Proposition 137 would divert millions of tax dollars toward wildfire prevention, conservation

Proposition 137 on the Colorado ballot comes on the heels of a year of record heat and extreme drought and would divert millions of tax dollars to wildfire prevention and conservation

Colorado's great outdoors is perhaps its greatest asset. Proponents of Proposition 137 say their ballot measure would help protect it without increasing taxes. But opponents say it would endanger it while decreasing taxpayer refunds, which they say amounts to a tax increase.

Prop 137 diverts money from the state's current sales tax on sporting goods to conservation, wildfire risk mitigation and outdoor recreation programs. Sporting goods include everything from bikes, boats, and campers to hunting, fishing, and fitness equipment.

State analysts say the measure would divert an estimated $175 million the first year, $180 million the second year, and increasing amounts in future years.

Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) would receive about 47% of the money, $83 million the first year, for land and water conservation, habitat restoration, and new parks and open spaces. GOCO currently receives about $90 million a year from the state lottery.

The Colorado Forest Service and Department of Natural Resources would also receive just over 47% of the money for wildfire risk mitigation, forest management and watershed projects, which the state spends about $20 million on now.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife and the Office of Economic Development and International Trade would receive the remaining 5% - or about $9 million - for outdoor recreation and equity programs, including summer camps and job training. The state spends about $800,000 on those programs now.

The money would be exempt from the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR),  which limits how much money the state can spend each year and refunds excess money to taxpayers.

In years where the state is under the TABOR limit, Prop 137 would mean less money for things like education and health care.

In years when it's over the TABOR limit, it would mean smaller or no refunds for taxpayers.

Opponents say the state already spends more than $100 million a year on wildfire mitigation and water conservation programs, and Prop 137 more than doubles that, while costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in TABOR refunds and leaving less money for other critical needs. They also say the measure prioritizes large-scale logging on public lands, which they say can increase wildfire risk, over home hardening and emergency preparedness.

Proponents say the money will prioritize the removal of small dead or unhealthy trees in overly dense areas. They say record wildfires and worsening drought are rapidly depleting our natural resources, and additional funding is urgently needed to protect land from development, prevent wildfires and safeguard watersheds.

They note Prop 137 ensures those who benefit the most from the outdoors pay for its upkeep and insist all the programs receiving funding are overseen by independent boards or state agencies whose finances are audited or restricted by state law.

Prop 137 is statutory, so it needs a simple majority to pass, and the legislature would be able to change or repeal it.