Transcript Highlights:

• Is this the surface owner, the mineral estate, or who?
• That creates an effect of 25 to 30% reduced surface water flow.
• So, our rivers, our arroyos, and our surface water bodies have.
• Surface map, we don't have the vertical depth.
• Timmons described groundwater versus surface water.

Transcript Highlights:

• This would be, as I understand, the first municipally owned and operated desal facility.
• That's an example for the Kay Bailey Hutchison facility in particular.
• Uh, unlike surface water, which is owned by the state, groundwater is a property right.
• , as surface seawater.
• You might have to expand the facility and that kind of thing, yeah.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then, you know, God forbid you have to somehow convert to a surface water treatment facility, which
• We're surface water, not groundwater.
• Surface water, we need to be thinking about it right now.
• So my question is, those wells that are supporting those, even the ones that your facility, facilities
• The state owns the surface water.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This is important to protect local control of surface water.
• Senate Bill 7 prohibits the use of state funding for new water supply projects to buy in-state surface
• I will point out at the very top that the largest bar is 'other surface water', which includes things
• It also includes things like surface water desalination.
• Under both of these programs, existing facilities need support.

Bills: SB7

Keywords: water infrastructure, financial assistance, Texas Water Development Board, water supply, environmental sustainability, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• A strategy to encourage people to use permeable surfaces.
• To return to the source cleaner than when it was piped into the facility.
• Facilities that the city is looking at down there.
• That's an example for the Kay Bailey Hutchison facility.
• And they can start using their lake and facilities in that lake.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• engrossed K through2 school facilities engrossed K through2 school facilities appropriations<00:
• <01:07:34.640> water electors of proposed surface water electors of proposed surface water
• Facilities Use Fees. Senate File 95, Facilities Use Fees.
• Senate 90 school facilities use fees.
• <01:54:20.320> use 90 school you school facilities use 90 school you school facilities use

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, we have jurisdiction over surface water. Surface water is managed by TCEQ through water rights.
• We'll pursue that because, you know, under the surface, above the surface, and somewhere in the middle
• Most utilities reported having their own backup generation at critical facilities.
• built a new facility at the airport in Houston.
• This last year, we exported 288,000 head of livestock through those facilities.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Think of unconfined as shallow, near the surface.
• And then, you know, God forbid, you have to somehow convert to a surface water treatment facility, which
• We're surface water, not groundwater.
• So my question is: those wells that are supporting those, even the ones at your facility and facilities
• The state owns the surface water.

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:

• So surface water fees collected for surface water can't be used to maintain sewer plants or water plants
• But yes, so that facility was a dispersal facility that came online at the end of January. dispersal
• That's currently a fruit fly facility that Mexico is retrofitting into a screw worm sterilization facility
• level two facility.
• So, this is a very large facility.

Summary: During the meeting, legislative members discussed the practice of municipalities diverting water and sewer revenues to their general funds, which impacts infrastructure maintenance and project delays. Vice Chair Sparks proposed limiting public testimony to two minutes, which was adopted without objection. The committee heard from various witnesses, including Perry Fowler from the Texas Water Infrastructure Network, who emphasized that utility revenues should primarily support water services and that transfers should be transparent and justified. He noted that many utilities face financial pressures that could hinder infrastructure projects. Larry French from the Texas Public Policy Foundation highlighted the significant financial impact of water loss and general fund transfers, estimating the annual loss at $1.5 billion. He argued that these transfers can create disincentives for municipalities to address water loss issues. Brian Butcher, Assistant City Manager of Sugar Land, defended the city's cost allocation model for general fund transfers, asserting that they are necessary for equitable service provision and operational efficiency. The committee also discussed the implications of rising construction costs and the need for better procurement processes to ensure effective use of taxpayer dollars. The second part of the meeting focused on the New World Screwworm and the state's preparedness to manage potential infestations. Dudley Hoskins from the USDA outlined the federal response efforts and the importance of collaboration with state agencies. He emphasized the need for ongoing surveillance and the production of sterile flies to combat the pest. Dr. Philip Kaufman from Texas A&M discussed the historical context of the screwworm and the challenges posed by its potential reintroduction, urging proactive management strategies among livestock producers. The committee acknowledged the need for increased resources and research to effectively address the threat of the screwworm.

Transcript Highlights:

• It has quite a few, um, pouring facilities. Yes.
• Like the specific near this facility or?
• Underneath the surface in place.
• Groundwater, surface water?
• We have to get surface water.

Bills: HB 1520, HB 1525, HB 1530, HB 1535, HB 2068, HB 2091, HB 2347, HB 2372, HB 2805, HB 2815, HB 2867, HB 3154, HB 3482, HB 3483, HB 3663, HB 3781, HB 3901, HB 3915, HB 4135, HB 4153, HB 4158, HB 4329, HB 4331

Keywords: Angelina and Neches River Authority, river authority, Sunset Advisory Commission, Texas Sunset Act, Special District Local Laws Code, local government, natural resources, board of directors, director training, board governance, public testimony, open meetings, public information, conflict of interest, ethics, complaint system, general manager, board president, staggered terms, removal of director

Transcript Highlights:

• single facility.
• So an existing facility single facility.
• If surface water is the source, a surface water permit will be required.
• If surface water is the source, a surface water permit will be required.
• surface water per day. surface water per day.

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We have the H-POWER waste-to-energy facility, and we have the Waimanalo landfill for disposal.
• is to reduce function of that facility is to reduce the<00:06:16.960> volume<00:06:17.520>
• that piping is going up to the surface that piping is going up to the surface uh<00:23:10.960>
• A landfill requires a solid waste receiving facility. It also requires an air permit.
• <01:34:14.440> next to a bard of water supp facility next to a bard of water supp facility

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The informational briefing focused on the City and County of Honolulu’s effort to site a replacement landfill for Oahu before the Waimanalo Gulch landfill closes in 2028. Chair Nicole Lowen and other legislators opened the meeting by framing the issue as important statewide and encouraging recycling, composting, and proper use of the curbside bins. The city’s Department of Environmental Services, led by Director Roger Babcock and Deputy Director Mike O’Keefe, then presented the background and siting process. ENV explained the legal and technical constraints that shaped the search, including the 2019 Land Use Commission decision requiring closure of Waimanalo Gulch by March 2, 2028, and the 2020 Act 73 restrictions on landfill siting near residences, schools, hospitals, conservation districts, airports, and tsunami inundation areas. They said a landfill advisory committee reviewed six candidate sites in 2021-2022 and rejected them because they fell within the Board of Water Supply’s no-pass zone. After further evaluation and an extension of the naming deadline, the city selected a site in central Oahu near Wahiawa, on agricultural land currently used as a Dole pineapple field. City officials said the selected site was chosen as the best of the evaluated options and, in their view, could be permitted under state and federal law. They described planned environmental protections, including a modern sanitary landfill design with double liners, leachate collection systems, monitoring wells, and post-closure monitoring, and said the existing Waimanalo Gulch landfill has operated for 35 years without leachate leaks. They also emphasized that the site would still require a special use permit, Department of Health approvals, an environmental impact statement, and other public permitting processes, and that public engagement would continue over the next several years.

Transcript Highlights:

• Asked the EPA to regulate our surface water permitting so they determine who can discharge into our surface
• Surface water.
• Grace Place, a women's health facility.
• I did that for years on a sidewalk outside of a Planned Parenthood facility in one of the busiest facilities
• Submitted to Superfund sites, risk management plan facilities, treatment storage disposal facilities,

Transcript Highlights:

• of the operations that are going to occur at this facility?
• , but it's a rock crushing facility, which is what we permitted.
• We do not have authority in determining location of facilities.
• Like the specific near this facility?
• So we have to go out, we have to get surface water.

Bills: HB1520, HB1525, HB1530, HB1535, HB2068, HB2091, HB2347, HB2372, HB2805, HB2815, HB2867, HB3154, HB3482, HB3483, HB3663, HB3781, HB3901, HB3915, HB4135, HB4153, HB4158, HB4329, HB4331

Keywords: Angelina and Neches River Authority, river authority, Sunset Advisory Commission, Texas Sunset Act, Special District Local Laws Code, local government, natural resources, board of directors, director training, board governance, public testimony, open meetings, public information, conflict of interest, ethics, complaint system, general manager, board president, staggered terms, removal of director

Transcript Highlights:

• So surface water fees collected for surface water can't be used to maintain sewer plants or water plants
• But yes, so that facility is a dispersal facility.
• So that's our only sterile fly production facility.
• That’s currently a fruit fly facility that Mexico is retrofitting into a screwworm sterilization facility
• So this is a very large facility.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It would require permits for even just discharge into surface water and groundwater.
• It would require permits for even just even discharged into surface in groundwater.
• And we cannot risk any more contamination of our surface or our groundwater.
• Nothing regarding so many feet within surface water.
• We may get one surface water irrigation.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• What does it mean that a surface owner has that inherent right?
• And so the surface owner has. has that right.
• It says, the right described by this section is not severable from the surface estate.
• And what does this bill, how will this impact assisted living facilities?
• If they hurt someone in an assisted living facility.

Bills: HJR34, HB 113, HB184, HB198, HB247, HB367, HB449, HB1778, HB514, HB576, HB632, HB1395, HB2225, HB2582, HB2494, HB766, HB2715, HB2712, HB3069, HB3505, HB 1269, HB4224, HB3609, HB5032, HB2240, HB5180, HB3348, HB4668, HB4909, HB4665, HB4895, HB3395, HB3157, HB4762, HB4395, HB4325, HB4952, HB4386, HB4273, HB2760, HB2697, HB2820, HB1828, HB1768, HB1579, HB1773, HB1871, HB2035, HB2448, HB2492, HB1411, HB4753, HB4666, HB4529, HB1499, HB1610, HB2028, HB1506, HB886, HB3546, HB796, HB223, HB1475, HB3556, HB4638, HCR126, HB38, HB 104, SB1008, SB1106, SB1172, SB2629, SB2964, SB616, HB2214, SB552, HB3181, HB3628, HB589, HB3529, HB3354, HB333, HB2914, HB4130, HB4131, HB24, HB 1160, HB3962, HB4115, HB2295, HB5398, HB1407, HB3800, HB2613, HJR138, HB42, HJR34, HB 129, HB677, HB426, HB668, HB1699, HB2017, HB2128, HB2038, HB3783, HB3717, HB2316, HB3686, HB2563, HB3883, HB4021, HB2788, HB2663, HB3305, HB3173, HB3474, HB 1105, HB3531, HB3490, HB3597, HB 1295, HB3512, HB3010, HB3112, HB4215, HB3223, HB3464, HB3120, HB4214, HB4511, HB3704, HB4081, HB4783, HB4063, HB2783, HB4937, HB5085, HB2510, HB3426, HB4361, HB 1169, HB2516, HB2347, HB4034, HB4700, HB3560, HB5150, HB3860, HB3146, HB3924, HB 113, HB184, HB198, HB247, HB367, HB449, HB1778, HB514, HB576, HB632, HB1395, HB2225, HB2582, HB2494, HB766, HB2715, HB2712, HB3069, HB3505, HB 1269, HB4224, HB3609, HB5032, HB2240, HB5180, HB3348, HB4668, HB4909, HB4665, HB4895, HB3395, HB3157, HB4762, HB4395, HB4325, HB4952, HB4386, HB4273, HB2760, HB2697, HB2820, HB1828, HB1768, HB1579, HB1773, HB1871, HB2035, HB2448, HB2492, HB1411, HB4753, HB4666, HB4529, HB1499, HB1610, HB2028, HB1506, HB886, HB3546, HB796, HB223, HB1475, HB3556, HB4638, HCR98, HCR92, HCR126

Keywords: HJR 34, constitutional amendment, Texas Constitution, ad valorem tax, property tax exemption, real property, border counties, U.S.-Mexico border, United Mexican States, border security, border security infrastructure, landowner, county tax base, local government, tax relief, property value increase, infrastructure improvements, voter approval, November 2025 ballot, statutory construction

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:10:53.600> water get a lot of impacts to surface water get a lot of impacts to surface
• We inspect these facilities.
• our particular water treatment facility. our particular water treatment facility.
• <00:36:42.960> Um, water facility. Um, water facility.
• of public public treatment facility. of public public treatment facility.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The meeting began with roll call, adoption of the minutes, and brief remarks, including birthday recognition for Representative Maseroni and a moment of reflection for a soldier who died during training at Fort Knox. The committee then heard a presentation from Tony Hatton, commissioner of the Department for Environmental Protection and acting director of the Kentucky Division of Water, with Amanda Lefer, deputy commissioner, on the state’s water and wastewater programs and planning. Hatton described Kentucky’s water resources and the Division of Water’s responsibilities, including watershed and nonpoint source work, KPDES discharge permitting, PFAS response, engineering review of water infrastructure, inspections, public outreach, and sampling. He said Kentucky has 428 public water systems, 263 water treatment plants, about 1.9 million service connections, and nearly 97% of the population has access to municipally treated water. He also noted that the state has 43 systems receiving awards for EPA areawide optimization and emphasized operator training, regionalization, and use of GIS mapping and Kentucky Infrastructure Authority data to support planning and funding decisions. Members raised concerns about aging infrastructure, water loss, staffing shortages, and wastewater problems in local systems. Representative Blandon described severe failures in a city system, including major water loss and sewer backups, and asked whether the state could intervene; Hatton said the division inspects treatment facilities and provides compliance assistance but is not authorized to manage delivery systems, though third-party help and emergency funding can be used in some cases. Senator Smith and others shared similar experiences with line loss and system failures, while Hatton pointed to regionalization and funding support as the main tools available. The discussion also highlighted PFAS as an emerging issue, with Hatton saying the department is working with systems to meet anticipated federal requirements by 2029.

Transcript Highlights:

• So when we're building a processing facility, When we're building a processing facility, like a natural
• Oh, and we'll pick up any rocks that we've surfaced, because when you decompact land, you surface things
• No matter what, you're looking at drilling, managing fluid in a reservoir, building surface facilities
• It's a proven resource, especially when it comes to building surface facilities.
• We also operate nuclear facilities, so large-scale industrial-size or utility-scale nuclear facilities

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Energy Development and Transmission Committee met in interim session and approved the November 6 minutes. Chair Novak outlined the committee’s study agenda, including large energy users such as data centers, geothermal, landowner relations, wind and solar, and other energy topics across the state. The meeting was framed as informational only, with no bills or formal legislative action taken beyond the minutes approval. Testimony focused first on landowner relations. Oliver County Commissioner Dave Berger described the county’s energy history and local support for coal and related development. North Dakota Farmers Union President Matt Perdue emphasized proactive, face-to-face communication with landowners, respect for property rights, and the need for developers to be transparent about tradeoffs; he also discussed insurance and liability concerns tied to easements. Committee members asked about eminent domain, local versus state authority, and how communities can better understand the revenue and infrastructure implications of energy development. Department of Agriculture Deputy Commissioner Tom Bodine then described the department’s ombudsman programs for pipeline restoration and reclamation, wind restoration, and royalty oversight. He said the programs provide confidential, third-party assistance on reclamation and royalty disputes, but do not provide legal advice. Senators raised concerns about post-production deductions in royalty leases and whether the ombudsman can explain them; Bodine said the program can clarify statements and deductions but cannot resolve legal disputes. He also said the department has not received requests related to fiber lines. Representatives from Grid United and One Oak described their project development and landowner engagement practices. Grid United’s Brent Johnson discussed the North Plains Connector transmission project, its route selection process, voluntary acquisition approach, and efforts to avoid eminent domain by working closely with regulators, counties, townships, and landowners. One Oak’s Danette Welsh and Tom Giltner described the company’s midstream operations, extensive North Dakota footprint, and emphasis on direct landowner communication, consistent local regulation, careful construction practices, and post-construction reclamation. Members asked about setbacks, zoning consistency, invasive species prevention, outside advocacy groups, and eminent domain use; One Oak said it has not used eminent domain on its North Dakota projects, largely because most gathering lines are negotiated easements.

Transcript Highlights:

• Facilities are also advancing.
• How much material is stored now at the bottom of the facility?
• How about the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety staff?
• Do they interact with you at all in this facility?
• Now you have oil and gas at the surface, or you have produced water at the surface.