HB25-1211 is a deceptive bill concerning local government’s ability to set fees and it is passing the Colorado House on a party line vote. The most likely outcome of HB25-1211 is a profusion of concrete jungle developments with increased water usage and decreased ability for water districts to pay for costly infrastructure. But what IS NOT written in this bill is even worse because the bill contradicts existing law that is currently in litigation. HB25-1211 is using legislation to go beyond 100 years of case law to side AGAINST local governments in pending and future litigation.
At first read, the bill’s title and language read as if the main point is to conserve water by tying lower infrastructure fees to conservation measures. This is deceptive and misleading. Infrastructure has certain fixed costs no matter how much you use it.
To make this relatable, think about the appliances in your homes as your water infrastructure. It doesn’t matter if you promise to only use the dishwasher once a week or flush the toilet once a day. You still have to buy the whole appliance to make it work. You can’t buy half the appliance because you promise not to use it often. But that’s exactly the argument HB25-1211 makes. It asks water districts to let people pay less for their infrastructure because they promise to use it less.
No matter how you count it, 100 high-density apartments will use A LOT more water than a couple houses, even with yards. No water conservation is happening, none, only water and cost shifting.
However, the false talking point about water conservation is just a smokescreen for a larger agenda. The proposed bill stipulates that water districts have “a duty to serve”. The bare bones “duty to serve” provision, HB25-1211 contradicts the district’s ability to make decisions for the good of the whole district based on the current provisions like feasibility (see below).
“In addition, if the board finds it infeasible, impracticable, or undesirable for the good of the entire district to extend water or sewer lines and facilities to any part of such district, the board may designate by resolution such area not to be served with water or sanitation service, but such area designated not to be served shall be at least ten acres in extent.” C.R.S. 32-1-1006 (1)(b)
Bill sponsors like Representative Rebekah Stewart refused to make the bill conform with current law by accepting amendments to read “a duty to serve INSIDE YOUR DISTRICT”.
Without those important distinguished words, “INSIDE YOUR DISTRICT”, special districts could be forced to serve people and developments outside their boundaries, which is not currently true. As a former member of Lakewood City Council, Rep. Stewart has been sponsoring this bill because of one case in Lakewood that she disagrees with. By attempting to change state law on these litigation matters, Rep. Stewart appears to be making a tacit admission that the case she’s familiar with was legally upholding service plan boundaries.
This “duty to serve” provision has got districts so upset that one anonymous district said they can’t fight it because even talking through the possibilities may inspire new ideas to compel service that could bankrupt their district.
So far, HB25-1211 is mostly a party-line issue. Exceptions like Rep. Tammy Story (D) offered amendments to strip the duty to serve provision. Most Democrats, the party for the environment and sustainability, are supporting this bill that will turn suburban oases into concrete jungles. They have not realized that this bill encourages taking water out of the environment and putting it into high-density apartment infrastructure which will increase the heat profile and decrease the tree canopy.
The bill sponsors have also sold this false argument to conservation groups like Conservation Colorado and Western Resource Advocates. It’s unclear whether these groups and other legislators realize that water pricing generally increases with volume used, which is where the real conservation comes from.
There are other problems with the bill. Such as the focus on small government special districts instead of the largest water providers which are municipalities, private and public companies. It gives special privileges to developer metro districts. And it shifts costs from one user to another rather than promoting equality.
The sponsors only have a few local examples that they based the bill on and all of them are based on significant false facts. From beginning to end, this bill is deceptive and disruptive to the ability of water districts to provide the infrastructure people need in their daily lives.
Disclosure: The author is a Director of the Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District and while the district officially opposes HB25-1211, all opinions expressed are my own.
