Over the years, lawmakers have expressed frustration when a bill winds up with a whopping huge fiscal note that seems out of line with what the bill would truly cost. But rarely do they go public with that frustration.

Sen. Don Coram, R-Montrose, said the quiet part out loud Thursday. And he wasn’t alone.

What got him worked up were the costs attached to Senate Bill 34, which would ask voters in 2022 to approve a fee on excess water use. Households that use more than 4,000 gallons of water per month would be charged 25 cents for every 1,000 gallons above the 4,000. That fee, if approved by voters, would start Jan. 1, 2023, and would be placed in a water resources enterprise fund, with grants to water providers for water projects.

Senate Bill 34 was postponed indefinitely on a party-line 2-3 vote by the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on Thursday, but only after some pointed words to state agencies that inflate costs in order to kill a bill they don’t like.

Coram started off angry about water issues, and went from there.

“I remember when the governor had a water plan,” he began. His beef was about the lack of input into water issues around Colorado, and from time to time that leads to lawmakers needing to pass legislation to rein in state agencies.

At one point, the General Assembly had input into the water plan, which they had to demand through legislation, Coram said. Since the plan went into implementation, however, the General Assembly, including its interim water resources review committee, have been left out.

Coram cited other situations that have been brought to his attention, such as when a Division of Water Resources engineer told a rancher that the water he needed for his livestock was not deemed agricultural use, and the legislature had to step in to resolve that problem.

Another issue is the state’s groundwater commission, which is giving out water permits “like a drunken sailor,” Coram said. They don’t ask if the water is available, he said. That led to a legal confrontation with former Rep. Wes McKinley, D-Walsh, who was threatened with 90 days in jail for challenging those permits. “When the cat’s away, the mice will play,” Coram said.

While she didn’t support the bill, Ag Chair Sen. Kerry Donovan, D-Vail, had a few pointed comments of her own for Front Range water providers.

She said when she talked to them about the bill, they all complained about the cost it would impose on their customers and the potential that the fee would cover water projects that would not benefit their customers. That was also a concern raised by the Colorado Municipal League and the city of Westminster.

Not once, she said, did they discuss Western Slope water, which provides most of the water for the Front Range; the potential for a first-ever call on the Colorado River and water quality mitigation that will be needed for Glenwood Springs, where the water system was heavily damaged by the Grizzly Creek fire.

Coram saved some of his most heated comments for the bill’s fiscal note and what the Department of Natural Resources intended with it.

Fiscal notes are written by Legislative Council staff, based on information submitted by the state agency involved. The Department of Natural Resources slapped a $1.25 million cost on the bill and that put Coram into orbit.

Among the costs: 7.4 additional full-time staff, $55,000 per year for a website, $10,125 for standard supplies and technology for staff; lodging, per diem, travel and food for quarterly board meetings, at $21,064; and travel costs for staff to visit project locations, at $9,750.

It was too much for Coram and Donovan to stomach.

Coram called the estimate “asinine and revolting.” Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, asked how the department came up with a need for seven full-time employees when most of the work would be done by local water providers. He later came up with an amendment to require the department to do the work within its existing resources.

Donovan also didn’t take kindly to the estimate. “It’s a frustrating fiscal note to read,” she said. “The power of fiscal notes to end conversations should be more recognized” when people write these estimates, she said.

It’s unusual for a fiscal note to include some of the costs estimated by the department, and Donovan warned the department that she’ll be looking for estimates on staff, travel, food, etc. when they submit fiscal notes on other bills in the future. “If you don’t want it called out in this committee, don’t put it in your fiscal note.”

While the bill was postponed Thursday, the issue of the legislature’s involvement in water issues is far from over. Coram acknowledged that there’s a lot of time to work on this issue, seeking a joint meeting with the ag and judiciary committees, and with the interim water committee, should it be authorized to work this summer.