Colorado committee advances bill to raise agricultural overtime threshold to 56 hours amid heated debate

A divided House Agriculture, Water and Natural Resources Committee on April 7 advanced Senate Bill 121 to the Committee of the Whole after a lengthy hearing that drew robust testimony from farmworkers, labor and immigrant‑rights advocates, producers and county officials.

Sponsor Representative Briana Martinez said SB121 is designed to be a narrow, pragmatic fix amid multiple economic pressures on Colorado agriculture. The bill would set a 56‑hour overtime threshold statewide for agricultural employees — replacing the current regime that generally requires overtime after 48 hours except for highly seasonal employers (who may use a 56‑hour threshold during 22 peak weeks). "This bill proposes to streamline the process at 56 hours," Martinez told the committee, describing the change as a small adjustment intended to protect both producers and workers in hard years.

Proponents — many of them farmers, local chamber groups and county officials — said current overtime rules have prompted employers to cut hours, rotate crews or otherwise limit work during peak windows, which in turn reduced some workers’ seasonal earnings. John Salazar, a San Luis Valley grower and former agriculture commissioner, said his operation pays salaries to retain workers but that some family farms operate on razor‑thin margins and risk closure because of rising fuel, fertilizer and labor costs. "If we don't get a significant amount of moisture, it may not matter — but this slight adjustment could be the difference for some family farms," Salazar told the committee.

Grower witnesses argued that agriculture’s seasonality and narrow harvest windows make the industry different from a standard, year‑round 40‑hour workplace. Several producers described using H‑2A programs or seasonal hiring; growers in fruit and vegetable production said payroll can account for a high share of operating costs and that forcing overtime pay at a lower threshold discourages granting additional hours during short harvest windows.

Opponents, including labor groups, immigrant‑rights organizations and worker advocates, argued SB121 would roll back hard‑won rights and worsen health, safety and inequality. Dennis Daugherty of the Colorado AFL‑CIO and Christopher Nurse of the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition urged a no vote, saying overtime exists to protect worker health, spread jobs and prevent overwork. Paula Schreefer of Spring Institute and Valerie Collins of Torch Justice highlighted worker testimony describing long hours, unsafe conditions and fear of retaliation if workers speak up. "Rolling back overtime protections will only deepen instability for farm workers and the food system as a whole," Collins said.

Several witnesses asked for better data. CSU extension staff presented an employer survey showing high payroll cost shares and tactics employers use to avoid overtime (reducing hours, shifting crops, substituting H‑2A workers), but extension staff acknowledged the employer survey had a limited sample and that comprehensive worker‑level data is still needed.

Committee members pressed both sides on evidence and consequences. Questions focused on whether cuts in worker hours are caused by overtime rules or by external factors such as drought, tariffs, commodity prices and input costs — or by a combination of those pressures. Representative Story repeatedly emphasized the racial history of agricultural exclusions and argued a 56‑hour standard would deepen inequality and public‑health risks tied to very long workweeks.

After sponsor closing remarks, Representative Martinez moved SB121 to the Committee of the Whole; the committee voted to advance the bill by a roll call of 10 yes and 3 no. Supporters argued the change offers an immediate adjustment to help small family farms and allow experienced seasonal workers to earn more in busy weeks; opponents warned the bill would institutionalize longer allowable working weeks and roll back recent gains in labor equity.

What happens next: SB121 moves to the Committee of the Whole, where members will have another opportunity to amend or debate the bill before possible floor consideration. Because the measure touches worker pay, enforcement and long‑standing labor policy, advocates on both sides said they expect further legislative scrutiny and possible negotiations.

Sources: Committee testimony, employer survey presented by CSU Extension, and roll call during the Agriculture, Water and Natural Resources Committee hearing on April 7.