Bills: HB24, HB950, HB 1228, HB24

Keywords: zoning, public notice, local government, residential development, protests, municipal services, annexation, disannexation, zoning regulations, full municipal services, municipal obligations, landowner rights, service provision, groundwater, conservation, water permits, sustainability, resource management, 1184, house

Transcript Highlights:

• remediation, closure, or replacement of cesspools that present a demonstrated risk to surface water, groundwater
• remediation, closure, or placement of cesspools that present a demonstrated risk to surface water, groundwater
• they can introduce bacteria, including but not limited to E. coli, as well as nitrates into the groundwater
• impact, we've included language that remediation of specific cesspools be prioritized based on groundwater
• waterways another resource to eliminate the cesspools that have a high risk of contaminating the groundwater

Bills: HB2029, HB2096, HB2116

Keywords: water conservation, grants, infrastructure, environmental protection, sustainability, cesspool remediation, cesspool replacement, forgivable principal, forgivable loan, wifa, water infrastructure finance authority, clean water revolving fund, drinking water revolving fund, wastewater infrastructure, on-site wastewater system, septic system, groundwater protection, public health, nonpoint source pollution, county water projects

Summary: The Natural Resources Committee heard three bills, all of which received do pass recommendations. House Bill 2029 would require additional disclosure from applicants to the Water Conservation Grant Fund, including plans for how saved water will be used; an amendment broadened the disclosure requirement from only certain applicants to all eligible entities. WIFA testified neutral on the bill and amendment, noting it already collects much of the information. The amendment and the bill as amended both passed 8-0, with the sponsor indicating he may reoffer the amendment on the floor. House Bill 2096 would authorize counties to seek WIFA financial assistance, including forgivable principal, to remediate, close, or replace cesspools that threaten water quality or public health, and would clarify county authority to accept such loans without voter approval. WIFA was neutral and said the bill resolves ambiguity in the statutes. Supporters from the County Supervisors Association and Gila County described widespread cesspool problems in rural counties, especially Gila County, where thousands of cesspools remain and flooding caused sewage contamination and major cleanup costs. The committee approved the bill 8-0. House Bill 2116 would appropriate $1 million from the General Fund in FY 2027 to the Colorado River Litigation Fund. Supporters said the money is needed to prepare for possible legal challenges over Colorado River cuts, while several members emphasized they hope litigation will not be necessary and described the amount as a placeholder for future budget discussions. The bill passed 8-0 and was sent to Appropriations before the committee adjourned.

Bills: HB24, HB2015, HB2149, HB2559, HB2701, HB2797, HB3172, HB24

Keywords: zoning, public notice, local government, residential development, protests, water conservation, municipal utility districts, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, environmental regulation, groundwater management, nonconforming uses, zoning regulations, land use, property rights, municipal authority, municipal moratorium, development moratorium, property development, subdivision, site plan

Transcript Highlights:

• What I want to emphasize is how I think that this bill will protect rural groundwater supplies and, in
• I work a lot with groundwater conservation districts on tools that they need.
• Ninety-nine percent of the drinking water for rural Texans actually comes from groundwater.
• . availability study from any developer that uses groundwater for a subdivision.
• The builder-developer is going to use groundwater as a supply of water, and so we have taken steps to

Bills: HB24, HB2015, HB2149, HB2559, HB2701, HB2797, HB3172, HB24

Keywords: zoning, public notice, local government, residential development, protests, water conservation, municipal utility districts, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, environmental regulation, groundwater management, nonconforming uses, zoning regulations, land use, property rights, municipal authority, municipal moratorium, development moratorium, property development, subdivision, site plan

Bills: SB 243, SB 1586, SB 1891, SB 1959, SB 2159, SB 2568

Keywords: wastewater treatment, environmental permits, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, package plant, environmental protection, water utilities, sewer services, ratemaking, regulatory authority, Class A B C D utilities, rate proceedings, financial integrity, aquifer, Edwards Aquifer, water injection, environmental regulation, groundwater management

Transcript Highlights:

• groundwater before 1988.
• in the Groundwater Management Act.
• of groundwater.
• legally groundwater.
• water from regular groundwater?

Bills: HB2042, HB2052, HB2055, HB2056, HB2094, HB2098, HB2185, HB2328, HB2758, HB2798

Keywords: solar radiation management, environment, prohibition, Arizona Revised Statutes, public health, complaint process, Attorney General, groundwater management, water conservation, irrigation, water supply, brackish groundwater, water supply development, desalination, water infrastructure, financial assistance, environmental reviews, brackish water, groundwater, water resources

Summary: The committee first received an update from Arizona Department of Water Resources Director Tom Buschatzky on Colorado River negotiations and post-2026 operating rules. He described the legal framework governing Arizona’s allocation, argued that Arizona and the lower basin have already made substantial conservation cuts, and said the upper basin is pressing positions Arizona views as inconsistent with prior Supreme Court rulings. He emphasized the need to move water from upstream reservoirs to Lake Mead, warned of continued shortage risk, and said the state is seeking an equitable deal through ongoing federal and interstate negotiations. Members asked about outside water use, tourism and recreation impacts, and tribal water rights, including the Navajo-Hopi-San Juan Southern Paiute settlement. Buschatzky said the state’s delegation and bipartisan support have been helpful and urged continued public and legislative backing. The committee then heard House Bill 2758, which would expand McMullen Valley groundwater transportation authority and add related requirements and guardrails, including an amendment increasing the La Paz County transportation cap from 10% to 50% of the annual volume and adding conditions for sales or leases from historically irrigated acres. Supporters, including bill sponsor advocates, the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association, and the Home Builders Association, said the bill would create a lawful, regulated transfer option similar to the Harquahala model, support housing growth, and include oversight through hydrologic studies, pumping limits, and monthly reporting to ADWR. Opponents, including La Paz County Supervisor Holly Irwin’s statement, local residents, Sierra Club, and rural advocates, argued the bill would accelerate aquifer depletion, harm private wells and subsidence conditions, and benefit a New York hedge fund at the expense of rural communities. After debate, the committee adopted the Griffin amendment and then passed HB 2758 as amended on a 6-4 due-pass vote. The committee next took up House Bill 2098, which would modify bonding authority and public hearing notice requirements for county water augmentation authorities and allow local repayment agreements with WIFA. Pinal County Supervisor Stephen Miller and other supporters said the bill would clean up statutory language so the Pinal County Water Augmentation Authority can finance future water augmentation and infrastructure projects, including potential Bartlett Dam-related work, and better prepare for future Colorado River uncertainty. The Home Builders Association also supported the bill, saying it included proportionality protections for private utility water charges. The bill was moved for a due-pass recommendation and the committee proceeded to a roll call vote, with the transcript ending before the final vote result was shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• It also requires the local groundwater conservation districts or authorities be notified when groundwater
• You know, we don't want to over-regulate groundwater since it is privately owned.
• Well, they adhere to the groundwater production limits that are based in several different groundwater
• Several different groundwater conservation districts in which they do business.
• Farmers and ranchers, you know, frankly, are using a lot more groundwater than cities.

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:

• It also requires the local groundwater conservation districts or authorities be notified when groundwater
• This is important because we need more tools in Texas to be able to conserve groundwater.
• , and this is a mechanism for being able to conserve groundwater in a way that will do that.
• groundwater conservation districts in which they do business.
• Groundwater districts don't have administrative penalty authority like the TCEQ or the PUC.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• when our current AMA model shows that there is unmet groundwater demand.
• there, may find that groundwater is no longer there for their existing homes.
• Chair and members, Senate Bill 1559 establishes rural groundwater management work groups in each groundwater
• in the NRCD's groundwater basin.
• By 2021, our groundwater deficit was 34,000 acre-feet per year.

Bills: SB1082, SB1200, SB1335, SB1336, SB1559, SB1761, SB1762, SB1785, SCM1007

Keywords: petting zoos, animal encounters, public health, handwashing, supervision, sanitization, safety regulations, civil penalties, water supply, groundwater, Phoenix, certificates, long-term storage credits, water conservation, municipal provider, replenishment obligation, water banking, annual report, Arizona Water Banking Authority, water supply management

Summary: The Senate Natural Resources Committee first considered two nominations. Jessica Manuel was introduced as a nominee to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, where testimony emphasized her science background and experience working with agencies and stakeholders. Members asked about wolf management and her qualifications, and the committee voted 8-0 to recommend her confirmation. Stephen Williams was then introduced for the Arizona Livestock Loss Board, with discussion focused on his livestock and State Land Department experience and how the board handles wolf-related livestock losses. The committee also voted 8-0 to recommend his confirmation. The committee then took up several bills. SB 1785, which would codify ADWR’s one-mile safe-harbor policy for recovery wells near groundwater storage facilities, passed 5-3 after ADWR said it largely reflected current practice but requested clarifying language. SB 1082, requiring sanitation measures and signage for petting zoos and similar animal encounter exhibits, drew strong testimony from a parent advocate describing severe E. coli/HUS cases and opposition from fair/agriculture representatives who argued the bill was too broad and unnecessary; after amendment, it failed 4-4. SB 1336, extending the State Land Department and creating a temporary oversight committee with a broad amendment on lease holdovers, notice periods, and committee membership, passed 6-2 after significant debate over the committee’s composition and scope. Later, SB 1200, which would require ADWR to revisit certain Phoenix AMA assured water supply applications using older groundwater models, passed 5-3 despite opposition from CAP and ADWR over added replenishment obligations and concerns about relying on outdated models. SB 1335, requiring the Arizona Water Banking Authority to post its annual report online, passed 7-1. SB 1559, creating rural groundwater management work groups in each basin to report to ADWR, passed 5-3 after supporters said it would improve basin-level coordination and opponents argued it created new bureaucracy without enforcement tools. SB 1761, appropriating $47.7 million to the University of Arizona for the Yuma Center of Excellence for Desert Agriculture, Cooperative Extension, and the Experiment Station, passed 7-1 amid broad support but some concern about funding levels. Finally, SCM 1007, urging Congress to divest and improve the San Carlos Irrigation Project electric system, passed unanimously.

Transcript Highlights:

• We don't even have a groundwater model that both of them believe in yet, or the testing. Sorry.
• <00:09:19.920> know, their non-plans or the, you know, their non-plans or the, you know, groundwater
• We don't even have a groundwater model.
• We don't even have a groundwater<00:09:22.160> model<00:09:22.320> that<00:09:22.640>
• > both<00:09:22.720> of<00:09:22.880> them groundwater model that both of them groundwater

Bills: SB2093, SB2095, SB2046, SB2096, SB2127, SB2155, SB2243

Keywords: fuel tank, environmental impact, groundwater, health and safety, military facilities, local communication, advisory committee, Hawaii legislation, PFAS, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, forever chemicals, toxic chemicals, environmental contamination, water pollution, drinking water, surface water, soil contamination, fish consumption, food safety, public health

Summary: The joint Senate Agriculture and Environment and Health and Human Services hearing opened with SB 2093, which would require the fuel tank advisory committee to meet at least quarterly and provide funding. The Department of Health offered written testimony, and multiple supporters, including the Honolulu Board of Water Supply, Sierra Club, and a public member of the advisory committee, said more frequent meetings were needed to keep Red Hill cleanup, water testing, and public engagement front and center. Senators asked about public participation and whether the bill should also require meetings outside business hours; testifiers urged at least one evening or weekend meeting to improve access. No vote was taken during the discussion shown. The committee then heard SB 2095, creating a PFAS working group within the Department of Health to study PFAS and related chemicals and report to the Legislature. DOH supported the concept but requested amendments and funding, while the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity deferred to DOH. The Board of Water Supply supported the measure and asked to be included in the working group. Members asked about the bill’s reference to “other residuals,” and DOH explained it could refer to remaining PFAS components in soil, water, or other media. The discussion emphasized the widespread and long-lasting nature of PFAS contamination. Next, the committee considered SB 2046 on underground storage tanks and Red Hill-related cleanup. DOH and the Board of Water Supply testified, and a long list of community and environmental groups supported the bill. Testifiers argued the Navy caused the problem and should be held accountable for cleanup, while one witness said the bill was necessary because the Navy had delayed meaningful remediation. Senators asked whether the bill’s “large landowner” language could include the state or counties under existing statutes; DOH said it would check and later explained that cleanup responsibility generally falls first on the responsible party, then on large landowners if no responsible party exists, with the Navy currently understood to own Red Hill. The hearing then moved to SB 2096 on wastewater management, which the Department of Land and Natural Resources supported, noting PFAS can harm marine resources, and DOH’s wastewater branch offered comments. SB 2127 on water pollution drew support from Agra Business Development Corporation and opposition from the Hawaii Cattlemen’s Council, Hawaii Farm Bureau, and others. The main debate centered on runoff, NPDES permitting, and whether the bill could unfairly affect agricultural and public entities; senators and witnesses discussed how heavy rainfall, cesspools, and mixed land uses complicate responsibility and compliance. The transcript ends with the committee still in discussion on SB 2127, with no final votes or actions shown in the excerpt.

Bills: HB2053, HB2116, HB2148

Keywords: stormwater, recharge mapping, water resources, groundwater, appropriation, Arizona, HB2116, Colorado River, litigation fund, water rights, Arizona water law, general fund appropriation, state budget, interstate water compact, Colorado River Compact, water litigation, A.R.S. 45-119, natural resources, water policy, river management

Summary: The committee first considered House Bill 2116, which would appropriate $1 million in fiscal year 2027 from the State General Fund to the Colorado River Litigation Fund. The sponsor said it was a repeat of last year’s request and was intended as a backup if the seven Colorado River basin states cannot reach a new agreement. Arizona Department of Water Resources staff testified in support, explaining the state’s role in ongoing Colorado River negotiations and distinguishing the litigation fund from the executive’s separate Colorado River Protection Fund. The bill received a due pass recommendation on a 17-1 vote. The committee then took up House Bill 2053, which appropriates $100,000 to ADWR for updated stormwater recharge mapping and expands the mapping effort beyond state trust lands to private lands. The committee adopted Chairman Livingston’s amendment, which extended the coordination timeline to one year, broadened the agencies involved, and revised language on site eligibility and the definition of stormwater. The sponsor said the bill would help identify more places to capture stormwater for recharge, while ADWR testified neutral, supporting the mapping work but raising a concern about language tied to appropriable surface water because that is a legal determination for the courts. The amended bill passed 11-7. House Bill 2148 was then heard, proposing to give the legislature authority to appropriate non-custodial federal monies, with requirements for specifying purposes and allowing agencies to spend such funds if the legislature does not act. An amendment excluded university and Board of Regents research grants from the bill’s scope, which the chair said was intended to avoid implementation problems. The sponsor framed the bill as a transparency measure, and members discussed the large amount of federal pass-through funding Arizona receives. The amended bill passed 11-7. After the bills, the committee received a lengthy JLBC presentation comparing the executive budget with the JLBC baseline. Discussion focused on revenue forecasts, the impact of federal tax conformity, state employee health insurance costs, SNAP administrative and error-rate costs under H.R. 1, developmental disabilities and AHCCCS growth, and K-12/ESA funding trends. Members repeatedly criticized the executive budget for funding some ongoing costs on a one-year basis and expressed concern about rising caseloads and supplemental needs. No formal action was taken on the presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• These partnerships support export market development, specialty crop markets, micro grants, and critical
• These<00:02:57.680> partnerships<00:02:58.319> support<00:02:58.720> export<00:02
• :59.200> market These partnerships support export market These partnerships support export market
• <00:10:18.000> and >> Um there was a dip in that export and >> Um there was a
• dip in that export and also<00:10:19.040> there<00:10:19.360> was<00:10:20.000> um

Bills: SB2350, SB2349, SB2407, SB3320

Keywords: agriculture, aquaculture, livestock, agribusiness, Department of Agriculture, regulatory functions, employee benefits, restorative practices, sustainability, environmental stewardship, local food systems, Native Hawaiian, workforce development, agricultural development, Hawaii Island, property manager, state employment, SB3320, Hawaii, Agribusiness Development Corporation

Summary: The committee heard testimony on SP 2350, which would transfer oversight of the Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Development Division and the aquaculture and livestock support services branch to the Agribusiness Development Corporation. The Department of Agriculture and ADC both testified, with ADC opposing the bill as written while supporting the goal of strengthening agriculture. ADC said the transfer could create federal operational and coordination risks, jeopardize federal funding and program continuity, and was unnecessary because ADC is a business development entity, not a regulatory agency. The Hawaii Farmers Union also expressed concern that moving the programs could weaken the department’s ability to access federal resources, while the Hawaii Farm Bureau submitted written testimony and the Hawaii Aquaculture and Aquaponics Association and H-Plan were noted as supporting the measure; the Hawaii Cattlemen’s Council was noted as opposing it. Much of the discussion focused on aquaculture’s economic potential and the role of regulation, permitting, and funding. Committee members questioned why aquaculture had not grown faster, citing current gross revenues of about $66 million last year, a prior high of $82 million, and a possible long-term target of $500 million. Testimony identified permitting and feed costs as major barriers, along with market conditions and water quality issues affecting producers. ADC described ongoing efforts on feed development, permitting streamlining, coastal-state collaboration on seaweed and restorative aquaculture, and national advocacy for more parity in seafood import standards. Members also pressed the Department of Agriculture on its leadership and priorities, criticizing the lack of bills and resources dedicated to aquaculture and asking whether the department should have more authority to pursue land purchases and development opportunities. The department said it relies on divisions and industry feedback for bill ideas, noted it funds an annual aquaculture survey, and said it was pursuing congressional earmarks and other funding for aquaculture parks, research, and export/import issues. ADC said it would work with the department if the bill passed, but that its current statute does not give it regulatory authority and any such change would require a statutory amendment.

Transcript Highlights:

• The direct transport rule for those who report to the comptroller on exporter-to-exporter title sales
• exporter.
• Those sales are from one exporter to another.
• Or, I guess an exemption for export, right? Yes, sir.
• This is a young industry for the exportation of fuel south.

Bills: SB2199, SB2200, SB2201, SB2949, SB2332

Keywords: overweight vehicle, vehicle weight limits, hazardous materials, hazmat, cargo tank, fuel transport, trucking, commercial vehicle, Transportation Code, criminal penalty, second-degree felony, loading violation, truck weight, axle weight, gross weight, public safety, commercial carrier, Texas, commercial truck, truck route

Bills: SB2199, SB2200, SB2201, SB2949, SB2332

Keywords: overweight vehicle, vehicle weight limits, hazardous materials, hazmat, cargo tank, fuel transport, trucking, commercial vehicle, Transportation Code, criminal penalty, second-degree felony, loading violation, truck weight, axle weight, gross weight, public safety, commercial carrier, Texas, commercial truck, truck route

Bills: SB2199, SB2200, SB2201, SB2949, SB2332

Keywords: overweight vehicle, vehicle weight limits, hazardous materials, hazmat, cargo tank, fuel transport, trucking, commercial vehicle, Transportation Code, criminal penalty, second-degree felony, loading violation, truck weight, axle weight, gross weight, public safety, commercial carrier, Texas, commercial truck, truck route

Summary: The Senate Committee on Border Security heard several bills related to border security, law enforcement databases, DPS aviation maintenance, and transportation motor fuels. SB 2199, after brief invited testimony from the Texas Trucking Association and DPS, was left pending at first and later reported favorably to the full Senate on a 4-1 vote. SB 2332, relating to aircraft owned and operated by the Department of Public Safety, was laid out by Senator Parker, with DPS and TechSOT witnesses explaining that it would centralize DPS aircraft maintenance under DPS, align state law with FAA responsibility rules, and potentially reduce costs and downtime; it was later reported favorably on a 5-0 vote and placed on the local and uncontested calendar. SB 2949, relating to the regulation of transportation motor fuels, was also adopted as a committee substitute and reported favorably on a 4-1 vote, with a member noting continued interest in refining port-of-entry transloading issues. The committee spent the most time on SB 2201, which would revise Texas intelligence database criteria for criminal street gangs and foreign terrorist organizations. Senator Birdwell described the bill as adding safeguards such as requiring officer identification on submissions, setting retention and validation rules, and updating criteria to reflect technology and social media use. Invited witnesses from the district attorney’s office, DPS, and the Texas Anti-Gang Center generally supported the bill and said it would improve reliability and accountability. Public testimony included support from the Texas Public Policy Foundation and opposition from the Texas Civil Rights Project and the ACLU of Texas, which argued the bill’s language on implied or demonstrated self-admission and other criteria was vague, overly broad, and could lead to erroneous inclusion in the database and downstream consequences. After debate, SB 2201 was reported favorably to the full Senate on a 4-1 vote, with Senator Eckhardt voting no. During questioning on SB 2201, members discussed how gang-database entries are used in investigations and prosecutions, the meaning of “family member,” the scope of self-admission, and how “previously documented areas” would be identified in practice. Opponents raised concerns about due process, First and Fourth Amendment issues, racial profiling, and possible federal consequences if state database information is shared. Supporters emphasized that the database is a law-enforcement tool for identifying organized criminal activity and that the committee substitute adds training, audits, and accountability measures. The committee then completed its business and recessed subject to the call of the chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• Director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources to include additional information regarding each groundwater
• impact of the stored water if the recovery well is located either in land permitted to operate as a groundwater
• Part of the reason, my understanding is, that they model groundwater in mile increments usually, and
• That was for groundwater savings facilities, and the department standard is that they consider all enrolled
• So it's not groundwater. There's no replenishment obligation.

Bills: SB1202, SB1287, SB1418, SB1785, SCM1007

Keywords: groundwater, water conservation, Arizona water resources, drought management, water quality, irrigation, active management area, domestic use, stock watering, water rights, small modular reactors, energy regulation, environmental compatibility, utility construction, agricultural use, industrial users, water storage, recovery well, Arizona Revised Statutes, water management

Summary: The Committee on Natural Resources, Energy and Water held a brief meeting and considered several water and energy measures. Senate Bill 1202, which would require the Arizona Department of Water Resources director to include additional information about each groundwater basin in the five-year water supply and demand assessment, was described as similar to a bill vetoed in a prior session. After a motion for a do pass recommendation, the committee approved it on a 6-3 vote with one absence. The committee then heard Senate Bill 1418, which limits county regulation of small modular nuclear reactors in certain circumstances, expands the definition of “plant” for siting purposes, and allows replacement of existing thermal units with SMRs without a new certificate of environmental compatibility in specified cases. Members noted that parts of the bill were similar to previously vetoed measures. The committee passed the bill 6-3 with one absence, with some members explaining their votes and one member saying they would support it for now but might reconsider on the floor. Senate Concurrent Memorial 1007 urged Congress to divest the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the San Carlos Irrigation Project Electric System and fund a system study and improvements. Supporters said the system is old, unreliable, and difficult for the federal government to manage, and that local public power entities could do a better job if divestiture were authorized. The memorial passed unanimously, 9-0 with one absence. Finally, Senate Bill 1785, which would codify a one-mile area-of-impact safe harbor for certain recovered stored water wells unless a separate hydrologic study is submitted, received testimony from a water attorney and an ADWR representative describing it as a codification of long-standing department policy. The committee passed SB 1785 on a do pass recommendation by a 9-3 vote with one absence.

Bills: SF0050, SF0084, HB0133, HB0116, HB0011, HB0044

Keywords: groundwater, water resource management, state engineer, aquifer study, corrective controls, monitoring wells, public reporting, water conservation, Colorado River, drought, irrigation, water rights, voluntary program, interstate agreements, conservation districts, supervisors, elections, agriculture, local governance, beneficial use

Transcript Highlights:

• And we're really concerned in some of that shallow groundwater return flow water.
• And we're really concerned in some of that shallow groundwater return flow water.
• Our soda ash from trona resource is our top international export.
• <00:48:35.520> The our top international export. The our top international export.
• within groundwater control areas. within groundwater control areas.

Bills: SF0050, SF0084, HB0133, HB0116, HB0011, HB0044

Keywords: groundwater, water resource management, state engineer, aquifer study, corrective controls, monitoring wells, public reporting, water conservation, Colorado River, drought, irrigation, water rights, voluntary program, interstate agreements, conservation districts, supervisors, elections, agriculture, local governance, beneficial use

Transcript Highlights:

• , specifically in the Hayes Trinity groundwater district.
• We have four operating groundwater districts in our county, and this is the only groundwater district
• , groundwater sources?
• resources there to do a big export project.
• export?

Bills: HB 5208, SB 863, SB 1243, SB 1624, SB 1965, SB 2660, SB 2702, SB 2885

Keywords: water filtration, public drinking water, health and safety, well maintenance, water quality, Edwards Aquifer, water conservation, reclaimed water, aquifer storage, environmental protection, public utility agency, dissolution, local government, regulatory framework, municipal authority, Texas Water Bank, Texas Water Trust, water rights, water banking, instream flow

Transcript Highlights:

• County and by the Barton Springs Groundwater District.
• , specifically in the Hays-Trinity Groundwater District.
• We have four operating groundwater districts in our county, and this is the only groundwater district
• There's not sufficient groundwater resources there to do a big export project.
• export?

Bills: HB5208, SB863, SB1243, SB1624, SB1965, SB2660, SB2702, SB2885

Keywords: water filtration, public drinking water, health and safety, well maintenance, water quality, Edwards Aquifer, water conservation, reclaimed water, aquifer storage, environmental protection, public utility agency, dissolution, local government, regulatory framework, municipal authority, Texas Water Bank, Texas Water Trust, water rights, water banking, instream flow