Transcript Highlights:

• These western, there's some in the water out in western Oklahoma.
• We're gonna talk about water in a minute, by the way. Exactly.
• But I got on this water issue several years ago...
• And decided that Oklahoma, the west half of the state has lots of water that just flows right out of
• In the western half of the state, there isn't any water.

Bills: HR1055 , SB2170 , SB1833 , SB1198 , HR1056 , SB1730 , SB563 , SB1379 , SB1645 , SB2155 , SB1280 , SB1455 , SB1456 , SB1461 , SB1457 , SB1463 , SB1465 , SB1466 , SB1344 , SB1309 , HR1054 , SB2159 , SB1948 , HB1371 , SB1365 , SB1976 , SB1975 , SB2026 , SB1565 , SB1621 , SB237 , SB933 , SB1427 , SB1642 , SB171 , SB1873 , SB2067 , SB1623 , SB1771 , SB1805 , SB1826 , SB2072 , SB444 , SB2184 , SB1966 , SB1812 , SB2117 , SB2135 , SB330 , SB1239 , SB1428 , SB1531 , SB1484 , SB1405 , SB3

Keywords: Oklahoma Agriculture Day, agriculture, farmers, ranchers, agribusiness, food production, wheat, cattle, beef, dairy, soybeans, cotton, poultry, pork, rye, rural economy, urban-rural, trade, commodity production, Oklahoma Department of Agriculture

Transcript Highlights:

• He set up the new reading initiative and funded it.
• increases the amount of dollars for debt service payments from 80 million to 100 million within the roads fund

Bills: HR1055 , SB2170 , SB1833 , SB1198 , HR1056 , SB1730 , SB563 , SB1379 , SB1645 , SB2155 , SB1280 , SB1455 , SB1456 , SB1461 , SB1457 , SB1463 , SB1465 , SB1466 , SB1344 , SB1309 , HR1054 , SB2159 , SB1948 , HB1371 , SB1365 , SB1976 , SB1975 , SB2026 , SB1565 , SB1621 , SB237 , SB933 , SB1427 , SB1642 , SB171 , SB1873 , SB2067 , SB1623 , SB1771 , SB1805 , SB1826 , SB2072 , SB444 , SB2184 , SB1966 , SB1812 , SB2117 , SB2135 , SB330 , SB1239 , SB1428 , SB1531 , SB1484 , SB1405 , SB3

Keywords: Oklahoma Agriculture Day, agriculture, farmers, ranchers, agribusiness, food production, wheat, cattle, beef, dairy, soybeans, cotton, poultry, pork, rye, rural economy, urban-rural, trade, commodity production, Oklahoma Department of Agriculture

Bills: SB330 , SB2069 , SB2095 , SB1721 , SB1433 , SB1316 , SB1280 , SB1455 , SB1456 , SB1457 , SB1459 , SB1461 , SB1463 , SB1465 , SB1466 , HJR1088 , SB1684 , SB378 , SB1447 , SB1920 , SB1443 , HR1047 , SB1877 , SB1884 , SB1365 , SB2174 , SB1525 , SB1810 , SB1771 , SB1805 , SB1916 , SB1530 , SB1847 , SB1990 , SB2060 , SB1992 , SB1579 , SB1778 , SB2132 , SB1623 , SB2067 , SB1589 , SB1441 , SB1224 , SB372 , SB1232 , SB1264 , SB1450 , SB2011 , SB2030 , SB1980 , SB1936 , SB1477 , SB1593 , SB1725 , SB1670 , SB1480 , SB1726 , SB1633 , SB1735 , SB1632 , SB1277 , SB1217 , SB1826 , SB1824 , SB1813 , SB1326 , SB1937 , SB1641

Keywords: elk population, wildlife management, Oklahoma State University, veterinary medicine, ecosystem health, habitat assessment, advanced nuclear energy, nuclear power, small modular reactor, SMR, microreactor, generation III+, generation IV, nuclear reactor, nuclear permitting, nuclear licensing, Oklahoma Corporation Commission, OCC, Oklahoma Advanced Nuclear Energy Office, Oklahoma Advanced Nuclear Development Revolving Fund

Transcript Highlights:

• The 2023 creation of the Texas Water Fund was a great step.
• within the Texas Water Fund.
• be funded through... ...programs outside of the new water supply fund.
• That could get funding under new water.
• so that all eight programs of the Texas Water Fund, including the new Water Supply Fund, can be funded

Bills: HB3077 , HJR2 , HJR7 , HJR7

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• of our funds, water conservation, water supply development revolving fund, and our state revolving fund
• water state revolving funds in Arizona.
• funds, water conservation, water supply development revolving fund, and our state revolving fund by
• water state revolving funds in Arizona.
• water state revolving funds in Arizona.

Committees: Senate Natural Resources , Senate Senate Natural Resources Committee of Reference

Transcript Highlights:

• infrastructure revolving loan fund. fund to repay the water infrastructure revolving loan fund.
• And then delaying the resources trust fund reimbursement of water infrastructure revolving loan fund,
• And then delaying the resources, trust fund, reimbursement of water infrastructure, revolving loan fund
• other state needs outside of the water community to fund water projects because we're going to have
• If the State Water Commission is funding 75% of the large...

Committee: Joint Water Topics Overview Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• This is the funding bucket that the State Water Commission uses when it funds projects across the state
• And this is the funding bucket that the State Water Commission uses when it funds projects across the
• The water project funding, or you know, the $250 million or $260 million between the water project funding
• The water day, the water infrastructure revolving loan fund is fully obligated.
• These are other sources of funds at the state level. We have a water sustainability fund.

Committee: Joint Water Topics Overview Committee

Summary: The Water Topics Overview Committee met with a quorum and heard updates from Department of Water Resources Director Reese Haas and Lieutenant Governor/State Water Commission Chair Michelle Strinden on statewide water funding, major projects, and two legislative studies requested in House Bill 1020. Haas reviewed the status of the Northwest Area Water Supply and Southwest Pipeline projects, noting NAWS construction is expected to move water by fall and Southwest’s Hebron-Rugby expansion phase one is in final design with bids expected next month. He also summarized the department’s budget outlook, including Resources Trust Fund and Water Project Stabilization Fund balances, the effect of oil price volatility and stripper well exemptions on revenues, and the status of project buckets, carryover, lines of credit, regionalization, bid trends, and administrative/process updates. Committee members asked about project prioritization, municipal funding demand, maintenance expectations, replacement versus deferred maintenance, and whether the 2025 session may have underfunded municipal water supply needs. Haas said the commission uses the same high/medium/low prioritization process across all buckets, reviews maintenance plans as part of policy, and is seeing strong demand in the municipal bucket. He also explained that the department’s 14-year projection is based on the next seven legislative sessions and that the state faces a projected $1.3 billion shortfall over that period if all planned projects are funded under current assumptions. Deloitte then presented draft findings from the cost-share policy study and the governance/finance study. For cost share, Deloitte said the model shows a roughly $1.3 billion shortfall over 14 years and about $1.8 billion through 2031 under current policy, and offered seven options including tighter eligibility for replacement projects, state funding caps for the Mouse River and Red River Valley projects, a priority-based cost-share scale, timing shifts, use of existing lines of credit, and delayed reimbursement timing. For governance, Deloitte outlined draft options for Southwest, NAWS, and Red River ranging from maintaining current structures with stronger planning to transferring ownership or adding formal oversight, and recommended broader use of performance metrics, long-term financial planning, and clearer decision trees. No votes or formal actions were taken; the commission discussed the scenarios and the studies will return in revised form later in the spring.

Transcript Highlights:

• : water conservation, water supply development revolving fund, and our state revolving fund, by county
• water state revolving funds in Arizona.
• So the first is the water supply development revolving fund, which is tailored to funding projects for
• And I'll start with the water supply development revolving fund, which I'm going to call the rural fund
• We fund the ones that are saving the most water.

Committee: Senate Senate Natural Resources Committee of Reference

Summary: The Natural Resources Committee convened for introductions of members, staff, interns, and pages, with members briefly noting their districts and roles. The committee’s only agenda item was a presentation from the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority (WIFA) by Director Chelsea McGuire, who outlined WIFA’s mission and recent work financing water infrastructure across Arizona. McGuire described three major funding programs: the rural water supply development revolving fund, the water conservation grant fund, and the long-term water augmentation fund. She said WIFA has financed nearly $3 billion in water infrastructure over 30 years, awarded about $87.3 million through the rural fund, and allocated $211 million in conservation grants expected to save 6.6 million acre-feet of water. She also said WIFA is out of conservation money and requested continued state support, while noting the revolving funds remain stable even if federal funding declines. A large portion of the discussion focused on the long-term augmentation fund and its competitive solicitation process. McGuire said WIFA identified a projected 100,000 to 500,000 acre-foot supply gap in 10 to 15 years and selected seven projects for further due diligence after receiving 17 responses, including desalination, reuse, groundwater storage, and exchange-based projects involving private partners. Senators asked about public transparency, project timelines, costs, and the need for state funding; McGuire said public engagement will continue, the projects are intended to match the identified time frame, and state funding is needed both to pay for due diligence and to reduce project risk and cost. No votes or formal actions were taken, and the meeting adjourned after the presentation and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• infrastructure revolving loan fund. fund to repay the water infrastructure revolving loan fund.
• And then delaying the resources trust fund reimbursement of water infrastructure revolving loan fund,
• other state needs outside of the water community to fund water projects because we're going to have
• So the water fund would have to have net operating revenue.
• I'm looking for another about 10 million for State Water Commission funding or other funds to help make

Committee: Joint Water Topics Overview Committee

Summary: The Water Topics Overview Committee met to review several interim studies and receive updates from the Department of Water Resources. The committee approved the March 26, 2026 minutes, observed a moment of silence for the late Representative Conmy, and welcomed Representative Hansen to the committee. Staff then reported that the watershed management study and the stormwater/wastewater study had both satisfied the presentation requirements in their study directives, with no further required testimony unless members wanted additional information. The department’s main presentation focused on major water projects and agency operations. Reese Haas and staff updated members on the NAWS project, the Southwest Pipeline Project, Devils Lake outlet operations, low-head dam safety work, floodplain management repository implementation, data center water use, and the 2027 Water Development Plan. Members asked detailed questions about NAWS funding sources, remaining project costs, capacity concerns for All Seasons and other users, and whether current construction is being designed for future demand. The department said NAWS remains on track for substantial completion by October, that remaining NAWS funding will come from a mix of federal, state, and local sources, and that current construction is designed for ultimate capacity while some future components will be adjusted for increased demand. A large portion of the meeting was devoted to the department’s cash management, Resources Trust Fund revenues, carryover balances, and the State Water Commission’s cost-share program. The department reported $340.6 million in carryover remaining, explained that much of it is already obligated to long-term projects, and noted that oil price forecasts and stripper-well exemptions will affect future revenues. Members raised concerns about large carryovers, affordability for local sponsors, and whether the state should continue obligating money multiple bienniums ahead. The department said it is working with the commission on a revised prioritization framework, including high/moderate/low project categories and a two-tier pre-construction/construction approach, to better manage obligations and affordability. The committee also reviewed Deloitte’s finalized studies on regional governance/finance and cost-share policy. Deloitte presented options for Southwest, NAWS, and Red River governance, with stakeholders generally favoring keeping NAWS largely as is, using the current Southwest model with improvements, and pursuing a more structured governance option for Red River. On cost share, the department said Deloitte’s recommended package would cover projected needs through the 2030s, but would require policy changes such as lower percentages for some project types, a 25% replacement-project rate with a cap, and possible bonding or delayed reimbursement strategies. No votes were taken on these policy questions, and the chair indicated the committee would continue the discussion at future basin meetings and the September Water Topics meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then delaying the resources trust fund reimbursement of water infrastructure revolving loan fund,
• And then delaying the resources, trust fund, reimbursement of water infrastructure, revolving loan fund
• other state needs outside of the water community to fund water projects because we're going to have
• And so the water fund would have to have net operating revenue.
• I'm looking for another about $10 million for State Water Commission funding or other funds to help make

Summary: The Water Topics Overview Committee met to receive interim status updates on several water-related studies and Department of Water Resources projects. The committee approved the March 26, 2026 minutes, observed a moment of silence for the late Representative Conmy, and then heard updates on the watershed management study and the stormwater/wastewater study. Staff reported that the committee had already received the testimony contemplated in the study plans, including input from state agencies, local governments, and out-of-state entities, and that any further action would be at the committee’s discretion. The Department of Water Resources then provided project and budget updates on NAWS and the Southwest Pipeline Project. Reese reported NAWS is expected to serve about 81,000 users, with a total projected cost of about $571 million and about $96 million remaining, while the Southwest Pipeline Project is estimated at $1.06 billion total with about $409 million remaining. Members asked about funding sources, capacity needs, and whether current and future construction is being designed for increased demand; department staff said current work is designed for ultimate capacity, but some future components may need redesign based on new requests. The committee also discussed local cost shares, Minot’s role in NAWS funding, and whether the system is adequate for peak demand. A major portion of the meeting focused on the department’s cash management, carryover, and long-term water funding outlook. The department said Resources Trust Fund revenues are tied to oil extraction taxes and are affected by stripper well exemptions and future oil price declines. Members expressed concern about large carryover balances and whether the state is obligating more money than can realistically be spent in a biennium. The department reported about $340.6 million in remaining carryover and said it is trying to reduce that through a two-tier pre-construction/construction process and closer project vetting. The department also summarized the Deloitte studies on regional governance and finance and on cost-share policy. Stakeholders generally favored keeping the current governance structures for NAWS and Southwest with improvements, while Red River stakeholders leaned toward a different option; the department said it will bring an implementation plan back in September. On cost share, Deloitte’s recommendations would reduce some percentages, prioritize projects differently, and use other measures to close a projected long-term funding gap. Members debated affordability, local burden, deferred maintenance, and whether statutory changes may be needed to allow the commission more flexibility in prioritizing and funding projects. No formal votes or final actions were taken beyond approving the minutes and receiving the updates.

Transcript Highlights:

• He said the Resources Trust Fund is the funding bucket the State Water Commission uses to fund projects
• And this is the funding bucket that the State Water Commission uses when it funds projects across the
• the Water Infrastructure Revolving Loan Fund to free up some more funds for a local cost share, and
• These are other sources of funds at the state level. We have a Water Sustainability Fund.
• There's a Water Resources Cash Fund that's targeted at 14.

Committee: Joint Water Topics Overview Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• This is the funding bucket that the State Water Commission uses when it funds projects across the state
• And this is the funding bucket that the State Water Commission uses when it funds projects across the
• Revolving Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund to establish affordability.
• These are other sources of funds at the state level. We have a water sustainability fund.
• There's a water resources cash fund that's targeted at 14.

Summary: The Water Topics Overview Committee met with a quorum and received updates from the Department of Water Resources and the State Water Commission, followed by presentations from Deloitte on two legislative studies required by House Bill 1020. Director Reese Haas reviewed major project and budget updates, including the Northwest Area Water Supply and Southwest Pipeline projects, Resources Trust Fund balances, carryover spending, project prioritization, bid conditions, regional water system coverage, and department process improvements. Members also discussed how the commission prioritizes projects, maintenance expectations, and the impact of limited municipal water supply funding. No formal committee action was taken during the DWR update; the commission’s municipal funding decisions were described as pending its April 8 meeting. Deloitte then presented the cost-share policy study, which found that under current policy and forecasted revenues, North Dakota faces an estimated $1.3 billion shortfall over 14 years, with a near-term gap of about $1.8 billion through 2031. The firm outlined seven recommended options, including tighter definitions and a 25% cost share for eligible replacement projects, caps and financing strategies for the Mouse River and Red River Valley projects, aligning cost share with commission priority guidance, delaying lower-priority projects, using available lines of credit, and adjusting reimbursement timing for revolving loan funds. Committee members questioned inflation assumptions, affordability, user fees, and the use of legacy fund earnings for bonding, but no decisions were made. In the governance and finance study, Deloitte said final recommendations are still being refined, with a final report due May 29. The study examined the Southwest Pipeline, NAWS, and Red River Valley systems using governance and finance criteria such as decision authority, transparency, affordability, risk, and access to funding. For Southwest, Deloitte outlined options ranging from improved state-authority coordination to transferring ownership to the Southwest Water Authority; for NAWS, options focused on strengthening the authority’s role and potentially transitioning operations and maintenance; and for Red River, options ranged from enhanced facilitation to formal state oversight or state ownership. Members asked follow-up questions about ownership transfer, capital repayment streams, and why NAWS was not considered for transfer, and Deloitte said NAWS’s limited organizational maturity made that option less viable in the near term.

Transcript Highlights:

• Fund, primarily for new water supply development.
• The substitute makes transfers from the water fund to the program funds irreversible.
• on water demands, needs, and funding.
• Revolving Fund and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.
• use of monies allocated to the state's water funds.

Bills: SB7

Committee: Senate Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• Additionally, there's funding that will be drawn down for recycled water, also tribal water projects,
• There's also funding for elements of water management that have not been funded recently.
• So the Proposition 4 Water Chapter, The Proposition 4 Water Chapter includes two buckets of funding for
• What's the status of the federal funding for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund?
• We've got the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the rollback

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on water and coastal resilience heard an overview of the governor’s Proposition 4 spending plan, with presentations from the Department of Finance, the State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Water Resources, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and later coastal agencies. Members discussed the water chapter’s major allocations for drinking water and wastewater, recycled water, tribal water infrastructure, groundwater recharge and SGMA implementation, dam safety, flood protection, integrated regional water management, Salton Sea projects, and water data/stream gauges. The LAO noted that many programs are established and have clear funding processes, but some newer or less-defined programs may warrant more detailed future budget requests and reporting. No votes were taken on the agenda items. Members raised concerns about groundwater subsidence, water deliveries from the Delta, the pace of water storage investments, instream flows, and whether bond dollars were being used to backfill General Fund reductions. Administration witnesses said groundwater recharge spending is being paced because prior years already funded substantial SGMA work, that Delta operations are governed by water quality, salinity, and species requirements, and that Proposition 1 storage projects have moved slowly because they are locally led and require permitting and financing. The Water Board and DWR said they use public needs assessments, annual plans, and existing grant processes to prioritize projects, and Finance said some General Fund programs were shifted to Proposition 4 to help balance the budget. Members also asked for clearer public tracking of bond spending and more concise future reporting. In the coastal resilience portion, the Ocean Protection Council and Coastal Conservancy described Proposition 4 funding for sea level rise adaptation, coastal flood management, habitat restoration, public access, and San Francisco Bay projects, with a multi-year rollout based on project readiness and recent large state investments. The Conservancy said it would use its existing rolling grant process, while OPC said its sea level rise grants would build on existing programs and new technical assistance. The Department of Fish and Wildlife explained its proposed use of bond funds for climate-ready fisheries, hatchery modernization, salmon monitoring, whale- and turtle-safe fishing gear, and a specific hatchery operations request tied to the Friant settlement. The LAO said the coastal chapter’s proposed first-year spending is relatively modest but generally reasonable given staffing and project readiness, while members emphasized oversight, transparency, and coordination across agencies and jurisdictions.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's also funding for elements of water management that have not been funded recently, integrated
• What's the status of the federal funding for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund?
• One of those examples is the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and the Clean Water State Revolving
• And then just on the funding for water quality and safe drinking water in the bond, there's a significant
• the reversions for funds for dam safety and water recycling, and we also support continued funding for

Transcript Highlights:

• We have the Texas Water Development Fund, D-Fund program was unique. about this program is that one loan
• Revolving, State Revolving Fund, and the Drinking. water state revolving fund.
• that fall under the Texas Water Fund including There is a new water supply for Texas, which is required
• The Rural Water Assistance Fund, or RWAF, that fund we... can provide loans and grants to communities
• And for those two programs. and our Water Assistance Fund, which is kind of the bigger fund over WALAF

Committee: House Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• to the Texas Water Fund that would address water, wastewater, and flood issues.
• Conservation Fund at the Water Development Board.
• Water Fund administered by the Texas Water Development Board is the Clean Water SRF or Clean Water State
• The D-Fund under the Texas Water Fund can also provide funding for wastewater infrastructure.
• So under the Texas Water Fund, the primary source of wastewater funding comes from clean water SRFs,

Committee: House Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• And I think as well around funding for water generally, the state revolving fund for the clean water
• and drinking water side, the federal program, we've seen declines in the baseline funding that we're
• These positions and funding are justified and supported by the water board's data and the reporting that
• Permit Fund and the Safe Drinking Water Account to permit and oversee new types of water recycling that
• I think the funding should be dedicated specifically for water contractors for the purpose of repairing

Summary: The subcommittee met to discuss budget issues related to vacant positions across several natural resources and environmental departments, with no votes taken and all items held open for a future hearing. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Finance explained the administration’s proposal to eliminate about 6,000 vacant positions statewide, including roughly 293 positions in the departments before the committee, as a way to capture salary savings and reduce flexible funding tied up in vacancies. The LAO recommended retaining special-funded positions, while noting that eliminating General Fund positions would reduce savings. Finance argued that vacancy levels have remained steady statewide, that departments need flexibility to manage operations and hard-to-fill jobs, and that some vacant positions can be reclassified to higher-priority work. Members raised concerns that many of the proposed eliminations would affect core public-safety, permitting, and environmental-protection functions. The Department of Fish and Wildlife said the cuts would affect permitting, environmental protection, and law enforcement, while State Parks said its proposed ranger reductions were chosen from historically vacant, hard-to-fill positions and would still leave many vacancies to fill through the academy. The Coastal Commission said its positions supported sea-level rise planning under SB 272. The Department of Pesticide Regulation and DTSC said the reductions would affect multiple program areas, though Finance said the special funds involved were not in structural deficit and the cuts could help avoid future fee increases. The State Water Resources Control Board said its proposed reductions were spread across programs, with public-health functions protected as much as possible. The committee then heard an overview from the State Water Resources Control Board on its responsibilities for water quality, water rights, drinking water, and funding for water infrastructure. Chair Joaquin Esquivel described ongoing work on the Bay-Delta Plan update, the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes voluntary agreements, and the need to actively administer water rights. Members also discussed the board’s response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Sackett decision, which narrowed federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction. The board requested $2.6 million and 12 permanent positions to address resulting permitting and enforcement gaps; the LAO said the request met its high bar for new proposals and was supported by the board’s data and reporting.

Transcript Highlights:

• for water; we're supposed to supplement. of the Clean Water Fund in 2008 uh we of the Clean Water Fund
• </c><00:21:18.520><c> of</c> the Clean Water fund more than half of the Clean Water fund more than half
• fund is the only way to get to Water fund is the only way to get to clean<00:58:36.079><c> water</c>
• :03:44.799><c> help</c> the Clean Water fund does to help the Clean Water fund does to help enhance<01
• /c><01:18:03.840><c> call</c> if it's clean water funded but uh I call if it's clean water funded but

Committee: House Legacy Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• And I think as well around funding for water generally, the state revolving fund for the clean water
• and drinking water side, the federal program, we've seen declines in the baseline funding that we're
• The State Water Board requests $1 million in ongoing funds and four permanent positions from the Waste
• Discharge Permit Fund and the Safe Drinking Water Account to permit and oversee new types of water recycling
• I think the funding should be dedicated specifically for water contractors for the purpose of repairing