Ackermann worked under Gov. Bill Ritter and Tom Plant, whose mismanagement of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars as director of what was then called the Governor’s Energy Office earned the office a scathing audit report earlier this year.

“There’s concern we’re moving in the wrong direction,” said state Rep. Dan Nordberg, a Republican from Colorado Springs who sits on the Legislative Audit Committee. “Mr. Ackermann worked in the energy office while it spent millions of taxpayer dollars without any oversight. I’m concerned his appointment doesn’t move us forward.”

In the report released earlier this year, the auditor’s office found “significant deficiencies” with the energy office’s record keeping practices. The report showed that the energy office spent $252 million between 2007 and 2012 but never kept a comprehensive annual budget for any of its 34 spending programs, meaning the office could not determine the cost-effectiveness for hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.

“We worked hard last session and in a bipartisan manner to rebuild this office and transform its mission to pursue an all-of-the-above energy development strategy,” said Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, another member of the audit committee. “I am disappointed in the selection as well as the process for how Mr. Ackermann was vetted for this job.”

Last year, a Republican bill sponsored by Rep. Jon Becker, R-Fort Morgan, renamed the Governor’s Energy Office to the Colorado Energy Office and directed it to pursue a balanced energy portfolio for Colorado’s energy future. This shift in focus for the office marked a distinct departure from the role the office played under the Ritter Administration, which strayed away from traditional energy resources and pursued a development strategy aggressively focused on renewable energy sources.

So much for that.

DemocRats in Colorado are trying to destroy jobs.

Gun related businesses have vowed to leave Colorado.

DENVER –  A landmark expansion of background checks on firearm purchases was approved Friday by lawmakers in Colorado, a politically moderate state that was the site of last year’s mass shooting at a suburban Denver movie theater.

The bill previously passed the state Senate and now heads to Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, who is expected to sign it into law within two weeks.

Earlier this week, Colorado lawmakers approved a 15-round limit on ammunition magazines. It is also awaiting the expected approval of the governor.

The bill passed Friday expands cases when a $10 criminal background check would be required to legally transfer a gun. Republicans have opposed the bill, calling it an undue burden on law-abiding gun owners.

“We know for a fact that whatever law we pass criminals won’t care,” said Republican Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg.

The vice president praised passage of the bill.

“Congrats to Colorado House and Senate for passing universal background checks,” read a tweet sent by the office of Vice President Joe Biden from his official (at)VP account.

It was followed by another tweet referring to the theater shooting that read, “The families of Aurora deserved a vote and got one. Now U.S. Congress must act too.”

Congress is also considering a number of new firearm restrictions.

Colorado is the first state outside the East Coast to significantly ratchet back gun rights after the theater and school shootings. Colorado’s gun debate was being watched closely because it’s considered a swing state with both a gun-loving frontier past and an unfortunate history of mass shootings, including the 1999 Columbine High School attack.

“Are going to stop all criminals from getting guns? No,” said Democratic Rep. Beth McCann, a sponsor of the background checks bill. “But are we are going to put a barrier there, make it more difficult for them? Yes.”

The move to expand background checks would be one of the most sweeping responses by Colorado to the shootings last year in Aurora and at the elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

In Colorado, expanded checks have been a top priority for Hickenlooper, who called for the proposal during his State of the State address in January.

Both chambers previously approved the expanded checks in slightly different forms. However, both had to agree on an identical bill before passing it to the governor, so a second round of voting was required.

Democrats seemed relieved that Colorado’s protracted gun-control debate was nearing an end.

The GOP unsuccessfully tried some last-minute legislative maneuvers on Friday to sink the background-check measure before it was passed 19-14 by the Senate.

“It won’t help anything, but it makes common everyday actions among friends and neighbors something that’s now illegal in the state of Colorado,” argued Republican Sen. Greg Brophy, one of the GOP’s lead Senate gun negotiators.

Brophy tried to keep background-check talks alive by rejecting a preliminary agreement by the House and Senate to clarify the bill so gun owners can lend firearms to immediate family members without a background check.

Democrats grew frustrated at GOP attempts to imagine scenarios that would trigger background-checks. From 4-H members learning gun safety but needing to borrow a shotgun, to neighbors on weeklong elk-hunting trips, Republicans argued the bill would ensnare harmless gun users.

Democrats insisted that existing exemptions in the bill would cover most scenarios the GOP imagined. The bill’s sponsor, Senate Democratic Leader Morgan Carroll, told Republicans that Democrats had enough votes to pass the measure but extended debate to make small changes requested by Republicans.

“There were many, many changes made to this bill, made in good faith,” said Carroll.

However, Republicans wanted so many exceptions that “we might as well repeal all background checks,” she said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/16/colorado-legislature-oks-expansion-firearms-checks/#ixzz2Nk9Ap1OJ

After debate that was at times testy and emotional, the bill moved to within one step of Gov. John Hickenlooper, who is expected to sign the legislation when it reaches his desk.

After the debate, 22-year-old Victor Galvan was near tears as he told students around him that he “never would’ve thought we’d be seeing this in this chamber.”

“I’m so proud of you guys, to keep fighting,” said Galvan, who’s family came to the U.S. from the Mexican state of Chihuahua when he was 8-months-old. Galvan currently pays out-of-state tuition rates, which are three times more expensive than in-state rates.

[worldnow id=8557355 width=420 height=278 type=video]

The bill, which already has passed the state Senate and gained initial House approval on a voice vote Tuesday, allows students who graduate from Colorado high schools to pay tuition at state resident rates, regardless of immigration status.

The bill’s advance this year marks the furthest it has gone in the legislative process in Colorado. Such proposals have been debated in the state for a decade, but both parties have defeated the measures.

At least 13 other states have passed laws to allow illegal immigrants to attend college at in-state rates, including conservative strongholds such as Texas and Utah.

In Colorado in recent years, bills have cleared the Democratic-led Senate, but stalled in the House, where Republicans held the majority.

Democrats now control both chambers, and a handful of Republicans have joined in support of the legislation.

“There are lives at stake, and futures at stake,” said Brighton Republican Rep. Kevin Priola.

Other Republicans argue that the proposal violates a 2006 state law – passed with Democrats in control – that forbids nonemergency benefits from going to illegal immigrants.

Republicans proposed amending the bill to refer it to voters, and said they should decide whether tax dollars should be used to benefit illegal immigrants who would pay lower tuition. The amendment failed, but the discussion prompted one of the more heated exchanges when Democratic Rep. Crisanta Duran, the bill sponsor, addressed her colleagues on the House floor.

“I’m frustrated, there is just an arrogance …” she said, before being interrupted by howls of protest from Republicans. “I am hearing arguments, as though only people who can vote in elections are the only people who pay taxes in this country. Really?”

Republicans said college should be more affordable to all students.

“The issue I have is, we are creating a special group discount, so let’s not do that,” said Republican Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg.

Galvan said he watched Colorado lawmakers defeat the bill in 2009, the year he graduated high school. He went to a community college for a year.

“I spent all my money,” he said, adding that he’s been attending classes off-and-on since then. He recalls the debate in 2009 as being “hard to listen to.”

“The way that they emphasized illegal immigrant and illegal aliens, I mean really talking to students about students in that way,” he said, adding that he’s seen a complete turnaround in the dialogue around immigration.

“It’s just amazing how far we’ve come,” he said.

LINK: Read The Bill

- By Ivan Moreno, AP Writer

(© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

The bills were among four that the Democratic-controlled House passed amid strong resistance from Republicans, who were joined by a few Democrats to make some of the votes close.

The proposed ammunition restrictions limit magazines to 15 rounds for firearms, and eight for shotguns. Three Democrats joined all Republicans voting no on the bill, but the proposal passed 34-31.

“Enough is enough. I’m sick and tired of bloodshed,” said Democratic Rep. Rhonda Fields, a sponsor of the bill and representative of the district where the shootings at an Aurora theater happened last summer. Fields’ son was also fatally shot in 2005.

[worldnow id=8422049 width=420 height=278 type=video]

Republicans argued that the proposals restrict Second Amendment rights and won’t prevent mass shootings like the ones in Aurora and a Connecticut elementary school.

“This bill will never keep evil people from doing evil things,” said Republican Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg.

The House also approved a bill requiring background checks on all gun purchases, including those between private sellers and firearms bought online.

Other proposals would ban concealed firearms at colleges and stadiums, and another requires that gun purchasers pay for their own background checks. Democrats eked out the closest vote on the background check measure, which passed on a 33-32 vote.

Democratic Rep. Ed Vigil, who represents rural southern Colorado, voted against the four bills, saying his decision was rooted in the state’s rugged history.

“This is part of our heritage. This is part of what it took to settle this land. I cannot turn my back on that,” he said.

But even though a few Democrats joined Republicans in voting no for the bills, the Democrats’ 37-28 advantage in the House gave them enough leeway.

The Senate still needs to consider the proposals. Democrats will need to be more unified in their support there because their advantage is only 20-15. That means Republicans need only three Democrats to join them to defeat the bills.

House lawmakers began debating the bills Friday. Lawmakers debated for 12 hours before giving initial approval to the bills, setting up the final recorded votes Monday. During the debate Friday, Vice President Joe Biden called four Democrats, including two in moderate districts, to solidify support for the measures.

Democratic Rep. Dominick Moreno, who represents a district in suburban Denver, was among the four lawmakers. He said Biden “emphasized the importance of Colorado’s role in shaping national policy around this issue.”

Castle Rock Republican Rep. Carole Murray brought up Biden’s calls during Monday’s debate, saying she didn’t appreciate “East-coast politicians” trying to influence Colorado legislators.

Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper supports the expanded background checks, and thinks gun buyers should pay for them. He also said he may support limits on the size of magazines, if lawmakers agree to a number between 15 and 20. He said he hasn’t decided whether to support banning concealed firearms on campuses and stadiums.

Republicans say students should have the right to defend themselves.

“Do not disarm our young adults in general and our young women in particular on our college campuses in the name of a gun-free zone,” Republican Rep. Jim Wilson said.

The gun debate highlights a fundamental philosophical difference between many Democrats and Republicans.

“I resent the implication that unless we all arm ourselves we will not be adequately protected,” said Dickey Lee Hullinghorst, the Democrats’ leader in the House.

Republican Rep. Christ Holbert became emotional while explaining his opposition to the bills. He said he understood Fields cares about the bills, because of her district and because her son was shot and killed in 2005.

“But I care passionately about the United States Constitution and the constitution of this state, and the oath that we have taken,” Holbert said.

- By Ivan Moreno, AP Writer

(© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

The review blasted the Colorado Energy Office for a number of issues, including not keeping track of travel expenses and contracts, and not following up to make sure projects were complete.

The audit concluded the agency can’t demonstrate the $252 million spent over the past six years was used cost-effectively. Much of that amount – $144 million from fiscal years 2009 through 2012 – was federal stimulus money.

“This office appears to be a prime example of arrogance in government, of how government can go wrong,” Republican Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg told the agency’s interim head after reviewing the audit.

First created in 1977 to promote energy conservation, the office took on new significance under former Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter, whose focus on renewable energy development was a legacy of his term from 2007 to 2011. Last year, the Legislature and current governor, Democrat John Hickenlooper, agreed to expand beyond renewables, with funding for all types of energy development projects in the mix, including gas, oil and coal.

The legislator-requested audit outlined a raft of problems with the office.

Auditors found that between 2007 and 2012, the agency had no comprehensive annual budget for 34 programs and couldn’t determine the amount spent on any of them. Auditors reviewed eight of those programs in depth, finding that staff couldn’t identify goals or whether any of them had been achieved.

Nearly all the agency’s contracts reviewed by auditors – 20 of 22 – were missing required paperwork. More than half were missing required progress reports from contractors.

Travel spending was also sloppy, auditors found. Sixteen of 40 travel and other expenditures reviewed by auditors were missing approval and justification documentation.

In one instance the agency spent $25,000 on something supported only by the statement, “2008 Membership.” In another case, the office paid $1,500 for an ex-employee to attend training after termination, without documentation demonstrating how the cost was reasonable or necessary.

Staff turnover was another problem. Only one of 14 core staffers at the end of 2010 was still working there by the end of last year.

The office is looking for a new director. The interim director, Kevin Patterson, was grilled by lawmakers about the audit Tuesday and assured them a cleanup has already begun. Patterson said the office should be in much better shape by the middle of this year.

“I’ve been trying to bring something out of chaos,” Patterson said.

Many lawmakers were sympathetic, telling Patterson the troubles were greatest under the Ritter administration and that improvements are being made.

“It’s not your fault, it’s not our governor’s fault right now. It’s just your mess to clean up,” Republican Sen. Steve King told Patterson.

Democratic Sen. Lucia Guzman warned that patience is wearing thin. Hickenlooper has been in office more than two years, she pointed out, and blame can’t keep flowing backward

“If I start a job, and I’ve been on it two years, it seems to me I should have some outcomes that give me a reason to still be there.” Guzman said to Patterson.

Patterson assured lawmakers that change is happening quickly at the energy office and that they’ll see better accounting and management quickly.

“We have a lot of work to do in a very short period of time,” Patterson said.

- By Kristen Wyatt, AP Writer

A Look At Problems In Colorado’s Energy Office

- SLOPPY SPENDING: Auditors concluded that the energy office couldn’t show that $252 million spent over the past six years was spent cost-effectively. $144 million of that came from federal stimulus money.

- LACK OF FOCUS: Employees in the office weren’t always sure what certain program goals were, or whether they were being met.

- NO PAPERWORK: Auditors reviewed 22 contracts issued by the energy office and found that 20 had incorrect or missing information in the state contract database. Thirteen of those were missing required contractor progress reports.

- NO FOLLOWUP: Of the 59 payments to contractors auditors reviewed, 10 totaling $1.5 million were not supported by adequate evidence of contractor progress.

- TRAVEL QUESTIONS: Auditors found missing paper work for 40 travel and other expenditures. The energy office’s misspending included $1,500 for an ex-employee to attend training after termination.

- HIGH TURNOVER: At the end of 2010, the office had 14 core staff members. Only one remained with the agency by the end of 2012.

Source: Office of the State Auditor

(© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

DENVER– There were few surprises on the list of Republican House committee assignments released Friday afternoon by Colorado House Minority Leader Mark Waller of Colorado Springs. Despite losing their one-seat majority in the state House, Waller promised that Republicans would work in a bipartisan fashion in the upcoming legislative session. 

“Colorado families expect and deserve Republicans and Democrats to work together to solve the critical problems facing our state.  That is what House Republicans intend to do,” said Waller in a media statement. (Committee Assignments Below)Most of the ranking member positions will be filled by Republican legislators who have previously served on the committees, and several replace former chairs who were either term limited or chose not to seek reelection.

“The whole idea was to put people on committees where they will be successful,” Waller told The Colorado Observer.

Outgoing Majority Leader Amy Stephens (R-Colorado Springs) who cosponsored the Senate bill that set up the state’s health care exchange in 2011 will serve as the ranking member on the Health, Insurance & Environment Committee and the Public Health Care & Human Services Committee. The former Health & Environment Committee was recently divided and renamed by House Speaker-elect Mark Ferrandino (D-Denver).

“She’ll do very well there,” said Waller.

And outgoing House Speaker Frank McNulty will serve on  the Agriculture Committee which also covers agriculture and natural resources. Waller said it was a natural fit for McNulty, who had worked for the Department of Wildlife.

“I am excited to have so many talented new and returning members in our caucus,” Waller said. “Utilizing our caucus’s breadth of knowledge and experience is crucial in developing the best solutions to the issues we face.”

The House Republican committee assignments are as follows:

Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg’s measure would have yanked severance tax payments from local governments that took steps to slow or prevent oil and gas drilling. Sonnenberg argued that governments that ban drilling shouldn’t get severance tax compensation, but the bill was widely panned as a punitive measure aimed at preventing cities and counties from seeking regulations beyond state minimums.

Sonnenberg took a new course Monday and changed the measure to a study of severance taxes. It passed a House committee 7-5 in the weaker form.

Sonnenberg argued his bill is still valuable as a study because he said Colorado needs a better handle on how drilling moratoriums or regulation affect overall severance taxes, which are taxes paid by oil and gas drillers. Severance taxes are a major source of funding for many local governments.

Some Republicans agreed. “I think this is very important, so that everybody knows exactly where we stand,” said Ignacio Republican J. Paul Brown.

However, the vote Monday was viewed as the last gasp for the idea to punish local governments through severance taxes. With only two legislative days remaining, the bill faced an uphill battle in the Republican House and certain doom in the Democratic Senate.

Oil and gas drilling has been an underlying spot of tension all year for Colorado lawmakers. Because of technological advances, energy companies are seeking drilling permits in new, more populous areas. In response, some of those areas have sought to control how and where drilling is allowed, prompting a turf war over who controls drilling.

Republican Attorney General John Suthers and Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper sided with state energy regulators and the oil and gas companies. A few Democratic lawmakers proposed bills giving locals more say, while Republicans unsuccessfully pushed rival proposals strengthening the oil and gas industry.

Hickenlooper convened a task force in March to settle the dispute, and a panel of local government and energy representatives, along with some environmentalists, concluded that no new legislation was needed. But not long after, Sonnenberg’s measure threatened to break the truce.

Meanwhile, a Senate Democrat from a Denver suburb affected by drilling, Aurora Sen. Morgan Carroll, proposed a bill requiring additional safeguards of the oil and gas drillers. That bill, like Sonnenberg’s study, is pending in its original chamber and appears certain to fail.

- By Kristen Wyatt, AP Writer

(© Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

This meadow at Shrine Pass has a history of sheep grazing, so presumably, a proposed bill the Colorado Legislature would require the U.S. Forest Service to sell it and give 5 percent of the proceeds to the state. PHOTO BY BOB BERWYN.

By Summit Voice

SUMMIT COUNTY —Republican Colorado legislators are putting a new twist on the concept of takings by introducing a bill that would try force the federal government to sell off public lands that are suitable for agriculture.

House Bill 12-1322 would require agencies like the Forest Service to sell those lands by Dec. 31, 2012. Any land not sold by that date would no longer be exempt from property taxes, and would also require the federal government to pay the state 5 percent of the net sales proceeds from the sales.

The money would be earmarked for water projects and education. The bill exempts  national parks, private property, land held in trust by the state and land belonging to tribes.

In the latest rehash of the so-called sagebrush rebellion, several other states are also considering similar measures, which are generally considered unconstitutional by legal experts.

In most cases, the attempts to force the sale of federal lands are nothing more than posturing for a conservative constituency. Colorado’s version is sponsored by Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg.

The Colorado Wildlife Federation has already voiced strong opposition to to the measure, calling it unconstitutional.

“This bill is an attempt to take away public lands that are essential to our state’s economy and quality of life,” the Colorado Wildlife Federation said on its website.

“Public lands provide immense value to Colorado’s economy and quality of life. The Conservation in the West poll 2 months ago found 93 percent of Colorado voters believe that “our national parks, forests, monuments and wildlife areas are an essential part of Colorado’s economy.”

A hearing on the bill has been scheduled for Monday, April 16 at 1:30 in the House Education Committee.

In Colorado, lawmakers are moving to make that happen, adding the provision on a divisive bill Friday that would require drug tests for welfare applicants, and now also elected officials, including the governor.

The lawmaker who proposed the amendment, Democratic House Leader Mark Ferrandino, passed around small cups with pictures of lawmakers and the words “drug test,” prompting chuckles from members of the Appropriations Committee that moved the bill to a vote of the full House. The cups listed the name of the committee as “Appropeeations.”

“I brought us all cups so we can go get drug tested,” Ferrandino jovially said, prompting a quip from a lawmaker that if Ferrandino was willing to take the cups, they’d be willing to take the test. Ferrandino opposes the bill.

Republican Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, the bill sponsor, said he was thinking of adding the amendment even before Ferrandino proposed it. He said he’s heard from people about his bill who think lawmakers should also be tested because they’re paid by the state.

“I have no problem with that. I’ll be the first one in line,” Sonnenberg said.

His bill would require applicants of the Colorado Works Temporary Assistance for Needy Families to pay for and pass a drug test before receiving assistance. People who passed the drug test would be reimbursed for the cost. Applicants who fail the test would be ineligible for benefits for one year.

Sonnenberg said the bill is needed make sure government benefits are going to people who truly need the help, not people who are using the money for drugs.

But opponents of the legislation said it plays on inaccurate stereotypes of minorities and low-income people. They also warn that the state could face legal challenges because courts in other states have struck down similar drug-testing programs, ruling that such plans amount to an unconstitutional search of people.

“It’s a bad bill,” said Ferrandino, adding that it would cost more to implement and that any savings from people who get their welfare benefits revoked would be minimal.

Legislative staffers said it would cost $219,520 to have the Department of Human Service update its benefits system if the bill passes, and counties would pay an estimated $1.3 million next fiscal year to reimburse people who passed drug tests.

Sonnenberg said state officials who say the drug test would cost $45 to $100 are wrong and he’s heard from businesses that the tests cost much less.

Ferrandino said the bill adds barriers to people seeking help. He said he would try to amend the bill further to make it so state officials who fail a drug test would not get paid for the year.

The bill stands a good chance to pass the House, where Republican supporters have a one-vote majority. But Democrats control the Senate, where the bill is expected to fail.

Wyoming rejected a similar proposal this year.

By Ivan Moreno, AP Writer (© Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

GOP Campaign

From Fox News:

Related articles

• Time to Start Drug Testing Welfare Recipients and Our ELECTED OFFICALS! (votingamerican.wordpress.com)

“I think that this is unfair to be treating poor people like criminals,” said Rep. Rhonda Fields, D-Aurora.

“If you have enough money to buy drugs you don’t need the money from the state or the federal government,” said Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling.

The bill was introduced this week by Sonnenberg, who says the bill makes sense, ensuring those who really need welfare get the benefits.

“Essentially in order for you to get your check you have to be drug free,” Sonnenberg said. “If you are drug free, we will pay for that drug test we’ll reimburse that drug test.”

[worldnow id=6733358 width=420 height=278 type=video]

Fields says the $45 test forces those already in need to pay for help.

“What if they don’t have the $45 to pay for the drug test, does that mean that we will not feed and provide assistance to that family?” Fields said.

If someone fails they are ineligible to reapply for a full year, unless they seek treatment.

“We want you in treatment; get off the drug and once you complete that then in 6 months you can reapply and then we can get you the money,” Sonnenberg said.

Fields says the program would be costly and if the poor should be drug tested to receive government money, then so should state lawmakers.

“As an elected official whose salary is paid by taxpayers, then I think everyone in the House of Representatives and the Senate should also be required,” Fields said.

Fields says the estimated cost is $200,000 to administer the program but she believes it would cost much more.

The bill moves to the Finance Committee next week.

Thirty-six states are considering similar measures. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney recently voiced support for such laws. Twelve states are looking at drug testing for unemployment benefits.

The proposal sponsored by Republican Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg is getting its first hearing in a House committee Thursday. House Bill 1046 would require applicants of the Colorado Works Temporary Assistance for Needy Families to pay for and pass a drug test before receiving assistance. People who passed the drug test would be reimbursed for the cost.

Utah is considering a similar proposal.

Applicants who fail the test would be ineligible for benefits for one year.

(© Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

The Colorado Constitution says unappropriated water in natural streams is public property, but water can be diverted for beneficial uses. It then outlines the state’s “first come, first serve” approach to having water users with older, or senior water rights take what they’re due from limited rivers or streams before those with junior water rights.

Denver-area resident Phillip Doe has proposed amending the constitution to highlight the clause saying streams are public property – and making the public ownership legally superior to longstanding water rights, contracts or property law. A related proposal would spell out in the constitution that water rights can be constricted to prohibit uses that would harm the public’s ownership in the water, and water that goes back into rivers would have to be returned unimpaired.

“It reaffirms and reasserts that the public of Colorado owns the water, and the state has an obligation to protect the public’s interests,” said attorney Richard Hamilton, who is working with Doe.

But State Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, said ballot proposals 3 and 45 would turn the way Colorado handles water upside-down.

“It’s the most devastating thing that could happen to the state of Colorado,” said Sonnenberg, a farmer and rancher.

State Senate President Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont, said the initiatives would be detrimental to the state economy and agriculture.

Efforts are under way to keep Doe’s proposals from making the ballot. The Colorado Water Congress, which includes water users and state agencies, is asking the Colorado Supreme Court to decide whether each proposal properly asks voters to consider only one issue.

Doe said if voters approve the proposals, farmers may not be able to exercise their water rights on rivers during droughts, for example, if that would dry up a river. He also said the proposals could prevent water from being used for hydraulic fracturing, though he said that wasn’t his intent in promoting the proposals.

Doe said he’s been disappointed with Front Range water providers’ plans to tap the Fraser and Cache la Poudre rivers to serve growing cities. Strengthening public’s ownership in state waters would prevent rivers from being polluted or depleted, he said.

“We’re down to our last drop of water. It’s time the public starts asserting its right to that which it owns,” Doe said.

Yet the environmental policy group Western Resource Advocates isn’t backing his proposals either, saying existing state programs have helped achieve greater environmental protections while respecting water rights.

“It’s too extreme, it’s too reckless,” Western Resource Advocates spokesman Jason Bane said of Doe’s proposals. “At the same time, we understand why this is coming up. This is part of a new era of oil and gas drilling getting closer and closer to residential neighborhoods on the Front Range. More people are asking questions about water quality and quantity.”

- By Catherine Tsai, AP Writer

(© Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

Republicans promised to repeal the tax laws they dubbed the “Dirty Dozen.” It’s the first of many battles to come.

Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, a wheat farmer from Sterling, says he’s seen first-hand the impact of a sales tax on farm products like pesticides.

“One of our largest co-ops in Colorado — northeastern Colorado –  it cost them millions of dollars,” Sonnenberg said.

Sonnenberg says the tax may be generating revenue, but it’s costing the state far more in lost business. He says farmers are not only crossing the border to buy pesticides from states that don’t tax them, but hiring those out-of-state companies to apply the chemicals too.

“That’s $6 an acre and doesn’t take long to add up $6 an acre times 50,000 acres and you have a huge amount of business that just walked out of this state,” Sonnenberg said.

Sonnenberg is offering up the first challenge to last year’s so-called Dirty Dozen, a set of bills that repealed tax breaks for businesses like agriculture.

[worldnow id=5520816 width=385 height=255 type=video]

Ali Michaelson with the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute told the ag subcommittee everyone needed to sacrifice.

“You’re already facing challenge of finding $1 billion to balance the budget. Now is not the time to make this challenge more difficult by further decreasing revenue,” Michaelson said.

But Sonnenberg argued farmers were being forced to pay the equivalent of a value added tax — something no other business does.

“IBM doesn’t get charged sales tax on motherboards or hard drives when they put a computer together,” he said. “Now agriculture is now charged a sales tax on items it takes to put food on your table.”

The ag committee agreed, voting unanimously to send the bill on to the House where it will likely pass. The real challenge will be in the Senate where Democrats hold the majority.

The legislative council says restoring the tax exemption for agricultural products will cost the state $1.3 million a year in revenue.