HB25-1318 is an annual appropriations bill for Colorado’s Species Conservation Trust Fund. It authorizes the executive director of the Department of Natural Resources to spend $5 million in state fiscal year 2025-26 for specified conservation projects and species-related programs. The funded items include the Upper Colorado River endangered fish recovery program, selenium management and monitoring, and conservation work for native terrestrial and native aquatic wildlife.
The bill also updates the species conservation eligibility list by legislative approval, confirming that the listed expenditures are in the public interest and making the money available until fully spent. In practical terms, it directs state wildlife and natural resources funding toward recovery and conservation efforts for threatened, endangered, candidate, and at-risk species in Colorado, consistent with the existing statutory framework for the trust fund.
Impact
The bill does not create a new program or substantially amend the Species Conservation Trust Fund statute; instead, it appropriates and authorizes spending under existing law in section 24-33-111, C.R.S. It gives the Department of Natural Resources authority to obligate and expend $5 million for designated conservation purposes and keeps those funds available across fiscal years until exhausted. The affected parties are state natural resources agencies, wildlife managers, and the species and habitats targeted by the funded projects, especially river fish and native wildlife conservation efforts.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition. It advanced through both chambers with strong committee votes, including unanimous or near-unanimous committee referrals in several instances, and it was recommended for the Senate consent calendar. Floor votes were also favorable, though not unanimous, indicating some limited dissent but overall general agreement with the conservation spending.
Contention
The main point of discussion, to the extent reflected in the voting history, is not whether conservation funding should occur but how the $5 million should be allocated among specific projects and whether the appropriations level is appropriate. The only recorded opposition came from a small number of members on the House Appropriations and floor votes, suggesting possible concerns about spending priorities, budget levels, or the use of trust fund dollars rather than the underlying conservation goals. No transcript evidence indicates broader controversy over the bill’s purpose.