Bills: SB863, SB1190, SB1261, SB1413, SB1624, SB1662, SB1663, SB1855, SB1967, SB2124, SB2204, SB1623

Keywords: Edwards Aquifer, water conservation, reclaimed water, aquifer storage, environmental protection, water loss, municipally owned utilities, Texas Water Development Board, administrative penalties, water audit, water infrastructure, water supply, state water plan, water management strategies, water financing, municipal bonds, revenue bonds, public debt, obligations, TWDB

Summary: The Senate Committee on Water, Agriculture, and Rural Affairs heard several water-related bills, with testimony focused on drinking water quality, groundwater contamination notice, flood infrastructure funding, water rights conservation, and utility service areas. SB 1662 would limit TCEQ’s advance notice to public water systems to no more than 24 hours before testing after a consumer complaint, to reduce the chance of temporary treatment affecting results. SB 1663 would allow TCEQ to notify private well owners, groundwater conservation districts, and nearby residents by direct means about known groundwater contamination, rather than relying mainly on first-class mail and annual reporting. SB 2124 would move the deadline for publishing the Texas Groundwater Protection Committee’s annual report from April 1 to June 1. Witnesses on the first two bills described long-running water quality problems and delayed notice in their communities and supported the measures. No opposition was recorded, and each bill was left pending for a later vote. The committee also heard SB 1967, which would expand eligibility for Flood Infrastructure Fund financing to multipurpose projects that both reduce flooding and create water supply. Senator Hinojosa and Hidalgo County representatives described the Delta Reclamation Project as a shovel-ready example that would capture flood and drainage water, treat it, and produce new potable supply while also providing detention and flood mitigation. A Sierra Club witness also supported the bill, saying such projects could help manage floodwaters and reduce polluted discharges to bays and estuaries. The bill was left pending. A lengthy and divided discussion followed on SB 1413, which would expand the streamlined expedited release process for landowners seeking removal from a water or sewer CCN in additional counties. Senator Nichols said the bill was a property-rights measure aimed at legacy monopolies and bad actors who use CCNs to hold landowners hostage, while supporters described cases where developers could not get timely service, including fire flow, or were asked to fund infrastructure without reasonable recoupment. Opponents from rural water corporations and utility associations argued the bill would undermine investment in water infrastructure, strand debt, and weaken the return on planned expansion. PUC and TCEQ resource witnesses explained that compensation is handled case by case through appraisal and can include stranded costs, planning, design, construction, and some legal fees, but members noted the statute is unclear and discussed possible committee substitute language. Public testimony was closed with the bill left pending. Later, SB 1624 would allow the Texas Water Trust within the Texas Water Bank to hold donated water rights for conservation purposes and protect them from use-it-or-lose-it cancellation, and SB 863 would address Edwards Aquifer utilities that straddle the aquifer boundary by allowing them to continue using Edwards water within their certificated areas under specified conditions. Both bills were laid out, received no public opposition in the hearing, and were left pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• attempt to do environmental mitigation by offering landowners the option to place a conservation easement
• to submit a report to TCEQ to the TCEQ board explaining why they failed to utilize a conservation easement
• Conservation easements have been used a long time in this state. We have over 30 land trusts.
• That are currently operating in the state of Texas that do conservation easements with landowners.
• Voluntary and freely negotiated private transactions for conservation easements are the best way to,

Bills: HB 937, HB 2078, HB 2080, HB 3322, HB 3350, HB 4212, HB 4630, HB 4896, HB 4951, HB 5348, HB 5675, SB 565, SB 971, SB 1662, SB 2124

Keywords: special districts, notice requirements, Water Code, government transparency, public meetings, meeting notice, transparency, public engagement, notice, elections, groundwater management, water conservation, joint planning, environmental impact, desired future conditions, groundwater, conservation district, environmental quality, regulatory review, water utility

Transcript Highlights:

• attempt to do environmental mitigation by offering landowners the option to place a conservation easement
• If landowners choose not to have the easement on their land, the private landowner can either have the
• TCEQ to the TCEQ board explaining why they failed to utilize a conservation easement if the entity fails
• We have over 30 land trusts currently operating in Texas that do conservation easements with landowners
• The impact and effects would be achieved through voluntary processes using conservation easements instead

Bills: HB937, HB2078, HB2080, HB3322, HB3350, HB4212, HB4630, HB4896, HB4951, HB5348, HB5675, SB565, SB971, SB1662, SB2124

Keywords: special districts, notice requirements, Water Code, government transparency, public meetings, meeting notice, transparency, public engagement, notice, elections, groundwater management, water conservation, joint planning, environmental impact, desired future conditions, groundwater, conservation district, environmental quality, regulatory review, water utility

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

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

• third-party use of those easements. third-party use of those easements.
• through other agreements or an easement through other agreements or an easement for<00:37:52.160
• there's an important distinction that was not in my testimony, which is on a case-by-case basis or an easement-by-easement
• So if the utility's easement is a broad easement, like, say, for example, a utility easement, which is
• or must provide the underlying easement or must provide the underlying easement to<00:48:16.160>

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Administrative Regulation Review Subcommittee met in August with a quorum present and approved the prior meeting minutes without objection. The committee then reviewed several regulations, generally adopting staff-suggested amendments without objection, and heard brief explanations from agency representatives on each item. The Board of Pharmacy regulations would clarify what registered and certified pharmacy technicians may do under supervision and what certified technicians may not do, while updating registration applications. The Board of Cosmetology package included changes to executive director authority, licensure and reciprocity rules, school requirements, training hours, instructor ratios, sanitation and disease-related rules, complaint procedures, and permit terms; members asked about straight razor language and the increase in student-to-instructor ratios, and the board explained that cosmetologists are not permitted to use straight razors and that the higher ratio was intended to give schools flexibility, especially for part-time students and schools with wait lists. The Occupational Therapy emergency compact regulation added four compact rules adopted in April 2025, and Senator West raised a technical question about certification requirements under House Bill 6; the agency said it had been instructed to file the regulation as submitted. The Department for Fish and Wildlife Resources presented a package covering wildlife management area rules, a northern pintail bag limit increase, reportable disease reporting, and a repeal tied to boat registration fees. After a brief explanation of the new wildlife disease reporting rule, the agency requested and received a deferral of 301 KAR 2:031 to avoid a gap while replacement language is finalized. The Economic Development Finance Authority explained an emergency regulation for the Kentucky Entertainment Incentive Program, saying it was needed because the program had become oversubscribed and because administration was shifting to a new film office and council; members also asked about certification issues under House Bill 6, and the agency said it had filed the regulation as directed. The Department of Workplace Standards emergency PPE regulation was also discussed, with members asking about HB 6 certification language, and the agency gave the same response. The Department of Insurance regulation would create a $10,000 registration fee and a $1,000 annual licensing fee for pharmacy benefit manager licenses, with an agency amendment exempting PBMs that solely serve workers’ compensation plans. Members asked how many PBMs would be affected and why workers’ compensation PBMs were carved out; the agency said there were 70 registered PBMs total, four solely workers’ comp, and that workers’ comp rates are set by statute and could not absorb the fee. Finally, the Public Service Commission’s pole attachment regulation was summarized as a broadband-expansion measure that speeds application review, increases the number of poles allowed in a single application, and shortens dispute timelines; the commission explained it grew out of earlier legislative direction and subsequent emergency amendments, and the committee adopted the staff amendment.

Transcript Highlights:

• The easement was reserved in the acquisition when the state acquired the title.
• Moving on to LRCP25-040. authorization to sell a utility easement authorization to sell a utility easement
• > for<00:20:35.039> the easement would be granted for the easement would be granted for
• The easement will be be assessed.
• a perpetual utility line easement. a perpetual utility line easement.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Long Range Capital Planning and Utilization Committee met and first approved the June 30, 2025 meeting minutes. The committee then took up a series of Department of Transportation property actions, including authorization to grant an access point in Exeter, sell two small tracts in Keene, amend a prior Guilford disposal based on a revised survey and appraisal, sell 0.42 acres in Lincoln, list and sell 9.77 acres in Chesterfield, sell 0.54 acres in Fremont, and approve a permanent access easement in Belmont. The committee also approved a utility easement in Albany and a permanent access easement on Route 153 for the Bickfords. Most of these items involved direct sales or listings, administrative fees of $1,100, and conditions requiring surveys and local/state approvals; several were approved unanimously after brief or no questions. Representative Faulkner declared a conflict of interest on the Chesterfield item, and Representative Newman sat in for that matter; later, Faulkner was recused from the Belmont item as well. The committee also approved a Department of Administrative Services request to grant a perpetual utility line easement to Public Service Company of New Hampshire for a facility under construction at the Hampstead hospital property, with the administrative fee waived because the grant was in exchange for utility service. During discussion of informational item LRCP25-038, staff explained that no committee action was needed because the item was only to notify members that a parcel’s fair market value had been reduced due to a change in access. The committee received additional informational materials from the New Hampshire Council on Resources and Development, including minutes from its May 8 meeting and memorandums on surplus land review for Meredith and Hampstead. The next meeting was set for December 9 at 9:30 a.m. at Granite Place, Room 228, and the chair noted the meeting would be on a Tuesday because of building scheduling. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Easements are a popular protection option.
• impacted by the conservation easement impacted by the conservation easement the<00:45:09.400>
• <00:52:06.839> to the impacts of conservation easements to the impacts of conservation easements
• County regarding conservation easements.
• <00:54:25.920> in easements in easements in 2024<00:54:29.160> I<00:54:29.280> have<

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The easement on the Hill Street access— is that an easement that will be reserved in favor of the parcel
• <00:19:33.760> was acquired the title the easement was acquired the title the easement was
• authorization to sell a utility easement authorization to sell a utility easement on<00:20:16.799
• > for<00:20:35.039> the easement would be granted for the easement would be granted for
• a perpetual utility line easement. a perpetual utility line easement.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Long Range Capital Planning and Utilization Committee met and approved the minutes from June 30, 2025. There was no old business. The committee then heard a series of New Hampshire Department of Transportation requests involving the sale or disposal of state-owned land and easements, including an access point sale in Exeter, land sales in Keene, Guilford, Lincoln, Conway, Chesterfield, Fremont, Belmont, and a utility easement in Albany. Most items were direct sales to abutters or towns, with conditions such as obtaining local and state approvals, commissioning boundary surveys, and paying administrative fees; each of these items was approved by motion and vote. One Guilford parcel was amended to reflect a smaller surveyed area and reduced appraised value before approval. The committee also approved a permanent access easement for a single-family residence on Route 153 in support of the Bickford property. The committee then considered a Department of Administrative Services item, presented as a substitution replacement, authorizing a perpetual utility line easement to Public Service Company of New Hampshire for a facility under construction on the Hampstead hospital property that will serve as the replacement facility for the Manchester senior center. The department requested waiver of the administrative fee because the easement was being granted in exchange for utility service, and the committee approved the request. An informational item, LRCP25-038, was discussed regarding a reduction in fair market value due to a change in access; staff explained no committee action was required because the item was informational only. Additional informational materials from the New Hampshire Council on Resources and Development were received, including meeting minutes and surplus land review memorandums for Meredith and Hampstead. Before adjourning, the committee set its next meeting for December 9 at 9:30 a.m. at Granite Place, Room 228, noting the meeting would be on a Tuesday rather than Monday because of building scheduling. The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn, which was seconded and approved.

Transcript Highlights:

• because of the conservation easement because of the conservation easement restrictions<00:08:24.160
• conservation easement? conservation easement?
• An existing easement resources.
• <00:30:56.799> over perpetual utility line easement over perpetual utility line easement over
• >> yeah the condition of this uh easement >> yeah the condition of this uh easement

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee approved the minutes from its September 29 meeting and then took up a series of Department of Transportation and Department of Administrative Services property actions. Several DOT items involved disposal of land originally acquired for the now-dissolved Conway bypass or other highway projects, including a 445.6-acre Conway parcel proposed for sale to the town of Conway for conservation use, a 1.78-acre Chesterfield parcel for sale to an abutter, a 6.13-acre Madison parcel tied to the Conway bypass, and a bulk disposal package of 22 improved parcels in Merrimack, Litchfield, and Hudson. Members asked about appraisals, conservation easements, federal funding restrictions, tenant occupancy, and whether the state would recover its original investment; DOT said values were based on appraisal or market analysis, federal reimbursements may be required where federal funds were used, and proceeds from turnpike-related property would return to the turnpike fund. All of these disposal motions were approved. The committee also approved several DOT lease/easement items. These included a Greenfield railroad-corridor lease for equestrian use, a Lake Winnipesaukee dock lease to CE Realty Trust, a similar dock lease to Needle Eye Association, and an easement in Carroll for Industrial Wireless to build a private road and cross Mount Deception Brook for a cell tower project. Members focused on maintenance responsibilities, liability insurance, access limitations, fencing, and the relationship between the railroad corridor and adjacent uses. DOT said lessees would be responsible for maintenance, access to the railroad would be restricted, and liability insurance would be included where appropriate. The committee also approved a separate easement for Eversource in Rochester to install utility lines serving the new courthouse, with the department explaining that the easement is a narrow strip needed to complete construction. The Department of Administrative Services received approval for a use-of-premises agreement allowing Rockingham County to lease 300 square feet in the Brentwood courthouse for office space, and for a perpetual utility easement in Rochester for Eversource, with a waiver of the administrative fee. The committee also heard that the Rochester courthouse project needs the utility work to finish construction. Throughout the meeting, members repeatedly asked about insurance, public access, valuation, and whether tenants or abutters would have first opportunity to buy or lease the affected properties. All motions before the committee were adopted.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, they are within that easement.
• It's actually a fifty-foot easement, 50-foot easement.
• The city has taken that easement, and the, the problem with the easements are in, in the state of Texas
• , no easement is the same size.
• You may have a five-foot easement. You may have a 50-foot easement.

Transcript Highlights:

• Sideways, easements.
• easement set back for the street.
• So they have that, the city has taken that easement and the the problem with the easements are in in
• the state of Texas no easement is You may have a 5-foot easement.
• You may have a 50-foot easement.

Bills: HB2013, HB4163, HB4810

Keywords: property owners associations, chickens, urban farming, land use, homeowner rights, agriculture, municipal regulation, governmental requirements, farm management, inspections, border control, trade, state funding, 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:34:06.840> does of note this as well the easement does of note this as well the easement
• uh governed by a conservation easement uh governed by a conservation easement now<00:56:13.559><
• <00:57:04.440> 18 easement does not um my easements 18 easement does not um my easements 18
• c> the<00:57:07.119> Connecticut Pages the easement for the Connecticut Pages the easement
• concerned for my conservation easement concerned for my conservation easement which<00:57:39.839

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• once the easement has been fully acquired.
• that the landowner and the state are following the easement.
• that the landowner and the state are following the easement.
• Both programs are purchasing conservation easements.
• This easement protects 364,117 acres across the state.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Agriculture convened with a quorum and heard presentations focused on land conservation and agricultural preservation in Florida. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services briefed the committee on the Rural and Family Lands Protection Program, explaining that it protects active agricultural lands through permanent conservation easements while keeping land in private ownership and on the tax rolls. The presentation emphasized eligibility for greenbelted active agricultural operations, required best management practices, and the program’s role in protecting food supply, water resources, habitat, and military buffering. Officials said the program’s 2025 ranked list includes 428 projects, with about 75 projects expected to start this year, and noted strong partnership funding from federal, local, and conservation partners. Committee members asked about eligibility, annual re-ranking, local government involvement, and the number of projects likely to receive funding. Tracy Dean of Conservation Florida testified in support of continued and increased funding for land conservation, arguing that Florida is losing agricultural and natural lands and that conservation easements and fee-simple acquisitions are complementary tools. She said land trusts work with willing landowners to protect ranches, wetlands, forests, and wildlife corridors, and stressed the importance of maintaining momentum so projects do not stall as land values rise. In discussion with senators, she said public access to conserved lands depends on the specific deal and the landowner’s goals, and that access is more commonly provided through lands acquired for parks, forests, and other public green space. The Department of Environmental Protection then updated the committee on the Florida Forever program. DEP said the program uses both conservation easements and fee-simple acquisitions, with about half of acquisitions done through easements, and that it provides benefits including water quality, habitat protection, recreation, and military readiness. Officials reported 60 projects on the 2025-26 work plan, most in the Florida Wildlife Corridor, and said the state has invested more than $1.4 billion since 2019, acquiring over 374,000 acres. They highlighted recent acquisitions for Sandy Creek State Forest, Catfish Creek Preserve State Park, and a new state park in Walton County, as well as the program’s 200th conservation easement. The committee also discussed funding levels, payment in lieu of taxes impacts on small counties, and broader priorities such as citrus, roads, and support for agriculture; no votes were taken, and the meeting ended with adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:11:14.200> are<00:11:14.800> decades these easements are decades these easements
• easements on your property?
• for what happens on that easement?
• I said some of our easements is over a I said some of our easements is over a century<00:27:30.559>
• easements on your property?

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The hearing opened with committee procedures and then took up SB 1, relating to vegetation management near utility lines. DLNR opposed the bill, saying it would shift rights, responsibilities, and liability onto the state and private landowners. Hawaiian Electric supported the measure with amendments, describing it as a first step to address wildfire risk and improve public safety and system reliability. The Hawaii Farm Bureau and Command Schools both raised concerns that the bill could impose significant costs, liability, and access burdens on farmers, ranchers, and other landowners, especially where easements are old or unclear. Life of the Land argued the issue belongs before the Public Utilities Commission, and PUC staff explained that the commission is already reviewing Hawaiian Electric’s wildfire mitigation plan and vegetation management in a docket, with a decision expected by September and public meetings scheduled for April 23 and 24. Committee members questioned the need for legislation versus negotiated solutions, and witnesses said private parties could potentially renegotiate easements without statute. The committee then heard HB 1296, relating to disaster recovery. DLNR and OPSD supported the bill, saying it would ease regulatory burdens in post-disaster rebuilding and help speed permit review. Testimony and member questions focused on the bill’s five-year rebuilding timeline, the role of the coastal zone/SMA process, and how long permit reviews typically take; OPSD said SMA major/use permits generally take about six months, while minor permits are faster. Members also discussed whether the bill would apply to existing structures damaged in disasters and whether the amendments from the Attorney General’s office and OPSD were acceptable; no objections were raised. Finally, the committee heard SB 1170, relating to the expeditious redevelopment and development of affordable rental housing. HHFDC supported the bill, and testimony from a Maui affordable housing project said the measure is needed to rebuild the Weinberg Court Apartments, a 63-unit affordable project in Lahaina, using insurance funds rather than government money. Members asked whether the bill would help existing affordable rental projects damaged before the enactment of related coastal rules, and the response was that the bill is aimed at existing structures damaged during events and intended to speed rebuilding of affordable housing.

Transcript Highlights:

• that the landowner and the state are following the easement.
• easements, and hold and steward conservation lands as well.
• Both programs are purchasing conservation easements.
• More than half the land was acquired through conservation easements.
• This easement protects 364,117 acres across the state.

Summary: The Committee on Agriculture met to hear updates on land conservation and agricultural preservation programs. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services presented on the Rural and Family Lands Protection Program, explaining that it protects active agricultural lands through conservation easements while keeping land in private ownership and on the tax rolls. The director said the program requires participants to use agricultural best management practices, noted strong demand with 428 ranked projects for 2025, and reported that consistent legislative funding and partnerships with USDA, DOD, local governments, land trusts, and water management districts have expanded acreage protected, much of it within the Florida Wildlife Corridor. Committee members asked about eligibility, ranking, local government involvement, and how many projects are typically funded each year. Conservation Florida’s president and CEO testified that both Rural and Family Lands and Florida Forever are critical and complementary tools for preserving working lands, wildlife habitat, water resources, and public access to nature. She warned that uncertainty or cuts in state funding can stall projects, raise land prices, and reduce conservation momentum. In discussion with senators, she said public access is often negotiated case by case and is more common on lands acquired for parks, forests, and other public green space than on conservation easements. The Department of Environmental Protection then updated the committee on Florida Forever, describing it as the state’s premier conservation and recreation land acquisition program. DEP said Florida Forever uses both conservation easements and fee-simple purchases, with about half of acquisitions done through easements, and emphasized that steady funding is needed to keep projects moving. The deputy secretary reported 60 projects on the current work plan, more than $1.4 billion invested since 2019, and recent acquisitions including new state forest, park, and preserve expansions. Members also raised concerns about payment in lieu of taxes for fiscally constrained counties, local notification of acquisitions, and the need for continued support for agriculture, citrus, roads, and conservation funding. No formal votes were taken, and the meeting adjourned after member comments and public testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• properties within our easements.
• And to protect their rights and their easements.
• They don't have access to easements.
• contract with the easement.
• We're actively getting easements right now.

Transcript Highlights:

• our easements.
• If my cows need internet, I'll sign an easement.
• They don't have access to easements.
• That fact, as we talk about landowner easements or any of these other easements, is that this bill is
• We're actively getting easements right now.

Bills: HB3445, HB3448

Keywords: telecommunications, electric cooperative, rights-of-way, infrastructure, provider access, right-of-way, pole attachment, regulatory access, 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So really, to answer your question, the easement helps in a lot of cases.
• Now, easements come into play if there is an easement within the right-of-way.
• The other way an easement kind of comes into play is if the easements maybe just outside the right-of-way
• Maybe it's associated with the easement.
• The other exception we talked about were easements.

Summary: The Economic Infrastructure Subcommittee met with a quorum present and first heard HB 11 from Representative Robinson. The bill would address an unintended consequence in Florida’s municipal utility surcharge law by requiring the same water/utility rate for residents when a utility facility is physically located within one municipality but owned by another, rather than allowing the owning municipality to impose a 25% surcharge. The sponsor and several members described it as a fairness issue affecting residents who do not receive local tax support for the facility but still bear the surcharge. Public testimony included support from AARP and Miami-Dade County and opposition from North Miami Beach. The bill was reported favorably on an 18-0 vote. The committee then held a panel discussion on utility use of public rights-of-way and utility relocation. Panelists from FDOT, county government, gas, water, electric, and communications sectors described the permitting process, noting that FDOT uses a detailed utility accommodation manual and that local governments may use permits, franchise agreements, or ordinances depending on the utility type. They emphasized that utilities often must coordinate early with agencies using long-range work programs and project plans, and that the process differs by utility and jurisdiction. Communications witnesses discussed Chapter 337 and the 60-day local permitting shot clock, while others noted the role of Sunshine State One Call in locating facilities before excavation. A major focus was who pays for relocations when road or infrastructure projects require utilities to move. FDOT and several panelists said utilities generally bear the cost when they are in public right-of-way, with exceptions such as certain interstate/interchange projects and easement impacts. Utility representatives said relocations are often effectively new builds, can be costly, and are ultimately reflected in rates or customer costs. Members also asked about easements versus right-of-way, damage and disputes during construction, broadband workforce needs, and whether legislation could improve coordination. Panelists largely said the existing process works best when agencies, contractors, and utilities communicate early and continuously, and that more legislation may not be necessary compared with better planning, staffing, and use of technology.

Transcript Highlights:

• In the drainage ditch, they don't own any easements.
• There would be an easement taken.
• This easement on our ditch. They don't have it. They've never had an easement there.
• They assured me there is no easement, never been an easement.
• They do not have easements.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:31:46.320> are with conservation easements are with conservation easements are ineligible
• <00:32:08.240> as impact of a conservation easement as impact of a conservation easement as
• Senate Bill conservation easements.
• So a um a conservation easement does not So a um a conservation easement does not spoil<00:36:49.119>
• easement easement um<00:37:10.119> designations<00:37:11.119> would<00:37:11.440> not

Keywords: 1187, senate, all