Prohibit Discharge Preproduction Plastic Materials
SB016 creates the “Plastic Pellet-Free Waters Act” and prohibits the discharge of preproduction plastic materials—such as plastic pellets, flakes, fibers, powders, and powdered coloring—into Colorado state waters, wastewater, stormwater runoff, other runoff, or through land application. The bill applies to facilities and persons that make, use, handle, package, or transport these materials in the state. It defines “discharge” broadly and sets out separate prohibitions for releases from facilities and from point sources.
The bill also amends Colorado’s water pollution and solid waste permitting laws to align with the new prohibition. It directs the state division not to issue permits for discharges of plastic pellets or other preproduction plastic materials into state waters, and it adds violations of the new prohibition to the criminal pollution statute. A parallel provision is added to the solid waste section governing land application, making the same conduct unlawful there as well. The act takes effect after the standard referendum period and applies only to conduct occurring on or after the effective date.
The bill would add new statutory protections in Title 25 by creating a dedicated chapter on plastic pellet discharges and by amending existing water pollution and criminal pollution provisions. It would bar permitting for these discharges, expand enforcement authority by tying violations to criminal pollution penalties, and prohibit land application of preproduction plastic materials at unpermitted locations. The practical effect is to impose compliance obligations on manufacturers, handlers, transporters, and facilities dealing with plastic pellets and similar raw plastic inputs, while giving regulators a clearer basis to prevent and penalize releases into waterways and runoff systems.
The voting record suggests generally favorable but not unanimous support. The bill advanced through committee and floor votes in both chambers, with several committee amendments adopted unanimously and final passage votes showing meaningful majorities. At the same time, the Senate committee referral vote and the Senate third-reading vote show some opposition, indicating that while the bill had broad support, it was not entirely uncontroversial. The absence of transcript excerpts limits insight into detailed debate, but the overall pattern points to a bill that was viewed positively by most members.
The main point of contention appears to be whether the bill’s discharge ban and permitting restrictions go too far in regulating industrial handling of plastic feedstock materials. Supporters likely viewed the measure as a pollution-prevention and water-quality protection bill aimed at stopping pellet loss into rivers, stormwater, and wastewater systems. Opponents, reflected in the no votes on committee referral and third reading, may have been concerned about regulatory burden, compliance costs, or the breadth of the prohibition for facilities that manufacture, package, transport, or otherwise handle these materials. No transcript is available here, so the specific arguments are not documented in the provided record.