By admin 
A consortium of conservation groups, outdoors advocates, water providers and wildfire-prevention organizations is asking voters in November to divert an estimated $175 million in existing tax revenue each year from sporting goods sales toward fire mitigation, land protection and public access.
Read more Amendment 82: Colorado voters will decide whether to put right natural gas in state constitution
Here’s how Proposition 137 would work, who is behind the measure and who opposes it.
What Proposition 137 would do
Proposition 137 would funnel $175 million in its first year into a new Conserve and Protect Colorado’s Water, Land and Forests Fund.
The ballot measure, if approved, would direct $83 million of that money into Great Outdoors Colorado — nearly doubling the land conservation group’s annual revenue from the Colorado Lottery.
Another $83 million would be split between the Colorado Department of Natural Resources and the Colorado State Forest Service for wildfire mitigation and watershed restoration, nearly quintupling the $16.4 million the state spends now on wildfire mitigation and forests.
The Colorado outdoor recreation office and Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s Outdoor Equity Grant Program would each get $4.3 million if voters approve Proposition 137.
By the measure’s second year, nonpartisan state fiscal analysts expect the Conserve and Protect Colorado’s Water, Land and Forests Fund to reach $180 million.
The measure’s impact on taxpayers and the state budget depends on whether the state is over its constitutional spending limit in any given year. The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, also known as TABOR, limits state revenue and spending each year to the combined rate of inflation and population growth.
In years where the state is below the TABOR cap, the taxes the state collects on the sale of certain outdoor products would be diverted from the state’s general fund, leaving less money for other public services. But when the state exceeds the cap, it would reduce taxpayer refunds owed under TABOR.
If Proposition 137 is approved, it could reduce TABOR refunds in the 2027 tax year by $26 to $83 dollars for single taxpayers and $52 to $166 for joint filers, according to nonpartisan legislative analysts.
Who is behind Proposition 137
Proposition 137 was filed by environmental and conservation groups including Conservation Colorado, the Nature Conservancy, the Trust for Public Land and Western Resource Advocates.
Supporters of the citizen-initiated Proposition 137 include Denver Water, the largest water utility in Colorado, and the Tri-State Generation and Transmission collective of 42 electric utilities in four states.
Some of the nation’s largest conservation groups are backing the ballot measure, like the Conservation Fund and the Wilderness Society. Dozens of elected officials have lined up to support the measure, which requires a simple majority of votes to pass.
The issue committee Protect Colorado’s Land and Water and Prevent Wildfires is supporting the measure and had raised $2.98 million through mid September, with $1.58 million coming from the Nature Conservancy, $300,000 from California’s Fund for a Better Future, more than $200,000 from the Trust for Public Land, and $200,000 from the Wyoming-based Holdfast Trust.
Denver Water calls Proposition 137 a solution to “a major infrastructure need” as the water utility spends tens of millions to repair wildfire-damaged slopes in the South Platte River Basin.
In late September, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, the Democratic candidate for Colorado governor, announced his support of Proposition 137. Weiser, in a statement, said “given the state’s fiscal challenges” he was encouraged that in lean years without TABOR refunds the plan “will not reduce the general fund.”
“That’s a responsible way to ensure these important priorities are supported while not reducing critical funds for K-12 schools and healthcare,” Weiser said.
Supporters of Proposition 137 point to this year’s record temperatures, drought, wildfires and record-low snowpack levels as reasons more money needs to be diverted toward fighting wildfires and watershed protection. A bulk of the money would also go toward wildlife management, conserving and preserving open space and creating new parks and outdoor educational programs.
They say the ballot measure addresses a myriad of critical needs without raising taxes.
The ballot measure would fund the thinning of forested areas considered overgrown through the removal of deadfall, the use of prescribed burns and the thinning of small-diameter trees. Funding from Proposition 137 would support the Colorado Strategic Wildfire Action Program, , Healthy Forest Vibrant Communities and Wildfire Ready Watersheds.
Proponents say the forest-fuel reduction plans involve targeted thinning of trees, not industrial logging.
“We are not talking about backcountry logging. This is community-based, smaller scale funding for work on one to 300 acres adjacent to where people live,” said Scott Fitzwilliams, the former head of the White River National Forest, the busiest forest in the nation. “We have got to do something now. We have to do the right thing to protect these watersheds or we are going to lose them.”
Who is opposing Proposition 137 and why
Protect Colorado’s Land, Communities and Tax Dollars is an issue committee formed in early September to oppose Proposition 137, saying it is a grassroots conservation movement that includes scientists, forest residents and taxpayer advocates “exposing the truth” of the measure they say is “hidden by its pushers.”
But the group hadn’t reported raising or spending much money through mid-September.
Opponents of Proposition 137 include the Colorado Democratic Party, the League of Women Voters, Western Watersheds Project, Colorado Wild and Clean Energy Action.
Critics say the ballot measure is really a tax increase because it might reduce annual refunds to taxpayers. They also say it removes legislative control of how funding is spent at a time the state faces steep deficits.
Opponents of Proposition 137 say the sporting goods sales taxes would be used to increase “industrial logging” on as much as 25,000 acres a year.
The opposition is led by organizations that are critical of federal and state wildfire fuels reduction projects, saying that large-scale logging opens forests to drying winds and the growth of flammable grasses that increase the likelihood of spreading embers and flames.
“Prop. 137 makes false claims that not even the U.S. Forest Service, Colorado State Forest Service, or county parks and open space departments that carry out the logging would ever make: that somehow — impossibly — such forest clearing and removal would ‘prevent wildfires,’” reads a statement from Protect Colorado’s Land, Communities and Tax Dollars.
Opponents also include some Democratic state lawmakers grappling with a reduced state budget. They argue that diverting revenue for a single purpose could eliminate flexibility around spending for other needs, though as a statutory measure, it could be overridden by a majority vote of the legislature.
How Proposition 137 appears on the ballot
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes creating new law to increase water and land conservation funding without raising taxes, and, in connection therewith, through a voter-approved revenue change, allowing the state to keep and spend a portion of revenue from the state sales tax on sporting goods and equipment to conserve and protect Colorado’s water, land, and forests, prevent wildfires, support outdoor recreation training and activities, and reduce revenue spent on these conservation purposes if necessary to preserve funding for certain tax credits?
Read more Ballot Issue 7A: Front Range voters will weigh sales tax hike to pay for passenger train service
Read the nonpartisan state ballot guide analysis of the measure.