Transcript Highlights:

• I call this meeting to order of the Economic and Rural Development Committee.
• Development by looking at other pieces of land.
• Are there economic development opportunities here?
• Development. Let's talk about some positive things.
• Roper over at the Economic Development.

Transcript Highlights:

• THE DRAFT PROCUREMENT WE ARE DEVELOPING IS NOT SPECIFIED IN A SPECIFIC STRATEGY.
• OF DEVELOPMENT WORK.
• CNS IS HEAVILY INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALL ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT.
• AND IS IT OUTGO OR THE DEVELOPER THAT THE SYSTEM.
• , YOU DESIGN, DEVELOP AND DO OTHER THINGS, THERE ARE BIG BUCKETS.

Transcript Highlights:

• It was all developed by the state.
• facilities uh for serving developed facilities uh for serving developed areas.<00:36:03.440>
• development fees, and the monthly fee. development fees, and the monthly fee.
• It was all developed by review the plan. It was all developed by the<00:38:16.320> state.
• developer has been filed with the SEO. developer has been filed with the SEO.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Development partners, the state industry, and others.
• So we have been developing a number of programs over the past couple of years.
• It's been funded by the Economic Development Administration, Tech Hub.
• We are the state's science and tech economic development office within the Economic Development Department
• Comprehensive economic development services and coordination.

Transcript Highlights:

• Not only that, we thank the Water Development Board.
• Yeah, John Dupnik, Texas Water Development Board.
• Texas Water Development Board.
• Right, Matt Nelson, Texas Water Development Board.
• John Dupnik, Texas Water Development Board.

Summary: The House Committee on Natural Resources met to focus on flooding issues across Texas, with particular attention to South Texas and the recent catastrophic flooding in Central Texas. Chair Harris and Vice Chair Martinez emphasized that flooding is a statewide problem requiring continued legislative attention. The committee heard invited testimony from Hidalgo County Commissioner David Fuentes and Hidalgo County Drainage District No. 1 General Manager Raul Sassine, who described the March flood event in Hidalgo County, including more than 20 inches of rain, six deaths, over $100 million in local damage, widespread road flooding, and repeated shutdowns of Interstate 2 and its frontage roads. They argued that existing drainage systems are under capacity, that TxDOT projects must account for downstream drainage impacts, and that local governments have already invested heavily in mitigation through bonds and partnerships. Fuentes and Sassine also described the county’s long-term flood mitigation and water-reuse efforts, including the Delta region water management project, which would capture stormwater, runoff, and treated effluent, reduce flooding, and create potable water supply. They said the drainage district manages about 780 miles of channels and 1,100 acres of detention facilities, has used prior Flood Infrastructure Fund and GLO grants, and has ongoing applications for additional state and federal assistance. Members discussed the need for TxDOT coordination, emergency access on frontage roads, local “skin in the game,” and the possibility of combining flood control with aquifer recharge and water supply projects. Texas Water Development Board Executive Administrator Brian McMath then presented an overview of the state’s flood planning and funding framework, including the post-Harvey legislative changes that created the Flood Infrastructure Fund, the Texas Infrastructure Resiliency Fund, and the regional/state flood planning process. He summarized the first state flood plan adopted in 2024, noting that about one in six Texans live or work in known flood hazard areas and that regional plans identified 4,609 flood risk reduction solutions with an estimated cost of $54.5 billion. He also reviewed TWDB programs for flood grants, community assistance, flood insurance compliance, stream gauges, TexMesonet, flood mapping, and the TexasFlood.org viewer. Members asked about drainage fees, technical assistance, gauge placement, the relationship between flood maps and FEMA FIRMs, and whether flood mitigation funds could support aquifer storage and recovery or recharge projects; TWDB staff said such projects can be eligible if they include flood mitigation components, but direct technical assistance cannot be paid from Flood Infrastructure Fund dollars. The committee concluded by expressing interest in further study of combining flood mitigation with aquifer recharge, and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Co-developers can choose to go through regulatory authority. And that's the bill.
• The City of Galveston remains concerned about the unique nature of development in coastal areas.
• , drainage requirements, or specific development agreements if a third party... party approves the development
• to pay for development.
• The developers and the builders have all agreed to... What's that? Oh, this is a MUD only, okay.

Bills: SB2784, HB23, HB247, HB1533, HB2011, HB2013, HB2273, HB2421, HB2464, HB3120, HB3424, HB3575, HB3788, HB4370, HB4809, HB5057, HB5084, HB5534, HB5668, HJR34, HB23, HB247, HJR34

Keywords: Somervell County, hospital district, board of directors, elections, local governance, staggered terms, third-party review, property development, local government, permits, construction inspection, regulatory authority, land development, liability, occupancy certificate, border security, tax exemption, ad valorem, real property, infrastructure

Transcript Highlights:

• The Texas Advanced Nuclear Development Fund to support nuclear development.
• First Move is a first-of-a-kind development.
• And the development.
• It also gives time for this technology to develop.
• We are not opposed to workforce development, by the way. Attention to workforce development.

Bills: HB 11, HB 14, HB 132, HB 1584, HB 1606, HB 5061, HB 1041, HB 2286

Keywords: licensing, reciprocity, regulation, Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, interstate agreements, nuclear energy, advanced reactors, energy security, grant programs, Texas Advanced Nuclear Energy Office, HB 132, Texas Government Code Chapter 418, Public Information Act, confidential records, homeland security, foreign adversary, terrorism, critical infrastructure, emergency response, law enforcement

Summary: The meeting was a thorough exploration of multiple bills, most notably focused on innovative energy solutions and public safety enhancements. Key discussions centered around HB14, which aims to bolster the state's nuclear energy capabilities through the establishment of a Texas Advanced Nuclear Energy Office. Senators and expert witnesses discussed the potential of nuclear power as a clean energy source and a strategic necessity for Texas's growth. There was strong support for the bill, with various stakeholders highlighting its importance for the future energy landscape. Additionally, other bills like HB132 addressed the need for enhanced confidentiality protections regarding sensitive information, while HB1584 sought improvements in power restoration procedures during emergencies. Overall, the committee engaged with multiple viewpoints, balancing innovation with safety and ethical considerations.

Transcript Highlights:

• All right, the Transportation and Economic Development Budget Subcommittee will come to order.
• It still has not been really developed. Mr. Chairman, your port in Port St.
• It still has not been really developed. Mr. Chairman, your port in Port St.
• The requirement is the development of the priorities.
• We are developing priorities annually.

Summary: The Transportation and Economic Development Budget Subcommittee heard an overview from FDOT Secretary Jared Perdue on the state’s transportation work program, with emphasis on the Moving Florida Forward initiative, major roadway projects, workforce needs, seaports, airports, spaceport infrastructure, and the role of MPOs/TPOs in planning. He said the $4 billion general revenue investment in Moving Florida Forward has been leveraged into a roughly $7 billion-plus program, with 20 projects underway and about 70% of the initiative expected to be under construction by year’s end. He highlighted I-4 as the centerpiece, describing a new procurement approach, phased delivery, and added lanes intended to provide congestion relief during construction. He also discussed a projected 38% growth in transportation workforce needs and proposed a Florida Transportation Academy and a research institute to support training and innovation. Tiffany King of the Florida Airports Council said Florida’s 128 public-use airports have about $5.7 billion in unfunded projects through 2029, and stressed that airport priorities include not only terminals and passenger capacity but also safety, security, gates, and environmental work. Michael Rubin of the Florida Ports Council said Florida’s 16 deepwater seaports now have a $195.9 billion economic impact, support about 1.2 million jobs, and generate $7.4 billion in state and local taxes; he noted that ports still have about $4 billion in project needs, including dredging and intermodal connections. Jeff Sheffield of the North Florida TPO described the value of regional, community-based planning and said his four-county TPO has helped align local priorities with FDOT funding. Members asked about whether the state is planning for advanced air mobility and “flying cars,” whether Moving Florida Forward bypassed MPOs, how long major projects take, cost escalation, regionalization of MPOs, port governance, airport governance, and the contractor qualification system. FDOT and the witnesses said the state is working on policy and planning for advanced air mobility, that Moving Florida Forward did not bypass MPOs because the projects were already locally prioritized, and that the main delay is funding rather than the planning process. They said long-range plans are updated regularly and can be amended when priorities change, and that regional MPO structures can improve coordination. The committee took no formal vote; the meeting concluded after questions and comments, including discussion of workforce training opportunities for incarcerated individuals and a motion to adjourn by the ranking member.

Transcript Highlights:

• by a developer named Paul Lam.
• by a developer named Paul Lam.
• by a developer named Paul Lam.
• by a developer named Paul Lam.
• with developers. And and No, I get that. with developers. And and No, I get that.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We develop population estimates for small areas.
• We develop future projected populations for the state.
• And we are also developing tools to help.
• So even... ...contractor or developer goes to DPW and creates a new address.
• We are virtually, not quite, but virtually 100% developed.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on the Census held a hearing on September 22, 2025 focused on preparations for the 2030 census, with an emphasis on Massachusetts’ role in building a complete address list and improving local participation in census-related address review programs. Chair Brownsberger and witnesses from the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s office, the UMass Donahue Institute, Watertown, and MassGIS described the importance of accurate address data for congressional apportionment, federal funding, and state and local planning. They also discussed the first major upcoming step, the Block Boundary Suggestion Project, and the later Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) process, both of which rely on municipalities reviewing and correcting census geography and address files. John Rosenberry of the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s office said outreach to cities and towns is beginning now, with a likely December start for the block boundary process based on the 2020 cycle. He stressed that local officials, clerks, building inspectors, housing authorities, and GIS staff should be engaged early, especially to capture new development and conversions created under the state’s housing policies. Susan Strait of UMass Donahue explained that LUCA allows local governments to compare their address lists with the Census Bureau’s master address file, and that Massachusetts had very high participation in 2020; she cited examples where local review added hidden or newly built housing units and noted that Boston later corrected a group-quarters undercount of about 6,000 students through a post-census review program. In response to questions, she clarified that those corrections affected annual estimates and funding formulas, but not the 2020 apportionment count. Watertown City Manager George Proakis described how local address review is complicated by accessory dwelling units, single-family to two-family conversions, and large multifamily projects, and urged continued state support for local governments doing this work. Dan Marrier of MassGIS then outlined the Massachusetts Master Address Database, explaining that it combines multiple sources, including E911, assessor, voter, and municipal data, to create a standardized residential address repository used for census preparation and other state functions. He said the database has helped improve census accuracy, including by updating more than one million Census Bureau address-point locations before 2020, and noted that local municipalities remain the final authority on addresses even as MassGIS standardizes and reconciles variants across the Commonwealth.

Transcript Highlights:

• So this is not land that was considered otherwise developable.
• Fundamental to the GSP is all the technical work that went into developing those water budgets, developing
• To the GSP is all the technical work that went into developing those water budgets, developing the sustainable
• yield, and developing those undesirable result markers.
• And in Fox Canyon, for example, when we developed ours, not only... ...when we developed ours, not only

Summary: The committee heard several water, wildlife, conservation, and local government bills. AB 362, by Assembly Member Ramos, would add tribal water uses as a statewide beneficial use and strengthen tribal consultation in water planning; tribal representatives and conservation groups supported it as a long-overdue correction, while water agencies, business groups, and agricultural interests raised concerns about CEQA, regulatory uncertainty, and impacts on existing water planning. The bill was moved on a due pass motion to Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials, with some members noting ongoing stakeholder discussions and one abstention. AB 1089, by Assembly Member Carrillo, would expand local permitting authority under the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act to include commercial and industrial projects. The author and the City of Adelanto argued it would speed housing and economic development in the high desert while preserving the overall conservation framework, but environmental groups opposed it as premature and potentially weakening protections for Joshua trees. The committee approved the bill on a due pass motion to Appropriations. AB 1024, by Assembly Member Harabedian, would require a regional black bear mitigation plan for the San Gabriel Valley and related areas; Sierra Madre officials described rising bear intrusions and the need for state help, and the bill passed to Appropriations. AB 846, by Assembly Member Connolly, would streamline permitting for local wildfire preparedness and vegetation management projects in local responsibility areas by creating a faster review process at Fish and Wildlife and improving mapping coordination with Cal Fire. Local government, fire service, and agricultural witnesses supported the bill as a common-sense wildfire prevention measure, and it passed to Natural Resources with no opposition. AB 263, by Assembly Member Rogers, would extend emergency minimum-flow regulations for the Scott and Shasta Rivers for five years or until permanent rules are adopted; supporters said it protects salmon recovery, tribal subsistence, and the fishing economy during a transition period, while opponents argued it bypasses normal regulatory process and harms farmers. The committee approved it on a due pass as amended motion to Appropriations, with one abstention and two no votes. AB 1044, by Assembly Member Bains, would create a new Tulare County groundwater sustainability agency for undistricted lands after other local agencies split off; the bill passed to Local Government. AB 1426, by Assembly Member Arambula, began testimony on creating a Diablo Range Conservation Program to fund habitat protection and restoration across the range.

Transcript Highlights:

• community and economic development community and economic development associates.<00:15:54.320><
• African Development Center. African Development Center.
• workforce development fund base funding. workforce development fund base funding.
• to um governor's workforce development to um governor's workforce development board<00:51:18.160
• development in companies in Minnesota. development in companies in Minnesota.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Office of Planning and Sustainable Development in support.
• of Planning, Sustainable Development. of Planning, Sustainable Development.
• > Support Avalon Development and Support Avalon Development and Support Grassroot<01:32:46.159
• equity in for sale housing development equity in for sale housing development projects<02:12:48.960
• Sustainable Development in support. Sustainable Development in support.

Bills: HB2611, HB2102, HB1710, HB1868, HB1920, HB1812, HB1733, HB1715, HB1723, HB1724, HB1727, HB1711

Keywords: HB2611, Hawaii antitrust, rental housing, rent price-fixing, algorithmic pricing, algorithmic rent-setting, property management software, pricing algorithms, rent coordination, price-fixing, collusion, cartel, multifamily housing, landlord software, occupancy levels, lease terms, Attorney General, public education program, consumer protection, housing affordability

Summary: The committee first took up HB 2611, which would prohibit algorithmic price-setting in Hawaii’s rental market, require public education by the Attorney General, and establish fines and penalties. The Department of the Attorney General opposed the bill, saying its language was too unclear and could expose landlords and agents to criminal and civil liability for ordinary rent-setting practices based on public information or assistance from property professionals. Members asked about antitrust standards, tacit agreement, and whether using county-published affordable-rent schedules would be unlawful; the AG said that would not be unlawful if based on public information and without collusion. Testimony was mixed, with the chair noting support from the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, Hawaii Realtors with comments, 50501 Hawaii and General Strike Hawaii, Haloha Project, 13 individuals, and one opponent. The committee then heard HB 2102, which clarifies that residential projects involving ground disturbance in high-risk areas remain subject to state historic preservation review and removes an exemption for lands presumed nominally sensitive. The Office of Planning and Sustainable Development and the Department of Planning and Permitting supported the measure, saying it would improve clarity and ensure review focuses on projects most likely to affect historic properties or iwi kupuna, while also urging language refinements to better define sensitive sandy-soil areas and balance preservation with housing timelines. NAP Hawaii opposed the bill, arguing it would undo progress made last session and that the current process already includes protections for inadvertent discoveries and efficiency for lower-risk areas. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs strongly supported HB 2102, explaining it was responding to beneficiary complaints about late-added language in last year’s law and saying the nominally sensitive-area language should be removed because it was adopted without sufficient stakeholder input and could be harmful to iwi kupuna protections. Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation and several individuals also supported the bill. Committee discussion focused on how “nominally sensitive” areas are determined, whether project proponents could self-certify areas as exempt, and how high-density residential projects should be treated; SHPD said it uses survey and monitoring data to map sensitivity, that highly sensitive areas like Kīauea are not nominally sensitive, and that some high-density projects should remain exempt if they do not involve new ground disturbance. The hearing included no final vote in the portion provided, but the chair noted 48 individuals in support and continued questioning on the bill’s definitions and implementation.

Transcript Highlights:

• , 300 million developers that generate AI.
• , 300 million developers that generate AI.
• software developers software developers worldwide<01:25:51.560> currently<01:25:52.199>
• bar of entry into software development bar of entry into software development so<01:26:05.000>
• <01:42:39.800> towards there might be a bias develop towards there might be a bias develop

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Wooden and I developed this legislation in an effort to begin addressing one of the more
• It enjoys widespread bipartisan support, as well as support from builders and developers, cities and
• And this would create huge opportunities for new development and new housing.
• Smart stair reform would create huge opportunities for new development and new housing supply.
• It's good to hear from someone who's a practitioner in the space of development.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Housing and Human Services met with a quorum, adopted the June 16, 2026 minutes, and then unanimously adopted S-1 substitutes for House Bills 5570 and 5571. The chair said the committee would take testimony and likely not move to final passage that day, in order to allow more discussion and questions. The bills, as substituted, would allow local governments to permit certain multifamily buildings up to four stories to be built or converted with a single staircase, subject to conditions such as limits on units per floor, floor size, and existing fire safety requirements. A sunset provision was described as ending the statute once LARA adopts corresponding building code rules. Representatives Fairbairn and Wooden testified in support, saying the bills are intended to address Michigan’s housing shortage by making smaller infill and “missing middle” projects more feasible and less costly. They argued the current two-stair requirement drives up costs, makes land assembly harder, and limits development on narrow or irregular lots. Senators asked about stair width, emergency safety, the choice of four stories instead of six, and why the American Institute of Architects opposed the approach; the sponsors said the 48-inch stair width was intended to allow two-way movement, four stories was a compromise aligned with expected code changes, and the architects preferred rulemaking over statutory change. Supportive testimony came from Pew Charitable Trusts, which said research from New York City, Seattle, and other places found fire death rates in modern single-stair buildings to be indistinguishable from other multifamily buildings, and that modern safety features such as sprinklers, alarms, and fire-rated construction make these buildings safe. A developer from Ann Arbor and the Michigan Home Builders Association said the reform would improve floor-plan efficiency, reduce wasted circulation space, lower construction costs, and help smaller projects pencil out. Abundant Housing Michigan also supported the bills, estimating they could reduce apartment construction costs by nearly 13%. The clerk read in numerous written cards in support from business, housing, municipal, and advocacy groups, while the Michigan Association of Fire Chiefs and the Michigan Professional Firefighters Union were listed as neutral. The committee adjourned without further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our first measure today is going to be HB 1777 HD2 relating to housing, which requires developers developing
• Establishes consequences for developers' non-compliance. requires developers developing a housing requires
• developers developing a housing project<00:05:21.840> under<00:05:22.160> HHFDC<00:05:
• developers' non-compliance. developers' non-compliance.
• Comments also from Avalon Development Comments also from Avalon Development Company<00:08:52.880

Bills: HB1700

Keywords: housing, expedited permits, disabilities, access, functional needs, local government, affordable housing, reporting requirements, 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint committees on Housing and Health and Human Services, along with related committees, heard and later took action on three housing bills. HB 1700 HD1, relating to housing and expedited permitting, received support from disability advocates, including the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities and a self-advocate who said faster permitting would help people with disabilities access more independent living options. The chairs said they would add amendments to ensure expedited permitting would not compromise ADA or Fair Housing Act protections and to require reporting on the number, type, and geographic distribution of projects so the program could be evaluated over time. The measure was recommended and adopted with amendments by the participating committees. HB 1777 HD2, which would require tenant protections for residents displaced by HHFDC-supported redevelopment projects, drew support from HHFDC, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Parents and Children Together, and numerous other organizations. Testimony emphasized the need for a right of first offer, replacement housing payments, relocation information, and tracking procedures to reduce displacement harms, especially for Native Hawaiian and public housing residents. In decision-making, the committees amended the bill to incorporate the Senate companion measure, rename the working group as the tenant protection working group, broaden its duties, and include a $75,000 appropriation for working group expenses. The committees also noted concerns about unequal treatment between tenants in publicly supported projects and private redevelopments, and referenced the KPT low-rise redevelopment as an example where required relocation assistance still did not proceed smoothly. The bill was recommended and adopted with amendments. HB 1975 HD1, relating to kupuna housing, would repeal the sunset on the state rent supplement program for kupuna, appropriate funds to HPHA, and add positions to support the program. HPHA, the Executive Office on Aging, OHA, Catholic Charities Hawaii, AARP Hawaii, Aloha Independent Living Hawaii, and others testified in support, with Catholic Charities describing how the subsidy helped a senior remain housed through major medical issues. The committees later recommended passage with amendments, including a technical correction to the number of positions and a date fix, and the recommendation was adopted.

Transcript Highlights:

• And developed with teachers.
• We've used that knowledge to develop those TEKS. They are sequential.
• We've used that knowledge to develop those teaks. They are 112 sequential.
• We look to them to do passage development and item development, to review for sensitivity and bias, to
• We look at to them to do passage development and item development to review for sensitivity and bias

Bills: HB8

Keywords: HB 8, Texas public school accountability, school accountability, public school transparency, STAAR, state assessments, instructionally supportive assessment program, Student Success Tool, Texas Education Agency, TEA, accountability ratings, A-F ratings, through-year assessment, benchmark testing, norm-referenced assessment, college career military readiness, CCMR, local accountability plan, school district performance, campus turnaround

Summary: The House Committee on Public Education met to hear House Bill 8, which would replace STAAR with a new assessment and accountability system beginning in the 2027-28 school year. The chair described the bill as reducing testing time, limiting benchmark tests, adding beginning-, middle-, and end-of-year assessments, requiring faster score turnaround, involving Texas teachers in test development, and tightening accountability timelines and transparency rules. Members also discussed provisions on A-F ratings, cut scores, CCMR, local accountability plans, and TEA reporting requirements. Committee members and invited witnesses split sharply on the bill’s approach. Supporters, including the chair, TEA Commissioner Mike Morath, and Ed Trust’s Nicholas Munyon Penny, argued the bill would reduce high-stakes pressure, provide quicker and more actionable data, limit over-testing, and better align assessments to Texas standards while preserving criterion-referenced accountability. They said the new system would help teachers and parents intervene sooner and would improve transparency, including parent access to student responses and automatic rescoring in some writing cases. Opponents, including Rep. Hinojosa and student witness Ella Moran, argued the bill still increases testing and replaces one high-stakes test with multiple TEA-created tests. Moran testified that STAAR creates anxiety, disrupts instruction, and does not reflect real learning, while Hinojosa said the House had previously passed a better bill based on a nationally norm-referenced model and criticized the new proposal as a concession to the Senate. Questions also focused on AI scoring of writing, rescoring rates, and whether the bill’s new accountability rules would be reliable and fair. The committee did not take a final vote during the portion provided, but the chair said a vote on HB 8 would be called after public testimony later in the day.

Transcript Highlights:

• Brian McMath, Executive Administrator, Texas Water Development Board.
• So we're going to develop supply. I just think we can develop without having harm. We too, Senator.
• So we're going to develop supply. I just think we can develop without having harm. We too, Senator.
• We do have the Texas Water Development Board here as a resource witness.
• We have a Texas Water Development Board here as a resource witness.

Summary: The committee met with limited attendance at first, then took up a series of water, agriculture, and rural affairs measures. HB 3898 would allow the Texas Water Development Board to provide financial assistance for brackish water desalination projects in certain border counties and related nonprofit suppliers even if the projects are not in the state water plan. Supporters said it is needed to address severe water shortages in places like Webb County and to support future planning; opponents, including the Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts, argued it bypasses the regional and state water planning process. The bill was left pending after testimony. The committee also heard HB 5339, which would create a higher-education grant program for regenerative agriculture research. A rancher testified that regenerative methods improved soil health, water retention, and farm viability, while a senator noted existing university research but said better coordination could help. Public testimony was closed and the bill was left pending. Members then heard HB 1523, a temporary prohibition on TCEQ issuing Austin a Class 5 injection well permit for an aquifer storage and recovery project in Bastrop and Lee counties until December 2027. Local officials from Bastrop supported the pause, citing unanswered questions about water treatment, recovery rates, and impacts on the aquifer, while Austin Water opposed the substitute, saying the project is central to its long-term water plan and that stakeholder talks were already underway. TCEQ explained its ASR permitting process and said public participation is possible but not always used in the current authorization process. The bill was left pending. HB 5659, concerning the Northeast Texas Municipal Water District and requiring majority city-council approval before certain water sales or interbasin transfers, drew testimony from district officials who said the change could interfere with existing contracts and district authority, but the chair emphasized the need for local buy-in and said the stakeholders had reached a workable compromise; testimony was closed and the bill was left pending. The committee also heard HB 1690, which would expand notice requirements for groundwater export permits so neighboring landowners and potentially affected aquifer areas are informed by certified mail and publication. The sponsor tied the bill to impacts from the Vista Ridge project, and no one testified against it; it was left pending. HB 3333 would prohibit TCEQ from issuing new wastewater discharge permits directly into the Devils River in Val Verde County. The sponsor and a conservation witness said the bill protects one of Texas’s most pristine rivers and reflects a local stakeholder agreement, while TCEQ said it can ensure water quality but acknowledged the river’s unique sensitivity; the bill was left pending. The committee also heard HCR 108 urging continuation of the U.S.-Mexico tomato suspension agreement, with supporters warning of major Texas job and consumer-price impacts if it ends, and HCR 76 urging federal action on imported shrimp, citing public health and industry concerns; both were left pending. Additional measures heard and left pending included HB 4158 on compensation for Texana Groundwater Conservation District directors, HB 654 creating a dismissal path for certain first-time deer hunting violations after self-reporting and hunter education, HB 4530 requiring Texas Water Development Board review of groundwater rights placed in the Texas Water Trust, HB 2128 directing a study of rural versus urban firefighting and rescue disparities, and HB 278 requiring groundwater districts and management areas to track progress toward desired future conditions over shorter intervals. On HB 278, witnesses split over whether the bill’s interim tracking would improve accountability or create new triggers that could be used against local districts, but no final vote was taken and the bill was left pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• Are they allowed to be like developers that might have an interest in developing these trade ports or
• Are they allowed to be developers that might have an interest in developing these trade ports or do they
• GDP is actually mostly technology development.
• We'll see what happens in economic development.
• Is that already developed? Mr.

Transcript Highlights:

• there to inform project development. there to inform project development.
• geothermal development. geothermal development. Okay.<01:02:11.920> Thanks.
• Um, only benefits developers pockets.
• potential, or development in the state, including information about developments in geothermal energy
• potential, or development in the state, including information about developments in geothermal energy

Bills: HB1924, HB2121, HB1928, HB1979, HB1650, HB1543, HB1981, HB1982

Keywords: mattress recycling, waste management, producer responsibility, environmental health, steafardship program, electronic cigarettes, disposable devices, environmental protection, plastic pollution, lithium batteries, pollution control, public health, deposit beverage container, bottle bill, container deposit law, container redemption, recycling refund, extended producer responsibility, EPR, deposit return system

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several measures related to waste, recycling, and environmental review. On HB 1924, which would establish a mattress stewardship program, the Department of Health said it stood on written testimony and offered comments, while Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition and one individual supported the bill and the International Sleep Products Association opposed it. No questions were raised and the committee moved on. A large portion of the hearing focused on HB 2121, which would prohibit the sale of disposable vapes in Hawaii. The Department of Health supported the measure but suggested the bill may be better placed in a different part of state law because the cited waste-management section regulates products after consumption, while still praising the effort to remove disposable vapes from the market and environment. Testimony in strong support came from the Coalition for Tobacco Free Hawaii Youth Council, Hawaii Public Health Institute, Hawaii COPD Coalition, Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction Center, the City and County of Honolulu, and many individuals; supporters emphasized youth vaping, toxic waste, lithium battery fire risks, and environmental harm. There was at least one opposing individual and the International Sleep Products Association was listed in opposition. The committee noted there were many written testimonies and no immediate vote was taken. The committee also heard HB 1928 on the deposit beverage container recycling program. The Department of Health stood on written testimony. The Solid Waste Task Force of Hawaii Environmental Change Agents and Upstream supported the bill but urged amendments to better integrate reuse and reusables, strengthen enforcement, clarify definitions, and protect existing redemption centers. The Hawaii Food Industry Association supported the concept of a backdrop program but preferred strengthening the existing program and raised concerns about undefined fees, existing infrastructure, and future audit costs. The Chamber of Commerce Hawaii supported the bill, and the chair said the measure needs work and that decision-making would occur in a few days. Finally, the committee took up HB 979 on environmental review and HB 1650 on environmental assessments. For HB 979, OPSD offered amendments, HCDA supported the bill but suggested clarifying the affordable-housing definition, Kauai Island Utility Cooperative supported it, and Earthjustice was asked about the court process for environmental challenges; the chair asked about shortening the challenge period and the relationship between environmental court, the intermediate court of appeals, and the Supreme Court. For HB 1650, OPSD and the State Historic Preservation Division stood on written testimony, OHA asked to retain historic sites, and several groups and individuals testified in support or opposition. Opponents argued that removing Wiki special district and historic sites from Chapter 343 trigger language would weaken environmental review and risk impacts to iwi kūpuna and historic resources.