Transcript Highlights:

• HRS chapter 6E, sections 43, 43.5, and 43.6, in the 1990 legislature.
• </c><01:36:55.400><c> three</c> in Maui um we do support section three in Maui um we do support section
• Basically, the first section of the bill states this is natural beach restoration.
• </c><01:50:59.480><c> three</c> the park to take the lead section three the park to take the lead section
• <02:17:50.479><c> um</c> Section um.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Committee on Water and Land met on March 13, 2025, and first announced that SB 1456 would be deferred to the end of the agenda and ultimately worked on later, with the chair indicating the bill would be deferred and revisited in a future measure. The committee then heard SB 841 on marine life conservation districts. DLNR supported the bill, saying it would fund carrying capacity studies to inform rules and policies. Testimony noted a pilot study already underway at the Puka Marine Life Conservation District and another nearing completion at the old Kona Airport MLCD. Members discussed costs, with DLNR estimating about $300,000 per year for one user-experience study, potentially more for ecological analysis, and also discussed possible funding from the Mālama Kai special fund. DLNR said it had no objection to consulting current operators and other users, and explained the program would be a new, ongoing adaptive-management tool. The committee next heard SB 411 on capital improvement projects at small boat harbors. DLNR supported the intent, saying the bill would help expedite use of special funds for CIP work, while the Department of Budget and Finance opposed it, arguing the draft could conflict with constitutional limits on appropriations. Public testimony from an industry representative supported the bill and urged more collaboration with commercial operators, while committee discussion focused on whether DLNR could already use special funds for repairs, how much engineering and bidding work is required before projects go out to bid, and whether the current process creates bottlenecks when bids exceed initial estimates. DLNR said it can do some repairs and maintenance within existing authority and funding ceilings, but that the bill as drafted could be too broad. The committee also heard SB 5 on historic preservation, where DLNR supported the measure and NAOP Hawaii opposed it, saying the bill’s broader definition could expand the scope beyond the stated goal of narrowing reviews and reducing backlog. The committee then took up SB 1462 on the state historic preservation income tax credit. The Department of Taxation said the revenue estimate assumes the cap would be reached each year the credit is available, and DLNR supported the bill. SHPD said the prior credit had sunset, outreach had previously been done in targeted communities such as Chinatown, and owners of eligible historic properties are notified during review. Finally, the committee heard SB 268 on island burial councils. DLNR supported the bill, and OHA strongly supported it, saying the councils have struggled with quorum and expertise and that the measure would restore the original intent of having lineal descendants and cultural practitioners as decision makers, while still allowing landowners and developers to testify and participate. OHA also said it would help provide technical support and urged continued involvement from SHPD and the Attorney General’s office.

Transcript Highlights:

• If you look on page five, line 25, this is the repealer section.
• In this section we repeal Revised Statute 30:1104.2.
• One, ownership is an inalienable right in Article I, Section 1.
• Pipeline expropriations is done under Section B4.
• Is that included in that section?

Summary: The House Natural Resources Committee met on House Bill 7 by Speaker Pro Tem Johnson, the Louisiana Landowners Protection Act, which would remove eminent domain authority for carbon capture and geological sequestration projects. After housekeeping and roll call, the committee adopted a set of technical amendments that cleaned up definitions, removed a stray statutory reference, and changed “commissioner” to “secretary.” The author then gave an extended presentation arguing the bill was needed to align Louisiana law with the state constitution’s property-rights protections and recent court rulings, and to ensure carbon capture projects proceed only through voluntary agreements rather than forced takings. Several members questioned the author and supportive witnesses about whether the bill would stop carbon capture, affect oil and gas pipelines, or disrupt investment. The author and supporters said it would not stop projects, only prevent taking land without consent, and argued that landowners—especially small and rural owners—should not face the threat of expropriation. Supportive testimony also emphasized family land, inheritance, and constitutional limits on takings. Some members raised concerns about changing the rules after prior legislative action and about the economic importance of carbon capture, but the author responded that the legislature had made a mistake in 2020 and should correct it now. Opposition testimony came from representatives of the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, the Louisiana Chemistry Association, and attorneys who handle right-of-way matters. They argued that eminent domain is a rare last resort, that existing law and the Landowner Bill of Rights already protect owners, and that the Constitution’s provisions for private-entity expropriation are different from the provisions discussed by the bill’s supporters. They warned that removing the tool for carbon capture would chill investment, threaten jobs and revenue, and could spill over into other energy infrastructure. The committee did not reach a final vote on the bill in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• ><c> that</c><00:20:01.360><c> the</c> section four um clarifies that the section four um clarifies that
• Section two, which is lines 18 through 26, and section three, lines 27 to the end, are again language
• Um section two, up with a conflict.
• </c><00:24:47.840><c> 7119</c> law 11921 section 7119 law 11921 section 7119 2025.<00:24:51.760><c> Um
• </c><00:25:13.679><c> Um</c> severability uh section. Um severability uh section.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There might be some other section of law or some other standing in law.
• of the bill, can you tell us the section of the bill, the page?
• Is the freedom of speech section the only part that you think is vague in that section?
• page</c><01:03:17.920><c> four</c> vague in that section that's page four vague in that section that's
• What about that section do you find confusing or vague?

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We urge you to report this bill favorably out of committee, but today I'm going to focus on sections
• However, the change should be codified as section 11 of this bill proposes.
• In particular, I want to highlight sections 33 to 42.
• All right, and the main point I have is concerning Section 17 of this bill.
• This section deals with the publicity for these credits.

Bills: H5085, H5286

Keywords: poverty alleviation, family support, economic mobility, youth transition, financial education, matched savings, community programs, Department of Children and Families, DCF, child abuse investigation, child neglect, pediatrician, advanced practice registered nurse, medical misdiagnosis, rickets, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, osteogenesis imperfecta, vitamin D deficiency, bone fragility, child welfare

Summary: The Joint Committee on Children, Families, and Persons with Disabilities held a hybrid hearing on miscellaneous bills, including H. 5286, which would require DCF to consult a medical professional when a parent presents evidence of a pre-existing diagnosis that could explain symptoms mistaken for abuse or neglect. Representative Brian Mario said the bill would give DCF another tool in difficult cases. Jennifer Fernandes testified about her family’s experience with her grandson being removed after doctors initially suspected a skull fracture that later proved unfounded, saying the bill could help prevent similar outcomes. Committee members expressed sympathy and indicated interest in further discussion. The committee then heard extensive testimony on H. 5085/S. 3095, the omnibus “An Act Significantly Alleviating Poverty.” Supporters described the bill as a comprehensive anti-poverty package built from the Poverty Commission’s work, combining higher cash assistance grants, matched savings, baby bonds, a guaranteed stipend for youth aging out of foster care, expanded tax credits, language access, clean slate record sealing, and worker protections. Senator Eldridge, Senator Miranda, Representative Decker, and many advocates argued that poverty is tied to housing instability, child welfare involvement, health harms, and racial and gender inequities, and that the bill would help families meet basic needs, build wealth, and reduce the benefits cliff. Witnesses from social service, legal aid, labor, immigrant advocacy, and public health groups strongly supported the bill’s provisions. Several focused on specific sections: child support pass-through and a broader good-cause exception for TAFDC recipients; extending the state EITC to ITIN filers; creating baby bonds and matched savings programs; automating criminal record sealing; improving language access at state agencies; and ending the subminimum wage for farm workers. Former foster youth and service providers said the guaranteed stipend would help young adults avoid homelessness and transition more safely into adulthood. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the chairs repeatedly noted the limited time and encouraged written testimony and follow-up conversations.

Transcript Highlights:

• To begin with, if you have your copy of the committee sub out on section five, Sorry, Mr. Chairman.
• uh with within that uh that a section uh with within that uh that aspect<00:03:12.239><c> of</c><00:
• Also in section five, uh any bill.
• Also on U section 17, it facility.
• And then uh finally section 26 is that.

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• 6—speak at Section 6—but anyway, reauthorizations, we're going back, Mr.
• This bill to help correct it and make it a better bill deletes all of Section E on page four.
• Section E.
• Section E or most, yeah, all of Section E. Is that correct? Yes, Mr. Speaker and gentlelady.
• All of Section E. So, Mr.

Bills: HB111, HJR1, HB61, HB8, HB30, HB43, HB156, HJM2, HM7, HM17, HM4, HM22, HM23, HM24, HM26, HM2, HM16, HM11, HM14, HM21, HM34, HM50, HB70, SB3, HJM3

Keywords: water law, state engineer, civil penalty, compliance order, water rights, overdiversion, illegal diversion, groundwater storage and recovery, well license, permit violation, water enforcement, New Mexico water code, irrigation district, conservancy district, water diversion, unauthorized water sales, measuring device, district court appeal, water resources, water compliance

Transcript Highlights:

• Section 56 of the bill allowed that. Yep, absolutely.
• Turn to section 2 on the next page.
• **Greg Owens.** Turn to section 2 on the next page.
• **Greg Owens.** Section 3a on page 6 lists the premium rates.
• Section 3B provides information...

Bills: SB1, SB 1

Keywords: appropriations, budget, state funding, education, healthcare, infrastructure, campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• President Pro Tem Stewart and members of the Senate, pursuant to Article 4, Section 5B2 of the New Mexico
• requiring the public posting of Interstate Commission bonds, laws, rules, and minutes, enacting new sections
• President Pro Tem Stewart and members of the Senate, pursuant to Article 4, Section 5B2 of the New Mexico
• Pursuant to Article 4, Section 5B2 of the New Mexico Constitution, I am authorizing for your consideration
• the provision of loans made pursuant to the Allied Health Student Loan for Service Act, repealing sections

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• message number one: President Pro Tem Stewart and members of the Senate, pursuant to Article Four, Section
• , requiring the public posting of Interstate Commission bylaws, rules, and minutes, enacting new sections
• Number two: President Pro Tempore and members of the Senate, pursuant to Article 4, Section 5B2 of the
• Pursuant to Section 5B2 of the New Mexico Constitution, I am authorizing for your consideration during
• Repealing sections of the NMSA 1978. Making an appropriation. Senate Bill 14.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill has two sections.
• The first section makes it a violation of Section 112, the Florida Code of Ethics, for anyone who is
• Section 2 of the bill, Mr.
• The first section does expand the commission's jurisdiction regarding stolen valor.
• The second section is something that was recommended by the committee.

Summary: The Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs, Space, and Domestic Security met with a quorum and took up two bills. First, it heard SCS for SB 348, which would make it an ethics violation for a public official, candidate, or appointee to falsely claim military rank or honors for material gain, and would also require withholding delinquent ethics fines from the paychecks of current public officials or employees after 90 days. Senator Gates presented the bill, the Florida Commission on Ethics supported it, and members discussed the wage-withholding process. The committee voted the bill favorably. The committee then considered SB 400, which removes the repeal date from Florida’s participation in the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children, making the compact permanent unless later repealed by the Legislature. Senator Wright explained that the compact helps military families with school transitions, and a representative from Foundation for Florida’s Future waived in support. The committee voiced support and voted SB 400 favorably. After completing both measures, the committee had no further business and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• You don't amend uh the policy section.
• And so if you have the the section.
• ,</c> reasonable accommodation uh section, reasonable accommodation uh section, which<01:54:01.599><c
• It is the public policy section of the statute.
• It is the pole section of the statute.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> specifically was looking at um section specifically was looking at um section 666,<00:01:59.920>
• </c><00:07:02.240><c> 853</c> removal of the section 853 removal of the section 853 uh<00:07:04.720><
• </c> section.
• This is an outof-date section section.
• Add a new paragraph, definitions, beginning of the new section for purposes of this section.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on several bills related to bribery and public corruption. On SB 2249, which would increase penalties for bribery under certain circumstances, the Honolulu Prosecutor’s Office and Honolulu Police Department supported the measure, arguing that Hawaii’s current class B felony penalty is probationable and too weak to secure cooperation in corruption cases, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Snyder decision narrowed federal bribery prosecutions. The Public Defender opposed the bill, arguing that elevating bribery to a class A felony and making it non-probationable was excessive, overbroad, and would remove judicial discretion. Multiple individuals also testified in support. Committee members questioned the prosecutor about removing deferred acceptance of plea provisions and asked HPD about the $20,000 threshold; the prosecutor said alternative charges could still be used in plea bargaining, and HPD said the threshold aligns with first-degree theft. The committee also discussed how current law tolls the bribery statute of limitations while an official remains in office, with the prosecutor explaining it can extend up to six years total. The committee then heard SB 2494, which would set a nine-year statute of limitations for bribery offenses. The Public Defender opposed the extension, saying the justification based on the length of federal investigations was too broad and that bribery already has a longer limitations period than most felonies. The Honolulu Prosecutor’s Office supported the bill, saying bribery cases often involve coordination with federal investigators, that federal and state evidence-gathering methods may differ, and that a longer period would help ensure admissible evidence and allow state prosecution when federal law no longer applies. Members asked whether there were public examples of cases lost to the current limitations period; the prosecutor said he was not aware of any publicly available examples, but maintained nine years was a reasonable period. The committee also considered SB 2737, which would create a misdemeanor for failure by a state or county elected official to report bribery. The Department of the Attorney General offered comments and suggested changing the term to “public servant” for consistency with existing law. The Honolulu Prosecutor’s Office supported the intent but warned the reporting requirement could create Fifth Amendment issues for witnesses who might otherwise be useful in grand jury proceedings. The bill drew broad public support, with 33 supporters and no opposition noted. Finally, the committee took up SB 3071, which revises sex trafficking and promoting prostitution statutes by redefining “profits from prostitution” and adding an affirmative defense for certain lawful transactions. The Public Defender opposed the measure, saying it still could reach people without the required criminal intent and that the affirmative defense language could be applied unevenly. The Attorney General and Honolulu Prosecutor supported the bill, saying it better addresses concerns raised by the State v. Ibarra decision while closing loopholes that allow traffickers to disguise profits as loans or gifts. The prosecutor emphasized that traffickers are sophisticated and can structure transactions to evade current law.

Transcript Highlights:

• Section 1, line 8, that is the opt-in section for public schools, and they will be automatically in the
• Section 2 is $325,000. Section 2 is $325,000. I don't see a number in Section 3.
• What Section 1 does is, under current law, there's a section of the Century Code that requires any sale
• It's Section 1. It says at the top.
• And then it goes on to section one on page three, with— And then it goes on to section one on page three

Bills: HB1623

Keywords: HB 1623, North Dakota, rural health, rural health transformation program, medical facility infrastructure loan fund, medical facility infrastructure loan program, rural health loan program, Bank of North Dakota, Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, federal grant, health care infrastructure, rural hospitals, critical access hospitals, nonprofit health care providers, gap financing, loan fund, public health funding, healthcare financing, Medicaid

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 1624, the “Universal Lunch Bill,” from Rep. Mike Nathie. He argued the proposal should be placed in Century Code rather than the Constitution so future legislatures can adjust it if state finances tighten, and said the bill would start the program a year earlier with a $65 million appropriation for one school year. DPI testified that the estimate did not include nonpublic schools that do not participate, and members questioned the impact on Title I, free-and-reduced applications, private-school accountability, breakfast mandates for schools that do not currently serve breakfast, and whether the funding could come from the DPI budget or other sources. Supporters, including North Dakota United, the North Dakota Catholic Conference, a pediatrician, and the American Heart Association, said universal meals improve student health and learning, reduce family costs, and are better handled in statute than by constitutional amendment. No opposition testimony was offered, and the chair closed the hearing for later work-session action. The committee then took up House Bill 1627, introduced by Rep. Tye Dressler, which would raise the income threshold for the state-funded school lunch program from 225% to 300% of poverty, with an estimated cost of about $7 million for 2026-27. Dressler said the bill is intended as a targeted, budget-friendly alternative to the ballot measure and emphasized that the state should maximize federal meal dollars while improving participation in the current program. Members questioned whether raising the threshold would actually increase utilization, whether a dollar amount would be clearer than a percentage, and how the change would affect federal reimbursements and application rates. DPI said it could quickly calculate additional percentage levels, and the chair closed the hearing, directing DPI to prepare more numbers for the work session. Finally, the committee opened Senate Bill 2403, presented by Sen. Schiable, to create a short-term bridge-loan program for financially distressed hospitals, centered on Jacobson Memorial Hospital in Elgin. The bill would authorize up to $5 million per loan, with a $10 million appropriation available on a first-come, first-served basis, and would run only through June 30, 2027. Schiable said the hospital’s debt and operating problems threaten local health care, ambulance service, and the community’s economy, and that the proposal was designed narrowly with Bank of North Dakota review to avoid creating a broad precedent. Committee members asked whether the appropriation could be reduced and whether the bank would still apply commercial feasibility and repayment standards; Schiable said yes, the bank would still evaluate the loan and could reject it if it was not sound.

Transcript Highlights:

• for that reason we recommend amending the bill to remove section one on page one.
• for that reason we recommend amending the bill to remove section one on page one.
• </c> effectuate the purpose of the section effectuate the purpose of the section and<01:42:02.080><c>
• will be deleting section one of the bill, but moving the other sections on, and it already has an effective
• The recommendation is to pass with amendments. section of the bill is either 90 days um section of the

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Housing Committee heard testimony on several housing-related bills. On SB 26, SD 2, relating to affordable housing, the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development explained a prior transit-oriented development study that identified roughly 59,000 possible units and about 25,000 affordable units from known projects, and said the bill would help fill gaps by evaluating additional public lands for housing suitability and possible co-use with existing facilities. Members asked about the need for resources and staffing to do that work, and OPSD said it would need time and consultant support to carry it out. Testimony on the bill included support from state and county housing agencies and comments from planning and land use entities. On SB 66, SD 2, relating to housing and historic preservation review, SHPD and OHA both testified. SHPD said the bill would not override existing burial-site protections and that county staff with proper qualifications could make historic-property determinations locally, while OHA asked for clearer language requiring consultation when Native Hawaiian historic sites are involved and clearer procedures if an adverse effect is found. Committee members and SHPD discussed whether the bill should explicitly preserve existing Chapter 6E processes, whether counties have qualified staff, and how quickly a county would have to decide if it cannot complete the review itself and must use a third-party reviewer. Supporters said the measure could speed permitting and keep decisions local; one opponent argued it could rush approvals and strain infrastructure. The committee also heard support from housing, construction, business, and food-industry groups, and opposition from some preservation and community advocates. The committee then heard SB 332, SD 1, on foreclosure-related protections, with testimony focused on Lānaʻi and concerns about speculative real estate after the foreclosure moratorium ended. SB 414, SD 2, on restoring access to disaster-affected areas, drew support from HHFDC, DHS, and the Maui Chamber; HHFDC noted DOH plans for a temporary paved access road to the Kayola temporary housing site and said agencies were discussing which parcels would be needed. On SB 102, SD 2, relating to affordable housing and third-party historic review, SHPD said it would need to do more upfront screening and that the bill’s timelines and third-party provisions should be clearer; OHA said the measure should include a sunset and better staffing, and asked that the department fill positions to meet review demand. No votes or final committee actions were reported in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• House Bill 2048, an act amending Section 13-3602, relating to orders of protection and process service
• House Bill 2611, an act amending multiple sections of the Arizona Revised Statutes, relating to child
• The Committee on Rules recommends section 8-26-11. Mr.
• House Bill 2837, an act amending Section 9462.08 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, relating to state,
• Senate Bill 1168, an act amending Sections 32-1213, 32-1231, 32-1232, 32-1237 of the Arizona Revised

Summary: The Senate opened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and a roll call, then approved the journal and spent much of the early session on personal privilege remarks, guest introductions, and proclamations. Recognitions included Arcadia High School’s 2026 state championship boys basketball team, the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists, Diné College and Navajo sovereignty/Indigenous higher education, Motorcycle Safety and Awareness Month, and Route 66’s centennial. The chamber also honored Senator Lela Alston for her long legislative career and retirement, with remarks from colleagues and a musical tribute after recess. The Senate then moved into Committee of the Whole and considered three House bills. HB 2048, dealing with orders of protection and process service, was amended and recommended do pass. HB 2398, concerning watercraft insurance requirements and penalties, was amended after debate over a floor amendment exempting some infrequent boat rentals; the amendment was adopted over opposition from Senator Epstein, and the bill was recommended do pass as amended. HB 2611, relating to child welfare and group home safety, was amended with changes requiring DCS reporting and standards for group foster homes, and was also recommended do pass as amended. On third reading, the Senate passed HB 2198, HB 2434, HB 2764, HB 2772, HB 2837, HB 2868, HB 2906, and HB 2996, with HB 2772 drawing a 17-9 vote after Senator Gonzales objected that it could affect emergency responders seeking driver’s licenses from patients. HB 2868 passed 25-1, HB 1668 passed 25-1, and the rest passed unanimously or near-unanimously. The Senate also concurred in House amendments to SB 1168, SB 1254, and SB 1668, then passed SB 1168 and SB 1254 on final reading and sent them to the Governor; SB 1668 also passed final reading and was sent to the Governor. The chamber then recessed.

Transcript Highlights:

• Penal Code Section 220 is assault with intent to commit rape.
• So I referenced Penal Code Section 220 as well as the opposition.
• And there's more in that section.
• And there's more in that section.
• Section 2A, quote, 'the defendant was convicted pursuant to felony murder.'

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So the eligibility changes in Section 1 will not impact the state budget until fiscal year 2030, when
• The rate changes in Section 2 of your chart are for illustrative purposes only, as we don't yet have
• Sections 3 and 4 show the impact of the attendance policy change, with only centers impacted in 2027
• Section 5 removes the enhanced regional rates and will save about $15.5 million per year beginning in
• And finally, Section 6 repeals the requirements. million per year beginning in fiscal year 2027.

Bills: HB2689, SB5832, SB5922, SB5944, SB5988, SB6151

Keywords: Working Connections Child Care, child care subsidy, subsidized child care, Washington DCYF, Department of Children, Youth, and Families, low-income families, child care providers, licensed child care centers, family child care, market rate survey, subsidy rates, income eligibility, state median income, SNAP, Basic Food, collective bargaining, provider reimbursement, daily payment, half-day care, partial-day care

Transcript Highlights:

• Section 566, which are sex offenses, and then repeat offenses.
• And then the other section is when... ...on the negligence of a parent.
• What my amendment does is on page 8, lines 110 through 118, it deletes that section, so it would be sections
• And then in section 15, it would be endangering the welfare of the child in the first degree.
• So really the problem is Section 211.031 is a really broad section of the juvenile court system.

Summary: The House first established a quorum after a brief call of the board and then recognized several guest delegations, including a Kansas City Hispanic Day at the Capitol group and later visitors from Grandview, Pagedale, Bolivar, and a fire service leadership program. After that, the chamber took up House Bill 2498, a juvenile justice measure focused on more oversight in serious juvenile cases, expanded data sharing through the MULES system, and changes to certification procedures for certain felonies and repeat offenses. Members debated whether adding prosecuting attorneys to the certification process was appropriate, whether the bill would expand juvenile certification, and whether the bill’s original parent-liability provisions could harm foster placements; those liability provisions were ultimately removed through amendment. The bill was then adopted as amended. The House also considered House Committee Substitute for House Bills 2637 and 3155, described as a “transparency in sentencing” bill. Supporters said it would make sentencing and parole eligibility clearer by setting minimum time-served percentages in statute, while critics argued it would mostly raise minimums, especially for lower-level felonies, without truly increasing transparency. Members discussed changes to dangerous felony treatment, sex offenses, trafficking, prior commitments, and how time served would be certified at sentencing. The committee substitute was adopted and ordered perfected and printed. Finally, the House recommitted House Committee Substitute for House Bills 2780 and 2668 to the Special Committee on Property Tax Reform for further work, with members agreeing more hearings and revisions were needed. The chamber then moved to announcements, including committee meeting notices and a Black History Program invitation, and adjourned until the next day.

Transcript Highlights:

• and also describes any section reorganization that was incorporated to improve the logical flow.
• I am the Stream Channel Protection Section Manager for the Idaho Department of Water Resources.
• The handout 370307-01 is a crosswalk that describes major section changes relative to the current rule
• and also describes any section reorganization that was incorporated to improve the logical flow, remove
• describes major section changes relative to the current rule.

Keywords: 989, all