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.

In 2007, 381 projects and $40 million in grant money were floated by the Severance Tax Cash Fund, which is funded by taxes on energy and mineral extraction.  Yet, since 2007, the account has been used to help fill in gaps in the state’s operating budget, with only 96 infrastructure projects funded by $3 million in grant money. In 2011, the grant program was suspended, with virtually all the money diverted to the general operating budget amid overall plummeting state revenue.

Sam Mamet, the league’s executive director, addressing the legislature’s Water Resources Review Committee on Wednesday, said the grant money was the cornerstone of infrastructure projects, especially in smaller communities, serving as a solid base of funds to be supplemented as needed with user fees and bonding.

The league, which is the principal statewide lobbying group for Colorado’s city governments, speculates that the $1.3 billion in lost grant money since 2007 translates into approximately 25,000 jobs lost.

“The loss of these grants, the construction work, and the jobs that go with it … this is a critical area for the entire state, but I worry about rural Colorado,” said Mamet.

Speaking for the Colorado Contractors Association at the water review meeting, Tony Milo said unemployment in the construction industry hovers around 20 percent,  and funding the suspended projects could take a chunk out of the industry’s unemployment numbers.

“The sooner we can fund these infrastructure projects, the sooner we can put Coloradans to work,” said  Milo. “Funding these projects will create jobs.”

Rep. Keith Swerdfeger, R-Pueblo West, questioned whether the possibility of more stringent EPA water standards to control algae only makes matters worse, putting even more pressure on rural communities to upgrade infrastructure.

“In trying to pay for all the … regulations coming up … how many small communities are out there that will have to upgrade their systems and yet can’t afford them?” asked Swerdfeger.

Michael Brod, Executive Director of the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority, suggested funding alternatives to the panel. One, he said, is to increase water bills in communities that lack bonding capabilities or other revenue sources—although he conceded there could be obstacles to those approaches.

“You may increase their rates two, three or five times,” said Brod.  “In some places there are folks leaving the communities and there’s a smaller base to spread the costs over, so that’s going to be a challenge and I think we’re going to see more of that.”

Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass Village, pointed to another possible funding option for upgrading infrastructure, one that has been employed for building schools in smaller communities lacking large numbers of taxpayers.

“Somewhat of a model might be like the school bonding program where we look at their (the district’s) capability to bond, and what they were capable of paying, and the state backfilled in order to build the new schools,” said Schwartz.

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 state supplies about 44 percent of all potatoes imported by Mexico from the United States.  However, the trucks transporting the potatoes are subject to Mexican regulation that restricts the import to an area within 16 miles of the border.  Negotiations are underway to modify the rule.

Another consideration particular to the export of potatoes is the health of the varieties that are grown in Colorado. The Colorado Department of Agriculture regularly samples potatoes for pests that can infiltrate potato crops, particularly the golden nematode and pale cyst nematode.

In 2010 the legislature passed and then Gov. Bill Ritter signed into law the “Potato Seed Act” that puts in place safeguards to ensure potato harvests that are healthy and exportable.  Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass Village, who carried the measure, and whose district encompasses the potato-growing San Luis Valley, says the passage of the measure was vital for growth in the industry and well positions the valley for an increase in exports to Mexico.

“This is exactly why we carried that bill,” said Schwartz. “This is part of the solution to strengthening the potato industry in the San Luis Valley. When we have such a remarkable product, we should be promoting it in as many markets as possible.  The potato industry creates the highest value for the Valley.”

Edward Avalos, Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory programs in the U.S. Agriculture Department, said today’s discussions between the two countries are not only reflective of the Obama Administration’s  vision for communities such as the San Luis Valley  but also are a mutually beneficial neighborly gesture.

“This administration is committed to revitalizing and supporting rural communities, and the San Luis Valley is a perfect example of a community that can benefit greatly from an expanded export of potatoes,” said Avalos. “When we talk about Mexico, it’s not just a common border. We’re talking about our neighbors.”

Hickenlooper, said he is continually looking for ways to boost Colorado products.

“We’re looking for opportunities to find places for exports of all kinds,” said Hickenlooper. “The hope is that the potato industry will be able to build on its existing trade with Mexico, helping both countries.”

Among those in attendance were a food retailer from Mexico, Jose Luis Vitela Mijares; Peter Jurado, a potato importer, and officials from the Mexican consulate in Denver.

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 208, sponsored by Sens. Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass, and Mary Hodge, D-Brighton, and Reps. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, and Cheri Gerou, R-Evergreen, combines the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation with the Division of Wildlife under the Department of Natural Resources. The move is “primarily budget driven,” says Gerou.

“This bill is about good government,” said Gerou. “By streamlining the roles of the Division of Parks with the Division of Wildlife, we will cut costs to taxpayers and introduce efficiencies that benefit everyone in the state.”

The divisions will continue to function with distinct operations and will not be comingling funds. Dollars generated from hunting fees will continue to fund wildlife concerns as prescribed by federal law under the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson acts. Park fees also will be retained for maintaining parks, and under a provision of the bill, revenue collected through any fee increases cannot increase by more than 20 percent.

While the actual cost savings have yet to be identified, the initiative’s sponsors maintain that in the long run costs will be reduced by consolidating staff time and resources.  Sonnenberg says the merger also will unify common goals shared by the currently segregated divisions.

“By merging the Division of Wildlife with the Division of Parks and Recreation, we will not only save money, but we will ensure the state does a better job of protecting our lands, habitats, water and hunting and fishing,” said Sonnenberg.

Rep. Matt Jones, D-Louisville, joining a small circle of opposition to the merger on the House floor in May, said he believes the merger may encounter cross purposes between those enjoying wildlife and those hunting for wildlife.

“I’m concerned about regular park visitors going to the park and finding wildlife improvements (for hunting purposes) and having additional hunting in the parks,” said Jones. “What will happen when you have more hunting is more people that won’t go hike because of the hunting-reducing revenues for the parks.”

The merger will take effect July 1, 2011.

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 1081, sponsored by Rep. J. Paul Brown, R-Ignacio, and Sen. Gail Schwartz, D- Snowmass Village, adds a propane and butane mixture commonly known as liquefied petroleum gas, or LPG, to the state’s alternative fuel tax credits available to purchasers of new vehicles.

“The measure is important to the state, especially rural parts like southwestern Colorado. Families and small businesses need all the help they can get with gas prices on the rise,” said Brown.  “By extending the alternative fuel tax credit to vehicles that use liquefied petroleum gas, more families and small businesses can use energy-efficient vehicles that are more affordable.”

Yet, when the bill was heard in the House, Rep. Jim Riesberg, D-Greeley, said extending the credit would exacerbate an already-beleaguered budget. Riesberg said he wholeheartedly supports the inclusion of propane but questions the fiscal wisdom of offering an additional credit. The current credits made available in the last several years have amounted to $280,000 in the first year and $580,000, and $500,000 in the next two years, according to Riesberg.

“We don’t have the money to do this,” said Riesberg. “Rather than putting this (propane) in and forcing it on a legislature to come, we should simply say, ‘Once we have the money, then we should run this bill.’ ”

Vehicles that already qualified for the alternative fuel tax credit are those that run on compressed natural gas or ethanol as well as hybrid gas and electric vehicles.

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 258, sponsored by Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass Village, and Reps. Ed Vigil, D-Fort Garland, and Don Coram, R-Montrose, would allow non-perishable food such as baked goods or jams and jellies, as well as eggs, to be sold at farmers markets and similar venues by vendors who produce the goods in their home kitchens.  The bill bridges the gap between larger growers and producers, who sell wholesale, and smaller, home-kitchen operations that generate less than $5,000 in a year.

The products must be labeled and the vendor would be required to register with a regional board of health after training in food-handling safety.  Additionally, Schwarz says part of the intent of SB 258 is to highlight locally grown produce and locally produced food products through the use of the “Colorado Proud” label affixed to the products, as well as through greater promotion of farmers markets by the Department of Agriculture.

Schwartz said that the smaller growers add “variety and experience” and can contribute significantly to agri-tourism in the state.

“We need to find ways to support local farmers and local markets and promote Colorado,” said Schwartz.

Allowing small growers to turn their harvest into consumable products that can be sold could serve as a shot in the arm to those in rural communities struggling to make ends meet, says Schwartz.

“This is a jobs bill for rural areas,” said Schwartz.

Yet, Sen. Cheri Jahn, D-Wheat Ridge, says it’s not just about rural areas but also about urban and suburban areas, and SB 258 will allow part-time urban farmers to sell their products without being in violation of the law.  Jahn says more and more folks in non-rural areas are embracing what’s been called “agriburbia”—a blend of agriculture and suburban living. Farmers markets are a natural outgrowth of the trend.

“Agriculture has become urban,” said Jahn.  “Agriburbia trends have grown and will continue to do so even if it’s just a couple of chickens in the backyard. Let’s let people do what they want and let’s quit making things hard for people in this state—the little guy.”

Sen. Ted Harvey, R-Highlands Ranch, says the state shouldn’t have a say in whether or not someone can sell what they produce, regardless of their size of operation, as long as they are not selling anything harmful.

“If someone wants to sell jams or jellies at a farmer’s market—we shouldn’t be regulating that,” said Harvey.

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 measure they aim to challenge also has backing from both parties. Republican House Speaker Frank McNulty, of Highlands Ranch, and Democratic Senate Majority Leader, John Morse, of Colorado Springs, are both sponsoring House Bill 1291, which approves a state improvement plan adopted earlier by the Public Utilities Commission and the Air Quality Control Commission. Now, two senators, one Democratic, one Republican, have introduced measures that would temper that plan with modifications they say are needed.

Sen. Lois Tochtrop, D-Thornton, is sponsoring Senate Bill 236, replacing a key provision of the PUC-backed plan with what Tochtrop says is a less costly approach that would retrofit one of Xcel Energy’s coal-fired power plants in metro Denver with updated emission-control technology. The PUC plan instead mandates a fairly quick conversion to natural gas-fired power generation at the plant.

Tochtrop notes that her approach actually was Xcel’s own preferred plan when it approached the PUC on the issue last year, and she said it would save consumers $132 million over the next 10 years while also reducing nitrogen oxide emissions by 85 percent—just a percentage point shy of the 86 percent reduction projected under the PUC’s plan.

“There is virtually no difference between the plans with respect to the effect on the environment,” said Tochtrop. “However, my plan saves the consumer money.”

Meanwhile, Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud has introduced Senate Bill 237, which calls back another provision of the PUC-approved plan that Lundberg says would require Xcel’s coal-fired power plant in Hayden to exceed federal standards for emissions reductions and cost-effectiveness.

Federal law, says Lundberg, clearly states that the state improvement plan must factor in cost-effectiveness and cannot ask for more stringent controls. The PUC’s plan does not comply, says Lundberg, and discriminates against coal as a fuel source.

“I want to be fuel-neutral and find the most cost effective methods,” said Lundberg. “I’m not convinced that the current … plan will do that.”

Supporters of the PUC plan, however, say they are looking at the big picture.

Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass Village, while not having looked at the proposed alternatives, says she supports the pending PUC plan and is not inclined to deviate from its goals.

“We need a long-term, comprehensive approach to protecting the environment, addressing (federal) issues,” said Schwartz. “When we look at costs, we need to look at overarching costs in terms of air quality and the impacts on people and businesses when we don’t meet targets.”

Both Tochtrop and Lundberg say they want what’s best for consumers in terms of cost and environmental considerations.

For instance, Tochtrop says she has been told that, for many industries in her district, utility bills now fall just under payroll expenses.  That’s not sustainable, she says.

“Consumers are hurting and they need help,” she says. “I have constituents who need to heat their homes and run their businesses without unnecessary cost increases.”

Lundberg says it’s also a matter of transparency.

“The people of Colorado need to know the cost benefit of the … plan that is being imposed on them,” he said.

All three measures will be heard in the Senate State, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee.

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 1082, sponsored by Rep. Glenn Vaad, R-Mead, and Sens. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley, and Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, would have exempted Larimer and Weld residents from the much-unloved testing program—which uses treadmills to screen vehicles—as long as ozone remains below levels deemed harmful. The proposal was killed on a party-line vote in the Senate Agriculture and Natural Energy Committee.

Renfroe told the committee the testing program puts people through unnecessary hoops when the data shows that the counties meet ozone level standards. Measurements taken since the program was expanded to Larimer and Weld counties show compliance with air standards.

“Why would we want to burden our citizens with the cost in time and money for something that they are already in compliance with?” asked Renfroe.

Lundberg said the testing program disproportionally affects those with less income.

“As is often the case with taxes and fees we put on vehicles, it’s a regressive tax on those who can afford it the least,” said Lundberg.  “These are dollars that families need for their own needs. If the science isn’t there to show the need, they shouldn’t be paying for the program.”

Speaking in opposition to the bill was Garry Kaufman, of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s air pollution control division. Kaufman told the panel that harmful emissions are not necessarily confined to geographical areas.

“This is not just a Denver problem. Ozone is a regional one not a localized one.  It affects the whole area not just where the emissions are,” said Kaufman.

Committee chair Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass Village, said she could not support the suspension of the testing in light of the regional nature of air pollution.

“Colorado has significant air-quality challenges and collectively we need to resolve that,” said Schwartz.

Renfroe countered with a more blunt assessment of the issue.

“This is a screwed up program—let’s be honest about this,” said Renfroe.

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 GOP’s Sen. Shawn Mitchell, of Broomfield, is calling for a scaling back increased portfolio standards for the use of renewable energy by public utilities, imposed by the legislature last year, and Sen. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley, is proposing that the costs of providing alternative energy be reflected on utility bills.

Mitchell’s Senate Bill 71, introduced last week,  says that alternative energy sources should comprise 10 percent of power generation—a standard first approved by state voters in 2004 under Amendment 37.  The new legislation ramps down last year’s House bill 10-1001, passed by a Democratically controlled legislature that increased the percentage to 30 percent by the year 2020. The bill was signed into law by then Gov. Bill Ritter. The 2011 General Assembly is split between GOP control in the House of Representatives and continue Democratic control in the Senate.

Mitchell said he believes the voters approved the 10 percent requirement in good faith and that the legislature imposed its own agenda without regard for the voters’ intent.

“Voters approved a substantial move toward alternative energy as a reasonable step to see if it’s practical and cost-effective,” said Mitchell. “This green fantasy of pushing it up to 20 and then 30 percent slaps voters in the face. It punishes voters by replacing a modest experiment with an extreme one.”

However that debate shapes up, Renfroe says he believes consumers have a right to know what the costs are to rely ever more on alternative forms of energy.  His Senate Bill 30 would require providers to specify the costs by energy type on a consumer’s bill statement.

“It’s important for people to have information about what energy is costing them,” said Renfroe. “People should always have that level of transparency. We all want energy efficiency, but we need to know the cost to make those decisions.”

However, Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Aspen, said rolling back the requirement from 30 percent would be a step backward for the state.

“This is a sector of the economy demonstrating growth, new jobs and investment,” said Schwartz.  “Our leadership on renewable energy development has brought Colorado national and international attention. This bill is backwards thinking.”

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 $97 per credit hour fee was voted on and approved by students at Western State last April by a vote of 413 to 401.  Approximately 40 percent of the student body cast their vote.  If finalized, the fee will be phased in over ten years, eventually reaching $2,688 annually.  Annual tuition is currently $3,140 for in-state tuition, with current fees of $924.   The money is designated for the replacement of 50-year-old student apartments, a new athletic facility, and ongoing maintenance costs on campus.

Western State President Jay Helman called the vote a historic victory on the school’s website.

“This is one of the most pivotal moments in Western’s 108-year history,” said Helman. “The students’ approval of this fee demonstrates their commitment to investing in Western’s future.”

With President Helman in attendance, Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Aspen, asked if capital construction costs on campus would continue to be thrust upon students in the future, alluding to the likelihood that the state will not be able to contribute towards the capital construction costs.

“Always being sensitive that we’re putting on the backs of our students our higher-ed buildings, and this being a fairly significant load for each student to have to carry, are there any additional fees that the students will be subject to?”

Helman told Schwartz that the fee included some flexibility for future unforeseen costs down the road, and that the fee would remain in place unless it was deemed unnecessary by future governing boards or by a vote of the students, and only then could the fee be reduced or rescinded.  Barring a proactive decision to eliminate the fee, the fee will remain in place even after the bonds are paid off.

GOP Sen. Scott Renfroe of Greeley, along with fellow GOP committee member Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg of Sterling, voted in opposition to the tide of Democratic members voting yes, explaining that his no-vote stemmed from the lack of strong consensus among the student body, and from a perspective of trying to allow free-market solutions—namely off-campus apartments — to fill the void.

“The student vote was such a slim margin—less than 20 votes—and I’m not sure that these construction costs should be imposed on students who may or may not benefit from the new buildings,” said Renfroe. “If there’s a need there and it can be done in the private sector, I’d rather have it addressed in the private sector.”

The recommendation of approval from the Capital Development Committee will now be forwarded to the Joint Budget Committee for its consideration.