Coloradans are being told that Senate Bill 26-098 (State and Local Noise Abatement Authority) is about “local control.” That it simply allows cities to set their own standards. That it restores certainty.

But here’s what they’re not telling you: SB26-098 is about pollution – and about weakening more than 50 years of statewide public health protections to benefit for-profit corporations.

Noise is pollution. In 1971, bipartisan majorities in the Colorado Legislature passed the Noise Abatement Act (NAA), declaring that excessive noise is a form of environmental pollution that threatens the serenity and quality of life in our state. For more than five decades, that law has guaranteed every resident – regardless of zip code – a minimum level of statewide protection.

Pollution does not stop at city limits. Sound travels. It crosses property lines and municipal boundaries. Neighborhoods in Colorado Springs are living proof.

Ask yourself:

If Chevron asked for “local control” over greenhouse gas emissions at oil and gas wells, would we agree?

If a mining company asked for “local control” over toxic discharges into rivers, would we consider that reasonable?

Of course not. Environmental safeguards exist to prevent a race to the bottom. Statewide standards ensure that basic protections apply equally to everyone.

SB26-098 would create exactly that kind of loophole – but for noise pollution. It would allow for-profit commercial entities to bypass statewide maximum permissible noise limits that have protected families for more than 50 years. This is not a grassroots effort to empower neighborhoods. It is a special-interest attempt to carve out an exemption from long-standing environmental law.

What’s often left unsaid is that Colorado already provides meaningful local flexibility.

Under the current Noise Abatement Act, municipalities and nonprofits are exempt from statewide limits. That’s why Denver-owned Red Rocks and nonprofit-owned Fiddler’s Green operate under local standards. Public entities can co-sponsor events and accept responsibility for their impacts. That balance – statewide minimum protections with public accountability – has worked for decades.

In 2025, the Colorado Supreme Court unanimously affirmed this structure in the Hobbs decision. The Court cautioned against creating an exemption that “swallows the rule.” SB26-098 risks doing exactly that.

By extending exemptions to private, for-profit operators, the bill would make statewide noise limits effectively optional wherever a commercial venue secures local approval. If statewide standards can be bypassed so easily, they cease to function as meaningful protections.

The consequences are not academic.

In Colorado Springs, families living in pre-existing neighborhoods near the Ford Amphitheater – including a wheelchair-bound mother raising an autistic son, a 100% disabled veteran, teachers and retirees – have experienced relentless, invasive noise. These residents are not trying to shut down concerts. They are asking that statewide law be followed and that noise be reduced to lawful levels.

They are currently relying on the Noise Abatement Act in court. If SB26-098 passes, it would change the rules in the middle of that dispute, effectively pulling away the legal protections residents have relied on. That sets a dangerous precedent: when compliance becomes inconvenient, change the law.

Colorado Springs and Salida are not isolated cases. If this bill becomes law, it signals that statewide environmental safeguards are negotiable when commercial interests apply pressure. Other communities may soon find themselves facing similar impacts.

For more than 50 years, Colorado has guaranteed a baseline level of protection from excessive commercial and industrial noise. SB26-098 would

replace that certainty with a patchwork system where protections depend on local politics and corporate leverage.

This debate is not about opposing music or economic growth. Colorado can have thriving entertainment venues and strong environmental protections. The current law already allows that balance.

The real question is whether statewide protections should apply equally to everyone – or only until a powerful interest seeks an exemption.

Once a statewide safeguard is weakened for one industry, it becomes easier to weaken it again. That is how environmental protections erode.

Colorado can support business and protect families at the same time. We do not need to sacrifice one for the other.

Dave Donelson represents District 1 on Colorado Springs City Council.