Transcript Highlights:

• I work for Tall Timbers Research Station and Land Conservancy.
• We’ve got about 170,000 acres of working rural lands under conservation easement in North Florida and

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

Keywords: negligence, settlement, police conduct, municipal liability, personal injury, compensation, injuries, Miami-Dade County, rural electric cooperatives, energy production, Florida law, energy tariffs, regulation, impact fees, transportation capacity, local government, interlocal agreements, growth management, community planning, extraordinary circumstances

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:

• Actually, a lot of easements have been abandoned, but they still charge for crossing that easement, and
• land through conservation easements purchased by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.
• House Bill 2018 clarifies that the program is intended solely for purchasing conservation easements on
• We as an association clearly recognize the importance of voluntary conservation easements as a tool to
• to fulfill its mission, we must ensure the conservation easements go to those that are directly engaged

Bills: HB2018, HB1633, HB1689, SB612, SB3058

Keywords: agricultural conservation, land preservation, environmental protection, wildlife habitat, Texas Farm and Ranch, groundwater conservation district, Texas Water Code, water permit, permit amendment, groundwater permit, water rights, aquifer, well registration, exempt wells, beneficial use, water conservation, groundwater quality, well plugging, Hill Country Priority Groundwater Management Area, surface water resources

Summary: The Senate Water, Agriculture, Rural Affairs Committee heard several bills focused on groundwater management, water infrastructure, and agricultural land conservation. SB 612 would limit certain water districts in Hidalgo, Cameron, and Willacy counties from charging developers pipeline construction fees above actual, documented costs; the committee substitute removed a developer challenge mechanism to preserve district discretion over construction standards. HB 1633 would require groundwater conservation districts to consider registered exempt wells when reviewing or amending permits, and testimony from landowners, district representatives, and advocacy groups largely supported the bill as a way to protect domestic and livestock wells from drawdown caused by large export projects. HB 1689 would clarify that export fee revenues may be used for well operability, alternative water supplies, and aquifer monitoring, including through interlocal cooperation, and HB 3058 would give the Post Oak Savannah Groundwater Conservation District authority to use export fees for county road improvements and environmental programs tied to well inspection and groundwater management. HB 2018 would clarify that the Texas Farm and Ranchland Conservation Program is intended to purchase conservation easements only on working agricultural lands, with support from cattle raisers and Farm Bureau representatives. The committee also considered HB 29, which would require large water systems to validate water loss audits and submit mitigation plans; a committee substitute removed the water-loss threshold and adjusted the timeline for more detailed validation. Public testimony on the bills was generally supportive, with several witnesses describing declining well levels, road damage from export projects, and the need to preserve agricultural land and local water supplies. The committee adopted committee substitutes and voted favorably on HB 29, HB 1689, HB 2018, SB 612, and SB 3058, recommending several of them for the local and uncontested calendar; HB 1633 was left pending awaiting a committee substitute.

Transcript Highlights:

• They have easements throughout the whole valley.
• Did they pay for those easements, do you know?
• Actually, a lot of the easements have been abandoned.
• House Bill 2018 clarifies that the program is intended solely for purchasing conservation easements on
• We, as an association, clearly recognize the importance of our voluntary conservation easements as a

Bills: HB2018, HB1633, HB1689, SB612, SB3058

Keywords: agricultural conservation, land preservation, environmental protection, wildlife habitat, Texas Farm and Ranch, groundwater conservation district, Texas Water Code, water permit, permit amendment, groundwater permit, water rights, aquifer, well registration, exempt wells, beneficial use, water conservation, groundwater quality, well plugging, Hill Country Priority Groundwater Management Area, surface water resources

Transcript Highlights:

• It fixes the names for conservation corps, so it's consistent throughout that article and then clarifies

Bills: HF2563

Keywords: HF2563, legacy finance bill, Legacy Amendment, outdoor heritage fund, clean water fund, parks and trails fund, arts and cultural heritage fund, Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council, Clean Water Council, Minnesota legacy funds, habitat conservation, prairie restoration, wetland restoration, forest conservation, riparian buffers, water quality, groundwater protection, drinking water, septic systems, watershed planning

Transcript Highlights:

• amendment does is it corrects the dollar figures in the parks and trails, fixes the names for conservation
• <00:03:53.599> the<00:03:53.760> names<00:03:54.159> for<00:03:54.480> conservation
• uh, fixes the names for conservation uh, fixes the names for conservation corp.<00:03:55.440>

Bills: HF2563

Keywords: HF2563, legacy finance bill, Legacy Amendment, outdoor heritage fund, clean water fund, parks and trails fund, arts and cultural heritage fund, Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council, Clean Water Council, Minnesota legacy funds, habitat conservation, prairie restoration, wetland restoration, forest conservation, riparian buffers, water quality, groundwater protection, drinking water, septic systems, watershed planning

Transcript Highlights:

• Would you, they're called groundwater conservation districts.
• Yes, I think that is a key purpose of a groundwater conservation district is to conserve groundwater.
• Would you, they're called groundwater conservation districts.
• 276 Yes, I think that is a key purpose of a groundwater conservation district is to conserve groundwater
• Navigation districts, groundwater conservation districts.

Bills: HB24, HB27

Keywords: groundwater, conservation, water permits, sustainability, resource management

Summary: The committee met to hear House Bills 27 and 24 on groundwater issues in East Texas, with members and witnesses focusing on a proposed large-volume groundwater export project and the need for more science before major permitting decisions are made. HB 27, which was within the special session call, would direct the Texas Water Development Board to conduct a hydrogeologic study of the aquifers in the affected area and temporarily pause new export permits while the study is underway. HB 24, a separate bill that would limit certain production and export permits to 5% of modeled available groundwater, was laid out but the chair said it would not be moved out of committee. Testimony on HB 27 was largely supportive, though some witnesses were neutral. Supporters, including representatives from a water supply corporation, the Trinity River Authority, Environmental Defense Fund, and the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, said the region lacks enough hydrologic data, that the proposed pumping could affect private wells, surface water, and local economies, and that the state needs better information on sustainable yield and groundwater-surface water interaction. Several witnesses emphasized that groundwater conservation districts need clearer tools and better data, while also noting concerns about property rights and the rule of capture. Committee members discussed the scale of the proposed project, the absence of a groundwater conservation district in Houston County, and the possibility that the study should examine desired future conditions and maximum sustainable pumping rather than only modeled available groundwater. The committee adopted the committee substitute for HB 27 and voted it out favorably to the full House with a recommendation that it do pass, be printed, and be sent to the Committee on Calendars. The roll call was unanimous, 11 ayes and 0 nays. After the vote, members briefly reflected on the complexity of the issue and the need to continue working on broader groundwater policy in the interim and next session. HB 24 was discussed later in the meeting, but no final action on that bill was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• That water conservation plan and whether that district would have an unreasonable impact on the conservation
• no issue with doing water conservation plans.
• All of the MUDs support conservation, support having the plan.
• As a layperson, I interpret the term water conservation plan.
• You don't have to have a water conservation plan.

Bills: HB24

Keywords: groundwater, conservation, water permits, sustainability, resource management

Bills: HB24

Keywords: groundwater, conservation, water permits, sustainability, resource management

Transcript Highlights:

• , landowner contributions to conservation, landowner contributions to conservation.<00:03:24.000>
• And in 20124, the year conservation.
• I think that's million on conservation.
• Um, so the conservation district statutes were promulgated in 1941.
• aware I work for a conservation aware I work for a conservation district,<00:58:52.079> but

Bills: SF0025, SF0027, SF0043, SF0066

Keywords: landowner licenses, hunting, wildlife management, quota hunt areas, game and fish commission, game management, hunting regulations, black bear, tracking dogs, wildlife conservation, conservation, contracting, supervisor, funding, districts, hunting licenses, donated licenses, life-threatening illness, vision impairment, nonprofit organizations

Bills: SF0025, SF0027, SF0043, SF0066

Keywords: landowner licenses, hunting, wildlife management, quota hunt areas, game and fish commission, game management, hunting regulations, black bear, tracking dogs, wildlife conservation, conservation, contracting, supervisor, funding, districts, hunting licenses, donated licenses, life-threatening illness, vision impairment, nonprofit organizations

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:15:46.080> And Conservation Corps in Yellowstone.
• And Conservation Corps in Yellowstone.
• <01:15:54.800> I to protect them and conserve them. I to protect them and conserve them.
• This has led many to consider careers in wildlife and conservation.
• This has led many to consider careers in wildlife and conservation.

Bills: SF0025, SF0027, SF0043, SF0066

Keywords: landowner licenses, hunting, wildlife management, quota hunt areas, game and fish commission, game management, hunting regulations, black bear, tracking dogs, wildlife conservation, conservation, contracting, supervisor, funding, districts, hunting licenses, donated licenses, life-threatening illness, vision impairment, nonprofit organizations

Bills: HB4128, HB3659, HB3270, HB3145

Keywords: wildlife conservation, hunting regulations, mountain lions, black bears, archery season, senior citizens, licensing fees, waterfowl, nonresidents, public lands, farmed cervidae, chronic wasting disease, genetic resistance, wildlife management, agriculture, wildlife tagging, Cervidae family, feral swine, exotic wildlife, conservation

Transcript Highlights:

• This is important because we need more tools in Texas to be able to conserve groundwater.
• This is like akin to conservation easements, I think, in that regard, where landowners can definitely
• It does remind me of conservation efforts in the past.” “...up.
• It does remind me of conservation efforts in the past.
• Several different groundwater conservation districts in which they do business.

Bills: HB4530, HB4931, HB5559, HB5560

Keywords: water rights, Texas Water Trust, water bank, environmental conservation, water quality, instream flows, aquifer, water injection, Edwards Aquifer, environmental regulation, groundwater, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, water conservation, drought, utility regulation, water use restrictions, Public Utility Commission, civil penalties, drought contingency, environmental protection

Summary: The Committee on Natural Resources met with a quorum present and first took up several pending bills for reconsideration and committee substitute adoption. House Bill 2692, relating to codification and clarification of local laws concerning the San Antonio River Authority, was reported favorably to the full House and sent to the Committee on Local and Consent Calendars by an 11-0 vote. House Bills 1407, 1520, 1535, 2970, 4153, 291, 3663, and 3915 were also reconsidered or laid out as pending business, with committee substitutes adopted where needed and each bill reported favorably, generally by unanimous vote, to the full House and then to Calendars or Calendars/Calendars-related referral as applicable. The committee then heard House Bill 4530, which would expand the Texas Water Trust framework to include groundwater rights, require Texas Water Development Board review and approval of groundwater dedications, and notify local groundwater districts when groundwater rights are placed in the trust. The bill’s author and witnesses from the Environmental Defense Fund, The Nature Conservancy, and Chispa Texas supported the measure as a conservation tool and a way to create a clear process for voluntary donations; a Texas Water Development Board witness testified neutrally. The bill was left pending. House Bill 4931, relating to an aquifer storage and recovery project in Medina County, drew support from the author, the Medina County judge, and a regional water alliance witness, who described severe stress on the Edwards Aquifer, low levels at Medina Lake, and the need for a local water-supply tool. The bill was left pending. House Bill 5559, which would clarify enforcement of drought contingency plans for investor-owned water utilities and involve the PUC in model plan development, received support from groundwater district representatives but also concerns from water company and utility witnesses about enforcement authority, approval procedures, and potential conflicts with existing obligations to provide continuous service; the committee substitute was withdrawn and the bill was left pending. House Bill 5560, which would raise the maximum civil penalty for certain groundwater conservation district enforcement actions from $10,000 to $25,000 per violation, prompted debate over whether current law is already sufficient; supporters said the higher cap would better deter overpumping, while opponents argued existing penalties are already severe. That bill was also left pending, and the committee adjourned subject to call of the chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is important because we need more tools in Texas to be able to conserve groundwater.
• This is akin to conservation easements, I think, in that regard where landowners can definitely make
• Kenneth Flippin: It does remind me of conservation efforts in the past.
• Of Ashley Myers: course, we want to conserve. It is our business to work in water.
• What are your members doing to conserve water and make sure they're staying within the rules?

Bills: HB 4530, HB 4931, HB 5559, HB 5560

Keywords: water rights, Texas Water Trust, water bank, environmental conservation, water quality, instream flows, aquifer, water injection, Edwards Aquifer, environmental regulation, groundwater, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, water conservation, drought, utility regulation, water use restrictions, Public Utility Commission, civil penalties, drought contingency, environmental protection

Bills: HB26, HB73, SB14, HB46

Keywords: impact fees, water conservation, reuse projects, builders, developers, local government

Transcript Highlights:

• Groundwater conservation districts.
• Would you agree that their entire purpose is to conserve groundwater?
• Yes, I think that is a key purpose of a groundwater conservation district: to conserve water.
• I represent ninety of the groundwater conservation districts in Texas out of the 98.
• Now because I am in a groundwater conservation district, I can't use...

Bills: HB24, HB27, HB24, HB27

Keywords: groundwater, conservation, water permits, sustainability, resource management, 997, house, all

Bills: SB 1169, SB 1285, SB 1583, SB 1611, SB 1898, SB 1976, SB 2160, SB 2161, SB 2658, SB 2661, SB 2662, SB 2692, SB 1055, SB 1359, SB 2660

Keywords: water service, sewer service, public utility, joint operation, infrastructure, municipality, compliance, groundwater management, water conservation, district planning, environmental regulation, sustainability, groundwater, conservation, fees, agricultural uses, water regulation, wastewater treatment, environmental testing, pollutants

Transcript Highlights:

• My only question then is whether easements should be assumed based on a 66-foot total right-of-way for
• That's whether it's in the form of an easement, flooding, or hydrologic capacity.
• dike had been originally included because the watershed wanted to own the dike and purchase flood easements
• Landowners refused to sell either land or easements.

Bills: HF3879

Keywords: outdoor heritage, conservation, habitat restoration, natural resources, wildlife management, 1183, house

Summary: The committee approved the April 8, 2026 minutes and then took up House File 3879, the Legacy Finance Outdoor Heritage bill. The committee adopted the DE1 author’s amendment, which incorporated the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council’s revised recommendations and made technical corrections, and staff explained that the bill appropriates about $191.081 million in Outdoor Heritage funding, plus carryforwards and an extension for a carp deterrent project at Lock and Dam. Staff also noted the bill makes no changes to the Clean Water Fund or Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund, and the bill was moved to the Committee on Ways and Means. A large portion of the meeting focused on the Roseau Lake rehabilitation/Roseau River restoration project and related concerns about landowner impacts, eminent domain, drainage, and whether Outdoor Heritage dollars are being used on private property. Landowners and their attorney testified that the project threatens private farmland, that they do not consent to easements or takings, and that funding should be paused until litigation and legal questions are resolved. They described flooding, drainage problems, financial burdens, and long-term harm to family farms, and asked the committee to suspend funding for the project. Supporters of the project, including Roseau Mayor Dan Fabian and farmer/watershed district manager Jason Bratton, said the project is part of a broader flood-mitigation effort following the 2002 Roseau flood and would help control water, reduce flood damage, and improve conditions for downstream farmers. After testimony, the committee considered the A5 amendment, offered by Representative Heintzeman, which would delete the Roseau Lake Rehabilitation Project Phase 3 from the bill. Members debated the amendment, with some emphasizing landowner concerns and pending litigation and others defending the project and the council’s vetting process. The transcript cuts off during continued discussion, and no final vote on the A5 is shown in the provided text.

Transcript Highlights:

• Those are all permanent conservation easements for BWSR, Reinvest in Minnesota.
• If you look at subdivision 2J, it's called Accelerating the USFWS Habitat Conservation Easement Program
• It's an interesting partnership. conservation easement program phase five conservation easement program
• From a standpoint of conservation easements, every time you'll see in a number of these appropriations
• From a standpoint of conservation easements, every time you'll see in a number of these appropriations

Bills: HF1250

Keywords: outdoor heritage, land acquisition, wildlife management, conservation easements, environmental restoration, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• March for Water Month and to serve as a platform for communities to raise awareness about water conservation
• about<00:05:16.040> water to raise awareness about water to raise awareness about water conservation
• 17.680> so<00:05:17.800> much<00:05:18.000> for<00:05:18.080> your conservation
• Thank you so much for your conservation.

Bills: SCR94, SCR22, SCR99, SCR165

Keywords: Waikiki, surfing, cultural heritage, environmental protection, tourism, climate change, Hawaii, community, conservation, Ahuʻena Heiau, Hawaii history, Kamehameha the Great, historic preservation, cultural significance, community stewardship, arts, culture, nonprofit, creative residency, community engagement

Summary: The Culture and the Arts Committee met on April 17 and heard several Senate concurrent resolutions. SCR 94 would endorse Waikiki as a world surfing reserve; testimony in support came from the University of Hawaiʻi and the Waikiki Beach Improvement District Association. SCR 22 recognized the fifth anniversary of the restoration of Iolani Palace and its spiritual, political, and cultural importance, with no testimony offered. SCR 99 SD1 proposed convening a working group to establish a state-recognized nonprofit to support arts and culture engagement; DBEDT’s Creative Industries director supported the measure, and additional support was noted from the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts, several individuals, and the Hawaii Film Festival and Hawaii International Film Festival. SCR 165 SD1 designated March as March for Water Month, with support from the Board of Water Supply and the Plumbers and Pipe Fitters. After a brief recess, the committee voted to pass all four measures as is. SCR 94 passed with the chair, vice chair, and members voting aye, with Representative Garrett excused. SCR 22 SD1, SCR 99 SD1, and SCR 165 SD1 were also adopted without reservations, with Representative Garrett excused on those votes as well. The committee then adjourned, with the chair noting it was likely the final hearing of the session.