By Jen Schumann | Contributing Writer, Rocky Mountain Voice
Framed as a water conservation bill, HB25-1211 passed the Colorado House on March 17, with unanimous Republican opposition and four Democrats voting against it.
Despite its stated goal of ensuring fairness in water tap fees, critics argue the bill primarily benefits developers over homeowners, forcing local water districts to subsidize high-density developments while shifting costs to existing ratepayers.
Democrat Reps. Rebecca Stewart and Sheila Lieder, sponsors of the bill, argue it is necessary to prevent water districts from using tap fees to discourage development.
“The bill makes sure that special districts aren’t using the levying of tap fees in order to influence land use, discourage more water-efficient, multifamily and affordable housing,” Stewart said during the House Transportation, Housing & Local Government Committee hearing on Feb. 26.
Lieder added, “This bill simply provides a menu of usage and conservation-based options, and water districts can choose which elements work best for them.”
Supporters emphasize that the bill promotes fairness in how water fees are applied. Chelsea Benjamin, a Policy Advisor with Western Resource Advocates, explained, “Conservation-oriented tap fees help increase fairness and incentivize smaller lot sizes and indoor and outdoor water conservation.”
Critics, however, argue these conservation incentives are a smokescreen for a different agenda.
“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,” said Karen Morgan, a Director on the Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District board.
A major point of controversy in HB25-1211 is the “duty to serve” provision. Critics argue that it contradicts more than a century of case law by forcing water districts to provide service to developments that may not be realistic.
Morgan warned about the legal implications of this provision. “This bill contradicts the district’s ability to make decisions for the good of the whole district based on current provisions like feasibility.”
Attempts to amend the bill to clarify that special districts would only be required to serve inside their boundaries were rejected.
“Bill sponsors like Representative Rebecca Stewart refused to make the bill conform with current law by accepting amendments to read ‘a duty to serve INSIDE YOUR DISTRICT,” Morgan pointed out.
During the February 26 committee hearing, opponents voiced concerns that this provision would lead to litigation and force water districts to serve areas that could bankrupt them.
Ann Terry, CEO of the Special District Association of Colorado, emphasized the financial unpredictability that could result from the bill. “Infrastructure around the state differs in its price, in its cost. We need to make sure that we’re consistent and careful because water infrastructure and water needs do change.”
Supporters countered by arguing that water districts should not have the ability to withhold service when infrastructure is already in place.
“Metro West’s affordable housing project was delayed and ultimately scrapped due to excessive sanitation district tap fees,” noted Amy Case-Miranda, Vice President of Legislative Affairs for the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO).
By lowering tap fees for certain developments, the bill shifts the financial burden onto existing homeowners and ratepayers while benefiting developer-run metro districts.
Morgan was critical of the uneven distribution of financial responsibility. “It gives special privileges to developer metro districts. And it shifts costs from one user to another rather than promoting equality.”
At the Feb. 26 committee hearing, Bill Wombacher, East Cherry Creek Valley Water and Sanitation District, expressed concern over how this bill changes long-standing funding principles. “Tap fees exist so that growth pays for growth. This bill undermines that principle,” he stated.
In contrast, Robert Greer, YIMBY Denver, supported the bill, stating, “Multifamily housing uses roughly half the water per capita compared to single-family homes. This bill recognizes that and helps modernize how we assess development costs.”
Supporters claim the bill promotes conservation by tying tap fees to lower water usage, but critics say the math doesn’t add up.
Morgan used a household appliance analogy to explain why fixed water infrastructure costs can’t be reduced just because someone promises to use less water:
“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. But that’s exactly the argument HB25-1211 makes,” she wrote.
At the Feb. 26 committee hearing, Claude Strait, Executive Director of the Colorado Rural Water Association, warned that smaller districts lack the financial flexibility to change tap fees without impacting existing customers. “Small districts don’t have the financial flexibility to suddenly change their tap fee structures without consequences for existing customers,” said Strait.
The House passed the bill 36-27, with all present Republicans voting against it. Four Democrats, including Reps. Lorena Garcia, Lori Garcia Sander, Bob Marshall and Tammy Story broke ranks to oppose it. Story unsuccessfully proposed an amendment to remove the “duty to serve” provision.
Democrat Sen. Jeff Bridges, a co-sponsor of the bill, will now carry it through the Senate.
Some amendments may address concerns from rural districts, including possible exemptions for smaller providers.
But opponents remain skeptical. Morgan warns that if this bill becomes law, it’s homeowners and ratepayers—not developers—who will foot the bill.
Karen Morgan, a Director on the Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District board, originally reported on HB25-1211 in her Lakewood Informer blog. To read her full commentary, visit: https://lakewoodinformer.com/hb25-1211-deception-to-legislate-litigation/.