Transcript Highlights:

• We're looking at the use of the groundwater itself, but we will be regulating the public water supply
• So do GCDs currently regulate brackish water or is it mainly freshwater or is anything underground?
• Adam: I mean, they have the ability to regulate brackish water.
• And I guess if you decided to regulate, you would have to compare the cost of the amount of water you're
• That regulation created the water market and ability to manage the resource for the long-term sustainability

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• water.
• And we know that because we do regulate other pesticides in water, and we find them all the time in drinking
• water supplies.
• And we know that because we do regulate other pesticides in water, and we find them all the time in drinking
• water supplies.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill relates to the regulation of hazardous materials disposal.
• And low regulations.
• They want to take power away from the unelected bureaucrats that are regulating our economy.
• HB 1094 by Lambert, relating to the regulation of transportation protection agreements.
• Compliance agreement for the suspension of enforcement action against regional water supply, sewer water

Bills: HJR99, HB1399, HB1400, HB 1094, HB365, HB 1109, HB647, HCR35, SB14, HB 12, HB1522, HB422, HB675, HB204, HB748, HB912, HJR99, HB1399, HB1400, HB 1094, HB365, HB 1109, HB647, HCR35, HCR123, HCR124, HR57, HR87, HR111, HR228, HR230, HR322, HR624, HR625, HR626, HR627, HR628, HR630, HR631, HR634, HR635, HR636, HR637, HR638, HR639, HR640, HR645, HR646, HR648, HR649, HR651, HR652, HR653, HR654, HR664, HR665, HR668, HR675, HR676, HR678, HR679, HR680, HR683, HR686, HR688, HR689, HR694, HR695, HR697, HR698, HR699, HR472, HR622, HR632, HR633, HR643, HR655, HR657, HR660, HR661, HR662, HR663, HR667, HR670, HR674, HR681, HR682, HR696

Keywords: animal feed, tax exemption, ad valorem taxation, retail, constitutional amendment, retail sale, tangible personal property, Texas tax code, groundwater, water conservation, financial assistance, Texas Water Development Board, innovation fund, local conservation districts, transportation protection agreement, funeral services, insurance exemption, regulation, deceased transportation, HB 365

Transcript Highlights:

• As backgrounds and discharges to surface waters are regulated under both the federal and state Clean
• Water Act, while discharges to groundwater are regulated only under state water quality laws.
• But at a minimum, what this bill does is say the state should comply with these strict water regulations
• But at a minimum, what this bill does is say the state should comply with these strict water regulations
• water supply, discharge of effluent, air pollutant emissions, and the use and disposal of regulated

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 2343, which would require the Department of Fish and Wildlife to obtain CAFO or individual discharge permit coverage for its game farms, and to treat game farms with at least 5,000 birds as large CAFOs. The prime sponsor and local officials from Centralia said the WDFW pheasant farm has contributed to nitrate contamination in a critical aquifer, affecting drinking water and public health, and argued the state should be held to the same standards as private operators. WDFW testified that it has already voluntarily secured the permit the bill would require and is working with Ecology and local partners. Testimony from county health and residents largely supported the bill, citing elevated nitrate levels and health risks, especially for infants and pregnant people. The committee then heard House Bill 2301, which expands Washington’s paint stewardship program to cover additional paint-related products, aerosol paints, and certain non-industrial coatings. The sponsor and industry supporters said the existing paint recycling program is working well and should be broadened to keep more materials out of landfills and reduce local hazardous waste costs. Local government witnesses supported the expansion but asked for changes on convenience standards, packaging coverage, and reimbursement for local collection costs. Ecology supported the overall concept but raised implementation concerns, including the need for uniform standards, full reporting, and more time for rulemaking. A wood preservatives industry representative opposed including wood preservatives, saying they are not paint and have different handling requirements. The committee also took testimony on House Bill 2515, a proposed substitute addressing emerging large energy use facilities, defined mainly as large data centers and virtual currency mining facilities. The bill would require utilities to adopt tariffs or policies to protect other ratepayers, require long-term contracts, demand response or curtailment provisions, reporting on energy and water use, and new clean energy targets for these facilities, while also changing how no-cost allowances under the Climate Commitment Act are allocated and creating an annual fee for the facilities. Supporters, including environmental groups, community action agencies, some utilities, and labor and tribal representatives, said the bill would protect ratepayers, improve transparency, and keep Washington on track for climate goals. Opponents, including data center and business groups, some ports, and several labor organizations, argued the bill is too prescriptive, could raise costs or discourage investment, may affect existing contracts and other large industrial loads, and could reduce construction jobs. No votes or final actions were taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• water use here and permit water use in the state.
• Department of Health regulates what the water standards are for reuse of water, having uh run into that
• </c> the water reuse I know that uh our water the water reuse I know that uh our water use<00:45:20.599
• </c> have different agencies that regulate have different agencies that regulate water<00:45:40.040><
• of Health regulates what the water<00:46:49.440><c> standards</c><00:46:49.960><c> are</c><00:46:50.240

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• One of the tasks of the bureau that I administer is to regulate public water systems in the state and
• But again, we don't take a position because it's not going to modify how we regulate water systems.
• water systems but modify how we regulate water systems but I<04:20:09.439><c> just</c><04:20:09.520>
• </c><04:22:09.720><c> Water</c><04:22:10.000><c> Systems</c> affect um how you regulate Water Systems
• affect um how you regulate Water Systems which<04:22:10.680><c> I</c><04:22:10.800><c> think</c><04:

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 332, a bill to add protection and remediation of surface waters as a new authorized purpose for New Hampshire village districts. Prime sponsor Rep. Rosemary Rung said the bill is intended to give local voters in lake communities a voluntary tool to address cyanobacteria blooms and other water-quality problems through village districts, including the ability to raise revenue, adopt ordinances, and pursue treatments or watershed management measures. She emphasized that the proposal is meant to complement, not replace, state law and that any district action would still need to comply with existing permitting and environmental requirements. Supporters, including Andrea Laro of New Hampshire Lakes and Elizabeth Harper of the Lake Sunapee Protective Association, said the bill would help municipalities collaborate on lake protection when state resources are limited. They argued that local districts could bring subject-matter expertise, access grants and technical assistance, and respond more quickly to problems such as septic impacts, runoff, culvert repairs, and in-lake treatments. They also suggested clarifying the bill’s wording around “protection and remediation” to better define the scope of authorized activities. Opponents, including Steve Wolf and Chris Norwood of the New Hampshire Association of Realtors, argued that village districts can already be overly broad and sometimes expand beyond their original purposes. Wolf said existing town and state agencies already handle shoreline protection and warned that village districts can impose ongoing taxes and create governance problems. Norwood urged a study bill instead, citing concerns about the scope of village districts and examples where some districts have taken on planning and zoning powers beyond their original mission. No vote or final action on HB 332 was taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><01:04:48.880><c> opening</c> regulate how much water you're opening regulate how much water you're
• And for the most part, the state Safe Drinking Water Act and the associated regulations are 95% federal
• </c> near and far from water. near and far from water.
• >> So, you're going to create a patchwork of regulations and rules around any water body.
• </c> regulations and rules around any water regulations and rules around any water body.<01:59:58.000

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• . out of water, but have not taken on the responsibility of regulated water usage and controlling water
• We've discussed that surface water and groundwaters are regulated separately. but often are connected
• going to ground water. water.
• law. types of water, surface water and ground water.
• Licensing and regulation, which regulates the water well drillers, and it also gets filed, I believe,

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So we'll probably be able to understand very quickly, soon, what is water, what's not water, and what
• To control discharges of pollutants to surface waters including treated produced water in the oil and
• Produced water is waste water generated during oil and gas extraction and is most commonly.
• Discharge of treated produced water into surface waters, the Railroad Commission of Texas. currently
• The uses of treated produced water must meet water quality standards established by the Commission to

Bills: SB766, SB290, SB494, SB1145

Keywords: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, water regulation, environmental protection, pesticide management, natural resources, LP-gas, property owner notice, gas installations, safety notification, petroleum theft, task force, oil and gas, law enforcement, economic impact, environmental regulation, water permits, water quality, land application, 1185, senate

Transcript Highlights:

• This is where a lot of the water pollution statutes would be, as well as septic system regulation; Chapter
• This is where a lot of the water pollution statutes would be, as well as septic system regulation; Chapter
• This is where a lot of the water pollution statutes would be, as well as septic system regulation; Chapter
• This is where a lot of the water pollution statutes would be, as well as septic system regulation; Chapter
• This is where a lot of the water pollution statutes would be, as well as septic system regulation; Chapter

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• every year on water, of course it's on water supply and...
• every year on water.
• on water supply and water quality.
• can slow down the water.
• We also have a program called Our Water, Our Water, Our... beyond water quality or anything else, you're

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on flood risk and flood management in California, with opening remarks emphasizing that flooding is a statewide and growing threat due to climate change, including the possibility of extreme losses in a worst-case event. Members noted recent flooding in places such as San Diego, the Tulare Basin, and Pajaro, and framed the hearing as a way to better understand prevention, response, and how to capture excess water for later use. Jeffrey Mount of PPIC gave the main overview, describing California’s high flood exposure, the different flood types the state faces, and the mix of structural and non-structural tools used to manage them. He stressed that levees, dams, bypasses, land-use planning, flood insurance, and emergency response all matter, but that risk is rising because current standards are based on past hydrology rather than future climate conditions. He also warned that flood management is underfunded, that the National Flood Insurance Program is weak, and that federal support is increasingly uncertain. Members asked about groundwater recharge, permitting, NOAA and federal cuts, and which communities are most at risk; Mount said recharge can help but does not eliminate flood risk, and that small Central Valley communities and heavily developed floodplains are especially concerning. State officials Laura Hollander of the Department of Water Resources and Jane Dolan of the Central Valley Flood Protection Board described the state’s role in forecasting, emergency response, grants, planning, and the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan. They highlighted aging infrastructure, the need for better coordination, and the state’s special liability in the Central Valley after the Paterno decision. Dolan reviewed the history of major floods and said the plan calls for about $1 billion per year over 30 years to meet current needs, while Hollander said the state works with local and federal partners on preparedness, response, and subventions projects. Both emphasized that floodplain planning, regional coordination, and faster permitting are important, but that more consistent funding is needed. A later panel from local flood agencies and districts reinforced those points, arguing that the state’s annual flood funding is below identified needs and that a proposed statewide flood and dam safety bond was reduced substantially in the broader climate bond package. Witnesses urged more routine maintenance funding, support for regional flood planning, and continued federal-state-local partnerships to reduce risk and maintain eligibility for federal assistance. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the informational hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• or burdensome regulations. regulation.
• That's called push water.
• I'm not. a water engineer.
• But so when you say push water, that push water is for Delivery or push water on row crops?
• you've got Basically water is the vehicle to move more water.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• HB 5057 by Landgraf relates to exclusive regulations.
• HB5396 by Rosalynn relates to Licensing and Regulation but lacks additional context.
• Committee on Environmental Regulation.
• HB5599 by Isaac relates to water conservation.
• To boil water notices issued by public drinking water supply systems for the Committee on Natural Resources

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I asked my produced water team, what is the volume of this water?
• and water reuse.
• However, if the water...
• to our soil and our water.
• To be clear, House Bill 3866 does not seek to regulate public drinking water standards.

Bills: SB3074, HB49, HB2440, HB3556, HB3619, HB3866, HB4042, HB4112, HB4271, HB4413, HB4426, HB5033, HB49

Keywords: SB 3074, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Water Code, permit applications, environmental permitting, administrative record, ex parte communications, legislative communications, governor, lieutenant governor, state legislators, district projects, public records, recusal, conflict of interest, substantial interest, agency transparency, environmental regulation, permit renewal

Transcript Highlights:

• It burned a lot of the houses and the brand-new water pipe and everything for a water district outside
• Given this, how is the State Water Board looking to fund clean drinking water infrastructure?
• , Eastern Municipal Water District, and Santa Margarita Water District, in strong support.
• , Eastern Municipal Water District, and Santa Margarita Water District in strong support.
• The Water Board has the authority to regulate and move ahead on the Bay-Delta, and the decision was made

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• of water but have not taken on the responsibility of regulated water usage and controlling water waste
• But I will mention briefly surface water, which is regulated through the legal doctrine of prior appropriation
• So we've discussed that surface water and groundwater are regulated separately, but often are connected
• We've got Brushy Creek Water... going to supply water to you and their own water wells.
• It's Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, which regulates the water well drillers. Okay.

Summary: The committee held a hearing on high-capacity groundwater wells proposed in Anderson, Henderson, and Houston counties, with members framing the issue as one of local water supply, fairness, and the need to modernize groundwater law while protecting private property rights. Opening remarks focused on the scale of the proposed Redtown Ranch and Pine Bliss projects, the potential export of tens of thousands of acre-feet of groundwater annually, and concerns that the applications lacked sufficient technical detail and could harm nearby landowners, cities, agriculture, and manufacturing. Members also noted the broader context of the recent flooding tragedy in central Texas and the Legislature’s intent to address water-related loss of life in the upcoming special session. Witnesses from the Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts and the Texas Water Development Board explained the current groundwater management framework. They described groundwater conservation districts as the state’s preferred management method, the role of groundwater management areas and desired future conditions, and how the Water Development Board uses those conditions to calculate modeled available groundwater. They emphasized that districts rely on local data, monitoring wells, and planning processes, but that information is often more limited in areas without a district, where the rule of capture applies. Members pressed witnesses on recharge rates, export permits, subsidence, the effect of pumping on nearby wells, the age and real-time availability of model data, and whether the proposed project would exceed modeled available groundwater in some counties. TCEQ explained its limited oversight role over groundwater conservation districts, including inquiries, compliance actions, and, in extreme cases, dissolution authority. Water Development Board staff also outlined funding programs, saying the New Water Supply for Texas Fund is limited to projects such as brackish desalination, reuse, ASR, and other new-supply projects, and does not fund fresh groundwater exports alone. They said the project at issue had not applied for board funding. A water lawyer then testified on the rule of capture, ownership in place, and district regulation, arguing that districts must use permitting and other tools to manage production within modeled available groundwater and that the Legislature could consider additional authority over groundwater exports under current law.

Transcript Highlights:

• It burned a lot of the houses and the brand-new water pipe and everything for a water district outside
• Given this, how is the State Water Board looking to fund clean drinking water infrastructure?
• , Eastern Municipal Water District, and Santa Margarita Water District, in strong support.
• , Eastern Municipal Water District, and Santa Margarita Water District in strong support.
• The Water Board has the authority to regulate and move ahead on the Bay-Delta, and the decision was made

Summary: The Senate Committee on Rules first handled several routine actions, including approving three governor’s appointments not required to appear: Anthony Surich as Executive Director of the California Housing Finance Agency, Craig Snelling J.D. to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, and Nicholas Mueller to the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission. The committee also approved referral of bills to committees, all by 4-0 votes. It then took up appointments requiring testimony, beginning with Jereen DiAdamo to the State Water Resources Control Board. DiAdamo focused her remarks on safe drinking water, groundwater sustainability, conservation, and Bay-Delta restoration. She said the number of Californians without safe drinking water has fallen from 1.6 million to 800,000 since 2019, credited the SAFER program, technical assistance, and mandatory consolidation authority, and described ongoing work on failing and at-risk systems, domestic well mitigation, SGMA implementation, and the Bay-Delta Plan. Senators pressed her on audit follow-up, measurable goals for reducing the remaining unsafe systems, funding uncertainty, and concerns from environmental and tribal groups that the board has favored water users over ecosystem protections. Supporters from water, agriculture, business, and local agencies praised her collaborative style and consensus-building, while opponents argued she had not done enough to protect the Delta and called for new leadership. The committee ultimately voted 4-0 to advance her appointment to the full Senate. The committee then heard from Sivagunda Gunda for reappointment to the California Energy Commission. He highlighted progress on grid reliability, zero-carbon generation, and planning for California’s energy transition, including transportation fuels, building electrification, and the eventual retirement of Diablo Canyon. Senators questioned him about the future of Kern Energy and small refineries, the state’s transportation fuels plan, fuel imports and costs, and whether California can retire Diablo Canyon by 2030 without harming reliability. Gunda said the state is planning as if Diablo Canyon retires in 2030, that current resource additions make reliability manageable, and that affordability and market coordination remain key issues. The committee then voted 4-0 to advance his appointment to the full Senate, and the hearing recessed afterward.

Transcript Highlights:

• Nothing in this section is added regulation.
• water and wastewater systems and their operators.
• , kind of shallow water flow, correct?
• water was part of the consideration.
• Because we have the local water... Because we have the local water resource districts. Yes.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee first approved the December 3 minutes, then heard a request from the Board of Clinical Laboratory Practice to amend its proposed rule on exempt test methods to add certain closed-system DNA/RNA tests, including rhinovirus. After testimony explaining that the board had considered late comments from BioMérieux and wanted the rule record to reflect that review, the committee agreed to a limited amendment and passed the motion unanimously. The Department of Agriculture then outlined broad rule updates affecting dairy, eggs, poultry, pesticides, animal health, environmental mitigation, and the Egg Product Utilization Commission. The commissioner said the changes mostly clarified existing requirements, updated references, and reduced some burdens, such as easing dairy hauler training/licensing timing and clarifying out-of-state grade A milk language. Members asked about dairy industry decline, the APUC scoring system, and the rationale for the milk-hauler and out-of-state milk provisions. The State Board of Dental Examiners presented extensive rule changes tied to recent legislation and workforce issues, including a new professional health program for dentists, expanded duties for assistants and hygienists, broader local anesthetic authority for hygienists, and fee increases to fund the program and cover administrative costs. Testimony from Dr. Edward May strongly supported the professional health program based on his own recovery experience. The committee also heard from Game and Fish on rules easing some guide/outfitter experience requirements, allowing electronic exams, and modifying boating safety equipment rules, with no public comment and no fiscal impact. Later, Health and Human Services received approval for an extension to update tattoo/body art rules and a separate motion to repeal an obsolete nurse aide training chapter. HHS also described nursing facility rule updates, lodging sanitation revisions, and related clarifications on licensing, safety, pest control, and fire requirements. The Department of Environmental Quality received an extension for septic-system installer rules, and also presented rules for above-ground storage tanks and water/wastewater operator certification, including new fees and third-party testing options. The Industrial Commission’s oil and gas division described multiple rule changes, some withdrawn after comments, including drilling unit flexibility, site stability, wildfire authority, and streamlined transport/reporting procedures. Finally, DPI began presenting several rule packages, including school construction loan limits, school bus standards, cooperative agreements, special education rules for public charter schools, and new math curriculum and intervention requirements.

Transcript Highlights:

• Water purification.
• The regulations are the regulations, and he will not change them. Okay.
• Our coastal waters.
• into sub-water sheds near less.
• Our board has adopted regulations to prevent the further decline of water quality by requiring denitrification

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee hearing covered several bills related to environmental, natural resources, and maritime issues. Representative Markey testified in support of H. 1000, which would create a commission to study financing wastewater infrastructure, especially in southeastern Massachusetts and the South Shore, citing combined sewer overflows and impacts on aquaculture. Members agreed the core challenge is finding long-term financing for wastewater solutions. The committee also heard testimony on H. 902 to establish an Office of Outdoor Recreation, with supporters describing its role in expanding access, supporting underrepresented communities, and helping grow the outdoor economy. Related testimony also supported H. 986, which would codify the Division of Ecological Restoration and the Office of Fishing and Boating Access within the Department of Fish and Game, with witnesses emphasizing habitat restoration, flood reduction, public access, and boating/fishing opportunities. A major portion of the hearing focused on H. 901/S. 597, “An Act Providing Nature for All,” which would dedicate existing sporting goods sales tax revenue to a new conservation fund. Supporters from Mass Audubon, Environmental League of Massachusetts, Appalachian Mountain Club, Trust for Public Land, Massachusetts Rivers Alliance, and conservation groups argued the bill would provide a sustainable revenue stream for land conservation, parks, trails, wetlands, water protection, and climate resilience, while also advancing environmental justice and outdoor recreation. They said the state needs roughly $300 million more per year to meet land conservation goals and that the bill could generate about $100 million annually without raising taxes. Committee members asked about balancing conservation with housing and development, and witnesses said the goals are compatible and that the bill includes safeguards. Witnesses also noted similar funding models in other states. The hearing also included H. 1053, a bill to create a Merrimack River Collaborative. Regional planning and watershed advocates said the river faces bacterial contamination, heavy metals, combined sewer overflows, and other pollution, and that a formal collaborative would help coordinate municipalities, state agencies, and nonprofits across the watershed and possibly across state lines. Another bill, H. 4109, would relocate harbor lines in New Bedford Harbor to allow reconstruction of deteriorating bulkheads at a waterfront industrial site; the New Bedford Port Authority, engineers, and the property owner said the change is needed for permitting and would support port modernization and jobs. Finally, the committee heard extensive testimony on S. 641 regarding marine pilotage in New Bedford. Supporters argued the bill would remove a District 3 pilotage restriction and improve port flexibility and offshore wind operations, while opponents warned it would undermine the state’s compulsory pilotage system, weaken safety, and allow ship owners to shop for pilots. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• water.
• And we know that because we do regulate other pesticides in water, and we find them all the time in drinking
• water supplies.
• And we know that because we do regulate other pesticides in water, and we find them all the time in drinking
• water supplies.

Summary: The committee heard AB 1603, which would restrict new PFAS pesticides from being registered in California and add transparency requirements for pesticide use reporting. The author and supporters argued PFAS are persistent, harmful chemicals that contaminate water, soil, and food, and said the bill would reduce future contamination and public health costs. Supporters included environmental and public health groups, water agencies, nurses, teachers, and local governments. Agricultural and chemical industry groups opposed the bill’s registration ban, arguing California already has strong pesticide review, that the measure could limit future safer formulations, and that it could raise costs and reduce farmers’ access to pest-control tools. Committee members raised questions about affordability, water contamination, and the role of state versus federal regulators; the author said the bill was needed because existing regulation is too slow and incomplete. No vote was taken because the committee lacked a quorum. The committee then heard AB 2635, the Just Transition for Landscapers Act, which would create voucher programs and other support for landscapers transitioning from gas-powered to electric equipment, while limiting penalties and adding privacy protections. The author and supporters said many landscapers are low-wage immigrant workers who cannot afford the upfront cost of electric equipment and should not be punished for complying with local air-quality rules. Air district representatives and other opponents said the bill could be too prescriptive, could divert limited air district resources, and could create administrative and language-assistance burdens; one air district moved to neutral after amendments. Committee members discussed the health benefits of electric equipment and the need to avoid placing penalties on workers. The bill was held pending a quorum. The committee also heard AB 1732, which would extend CEQA streamlining to public university and community college housing projects. The author, UC student representatives, and the University of California said the bill would help address student housing insecurity and speed construction on already planned campus sites. There was no opposition. The committee then took up AB 1744, the Clear Labels, Clear Seas Act, which would prohibit sunscreen products marketed as reef safe or reef friendly from containing certain chemicals that harm marine ecosystems. The author said the bill is a transparency measure, not a ban, and the committee expressed support; no opposition appeared. Additional bills discussed included AB 2152, which would streamline CEQA review for fire station projects and was supported by firefighters and local governments but opposed by contractors over a project labor agreement requirement; AB 2231, which would streamline two hospital projects in Santa Clara and Emeryville and drew broad support with no opposition; AB 2410, which would create temporary CEQA and Coastal Act exemptions for wildfire fuel-reduction projects and drew support from counties, cities, utilities, and fire officials but opposition from Sierra Club California over the breadth of the exemptions; and AB 2234, which would update geothermal exploratory project rules to reflect newer technologies, supported by clean power advocates and opposed or opposed-unless-amended by utility groups concerned about impacts on existing geothermal operations. Several of these measures were discussed with amendments, but votes were deferred where a quorum was not yet present.