House Committee on Agriculture, Livestock, & Natural Resources (02/03/2010)

Final
STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, LIVESTOCK, & NATURAL RESOURCES

Date:	02/03/2010	ATTENDANCE

Time:	01:37 PM to 07:52 PM	Baumgardner
		Curry
Place:	LSB A	Gardner C.
		Hullinghorst
This Meeting was called to order by		Looper
	Representative Fischer	McKinley
		Ryden
This Report was prepared by		Solano
	Lauren Ris	Sonnenberg
		Tipton
		Vigil
		Pace
		Fischer
		X = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent, * = Present after roll call

Bills Addressed:		Action Taken:
HB10-1124 HB10-1159		Witness Testimony and/or Committee Discussion Only Amended, Referred to the Committee of the Whole

Roll was taken at the earlier committee hearing upon adjournment.

01:37 PM

The committee reconvened.

01:38 PM -- House Bill 10-1124

Representative McKinley, sponsor, presented House Bill 10-1124. This bill makes a variety of changes to the animal welfare laws concerning animal control officers, the bonding requirements for animals seized during a neglect case, and reporting requirement including:

• prohibiting hiring an individual who has been convicted of a felony;
• requiring each governmental entity that employs animal control officers to issue identification cards that the officers must carry;
• requiring animal control officers to submit to, and pay for, a fingerprint-based criminal background check;
• aligning county training standards with the standards required by the state Bureau of Animal Protection (BAP);
• increasing the liability insurance entities are required to carry from $100,000 to $1,000,000; and
• changing the search warrant procedure from an administrative subpoena to a criminal search warrant.

Currently, if an animal is seized in a neglect or abuse case, the owner may pay a bond to cover the costs for care of the animal during the investigation to ensure that the impound agency does not dispose of the animal. The owner of the animal is responsible for all of the costs for the care of the animal. This bill amends the law to only require the owner to pay for the costs for care of the animal if the owner is found guilty. If the owner is found not guilty, the owner is entitled to recover the entire bond. If an animal is sold, the owner (if found not guilty) is also entitled to the entire proceeds from the sale of the animal. Under current law, the proceeds are used to pay for the cost for the care of the animal with any remaining proceeds going to the owner. Reporting requirements. The bill requires state and local entities to have information available to the public. The Department of Agriculture is required to place the dangerous dog database online for public access. Local nongovernmental entities that have contracted with counties to enforce the animal control regulations also are required to have information available during business hours concerning the number of animals impounded and the costs associated with impoundment.

01:40 PM -- Dr. Keith Roehr, Bureau of Animal Protection, spoke in opposition to the bill. He began by explaining the jurisdiction of the bureau. He discussed the existing bonding requirements and how these requirements will be affected by the bill. He answered questions from the committee concerning training requirements for animal control officers. Mr. Roehr distributed a handout to the committee (Attachment A).

01:53 PM -- Joe Stafford, Colorado Association for Animal Control Officers, spoke in opposition to the bill. He discussed how he conducts himself as an animal control officer. He explained that he is a commissioned agent for the Bureau of Animal Control. He also discussed differences in training and areas of specialty among animal control officers across counties.

02:00 PM -- Ron Wedow, representing himself, spoke in support of the bill. He described a situation that involved killing a dog after it had killed a deer, the reaction of a humane society officer, and the cost he incurred defending himself in court.

02:08 PM -- Dr. Barb Powers, a veterinarian with the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association, spoke in opposition to the bill. She explained that the bill would shift costs from animal owners to animal impounding agencies and described how the bill will negatively affect the welfare of animals. She discussed instances of animal abuse and answered questions from the committee. Dr. Powers clarified the provisions of the bill that she believed would enable acts of animal cruelty.

02:15 PM -- Kevin Bommer, Colorado Municipal League, spoke in opposition to the bill. He spoke about the provisions in the bill that relate to bonding requirements and how these would negatively impact local governments.

02:28 PM -- Jay Swarengen , an attorney with the Animal Law Center, spoke in support of the bill. He described the different categories of animal control officers and the differences in their training and other requirements. He discussed the authority and jurisdiction of animal control agents. Additionally, he described the costs of impounding an animal and the need for open records requirements for the contracts between animal control officers and counties.

02:41 PM -- Donna Garnett, the Director of the Urban Farm, spoke in support of the bill. She described some of the educational activities that they offer on their farm. She also described an incident involving the Humane Society and investigations they carried out on her property.

02:51 PM -- Lisa Pedersen, Colorado Federation of Welfare Agencies, spoke in opposition to the bill, and discussed efforts they are involved in relating to bonding requirements that are currently in statute. she answered questions from the committee regarding training standards.

02:54 PM -- Leslie Yoder, Director of the Humane Society of the Pikes Peak Region, spoke in opposition to the bill. She discussed the bonding requirements in the bill and the cost of caring for impounded animals.

02:59 PM -- Anna Pullaro, representing herself, described a situation that involved a tenant that owned neglected horses on her property. She discussed charges that were filled against her and her husband and how this has resulted in financial hardship.

03:16 PM -- Victoria Brodsky, representing herself, spoke in support of the bill. She told the committee about an incident involving one of her dogs who had been injured by her other dog and the response of an animal control officer. She discussed the expenses she incurred to keep the animals impounded and her associated legal fees. She also answered questions from the committee.

03:35 PM

The committee recessed.

03:48 PM

The committee came back to order.

03:49 PM -- Julie Justmen, Pueblo Animal Services, spoke in opposition to the bill. She responded to earlier testimony from Anna Pullaro involving neglected horses. She explained the costs that were assessed to the owners of the animals in the situation for veterinary care and board fees. She clarified that Pueblo Animal Services respond to complaints and do not spy on individuals. She answered questions from the committee regarding training of animal control agents.

03:55 PM -- Glenn Belcher, representing himself, spoke in support of the bill. He explained the injuries he sustained during the Gulf War and how a service dog helps him. He explained that he was not able to license his dog in the City and County of Denver because he is an American bull terrier (pit bull). He further explained that he believes that Denver's dangerous dog ban does not apply to service dogs and that this illustrates the need for additional education for animal control officers.

04:04 PM -- Carla Zinanti, Jefferson County Sheriff, spoke in opposition to the bill. She discussed the provisions of the bill that require a warrent for an investigation and explained how this would create difficulty for animal control agencies. She also discussed the bonding requirements in the bill.

04:06 PM -- Kevin Oconnell, representing himself, spoke in favor of the bill. He described an incident that involved an animal control agent impounding his dog on the suspicion that it was a pit bull. He discussed the costs that he incurred as a result.

04:09 PM -- Tamar Wilson, Colorado District Attorney Council, spoke in opposition to the bill. She explained her concern with the bonding provisions in the bill.

04:13 PM -- Linda Hart, Colorado Federation of Dog Clubs, spoke in support of the bill. She discussed the need for additional training and the need to change the existing bonding requirements.

04:18 PM -- Norm Renter, an investigator for the Dumb Friends League, spoke in opposition to the bill. He discussed his background and qualifications for working as an animal control officer. He also provided some examples of animal cruelty cases he has investigated. Mr. Renter answered questions from the committee.

04:37 PM -- Tim Walker, representing himself, spoke in support of the bill. He told the committee about an incident where his dog bit a veterinary technician and he was investigated by an animal control officer. He explained his understanding that veterinary technicians are exempt from current dangerous dog laws and that this illustrates the need for additional education requirements for animal control officers.

04:42 PM -- Andy Karsian, Colorado Counties Inc., spoke in opposition to the bill. He explained the negative impact the bonding requirements in the bill would have on counties and animal control agencies.

04:47 PM -- Jennifer Edwards, Animal Law Center, spoke in support of the bill. She summarized the opposition to the bill and discussed the aspects of the current law that need to be addressed.


BILL:	HB10-1124
TIME:	04:56:32 PM
MOVED:	Curry
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.001 (Attachment B). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Hullinghorst
		VOTE
	Baumgardner
	Curry
	Gardner C.
	Hullinghorst
	Looper
	McKinley
	Ryden
	Solano
	Sonnenberg
	Tipton
	Vigil
	Pace
	Fischer
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:	HB10-1124
TIME:	04:58:01 PM
MOVED:	McKinley
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.002 (Attachment C). The motion was not acted upon. The bill was laid over in the amendment phase until February 9, 2010.
SECONDED:	Looper
		VOTE
	Baumgardner
	Curry
	Gardner C.
	Hullinghorst
	Looper
	McKinley
	Ryden
	Solano
	Sonnenberg
	Tipton
	Vigil
	Pace
	Fischer
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION:

05:09 PM -- House Bill 10-1159

Representative Pace, sponsor, presented HB 10-1159. This bill requires a water judge, in certain cases of trans-division transfers of water, to include terms and conditions in the water decree that protect the users in the water division from which the water is being transferred. The decree must ensure that present and prospective beneficial uses of water can not be impaired or increased in cost in the originating water division. Cases are limited to leases of water of at least 10 years, or where the amount of water is at least 1,000 acre-feet to be transferred from one water division to another. These terms and conditions apply only to cases seeking:

• conditional water rights;
• conditional appropriative rights of exchange; or
• a change of water rights.

To meet the terms and conditions of the water decree, a water rights applicant may enter into a mitigation agreement with all the water conservation and water conservancy districts affected by the diversion. Districts are required to hold a public meeting prior to entering into the agreement with notice of the meeting posted by the Division of Water Resources in the Department of Natural Resources and the clerk of the applicable water court. The bill takes effect August 11, 2010, if the General Assembly adjourns on May 12, 2010, as scheduled and no referendum petition is filed.

Representative Pace explained some amendments that might be offered.

05:22 PM

The committee discussed page 4 of the bill regarding the application process for water rights.

05:27 PM

Representative Pace explained why the bill does not contain a definition for "mitigation." The committee also discussed the role of the Interbasin Compact Committee (IBCC).

The following individuals testified on the bill:

05:34 PM -- Sara Duncan, Denver Water, spoke in opposition to the bill. She described the advantage she believes the bill provides to the basin of origin. She expressed concerns that this bill would duplicate existing state and federal law, particularly home rule powers of municipalities. She explained that she also believes that the ecological protection provisions of the bill would also be duplicative of existing law. She spoke about the prior appropriation doctrine and explained how she believes this bill is inconsistent with this law. Ms. Duncan also discussed the Statewide Water Supply Initiative and the number of people the study predicts will move to the front range.

05:49 PM

Representative Looper distributed copies of the 2009 IBCC annual report (available at www.http://www.colorado.gov/lcs/HouseAgNatResCmte under "Publications of Interest" and "Department of Natural Resources").

05:50 PM -- Mark Pifher, Aurora Water, spoke in opposition to the bill. He discussed some of the costs associated with mitigation requirements. He also discussed the need for compensatory water storage and how the bill would impact the economic future of farmers in the Platte and Arkansas River Basins. Mr. Pifher answered questions from the committee concerning water exchanges.

06:04 PM -- Jim Yahn, manager of the North Sterling Irrigation District and Prewitt Reservoir and chairman of the South Platte Basin Roundtable, testified against the bill. He explained how the bill would negatively affect agriculture in the South Platte River Basin and the Republican River Basin in the context of the priority system. Mr. Yahn answered questions from the committee. The committee discussed the IBCC report.

06:15 PM -- Joe Frank, Lower South Platte Water conservancy District, explained how the IBCC process has worked to solve inter-basin water issues and how the bill would impact the South Platte Basin.

06:19 PM -- Mike Groves, farmer in the South Platte Basin, explained the affect he believes the bill will have on his farm.

06:28 PM

The committee discussed the need for water storage.

06:29 PM -- Peggy Montano, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, spoke in opposition to the bill. She discussed how she believes the bill would lead to dry-up of irrigated agricultural lands on the South Platte River and increased litigation. She discussed the water storage need in the basin and answered question from the committee.

06:38 PM -- Dan Henricks, superintendent of the Highline Cannal, spoke in opposition to the bill. He described how the bill would negatively impact agriculture.

06:44 PM -- Jay Winners, Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, spoke in support of the bill. He described the importance of the bill for the future of agriculture and answered questions from the committee.

06:52 PM -- Chris Treese, Colorado River Water Conservation District, spoke in support of the bill. He discussed the Water Conservancy Act and explained how this bill would provide for equity between the river basins. Mr. Treese discussed the economic implications of the bill and answered questions from the committee. In response to questions from the committee, he explained prospective beneficial uses on page 2 of the bill.

07:05 PM -- Jo Evans, Colorado Trout Unlimited, spoke in support of the bill. She described the ecological benefits of the bill and discussed how the bill provides incentives for people to work together. Ms. Evans answered questions from the committee. She discussed amendment L. 002, which strikes the public meeting requirement in the bill, and explained that while her organization would prefer that the amendment not be placed on the bill, they would still support the legislation.

07:20 PM -- Don Shawnoft, Colorado Farm Bureau, spoke in support of the bill with Amendment L002. He answered questions from the committee.

07:25 PM -- Shanna Koenig, Northwest Council of Colorado Governments, spoke in support of the bill in concept, but explained that the council had not seen a final draft of the bill. She discussed the need for certainty that mitigation will occur.

07:29 PM

A handout was distributed from Tom Clark (Attachment D), who planned to testify, but had to leave.

07:29 PM -- Wally Stealey, representing himself, spoke in support of the bill. He discussed his experience with agriculture on the western slope and the need for the bill to ensure a future for western slope farmers.


BILL:	HB10-1159
TIME:	07:36:40 PM
MOVED:	Curry
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.001 (Attachment E). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Solano
		VOTE
	Baumgardner
	Curry
	Gardner C.
	Hullinghorst
	Looper
	McKinley
	Ryden
	Solano
	Sonnenberg
	Tipton
	Vigil
	Pace
	Fischer
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:	HB10-1159
TIME:	07:38:49 PM
MOVED:	Pace
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.002 (Attachment F). The motion passed on a vote of 8-5.
SECONDED:	Tipton
		VOTE
	Baumgardner	Yes
	Curry	Yes
	Gardner C.	No
	Hullinghorst	Yes
	Looper	No
	McKinley	Yes
	Ryden	No
	Solano	No
	Sonnenberg	No
	Tipton	Yes
	Vigil	Yes
	Pace	Yes
	Fischer	Yes
Not Final YES: 8 NO: 5 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS


BILL:	HB10-1159
TIME:	07:47:26 PM
MOVED:	Baumgardner
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.003 (Attachment G). The motion passed on a vote of 10-3.
SECONDED:	Pace
		VOTE
	Baumgardner	Yes
	Curry	Yes
	Gardner C.	No
	Hullinghorst	Yes
	Looper	No
	McKinley	Yes
	Ryden	Yes
	Solano	Yes
	Sonnenberg	No
	Tipton	Yes
	Vigil	Yes
	Pace	Yes
	Fischer	Yes
Not Final YES: 10 NO: 3 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS


BILL:	HB10-1159
TIME:	07:51:30 PM
MOVED:	Pace
MOTION:	Moved to refer House Bill 10-1159, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole. The motion passed on a vote of 9-4.
SECONDED:	Vigil
		VOTE
	Baumgardner	Yes
	Curry	Yes
	Gardner C.	No
	Hullinghorst	Yes
	Looper	No
	McKinley	Yes
	Ryden	No
	Solano	Yes
	Sonnenberg	No
	Tipton	Yes
	Vigil	Yes
	Pace	Yes
	Fischer	Yes
Final YES: 9 NO: 4 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

07:52 PM

The committee adjourned.