The Legislative Health Benefit Exchange Implementation Review Committee oversees the work of the Health Benefit Exchange Board, which is in the process of applying for federal grant money for the exchange.  A previous grant application was thwarted when the panel could not reach consensus on the terms of the application.

This go-around, the grant application lacks specificity projecting participation in the exchange because of  uncertainties hovering over key components of the reform act, such as the required buy-in by all Americans.

Gretchen Hammer, Executive Director of the Colorado Coalition for the Medically Underserved and Interim Chair of the Colorado Health Benefit Exchange Board, told the legislative panel that work on building the exchange can still remain very much in motion but that “specific pieces of how that functionality will work are in question.”

“How the exchange will function is to some extent in question because of the movement of the federal lawsuit through the United States Supreme Court,” said Hammer.

Despite federal uncertainties,  Rep. Beth McCann, D-Denver, said the grant application should incorporate eligibility scenarios as they are integral to the success of the exchange.

“The subsidies are a fundamental requirement of the success of the exchange whether it is part of the federal law or state law,” said McCann. “It seems to me that eligibility is tied up with subsidies because if they can’t get the subsidy, they may or may not be able to enroll.”

Yet, Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs said it’s imperative to maintain the ability of the exchange to move in either direction pending the decision of the Supreme Court.

“We don’t want this grant proposal to presuppose the outcome of that litigation,” said Gardner.

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.

House  Bill 11-1145, sponsored by Rep. Beth McCann, D-Denver, and Sen. Lois Tochtrop, D-Thornton, requires all child-care workers hired after Aug. 10, 2011 to have a criminal history check through both the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. Previously, only the CBI check was done, with the FBI check occurring only if the worker had lived in Colorado less than two years.

Inclusion of the federal background check for all applicants, says Tochtrop, ensures that the applicant doesn’t have a record that might not be flagged on a state background check.

“It’s important that we do this because we need to protect the most vulnerable—young children. The added background check ensures their safety,” said Tochtrop.

Sen. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley, in support of the proposal while it was being considered by lawmakers, said that the added scrutiny could benefit providers as well as the children.

“The kids will be more protected with the more thorough background check, but it will also help protect providers from liability,” said Renfroe.

House Bill 11-1278, sponsored by Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs, and Democratic Senate Majority Leader John Morse, also of Colorado Springs, clarifies responsibilities regarding sex-offender registration, including when the offender moves from one jurisdiction to another.

Morse said the clarifications, now in place, will make it more likely that sexual offenders who are required to register don’t slip under the radar due to any gaps in the law governing registration.

“From the police’s standpoint, this makes it easier for them to do what they have to do and also makes it easier for the offenders to do what they need to do to comply,” said Morse.

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.

State Sen. Rollie Heath, D-Boulder, has submitted what looks like more than enough signatures to get his tax-hike initiative on the fall ballot.  It would raise state sales and income tax rates back to the pre-1999 rates for five years, which would produce about $3 billion before it sunsets.  He’s tried to frame it so all the new money must go to public education.

Meanwhile, the Lobato vs. Colorado lawsuit is rolling through its second week before Denver District Judge Sheila Rappaport. The plaintiffs, many of them school districts, allege that Colorado doesn’t provide the “thorough and uniform” funding required by the state constitution and should budget much more. One expert witness hired by the plaintiffs (for a $115,000 study) claimed this week that the state should boost its annual K-12 spending to $10.3 billion, or by 54 percent.

There’s little doubt the loser will take the case to the Colorado Supreme Court, possibly bypassing the intermediate court of appeals.

That’s where we’ll find out whether the high court is still as political as former Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey tried to make it.  The defense, in short, is afraid the court might ultimately go so far as to order up the funding itself.

The Lobato case, filed in 2005, has been to the Supreme Court before.  In 2009, on a 4-3 vote, it overturned two lower-court rulings that threw out the suit on grounds that school funding was a political, not a judicial, question.

The high court, reviving the case, said the issue was within the judicial system’s purview but that the trial court must give “substantial deference” to the legislature’s fiscal and policy judgments. If the court still finds the funding system “irrational,” it must give the legislature “a reasonable period of time” to change the funding system.

And there’s the nub.  To find the extra billions for schools, lawmakers would have to eliminate programs like Medicaid, prisons, who knows what else—or raise state taxes.

Which, under TABOR, it couldn’t do without a vote of the people.  And the people aren’t often eager to kowtow to judicial mandates.

This is what makes the case so politically tricky for the high court. State Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs, said the high court would be wise to think very hard before deciding in favor of the plaintiffs. “The key to its existence is its ability to enforce its judgments,” he noted.

It dare not issue a ruling that can’t be enforced.  Would the majority be willing to say, after the legislature or the people have refused to raise taxes, that TABOR doesn’t matter and that we, as an arm of the legislature, are raising school taxes ourselves?

That’s not as far-fetched as it ought to be.  In 2003, the Mullarkey court overturned a congressional redistricting law passed by the legislature on grounds that the “General Assembly” as defined in the state constitution included the courts, and the courts had independent authority to redistrict.  It was tortured, preposterous logic.

If you can redistrict, why not tax too?  The court majority hates TABOR and has done everything possible to undermine it.  In 2009, for instance, it upheld the legislature’s school mill levy freeze, which produced a $117 million windfall, despite TABOR’s requirement that the people vote on any “tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain to any district.”

Mullarkey’s gone but the precedents linger.  Would Chief Justice Michael Bender keep pushing the envelope?  One Republican lawyer who asked not to be identified said “the initial tea leaves” left by Bender indicate “he wants to take the court a step away from the politically active court it was.”

Gardner agreed. “I’m not sure Bender is nearly as activist in his judicial outlook,” he said.

Perhaps. But Bender hasn’t moderated much, or he wouldn’t have voted to revive the Lobato case two years ago.

Perhaps you’re thinking that what the trial court or even the court of appeals decides doesn’t matter, since the Supreme Court has the last say. Not so fast. New Justice Monica Marquez, Mullarkey’s replacement, may well choose to disqualify herself from the case since she worked on it while employed in the attorney general’s office.

So if the high court breaks 3-3 on the case—as it probably will—the lower court’s ruling would stand.

However the Lobato case comes out, remember the ancient adage about supreme courts everywhere: “They’re right because they’re last, not last because they’re right.”

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 11-1032, sponsored by Rep. Pete Lee, D-Colorado Springs, and Sen. Linda Newell, D-Littleton, brings victims, defendants and community members together to talk about an offense in an effort to repair the harm done. Such restorative justice, says Lee, has been shown to “significantly reduce the number of repeat offenses in a community.”

“Right now, one third of our kids don’t graduate from high school, and more than 50 percent of inmates return to prison,” said Lee.  “Restorative justice is the change we need.  Where it is appropriate, when victims and offenders meet face to face, offenders learn about the impact of their crime from the victims, and they begin to feel empathy, often for the first time. Empathy is the beginning of transformation.”

Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, says he supports the concept as long as the victim doesn’t object.

“Restorative justice can and does work for some situations,” said Gardner. “As long as the victim is OK with it, it can be a great tool.”

While HB1032 looks at ways to reduce recidivism by therapeutic methods, House Bill 11-1180, sponsored by Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder and Sen. Lucia Guzman, D-Denver, looks at ways to reduce recidivism by requiring the judge, when considering an appropriate sentence—incarceration, probation, or other corrective measures–to look at factors in the defendant’s background or circumstances that may influence a risk of re-offending.

“It’s about getting the right information about the individual to the judge before sentencing. It tells the judge to keep their eye on the goal of reducing the risk of re-offending,” said Levy.  “Sometimes, if you over supervise too much, it can backfire, such as if someone cannot take time off work to fulfill a requirement. It can be a setback.”

When 90 percent of those who are sent to prison inevitably leave prison, Levy says any available tool, however small, such as evaluating an individual’s circumstances at sentencing, is well worth our while.

“At some point they’ll be living among us,” said Levy. “This is a beginning, baby-steps really. There’s still a lot to do towards reducing recidivism.”

Gardner, who signed on as a co-sponsor of Levy’s bill, agrees that it is a difficult task to take on, but it’s a step in the right direction.

“It’s difficult to reduce recidivism, and sometimes the system makes it difficult.  There’s not a magic bullet but there are some things that we can do,” said Gardner.  “When these people are reintegrated into society, it’s in our best interest to have done whatever we could to prevent them from committing another crime.”

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.

But the leaders should look back periodically to make sure that at least a majority of their sheep are with them. Otherwise they’ll find themselves flockless.

Or even facing a primary.

In recent years health care and energy have been areas where the leaders and the led parted company.

House Bill 1365 of 2010 required the conversion or closing of some coal plants so that Xcel could profit from the building of new natural gas-powered generators.  It was supported by then Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry, but most of his GOP colleagues voted against it on grounds that lawmakers shouldn’t be picking economic winners and losers. Penry didn’t run for re-election that year.

This year, House Majority Leader Amy Stephens, R-Monument, helped Democrats establish a state health care exchange mandated by ObamaCare.  States must establish such state exchanges by 2014 or the federal government will do it for them.

Senate Bill 200 did pass the House, where Stephens was prime sponsor, but only 13 of the 33 House Republicans voted for it.  It became law because 31 of the 32 Democrats supported it as well.

Republicans said that while there’s nothing wrong with free exchanges that enable small businesses and individuals to join together to get less expensive health care coverage, rules laid down by Washington would make a mockery of the idea.

Stephens’ sponsorship brought loud and long protests by libertarians, Tea Partiers and others on the right in her own El Paso County.  They have even threatened to challenge her in a primary. One of her strongest critics was Sarah Anderson, the 22-year-old who had been elected secretary of the county GOP.

Anderson’s comments prompted a closed meeting of party officials in which she was warned that while it was all right to oppose legislation, party officers aren’t supposed to attack fellow Republicans, especially legislators.

Perhaps not, but what if the legislator has gone off on her own, against the wishes of most of her colleagues, not just a small minority?

House Speaker Frank McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch, was one of the few who had backed Stephens’ bill. He did his best to paper over the split this week by appointing Rep. Bob Gardner, who had voted against the measure, to the new health benefit exchange committee.  His other two appointees, Reps. Ken Summers of Lakewood and Jim Kerr of Littleton, had voted for the bill.

There may be “some merit” in exchanges, Gardner said, but the federal government will be trying to dictate the terms.  That was spelled out last week, he noted, when the Health and Human Services Department issued 244 pages of rules making it very clear that Washington will be telling the states how to run the exchanges.

“I believe I was asked to serve because I have a lot of experience dealing with federal regulatory structures” in his private law practice, he said. “I voted against the bill but I’m not wholly opposed to the idea of health benefit exchanges.”

Gardner has “exceptional ability … to bring diverse interests together,” said McNulty.

Stephens herself had doubts about the bill, at one point entertaining the notion of an amendment that would have required Gov. John Hickenlooper to seek a waiver from the federal government allowing Colorado to opt out of Obamacare.  Under pressure from business, which generally sides with political compromise, she didn’t proceed with the amendment. Meanwhile, Colorado Attorney General John Suthers is still involved in the multi-state challenge to the constitutionality of Obamacare, which appears headed to the Supreme Court.

Stephens and McNulty are traditional Republicans going along with a plan they don’t entirely like in hopes of being able to salvage something from it.  Libertarians and the Tea Party, on the other hand, believe compromise is both unprincipled and politically disastrous.  The same split is going on in the U.S. House as the Republican newcomers try to figure out a way to force spending cuts before agreeing to a hike in the debt ceiling, even though the Senate and the president are against them.

It’s possible but not likely Stephens, McNulty or other Republicans who stray from the Tea Party line will face primary challenges as they run for their last House terms.  Criticizing is easier than mounting a campaign.  But even if re-elected, they could lose their leadership posts if they don’t go the way of their caucus.

Veteran Colorado 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

At a recent post-session town-hall meeting in Aurora hosted by Sen. Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora, and Rep. Rhonda Fields, D-Aurora, the virtues of renewable energy were promoted. The event was promoted as offering, “Tips for saving money and saving the planet.”

The event showcased opportunities for homeowners and businesses to embrace both water conservation and solar-powered utilities. Representatives from the cities of Aurora and Denver and a member of a panel from the Governor’s Energy Office spoke to the small gathering of constituents about programs, rebates, and other efforts that consumers can avail themselves of to make the leap into renewable energy for their homes and businesses.

Carroll said the government incentives coaxing consumers toward considering renewable energy as an alternative to traditional fossil fuels is nothing new and could in fact be less costly.

“Right now we’re spending more for fossil fuels in terms of subsidies than with renewable,” said Carroll. “The rebates and incentives out there for renewable energy sources is dwarfed by the incentives currently in place for fossil fuels.”

Carroll said there also are hidden costs to fossil fuels.

“If you don’t include in the cost of energy things such as coal miners who have died or lost their health, you are not looking at the total cost. Fighting for oil–a war-and-peace kind of thing –is also a cost,” said Carroll.

“In the big picture we need to figure out how to get a clear and total cost analysis to see what we’re really paying.”

Yet, Rep. Randy Baumgardner, R-Hot Sulphur Springs, says the push toward renewables from the government in recent years  ignores market realities and technological progress.

“The science is just not where we want it to be yet,”Baumgardner said. “When the government steps in with mandates before the time is right, it is meddling with the natural course of things and picking a winner.”

Baumgardner’s Republican colleagues offered numerous measures aimed at keeping the costs of marching too fast, too soon, toward renewables in check.  All were defeated.

Another failed measure, with bipartisan sponsorship,  House Bill 1312, sponsored by Rep. Jon Becker, R-Fort Morgan, and Sen. Mary Hodge, D-Brighton, sought to restructure the Governor’s Energy Office to be more inclusive of current energy technologies.

Meanwhile, some Democratic-sponsored measures supporting a shift toward renewable also failed to gather enough support, such as a measure sponsored by Sen. Michael Johnston, D-Denver, Senate Bill 32.  It would have created a loan program for homeowners wanting to install energy-efficient improvements like new windows, doors and insulation.

Still, Baumgardner says the bottom line for him is producing energy that makes sense economically and environmentally until another form lands on top through its own merits.

“We need all types of energy, and we need to stop pitting one form against another form,” said Baumgardner.  “The government has started picking winners and losers to the detriment of costs.  Right now, coal is the cheapest form of energy for our needs, and we’ve figured out how to use it cleaner.”

In the meantime, the legislature passed and the governor approved House Bill 1199, a bipartisan measure sponsored by Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs, and Sen. Bob Bacon, D-Fort Collins, that extends the provisions of a previous policy that places a cap on the permit fees for the installation of solar energy devices.

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.

“It makes me angry that they wanted to open a new facility while trying to close down another one,” said Rep. Jon Becker, a committee Republican from Fort Morgan.

The Corrections Department is proposing to close Bent County’s Fort Lyon prison in southeastern Colorado.  An estimated 200 jobs will be lost as a result of the closure, sending the local economy into a tailspin, say local officials there.  In deference to their concerns, and after intervention by Becker, the closure will occur March 1 next year rather than this Sept. 1.  Bent County commissioners say they are appreciative of the delay but still question the decision to close the facility at all.

“This is a result of bad decision making on the part of the department. I question the management of the DOC,” said Bent County Commissioner Bill Long. “They had an opportunity, with a free facility, and didn’t take advantage of it very long.” The facility was sold to the state by the federal government for use as a state prison for the sum of $1 in 2001.

Becker maintains that the decision should have taken more into consideration especially when the department is asking to reopen another facility.

“It’s going to devastate that community,” said Becker. “If we’re going to have the discussion about closing prisons then let’s look at all of them.”

Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs, says the ensuing discussion should be larger than just DOC’s requests. Gardner says the prison closure is the right thing to do given the recent trends in declining recidivism rates—dictating less need for prison beds throughout the state. However, says Gardner, a more systemic approach is warranted that encompasses evaluating the scope of government.

“The reality is that we just have too much government,” said Gardner.  “Sometimes the most efficient thing is to shut something down, even if people will be impacted in the short term.  The role of prison is not one of an economic development tool for a community.”

Yet, Democratic Rep. Wes Mckinley, of Walsh, said he believes that the decision by the department was the wrong one.

“Our budget is sick and it will remain so if we keep doing stupid things,” said McKinley. “I want the DOC to listen to the employees and take heed of where true efficiencies could be found instead of just closing down a facility—not necessarily the smartest thing they could have done.”

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 flyovers are part of a plan to conduct low-altitude training flights over parts of southern Colorado and northern New Mexico.  The military is studying the possibility and has invited input from the communities in southern Colorado and northern New Mexico where the low-altitude maneuvers would occur.

Several lawmakers who gathered on the steps of the Pueblo County Courthouse in September to address the flyover issue told the Trinidad Times that they had deep concerns.

“It’s clear that 200 feet over wildlife, or over cattle, or over our community, is significant impact. It’s imperative on the Air Force to do a full environmental study, and not shortchange the citizens of southern Colorado,” said Rep. Sal Pace, D-Pueblo.

Rep. Ed Vigil, D-Fort Garland, agreed, adding that “We have a lot of sacred places in Colorado…that aren’t marked on the map. People that come to meditate, come to do some praying and stuff like that, enjoying just the solitude of just the sounds of nature, will be violated with all these noises.”

Democratic Rep. Wes McKinley, of Walsh,  who also was on the courthouse steps with his colleagues last month, now says he plans on taking legislative action, if needed, when the General Assembly convenes in January to prohibit the flyovers if the military decides to move forward.  McKinley says it is a quality-of-life issue.

“I’m looking into legislation that will stop the low-level flying because there is some case history of noises from low-level flying that has caused damage to some properties because of the noise,” McKinley said.

“The constitution guarantees us the right to be safe and secure and to pursue happiness. And if you’ve got airplanes rolling through your living room, in your house, that violates those things,” said McKinley. “We may have to do some reinstating of the constitution into our state law.”

He said he’s looking into current law that addresses “trespass in the air” for privately owned land, and he said preliminary research he and others have done indicates such a concept is not as far-fetched as it may sound.

Yet, Republican Rep. Bob Gardner, of Colorado Springs, a former Air Force lieutenant colonel, says such legislation not only would be unconstitutional–as there are federally recognized rules about air navigation–but also would tarnish Colorado’s longstanding relationship with the military.

“The problem with this legislation and doing it in such a confrontational way is that it sends a really negative message to the Department of Defense–that they are unwelcome in Colorado,” said Gardner.

Gardner acknowledged the dust-up’s parallels with another civilian-military standoff in Colorado, over a proposal by the Army’s Fort Carson, in Colorado Springs, to expand its Pinon Canyon training area in rural southeastern Colorado.  Some ranchers, farmers and others have objected, and the General Assembly has attempted to rein in those expansion plans through legislation–passed over the objection of the El Paso lawmakers like Gardner, whose districts includes most of Colorado’s military installations.

“There’s this myth in Colorado that only Colorado Springs benefits from these activities, but the simple fact of the matter is that the military has a strong and positive effect on our economy,” said Gardner. “I would hope this does not turn into Pinon Canyon in the skies. It seems to me that there’s an awful lot of political grandstanding.”

Political grandstanding or not, McKinley says that there may be a battle ahead if the military wants to fly low over his district.

“If we need to legislate we definitely will,” vows McKinley.

House Bill 1248 would have banned the manufacture of personal-care products in Colorado that contain, in any amount, any ingredient that has been shown to cause cancer or harm to an unborn child.  The European Cosmetics Directive under the E.U. maintains a list of banned substances in Europe that are believed to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. Under the measure, Colorado would have relied to a large degree on that list in determining which products could be banned;  1,100 chemicals are on the list according to Primavera.

At least one Colorado business owner and personal-care products supplier took umbrage at the thought of passing a law that relies on decisions made for Europeans about the relative safety of personal care products.

“I find it highly offensive that we have to look to the EU for direction,” said Jerell Klaver, who sells Salus bath and body care products that contain cocoa butter, a potentially banned substance due to trace amounts of cancer-causing agents inherent in cocoa butter.

Science and politics crossed paths as lawmakers struggled to understand what was at stake.

“I don’t feel qualified to determine which ingredients are safe or not.  Why is this a political decision and not a Public Health Department decision?” asked Rep. Sal Pace, D-Pueblo.

Whether or not the products are potentially harmful should be a decision that at a minimum is made here in the United States, said Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs.

“This EU thing is interesting to me. (This bill) would give the EU the ‘yay’ or ‘nay’ on what is a permissible product in Colorado,” said Gardner. “We don’t have representation on the EU and they would have veto power over what’s sold.”

Committee chair Claire Levy, D-Boulder, disagreed with Gardner.

“I don’t think it’s a bad thing to do what the EU is doing,” Levy said. “We can look to other countries for ideas.”

Dr. Richard Adamson, a cancer causation expert and a cancer survivor himself, said that he and his family members use personal care products that under the measure may be banned.  Adamson said he just doesn’t see the risk involved.

“I know of no study that has shown that a personal care product has shown any type of cancer,” said Adamson.

Rep. Steve King, R-Grand Junction queried Adamson on the validity of the European findings.

“Is the EU directive the ‘gold standard’ for this sort of thing?” asked King.

“No,” Adamson responded.

Representing the Women’s Lobby of Colorado, Susan Roll spoke to the panel in favor of the bill and spoke highly of the European approach.

“I’ve been involved in this David vs Goliath fight for a long time.  When the EU came up with the directive we thought it would be beneficial to us, with American products conforming to the standards, but it was not the case,” said Roll.

Roll acknowledged science has not evolved to the point where definitive claims can be made pointing to cause and effect, but she urged lawmakers to err on the side of caution following the European lead.

“We don’t have the smoking gun, but in Europe they are moving forward anyway,” said Roll.

Sarah Johnson, who started her own line of organic personal-care products after experiencing harmful side effects from products that she had been using, implored the panel to pass the bill in a show of proactive, forward-thinking action.

“The EU is doing it, California is doing it. We ought to be doing this,” said Johnson.

Primavera said she’ll try again next year.

Yet, science was the defining factor for Rep. Lois Court, D-Denver, who voted against the bill.

“My father was a scientist, and I just didn’t hear enough science to support this bill,” said Court.

Primavera said the $50 billion-a-year personal-care products industry is not likely to self-regulate enough to satisfy her concerns.

“It’s really the fox guarding the hen house when it comes to personal-care products,” she said.

Rivers that flow through private property belong to the public and cannot be privately owned, yet neighboring property owners frequently assert the right to bar rafters access to the riverbanks. Citing court precedent, some advocates for property owners even contend there is no right to float through private property at all without the permission of landowners. Problems have arisen at times when certain portions of a river become impossible to navigate, and rafters are forced to carry the raft over the neighboring private land.

“The rafting industry is an established industry. Landowners have established rights,” said the proposal’s sponsor, Rep. Kathleen Curry, of Gunnison. “We have to find a way to coexist.”

Curry said she introduced the bill on behalf of constituents who are commercial rafters and are at odds with some local landowners who want to prevent float trips through their property on the Taylor River. The waterway is a tributary of the Gunnison River and is popular with rafters and home to a number of outfitters.

Curry’s House Bill 1188 in part seeks to protect landowners from liability concerns while protecting outfitters from civil liability for trespassing when their vessels cross private property or come into contact with, or have to cross, dry land. Some lawmakers were concerned that if the rafters were granted access to private property, and something happened where the landowner was sued, the liability protection in the bill just wouldn’t be enough.

“We do happen to live in a very litigious society. I do not have at this time have enough confidence in this bill that a landowner won’t be sued by an outfitter,” said Rep. Scott Tipton, R-Cortez. Tipton noted that barbed wire often is used along rivers by ranchers to keep their cows from wandering, posing a hazard to rafters and a magnet for a lawsuit.

Fellow Republican Rep. Jerry Sonnnenberg, a rancher from Sterling, said in most cases the outfitters have already worked out agreements with the landowners without the need for a measure like HB 1188.

“All we’re saying is, ‘Get permission,’ ” Sonnenberg said. “Have that conversation with the landowner.”

However, Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, said the bill is needed to outline the rights and responsibilities of outfitters and landowners and that without such clarification, rafters could be barred from  rivers at the whim of landowners.

“(It) would effectively shut down rivers and give landowners control over the river.  Colorado recognizes the right to float down these rivers … they cannot put a tollbooth up,” said Levy.

While ruling Democrats by and large supported Curry–the legislature’s only unaffiliated member–most minority Republicans said the rafting industry has been doing well under the status quo and that the bill upended basic property rights, curtailing property owners’ ability to seek protection from the courts if needed.

“I think were getting into pretty dangerous territory with this bill when we attempt to define when, and under what circumstances, someone can trespass on private property,” said Rep. Steve King, R-Grand Junction.

The GOP’s Rep. Bob Gardner, of Colorado Springs, said the bill was opening the state up to massive liability under the law. Gardner said the state  would have to compensate landowners who sue, claiming a “takings,” after losing control of their property to rafters.

“What this bill does is appropriate property to the state,” said Gardner, a practicing attorney.

Rep. Christine Scanlon, D-Dillon, herself a river rafter, downplayed the consequences of the measure, stating that no one wants to lift a raft out of the water and cross private property with it if it isn’t absolutely necessary. Scanlon also said new developments that move in shouldn’t dictate how a river is used.

“This is about the ability of a development to shut down a river and effectively put river rafting businesses out of business,” said Scanlon.

Curry said she understands that her bill puts competing notions at stake.

“That’s why you just have to give an up or down vote depending on where your heart is,” said Curry.