The Colorado House voted to kill Senate Bill 14-093, which would have granted eminent domain rights to oil pipeline companies. The House’s action came at the request of the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Jenise May (D-Aurora), who asked that the bill be “laid over” to May 9, two days after the 2014 session concludes, a technical move that ends any further action on the bill.

It’s unclear whether the bill’s supporters will get another chance to get another bill on the issue introduced with less than 35 days left in the 2014 session. However, the bill’s industry sponsor may have another problem to deal with: the possibility of an ethics complaint lodged against him for threatening political retaliation against a House member who worked to kill the bill.

SB 93 would have overturned a 2012 Colorado Supreme Court decision that ruled that oil pipeline companies did not have the right to take private land for purposes of locating petroleum pipelines. The bill passed the Senate on February 27 with a 24-10 vote; the “no” votes included Sen. Greg Brophy (R-Yuma).

On March 13, SB 93 squeaked through the House Judiciary Committee on a 6-5 vote, but with three of the six who voted “yes” stating they wanted to see the bill further amended on the issue of local government control. SB 93 was scheduled for second reading debate in the House on April 4.

May said Thursday she had three amendments that would have made the bill better. One amendment would have reaffirmed the right of county or municipal governments to review oil pipeline location plans before the company goes out to landowners to seek easements or rights of way. Another amendment would have allowed landowners to hire independent assessors to appraise the land’s value, at the pipeline company’s expense. A third amendment would have required the companies to provide notice to the county governments that they were planning to seek petroleum pipeline locations.

May attributed much of the rancor over SB93 to incorrect information on its intent. She said people had called or emailed House representatives, claiming the bill was about fracking. “When perception becomes reality, it becomes hard to overcome,” she said, noting that SB93 had nothing to do with fracking.

May said she had not talked to the Colorado Petroleum Association, the industry sponsor, about making one last attempt this session. However, House Majority Leader Dickey Lee Hullinghorst (D-Boulder), one of the bill’s major House opponents, said she questioned whether another attempt would get a different result.

The amendments would have done little to protect landowners, according to Andy Karsian of Colorado Counties, Inc., which opposed SB 93. Karsian told this reporter that neither he nor anyone else in opposition was ever invited to the table to talk about what might have improved the bill on behalf of landowners.

The bill’s biggest fight in the House came from Rep. Joe Salazar (D-Thornton), who readied 22 amendments designed to kill the bill for the April 4 debate. Salazar earned kudos for his efforts from landowners who testified against SB 93 in the Judiciary committee last month. That included Larry Frasco of Merino, who also said if there were another attempt he would be there to fight it.

But Salazar’s opposition earned him heat, both from his own party and from the petroleum industry. Becky Long of Conservation Colorado, in an email to SB 93 opponents Thursday, revealed that Salazar had been “threatened by industry.”

Salazar confirmed that threat Thursday and recounted the incident. He said that Wednesday, a lobbyist claimed that Salazar was “abusive” to the lobbyist’s witnesses who testified in favor of SB 93. Salazar responded that he had only asked them “the tough questions.” According to Salazar, the lobbyist then said he would get the tapes from the hearing and use them against Salazar in his upcoming re-election, which Salazar said could be viewed as a threat of political reprisal, a violation of House and Senate rules. .

Salazar said this week that he is deciding about whether to file an ethics complaint against the lobbyist. Joint Rule 36(b)(1) of the House and Senate rules regarding lobbyist conduct states that lobbyists cannot “attempt to influence any legislator…by means of deceit or by threat of violence or economic or political reprisal.”

Salazar did not initially identify the lobbyist by name. However, on Friday he confirmed that the lobbyist is John “Jep” Seman, a contract lobbyist for the Colorado Petroleum Association. Seman has either testified or attended hearings on SB 93 and its previous iterations on behalf of the petroleum association. Last year, after an unacceptable amendment was placed on the 2013 version, and after conferring with Seman, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg (R-Sterling) asked the committee to kill the bill.

Calls for comment on the allegations to Stan Dempsey, the association’s president, were not returned. Seman also turned down an opportunity to talk.

Salazar said his opposition to SB 93 wasn’t about “party or politics. This bill had an adverse effect on people and landowners” and he “empathized with the landowners of northeastern Colorado, regardless of party affiliation.” He said the threat from the lobbyist is indicative of the behavior of some of the petroleum pipeline companies. “It shows the heavy-handedness of how they operate, and it supports what the landowners said about how heavy-handed they were in using the threat of condemnation to get people to accept low-ball offers.”

“I’m sure [the lobbyist] didn’t issue [the threat] lightly,” Salazar said. “Let them bring it. I did the right thing.”

Donna Larson, a co-plaintiff in the Supreme Court decision, was elated with the bill’s demise, the second year in a row that the bill has come to an end in the House. “I feel there is so much work to be done on this bill to create situations where eminent domain is appropriate, but only with regard to public safety and just compensation, which is not happening at this point.” Larson suggested that a taskforce be formed, with all sides represented, to hammer out those appropriate situations. She was less than thrilled with the possibility that the bill might come back, but said they would continue to fight.

Frasco said he didn’t know how the bill’s defeat would affect ongoing negotiations with Tallgrass Energy, which is attempting to place oil pipelines in Logan County. The day after the Judiciary committee hearing, landowners met with Tallgrass representatives and Frasco said some signed an agreement for the pipeline. “Most of us had signed up because of a condemnation letter [from Tallgrass],” Frasco said, and he explained that the agreements could be overturned only by going to court. “We would like [the ability to] negotiate without the threat of condemnation,” Frasco said this week.

In other news at the capitol this week:

The annual Long Appropriations Bill, House Bill 14-1336, is in the Senate this week. Amendments prepared in advance of Thursday’s second reading debate focused largely on reducing the negative factor for K-12 education funding. Republicans offered eight amendments on increasing dollars to the State Education Fund for base funding for K-12, ranging from $4.3 million to about $17 million. However, none of those amendments were accepted by the Senate.

Sen. Kevin Lundberg (R-Berthoud) also tried to resurrect an effort to audit the Colorado health exchange, with an amendment to put $175,000 into the state auditor’s office for that purpose. At the request of the state auditor, the Legislative Audit Committee sponsored a bill to require a performance audit of the exchange. But that bill, HB 1257, carried in the House by Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg (R-Sterling), was shot down last week by a Senate committee.

Once it passes the Senate, the Long Bill goes back to its sponsors, the Joint Budget Committee, to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions and then final re-passage by both the House and Senate. The budget bill provides $23 billion for operations of state government in 2014-15.

Next Wednesday, April 9, the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee will review House Concurrent Resolution 14-1001, which would ask voters to redraw House boundaries so that each county is its own district. Sonnenberg is the measure’s sponsor; he acknowledges that the resolution is not likely to pass but said he wanted to give residents of northeastern Colorado an opportunity to speak their minds on the issues facing rural Colorado. The hearing begins at 1:30 p.m.