Colorado voters are deciding on a measure that would divert sales tax revenue from sporting goods sales to programs that focus on wildfire mitigation, outdoor recreation, and conservation.
Colorado’s constitution has an amendment called the “Taxpayer Bill of Rights,” or TABOR whichcaps the amount of revenue the state can keep and spend. Anything over that cap must be refunded to Colorado tax payers.
Proposition 137 is asking voters to approve an exemption to TABOR, allowing the state to keep revenue specifically from the sale of sporting goods in order to fund conservation, wildfire risk mitigation, and outdoor recreation programs. Estimates put that figure at around $170 million for the first year and around $180 million in subsequent years.
“The fires in 2026—this summer—are expected to exceed $250 million, in terms of recovery costs,” said Tarn Udall with Western Resource Advocates, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group supporting Prop 137.
In fiscal year 2027-28, 47.5% of funds, or around $83 million, would go to Great Outdoors Colorado, a group created by voters more than three decades ago that invests a portion of Colorado Lottery proceeds into the state’s parks, trails, wildlife, rivers, and open spaces.
Another 47.5% would go to wildfire risk mitigation programs, forest management, and watershed projects. Those would be overseen by the Colorado State Forest Service, the Department of Natural Resources, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and the Office of Economic Development.
The remaining 5% would go towards outdoor recreation and equity programs.
“These programs exist, but are significantly underfunded, and for the most part, they support local nonprofit groups and local governments implementing work on the ground,” Udall explained of the programs within CSFS and the DNR.
“It's focused on community-identified projects that would help prepare communities for wildfire and create defensible space around homes… and then the agencies have specific criteria that guide where the funding goes. Most of the funding will be used to mitigate wildfire risk in Coloradan's backyards, so we're talking about projects within one to two miles of communities.”
Some of the money would also go to workforce development, both for wildfire mitigation and outdoor recreation. That includes the state’s youth conservation corps, which do wildfire mitigation work like thinning and fuels reduction, and prepare young people for careers in natural resources, along with programs that train people in outdoor recreation careers like raft and wilderness guiding and ski instructing.
Udall says it’s never been more important to invest in conservation funding, given that climate change is driving historic drought and longer, more destructive wildfire seasons.
“The longer we wait, it gets more expensive to conserve lands,” she said. “The cost of catastrophic wildfire continues to mount. So the idea here is that early investment will save the state money over the long term and protect the quality of life both in the short term, and for generations ahead.”
Not enough guardrails?
Prop 137’s opponents aren’t convinced. They say the measure is too broad, both in what it’s asking for fiscally and in what it will do environmentally.
Rocky Smith, an environmentalist and forest management consultant who’s part of a coalition opposing Prop 137, said during years when revenue is below the TABOR limit, the money that goes to these funds cannot go back into the general fund.
“Money that will go to these funds cannot be spent on things that Coloradans want to spend on, like Medicaid, medical care, roads, social services, anything,” he said. “There will be less money, and the Colorado budget is already short.”
Mike Rawluk, a taxpayer advocate who’s part of a coalition opposing Prop 137, is concerned that the definition of “sporting goods” is too broad.
In the Blue Book definition of sporting goods, the category includes “bicycles, golf equipment, hunting and fishing equipment, camping equipment, boats, recreational vehicles, and campers. It also includes rental services for recreational, sports, and fitness equipment.” Rawluk thinks RVs and bikes—increasingly used for commuting, especially as e-bikes become more popular—are used more for travel and transportation.
He also wants to see more accountability around how Prop 137 funds would be spent.
“As far as I know, there's no appeal process to this kind of situation and there's no way a state representative could say, ‘I disagree and we're going to vote no against this particular project,’” he said. “We are in a situation where government agencies are making the decisions on what particular projects to pursue, whether it's the forest or whatever project.”
Udall said there’s accountability built into Prop 137 because it’s going to existing programs that have oversight mechanisms, rather than creating new programs from scratch. For example, GOCO has an independent board and is subject to review from state auditors.
“If it passes, communities are going to have a lot of say in where to direct the funding into their highest priorities and how to bring their on-the-ground, local understanding to guide the use of Prop 137 funding,” she said.
But Smith says there should be more guardrails on the projects themselves.
“(Prop) 137 does not restrict how the money could be spent,” he said. “It sends it to a bunch of funds… and it doesn't say, ‘you can only use it for light thinning. You can only use it in the wildland urban interface. You can only use it for home hardening.’ It doesn't say any of that. It says, ‘Here it is.’”
Smith is worried that the money could be spent on projects that would contribute to large-scale logging, cutting of old growth trees, and disturbing roadless areas. (Colorado roadless areas are separate from roadless areas designated by the federal 2001 Roadless Rule.)
Udall and other supporters say the programs Prop 137 would fund aren’t focused on industrial logging.
“The focus is on defensible space, mitigation, strategic thinning, to the extent these programs are funding thinning, which is just a segment of the funding,” Udall said. “It's around homes, protecting infrastructure, utility lines.”
But Smith said there’s no guarantee that the money couldn’t be used for logging.
“If they had… made sure that the money from an initiative like (Prop) 137 would not go toward cutting large trees, would not go toward cutting old growth forests, would not cut an endangered species habitat—that's an issue in spruce-fir forests for lynx… we probably would have been okay with that,” he said.
Smith and others outlined their desired guardrails for Prop 137 in a letter to the measure’s backers. In addition to the aforementioned restrictions, they also wanted to see prohibitions on clear-cutting, cutting in roadless areas, and requirements for pre-project surveys and studies around wildlife, watersheds, and soil.
Prop 137 has split Colorado Democrats. The Colorado Democratic Party declined to endorse the measure, based on concerns from State Sen. Judy Amabile of Boulder. Other Colorado Democrats, however, like Rep. Joe Neguse and Sen. Michael Bennett, have endorsed it, saying the funds are urgently needed for wildfire mitigation.
Colorado voters have until 7 p.m. on Tuesday, November third to weigh in on Prop 137 and thirteen other amendments and propositions.
Copyright 2026 Rocky Mountain Community Radio. This story was shared via Rocky Mountain Community Radio, a network of public media stations in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico, including Aspen Public Radio.
