Transcript Highlights:

• It subjects park owners to unnecessary liability.
• But the proper mechanism for that is with insurance, not with the landowner, right?
• The access to the properties, you know, if, I know there was a concern raised about liability, happy,
• The access to the properties, you know, if, I know there was a concern raised about liability, happy,
• Some have raised concerns about increased liability for management companies, but the greater risk lies

Summary: The committee heard several housing-related bills, beginning with SB 1003, which would create pro-housing enhanced infrastructure financing districts to help local governments fund infrastructure needed for housing developments. The author and supporters argued that infrastructure costs often prevent projects from penciling out, while the chair expressed support and said the bill would be taken up later when quorum was available. SB 1014 followed, proposing new disclosure requirements for local jurisdictions to provide good-faith estimates of on-site and off-site improvements within 30 days of application, with supporters saying it would reduce late surprises and opposition from several cities citing implementation concerns with the 30-day timelines. The committee then took up SB 802, a Sacramento-region bill requiring a joint powers authority to coordinate housing and homelessness services. Senator Ashby and former Mayor Darrell Steinberg argued that Sacramento’s fragmented system has failed for years and that a JPA would improve accountability, coordination, and use of state funds. The bill drew broad support from local officials, service providers, business groups, and advocates, while some county and city representatives registered opposition or neutral concerns about state-mandated local governance. Several committee members said they were persuaded by the need for regional coordination, though some raised concerns about local control; the chair noted the bill would be moved when quorum allowed. The committee also heard SB 1092 and SB 1093, both focused on mobile home park residents after disasters or park sales. SB 1092 would give residents a right of first opportunity to match a sale offer for a park, with supporters saying it protects vulnerable seniors and preserves affordable housing, while park owners and their representatives argued it would devalue property and raise constitutional and financing concerns. SB 1093 would require more transparent communication, access to property, and consideration of rebuilding or closure after a disaster; supporters cited the long uncertainty faced by Palisades residents, while opponents warned about liability, safety, and burdensome review requirements. Members split along similar lines, with some emphasizing property rights and market impacts and others stressing the need to protect residents and preserve scarce affordable housing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're one of the state's largest private forest landowners.
• O'Neill, Executive Director of the Washington Farm Forestry Association, representing small forest landowners
• under the Forest and Fish law to address the disproportionate regulatory impact on small forest landowners
• eligible projects continue to accrue until there's a substantial backlog that becomes an ongoing state liability
• to increase to $30 million per biennium to cover the additional lost timber value on small forest landowner

Bills: HB2295

Committee: House Capital Budget

Keywords: Washington capital budget, supplemental capital budget, capital appropriations, state building construction account, taxable building construction account, climate commitment account, natural climate solutions, housing trust fund, affordable housing, supportive housing, homelessness, manufactured home communities, mobile home parks, school construction, school modernization, school seismic safety, healthy schools, school electrification, SCAP, behavioral health facilities

Transcript Highlights:

• team of faculty at Texas Tech and active and diverse stakeholder membership across upstream mid. landowners
• mention it, you might have briefly talked about. the contractor side or the insurance side, the liability
• about good management, it's about private property rights because if you're gonna restrict what a landowner
• To offer those land... landowners a purchase of development rights agreement.
• So at least that way, if it's a farm or if that's needed for mitigation, the landowner has the option

Committee: House Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• You think that's reasonable for most landowners that are being, small landowners are being dealing with
• And you can also use it if you cannot identify a landowner or if there's an absentee landowner.
• landowners.
• landowners.
• landowners.

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:

• permission</c><00:13:38.639><c> be</c> Um, will landowner be permission be Um, will landowner be permission
• </c> landowners, and impacted communities. landowners, and impacted communities.
• </c><03:54:08.479><c> trail</c> grant aid to address any landowner trail grant aid to address any landowner
• </c><03:57:27.600><c> what</c> up to each individual landowner what up to each individual landowner what
• </c><04:10:20.880><c> we</c> landowner says, "I need some help." we landowner says, "I need some help

Committee: House Resources, Recreation and Development

Transcript Highlights:

• are all things that reduce runoff, but when a large storm occurs, it's unreasonable to blame one landowner
• > a</c><00:12:54.560><c> recent</c><00:12:55.040><c> case</c><00:12:55.440><c> and</c> blame one landowner
• in a recent case and blame one landowner in a recent case and an<00:12:55.839><c> example</c><00:12:
• </c><01:51:49.400><c> is</c> question of Li of limiting liability is question of Li of limiting liability
• </c> funded uh capital to past liabilities funded uh capital to past liabilities and<01:55:24.760><c>

Committee: House Energy & Environmental Protection

Summary: The committee on Energy and Environmental Protection heard several measures focused on water quality, waste management, aquifer protection, wastewater, and climate-related funding. SB 984 on water pollution drew opposition from DLNR and the Hawaii Cattlemen’s Council, with the latter arguing the bill could unfairly blame landowners for runoff caused by terrain and storm events; the chair noted there were also supporters and commenters submitted in writing. SB 639 on underground storage tanks received support from the Department of Health, the Board of Water Supply, and the Sierra Club, with testimony emphasizing environmental restoration standards after jet fuel releases; no opposition was noted in the live testimony. SB 946 on wastewater management was presented as clarifying that the ban on discharging wastewater or raw sewage into state waters applies to treatment plants, and it drew support from the County of Maui, DOH, and Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition, with no questions or opposition raised in the hearing. The committee also heard SB 438 on waste disposal facilities near significant aquifers. DOH and the Water Commission offered comments, while the City and County of Honolulu’s Department of Environmental Services opposed the bill because of a provision affecting ash recycling; the Board of Water Supply and Sierra Club supported the measure, and the Makakilo-Kapolei-Honokai Hale Neighborhood Board and Energy Justice Network raised concerns about fly ash and bottom ash recycling, landfill capacity, and potential contamination of aquifers. Testimony reflected a split between environmental protection concerns and arguments that the bill could block beneficial reuse of ash. The committee then took up HB 1395 on state funds, which would direct interest from the Emergency and Budget Reserve Fund to the general fund when the reserve exceeds the state’s target. The Governor’s office, emergency management, the State Energy Office, the Hawaiʻi Green Infrastructure Authority, the Nature Conservancy, and several other groups supported the bill’s climate-resilience intent, while the Tax Foundation and committee discussion raised concerns that the measure functioned mainly as a revenue transfer without a dedicated spending mechanism. Members discussed whether a special fund or legislative appropriation process would better ensure the money was used for climate mitigation and related projects.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the thought process is, in my thought process, you have a landowner. He owns that land.
• And the thought process is, in my thought process, you have a landowner. He owns that land.
• They believe in the property rights of the landowners.
• Local officials are most familiar with the county landscape, and without local ownership, landowners
• I understand the dollar amounts some of the landowners get.

Committee: House Utilities

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 2383, Representative Simmons’s bill addressing theft of copper and other infrastructure-related property. After a brief executive session and no further discussion, the committee voted the bill do pass by a roll call of 17 ayes, 1 no, and 1 present. The committee then heard House Bill 2711, sponsored by Representative Deal, which would lower the assessed valuation of broadband communications equipment from 33.5% to 12% for new broadband equipment placed in service after August 28, 2026, with a proposed sunset period discussed as part of a substitute. Representative Deal and several industry witnesses, including AT&T, Verizon, Missouri Cable Association, Missouri Broadband Providers Association, Missouri Chamber, and electric co-ops, argued the measure would improve Missouri’s competitiveness, encourage private investment, and help expand broadband in rural and underserved areas. Opponents, including county assessors, argued the bill would reduce local tax revenue, create unequal treatment, and could become a precedent for other industries. Committee members questioned whether the bill would apply only to new builds or also to upgrades and existing infrastructure, and whether the tax relief would actually drive expansion into rural areas. The committee then began hearing House Bills 2402 and 2816, which deal with solar energy siting and taxation. The sponsors described the bills as setting local assessment rules for solar projects, establishing a per-megawatt valuation, requiring larger setbacks from homes, schools, and churches, and limiting the amount of tillable land that can be used for solar in a county, while also addressing Chapter 100 agreements and decommissioning concerns. Supporters, including Missouri Farm Bureau and county officials, said the bills would provide needed guardrails, local control, and more consistent taxation. Opponents and affected landowners said existing solar projects have caused glare, dust, noise, and property value concerns, while some developers said they wanted clearer statewide rules and consistency for future projects. The committee did not take final action on the solar bills before going into recess.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then it also speaks to the landowner liability law that we have in the state.
• And then it also speaks to the landowner liability law that we have in the state.
• </c><03:42:53.520><c> liability</c><03:42:54.080><c> law</c><03:42:54.239><c> that</c> uh to the landowner
• liability law that uh to the landowner liability law that we<03:42:54.560><c> have</c><03:42:54.640>
• >> RSA 508:14 is the liability law.

Committee: House Criminal Justice and Public Safety

Transcript Highlights:

• My bill is the Louisiana Landowners Protection Act.
• You think that's reasonable for most landowners that are being, small landowners are being dealing with
• And you can also use it if you cannot identify a landowner or if there's an absentee landowner.
• landowners.
• This is a pro-landowners protection bill.

Committee: House Natural Resources & Environment

Bills: SB5 , SJR3 , HB 11 , HJR72 , HB48 , HB27 , HB144 , HB37 , HB1481 , HB581 , HB1696 , HB2216 , HB 1035 , HB1633 , HB742 , HB754 , HB1689 , HB1690 , HB2669 , HB391 , HB517 , HB1775 , HB 1024 , HB1607 , HB252 , HB1716 , HB1562 , HB4116 , HB1866 , HB1741 , HB2103 , HB2637 , HB2884 , HB3707 , HB503 , HB 1089 , HB1757 , HB2986 , HB972 , SB365 , SB1786 , SB5 , SJR3 , HB14 , HB43 , HB36 , HB26 , HB149 , HB 121 , HB206 , HB136 , HB3114 , HB2733 , HB1732 , HB3700 , HB467 , HB 1130 , HB1846 , HB1442 , HB 1147 , HB2176 , HB2701 , HB805 , HB2890 , HB 1154 , HB1644 , HB2118 , HB1718 , HB2488 , HB2596 , HB2468 , HB484 , HB2578 , HB3204 , HB 1041 , HB307 , HB685 , HB538 , HB2525 , HB3125 , HB2027 , HB2894 , HB3077 , HB 106 , HB18 , HB 11 , HJR72 , HB48 , HB27 , HB144 , HB37 , HB1481 , HB581 , HB1696 , HB2216 , HB 1035 , HB1633 , HB742 , HB754 , HB1689 , HB1690 , HB2669 , HB391 , HB517 , HB1775 , HB 1024 , HB1607 , HB252 , HB1716 , HB1562 , HB4116 , HB1866 , HB1741 , HB2103 , HB2637 , HB2884 , HB3707 , HB503 , HB 1089 , HB1757 , HB2986 , HB972

Keywords: dementia, research institute, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, funding, grants, state health initiatives, research funding, state budget, prevention, healthcare, medical research, Dementia Prevention and Research Institute, licensing, reciprocity, regulation, Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, interstate agreements, tax exemption, intellectual disability

Transcript Highlights:

• House Bill 114 simply removes liability from a landowner when someone has permission to rock climb, boulder
• does House Bill 114 it simply removes does House Bill 114 it simply removes the<00:01:14.119><c> liability
• </c><00:01:14.680><c> from</c><00:01:14.840><c> a</c><00:01:15.000><c> land</c> the liability from a
• land the liability from a land owner<00:01:17.040><c> of</c><00:01:17.240><c> someone</c><00:01:17.880

Summary: The Standing Committee on Economic Development, Labor, and Tourism met with a quorum and first considered House Bill 114, sponsored by Representative Truett. He explained that the bill clarifies the recreational use statute by expressly adding rock climbing, bouldering, and rappelling, removing liability for landowners who give permission for those activities on their property. After no questions, the committee voted unanimously in favor and reported the bill to the floor with a favorable expression. The committee then took up House Bill 808, sponsored by Representative Ken Upchurch, which would establish the Burnside Island Development Authority to promote recreation and tourism at General Burnside Island State Park in Pulaski County. Testimony described the authority as a public-private partnership entity that could develop lodging, restaurant, and recreational facilities, with potential for significant tourism and economic development. Members asked about expected economic impact and how revenues would be used; witnesses said direct fees would go back to the authority for the bill’s purposes, and referenced a feasibility study suggesting substantial private investment and indirect tax benefits. Several senators expressed support but also raised questions about whether the proposal had been fully reviewed by Appropriations and Revenue and about the governor’s potential response. The committee ultimately voted to report House Bill 808 favorably to the floor, with Senator Boswell requesting his vote be recorded. The meeting then moved toward adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• related to installation and operation of portable cooling devices, and landlords are immune from liability
• It allows tenants to use portable cooling devices while addressing concerns about safety, liability,
• It allows tenants to use portable cooling devices while addressing concerns about safety, liability,
• It could, I can see this resulting in a really unknown and large liability for landlords to know when
• Second, we appreciate the inclusion of liability-related language in the bill.

Summary: The committee heard public hearing testimony on House Bill 2265, which would expand tenant protections during extreme heat. Staff explained that the bill would bar landlords from restricting portable cooling devices, require written notice of tenant rights and landlord immunity for tenant-installed devices, add a cooling duty under the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act, and prohibit sheriffs from physically evicting tenants during defined extreme heat periods. Representative Mena said the bill responds to the 2021 heat dome and is intended to address a gap in housing law, while committee members and the sponsor discussed unresolved questions about what “reasonably required” cooling means, how the eviction pause would work, and whether the bill could raise rents or create liability and operational burdens for landlords. Supporters, including climate, public health, tenant, and clean energy advocates, said extreme heat is a growing health threat and that renters need a right to cooling; opponents from multifamily housing, property management, and rental housing groups argued the bill is too vague, could effectively mandate costly cooling upgrades, create safety and insurance issues, and complicate eviction enforcement. The hearing also included testimony from landlords and housing providers who said the bill should be narrowed or amended, and from tenants and advocates who said it does not go far enough because it mostly permits tenant-installed cooling rather than requiring landlords to provide it. The committee then heard House Bill 1974, a proposed substitute authorizing land banks. Staff described the bill as allowing public corporations, housing authorities, and nonprofit corporations to acquire, hold, improve, lease, transfer, or dispose of property for affordable housing, with 30-year affordability requirements, annual reporting, tax exemptions, and priority transfer of certain tax-foreclosed properties. Vice Chair Hill said the bill was scaled back from earlier versions and is meant to create a flexible tool for turning difficult parcels into housing-ready land aligned with local housing plans. Testifiers from the Spokane Regional Land Bank, housing authorities, developers, youth shelter providers, and housing advocates supported the bill as a way to lower land costs, clear title issues, reduce displacement, and create a pipeline of permanently affordable housing. A counties representative also supported the concept but said they would like the grant program restored. One committee member raised a question about whether the tax-foreclosed property language could bypass the normal surplus distribution process, and staff said the provision is placed in the chapter governing properties that have already gone through foreclosure and auction, though the wording may need further review. Finally, the committee opened House Bill 2452, which would change how rent increase notices are served. Staff said the bill would remove the current requirement that rent increase notices be served like unlawful detainer notices and instead allow service by personal delivery, mail, or posting on the dwelling unit, with service by mail complete when deposited in the mail; the manufactured home version would follow the general notice rules under that act. Representative Connors said the bill responds to problems created when prior legislation required certified mail, which she said has led to tenants not receiving notices and housing providers facing higher costs and administrative burdens. Housing provider and industry witnesses supported the bill, saying certified mail is expensive, inefficient, and often not actually received, while tenant advocates opposed it, arguing that mail-only service weakens notice protections and can cause missed rent increases and displacement; they urged the committee to preserve stronger in-person or posting requirements. Some witnesses also suggested broader changes, including electronic notice, while others said the bill should be expanded to fix certified mail requirements for more than just rent increase notices.

Bills: HB4322 , HB4202 , HB4203 , HB4457 , HB3983 , HB3660 , HB3802 , HB2933 , HB2955 , HB2956 , HB3781 , HB3521 , HB3794 , HB3796 , HB3800

Committee: Senate Business and Insurance

Keywords: funeral services licensing, funeral director, embalmer, funeral director in charge, dual licensure, mortuary science, Oklahoma Funeral Board, funeral establishment, commercial embalming establishment, crematory, cremation, alkaline hydrolysis, apprenticeship, licensing requirements, professional regulation, undertaker, mortician, burial services, death care industry, workers' compensation

Bills: SB1636 , SB1772 , SB1221 , SB1932 , SB1687 , SB1213 , SB843 , SB1410 , SB1317 , SB1338 , SB1976 , SB1314 , SB1191 , SB1613 , SB1246 , SB1439 , SB1930 , HR1044

Keywords: cold case, unsolved homicide, violent crime, case file review, law enforcement, police records, victim family, immediate family member, designated person, forensic testing, witness reinterview, investigative leads, cold case unit, unsolved murder, public safety, Title 21, Oklahoma statutes, motor vehicle safety, headlamps, headlights

Bills: HB45 , HB45 , HB755 , HB 1232 , HB1555 , HB2460 , HB2702 , HB2973 , HB3120 , HB3225 , HB3314 , HB3356 , HB3371 , HB3634 , HB3638 , HB4247 , HB4283 , HB4290 , HB4302 , HB4503 , HB4511 , HB4565 , HB4581 , HB4627 , HB4632 , HB4660 , HB4668 , HB4960 , HB5042

Committee: House State Affairs

Keywords: flooding, disaster response, emergency preparedness, state guidance, public safety, housing, affordable housing, rent control, landlord-tenant laws, housing rights, lobbying, public entities, expenditures, government code, transparency, Texas Ethics Commission, government regulation, lobbying restrictions, government accountability, taxpayer money

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> between a per disaster cap on liability between a per disaster cap on liability or<02:08:55.679>
• Fourteen states are considering a liability approach addressing liability for wildfires.
• Fourteen states are considering a liability approach addressing liability for wildfires.
• Fourteen states are considering a liability approach addressing liability for wildfires.
• </c><02:34:29.040><c> in</c> having the question over liability in having the question over liability

Transcript Highlights:

• It protects local governments and the qualified contractors from liability when performing reviews under
• streamlined public hearing process allowing for local input and a public negotiation process between the landowner
• Currently, under current enclave law, the negotiation process takes place between the landowner and staff
• And with that oversight, concurrent with that oversight, you're willing to accept liability and responsibility

Bills: S0014 , S0016 , S0024 , S0168 , S0288 , S0548 , S0686 , S0830 , S1138 , S1234

Committee: Senate Community Affairs

Summary: The committee met with a quorum present and took up a series of local claims, public records, growth management, permitting, and nuisance bills. It first heard and approved SB 16, SB 14, and SB 24, all uncontested claims bills providing relief related to injuries or settlements involving the City of St. Petersburg and Miami-Dade County. The committee also approved SB 288 on rural electric cooperatives, which narrows statutory language to protect co-op decisions on generation and power purchases while preserving consumer protections, and SB 830, which creates a public records exemption for certain personal information of county and city managers and their families due to reported threats against local officials. Members then considered SB 1138 on qualified contractors and development review, which would create a registry of licensed professionals to help local governments process pre-application reviews and plats more quickly. Local government groups raised concerns about preemption and preserving quasi-judicial authority, while private-provider supporters backed the bill; Senator Sharief voted no, and the bill was reported favorably. The committee also approved SB 168, expanding public nuisance law to include gambling houses and increasing penalties, and SB 686 on agricultural enclaves, which revises the enclave process, adds a public hearing path, limits it to certain residential projects in urban service areas, and was amended to change a date to June 30, 2026 before being reported favorably. The committee next approved CS for SB 548 on growth management and impact fees, which clarifies plan-based methodology, extraordinary circumstances, interlocal agreements, and refund procedures for improper fee collections. Testimony reflected support for clearer standards but also concerns about fee increases and refund administration. Finally, SB 1234 on building permits and inspections was reported favorably; it would extend permit validity, exempt some low-value work from permitting, create a statewide residential permit form, speed review timelines, and expand private-provider use, drawing opposition from a Miami-Dade building official who argued for continued local oversight and support from private-provider advocates. Senator Jones requested to be recorded as voting affirmatively on several tabs and negatively on tab 9, and the committee adjourned after all bills were disposed of.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have responsibilities in the Central Valley, where the state has a liability and responsibility to
• We have responsibilities in the Central Valley, where the state has a liability, different flood-related
• We have responsibilities in the Central Valley where the state has a liability and responsibility to
• Rogers, my department is not funding specific irrigator or landowner activity in the basin of the Scott
• That provides a great opportunity for landowners to transition their land into providing other benefits

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on water and coastal resilience heard an overview of the governor’s Proposition 4 spending plan, with presentations from the Department of Finance, the State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Water Resources, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and later coastal agencies. Members discussed the water chapter’s major allocations for drinking water and wastewater, recycled water, tribal water infrastructure, groundwater recharge and SGMA implementation, dam safety, flood protection, integrated regional water management, Salton Sea projects, and water data/stream gauges. The LAO noted that many programs are established and have clear funding processes, but some newer or less-defined programs may warrant more detailed future budget requests and reporting. No votes were taken on the agenda items. Members raised concerns about groundwater subsidence, water deliveries from the Delta, the pace of water storage investments, instream flows, and whether bond dollars were being used to backfill General Fund reductions. Administration witnesses said groundwater recharge spending is being paced because prior years already funded substantial SGMA work, that Delta operations are governed by water quality, salinity, and species requirements, and that Proposition 1 storage projects have moved slowly because they are locally led and require permitting and financing. The Water Board and DWR said they use public needs assessments, annual plans, and existing grant processes to prioritize projects, and Finance said some General Fund programs were shifted to Proposition 4 to help balance the budget. Members also asked for clearer public tracking of bond spending and more concise future reporting. In the coastal resilience portion, the Ocean Protection Council and Coastal Conservancy described Proposition 4 funding for sea level rise adaptation, coastal flood management, habitat restoration, public access, and San Francisco Bay projects, with a multi-year rollout based on project readiness and recent large state investments. The Conservancy said it would use its existing rolling grant process, while OPC said its sea level rise grants would build on existing programs and new technical assistance. The Department of Fish and Wildlife explained its proposed use of bond funds for climate-ready fisheries, hatchery modernization, salmon monitoring, whale- and turtle-safe fishing gear, and a specific hatchery operations request tied to the Friant settlement. The LAO said the coastal chapter’s proposed first-year spending is relatively modest but generally reasonable given staffing and project readiness, while members emphasized oversight, transparency, and coordination across agencies and jurisdictions.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the thought process is, in my thought process, you have a landowner. He owns that land.
• They believe in the property rights of the landowners.
• I represent a group called Mid-Missouri Landowners Alliance.
• So we didn't, they already had their property in line, you know, with their landowners.
• I understand the dollar amounts some of the landowners get.

Committee: House Utilities

Transcript Highlights:

• So now they're considered high-hazard dams, so then there is even a lot more liability.
• Now they're running funds directly through them to the landowners or to the contractors to get these
• I thought, okay, they're going to be the one we see... ...and to the landowners or to the contractors
• NMED staff members do the testing and then provide whatever, you know, all the information to the landowner
• The information to the landowner about what they need to do next. So that's how this program runs.

Committee: House House Agriculture, Acequias And Water Resources