It seems to me as if the session just started yesterday, but the fact of the matter is, we are closing in on one month. It has been the slowest month I recall in my previous six years.
This session, I serve on Senate Agriculture and Judiciary committees. I hold Sen. Ellen Roberts responsible for that. I guess that Senate leadership thought she did such a great job that I was the logical replacement.
I was a little grumpy about Judiciary in the beginning because my experience in the General Assembly had been in agriculture and natural resources, along with transportation and energy. I still get a lot of calls about transportation issues in my new position, but I am actually enjoying the Judiciary Committee. The load has been heavy, it seems, with Judiciary meeting three to four times per week. By comparison, the Agriculture Committee has been very light.
There have not been many bills making it through to third reading and final passage. I suppose a lot of the senators are doing what I am doing and that is, doing a lot of changes and redrafting before introduction.
Only two bills have had what I would refer to as significant discussion. Senate Bill 5, which deals with training for concealed weapons by school personnel, has been the most misunderstood bill so far. The perception is that the General Assembly is authorizing school personnel to carry concealed weapons; however, it is already legal for schools districts to approve concealed carry by personnel in their district. In fact, about 25 school districts have enacted this policy, and most of these districts are from rural and very remote schools.
This bill actually does let the county sheriff, who must be the person to issue the permit, to set the level of training required to ensure the safety of the permittee, as well as staff and students. It passed second reading in the Senate on a 21-14 vote, and I would expect a similar vote in third reading before being sent to the House.
Also in committee this week, Senate Bill 36, dealing with the appellate process for groundwater. I ran this bill last year along with Sen. Ray Scott. This was kind of a “slam dunk” in the House, passing 60 to 5. Politics reared its ugly head last year and it was killed in the Senate.
It is the opinion of this legislator that former Gov. Bill Owens and a group of investors were buying up water rights, then trying to sell them to municipalities.
The problem is they lost their case before the Ground Water Commission, then filed an appeal saying they had more evidence. Objectors are then required to hire water engineers and attorneys to go back to court.
The cost of defending your water rights can cost as much as $100,000 each and every time you are in such litigation. I have had farmers tell me they have spent in the neighborhood of $900,000. If you want to break a farm operation, I can think of nothing quicker. S.B. 36 will change the groundwater appellate process to mirror that of surface water, which says you can appeal only on the evidence presented.
I am working on many bills, and they are starting to make their way through the process. I plan to give you an update about my proceedings soon.
Don Coram, R-Montrose, represents Senate District 6 in Colorado’s General Assembly. The district encompasses Montezuma, Dolores, La Plata, Archuleta, Montrose, San Miguel, San Juan and Ouray counties. Contact Rep. Coram by phone at (303) 866-2955 or by e-mail at don@doncoram.com. During the legislative session, Sen. Coram and Rep. McLachlan share this column in alternate weeks.
