Monday, January 29, 2024

How Much Ocean Heating is Due To Deep-Sea Hydrothermal Vents?

 

How Much Ocean Heating is Due To Deep-Sea Hydrothermal Vents?

January 29th, 2024 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

I sometimes see comments to the effect that recent ocean warming could be due to deep-sea hydrothermal vents. Of course, what they mean is an INCREASE in hydrothermal vent activity since these sources of heat are presumably operating continuously and are part of the average energy budget of the ocean, even without any long-term warming.

Fortunately, there are measurements of the heat output from these vents, and there are rough estimates of how many vents there are. Importantly, the vents (sometimes called “smokers”) are almost exclusively found along the mid-oceanic ridges, and those ridges have an estimated total length of 75,000 km (ref).

So, if we had (rough) estimates of the average heat output of a vent, and (roughly) know how many vents are scattered along the ridges, we can (roughly) estimate to total heat flux into the ocean per sq. meter of ocean surface.

Direct Temperature Measurements Near the Vents Offer a Clue

A more useful observation comes from deep-sea surveys using a towed sensor package which measures trace minerals produced by the vents, as well as temperature. A study published in 2016 described a total towed sensor distance of ~1,500 km just above where these smokers have been located. The purpose was to find out just how many sites there are scattered along the ridges.

Importantly, the study notes, “temperature anomalies from such sites are commonly too weak to be reliably detected during a tow“.

Let’s think about that: even when the sensor package is towed through water in which the mineral tracers from smokers exist, the temperature anomaly is “too weak to be reliably detected”.

Now think about that (already) extremely weak warmth being mixed laterally away from the (relatively isolated) ocean ridges, and vertically through 1,000s of meters of ocean depth.

Also, recall the deep ocean is, everywhere, exceedingly cold. It has been calculated that the global-average ocean temperature below 200m depth is 4 deg. C (39 deg. F). The cold water originates at the surface at high latitudes where it becomes extra-salty (and thus dense) and it slowly sinks, filling the global deep oceans over thousands of years with chilled water.

The fact that deep-sea towed probes over hydrothermal vent sites can’t even measure a temperature increase in the mineral-enriched water means there is no way for buoyant water parcels to reach up several kilometers to reach the thermocline.

Estimating The Heat Flux Into the Ocean from Hydrothermal Vents

We can get some idea of just how small the heat input is based upon various current estimates of a few parameters. The previously mentioned study comes up with a possible spacing of hydrothermal sites every ~10 km. So, that’s 7,500 sites around the world along the mid-oceanic ridges. From deep-sea probes carrying specialized sampling equipment, the average energy output looks to be about 1 MW per vent (see Table 1, here). But how many vents are there per site? I could not find a number. They sampled several vents at several sites. Let’s assume 100, and see where the numbers lead. The total heat flux into the ocean from hydrothermal vents in Watts per sq. meter (W m-2) would then be:

Heat Flux = (7,500 sites)x(100 vents per site)x(1 MW per vent)/(360,000,000,000,000 sq. m ocean sfc).

This comes out to 0.00029 W m-2.

That is an exceedingly small number, about 1/4,000th of the 1 W m-2 estimated energy imbalance from Argo float measurements of (very weak) ocean warming over the last 20 years or so. Even if the estimate is off by a factor of 100, the resulting heat flux is still 1/40th of global ocean heating rate. I assume that oceanographers have published some similar estimates, but I could not find them.

Now, what *is* somewhat larger is the average geothermal heat flux from the deep, hot Earth, which occurs everywhere. That has a global average value of 0.087 W m-2. This is approximately 1/10 of the estimate current ocean heating rate. But remember, it’s not the average geothermal heat flux that is of interest because that is always going on. Instead, that heat flux would have to increase by a factor of ten for decades to cause the observed heating rate of the global deep oceans.

Evidence Ocean Warming Has Been Top-Down, Not Bottom-Up

Finally, we can look at the Argo-estimate vertical profile of warming trends in the ocean. Even though the probes only reach a little more than half-way to the (average) ocean bottom, the warming profile supports heating from above, not from below (see panel B, right). Given these various pieces of evidence, it would difficult to believe that deep-sea hydrothermal vents — actually, an increase in their heat output — can be the reason for recent ocean warming.

Monday, October 23, 2023

Colorado's final wolf reintroduction plan has been approved

 

Colorado's final wolf reintroduction plan has been approved. Here are the highlights.

Miles Blumhardt
Fort Collins Coloradoan

The Colorado Wolf Restoration and Management plan has been approved after nearly two years of exhaustive work.

The Colorado Wildlife Commission unanimously approved the final plan at its May 3 meeting in Glenwood Springs.

The plan was developed with the help of two advisory groups made up of wildlife professionals and varied stakeholders, through a series of public meetings and more than 4,000 comments.

What states will reintroduced wolves come from, how many wolves will be released and where will wolves be released?

  • Idaho, Montana and Wyoming are the desired states, with other possible donor states including Oregon and Washington, though a 9News story says source states are unwilling or have had little to no communication with Colorado regarding the issue.
  • 10 to 15 wolves will be released per year, for a total of 30 to 50 wolves over the next three years depending on recovery success.
  • Initial release site has been identified in an area with Glenwood Springs on the west, Kremmling on the north, Vail on the east and Aspen on the south. The area includes Interstate 70 running through the middle. The release sites would be focused on state and private land where there are willing owners.

How we got here:What to know about Colorado's existing wolves and conflicts around reintroduction plan

How many wolves will need to be established for wolves to be downlisted from endangered to threatened to delisted?

  • Downlisting from state endangered to state threatened will occur when a minimum count of 50 wolves anywhere in the state for four successive years is met.
  • Delisting from threatened to nongame status will occur when a minimum count of at least 150 wolves anywhere in Colorado is observed for two successive years, or a minimum count of at least 200 wolves at any time with a geographical distribution component through a finding that the species "is present in a significant portion of its range."
In this file photo, volunteers from a nearby ranch and a U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services staff member erect electric fencing with flags meant to deter wolves from cattle along a small pasture on the Gittleson Angus ranch northeast of Walden in January 2022. The ranch had cows killed by Colorado’s existing wolfpack.

Will wolves be allowed to be killed in certain situations?

  • Currently, wolves are listed as federally endangered in Colorado and can only be legally killed if threatening human life.
  • Colorado requested a 10(j) ruling under the Endangered Species Act and is awaiting a determination by the federal government. The state is hoping for a resolution by Dec. 15, just two weeks before state officials wish to release wolves by the end of the year. The 10(j) rule lists wolves as "experimental" and would allow more flexibility managing them, including lethal take of wolves in situations such as chronic depredation or wolves caught depredating livestock.
  • Colorado Senate Bill 23-256 introduced in this year's legislature originally precluded reintroduction until a determination of the 10(j) rule is finalized. An amendment to the original bill deleted this part of the bill over concern it would likely delay reintroduction. The bill is in the House or Representatives awaiting further debate. The legislative season ends May 6.

More: Colorado wolvesNorth Park wolfpack member confirmed to have wandered into Grand County

Will a hunting season of wolves be allowed when wolves are delisted?

  • Proposition 114, narrowly approved by voters, designated wolves as nongame, meaning the animals cannot be hunted, but the commission could have the power to change that.
  • The original plan included a Phase 4 that looked at the possibility of a hunting season when wolves are delisted. That has been removed and now basically defers actions regarding a hunting season to be assessed by future Colorado Wildlife Commissions.

 

Gun-Grabbers Break Out These 4 Common Myths Every Time There's a Shooting

 

Op-Ed: Gun-Grabbers Break Out These 4 Common Myths Every Time There's a Shooting

The deadly shooting that took place last Saturday at a mall in Allen, Texas, was just one of a recent string of mass shootings in the United States. Eight victims lost their lives.

With this type of violence, debates about the Constitution are always brought forward. The Second Amendment is under attack probably more than any other amendment in our Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

In response to this most recent mass shooting, anti-gun advocates are once again demanding more gun restrictions.

Here are four common myths surrounding the Second Amendment and gun control.

Trending:
CNN Humiliated On Air as Migrant Destroys Left's Border Narrative, Network Abruptly Ends Interview

1. A “well-regulated militia” means gun regulations.

Anti-gun advocates frequently cite the “well-regulated militia” clause. They often believe this refers to gun restrictions or needing to be part of a militia to own firearms.

But upon further analysis, this is not the case. A “well-regulated militia” simply refers to the American people.

“The militia system, with deep roots in English history, was one way of ensuring that the nation could defend itself against all threats, foreign and domestic. Instead of a large full-time professional army, the government could, when needed, call upon the greater body of armed citizens to employ their personal firearms in the collective defense of the state or nation,” as The Heritage Foundation highlighted.

“A ‘well-regulated’ militia simply meant that the processes for activating, training, and deploying the militia in official service should be efficient and orderly, and that the militia itself should be capable of competently executing battlefield operations.”

The 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller also confirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Being part of a militia is not required to exercise that right.

2. The right to “keep and bear arms” does not apply to modern weaponry.

The left often claims we do not have a right to own AR-15s and “assault rifles” because they did not exist at the time the Founding Fathers drafted and ratified the Second Amendment.

But this makes little sense. It is analogous to saying free speech rights are not included on the internet or other modern forms of communication because they did not exist at the time the First Amendment was written.

Related:
Op-Ed: The 5 Biggest Lies from Biden's State of the Union Address

The Founders were brilliant to use the term “arms” since it is a very generic term that includes many forms of firearms. If they specifically intended the amendment to protect the right to keep and bear muskets, all of the handguns and rifles we use today would be in legal jeopardy.

Rep. Jim Jordan highlighted this key distinction in a hearing earlier this year.

3. Gun control is the only action needed to prevent gun violence.

Gun control advocates say we need to “take action” or “do something” to address gun violence. But their definition of action is always more gun control on top of existing gun control that failed to prevent these shootings.

Despite the calls for more restrictions, it appears that the mall where the Texas shooting took place was already a gun-free zone.

This shows that criminals never obey existing gun laws and, as a result, the only ones who suffer are law-abiding citizens being unable to defend themselves.

More gun control is not the answer. Part of the solution is to eliminate gun-free zones to allow law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm and increase their chances of repelling a potential shooter in the first place.

4. Ted Cruz and Greg Abbott were responsible for the Texas mall shooting.

Unfortunately, we live in a time when gun control advocates blame political opponents when these deadly shootings take place.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Gov. Greg Abbott were among those targeted by this type of rhetoric.

Politicians like California Rep. Eric Swalwell wasted no time smearing Cruz and claiming that he sides with the murderers over the victims.

Journalist Steven Beschloss was just one of many who said Abbott had blood on his hands.

Second Amendment advocates are not responsible for any shooting. The blame must be placed on the killers themselves.

If we are going to reduce gun violence, we need to repeal ineffective gun control laws and bring back a culture that instills good faith and morals.

Friday, October 13, 2023

Don’t Miss The Most Damning Durham Finding

Don’t Miss The Most Damning Durham Finding

Special Counsel John Durham declared the DOJ and FBI’s hearts and minds corrupted.

 

Thursday, May 18, 2023

Let’s Compare Media’s Lies About The Durham Report With What The Report Actually Said

 

Let’s Compare Media’s Lies About The Durham Report With What The Report Actually Said

John Durham
Image CreditMSNBC/YouTube

It’s not as if John Durham is hiding the ball. He notes there were equal opportunities to investigate Clinton’s campaign in 2016, but those were handled more discreetly.

Monday, May 15, 2023

Op-Ed: Gun-Grabbers Break Out These 4 Common Myths Every Time There's a Shooting

 

Op-Ed: Gun-Grabbers Break Out These 4 Common Myths Every Time There's a Shooting

The deadly shooting that took place last Saturday at a mall in Allen, Texas, was just one of a recent string of mass shootings in the United States. Eight victims lost their lives.

With this type of violence, debates about the Constitution are always brought forward. The Second Amendment is under attack probably more than any other amendment in our Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

In response to this most recent mass shooting, anti-gun advocates are once again demanding more gun restrictions.

Here are four common myths surrounding the Second Amendment and gun control.

Trending:
CNN Humiliated On Air as Migrant Destroys Left's Border Narrative, Network Abruptly Ends Interview

1. A “well-regulated militia” means gun regulations.

Anti-gun advocates frequently cite the “well-regulated militia” clause. They often believe this refers to gun restrictions or needing to be part of a militia to own firearms.

But upon further analysis, this is not the case. A “well-regulated militia” simply refers to the American people.

“The militia system, with deep roots in English history, was one way of ensuring that the nation could defend itself against all threats, foreign and domestic. Instead of a large full-time professional army, the government could, when needed, call upon the greater body of armed citizens to employ their personal firearms in the collective defense of the state or nation,” as The Heritage Foundation highlighted.

“A ‘well-regulated’ militia simply meant that the processes for activating, training, and deploying the militia in official service should be efficient and orderly, and that the militia itself should be capable of competently executing battlefield operations.”

The 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller also confirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Being part of a militia is not required to exercise that right.

2. The right to “keep and bear arms” does not apply to modern weaponry.

The left often claims we do not have a right to own AR-15s and “assault rifles” because they did not exist at the time the Founding Fathers drafted and ratified the Second Amendment.

But this makes little sense. It is analogous to saying free speech rights are not included on the internet or other modern forms of communication because they did not exist at the time the First Amendment was written.

Related:
Op-Ed: The 5 Biggest Lies from Biden's State of the Union Address

The Founders were brilliant to use the term “arms” since it is a very generic term that includes many forms of firearms. If they specifically intended the amendment to protect the right to keep and bear muskets, all of the handguns and rifles we use today would be in legal jeopardy.

Rep. Jim Jordan highlighted this key distinction in a hearing earlier this year.

3. Gun control is the only action needed to prevent gun violence.

Gun control advocates say we need to “take action” or “do something” to address gun violence. But their definition of action is always more gun control on top of existing gun control that failed to prevent these shootings.

Despite the calls for more restrictions, it appears that the mall where the Texas shooting took place was already a gun-free zone.

This shows that criminals never obey existing gun laws and, as a result, the only ones who suffer are law-abiding citizens being unable to defend themselves.

More gun control is not the answer. Part of the solution is to eliminate gun-free zones to allow law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm and increase their chances of repelling a potential shooter in the first place.

4. Ted Cruz and Greg Abbott were responsible for the Texas mall shooting.

Unfortunately, we live in a time when gun control advocates blame political opponents when these deadly shootings take place.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Gov. Greg Abbott were among those targeted by this type of rhetoric.

Politicians like California Rep. Eric Swalwell wasted no time smearing Cruz and claiming that he sides with the murderers over the victims.

Journalist Steven Beschloss was just one of many who said Abbott had blood on his hands.

Second Amendment advocates are not responsible for any shooting. The blame must be placed on the killers themselves.

If we are going to reduce gun violence, we need to repeal ineffective gun control laws and bring back a culture that instills good faith and morals.

Monday, May 1, 2023

SB23-213 Land Use

 

SB23-213

Land Use

Concerning state land use requirements, and, in connection therewith, establishing a process to diagnose and address housing needs across the state, prohibiting a local government from enforcing certain occupancy limits, modifying the content requirements for county and municipal master plans, criteria for certain grant programs, and expenditures from the multimodal transportation options fund to align with state strategic growth objectives, and making an appropriation.
Session:
2023 Regular Session
Subjects:
Housing
Local Government
Bill Summary

Housing needs planning. The executive director of the department of local affairs (director) shall, no later than December 31, 2024, and every 5 years thereafter, issue methodology for developing statewide, regional, and local housing needs assessments. The statewide housing needs assessment must determine existing statewide housing stock and current and future housing needs. The regional housing needs assessments must allocate the addressing of housing needs identified in the statewide housing needs assessment to regions of the state. Similarly, the local housing needs assessments must allocate the addressing of the housing needs allocated in the regional housing needs assessment to localities in the relevant region.

The director shall, no later than December 31, 2024, issue guidance on creating a housing needs plan for both a rural resort job center municipality and an urban municipality. Following this guidance, no later than December 31, 2026, and every 5 years thereafter, a rural resort job center municipality and an urban municipality shall develop a housing needs plan and submit that plan to the department of local affairs (department). A housing needs plan must include, among other things, descriptions of how the plan was created, how the municipality will address the housing needs it was assigned in the local housing needs assessment, affordability strategies the municipality has selected to address its local housing needs assessment, an assessment of displacement risk and any strategies selected to address identified risks, and how the locality will comply with other housing requirements in this bill.

The director shall, no later than December 31, 2024, develop and publish a menu of affordability strategies to address housing production, preservation, and affordability. Rural resort job center municipalities and urban municipalities shall identify at least 2 of these strategies that they intend to implement in their housing plan, and urban municipalities with a transit-oriented area must identify at least 3.

The director shall, no later than December 31, 2024, develop and publish a menu of displacement mitigation measures. This menu must, among other things, provide guidance for how to identify areas at the highest risk for displacement and identify displacement mitigation measures that a locality may adopt. An urban municipality must identify which of these measures it intends to implement in its housing plan to address any areas it identifies as at an elevated risk for displacement.

The director shall, no later than March 31, 2024, publish a report that identifies strategic growth objectives that will incentivize growth in transit-oriented areas and infill areas and guide growth at the edges of urban areas. The multi-agency advisory committee shall, no later than March 31, 2024, submit a report to the general assembly concerning the strategic growth objectives.

The bill establishes a multi-agency advisory committee and requires that committee to conduct a public comment and hearing process on and provide recommendations to the director on:

  • Methodologies for developing statewide, regional, and local housing needs assessments;
  • Guidance for creating housing needs plans;
  • Developing a menu of affordability strategies;
  • Developing a menu of displacement mitigation measures;
  • Identifying strategic growth objectives; and
  • Developing reporting guidance and templates.

A county or municipality within a rural resort region shall participate in a regional housing needs planning process. This process must encourage participating counties and municipalities to identify strategies that, either individually or through intergovernmental agreements, address the housing needs assigned to them. A report on this process must be submitted to the department. Further, within 6 months of completing this process, a rural resort job center municipality shall submit a local housing needs plan to the department. Once a year, both rural resort job centers and urban municipalities shall report to the department on certain housing data.

A multi-agency group created in the bill and the division of local government within the department shall provide assistance to localities in complying with the requirements of this bill. This assistance must include technical assistance and a grant program.

Accessory dwelling units. The director shall promulgate an accessory dwelling unit model code that, among other things, requires accessory dwelling units to be allowed as a use by right in any part of a municipality where the municipality allows single-unit detached dwellings as a use by right. The committee shall provide recommendations to the director for promulgating this model code. In developing these recommendations, the committee shall conduct a public comment and hearing process.

Even if a municipality does not adopt the accessory dwelling unit model code, the municipality shall adhere to accessory dwelling unit minimum standards established in the bill and by the department. These minimum standards, among other things, must require a municipality to:

  • Allow accessory dwelling units as a use by right in any part of the municipality where the municipality allows single-unit detached dwellings as a use by right;
  • Only adopt or enforce local laws concerning accessory dwelling units that use objective standards and procedures;
  • Not adopt, enact, or enforce local laws concerning accessory dwelling units that are more restrictive than local laws concerning single-unit detached dwellings; and
  • Not apply standards that make the permitting, siting, or construction of accessory dwelling units infeasible.

Middle housing. The director shall promulgate a middle housing model code that, among other things, requires middle housing to be allowed as a use by right in any part of a rural resort job center municipality or a tier one urban municipality where the municipality allows single-unit detached dwellings as a use by right. The committee shall provide recommendations to the director for promulgating this model code. In developing these recommendations, the committee shall conduct a public comment and hearing process.

Even if a rural resort job center municipality or a tier one urban municipality does not adopt the middle housing model code, the municipality shall adhere to middle housing minimum standards established in the bill and by the department. These minimum standards, among other things, must require a municipality to:

  • Allow middle housing as a use by right in certain areas;
  • Only adopt or enforce local laws concerning middle housing that use objective standards and procedures;
  • Allow properties on which middle housing is allowed to be split by right using objective standards and procedures;
  • Not adopt, enact, or enforce local laws concerning middle housing that are more restrictive than local laws concerning single-unit detached dwellings; and
  • Not apply standards that make the permitting, siting, or construction of middle housing infeasible.

Transit-oriented areas. The director shall promulgate a transit-oriented area model code that, among other things, imposes minimum residential density limits for multifamily residential housing and mixed-income multifamily residential housing and allows these developments as a use by right in the transit-oriented areas of tier one urban municipalities. The committee shall provide recommendations to the director for promulgating this model code. In developing these recommendations, the committee shall conduct a public comment and hearing process.

Even if a tier one urban municipality does not adopt the transit-oriented model code, the municipality shall adhere to middle housing minimum standards established in the bill and by the department. These minimum standards, among other things, must require a municipality to:

  • Create a zoning district within a transit-oriented area in which multifamily housing meets a minimum residential density limit and is allowed as a use by right; and
  • Not apply standards that make the permitting, siting, or construction of multifamily housing in transit-oriented areas infeasible.

Key corridors. The director shall promulgate a key corridor model code that applies to key corridors in rural resort job center municipalities and tier one urban municipalities. The model code must, among other things, include requirements for:

  • The percentage of units in mixed-income multifamily residential housing that must be reserved for low- and moderate-income households;
  • Minimum residential density limits for multifamily residential housing; and
  • Mixed-income multifamily residential housing that must be allowed as a use by right in key corridors.

The committee shall provide recommendations to the director for promulgating this model code. In developing these recommendations, the committee shall conduct a public comment and hearing process.

Even if a rural resort job center municipality or a tier one urban municipality does not adopt the key corridor model code, the municipality shall adhere to key corridor minimum standards promulgated by the director and developed by the department. These minimum standards, among other things, must identify a net residential zoning capacity for a municipality and must require a municipality to:

  • Allow multifamily residential housing within key corridors that meets the net residential zoning capacity as a use by right;
  • Not apply standards that make the permitting, siting, or construction of multifamily housing in certain areas infeasible; and
  • Not adopt, enact, or enforce local laws that make satisfying the required minimum residential density limits infeasible.

The committee shall provide recommendations to the director on promulgating these minimum standards. In developing these recommendations, the committee shall conduct a public comment and hearing process.

Adoption of model codes and minimum standards. A relevant municipality shall adopt either the model code or local laws that satisfy the minimum standards concerning accessory dwelling units, middle housing, transit-oriented areas, and key corridors. Furthermore, a municipality shall submit a report to the department demonstrating that it has done so. If a municipality fails to adopt either the model code or local laws that satisfy the minimum standards by a specified deadline, the relevant model code immediately goes into effect, and municipalities shall then approve any proposed projects that meet the standards in the model code using objective procedures. However, a municipality may apply to the department for a deadline extension for a deficiency in water or wastewater infrastructure or supply.Additional provisions. The bill also:

  • Requires the advisory committee on factory-built structures and tiny homes to produce a report on the opportunities and barriers in state law concerning the building of manufactured homes, mobile homes, and tiny homes;
  • Removes the requirements that manufacturers of factory-built structures comply with escrow requirements of down payments and provide a letter of credit, certificate of deposit issued by a licensed financial institution, or surety bond issued by an authorized insurer;
  • Prohibits a planned unit development resolution or ordinance for a planned unit with a residential use from restricting accessory dwelling units, middle housing, housing in transit-oriented areas, or housing in key corridors in a way not allowed by this bill;
  • Prohibits a local government from enacting or enforcing residential occupancy limits that differ based on the relationships of the occupants of a dwelling;
  • Modifies the content requirements for a county and municipal master plan, requires counties and municipalities to adopt or amend master plans as part of an inclusive process, and requires counties and municipalities to submit master plans to the department;
  • Allows a municipality to sell and dispose of real property and public buildings for the purpose of providing property to be used as affordable housing, without requiring the sale to be submitted to the voters of the municipality;
  • Requires the approval process for manufactured and modular homes to be based on objective standards and administrative review equivalent to the approval process for site-built homes;
  • Prohibits a municipality from imposing more restrictive standards on manufactured and modular homes than the municipality imposes on site-built homes;
  • Prohibits certain municipalities from imposing minimum square footage requirements for residential units in the approval of residential dwelling unit construction permits;
  • Requires certain entities to submit to the Colorado water conservation board (board) a completed and validated water loss audit report pursuant to guidelines that the board shall adopt;
  • Allows the board to make grants from the water efficiency grant program cash fund to provide water loss audit report validation assistance to covered entities;
  • Allows the board and the Colorado water resources and power development authority to consider whether an entity has submitted a required audit report in deciding whether to release financial assistance to the entity for the construction of a water diversion, storage, conveyance, water treatment, or wastewater treatment facility;
  • Prohibits a unit owners' association from restricting accessory dwelling units, middle housing, housing in transit-oriented areas, or housing in key corridors;
  • Requires the department of transportation to ensure that the prioritization criteria for any grant program administered by the department are consistent with state strategic growth objectives, so long as doing so does not violate federal law;
  • Requires any regional transportation plan that is created or updated to address and ensure consistency with state strategic growth objectives;
  • Requires that expenditures for local and state multimodal projects from the multimodal transportation options fund are only to be made for multimodal projects that the department determines are consistent with state strategic growth objectives; and
  • For state fiscal year 2023-24, appropriates $15,000,000 from the general fund to the housing plans assistance fund and makes the department responsible for the accounting related to the appropriation.
    (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced.)