A Colorado House committee has advanced a bill aimed at restricting the construction of a controversial fence near Culebra Peak in the San Luis Valley, but the measure has drawn opposition from ranchers concerned about property rights.

House Bill 1023, which passed out of the House Agriculture, Water, and Natural Resources Committee on Monday, is specifically tailored to address fencing issues within the Sangre de Cristo land grant. This land grant, covering one million acres, was originally awarded in 1844 by the Mexican government to settlers and was later reaffirmed by the Colorado government in 1993.

Under the proposed law, anyone seeking to "install or substantially repair a contiguous fence of a certain size" within the land grant area would need to obtain local government approval. The permitting process includes a $1,200 fee, though an amendment added Monday allows for this fee to be waived.

The fence at the center of the debate stretches between 16 and 26 miles and stands eight feet high, depending on differing accounts. It is located on the 77,000-acre Cielo Vista Ranch, owned by Texas oilman William Harrison. For decades, Harrison and the descendants of the original settlers have been locked in a legal dispute over land access, a battle that predates his ownership and spans over 70 years.

In 2002, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in favor of the descendants, affirming their communal rights to the land. However, tensions persist.

State Representatives Matthew Martinez, D-Monte Vista, and Assistant Majority Leader Jennifer Bacon, D-Denver, presented HB 1023 to the committee.

Bacon highlighted the land grant's historical significance, noting that for the past 40 years, the state has grappled with how to honor communal land use rights. She referenced the 2002 court ruling, which upheld those rights under a legal doctrine known as "prescriptive easement." This concept allows continued access when a certain use has been established over a long period—in this case, over 180 years.

Martinez expressed concerns about the fence's impact, citing environmental and ecological disruptions, including soil erosion from heavy machinery and flash flooding. He emphasized the barriers the fence creates for wildlife, preventing herds from migrating naturally. Additionally, he stressed that the community has historically used the land for hunting, fishing, firewood gathering, and cultural and religious ceremonies.

A key question remains: What does the bill mean for the existing fence?

Martinez stated that the current owners never sought proper permits for its construction, meaning the fence is technically incomplete. Witnesses testified that Harrison intends to extend it by 90 miles to enclose roughly 100 bison on his ranch. However, critics argue that an eight-foot-high barrier is unnecessary for bison containment.

During the hearing, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, who visited the area last summer, voiced support for the bill. He described the community’s frustration, noting that many residents feel powerless in the face of the ongoing legal battle.

"It's not fair to call it a fence," Weiser said. "It's a 20-mile wire grid," large enough to prevent elk and deer from crossing. Comparing it to a high-security facility, he remarked, "It’s a state prison fence."

Weiser insisted that the issue is not about restricting private property rights but about ensuring fair land use.

Dr. Joseph Quintana, a retired physician and longtime resident, described the fence as a "nightmare" for his community. "It's impenetrable" to anything larger than three inches, he said.

Quintana further explained that the fence has disrupted traditional land use and altered wildlife migration patterns. "The community is horrified and baffled," he said, emphasizing that local authorities have spent substantial resources battling the issue. "We are no match for a billionaire."

He also warned of potential dangers in the event of a wildfire. He pointed to the 2018 Spring Creek Fire, which burned over 100,000 acres and started near Fort Garland, just 17 miles away, raising concerns about how such fences might impact fire management.

Despite the community’s strong opposition, no representatives for Harrison attended Monday’s hearing.

Republican committee members raised concerns about the bill’s potential effect on private property rights. However, Weiser argued that this situation is distinct due to the historical nature of the land grant.

"The ranch owner does not have unfettered rights to the property," Weiser asserted, explaining that nuisance exemptions apply when an action negatively affects water resources and wildlife. He reiterated that the case is unique and does not set a broad precedent.

At the request of Colorado Parks and Wildlife, an amendment was added to regulate fencing height. It mandates that the lowest wire or rail must be at least 16 inches above the ground, ensuring that smaller animals can pass underneath.

In the end, HB 1023 passed the committee with an 11-2 vote and now moves to the full House for further consideration.