Bills: HCR54, HCR79, HCR87, HCR94, HCR104, HB1209

Keywords: migratory waterfowl, hunting regulations, flooded crops, wildlife management, environmental impact, hunting, Kisatchie National Forest, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, deer hunting, dogs, conservation, hunting heritage, federal regulations, Senator Kennedy, wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, legislative support, environment, protective measures, boating safety

Transcript Highlights:

• “Senator Lambert put back in the bill, including CC size, a 351 engine on the airboat, which Wildlife

Bills: SCR54, SCR59, HCR5, HCR62, HCR78, HCR86, HB595, HB688, HB802, HB841, HB1161, HB1171, HB1189, HB1248, HB1258

Keywords: Mississippi River Basin, fishery commission, invasive species, sustainability, economic impact, red drum, fishing regulations, tournament permits, wildlife management, recreational fishing, flood management, FEMA, floodplain maps, environmental risks, Louisiana, flood insurance, risk assessment, community planning, seafood, commercial fishing

Bills: SB141, SB124, SB56, SJR116, SB94, SB37, SB127, SB197, SB66, SB70, SB133, SB160, SB214, SB312, SB52, SJR62, SJR75

Keywords: legal advertisements, tax rates, public hearings, transparency, local government, sick leave, education, teacher retirement, benefits, employee compensation, Medicaid, nonopioid analgesics, pain management, health care regulation, utilization controls, physician shortage, health care access, medically underserved areas, medical education, workforce development

Transcript Highlights:

• through an environmental relief process. through an environmental relief process.
• environmental review program of OP. environmental review program of OP.
• So all the other environmental triggers that would trigger a 343 for environmental reasons still exist
• So all the other environmental triggers that would trigger a 343 for environmental reasons still exist
• Recommendation adopted. um relating to environmental um relating to environmental assessments.<01:43:

Bills: HB1881, HB2218, HB1956, HB2151, HB1845, HB1844, HB2103, HB2424, HB1650, HB376, HB2599, HB1861

Keywords: land use, ropeway, transportation, state regulation, government exemption, DLNR, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Board of Land and Natural Resources, BLNR, public lands, public trust resources, community co-management, co-management agreement, community-based organization, Native Hawaiian, malama aina, ahupuaa, subsistence, cultural resources, religious practices

Summary: The committee on Water and Land met on February 10, 2026, with Chair Mark Hashem outlining strict testimony rules and noting a time constraint because of later hearings and floor session obligations. The committee then took up several bills, hearing mostly supportive testimony on HB 1881 relating to land use, HB 2218 relating to DLNR/community management, and HB 1956 relating to freshwater waves, while HB 1845 relating to the Land Use Commission drew legal concerns and opposition. HB 2151 relating to building materials had no substantive testimony presented in the excerpt, and the committee moved through it quickly. On HB 1881, testimony focused on protecting North Shore lands from overdevelopment. A supporter described the area as valuable precisely because it remains largely undeveloped, and a member asked whether the bill’s restrictions on “finculars” would affect existing or future private residential installations; the response suggested the bill was aimed at future commercial uses and that grandfathering or personal-use exceptions might be possible, but the exact wording would need legal refinement. HB 2218 received broad support from OHA, DLNR, Kua, Sierra Club, Hui Maka Aana, the Honlay Initiative, and others, who said the measure would expand community-based co-management across DLNR divisions, build on existing park partnerships, and produce real benefits such as better stewardship, safer access, local jobs, and stronger community trust. Members asked about the bill’s five-year review structure, how multiple community groups would be handled, and whether the model could apply to ocean or nearshore areas; DLNR said the board would retain authority, agreements would be non-exclusive and subject to review, and the department was still working through how the approach would function across different divisions and marine settings. For HB 1956, the Attorney General offered technical comments, urging clearer definitions of “residing” and “freshwater way,” clearer timing for citations and arrests, and more explicit procedural safeguards and agency roles. On HB 1845, the Attorney General and Land Use Commission raised concerns that the bill could conflict with constitutional protections for important agricultural lands and could not be reconciled with existing voting requirements; the LUC also said commissioners cannot vote by proxy under sunshine law and warned that the bill could allow too few commissioners to approve major boundary changes. Members questioned how the bill would work in counties without designated important agricultural lands, and the LUC explained that Kauai is the only county to have completed the IAL process, while the broader statutory process remains county-driven and has been the subject of litigation. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• We did not fare well in that draft environmental impact statement, but we knew that was coming.
• Again, this draft environmental impact statement is still a draft.
• The next version... ...The draft environmental impact statement is still a draft.
• What are the impacts, environmental impacts? What are the impacts on the people living there?
• These experiments are urging governments to legally prohibit... ...engineering.

Bills: HB2042, HB2052, HB2055, HB2056, HB2094, HB2098, HB2185, HB2328, HB2758, HB2798

Keywords: solar radiation management, environment, prohibition, Arizona Revised Statutes, public health, complaint process, Attorney General, groundwater management, water conservation, irrigation, water supply, brackish groundwater, water supply development, desalination, water infrastructure, financial assistance, environmental reviews, brackish water, groundwater, water resources

Summary: The committee first received an update from Arizona Department of Water Resources Director Tom Buschatzky on Colorado River negotiations and post-2026 operating rules. He described the legal framework governing Arizona’s allocation, argued that Arizona and the lower basin have already made substantial conservation cuts, and said the upper basin is pressing positions Arizona views as inconsistent with prior Supreme Court rulings. He emphasized the need to move water from upstream reservoirs to Lake Mead, warned of continued shortage risk, and said the state is seeking an equitable deal through ongoing federal and interstate negotiations. Members asked about outside water use, tourism and recreation impacts, and tribal water rights, including the Navajo-Hopi-San Juan Southern Paiute settlement. Buschatzky said the state’s delegation and bipartisan support have been helpful and urged continued public and legislative backing. The committee then heard House Bill 2758, which would expand McMullen Valley groundwater transportation authority and add related requirements and guardrails, including an amendment increasing the La Paz County transportation cap from 10% to 50% of the annual volume and adding conditions for sales or leases from historically irrigated acres. Supporters, including bill sponsor advocates, the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association, and the Home Builders Association, said the bill would create a lawful, regulated transfer option similar to the Harquahala model, support housing growth, and include oversight through hydrologic studies, pumping limits, and monthly reporting to ADWR. Opponents, including La Paz County Supervisor Holly Irwin’s statement, local residents, Sierra Club, and rural advocates, argued the bill would accelerate aquifer depletion, harm private wells and subsidence conditions, and benefit a New York hedge fund at the expense of rural communities. After debate, the committee adopted the Griffin amendment and then passed HB 2758 as amended on a 6-4 due-pass vote. The committee next took up House Bill 2098, which would modify bonding authority and public hearing notice requirements for county water augmentation authorities and allow local repayment agreements with WIFA. Pinal County Supervisor Stephen Miller and other supporters said the bill would clean up statutory language so the Pinal County Water Augmentation Authority can finance future water augmentation and infrastructure projects, including potential Bartlett Dam-related work, and better prepare for future Colorado River uncertainty. The Home Builders Association also supported the bill, saying it included proportionality protections for private utility water charges. The bill was moved for a due-pass recommendation and the committee proceeded to a roll call vote, with the transcript ending before the final vote result was shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• So you don't see any environmental implications of putting hydrogen in data centers or using it as a
• When the engineer speaks with lawyers, I feel like I'm at a disadvantage. I'm just not that smart.
• Rio, I have you registered as CEO of Milestone Environmental Services, Milestone Environmental Services
• Rio, you were registered as CEO for Milestone Environmental.
• Thank you. of Milestone Environmental Services.

Bills: HB3619, HB3652, HB4572, HB4891, HB4941, HB5103, HB5105, HB5106, HB5224, HB5600

Keywords: surface estate, well plugging, Railroad Commission, landowner rights, liability, strategic reserve, gas supply, petroleum products, disaster response, Railroad Commission of Texas, energy security, emergency planning, oil and gas waste, environmental regulation, waste management, mining pits, groundwater monitoring, regulation, commercial disposal facilities, environmental standards

Transcript Highlights:

• I think our engineering folks called me the policy nerd; I call them our engineering nerds.
• However, there are new environmental regulations for those pits, including monitoring, the floodplain
• So, with that said, I do want to state that there are clear new environmental obligations for operators
• We do think there are discussions about implementing some new environmental standards, correct, within
• Sure, I think when we look at both the obligation that operators engineer these pits under a different

Bills: HB3619, HB3652, HB4572, HB4891, HB4941, HB5103, HB5105, HB5106, HB5224, HB5600

Keywords: surface estate, well plugging, Railroad Commission, landowner rights, liability, strategic reserve, gas supply, petroleum products, disaster response, Railroad Commission of Texas, energy security, emergency planning, oil and gas waste, environmental regulation, waste management, mining pits, groundwater monitoring, regulation, commercial disposal facilities, environmental standards

Transcript Highlights:

• Wants to attend OU to study aerospace engineering. Let's give Jackson her hand, please. Next, Mr.
• SUCCo executive president and academic team captain, who wants to attend OSU to study mechanical engineering

Bills: HB2975, HB3405, HB3406, HB3728, HB3902, HB3977, SB397, HB1161, HB2938, HB2939, HB3306, HB3722, HB4113, HB4123, HB2293, HB3176, HB3545, HB3546

Keywords: poultry waste, nutrient management, environmental regulations, agriculture, water quality, pollution prevention, best management practices, noxious weeds, poison hemlock, kudzu, landowner responsibilities, environmental control, public nuisance, eradication, burn bans, fire danger, drought conditions, emergency declaration, scrap metal, regulation

Transcript Highlights:

• But the remaining segments are the most challenging, both in terms of topography, engineering, and also
• and environmental protection at its regional landfill in Virginia, on-site leachate management facility
• Louis County and old dumps within the region, posing environmental risk.
• <01:07:57.840> The<01:07:57.960> site<01:07:58.280> will environmental risk.
• The site will environmental risk.

Bills: HF3599, HF3761, HF3523, HF3515, HF573

Keywords: water treatment, infrastructure, municipal funding, bond issuance, Becker, sewer improvements, sanitation, Hibbing, state bonds, infrastructure funding, capital investment, safety improvements, mobility, U.S. Highway 12, bonds, transportation funding, trails, Prior Lake, bond funding, recreational improvements

Transcript Highlights:

• This helps us ensure Minnesota's environmental permitting process and the requirements of Minnesota Rules
• specifics, but I would say generally through permit fees, the work, the funding goes into the Environmental
• feedlots in those counties. generally through permit fees, the the work it the funding goes into the Environmental

Bills: HF1355, HF78, HF1846, HF1225

Keywords: commercial diving, scuba diving safety, aquatic plant management, workplace safety, environmental regulations, HF78, Minnesota veterans, veteran retreats, Camp Bliss, Walker, Independent Lifestyles Inc., Department of Veterans Affairs, veterans affairs grant, general fund appropriation, family members, spouse, domestic partner, children, therapy, transportation

Bills: SB480, SB767, SB790, SB971, SB1066

Keywords: water resources, interlocal contracts, local government, collaboration, planning activities, wildfire response, firefighting equipment, emergency services, state database, Texas Forest Service, customer complaints, Public Utility Commission, water service, complaint process, utility regulation, SB 971, Texas Water Assistance Program, Water Code, rural political subdivision, rural water

Summary: The Senate Committee on Water, Agriculture, and Rural Affairs met on Texas Water Day and limited public testimony to two minutes. The chair emphasized the need to move quickly because of scheduling conflicts with other committees and noted the importance of water policy and related stakeholders. The committee heard several bills focused on water administration, rural utilities, emergency response, and public works contracting. Senate Bill 790 by Senator Alvarado would let the Public Utility Commission create a simplified process for resolving tenant complaints over water or wastewater bill discrepancies; it was described as a way to avoid lengthy contested-case hearings for small disputes. Senate Bill 971 by Senator Sparks would clean up conflicting statutory definitions of “rural political subdivision” so Texas Water Development Board programs are applied consistently; Texas Rural Water Association testified in support. Senate Bill 767, also by Senator Sparks, would expand and improve a statewide database of fire-response equipment so departments, including volunteer and rural departments, can locate and share resources more effectively during emergencies; fire service witnesses supported the bill and suggested annual updates to keep the database current. Chair Perry laid out Senate Bill 480 to clarify that local governments and special districts may enter interlocal agreements for water-related planning and research, including aquifer management and flood/water planning. He also presented Senate Bill 1066, which raises payment and performance bond thresholds for Texas Parks and Wildlife Department public works contracts to $150,000, arguing the change would reflect inflation and help smaller vendors on lower-risk projects. Witnesses were heard on the bills, with no opposition recorded in the transcript. The committee voted out all five bills favorably. SB 1066, SB 480, SB 767, SB 790, and SB 971 each received unanimous committee approval and were recommended to the local and contested calendar, with SB 767 noted as amended by a suggested annual-update requirement for the equipment database.

Transcript Highlights:

• whether that is preserving our stories or taking our nation up a notch in science, technology, engineering
• whether that is preserving our stories or taking our nation up a notch in science, technology, engineering
• whether that is preserving our stories or taking our nation up a notch in science, technology, engineering
• whether that is preserving our stories or taking our nation up a notch in science, technology, engineering
• whether that is preserving our stories or taking our nation up a notch in science, technology, engineering

Bills: HF29, HF921, HF922, HF1048, HF1049

Keywords: railroad, infrastructure, transportation funding, environmental remediation, capital investment, HF921, tax increment financing, TIF, excess tax increment, school district aid, levy adjustment, property tax levy, education finance, Minnesota education aid, decertification, local government finance, school funding formula, state aid reduction, referendum equalization aid, debt service equalization

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, I can't see who's here behind us, but um joining us today are a number of folks in the environmental
• Um, I can't see who's here behind us, but um joining us today are a number of folks in the environmental

Bills: HB1163, HB2113, HB2333, HB2411, HB2583, HB1613, HB1614, HB2590, HB1950, HB1603, HB1707, HB1832, HB2119, HB2155, HB2594, HB2595, HB1929, HB2015, HB2207, HB1619, HB1667, HB1984, HB2140, HB2097, HB1957, HB2503, HB2581, HB1520, SCR55, SR53

Keywords: commercial drivers license, non-domiciled, federal regulations, commercial learner's permit, citizenship, lawful residency, Department of Transportation, Kainahola Stream, flood prevention, vegetation removal, appropriation, natural resources, transportation, airport special districts, penalties, Hawaii, aeronautics law, public safety, workforce development, sector partnerships

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, we will put one environmental group." "What? You have one environmental organization.
• maybe two environmental organizations. maybe two environmental organizations.
• one environmental group. one environmental group. What? What? What?
• You have one environmental organization. You have one environmental organization.
• environmental environmental Yeah.<02:08:48.720> Okay.

Bills: SB3253, SB2401, SB3169, SB17, SB3014, SB3032, SB1432, SB2002, SB2972, SB3247

Keywords: conservation, endangered species, wildlife preservation, native birds, biodiversity, sanctuary, nonprofit, DLNR, agricultural district, land use, chapter 195D, chapter 205, chapter 42F, state funding, public purpose, habitat restoration, predator-free sanctuary, ecosystem restoration, Zealandia, wildlife refuge

Summary: The Committee on Water and Land heard testimony on SB 5253 SD2 relating to conservation and SB 2401 relating to regional shoreline mitigation district, with the chair emphasizing short testimony limits and the need to finish before session. On SB 5253, DLNR said it stood on its written testimony and answered questions about the bill’s proposed nonprofit endangered species sanctuary. Members asked whether existing entities or agreements, such as land trusts, private landowners, and DLNR safe harbor agreements, could accomplish similar conservation goals without creating a new entity. DLNR said similar work already exists, but it was not aware of a comparable sanctuary model in the state. A member also questioned language suggesting for-profit businesses in the sanctuary, and DLNR said the intent appeared to be sales of outreach or similar materials, though it agreed that such activities could be handled by a nonprofit. The bulk of the hearing focused on SB 2401, which would create a regional shoreline adaptation/mitigation framework. The Department of the Attorney General said it had concerns about inconsistent use of the terms “mitigation” and “adaptation,” warning of possible title-subject issues. DLNR said it was neutral on the terminology and more concerned with the substance, and noted that the bill would not waive permits; any plan would still require environmental review and applicable state and county permits. DLNR also supported OHA’s recommendation to consider impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during regional planning, and said the bill’s language on temporary shoreline protection measures could help address the gap between emergency permits and longer-term planning while avoiding a hardening-only approach. The Office of Planning supported the regional planning concept but noted it is not a regulatory agency and would need to work with DLNR and the Land Board. OHA supported the bill’s planning-based approach but recommended amendments to require assessment of impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during plan development and to clarify that environmental review would still apply at the project level. Testifiers from the Ka‘anapali Steering Committee strongly supported the bill, saying it would provide a regional framework for ongoing erosion problems while preserving full regulatory authority and normal permitting, and they proposed amendments to standardize terminology, create a limited pathway for temporary shoreline protection, and address ownership and maintenance responsibilities. Members discussed the meaning of “mitigation” versus “adaptation,” the scope of shoreline hardening, and whether the bill would help the legislature take a broader, more holistic view of shoreline decisions. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• the shoreline the engineers and the shoreline management<00:38:45.839> experts<00:38:47.040><
• And if we have a real environmental catastrophe there, that would be very damaging to the state.
• We hired an engineering firm a few years ago. This was before Act 16.
• engineered solutions while maintaining engineered solutions while maintaining the<00:52:11.359><
• so we recognized the environmental so we recognized the environmental damage<00:55:59.040> that

Bills: HB1846, HB2205, HB1802, HB1571, HB2047, HB2434, HB2426, HB2361, HB2395, HB1712, HB2544, HB1619

Keywords: coastal erosion, shoreline properties, regional planning, mitigation districts, sediment management, environmental impact, public access, community financing, shoreline erosion, emergency permits, coastal management, erosion control, Hawaii Revised Statutes, HB1802, conservation banking, conservation bank, mitigation banking, compensatory mitigation, incidental take permit, incidental take license

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 1846, relating to shoreline mitigation districts. DLNR and the Office of Planning opposed the bill, arguing it would improperly shift regulatory roles between the agencies and prioritize private land interests over public trust and natural and historic resources. Supporters, including the Shoreline Preservation Coalition, Kahana Bay residents, and Hawaii Realtors, said regional planning is needed to address severe erosion, especially in Kahana, and that better coordination between state and county agencies could help move stalled projects forward. Testifiers emphasized that shoreline conditions vary by area and that science-based, region-specific solutions are needed. Members asked questions about whether existing law already allows regional planning and emergency shoreline responses. DLNR said it already has authority to process regional projects and cited an existing draft EIS for Kahana Bay that would proceed through normal permitting and public hearing channels. Supporters responded that the bill would provide a clearer regional planning framework and help communities facing urgent erosion impacts. No vote was taken on HB 1846 in the portion provided. The committee then took up HB 2205, relating to emergency erosion mitigation. DLNR opposed the bill, saying it already has authority to issue emergency permits and had recently done so quickly for a collapsed sidewalk at Queen Surf Beach, and warning that the bill’s language could weaken Act 16 by changing a prohibition on shoreline hardening to a requirement to merely minimize it. Kahana Bay representatives and other supporters argued the bill would create a limited, regulated short-term pathway for emergency shoreline solutions while long-term plans are developed, and said current permits have expired or stalled, leaving dangerous sandbags and no practical relief. Additional testimony from a private homeowner stressed that erosion is threatening homes and that private owners are often bearing the cost of protecting public shoreline access. The discussion remained focused on balancing emergency protection, public access, and long-term shoreline management, and no final action was taken in the excerpt provided.

Bills: HR275, HR282, HCR112, SCR62, SCR64, SB513

Keywords: highway maintenance, signage, transportation safety, DOTD, infrastructure, public safety, federal grants, job creation, Utility Terrain Vehicles, UTVs, safety regulations, transportation, Louisiana, task force, vehicle operation, legislation, accidents, HCR112, House Concurrent Resolution 112, Louisiana Highway 1

Summary: The House Transportation Committee met on May 26 with a quorum present and took up several resolutions and one Senate bill. SCR 64 created a task force to study construction management at risk (CMAR) in Louisiana public works; an amendment added representatives from the Louisiana Associated General Contractors and Associated Builders and Contractors, and the resolution was reported with amendments. HR 282 created a task force to study utility terrain vehicles with state agencies; an amendment added the State Fire Marshal, and it was also reported with amendments. The committee then considered SB 513 on public works project delivery methods. The bill originally included an average-bid award method for certain pilot projects, along with airport design-build provisions. Testimony from a Reason Foundation analyst and from the Louisiana Associated General Contractors raised concerns that average-bid contracting could encourage collusion, raise costs, and lacked supporting data or use by U.S. transportation departments, while airport design-build was supported. The committee adopted an amendment in concept to strike the average-bid provisions, leaving the airport-related design-build language in place, and SB 513 was reported with amendments by a vote of 11 yeas and 4 nays. The committee also reported SCR 62 favorably, which urges DOTD to evaluate school zones on state highways in response to safety concerns and near misses, including a fatal incident referenced by the author. HCR 112 was reported favorably to study flooding on Louisiana Highway 1 in Shreveport, and HR 275 was reported favorably to study an interstate highway signage maintenance and reporting program. The meeting concluded after all items were disposed of and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• bring Yeah, the only something I want to say, you know, I'm just drawing on my background study engineer
• We reached out to our members to get an estimate, and based on a few of those members, a fire engine
• <00:54:42.960> fire<00:54:43.280> engine<00:54:44.000> cost<00:54:44.240>
• about of those members. fire engine cost about of those members. fire engine cost about $960,000

Bills: SB222, HB560, HB475, HB484, HB583, HB542, HB566

Keywords: medical clinic board, clinic board, hospital bankruptcy, Chapter 11, bankruptcy, debt restructuring, municipal indebtedness, municipal bankruptcy, health care provider, acute care hospital, lease property, board immunity, director liability, civil liability, healthcare finance, insolvency, debt readjustment, federal bankruptcy law, Alabama Code 11-58-5.2, library materials

Transcript Highlights:

• the land application of produced water from the Railroad Commission. to the Texas Commission on Environmental
• Senate Bill 1145 relaying the authority of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to issue permits
• Senate Bill 1145, relaying the authority of the Texas Commission. on environmental quality to issue permits

Bills: SJR18, SCR9, SCR13, SB10, SB11, SB19, SB20, SB25, SB62, SB260, SB263, SB293, SB314, SB384, SB412, SB441, SB442, SB494, SB523, SB569, SB616, SB688, SB707, SB766, SB842, SB869, SB890, SB914, SB929, SB971, SB992, SB1066, SB1145, SB1621, SJR36, SJR18, SCR9, SCR13, SB616, SB565, SB384, SB372, SB495, SB842, SB971, SB1066, SB929, SB765, SB523, SB62, SB19, SB18, SB666, SB688, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB706, SB847, SB869, SB890, SB992, SB1145, SB494, SB290, SB766, SB11, SB10, SB13, SB263, SB412, SB20, SB441, SB442, SB1621, SB569, SB314, SB25, SB293, SB914, SB260, SB1248, SB740, SB14, SB1006, SB20, SB25, SB260, SB293, SB314, SB384, SB442, SB494, SB616, SB869, SB890, SB929, SB992, SB1145, SB1621, SR232, SR237, SR242, SB16, SB22

Keywords: capital gains, taxation, constitutional amendment, state revenue, individual investment, Supreme Court, judicial independence, Keep Nine, checks and balances, water rights, treaty compliance, Rio Grande, agriculture, drought, international water, Texas water supply, education, Ten Commandments, public schools, religious display

Transcript Highlights:

• But there are environmental components. We need to do the research; that is key.

Bills: SJR18, SCR9, SCR13, SB10, SB11, SB19, SB20, SB25, SB62, SB260, SB263, SB293, SB314, SB384, SB412, SB441, SB442, SB494, SB523, SB569, SB616, SB688, SB707, SB766, SB842, SB869, SB890, SB914, SB929, SB971, SB992, SB1066, SB1145, SB1621, SJR36, SJR18, SCR9, SCR13, SB616, SB565, SB384, SB372, SB495, SB842, SB971, SB1066, SB929, SB765, SB523, SB62, SB19, SB18, SB666, SB688, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB706, SB847, SB869, SB890, SB992, SB1145, SB494, SB290, SB766, SB11, SB10, SB13, SB263, SB412, SB20, SB441, SB442, SB1621, SB569, SB314, SB25, SB293, SB914, SB260, SB1248, SB740, SB14, SB1006, SB20, SB25, SB260, SB293, SB314, SB384, SB442, SB494, SB616, SB869, SB890, SB929, SB992, SB1145, SB1621, SR232, SR237, SR242, SB16, SB22

Keywords: capital gains, taxation, constitutional amendment, state revenue, individual investment, Supreme Court, judicial independence, Keep Nine, checks and balances, water rights, treaty compliance, Rio Grande, agriculture, drought, international water, Texas water supply, education, Ten Commandments, public schools, religious display

Bills: SB2901, SB2902, SB2903, SB2904, SB2905, SB2906, SB2907, SB2908, SB2909, SB2910, SB2911, SB2912, SB2913, SB2914, SB2915, SB2916, SB2917, SB2918, SB2919, SB2920, SB2921, SB2922, SB2923, SB2924, SB2925, SB2926, SB2927, SB2928, SB2929, SB2930, SB2931, SB2932, SB2933, SB2934, SB2935, SB2936, SB2937, SB2938, SB2939, SB2940, SB2941, SB2942, SB2943, SB2944, SB2945, SB2946, SB2947, SB2948, SB2949, SB2950, SB2951, SB2952, SB2953, SB2954, SB2955, SB2956, SB2957, SB2958, SB2959, SB2960, SB2961, SB2962, SB2963, SB2964, SB2965, SB2966, SB2967, SB2968, SB2969, SB2970, SB2971, SB2972, SB2973, SB2974, SB2975, SB2976, SB2977, SB2978, SB2979, SB2980, SB2981, SB2982, SB2983, SB2984, SB2985, SB2986, SB2987, SB2988, SB2989, SB2990, SB2991, SB2992, SB2993, SB2994, SB2995, SB2996, SB2997, SB2998, SB2999, SB3000

Keywords: geological subsurface characterization, groundwater, geothermal resources, environmental review, Hawaii groundwater and geothermal resources center, scientific research, non-extractive, public trust doctrine, clean energy, greenhouse gas, carbon sequestration, climate change, energy policy, Hawaii state energy office, emissions reduction, sustainable development, fare-free transportation, greenhouse gas emissions, public transit, tax on petroleum