Concerning unmanned aircraft systems.
SB 26-024 would create the “Unmanned Aircraft Systems Rights and Authorities Act” and set statewide rules for drone use in Colorado. The bill expressly authorizes recreational drone operation by individuals and commercial drone operation by lawful businesses, so long as the activity complies with state and federal law. It also states that compliance with federal law alone does not, by itself, create liability under state or local law.
The bill is also a preemption measure. It limits what state agencies and local governments may regulate, generally barring them from imposing their own rules on drone ownership, operation, design, manufacture, testing, maintenance, licensing, registration, certification, equipment, or pilot qualifications. At the same time, it preserves authority for the state and local governments to regulate drones they own or use, or drones launched from or landed on government property. The bill also allows generally applicable laws, such as nuisance or illegal-acts ordinances, to apply if they do not specifically target drone use.
The bill includes a legislative declaration saying commercial drone use is already common and expected to grow, and that a patchwork of local rules could hinder deployment of drone technology and its economic and social benefits. It also recognizes federal supremacy over airspace and aviation safety, and says non-airspace regulation of drones is a matter of statewide concern. The bill would take effect after the 90-day referendum period following adjournment, unless referred to voters.
In terms of legal impact, the bill would add a new article to Title 41 of the Colorado Revised Statutes and would invalidate existing or future local ordinances and resolutions that conflict with its limits on local drone regulation. It would leave in place federal FAA authority and carve out exceptions for emergencies, maintenance, technical malfunctions, peace officer operations, and federal government operations. The measure would therefore shift Colorado law toward a uniform statewide framework for drone regulation while preserving limited government-property and general-police-power controls.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is supportive of drone use and industry growth, with an emphasis on clarity, uniformity, and reduced regulatory fragmentation. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, but the bill’s final action shows it was postponed indefinitely in the Senate Local Government & Housing Committee, suggesting at least some opposition or concern at the committee level. The main point of contention appears to be the breadth of the preemption language, especially the restriction on local governments’ ability to regulate drones within their jurisdictions.
This bill would add a new statutory article, the “Unmanned Aircraft Systems Rights and Authorities Act,” to Title 41 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. It would preempt most state and local regulation of drone ownership and operation, prohibit additional registration requirements beyond FAA rules, and void conflicting local ordinances or resolutions. It would also preserve limited authority for state and local governments over drones they own or use, or that launch from or land on government property, and would allow generally applicable laws to continue to apply when they do not specifically regulate drones.
The bill’s framing is strongly pro-drone and pro-uniformity, emphasizing commercial growth, innovation, and the need to avoid a patchwork of local rules. The available record does not include committee testimony or vote details, but the bill was postponed indefinitely in committee, which indicates the proposal did not advance and likely faced concern about its scope. Overall, the sentiment appears favorable to drone operators and industry interests, but cautious or negative among those concerned about local control.
The central point of contention is preemption: the bill would sharply limit counties, cities, and other political subdivisions from regulating drone ownership, operation, equipment, and operator qualifications. Local governments may object to losing authority to address privacy, nuisance, safety, zoning, or enforcement concerns through local ordinances. Another likely area of dispute is the bill’s broad protection for commercial drone operations, which could be seen as favoring industry over local discretion. Supporters, by contrast, appear to favor statewide consistency and deference to federal aviation authority.