Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sangre De Cristo Fencing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee clears narrow bill to let counties review large fencing projects on Sangre de Cristo land‑grant lands
Summary
House Bill 1023 targets an ongoing dispute in southern Colorado by giving counties an optional permitting mechanism and review standards for large, tightly woven perimeter fences that can block wildlife movement and access that residents claim is protected by historic land‑grant rights.
House Bill 1023 would create a local permitting and review process for large fencing projects on lands covered by the Sangre de Cristo land grant. Sponsors said the bill is narrowly tailored to a unique situation in Costilla County where a long, tightly woven, high fence erected in recent years has provoked litigation and community complaints that it blocks historic communal access and wildlife movement.
Representative Sergio Martinez, sponsor of the bill, opened the committee discussion with a summary of the long history of communal land‑use rights in the Sangre de Cristo grant, recounting 19th‑century confirmations and a decades‑long practice of residents’ access for grazing, firewood, hunting and cultural activities. Martinez said the bill provides a tool for local governments to review “covered fencing projects” within the grant area and to require wildlife‑friendly design or mitigation where appropriate.
Testimony included the Colorado attorney general, who said the state had been asked to assist residents and supported providing “additional tools to local governments.” Joseph Quintana, a local physician and community organizer, described the fence as an approximately 26‑mile, 8½‑foot‑high structure that blocks large‑ and mid‑sized animals and has caused erosion and sedimentation. Several conservation and wildlife witnesses supported the bill with technical recommendations; Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) worked with sponsors on amendments to exempt CPW‑installed wildlife‑exclusion fencing and to align recommended bottom‑rail heights and opening sizes with CPW guidance.
The sponsors offered and the committee adopted a set of amendments that (1) change the measure from an opt‑out to an opt‑in tool for counties, (2) permit a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) process allowing property owners to submit materials for a county waiver of a fee or expedited review, (3) exempt CPW‑provided fencing projects, and (4) align maximum bottom‑rail/opening language with CPW recommendations. The committee approved the package and reported the bill favorably (vote 11–2).
Supporters argued the measure addresses a site‑specific problem: a privately financed, extremely long and tightly woven fence that community leaders and conservationists say interrupts migration corridors and denies long‑standing communal access under easement and prescriptive use doctrines. Opponents and some property‑rights commentators urged extreme caution, noting the risk of unintended precedents for private fencing on other lands; sponsors and the attorney general said the bill is narrowly written and tied to a unique legal and historic context.
Ending: The committee approved HB1023 as amended and sent it to the Committee of the Whole, 11–2; sponsors and CPW said they would continue technical work on fence design guidance and on outreach to rural stakeholders.
