having a bill drafted that would create a pilot program, funded by gifts, grants and donations, to research the crop’s potential.

Areas that may benefit, says McKinley, are Rocky Flats, once the site of a nuclear weapons plant, and the Cotter Corporation’s uranium mine near Golden, as well as numerous abandoned mining properties around the state.

The hemp plants, which have been shown to absorb toxins from soil, would also provide benefits to both farmers and consumers, says McKinley.

“It would be nice to clean up these contaminated areas,” said McKinley. “Hemp can be a very beneficial crop providing food, fuel and fiber.”

Sonnenberg says if the study proves right, the plant could address agricultural problems with contaminated soil, too.

“There are so many possibilities for industrial hemp than it only makes sense to create win-win situations for agriculture,” said Sonnenberg.

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

“This program is wasting people’s time and money,” said Renfroe. He said Weld and Larimer counties should be exempt unless there is reliable data pointing toward a need for the program.

“The air is clean, and audits are showing that the program is not living up to its intended results,”  said Renfroe.

The pending measure will resemble Renfroe’s and Vaad’s House Bill 11-1082, which failed to pass in the 2011 session. It would have repealed legislation passed in 2010 expanding the Denver metro area’s long-standing and often-criticized auto emissions-testing program into Weld and Larimer counties.

The program requires each vehicle over four years old to undergo a tailpipe-and-treadmill test at state-designated garages operated by a contractor, sometimes requiring hours-long waits by motorists during peak periods.

Opposition to the program is far from unanimous, however, with Democrats even in Larimer and Weld counties typically supporting it.

Rep. John Kefalas, D-Fort Collin, said earlier this year that erring on the side of caution when health issues come into play is the more prudent path despite any inconveniences or costs to motorists.

“We want to make sure that we run the program so that it’s not over-burdensome—especially in these hard economic times—but also look at public health issues,” said Kefalas.

The emissions program also employs random, drive-by tests, conducted by roadside monitors, as a backup to the mandatory tailpipe tests. However, the state auditor recently determined that the roadside monitors can yield false positives for dirty emissions. The Legislative Audit Committee decided earlier this week to advance legislation that would limit the roadside testing to identifying clean vehicles only. That way, motorists whose vehicles fail the random tests still can go to one of the program’s regular testing stations and get a fresh test. Under current law, owners of vehicles that happen to drive by one of the monitors and get a clean bill of health may renew their vehicle registration without having to take a regular tailpipe test.

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

The El Paso County lawmaker says she plans on introducing legislation in January that would halt companies dealing in the worn-out tires from double-dipping into the dollars generated by the fee. Her proposal would bar companies that are not in compliance with state rules from receiving the grant money—money Looper said is not an entitlement but rather granted to them for a service.

“We don’t owe any of these  organizations a dime,” said Looper. “If you play by the rules and do what you say you are going to do, then you can get some of this money.”

The double dipping has occurred, says Looper, because of the nuanced difference in the meaning of “and” and “or.” The use of the word “and” has meant that companies that purport to both shred and recycle the tires—which in some cases has amounted to burying the powder yielded from the shredding process—have been able to collect twice for the same tire.

The fee has been around since the 1990s, but in 2010 Looper got legislation, House Bill 10-1018, passed to ensure the fees would be used exclusively as  grant money for proper disposal and recycling of tires.  The money, until HB 10-1018 passed, had been diverted for other purposes.

Looper says persistence in refining the program will result in a win-win for Colorado.

“This legislation will protect taxpayers who are paying these fees and will ensure the program’s goal of reducing the amount of old tires that are stored in Colorado,” said Looper.

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

The easements—made possible through legislation  that aimed to preserve undeveloped land—and the resulting tax credits are created when a landowner allows a portion of property, meeting specific criteria, to be set aside for conservation. The state has called into question the value of some conservation easements.

House Bill 11- 1300, sponsored by Rep. Marsha Looper, R-Calhan, allowed disputes over the validity of conservation-easement tax credits to go directly to court rather than forcing landowners to await a ruling by the Colorado Department of Revenue. The measure set an expedited deadline for administrative cases to be resolved.

The majority of those whose credits are in dispute—455 cases out of 551—opted to be heard by a judge. Thirty-two chose to have their cases expedited with an outcome subject to a 2014 deadline rather than 2016.

Democratic state Rep. Wes McKinley, of Walsh, who has been a vocal advocate of those caught up in administrative red tape over the credits, said the numbers are reflective of the problem.

‘They wanted the state to stop harassing them,” said McKinley. “Now, at least, these folks have a direction they can go. I think the department is amazed at the number of cases utilizing this opportunity and realized that they needed to start listening to what these people were saying.”

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

When combined, nitrogen and phosphorus fuel the production of algae, which is essential for plant and animal health—but too much of which can contaminate waterways, according to the EPA.  An excess of algae upsets the ecological balance for other life forms and requires urgent action, the federal environmental agency maintains.

The EPA says the proliferation of such contaminants is a growing concern in the United States, and EPA rulings have encouraged states to adopt measureable standards and to develop mitigation strategies to reduce the level of the contaminants in the treatment of wastewater.

A cost-benefit study on cleanup of the contaminants, presented to the Water Resources Review Committee last week, concluded it would cost $2.9 billion to $23 Billion if the state, nudged by the federal government, moves forward with pending regulatory action.

“The price tag to Coloradans is staggering,” said Looper, of Calhan.

The study was conducted in accordance with House Joint Resolution 11-1025, sponsored by Looper. The resolution outlines criteria to be studied by the panel in anticipation of rules and regulations to be proposed in March by the Colorado Water Quality Control Division and the Water Quality Control Commission regarding the presence of  excess pollutants.

Looper maintains that the jury is still out on the effects of the pollutants on waterways and the agency is contemplating action prematurely.

“I believe the Division’s proposals are flawed and unnecessary to protect public health (and) lack scientific and regulatory justification,” said Looper.

Yet, Rep. Roger Wilson, D-Glenwood Springs, a member of the Water Resources Review Committee,  said the study should steer the state toward pre-emptive action: studying the problem and monitoring waterways.

“Colorado has an opportunity to design its own compliance, and we should take advantage of this,” said Wilson. “They did a good job based on information that they had, but there’s still uncertainty, the greatest of which is the effect of all this on our waterways.  The prudent thing is to move ahead with a scientifically based statewide plan that would allow us to learn as we go.”

Additionally, Wilson says that armed with data and a plan that is scientifically based, the state will be better positioned to navigate the federal standards that appear to be looming.

Still, Looper called the Obama administration’s EPA regulations to decrease the levels of nitrates and phosphorus in streams unnecessarily “paralyzing.”

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

The Water Resources Review Committee floated the idea at a September meeting, had a measure drafted, but decided against moving forward with the legislation in a tie-vote split along party lines. The bill would have required new toilets to use no more than 1.28 gallons per flush.

Sen. Ellen Roberts, R-Durango  said mandating lower flow toilets would be redundant when the market is already headed in that direction.

” I struggle with a state mandate,” said Roberts. “This is already occurring naturally in the marketplace.”

The committee’s chair, Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass Village, said she supported the measure as a tool for conservation.

“Letting the market drive it, when the consumers are not as educated as to why we should do it…. sometimes policy can help direct that, especially when it comes to a scarce resource,” said Schwartz. “The waters belong to the people of the state. It is our fiduciary role to protect those waters and to preserve it for future generations.”

Concurring with Schwartz on the need to enforce water conservation was Rep. Roger Wilson, D-Glenwood Springs, who said setting policy on toilet capacity sends an important message about water conservation.

“I initially bristle, myself, at the idea that someone’s going to tell me what kind of toilet I can use in my house, but when I think about the next few decades, I know that we as a society need to take measures to improve our conservation (of water),” said Wilson.   ”When I have to install a low-flow toilet in a new house, that’s a message to me that I should take heed about other water usage. It tells me that water is precious.”

Still, Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling said he preferred to leave it up to consumers and toilet manufacturers to decide what’s best.

“Industry can do this now.  It doesn’t need government to tell it that it has to have a 1.6 or a 1.4—or whatever size of toilet they have to have,” said Sonnenberg.

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

That trend now has the department  mulling how to wean Colorado off of a tax on gasoline altogether and steer the state instead toward a tax based on miles driven.

Department spokeswoman Stacey Stegman says talks right now are strictly preliminary and are geared toward possible legislation to create   the framework of a revenue-collection system—the blanks would be filled in later—and putting together a legislative task force to study the concept.

“We keep tabs on this issue and watch what other states are doing, but there is no plan at the moment—it’s just something to explore and consider,” said Stegman. ”

The advent of alternative-fuel vehicles like electric cars is just the latest development adding impetus to the department’s concerns; more efficient gasoline-burning cars have been the cause of a years-long, steady drop in gas-tax revenue.

Boulder’s Democratic Rep. Claire Levy, who drives a hybrid gas-electric car, says she is keen on the concept.  Times are ripe for the conversation to begin, says Levy. Pointing to a three-year downward trend in revenue collected at the pump, Levy contends that the department won’t be able to keep up with road maintenance.

“It’s definitely time to start looking at alternative ways to pay for our roads,” said Levy. “We can’t keep going with business as usual.”

House Transportation Committee Chair Glenn Vaad, R-Mead, also says the time may be ripe to look at alternative ways, based on miles traveled rather than gallons purchased, to fund roads—but taxpayers would need to warm up to the idea.

“It would take an evolutionary period,” said Vaad. “But in the meantime  these vehicles are not paying their fair share.”

Fair share is important, say both Vaad and Levy, since all vehicles contribute to the wear and tear of roadways regardless of what makes them run.  Vaad says traditional pay-at-the-pump revenue collection has evolved into inequalities.

Levy notes that owners of electric cars and hybrids, who generally pay more for their vehicles in exchange for zero-to-greatly-reduced gas costs and consumption,  need to realize the effect that paradigm shifts in gas consumption have had on the state’s ability to fund transportation needs.

“They must understand that their vehicles cause wear and tear on the roads too,” said Levy. “Gas consumption doesn’t mirror road usage anymore.”

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

Rep. Glenn Vaad, R-Mead, who sponsored similar legislation last spring, is having his proposal to suspend the testing drafted by legislative staffers for introduction in the 2012 legislative session.

“It made sense (during the spring 2011 session), and it makes even more sense now,” said Vaad.

Vaad says another year of data has yielded little to suggest the program should continue although controversy over the numbers themselves,  and the need for the testing, suggest the bill will again meet with considerable opposition.

“It certainly looks like it was a revenue issue, not a clean-air issue, since the county is already in compliance with EPA standards,” said Vaad. “Why continue the program when  the monitoring shows that there is not a problem?.

House Bill 1082, sponsored in the 2011 session by Vaad and Sen. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley, would have repealed legislation passed only a year earlier by a Democratic-led legislature  expanding the Denver metro area’s long-standing and often-criticized auto emissions-testing program into Weld and Larimer counties.

That program requires each vehicle over four years old to undergo a tailpipe-and-treadmill test at state-designated garages operated by a contractor, sometimes requiring hours-long waits by motorists during peak periods.

Vaad’s new proposed measure, like last year’s, will allow for the program to be reinstated should air-quality numbers breach the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s acceptable threshold in ground level ozone.

The threshold for emissions is currently .075 by EPA standards, with measurements in the Greeley and Fort Collins areas from 3 monitors averaging out to .071 on up to .072 on a 3-year rolling average—the method by which the levels are calculated.

Weld County Commissioner Sean Conway says the testing, which he estimates costs motorists in Weld County $5 million annually, is spinning the wheels  of citizens needlessly and producing negligible results given that newer vehicles rarely fail the test and older vehicles are being phased out by sheer age.

“Why are we making our citizens go through this?” asks Conway. “This program doesn’t do anything to reduce ozone. We’re already in compliance, and it is costing people valuable time and money.”

Yet, Rep. John Kefalas, D-Fort Collins, of Larimer County, who voted against suspending the program last year, says he has not changed his mind.  Kefalas says he disagrees with an interpretation of the numbers that suggests the vehicle testing isn’t warranted and that health concerns should take precedence.

“It’ a matter of how you look at the data,” says Kefalas. “There’s still legitimate public health concerns, particularly for those who are most vulnerable to air quality such as those with asthma.”

According to Lucinda Smith, Senior Environmental Planner with the City of Fort Collins, the numbers have  measured up to .080 in the west Fort Collins area.

The EPA, which takes a look at the standards every five years, is due to review the thresholds in 2013. There was talk of lowering the threshold to .070, earlier than 2013, but the agency recently decided to put off the decision until the next five-year meeting.

As a way to address some of the cost issues of continuing the program, Kefalas says he is considering legislation seeking to clarify and to expand on what he says is a little-known provision in the program that provides need-based funding for repairs to vehicles failing the test.  Balance is key says Kefalas.

“We want to make sure that we run the program so that it’s not over-burdensome—especially in these hard economic times—but also look at public health issues,” he said.

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.