Colorado Senate Bill SB005

Colorado 2025 1st Special Session

• Introduced: 8/21/25
• Refer: 8/21/25
• Report Pass: 8/21/25
• Engrossed: 8/22/25
• Refer: 8/22/25
• Report Pass: 8/22/25
• Enrolled: 8/25/25
• Engrossed: 8/26/25
• Enrolled: 8/26/25
• Passed: 8/28/25

Caption

Reallocate Department of Natural Resources Wolf Funding to Health Insurance Enterprise

Summary

SB005 reallocates state funding within Colorado’s budget to move money away from gray wolf reintroduction efforts and into the Colorado Health Insurance Affordability Enterprise. The bill amends the Health Insurance Affordability Cash Fund to allow additional money to be transferred into the fund and directs the state treasurer to move $264,268 from the General Fund to that fund on September 1, 2025. It also makes a one-year restriction on using General Fund money in fiscal year 2025-26 for acquiring or reintroducing gray wolves, while still allowing spending for other wolf-related purposes already authorized in law, such as compensation and management activities. The bill also revises the Department of Natural Resources and Division of Parks and Wildlife appropriation for fiscal year 2025-26, reducing the General Fund amount tied to wildlife operations and adjusting related totals and footnotes. In practical terms, it shifts a small amount of funding out of the wolf reintroduction program and into the health insurance affordability program, while preserving other wildlife and parks appropriations. The bill is framed as an appropriation measure and includes a safety clause, indicating immediate effect for state budgeting purposes. Overall sentiment in the legislative record appears mixed but ultimately favorable enough for passage. The bill advanced through committee and floor votes in both chambers, with several strong majority votes, suggesting broad support for the funding reallocation. At the same time, some votes were close or split, especially in the House, indicating that the underlying policy choice—redirecting wolf-related funding—was not universally accepted. The main point of contention is the use of money originally associated with gray wolf reintroduction. Supporters appear to favor redirecting those dollars to the health insurance affordability enterprise and limiting General Fund spending on wolf acquisition/reintroduction for one fiscal year. Opponents likely objected to reducing or delaying funding for Proposition 114-related wolf restoration efforts, which are specifically referenced in the bill’s footnote and appropriation language. The bill preserves funding for other wolf management activities, but the reallocation itself is the central policy dispute.

Impact

The bill amends Colorado statutes governing the Health Insurance Affordability Cash Fund and the reintroduction of gray wolves west of the continental divide, and it revises the Department of Natural Resources appropriation for fiscal year 2025-26. It authorizes a one-time General Fund transfer of $264,268 into the health insurance affordability fund and temporarily bars use of General Fund money for wolf acquisition or reintroduction during FY 2025-26, while leaving other wolf-related expenditures intact. It also reduces and rebalances appropriations within Colorado Parks and Wildlife and related footnotes for the affected fiscal year.

Sentiment

Legislative sentiment was generally supportive enough to pass the measure, with strong committee and chamber majorities in several votes. However, the voting history shows some meaningful opposition, especially on House floor actions, indicating that the bill’s reallocation from wolf reintroduction to health insurance affordability was politically sensitive. The final outcome suggests pragmatic budget support, but not unanimous agreement on the policy tradeoff.

Contention

The principal contention was whether funding tied to gray wolf reintroduction should be redirected away from Colorado Parks and Wildlife and toward the Health Insurance Affordability Enterprise. Supporters of the bill favored the transfer and the temporary restriction on General Fund spending for wolf acquisition/reintroduction; opponents likely wanted to preserve the original wolf restoration funding and implementation of Proposition 114. A secondary point of tension is that the bill changes appropriations midstream, which can be viewed as a budgetary adjustment by some and as a diversion from a voter-approved wildlife program by others.