FundingProposed statute
The question: Would Proposition 137 fund commercial logging?
It funds forest health and wildfire risk reduction programs, not commercial logging.
The measure directs revenue to named forest-restoration and wildfire-risk funds, rather than specifying commercial-logging projects. Its findings expressly mention traditional forest products and biomass energy. The text does not establish a logging quota or rule out all tree cutting; project eligibility and approvals require the existing program rules and actual project decisions.
Our explanation · Sources checked October 6, 2026
The evidence
2 excerpts“PROMOTES FOREST HEALTH AND FOREST RESTORATION PROJECTS; AND ENCOURAGES THE USE OF WOOD FOR TRADITIONAL FOREST PRODUCTS AND BIOMASS ENERGY;”
Page 1, proposed §24-77-110(1)(f), legislative findings
Colorado Secretary of State
Initiative #308: final filed text“WITH THE STATE FORESTER TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT TO BE CREDITED TO EACH FUND;”
Page 7, proposed §24-33-119(3)(a), forest-program split from 2028–29
Colorado Secretary of State
Initiative #308: final filed textHow to read this
The forest-service allocation goes to the Forest Restoration and Wildfire Risk Mitigation Grant Program cash fund and the Healthy Forests and Vibrant Communities fund. The first-year rules use the same pair after the one-time prescribed-fire claims transfer. The findings describe purposes; the allocation provisions distribute revenue between funds. Neither is a list of approved logging contracts.
What to keep in mind
These provisions do not justify saying that no money could support tree removal or wood products, or that all forest funding must support commercial logging. Whether a particular commercial operation qualifies requires a program-specific review. A funding destination alone does not establish a treatment’s effectiveness or guarantee funding for home hardening.