Keywords: KY LRC YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPUrHDkFjLc, 2026-06-21T07:17:08+00:00, 2.2.24, Data collected via generic collector engine, Meeting Start: 00:00:00 Call to Order/Roll Call: 00:00:31 Discussion on Carbon Credits: 00:02:35 Agriculture Education and Plant Growth: 00:47:35 Introduction: 01:15:00, 958, all, 2.2.42, 2.1.47

Transcript Highlights:

• This amendment just clarifies the definition of carbon dioxide to include its chemical composition.
• reduce carbon emissions, is that policy prohibited under your bill?
• So, just acknowledging that, the idea that a simple goal, even a modest goal of reducing some carbon
• Thank you, Madam Chair, and senators, this amendment just clarifies the definition of carbon dioxide
• product or activity. related to reducing the use of carbon-intensive product or activity so a target

Bills: S0558, S1294, S1468, S1474, S1682, S1628

Keywords: stormwater systems, environmental standards, municipal infrastructure, engineering certifications, local compliance, Florida Department of Transportation, biosolids, agronomic rate, land application, environmental protection, Florida statutes, nutrient management, recordkeeping, farming, compost products, wastewater treatment, environment, sewage disposal, pollution control, reporting requirements

Summary: The committee took up several environmental bills, beginning with SB 1682 on local administration of vessel restrictions. Senator Trumbull said the bill would give cities and counties tools to address abandoned, derelict, and long-term anchored vessels while following state standards and FWC guidance. Members from affected areas spoke in support, citing recurring derelict vessel problems and the difficulty and cost of removal once vessels sink. The bill was reported favorably. The committee then heard SB 1468 on advanced wastewater treatment, which would require DEP to compile a detailed statewide report on wastewater treatment plants, including construction age, treatment levels, contaminant data, spill history, flood risk, and receiving waterbody impairment information. Florida Rural Water Association testified that any move to require advanced treatment for all plants over one MGD could create major financial burdens without dedicated funding. The bill was reported favorably. The committee also considered CS/SB 1294 on biosolids management, with a strike-all amendment adopted. Senator Bradley said the revised bill would require bulk Class AA biosolids fertilizer and compost products to be land applied only at agronomic rates and, absent a bona fide sale, only at permitted DEP-approved sites, with a transition date moved to July 1, 2028. Supporters said it would protect water quality and legitimate fertilizer and compost markets, while rural utilities asked for funding and flexibility. The committee reported the bill favorably. Next, the committee took up CS/SB 1628 on net zero policies by governmental entities. Senator Avila said the bill would prohibit local governments and other governmental entities from adopting or funding net zero policies, imposing related fees or taxes, or operating cap-and-trade or carbon trading programs. The committee adopted an amendment clarifying the definition of carbon dioxide. The bill drew extensive debate: supporters argued it would protect residents and businesses from higher costs and preserve predictability, while opponents said it would block local climate and clean-energy policies, including electric buses, energy-efficiency measures, and climate resilience planning. After public testimony on both sides, the bill was reported favorably. The committee also approved CS/SB 1474 on biosolids management, which Senator Gates said would require biosolids and septage to be treated at the highest practical level when wastewater treatment facilities are reasonably accessible and would bar Class B land application within 50 miles of a permitted wastewater facility. An amendment applying the statutory definition of septage was adopted, and the bill was reported favorably. Finally, the committee heard SB 558 on stormwater system standards. Senator Burgess said it would create statewide standards for municipal and county stormwater systems using FDOT guidelines and third-party inspections, with an amendment making technical changes and broadening who may perform inspections. Supporters said uniform standards could improve safety and reduce failures, while contractors, engineers, and industry groups warned it could raise costs, delay projects, and preempt stronger local standards. The bill remained under discussion as the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• It could have easily been called a low-carbon portfolio standard.
• It says how much electricity is carbon-free, regardless of the technology.
• Nuclear energy is a carbon-free resource and could Available in the future.
• It is already in law that nuclear energy is a zero-carbon resource.
• It is a zero-carbon energy. There's absolutely no denying that.

Bills: SB47, SB195, SB196, SB197, SB198, SB78

Keywords: food recovery, composting, waste management, solid waste surcharge, organic waste reduction, environment, grants, advisory group, soil conservation, water resources, training services, outreach programs, environmental protection, animal care, veterinary services, spay and neuter, Las Vegas, community funding, animal welfare, animal shelter

Bills: SF0050, SF0068, SF0084, HB0087, HB0029, HB0061, HB0090

Keywords: groundwater, water resource management, state engineer, aquifer study, corrective controls, monitoring wells, public reporting, irrigation, water management, funding, maintenance projects, tax assessments, state law, water conservation, Colorado River, drought, water rights, voluntary program, interstate agreements, water development

Transcript Highlights:

• a study on water uses that permanently remove water from the water cycle, including data centers, carbon
• So, thank you. cycle, including data centers, carbon cycle, including data centers, carbon capture<00

Bills: SF0050, SF0068, SF0084, HB0087, HB0029, HB0061, HB0090

Keywords: groundwater, water resource management, state engineer, aquifer study, corrective controls, monitoring wells, public reporting, irrigation, water management, funding, maintenance projects, tax assessments, state law, water conservation, Colorado River, drought, water rights, voluntary program, interstate agreements, water development

Transcript Highlights:

• There's something called BEX, biomass energy carbon capture and sequestration.
• sequestration or geologic carbon sequestration in our state are in eastern and central Washington.
• How is carbon sequestration monetized? Is it going to be an option on the carbon offset market?
• How is carbon sequestration monetized? Is it going to be an option on the carbon offset market?
• So storing captured carbon in permanent geologic sequestration... ...so storing captured carbon in permanent

Summary: The committee held an interim work session focused first on carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration (CCUS), then on hazardous waste and extended producer responsibility (EPR). On the CCUS topic, industry and nonprofit presenters described point-source capture, direct air capture, mineralization, and geologic sequestration, emphasizing Washington’s basalt formations and state trust lands as strong candidates for storage. They argued that CCUS can help hard-to-abate industrial sectors, support jobs and investment, and provide a pathway for compliance, while also noting the need for clearer permitting, subsurface rights, pipeline authority, and storage infrastructure. Ecology and Commerce staff explained current state policy touchpoints, including Cap-and-Invest offsets and exemptions for permanently stored CO2, the public comment process underway to define “thousand-year” permanence, and how CCUS might fit within the Clean Energy Transformation Act without counting emitting generation as non-emitting. Some presenters supported more state action and primacy over federal permitting, while others warned about costs, energy use, uncertain capture performance, and the need to ensure real net greenhouse gas reductions and long-term liability protections. Members asked about public meetings, whether mineralized carbon would qualify as exempt under the Climate Commitment Act, the timeline for Ecology guidance, aquifer and water-quality concerns, energy intensity of capture systems, and liability if storage later proves problematic. Responses said Ecology’s guidance process is already underway, public meetings will be virtual, mineralized carbon would likely qualify if it meets the permanence standard, and EPA rules require storage in deep saline formations below drinking water aquifers. Industry speakers said capture energy use varies by source and concentration, and one presenter noted that some states use trust funds funded by injectors to address long-term liability. The second half of the session shifted to hazardous waste and EPR. Ecology staff reviewed existing product stewardship programs for electronics, paint, batteries, and mercury lights, and described moderate risk waste and household hazardous waste management in Washington. They highlighted that E-Cycle and PaintCare are producer-funded, that the battery stewardship program will begin in 2027, and that the mercury lamp program is in transition after its prior stewardship organization exited, prompting enforcement notices and a pending replacement plan. Ecology recommended best practices for future EPR programs, including clear producer and product definitions, full producer funding, convenience standards, annual reporting, and strong agency enforcement and plan approval authority. Local government speakers from King County and Douglas County described rising collection costs, equity and access barriers, rural travel distances, and the need for stable funding and flexible local implementation. King County said it collected over 3 million pounds of hazardous products in 2025 and supports EPR as a way to shift costs from ratepayers to producers, while Douglas County emphasized that rural residents will participate when services are accessible and that future systems should account for geography and local infrastructure.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's something called BEX, biomass, energy, carbon capture, and sequestration.
• or geologic carbon sequestration in our state are in eastern and central Washington.
• How is carbon sequestration monetized? Is it going to be an option on the carbon offset market?
• How is carbon sequestration monetized? Is it going to be an option on the carbon offset market?
• So storing captured carbon in permanent geologic sequestration...

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The committee’s interim work session focused first on carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration (CCUS), with presenters from industry, nonprofits, and state agencies describing Washington’s geologic potential, the role of basalt formations, and the difference between point-source capture, direct air capture, utilization, and permanent storage. Industry and project developers emphasized that Washington has major opportunities to reduce industrial emissions, create jobs, and support hard-to-electrify sectors, while state agencies explained current policy touchpoints in the Cap and Invest Program, emissions exemptions for permanently stored CO2, and the Clean Energy Transformation Act. Several presenters urged clearer statutory and regulatory pathways, including rules for pore space, subsurface rights, pipeline siting, and long-term liability; others cautioned that CCUS should be limited to real emissions reductions and not treated as a substitute for broader clean energy measures. Committee members asked about public comment opportunities, whether mineralized carbon would qualify for exemption under the Climate Commitment Act, the energy intensity of capture systems, aquifer protection, and liability if storage later proves problematic. Ecology said it is developing guidance through a public engagement process running through late June and that mineralized or otherwise permanently stored CO2 would likely qualify if it meets the 1,000-year permanence standard. DNR and outside experts also discussed trust lands, water rights, and the need for additional geophysical surveys and test wells. The panel did not take any votes or formal actions. The second half of the meeting turned to hazardous waste and extended producer responsibility. Ecology reviewed existing product stewardship programs for electronics, paint, batteries, and mercury lights, and described how moderate risk waste and household hazardous waste are currently collected through county facilities and events. Ecology said the electronics program is its best model, while the mercury lamp program is currently in transition after the prior stewardship organization exited and a new organization is seeking approval. Ecology recommended that future EPR programs have clear producer and product definitions, full producer funding, convenience standards, annual reporting, and strong enforcement authority. Local government witnesses from King County and Douglas County described rising costs, access barriers in rural areas, and the need for stable funding and flexible local delivery models. King County said it collected over 3 million pounds of hazardous products in 2025 and argued that EPR could reduce costs for ratepayers and improve equity. Douglas County stressed that rural residents are willing to participate when services are available, but travel distance and operating costs make access difficult. An industry representative supported narrowly scoped stewardship programs like PaintCare but warned that broad household hazardous waste EPR systems can become difficult to administer and may require legislative revisions if responsibilities are not clearly defined. No votes were taken on the hazardous waste topic either.

Transcript Highlights:

• As you noted, Chair, I am joined by Lands and related carbon sequestration.
• Carbon sequestration and storage is really important. Climate resilience is really important.
• I know your position here on the importance of carbon sequestration and EEA's commitment to it.
• of emissions roughly could be reduced by looking to carbon sequestration.
• Me today regarding carbon sequestration through natural and working lands.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held a hearing on natural and working lands, carbon sequestration, and related provisions in Governor Healey’s $3 billion Mass Ready Act. EEA officials described the bill’s investments in flooding, land protection, tree planting, wetlands restoration, biodiversity, dams, seawalls, and coastal resilience, along with permitting reforms intended to speed ecological restoration projects. They also outlined current programs on resilient lands, healthy soils, forest climate solutions, forest reserves, and urban tree planting, and said the administration expects natural and working lands to offset up to 7 million metric tons of residual emissions by 2050, while acknowledging that additional strategies will be needed to close the gap to the state’s 10-million-ton offset target. Committee members pressed EEA on the cost of reaching the 30% conservation-by-2030 goal, the loss of a federal USDA grant of about $22 million, the adequacy of current sequestration estimates, and whether the state should consider regional approaches or statutory changes. EEA said current state conservation spending has been about $35 million to $40 million annually, that the Mass Ready Act is intended to help double the pace of conservation, and that federal funding remains uncertain. Senators also raised concerns about PILOT payments for state-owned land, the management of state forests, and the proposed Chapter 91 general license for restoration projects. EEA said the bill’s forest reserve language is meant to create a more durable designation process while still allowing limited active management. Advocates from The Nature Conservancy and Mass Audubon supported stronger investment in land conservation and restoration, saying natural and working lands are a cost-effective climate strategy that also provides biodiversity, water quality, and public health benefits. They urged passage of legislation to increase funding, improve PILOT equity, and strengthen land-use planning and mitigation requirements. They also backed removing Chapter 91 licensing requirements for ecological restoration, arguing that the current process adds cost and delay. In a later panel, a forest scientist and an urban forestry advocate emphasized the carbon and cooling benefits of mature trees, called for greater protection of older forests, and supported bills to expand municipal reforestation and modernize public shade tree law. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:18:19.679> Carbon Carbon sequestration then is the process of taking in carbon dioxide
• So this term called carbon flux is the sequestration plus the emissions.
• <00:20:31.039> sequestration carbon flux is the sequestration carbon flux is the sequestration
• > their to carbon and sequestration on their to carbon and sequestration on their property.<01
• And it was very interesting to talk about sequestration and carbon storage.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The meeting was called to order, the Pledge of Allegiance was led, and the clerk called the roll, establishing a quorum. The committee approved the prior minutes after correcting the date and changing a reference so that a draft-legislation note attributed to Representative Wlette was corrected. After that, the chair introduced a carbon presentation by Mr. Charlie Lebec and invited members and guests to move closer to view the slides. Mr. Lebec’s presentation focused on forest carbon science and forest carbon offset markets, with emphasis on how forests store, sequester, and emit carbon. He explained greenhouse gases and the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature, then defined key terms such as carbon storage, sequestration, flux, sinks, and sources. He also described forest carbon pools, noting that soils contain a large share of forest carbon, and discussed how forest age affects storage and sequestration, arguing that younger forests often sequester carbon faster while older forests store more carbon overall. He also addressed how harvested wood products can continue to store carbon, responding to a question from a member about mass timber and carbon sinks. The presentation included regional comparisons showing New Hampshire’s forest density, carbon storage, and sequestration relative to other New England states, and noted that New Hampshire forests offset more than 30% of the state’s annual greenhouse gas emissions from nonforest sources, while Maine and Vermont offset even larger shares. Mr. Lebec said eastern forests are generally carbon sinks, unlike some western forests affected by wildfire, and stressed that forest management, soil protection, and forest age all influence carbon outcomes. No votes or substantive policy actions were taken beyond approving the minutes; the meeting was primarily informational.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, carbon cashback does not cut carbon emissions.
• Uh, they use Sweden as an example of how they've reduced carbon emissions by having a carbon tax, but
• does not uh cut carbon emissions. does not uh cut carbon emissions.
• a taxpayer qualifies for this carbon a taxpayer qualifies for this carbon cash<00:42:24.960>
• a lot and this is the carbon cash back. a lot and this is the carbon cash back.

Bills: SB2309, SB2317, SB2318, SB2319, SB2321, SB2323, SB2332, SB2405, SB2485

Keywords: agricultural loans, financial support, Hawaii agriculture, food security, revolving fund, agriculture, insurance, small producers, state support, biosecurity, farm coverage, public-private partnerships, agricultural policy, agricultural statistics, data collection, Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity, economic analysis, market development, grant funding, climate resiliency

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several agriculture-related measures, beginning with SB 2309, which would require the agricultural loan division to sell portions of its loan portfolio and use the proceeds to expand the agriculture loan revolving fund. The Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity and the Hawaii Farm Bureau supported the bill, along with several other organizations and individuals. A committee question focused on the risk of not finding a qualified buyer for the loan portfolio; DAB said a mandatory sale of the full amount could force a less favorable rate, while flexibility to sell different amounts could produce a more equitable return. The measure drew eight supporters and no opposition. The committee then took up SB 2317, which directs DAB to study insurance coverage for small producers and report back to the Legislature. DAB and multiple farm groups supported the bill. In response to a question about cost, DAB estimated about $250,000 would be needed, with the study likely covering crop, health, and liability insurance. The next measure, SB 2318, would establish an agriculture statistics program in statute. DAB said it strongly supported the bill and could ramp up quickly if positions were provided; the committee discussed whether a first report could be completed by year’s end if the bill became law midyear, and DAB said yes. SB 2319, which would fund and make permanent a full-time grant writer position at DAB, also drew strong support from DAB, the Hawaii Farm Bureau, Ulupono Initiative, the Hawaii Cattlemen’s Council, the local food coalition, and others, with testifiers emphasizing the position’s return on investment and success in bringing in federal funds. The committee also heard SB 2321, establishing a two-year pilot program to respond to the twoline spittlebug. DAB, ranching groups, and many others supported the bill, citing the pest’s spread and the need to act before it becomes unmanageable. A DAB pest control manager said he would need to research past response details and provide them later. Members emphasized the importance of early intervention. For SB 2323, which creates a farmland transition commission to study barriers to farmland access and recommend solutions, DAB offered comments and support for the intent, while farm groups generally supported the concept but raised concerns about the proposed age range and whether a separate commission was necessary. DAB said the Board of Agriculture likely would not have the capacity to perform the commission’s duties and estimated there would be costs to establish it, though no figure was available at the hearing. Finally, the committee heard SB 2332, which reestablishes the agriculture and food security special fund, creates a carbon emissions tax and dividend fund, gradually raises carbon-related tax rates, and provides a refundable carbon cashback credit. DAB supported the measure and deferred to Taxation on details; the Department of Taxation said it would stand on its comments, and the Attorney General’s office offered comments and recommendations. Carbon Cashback Hawaii and the County of Hawaii Department of Research and Development supported the bill, arguing it would reduce emissions, protect lower-income households, and be relatively simple to administer.

Transcript Highlights:

• The people I represent are in favor of carbon capture sequestration.
• Do they do carbon sequestration today? No. No.
• any monies that were coming from ancillary carbon, any other carbon sequestration project would go through
• any monies that were coming from ancillary carbon, any other carbon sequestration project would go through
• Helena Parish, not data centers, only carbon dioxide sequestration.

Keywords: 965, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The people I represent are in favor of carbon capture sequestration.
• Do they do carbon sequestration today? No. No.
• any monies that were coming from ancillary carbon, any other carbon sequestration project, would go
• Senate election was a referendum on carbon sequestration and storage.
• Helena Parish, not data centers, only carbon dioxide sequestration.

Summary: The committee took up public comment on a package of similar local-option bills related to carbon capture and sequestration, including House Bills 5, 6, 497, 498, 501, and 504. The bills would let parishes, or in some cases specific parishes such as Rapides and Livingston, decide by local vote whether Class VI wells, CO2 sequestration, and related pipeline infrastructure could be permitted. The chair grouped the bills together for testimony, adopted a three-minute public comment rule, and noted that the bills were not yet under consideration for a vote during the public-comment portion. Supporters, including Speaker Pro Tem Mike Johnson, parish officials, local activists, and residents, argued that communities affected by carbon capture projects should have a direct voice through local option elections. They said the bills were about self-determination, local control, and allowing residents to decide whether the risks are worth the benefits. Several speakers said their parishes had passed resolutions opposing carbon capture or asking for local choice, while others emphasized concerns about eminent domain, aquifer protection, lack of public understanding, and the need for more information about project impacts and financial benefits. Some supporters also said a local vote would force industry to engage more directly with communities and could improve transparency. Opponents, including representatives of the Department of Conservation and Energy, the Louisiana Chemistry Association, the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, and the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry, warned that the bills would create uncertainty, undermine Louisiana’s primacy over Class VI permitting, and invite litigation under federal preemption and the Supremacy Clause. They said the state already has a strict permitting process with public input and technical review, and that allowing parish-by-parish approval could delay or block billions of dollars in investment, jobs, and export-related projects. The department testified that if the state adopted a local-option referendum system, EPA could determine Louisiana was not implementing the program consistently and could move to remove primacy. No committee vote was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• I I would like to see carbon I I would like to see carbon sequestration sequestration sequestration
• > 99 the carbon sequestration credits are 99 the carbon sequestration credits are 99 or<00:35:
• value for carbon sequestration credits. value for carbon sequestration credits.
• <01:04:03.560> sequestration, in carbon sequestration, in carbon sequestration, pay<01:04:
• <01:06:17.480> sequestration levy a carbon sequestration levy a carbon sequestration over<

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The meeting opened with a quorum present and approval of the April 17 minutes. The commission then heard a presentation from attorney Jacob Rhodes of Cleveland, Waters and Bass on the history and legal basis of New Hampshire’s timber tax, explaining that timber was historically treated as part of real property, that a 1913 case confirmed that view, and that a 1949 constitutional amendment created a separate timber yield tax to discourage clear-cutting and support forest conservation. He described the tax as a tax on the yield when timber is severed, not an income tax, and noted that towns are reimbursed through a system based on Department of Revenue Administration market data and local reports of cut. Members and guests asked how “yield” is defined, how the timber tax interacts with current use, and whether carbon sequestration could be treated similarly. Testimony explained that current use generally is not affected by harvesting timber, that towns can tax standing timber under RSA 79:5 but rarely do because it is labor-intensive, and that carbon credits might be valued using a similar market-data approach. Several speakers discussed a prior bill drafted with DRA input that would have treated carbon more like timber, but noted it never fully advanced in the General Court and that the version ultimately discussed by the House differed from the earlier DRA-comfortable draft. The discussion also covered whether carbon sequestration agreements are effectively long-term leases or transfers of timber rights, with Rhodes suggesting that 99-year arrangements could be taxable transfers of real property under DRA rules, though he had not reviewed specific agreements. DRA staff said they do not currently have a timber-like survey mechanism for carbon and would likely need access to proprietary market data or a subscription service to build one. No formal vote was taken beyond approving the minutes; the commission appeared to agree to revisit the carbon/timber valuation issue and the draft bill at a future meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Carbon sequestration is a scam.
• indulge the left with carbon indulge the left with carbon sequestration<00:13:25.360> legislation
• > along carbon storage or sequestration along carbon storage or sequestration along with<00:14
• This would be the largest carbon sequestration facility in the world.
• This would be the largest carbon This would be the largest carbon sequestration<00:32:53.840>

Bills: HB61, HB176, SB12

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Carbon capture and sequestration from fossil fuel projects are not a climate solution.
• sequestration, researching the facilities and where carbon sequestration was being applied.
• My heartburn over this bill is not during the carbon sequestration, which I think is necessary.
• My heartburn is that I think carbon sequestration is being used as an excuse.
• This bill ensures carbon sequestration is done responsibly, and I urge your support. Thank you. Mr.

Transcript Highlights:

• <03:33:52.080> sequestration hearing on the carbon sequestration hearing on the carbon sequestration
• <03:35:24.880> sequestration one thing it adds carbon sequestration one thing it adds carbon
• > the<03:43:31.199> the carbon sequestration before that the the carbon sequestration before
• c> the carbon sequestration but then the carbon sequestration but then the existing<04:50:51.558>
• > way tax carbon sequestration the same way tax carbon sequestration the same way that<04:52:53.400

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• much of that was not carbon sequestration?
• > much<00:04:03.920> of was carbon sequestration and how much of was carbon sequestration
• that was not carbon sequestration? that was not carbon sequestration?
• Everything from uh you know carbon sequestration to uh you name it going across the board.
• Everything from uh you know carbon sequestration to uh you name it going across the board.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and carbon sequestration, and it's deleting that section for a couple of different reasons.
• The first is that, as Chair Swedzinski recognized earlier, both carbon capture and sequestration are
• I think carbon capture and sequestration is certainly one of them. Battery storage is another.
• think carbon capture and sequestration<00:01:41.040> is<00:01:41.200> certainly<00:01:
• I'll just point out that carbon capture and sequestration is allowed as part of 2040 and can be done

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• All right, last one is HB 1063, Carbon Sequestration, by Representative Cross.
• So if you engaged in any of those activities, you are inadvertently helping with carbon sequestration
• This is called carbon sequestration. the amendment is adopted. We are back on the bill.
• This is called carbon sequestration. In their shells.
• This is called carbon sequestration, and carbon sequestration that occurs in marine environments is often

Summary: The Natural Resources and Disaster Subcommittee took up eight bills focused on water policy, coastal resilience, environmental regulation, beaches, wildlife funding, and carbon sequestration. HB 7001 preserved the public-record exemption for site-specific location information on endangered and threatened species before its scheduled repeal, and it was reported favorably 16-0. H.R. 661, expressing support for a “one-water” approach to the state water supply, drew discussion about whether it implied centralized control; an amendment aligning the resolution with Senate language was adopted, and the resolution passed 16-0 with a committee substitute. The committee also advanced HB 1345 on infrastructure and resiliency, which after a strike-all amendment authorized DEP to procure coastal resiliency projects through public-private partnerships and use incentives such as revenue-sharing, expedited permitting, public engagement, and workforce training; it passed 16-0. HB 477 on weather modification was substantially amended to return to current statute and add a $10,000 fine for failing to obtain a permit; the bill drew extensive public testimony both for and against weather modification and cloud seeding, and it passed as amended with a committee substitute. HB 6043, repealing the 2018 customary-use beach statute affecting Walton County, prompted testimony about beach access, tourism losses, and private property rights; it passed 17-0. The committee then approved CS for HB 843, making clarifying changes to Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission trust funds and allowing use of the non-game wildlife trust fund for law enforcement and coordination with related agencies and landowners; it passed 17-0. HB 1169 revised water management district planning, budgeting, reporting, and procurement practices, including restrictions on lobbyist funds and updated project preference rules; two amendments were adopted and the bill passed 16-0. Finally, HB 1063 created a task force to study carbon sequestration and related ecosystem services in Florida’s natural and agricultural lands and waters; after amendments removing a fiscal component and clarifying voluntary participation and property-rights protections, it passed 15-2. The meeting adjourned after all bills were reported favorably.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think this morning's hearing about advancing carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration, or CCUS
• Primacy in general, and I'm interested in learning more about how we do this for carbon sequestration
• Through this carbon sequestration, Nebraska and other Midwestern states stand to benefit greatly from
• Connors, your work in North Dakota on carbon sequestration is impressive.
• Connors, or both, currently only two carbon capture and sequestration projects are listed as FAST 41