Transcript Highlights:

• Any further discussion? Any public testifiers that wish to present to the committee today?
• Seeing no further discussion, I renew my motion to move the 2025 R11 resolution.
• representative Nash um thank discussion representative Nash um thank you<00:02:04.880><c> Mr</c><00:
• any public testifiers that discussion any public testifiers that wish<00:03:17.799><c> to</c><00:03:
• </c><00:03:23.000><c> I</c> today seeing no further discussion I today seeing no further discussion I

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• The objection is really the nature of my discussion earlier.
• Any discussion? If not, a chance... All right. Thank you. The board is clear. Any discussion?
• Is there any further discussion? All right. And maybe, Dr.
• Any further discussion? Thank you. Any further discussion? Representative LaFleur.
• I will open the floor to the committee for a discussion.

Keywords: 965, house, all

Summary: The task force met with a quorum to continue work on Caleb Wilson hazing-prevention recommendations, with the Wilson family present and repeatedly acknowledged. Members discussed Southern University’s expulsion of Omega Psi Phi and the family pressed for clarity on whether the fraternity could return; counsel said the expulsion appears permanent on its face but there is legal ambiguity, prompting legislators to say a statutory fix is needed to define suspension versus expulsion more clearly. The group also reviewed data on hazing-related suspensions since 2018 and hearing-panel practices across the public postsecondary systems, including panel composition, annual training, and appeals processes. The task force adopted several recommendations focused on prevention and accountability. These included annual hazing-prevention training for students, advisors, and faculty/staff; a state-provided training framework with campus-specific flexibility; stronger attention to mandatory reporting; an amnesty policy to encourage reporting and help-seeking; reverting hazing proceedings back to a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard; adding hazing to the annual power-based violence report; tying noncompliance penalties to loss of State Bond Commission borrowing authority; and identifying sustainable funding for training and reporting. Members debated scope and implementation, especially whether training should cover all employees or only those who interact with students, whether external advisors and graduate advisors should be included, and how to avoid unintended consequences for advisor recruitment. Several amendments were made, including narrowing one recommendation from “all” to “appropriate,” and the amnesty discussion was clarified to avoid creating a loophole for misconduct. The task force also discussed K-12 considerations, including applying bullying and hazing materials to nonpublic schools, updating prevention materials, and improving data collection. In closing remarks, student members and family representatives emphasized that hazing is about power, not tradition, and called for culture change, accountability, and earlier education. University leaders from the University of Louisiana System, Southern University System, and LSU said they support the effort and will implement the recommendations if enacted, while also urging stronger individual and organizational accountability beyond training alone. A public commenter from Nicholls State’s SGA praised the task force’s work before the meeting moved into public comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any further further further discussion?
• All those in favor on discussion?
• Uh, House discussion with you. Okay. Uh, House Bill House Bill 223.
• So, is there any further discussion? discussion? discussion?
• Anyone else want to discuss 357? All right. Well, actually, I do.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Members, any discussion? Members, any discussion? Seeing none, Vice Chair, for the vote, please.
• Members, any discussion?
• Members, any discussion?
• Members, any discussion?
• Any other discussion? Senate Bill 865, SD1.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Higher Education heard five bills and later took up one joint Housing/Higher Education measure. On SB 1146 SD1, relating to the Alaw Canal, testimony from DLNR and UH was in support of funding an action plan and pre-engineering concept plan to address debris management and water quality in the watershed; members discussed the cost burden on DLNR and the possibility of identifying upstream sources of debris. On SB 1232 SD2, relating to wastewater systems, the Department of Health, DHHL, and several advocacy groups supported a three-year pilot program at UH’s Water Resources Research Center to test new wastewater technologies, with witnesses saying it could help certify cheaper alternatives and reduce cesspool upgrade costs. On SB 119 SD1, relating to nursing, witnesses supported funding a Bachelor of Science in Nursing program at Maui College. On SB 865 SD1, relating to agriculture, UH CTAHR, the Hawaii Farm Bureau, and many island agricultural groups supported funding for a Kona Cooperative Extension position, with testimony and committee discussion favoring an extension agent over an administrative support role. On SB 1487 SD1, relating to UH revenue bonds, UH supported authorizing revenue bonds for priority capital projects, and members asked for clarification that the measure was a preliminary authorization rather than a specific spending plan. In decision-making, the committee recommended passing SB 1146 SD1, SB 1232 SD2, SB 119 SD1, SB 865 SD1, and SB 1487 SD1 with House Draft 1 amendments, mainly to change defective dates to 7/1/3000 and, for SB 865, to upgrade the position to an extension agent. Votes were unanimous in favor on the measures, with one recusal noted on SB 865 and some members excused on other votes. The committee then recessed and later reconvened for a joint House Housing/Higher Education hearing on SB 1553 SD2, relating to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. DHHL asked that the bill be deferred because due diligence was incomplete and more discussion was needed with UH and other stakeholders; UH said it was coordinating access to the property and described its current and future use. Both committees agreed to defer the bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> discussion seeing no further discussion discussion seeing no further discussion or<00:13:04.480>
• </c> i' just like to have another discussion i' just like to have another discussion about<00:15:02.959
• </c><00:22:28.240><c> we</c> else seeing no further discussion we else seeing no further discussion we
• </c> any further discussion any further discussion questions<00:29:33.399><c> do</c><00:29:33.480><c>
• </c> discussion seeing no further discussion discussion seeing no further discussion um<00:30:32.399>

Keywords: Consideration of HJR 15 02:26 Consideration of HB 30 16:18 Consideration of HB 71 20:05 Consideration of HB 182 23:51, 958, all

Summary: The House State Government Committee met with a quorum and first took up HJR 15, as amended by a committee substitute, which would return the granite Ten Commandments monument to permanent display on the new State Capitol grounds. Representative Baker described the monument’s history, its removal during construction in the 1980s, the 2000 effort to restore it, and recent Supreme Court changes that he said make the historical-tradition analysis more relevant than the former Lemon test. Members asked about the monument’s location, possible amendments to allow other faiths to place similar monuments, and church-state concerns. Several members explained their votes by saying they supported the historical display but wanted further discussion about religious representation. The resolution passed the committee 16-1 with two pass votes and was reported favorably to the House floor. The committee then considered House Bill 30, sponsored by Representative Blanton, which addresses pension spiking in the Kentucky Public Pension Authority. Blanton said the bill codifies a court ruling clarifying that across-the-board pay raises are not pension spiking and noted support from fire, police, and state employees. Representative Tipton reminded members that pension bills should be reviewed by the Public Pension Oversight Board first and said this bill had been reviewed there without issue. The committee approved HB 30 unanimously, 20-0, with favorable expression. House Bill 71, sponsored by Representative Duval, was next. KPPA Executive Director Ryan Barrow said the bill was requested by KPPA, vetted by the Public Pension Oversight Board, and would restructure KPPA by creating an Office of Financial Management and moving the current CFO into an executive director-level role overseeing that office, without affecting system funding requirements. Representative Johnson supported the measure as an administrative codification of current practice. The committee passed HB 71 unanimously, 20-0, with favorable expression. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 182 from Representative Frasier Gordon, which would prohibit state government from using the word “free” to describe taxpayer-funded services. Gordon said the bill is intended to increase transparency and ensure taxpayers are credited for funding public services, while not changing any programs or benefits. Members questioned how the bill would be enforced, what alternative wording should be used, and whether the restriction could affect communication with low-income or low-literacy residents; Gordon said terms like “provided at no cost” or “paid for by taxpayers” would be acceptable and that the bill contains no penalty. The committee passed HB 182 17-3 with favorable expression and sent it to the House floor.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any further discussion?
• Any further discussion?
• Any discussion?
• Any further discussion?
• Any further discussion?

Summary: The House convened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, approved the journal, and then spent much of the opening portion of the session recognizing administrative assistants and other guests in the gallery, including a doctor of the day and a visiting robotics team. Members repeatedly thanked their staff for keeping offices and the chamber running, and one member also welcomed civic leaders from Buckeye and a foreign delegation connected to a circular economy forum. The chamber then moved into Committee of the Whole on a series of Senate bills. SB 1060, concerning voting eligibility for certain overseas-born children of service members, drew opposition from one member who argued it would disenfranchise military families; the bill still received a do-pass recommendation. SB 1093, described by opponents as an anti-protest bill, also received a do-pass recommendation. SB 1162 and SB 1270 were both advanced as amended after committee and floor/subfloor amendments, and SB 1814, dealing with substance use disorder-related issues, was amended with a friendly change and advanced with comments about the need for broader study and bipartisan work on fraud, waste, and abuse in that area. The House then entered an additional Committee of the Whole for SB 1345 and SB 1401. SB 1345 was amended to focus on licensure timing and DHS collaboration, then advanced. SB 1401, the Workforce Housing Accelerator Act, was amended after debate over affordability standards and public benefit; supporters said it would speed permitting and reduce housing costs, while critics wanted stronger affordability requirements. The bill was ultimately advanced as amended. The House also took up third reading on SB 1041, a health care institutions bill, where members explained yes votes by citing a recent abuse case in assisted living and arguing the measure would help protect vulnerable adults. The transcript ends during vote explanations on SB 1041.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion? It has been distributed, and I move for its adoption. Any discussion?
• Further discussion. Representative Jobe. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
• Further discussion, Representative Jobe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
• Further discussion.
• Any discussion? Representative Jobe: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay.
• Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay.
• Is there any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay.
• Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay.
• Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say aye. I oppose nay.

Bills: SB5849, SB6278, SB6130, SB6222, SB6206, SB6260, SB5346, SB6263, SB6268, SB6247

Keywords: financial education, graduation requirement, student curriculum, financial literacy, education reform, teacher preparation, principal preparation, educator preparation, alternative route certification, teacher certification, principal certification, Washington Professional Educator Standards Board, PESB, field placement, student teacher, residency, mentoring, school district partnerships, K-12 education, preK-12

Transcript Highlights:

• I am not aware of discussion around the date.
• Is there a discussion? Mr.
• Is there any discussion? Yes, Mr. Chair, I appreciate it. Is there any discussion? Yes, Mr.
• Is there a discussion? Mr.
• Is there any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Is there any discussion?

Bills: SB6132, SB6181, SB6154, SB6189, SB5903, SB6037, SB5983, SB5995, SB6016, SB5820, SB6064, SB6077, SB6101, SB6013, SB6066

Keywords: indebtedness limits, inland port districts, federal funding, infrastructure improvements, economic development, city incorporation, local governance, municipalities, state law, government structure, culvert replacement, fish passage, hydraulic project approval, Department of Fish and Wildlife, stream crossing, bank stabilization, flood control, erosion control, emergency permit, expedited permit

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there any discussion? Yes, Mr. Chair, I appreciate it. Is there any discussion? Yes, Mr.
• Is there a discussion? Mr.
• Is there any discussion? All in favor say aye. Is there any discussion? Yes, Mr.
• Is there a discussion? Mr.
• Is there any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Is there any discussion?

Summary: The committee heard several local government bills. Senate Bill 6181, sponsored by Senator Conway, would let county legislative authorities in certain large western Washington counties file a city incorporation petition without collecting resident signatures if the area is fully within an urban growth boundary and has more than 25,000 people. Supporters from Pierce County said the current signature requirement makes incorporation too difficult for large urban unincorporated areas like South Hill, while opponents argued the signature threshold is an important test of community support and raised concerns about boundaries, taxes, and the adequacy of the bill’s details. Senate Bill 6132 would give the Port of Moses Lake additional bonding authority tied to a tax increment financing area to help finish a rail project; the port said rising costs and a pending federal grant made the extra flexibility necessary. The committee also heard Senate Bill 6154, which would give local governments more flexibility in how they use hydraulic project approval permits for culvert replacement. Counties and cities testified that many emergency culvert repairs are expensive and that some sites provide little fish habitat benefit, so they want the option to redirect equivalent resources to higher-priority fish passage projects elsewhere in the watershed. A few commenters supported the bill as a practical way to improve habitat and flood resilience, while one remote witness objected to the broader legal framework for salmon habitat projects. Senate Bill 6189 would extend from July 1, 2026 to July 1, 2028 the deadline for creating an additional public facilities district for regional aquatics and sports facilities; Olympia, Tumwater, and regional partners said they need more time to complete feasibility and coordination work for a proposed aquatic center. In executive session, the committee took action on several bills. It adopted a substitute and passed Senate Bill 6037 to Ways and Means, adopted a substitute and passed Senate Bill 5983 to Rules, and passed Senate Bills 5995 and 6013 to Rules without amendments. For Senate Bill 6066, the committee adopted an amendment into a new substitute and passed the bill to the Transportation Committee. The committee did not take action on Senate Bills 5820 or 6064.

Transcript Highlights:

• I expect we'll discuss all of those complex issues at today's hearing.
• Proposition 2 has three elements that are important for this discussion.
• I think that is an important component in this discussion. Thank you. Yes.
• And so the Gann limit has been the focus of these discussions.
• You've added a lot to this discussion.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight held a hearing on proposals to reform California’s Budget Stabilization Account, or rainy day fund, ahead of the May Revision. Members and witnesses reviewed how Proposition 2 (2014) changed reserve rules, including mandatory deposits, a 10% cap on the fund, and limits tied to the Governor’s declaration of a budget emergency. LAO staff explained that California’s revenues are highly volatile, that current reserve rules are complicated by interactions with Proposition 98 and the Gann limit, and that under current law reserves would cover only about one-third of funding shortfalls in a benchmark scenario over 50 years. The LAO presented its report recommending a larger reserve target, including raising the cap to 50% by 2055 and pairing that with either broader, more flexible deposit rules or a simpler approach that deposits all excess capital gains. The Department of Finance described the Governor’s proposal to raise the cap from 10% to 20% and exempt BSA deposits from the state appropriations limit, while Assembly Member Valencia presented ACA 1, which would make similar changes and was described as an evolving proposal. Testimony generally supported saving more during boom years, but differed on how much to hardwire into the Constitution versus leave flexible, and on whether to broaden the deposit formulas beyond capital gains. Public witnesses and committee members raised additional issues, including whether reserve reforms should also address debt repayment, the treatment of unemployment insurance fund debt, and whether the Gann limit should be adjusted to better allow reserve growth. Supporters argued that stronger reserves would protect Californians from cuts during downturns and help the state weather volatility and federal funding threats. Some advocates warned that reforms should not come at the expense of current public needs, while taxpayer representatives cautioned against turning the BSA into a pass-through account that weakens constitutional spending limits. The hearing ended without a vote, with the committee chair noting the complexity of the issue and adjourning after public comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• For discussion and testimony, we will not be taking more testimony today.
• Any discussion? Otherwise, we will move the bill to Education Finance.
• We will move to member discussion. Representative Green.
• Any discussion on the amendment? Why can't I open this thing?
• Any other member discussion? Representative Mueller.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion?
• Any discussion?
• Any discussion?
• </c> discussion as to what I think. discussion as to what I think.
• Is there any further<03:12:28.560><c> discussion</c> further discussion further discussion um<03:12:30.640

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Any further discussion? Seeing none, please call the roll. Senator Alston? Aye. Mr. Chairman?
• It's a very serious discussion. Oftentimes it's a somber discussion.
• Any further discussion?
• Then, yeah, any further discussion? Let's move it. Mr.
• Seeing no amendments, no further discussion. Please call the roll. Senator Olson? No.

Summary: The Committee on Public Safety approved the March 18, 2026 minutes and then heard several bills, beginning with HB 4018, which would give county sheriffs exclusive authority to regulate posse and reserve organizations acting under the sheriff’s authority and in support of the sheriff’s office. Supporters said it merely clarified existing law and improved accountability for volunteer public safety groups; one member opposed it as concentrating too much authority with too few guardrails. The committee recommended the bill do pass by a 5-1 vote, with one member not voting. The committee then heard HB 2417, which would let certain drivers choose a speed-inhibiting device instead of a license suspension for specified offenses, and HB 2771, which would allow the Department of Corrections to require prisoners to pay reasonable rehabilitation program costs as a condition of community supervision. HB 2417 drew support from a coalition focused on safer roads and second chances, but one member raised concerns about cost, privacy, and enforcement; it passed 6-1. HB 2771 was described as a simple language clarification and passed 5-2. Members also approved HB 2772, which would place a medical indicator on a driver’s license for advanced health care directives such as a living will or DNR so first responders can see it quickly; the sponsor said ADOT helped design the process and that it would not create a burden, and the bill passed unanimously. The committee then passed HCR 259, reaffirming support for county sheriffs, by a 4-3 vote; HB 2418, which directs $600,000 in state funds to be distributed evenly among five county sheriff task forces, by a 7-0 vote; and HB 2170, which would bar state contracts with companies domiciled in or controlled by the Chinese government except in limited circumstances, by a 4-3 vote. The meeting ended with thanks to staff and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, say aye. Opposed? The ayes have it.
• Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it.
• Any discussion? [Voting action] The motion to adopt the report was seconded. Any discussion?
• Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Opposed? The ayes have it.
• Any discussion? Yep, I'm sorry. Senator Hickey. I was going a little too fast.

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion or debate? Oh, I'm sorry. My cue's not that. Okay. It might give me a cue.
• Is there any discussion or debate? Seeing none, the clerk will open the queue for a vote.
• We discussed this in our interim study.
• Any discussion or debate? Seeing no discussion or debate, clerk, open the queue for a vote.
• Any discussion or debate? Seeing no discussion or debate, clerk, open the queue for a vote.

Bills: HB2947, HB2964, HB3143, HB3144, HB3342, HB3344, HB3519, HB3522, HB3530, HB3645, HB3647, HB3834, HB4300, HB4422, HB4423

Keywords: behavioral health, Medicaid expansion, clinical interns, mental health services, licensing requirements, medical records, patient rights, privacy, fees, healthcare access, legal claims, medical marijuana, license transfer, Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority, moratorium, business regulation, commercial grower licenses, licensing restrictions, agriculture, Medicaid

Transcript Highlights:

• Will there be discussion or debate? Seeing none, staff, please open the vote.
• Are there any discussion or debate? Seeing none, please open the vote. Discussion or debate?
• Seeing no questions, will there be discussion or debate?
• Will there be discussion or debate? Will there be discussion or debate?
• Seeing no further questions, will there be discussion or debate?

Bills: HB2989, HB3724, HB2992, HB3464, HB4246, HB3989

Keywords: wildland fire, wildfire, electric utility, electric cooperative, utility liability, vegetation management, power lines, grid hardening, public utility, rate recovery, National Electric Safety Code, NESC, Oklahoma Conservation Commission, wildfire mitigation, fire prevention, landowner incentives, cost-share program, revolving fund, property damage, trespass

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 4246, which would expand training and technical assistance options for rural water-related programs by allowing the state to consider qualified suppliers other than the Rural Water Association. After brief questions about the type of vendors involved, the bill received a 7-0 due pass vote. House Bill 3989 followed and was described as cleanup language continuing prior negotiations among the oil and gas industry, electric co-ops, and investor-owned utilities; the committee adopted the PCS and passed the bill 7-0. Members then considered House Bill 2992, the Data Center Customer Protection Act of 2026. The committee adopted a PCS and an amendment reducing the threshold from 100 megawatts to 75 megawatts. The bill would require data centers to pay infrastructure costs tied to their electricity demand so those costs are not shifted to other ratepayers; it passed 7-0. House Bill 3464, which adds protections and regulatory requirements for battery storage and updates transparency and decommissioning provisions for wind and solar projects, also passed 7-0 after adoption of a PCS. House Bill 3724, as revised in a second PCS, drew the most debate. It would define high-demand facilities to include data centers, cryptocurrency mining operations, AI computing facilities, and large battery storage systems, and would impose restrictions on subsidies, infrastructure costs, water use, foreign ownership, agricultural land siting, noise, decommissioning, and local approval processes, including a petition mechanism to overturn local decisions. Supporters argued it was needed to protect communities, landowners, water resources, and ratepayers; opponents raised concerns about property rights, agricultural land restrictions, local control, and the petition/recall process. The bill failed on a 2-6 vote and remained in committee. Finally, the committee took up House Bill 2989, which would allow electric utilities to prepare wildfire mitigation plans, create a wildfire mitigation revolving fund, and direct the Conservation Commission to develop a wildfire mitigation test pilot and refine mitigation strategies. With a PCS adopted and no debate, the bill passed 8-0, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there any discussion on it? Is there a motion to approve? So moved.
• And as she was discussing, we will look at that against other resources.
• Now is the time to start discussing procedures.
• The advanced nuclear technologies being discussed...
• But there's discussions on whether that should be adjusted.

Summary: The committee met to review advanced nuclear energy issues in North Dakota, beginning with approval of the April 21, 2022 minutes. Nucleon presented an overview of the advanced reactor landscape, distinguishing light-water SMRs, advanced Gen 4 reactors, and microreactors. The presentation emphasized that light-water SMRs are the most near-term deployable and use familiar low-enriched uranium fuel, while many Gen 4 designs may require high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALU), which is not yet supported by a mature U.S. supply chain. Nucleon also noted that advanced reactors are being developed primarily for industrial heat applications, while microreactors are niche, higher-cost systems for remote or mission-critical uses. Committee members asked about fuel availability, safety, recycling, and whether large reactors such as AP-1000s were evaluated; the presenter said fuel development is proceeding in parallel but remains a bottleneck, and that siting and grid capacity often make SMRs more practical than gigawatt-scale plants in North Dakota. Representatives from the National Association of State Energy Officials described how other states are supporting advanced nuclear through task forces, roadmaps, regional coordination, grants, tax incentives, workforce and supply-chain efforts, and pilot programs. They highlighted the Advanced Nuclear First Mover Initiative and said states are focusing on multi-state coordination, demand aggregation, regulatory coordination, waste management, workforce readiness, and community engagement. They also discussed affordability tools such as construction work in progress (CWIP), financing incentives, and consumer protections, citing examples from Kentucky, Texas, Virginia, Illinois, Missouri, Utah, Tennessee, and others. In response to questions, they explained that pilot programs often involve site-readiness and feasibility studies, and that the federal Nuclear Innovation Campus process is moving forward with multiple submissions while broader waste and recycling policy may require congressional action. The Public Service Commission said it would likely have a major role in any North Dakota nuclear project through certificate-of-public-convenience-and-necessity review, siting, and rate regulation, but noted gaps in current law for small reactors, co-located facilities, NRC coordination, and long-term site stewardship. The commissioner said the commission has no authority over a private, self-contained reactor not connected to the grid. The Department of Environmental Quality explained that the state regulates radioactive materials under its agreement-state authority, but NRC retains primacy over fission reactors; DEQ would likely assist with emergency planning and could have a larger role if fusion reactors emerge. The Department of Emergency Services said it would serve as the lead off-site preparedness agency, requiring a dedicated radiological emergency preparedness program, training, drills, public outreach, and likely additional funding and staffing, with industry expected to bear much of the cost. The Department of Water Resources said North Dakota’s water laws and prior-appropriation system are adequate for nuclear siting, that the Missouri River is the best likely source, and that no statutory or budget changes are currently needed from a water perspective. The committee recessed for lunch after these agency presentations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any further discussion? Yeah.
• Any more discussion?
• Any more discussion? Any more discussion? Seeing none, we'll keep moving right along.
• Any other discussions? If not, we'll leave it there.
• Thank you for having the discussion on the MMIP.

Summary: The committee met at Spirit Lake Tribe and first heard welcoming remarks and introductions from tribal leaders and program directors. Chairwoman Street and other tribal representatives outlined a range of concerns and requests for state action, including taxation of reservation lands, support for non-beneficiary students at the tribal school, homelessness funding, Indian-managed health care, gaming and e-tabs, Feather Alert improvements, industrial farming near waterways, tourism, and better state-tribal consultation. Committee members responded that the meeting was intended to improve understanding and communication, and several members suggested future legislation or resolutions could be used to advance some of the issues. The tribe also offered to provide training on treaties, IHS 638, and compact services to legislators and staff. A major portion of the discussion focused on Spirit Lake fish and wildlife jurisdiction and the lake boundary. Tribal representatives asked for an MOU or co-stewardship agreement with the state to clarify hunting and fishing rights, recognize tribal licenses, and reduce recurring disputes over “gray areas” on the reservation and lake. Committee members discussed whether to draft a bill or resolution directing the executive branch and state agencies to negotiate such an agreement, and asked that North Dakota Game and Fish be invited to a future meeting. Related concerns included aquatic nuisance species prevention, with both sides agreeing that more aggressive boat inspection and cleaning measures would be beneficial. The committee also discussed taxation and county relations. Tribal leaders raised concerns about county resistance to fee-to-trust transfers and about property and vehicle taxation affecting members living on or near reservation lands. Committee members and tribal counsel reviewed federal treaty principles and court cases, and one member noted that the committee had previously taken no formal action on similar issues. Later, Benson County’s tax equalization director explained how the county values taxable land, handles inundated land applications, and tracks land coming off the tax rolls when the tribe repurchases acreage. The discussion ended with a presentation from the president of Sisseton Wahpeton College, who described the college’s programs, economic impact, and funding needs, followed by an HHS presentation on 1115 Medicaid waivers and the IMD exclusion as the committee moved to its next topic.

Transcript Highlights:

• Much of that will be discussed later today.
• There are three options discussed in this strategy.
• We will continue the discussion. Thank you so much.
• It will be discussed.
• So I'm glad to discuss any aspect of the SB-254 study with you, So, I'm glad to discuss any aspect of

Summary: The hearing focused on the SB 254 Natural Catastrophe Resiliency Study and its recommendations for addressing California’s wildfire risk, utility liability, and the financing of catastrophic losses. Committee members and presenters discussed the history of the wildfire fund created after the 2018 fire crisis and PG&E bankruptcy, the role of the California Earthquake Authority as fund administrator, and the report’s three broad policy pathways: continuing mitigation investments, more equitably allocating catastrophe costs, and considering expanded state involvement in catastrophe financing. Presenters emphasized that the report was intended as a neutral, stakeholder-informed analysis rather than an advocacy document, and that the status quo is not working well for survivors, ratepayers, insurers, or utilities. CEA, CPUC, and the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety each described their contributions and recommendations. CEA outlined options such as risk-tolerance standards for utilities, preserving safety certificate accountability, tying executive compensation more directly to safety, confidential near-miss reporting, liability reforms, and a fast-pay facility for survivors. CPUC stressed that wildfire mitigation and liability costs are a major driver of electricity affordability problems, and said the state should broaden how wildfire recovery and mitigation are funded beyond ratepayers alone. Energy Safety highlighted its wildfire mitigation plan oversight and recommended stronger safety reporting and stronger safety weighting in utility executive compensation. The modeling portion of the report estimated that a more durable wildfire fund could require about $36 billion in capitalization, with lower initial capital needs if risk transfer or liability reforms are used, but potentially higher ongoing premium or assessment costs. The report also examined state-backed insurer or backstop models, post-event funding mechanisms, and targeted community wildfire mitigation, which could reduce overall funding needs. Members raised concerns about the cost burden on ratepayers, the financial stability of utilities, the fairness of asking communities outside high-risk areas to pay, the role of local governments and home hardening, and whether broader climate-related liability or insurance reforms should be considered. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational and ended with plans for further committee hearings and stakeholder discussion.