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.

If that isn’t the title of a country song about a drifter who loves ‘em and leaves ‘em, it ought to be.

But in Colorado and elsewhere, who owns the wind is no longer a whimsical question. It’s becoming important politically because of the increasing number of turbines and wind farms producing electricity.

Under common law, the answer to the question is: I do.  At least when it’s rolling across property I own.  But it’s all yours when it crosses onto your land, clearing me of liability should it blow down your house.

If I own a ranch on which Xcel Energy wants to erect wind turbines, can I sell the land and move to Arizona, but keep the wind rights since I need the income?

That’s the current assumption, and some deals have been made that sever wind rights from surface rights.

But House Bill 1105, which cleared the House Agriculture Committee this week, would establish “a nonseverable wind energy right in real property.”

It’s probably a good idea.  Too bad it’s far too late to pass another bill creating “nonseverable mineral rights in real property.” It’s the unending problem of severed mineral rights—which are practically universal in Colorado—that the wind bill backers are trying to avoid.

Creating nonseverable rights wouldn’t stop wind development any more than it would stop mining or drilling.  You’d just have to draft separate “wind energy agreements,” which under the bill would have to be recorded with the county clerk.  (The bill does specify that pre-existing severed wind rights would be grandfathered in, so long as they are registered.)

There are several problems with severable wind rights.  First, they might be taxed even if not developed, just as unexploited minerals can be.  No one, not even state property tax administrator JoAnn Groff, spoke in favor of taxing the wind during the House hearing. “Whatever wind is, it’s inherent in the value of the land,” she said.

“We want to make sure there’s no tax until the right is developed,” said Troy Bredenkamp of the Colorado Farm Bureau.

Second, severed wind rights might take priority over surface rights.  That’s certainly the case with minerals.  If an oil company with the right to minerals beneath your land wants to come onto your property and drill, it can. It may make a satisfactory agreement that provides you with a few pennies and leaves your land relatively unscathed, but the conflicts between owners of surface rights and mineral rights are bitter and unending.  The same could be expected with severed wind rights—especially after the land has changed hands.

Third, when wind rights are severed, they eventually have to be split up among the heirs, and then the heirs’ heirs, making them increasingly difficult to track.

Other hazards that no one suggested have occurred to me.  If wind rights were severed, would commodity brokers start making a market in wind energy futures?  Would investment banks chop up and bundle bad “underwater” wind rights and sell them as separate securities, like so many “collateralized debt obligations”?

A professor at the University of Denver law school, liltingly named K.K. DuVivier, showed up to testify in favor of the bill although she hadn’t been asked by sponsoring Rep. Jon Becker, R-Fort Morgan.  DuVivier, a specialist in energy and environmental law, said only six states have passed laws that prohibit the splitting of wind and surface rights.  One that hasn’t is Texas, which produces far more wind energy than any other state.  The severed rights have caused many problems for those owning the land, she said.

She urged lawmakers to keep the wind rights in the surface estate.  “Without legislative guidance, courts logically turn to precedents defining the status of other resources, such as oil or water,” she wrote in an article for the Washburn Law Journal.  “Yet, defaulting to traditional models is unlikely to encourage the best development of our country’s wind resources.”

Wind farms, she noted, require long-term and extensive use not only of the surface land, but of the area immediately above and below it, for transmission, distribution and collection lines.

It makes sense to cut off legal problems before they occur—although DuVivier seems to be violating the oath lawyers apparently take when they’re admitted to practice: Create as many legal thickets as possible, in order to build business.

Maybe she’s doing it to honor her father.  DuVivier started her career as a geologist, and when she switched to law, her father asked her, “Why are you leaving an honest profession like geology to become a lawyer?”

If she can simplify the law, her father should be proud.

Longtime Rocky Mountain News political columnist Peter Blake now writes Thursdays for the Colorado News Agency. Contact him at pblake0705@comcast.net You may re-publish his work at no charge and without further permission; please give full credit to Peter Blake and www.ColoradoNewsAgency.com

The “Colorado Open Records Act,” or CORA, which keeps public records open for inspection by the public, allows exceptions for records pertaining to police investigations, attorneys and security investigations. House Bill 1036 makes clear that the exemption includes all civil, administrative or criminal cases.

Rep. Jim Kerr, R-Littleton, sponsor of the measure, says the clarification is needed to protect sensitive information.

“If you have the information ahead of time, you can compromise peoples lives,” Kerr told the House Judiciary Committee today. “Right now, transparency is accomplished when a case is finished without an ongoing fishing expedition.”

The committee debated the bill but delayed action until a later date.

However, Rep. Daniel Kagan, D-Cherry Hills says if adopted the measure would compromise the public’s right to have access to public documents.

“I have serious concerns that this is a loss of transparency, drawing a cloak over the processes of government,” said Kagan.

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 16 would have allowed municipal governments to reduce their contributions for their employees to the Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association by up to 2.5 percent, increasing employees’ contributions by the same amount. Two years ago, the legislature allowed the state to implement that provision for its own employees to help balance the strapped state budget.

Still pinched by tight tax revenue following a crippling recession, city governments across Colorado have been grappling for ways to balance their budgets, too, and have looked at curbing payroll costs, including contributions to the state public employees’ retirement program. Cities like Colorado Springs and Boulder have sought statutory permission to tinker with the retirement-funding mandate.

Colorado Springs Mayor Steve Bach addressed the Senate State Affairs Committee today in support of the bill.

“Without any flexibility, Colorado Springs will have few options of how we can address the growing financial burden PERA is placing on our budget,” Bach told the committee.

Kevin Bommer, the legislative advocacy manager for the Colorado Municipal League, in a prepared statement after the bill was defeated, said municipalities should be afforded the same latitude over their budgets that was granted the state, and he said without such flexibility, layoffs have taken place and will become more common in local governments.

“This decision could very well cost jobs for local government employees,” Bommer said.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs, said the issue has been looming ever larger for government at every level in the state.

“Government retirement funds are a huge problem—if not a crisis,” said Lambert. “This is a major part of government spending and has no equivalent in the private sector.”

However, majority Democrats who defeated the bill in committee said the measure would amount to a 2.5 percent cut in pay for employees at city hall.

Sen. Rollie Heath, D-Boulder, said the burden on employees just wasn’t acceptable.

“That’s a gift-horse to local governments,” Heath said. “It’s taking it out of the pockets of employees.”

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 15, nearly identical to last year’s unsuccessful proposal,  which failed in the Republican-led House, is again sponsored by Sens. Angela Giron, D-Pueblo and Michael Johnston, D-Denver.

The measure would create a tuition category for undocumented students that costs less than out-of-state tuition but is effectively higher than the rate for Colorado students who receive a stipend toward the in-state rate through the Colorado Opportunity Fund.

The committee’s chair, Sen. Bob Bacon, D-Fort Collins, said extending in-state tuition to undocumented students is a matter of recognizing reality.

“These people are Americans without the paperwork,” said Bacon.

Yet, Sen. Nancy Spence, R-Centennial, said the tuition proposal merely masks a larger issue.

“As long as it is not legal to hire a person who is not documented,  these kids will still be in the same predicament,” said Spence. They won’t be able to work, even if they are college grads.”

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 94, sponsored by Sen. Mary Hodge, D-Brighton, and Rep. Libby Szabo, R-Arvada, clarifies that the state’s sales tax exempts groceries no matter where they’re purchased—and that local governments seeking to tax such products cannot discriminate.

While Colorado’s statutory and home-rule cities may impose taxes on grocery sales—provided they secure local voter approval under constitutional taxing and spending limits—it’s the inconsistency that concerns Hodge. She told  members of the Senate Business, Labor and Technology Committee that a variety of municipalities are charging a local tax on certain food items sold at establishments designated as convenience stores.

‘This is a fairness issue,” said Hodge. “When you buy bread and milk at a convenience store it should be the same as at grocery stores.”

Sen. Ted Harvey, R- Highlands Ranch, said the measure simply codifies the intent of the exemption implemented decades earlier.

“This restores the original intent of legislation passed years ago,” said Harvey. “We shouldn’t be taxing the citizens of Colorado who want to put food on their tables.”

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.

He understood that bureaucracy at the state level doesn’t usually grow because bureaucrats want more power for its own sake.  It grows because businesses, trades and professions are always asking government to help them limit competition and thus keep prices up. Not that they put it that way, of course.

Kopel, who served 22 years in the House, tried to restrict their ability to do that.  It was an uphill push, and the stone kept rolling back, but he did the best he could.

In 1976 Kopel sponsored Colorado’s Sunset Law. It requires every regulatory board in the Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) to justify its existence every few years or go out of business.

He also sponsored the Sunrise Law of 1985, which requires trades seeking regulation to undergo screening by the Department of Regulatory Agencies before coming to the legislature with a bill.  One of those promoting the Sunrise Law was then-DORA Director Wellington Webb, who was overwhelmed by the number of businesses seeking regulation.

Originally the Sunrise Law required applicants to show DORA that an unregulated practice actually harms the public; that the public would in fact benefit from regulation and there’s no more cost-effective way to help consumers.  It has subsequently been weakened so that sometimes all a trade has to do is show that it’s regulated in many other states.

It’s always the businesses who seek state oversight, Kopel realized.  “I’ve never seen a consumer who wants regulation,” he once said.

Despite the hurdles, there are now 55 professions and trades regulated by DORA’s division of registrations, from accountants through veterinarians.  That doesn’t include real estate and insurance agents, bankers, brokers and taxi companies, who all have their own separate divisions in DORA. No one seems to have any trouble surviving sunset legislation.

And the march toward regulation continues.  There are at least two more trades seeking regulation this year.

One of them is the Colorado Dietetic Association, which is behind House Bill 1060, sponsored by Rep. Tom Massey, R-Poncha Springs. It is scheduled to come up before the House Agriculture Committee Monday.

This isn’t the first time dietitians have sought regulation.  They’ve tried a half dozen times to get DORA approval during the past 25 years, but in the legislature bills couldn’t get out of the first committee.

Now they’re back, arguing that there must be a state board of dietitians “to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public.”  The 28-page bill as drafted specifies dietitians must  provide proof of education and field experience of 1,200 hours.  Enforcement would be provided by a five-member board, three of whom would be dietitians. Penalties for practicing without a license include a fine of $500 and up to six months in jail. But each day of violation constitutes a separate offense.

The bill won’t get a free ride.  At least two groups with competing nutrition philosophies are opposed: the Sunshine Health Freedom Foundation and the Alliance for Natural Health. The latter accuses the American Dietetic Association of “trying to sew up a legally enforced national monopoly” on nutrition services. It also suggests that the association gets $1 million a year from pharmaceutical companies pushing diet pills, plus an undetermined amount from “junk food” outfits like Coca-Cola, Hershey, Mars and PepsiCo.

Bill supporters maintain that exclusions will permit unregistered nutritionists to continue to offer some services, but the health freedom foundation disagrees, contending the bill “attempts to subsume the entire field of nutrition.”

The Colorado Association for Music Therapy is also seeking mandatory registration for practitioners of whatever that might be.  I thought most music was already therapeutic. Violators could be found guilty of misdemeanors.  Its 26-page bill would “protect our title” and increase access to Medicaid waiver funding.  Ahhh. It’s about the money.

It has Democratic sponsorship and GOP Speaker Frank McNulty assigned it to the State Affairs Committee, often considered a death sentence. The nutritionists may not have a better case, but they do have a Republican sponsor and thus weren’t sentenced to State Affairs.

Punishments for violations of Colorado’s economic laws are real enough. Philip Sullivan of Aspen, age 76, began a 15-day jail sentence Wednesday for contempt of court.  He had continued to offer a one-man taxi service in the ski resort despite a judge’s order to stop.  He doesn’t have a PUC certificate and continued his operation despite having served a nine-day sentence last March for the same offense. He didn’t charge a specific fee but accepted tips, which High Mountain Taxi, the legal monopolist in town, complained to the PUC about.

There is no reason for the PUC to control entry into the taxi market, but it does and the legislature, thanks to pressure and contributions from the established taxi oligopoly, has rejected many attempts over the years to liberalize the law.

If a trade wants to promote itself and its image, it can form a private association which requires members to meet certain standards.  It shouldn’t ask the government to restrict competition by force of law.

Longtime Rocky Mountain News political columnist Peter Blake now writes Thursdays for the Colorado News Agency. Contact him at pblake0705@comcast.net You may re-publish his work at no charge and without further permission; please give full credit to Peter Blake and www.ColoradoNewsAgency.com

House Bill 1061, by Rep. Daniel Kagan, D-Greenwood Village, dubbed the Skills for Jobs Act, directs the Department of Higher Education to work with the Department of Labor and Employment to evaluate workforce projections with regard to educational programs offered.

Kagan said matching job-market needs with education would stimulate job growth.

“This will foster business growth in the state by keeping Colorado graduates in the state in well-paying jobs,” said Kagan.

The data is already collected by the state and the federal governments, and Kagan said not to make use of that data would be a mistake.

“We already collect most of this information,” said Kagan “To go to all the trouble of collecting it, collating it, and not putting it out there for the use of the public, is folly.”

Still, Rep. Don Beezley, R- Broomfield, said he appreciates the concept, but his preference would be a more market-driven approach—for quality assurance.

“To be honest, I have a lot more confidence in the marketplace to achieve those goals as long as we don’t interfere and screw it up.”

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.

Sponsored by Sen. Tim Neville, R-Littleton, Senate Bill 25 would have granted all law-abiding Coloradans, including students and others on campuses, the same concealed-carrying privileges given to those with permits.

Neville said it’s a matter of trust and Second Amendment rights.

“We as legislators need to trust our citizens,” said Neville. “ I don’t believe we should have to carry any permit.”

Yet, Sen. Bob Bacon said law-abiding citizens are prone at times to misbehave.

“The law abiding citizen is not a permanent condition,” said Bacon. “I’m concerned what will happen to students on campuses.”

The measure failed on a party-line vote, with majority Democrats, including Bacon, opposing the legislation.

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.