If Prop 137 passes, sales tax money from sporting goods sales and rentals would go toward land conservation and fire mitigation programs. A ski tourist forgets to pack a pair of gloves and buys them here? That helps fund Colorado programs.

At its simplest, passing Proposition 137 (formerly Initiative 308) would use tax revenue collected from sales and rentals on sporting goods or recreation-related items specified in the initiative, and devote this revenue toward the following:

  • 47.5% to Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) Trust Fund (estimated about $83 million first year)
  • 47.5% to Colorado Wildfire Prevention & Water Fund (about $83 million first year)
  • 2.5% to Outdoor Equity Fund (about $8.7 million first year)
  • 2.5% to Outdoor Recreation Economic Development Cash Fund (about $8.7 million first year)

This ballot measure is statutory, not a Constitutional amendment, and would pass with a simple majority of 50% (plus one) or more. More specifics and numbers will follow.

Why Prop 137?

The organization Western Resource Advocates (WRA) says it “has been leading the charge” to get Prop 137 on the ballot and adopted. One of Prop 137’s designated representatives is Brandon Witt, a policy advisor with WRA, while the other, Aaron Citron, is a policy advisor with The Nature Conservancy.

This might not seem normal for people who spend most of their time in Boulder or Boulder County, with their well-funded Open Space departments and big percentages of open lands, but WRA states that nearly “80% of Colorado’s vast open spaces, rivers, and forests are virtually unprotected from threats.”

Per GOCO’s website, the organization has awarded grants resulting in “more than 5,900 projects across all 64 Colorado counties” that have some connection to open lands – land or habitat protection, trail projects, and more. Readers can click here to see a long list of GOCO-funded projects approved for areas in Boulder County.

With about $90 million in total revenue for 2024-25, an additional estimated $83 million should Prop 137 pass would obviously enable GOCO to award more grants on a yearly basis.

WRA also notes that climate change is making Colorado lands more prone to wildfire, but estimates including from Colorado’s State Forester, Matt McCombs, say the state could be facing very large financial shortfalls in funding wildfire prevention efforts. Readers might appreciate this story from the Steamboat Pilot where McCombs and other officials warn about the possible impacts of federal budget cuts to fire prevention efforts.

Per a State of Colorado analysis, wildfire protection efforts that Prop 137 might help fund “currently receive about $16.4 million annually from the state,” while relevant watershed restoration projects and water projects “currently receive about $5 million annually from the state.” Once again, revenue from Prop 137 would be a sizable increase for fire and water projects in Colorado.

How Would it Work?

Maybe not all readers will need to know the mechanisms for determining what items Prop 137 targets, but part of it will come from North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and North American Product Classification System (NAPCS) statistics, and product codes from the U.S. Economic Census Table. Notice the bold-faced words – Industry and Product. They’re different!

Should Prop 137 pass, the state would be directed to divide the total NAPCS dollar value in Colorado by the total NAICS dollar value for retail trade in Colorado, to determine the percentage of sporting goods retail relative to all retail. The state would also need to do basically the same with national statistics.

Then, the state would need to multiply product code percentages by gross annual sales in Colorado, to determine estimated revenue from sporting goods retail. This information would be used to estimate how much the four entities listed at the top of this page (GOCO, etc.) would receive in a given year.

By all means, read the entire initiative if you want more detail. But maybe readers don’t need to know much more on the retail front than that things like renting a bike or buying a pair of hiking boots in Colorado would help fund open lands, fire mitigation, water, and recreational programs in Colorado.

Opposition and Fiscal Challenges

The fiscal note for Prop 137 also says that passing it could lead to impacts on other areas of the state budget:

“In years where revenue subject to TABOR falls under the Referendum C cap, the measure will correspondingly reduce money in the General Fund available to save or spend. Wildfire and conservation revenue, and corresponding expenditures, may be reduced in FY 2028-29 and future years when exemption of the revenue results in a lower level of availability for certain state income tax credits allowed under current law.”

One of the key points about this ballot measure is it has a “deBrucing” component that, if passed, would exempt this revenue from Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) revenue retention and spending limits. Per the most recent state fiscal note, the initiative “is expected” to “exempt and distribute about $175.0 million per year beginning in FY 2027-28.” If revenue is not specifically “de-Bruced” or removed from the TABOR formula by voters like what Prop 137 does, the state might need to issue refunds if revenue exceeds a TABOR revenue cap.

Of course, actual tax revenue is prone to fluctuation alongside economic conditions. But by reclassifying this revenue in a way that even strong sales activity would not trigger mandatory TABOR refunds, it could provide outdoor recreation and wildfire/water programs with sizable boosts in funding.

There is an opposition group to 137 called Vote No on Prop 137, which claims the wildfire mitigation component of the initiative could “dramatically increase funding to expand logging across Colorado’s public lands. Tens of thousands of acres per year could be exposed to extractive and destructive land management practices.” It adds that they believe the money could be better spent on home hardening, and questions links between fuel reduction of dead trees and reduction of wildfire risk.

Proponents of 137 disagree with the opponents’ portrayal of the initiative being about “logging,” calling it “forest thinning” instead. Per the proponent website’s FAQ page: “ … forest thinning, as deemed appropriate for specific areas by land managers and wildfire experts … prioritizes the science-based removal of small, dead, or unhealthy trees in overly dense areas that are at high risk of catastrophic wildfire. Unlike logging, it’s important work that costs money rather than making it.”

Possible Impacts From Other 2026 Ballot Measures

The second paragraph in the section above touches on how passing Prop 137 might impact the General Fund. However, it’s fair to note that if voters pass Prop NN, Amendment 87, or both, there would be a lot of new money going to education. In addition, Amendment 87 is also designed to help fund healthcare and childcare – to the tune of perhaps $2 billion per year between the three general programs.

Also, passing Prop NN would increase the amount of revenue that the State of Colorado government could retain and spend, compared to the current TABOR cap. Prop 137 also removes its specific source of revenue from the TABOR formula. It’s not certain that NN will pass or fail, but if it passes it could forestall some state budget cuts that might otherwise be necessary.

Proponents: The committee “Protect Colorado’s Land and Water, Prevent Wildfires” has registered in support of Prop 137.

Opponents: The committee “Protect Colorado’s Land, Communities, and Tax Dollars” has registered in opposition to Prop 137.

Prop 137 Pro:

  • Public land protection can be expensive, and 137 would help make certain purchases or user improvements possible
  • Colorado has been very prone to bad wildfires, and it’s possible that things might still get worse with climate change. 137 would help fund wildfire mitigation efforts.
  • It’s appropriate for revenue from sporting goods-related retail and rentals to be used on outdoor programs and open land protection.
  • Colorado has a big tourism industry, and tourists typically desire well-maintained or well-preserved open lands.
  • Visitors to Colorado will probably help fund these programs with their sales taxes, since they often need gear or want to rent toys while they’re here.

Prop 137 Con:

  • While 137 is not technically a tax increase, it could decrease the size of future TABOR refunds, and people might want to use these refunds on other needs
  • The ballot measure could take money from state General Fund needs in certain years, by requiring revenue to be devoted to the four organizations listed in Prop 137.
  • Some opponents question whether wildfire mitigation might include extensive logging or unnecessary fuel reductions.
  • Some people are not in favor of more public land protection, in part because it could remove land from being available for development or from tax rolls.

Links to More Information:

Richard’s Take

I’m leaning “yes” on Prop 137,  but it’s a lean and not undeniable support because I see possible significant pluses and minuses.

First, the pluses. Colorado very fortunately still has wide expanses of public or open lands, but if lands are not formally protected, they could be at risk for development or damage. GOCO has done amazing work over the years protecting open lands, and funding through Prop 137 would absolutely help them perform that mission even better into the future.

It’s fairly common that sales tax revenue gets used for purposes with some logical connection to the goods being sold. For example, marijuana taxes might be used for regulatory or public health programs. All four programs specified for funding through Prop 137 could be seen as quite directly relating to how people plan to use the products they’re buying or renting. So, I think it’s an appropriate ask to consider using revenues in these ways.

But on the other hand, the main issue I have with Prop 137 is that it could in certain years reduce revenue available to the state General Fund. It’s not possible for me to say what programs or services wouldn’t get the funding they might need, but the state’s General Fund expenses include important items like education, healthcare, public safety, and human services, among others. Plus, the legislature had to make deep cuts to the state’s budget in 2026, and it’s tough to say this situation might improve in the near future. But readers might keep in mind that if Prop NN and/or Amendment 87 pass, they could provide a lot of money for education and other programs – far more than Prop 137 involves.

I have criticized a number of past ballot measures that devoted state money toward certain programs without adjusting for the likelihood that some other important budget item might need to get cut. Just a few years ago, voters approved a completely arbitrary $350 million mandatory expenditure for law enforcement, a ballot measure that did not come with additional revenue for the program and whose proponents did not seem to care whose budget the money would have to come out of.

Still, since moving to Colorado (and yep, contributing to its growth) I’ve been a very strong advocate for protecting open lands. Stop me if you’ve heard this before, but I want much of Colorado to continue looking and feeling like Colorado. If we can accomplish strong protections, we in turn protect Colorado’s plant and animal species plus its environment, and to some extent its economy because we rely quite heavily on tourism – and many tourists also want to experience a Colorado that looks like Colorado.

Sometimes in life you have to choose between competing decent choices, and I feel it would be a legitimate and defensible choice to choose Prop 137 if that’s what any reader likes. Plus, it’s statutory, which makes it easier to adjust at some point if adjustment seems necessary. But I can’t offer a full-fledged “no matter what” endorsement because there could be impacts elsewhere in a state budget going through tough times.