Transcript Highlights:

• Representative, is the purpose of setting the election in August to coincide with the runoffs?
• There will also, there will be Democrat and Republican runoffs in August.
• Would you agree that there would be substantially more Republican runoffs in August than Democrat runoffs
• outcome that you desire on Medicaid expansion by setting this in August to coincide with The primary runoffs
• that traditionally have always had much greater turnout than Democrat runoffs.

Bills: HB4028, HB4075, HB4077, HB4074, HB4076, SB1221, SB1921, SB2118, SB1932, SB2134, HCR1025, SB1432, HCR1024, HCR1022, SB1122, HB4029, HB4063, HB4073, HB4078, SB1936, SB44, SB237, SB248, SB1360, SB985, SB1204, SB1239, SB1307, SB2143, SB1428, SB1390, SB1400, SB1405, SB1732, SB1832, SB1859, SB1989, SB2018, SB1427

Keywords: tax deduction, venture capital, economic development, Oklahoma, investment, water resources, appropriations, funding, state treasury, infrastructure projects, emergency act, emergency management, disaster relief, pandemic response, state appropriations, HB4074, Health Care Workforce Training Commission, Health Care Workforce Revolving Fund, health workforce, health care workforce

Transcript Highlights:

• We also have storm water regulations that look at pre- and post-development to see what kind of runoff
• We also have storm water regulations that look at pre- and post-development to see what kind of runoff
• 00:17:12.079> of post development to see what kind of post development to see what kind of runoff
• <00:17:13.600> We<00:17:13.919> also runoff you're going to have.
• We also runoff you're going to have.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee opened discussion on SP 170 and worked through the bill section by section, focusing first on housing discrimination language and then on land-use and development provisions. On the housing section, members discussed adding “school enrollment status” or a similar term as a protected class to prevent municipalities from steering students into specific zones, especially in Durham. Some members questioned whether “status” was too vague and suggested “enrollment status” or “school enrollment status” for clarity. Public testimony raised concerns that adding a new protected class could have broader implications beyond this bill and could affect municipal zoning authority, while supporters argued the language was needed to prevent discrimination against students in housing access. The committee then heard testimony on provisions limiting municipal authority over septic test pits and well-siting requirements. DEES officials and a builder testified that state standards are already protective of groundwater and surface water and that some local requirements are more stringent than the state’s, adding cost and delay to housing projects. Supporters said uniform state standards would make housing development faster and more predictable. Opponents warned that local rules can protect aquifers, wellhead areas, and drinking water in specific communities, and that removing municipal flexibility could weaken those protections. The subcommittee appeared comfortable keeping these sections, though members discussed whether to clarify the language and whether some local review authority should remain. The meeting also covered road-length limits, caps on the number of lots on dead-end roads, and subdivision design rules. Members generally supported prohibiting municipalities from using maximum road length or lot caps to block development, with one amendment suggested to allow such limits where adequate water and sewer capacity is lacking. The committee also discussed allowing utilities and infrastructure such as septic systems, wells, electric systems, drainage structures, and shared leach fields to be placed in subdivision open space or perimeter buffers when those areas are not protected wetlands or shoreland. Finally, the committee reviewed a provision requiring municipalities to stamp and accept plan changes within three days after initial review, with members explaining that the goal is to prevent repeated, incremental changes from dragging out the approval process. No final votes were taken in the portion of the meeting provided, but members indicated general comfort with several sections as amended or clarified.

Transcript Highlights:

• It decreases stormwater runoff.
• It decreases stormwater runoff.
• It decreases stormwater runoff.
• It decreases stormwater runoff.
• It decreases stormwater runoff.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• plans using standard rainfall runoff plans using standard rainfall runoff models<00:11:19.200>
• <00:12:04.000> is science regarding how much runoff is science regarding how much runoff is
• Uh you know, rainfall runoff models.
• Is that runoff that might not occur. Is that correct?
• It was brought to my and runoffs.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• application is not managed well, farmers’ profit can be diminished, and there is potential nutrient runoff
• diminished and there is potential be diminished and there is potential nutrient nutrient nutrient runoff
• <00:05:13.360> farmers<00:05:13.720> are<00:05:13.919> increasingly runoff farmers
• are increasingly runoff farmers are increasingly challenged<00:05:15.120> to<00:05:15.280>
• Field conservation practices to minimize runoff, and of course Minnesota CCA plays an important role

Bills: HF363, HF2155, HF1524, HF821, HF1677, HF1292

Keywords: HF363, property tax credit, agricultural water quality credit, Minnesota agricultural water quality certification program, clean water fund, class 2a, class 2b, certified acres, conservation incentive, water quality, agricultural property, county assessor, county auditor, Department of Revenue, Department of Agriculture, property tax reimbursement, school district reimbursement, legacy finance, taxes committee, southeastern Minnesota

Transcript Highlights:

• In fact, tomorrow is the Republican runoff. There are five counties involved in that.
• And I would anticipate, like you saw with the other elections, that the costs for the runoff will be
• 10,000 precinct officials that will need to be trained this spring who will be working in the primary runoff
• We can't use those, say, to run a runoff election.
• But because our expenditures are going to be front-loaded next fiscal year, we have a runoff in August

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It will capture stormwater and agricultural runoff, treating it with a major drainage outfall.
• If they were to look at the entire watershed and the surface runoff that's going to be coming to these
• inherent challenge that we have is that we inherited a system that was really designed for agricultural runoff
• , so it's really not sufficient to carry all the surface runoff that the expanding population has created
• asking Hidalgo County about with regards to retention and detention, because as you mentioned, the runoff

Keywords: 997, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• until all the all of the debts of runoff until all the all of the debts of that<00:19:04.919> uh<
• That pool is already in runoff and was forced into runoff because for many years they were intentionally
• That pool is already in runoff and was forced into runoff because for many years they were intentionally
• That pool is already in runoff and was forced into runoff because for many years they were intentionally
• Lee was involved with the runoff as well and can speak more specifically to PLT.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But you can't do a runoff because we're gonna be pressing for time. Is that correct?
• So we can't have a runoff. What? Why can't we have a runoff? >> Time.
• We talked about the one who has the highest total at the end, no runoff.
• We won't go through the process like typically you will have a runoff to decide.
• But we typically do that by decision if it's the runoff.

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Which is in March, and then you have the, the May election, and then you have the runoff.
• He got 5% of the vote and he pushed that into a runoff. Now you being candidates.
• The sub allows voters to use a rid once and a 2nd time only in a runoff election.
• By restricting a second use to a runoff, the bill encourages timely compliance while still supporting
• Um, including that runoff, um, aspect. Um, after VC v.

Transcript Highlights:

• you have the primary, which is in March, and then you have the May election, and then you have the runoff
• how we got into this weird scenario of having a May election in the middle of the primary and the runoff
• So for that, we had to move the May elections or the runoff.
• Of the vote, and he pushed that into a runoff.
• Now, you being candidates, you know the money and the time that you spend on a primary runoff due to

Bills: HB1968, HB2279, HB2739, HB2803, HB3909, HB3918, HB4253, HB4475, HB5115, HB5430

Keywords: election services, contracting, political subdivisions, county elections, election code, voter registration, citizenship status, election law, cancellation, disqualification, Texas Election Code, voter identification, registration, election integrity, identification documents, election, watcher, polling place, removal, Texas Elections Code

Transcript Highlights:

• So, in essence, you're operating a sanitary sewer system and, I guess, a stormwater runoff system.
• So, in essence, you're operating a sanitary sewer system and, I guess, a stormwater runoff system.
• So, in essence, you're operating a sanitary sewer system and, I guess, a stormwater runoff system.
• So, in essence, you're operating a sanitary sewer system and, I guess, a stormwater runoff system.
• So, in essence, you're operating a sanitary sewer system and, I guess, a stormwater runoff system.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:04 HB 387 Discussion 01:06 HB 387 Roll Call Vote 28:30 HCR 22 Discussion 29:26 HCR 22 Roll Call Vote 31:09 HB 519 Discussion 35:36 HB 519 Roll Call Vote 38:37, 958, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 387, which would amend MSD governance and spending rules in Louisville. The sponsor said the bill was intended to add oversight and accountability in response to large MSD rate increases, though the original rate-approval provision had been removed because of concerns about contracts and bond ratings in Oldham and Bullitt counties. MSD Executive Director Tony Parrott testified that MSD is a public utility serving more than 800,000 people through wastewater, stormwater, and flood protection services, and argued that most rate pressure comes from federal and state mandates tied to a consent decree and other orders. He said MSD already provides annual notice and bond approvals through Metro Council, offers customer assistance programs, and needs flexibility for advertising, public notices, recruitment, and compliance. Members discussed stormwater funding, aging infrastructure, flood control, and the bill’s limits on advertising and other expenditures. The committee substitute was adopted and the bill passed on a roll call vote. The committee then considered House Concurrent Resolution 22, as substituted, which expressed support for exploring nuclear energy and included language noting Kentucky’s ability to use nuclear waste, uranium tailings, and spent fuel in ways described by the sponsor as cleaner. Supporters said Kentucky faces an energy shortage and that nuclear, including small modular reactors, should be part of the state’s future energy mix. Some members said they would support the resolution but wanted a feasibility study or noted that it does not carry the force of law. The resolution passed. Finally, the committee began House Bill 519, sponsored by Representative Fugate, which would prevent utility companies from passing demolition costs for retired coal-fired or fossil-fuel plants on to ratepayers. The sponsor cited sharply rising electricity bills in eastern Kentucky, the decline in coal employment, and the burden of demolition costs from the Big Sandy plant being placed on customers. He argued that utilities should absorb those costs rather than shifting them to ratepayers. The bill was introduced with a motion and second, and the committee was preparing to hear further questions and testimony when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• This has led to some confusion among locals, including almost incorrectly calling for a primary runoff
• We had folks thinking that we were going to have a runoff, and that was incorrect.
• you divide candidate A's 690 votes and 94 votes by 1,349, he actually got 50% 1.45% of the vote, no runoff
• or not runoffs.
• the ground up in the successful Gillespie County Republican Party primary hand-count election and runoff

Bills: HB569, HB766, HB1638, HB2316, HB2773, HB2785, HB3113, HB3709, HB3775, HB4275

Keywords: early voting, ballot correction, voting rights, election integrity, mail-in voting, voter notification, HB 766, precinct chair, precinct chair candidate, ballot application, Texas Election Code, Section 172.021, election administration, candidate filing, party precinct chair, county party, political party office, email address, telephone number, confidential candidate information

Transcript Highlights:

• A project of its kind by a drainage district in Texas, it will capture stormwater, agricultural runoff
• So if they were to look at the entire watershed and the surface runoff that's going to be coming to these
• inherent challenge that we have is that we inherited a system that was really designed for agricultural runoff
• , so it's really not sufficient to carry all the surface runoff that the expanding population has created
• Because, as you mentioned, the runoff water doesn't care whether the surface of the water, the facility

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:

• Are there any studies on how much of the snowfall actually turns to runoff?
• Do we know if this is actually producing more runoff into our different water places? Sure.
• But what we know is that additional snowpack helps, ...snow water equivalent and runoff, but what we
• a first-in-time, first-in-right state, he said it is inevitable that any capture of precipitation runoff
• As a first in time, first in right state, it's inevitable that any capture of precipitation runoff is

Bills: HB2024, HB2053, HB2097, HB2116, HB2117

Keywords: stormwater, recharge mapping, water resources, groundwater, appropriation, Arizona, irrigation, non-expansion areas, water management, agriculture, HB2116, Colorado River, litigation fund, water rights, Arizona water law, general fund appropriation, state budget, interstate water compact, Colorado River Compact, water litigation

Summary: The committee began with member and staff introductions, then heard House Bill 2024, which would expand the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority’s water supply development definition to include snowpack augmentation and related planning and facility work. Supporters argued cloud seeding and drone-based silver iodide deployment could increase snowpack and water supply at relatively low cost, while opponents raised concerns about weather modification, uncertainty in the science, and possible environmental or health effects. After debate, the committee approved HB 2024 on a 6-4 vote, with some members expressing reservations and requesting more information before floor consideration. The committee next considered House Bill 2053, which would direct the Arizona Department of Water Resources to update stormwater recharge mapping statewide and provide $100,000 for the work. The sponsor and ADWR said the bill would expand on prior state-land mapping and help identify recharge opportunities on private land; ADWR was neutral and said it could do the technical mapping but could not make legal determinations about appropriable surface water rights. Salt River Project opposed the bill’s language on surface-water rights, arguing that determinations about unappropriated water belong to the courts and that site-specific recharge projects could affect downstream rights. The committee adopted the Griffin amendment and then passed HB 2053 as amended on a 6-4 vote. Chelsea McGuire of WIFA then gave a broad presentation on the agency’s revolving funds, conservation grants, and long-term augmentation efforts, describing past investments, current grant awards, and seven potential augmentation projects under development. She said WIFA’s current budget ask was essentially for no additional cuts, while members asked about costs, project qualifications, and public-private structure. The committee then took up House Bill 2097, which would impose a six acre-feet-per-acre groundwater pumping cap in irrigation non-expansion areas, add reporting and well-measurement requirements, and set a $150 penalty for violations. ADWR said the bill could require additional staffing and that the cap and substitution provisions had technical concerns; environmental groups argued the cap was too high and could still encourage overpumping, while supporters said it would finally place a limit on INA pumping. HB 2097 passed 6-4. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 2116, which would appropriate $1 million to the Colorado River Litigation Fund; the sponsor described it as a contingency for ongoing Colorado River negotiations, and the committee moved the bill forward after brief discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• this as a tool that we possibly could use in our tool chest just to mitigate these issues. ...the runoff
• fact, research by the EPA indicates that a single acre of impervious cover produces 16 times more runoff
• Contribute to runoff.
• adopt reasonable specifications that provide for drainage that can efficiently manage stormwater runoff
• our roads are falling apart, and buses are flipping because the roads are washing out secondary to runoff

Bills: HB48, HB 66, HB 68, HB71, HB75, HB164, HB171, HB254, SB 3, SB 18, HB123, HB149, HB117

Keywords: HB 48, Texas alert notification systems, emergency alerts, public warning systems, alert fatigue, notification fatigue, Texas Division of Emergency Management, Department of Public Safety, DPS alerts, emergency management, State of Texas Emergency Assistance Registry, STEAR, disaster notifications, weather alerts, Amber Alert, Silver Alert, Blue Alert, missing persons alerts, accessible alerts, hearing impaired

Transcript Highlights:

• to a summer camp in Texas in the heat without clean water. for them to swim in, and the potential runoff
• We have someone else that can talk about water quality, stormwater runoff. and discharge and then an
• From the perspective of regulation, we are trying to prevent silt runoff, et cetera, from a permitee.
• Thank you, sir. about the silt and the runoff of the silt.
• Because that runoff, it takes a time to build up. But we do we do monitor that. Yes. Okay.

Bills: HB1520, HB1525, HB1530, HB1535, HB2068, HB2091, HB2347, HB2372, HB2805, HB2815, HB2867, HB3154, HB3482, HB3483, HB3663, HB3781, HB3901, HB3915, HB4135, HB4153, HB4158, HB4329, HB4331

Keywords: Angelina and Neches River Authority, river authority, Sunset Advisory Commission, Texas Sunset Act, Special District Local Laws Code, local government, natural resources, board of directors, director training, board governance, public testimony, open meetings, public information, conflict of interest, ethics, complaint system, general manager, board president, staggered terms, removal of director

Transcript Highlights:

• baits—states, do not apply directly to water or to areas where surface water is present; do not apply where runoff
• states, do not apply directly to water or to areas where surface water is present, do not apply where runoff
• baits—states, do not apply directly to water or to areas where surface water is present; do not apply where runoff
• states, do not apply directly to water or to areas where surface water is present, do not apply where runoff

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources held a hearing on several late-file bills and home rule petitions, with testimony focused mainly on coastal access and wildlife management, rodenticide restrictions, and a local land-use request. Rep. Scarsdale testified for H.5113, which would name an accessible trail in Groton’s J. Harry Rich State Forest the Marion Stoddard River Walk in honor of the activist who helped restore the Nashua River. Groton Trails Committee chair Paul Fung also supported the bill, describing the trail, educational signs, and DCR’s involvement. Rep. Sweezey presented a package of Duxbury Beach bills—H.5141, H.5140, and H.5139—intended to align state shorebird protections more closely with federal standards, create parity in beach management tools, and require periodic review of outdated recreational-use guidelines; he said the bills were developed with local and agency input and aimed to balance conservation with beach access. A large portion of the hearing concerned local petitions to restrict second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides and other pesticides. Supporters from Mass Audubon, Sierra Club, Animal Defenders International, wildlife rehabilitation groups, and residents from towns including Grafton, Billerica, Manchester-by-the-Sea, Eastham, and Truro argued that these poisons harm raptors and other non-target wildlife through secondary poisoning, persist in the environment, and are increasingly ineffective. Several speakers said local town meetings had approved the restrictions and urged favorable reports on the petitions. Opponents, including a representative of the New England Pest Management Association, argued that regulation should remain at the state level under MDAR to avoid a patchwork of local rules and noted that the agency was already reviewing rodenticide regulations. Committee members asked questions about agency consultation, the relationship between state and federal bird listings, and how local beach rules would work in practice. The committee also heard testimony on H.4700 and related local pesticide-reduction petitions for Eastham and Truro, with witnesses describing groundwater concerns, pesticide drift, and wildlife impacts. Finally, the committee took testimony on S.2961, a Dighton bill authorizing the use of a small portion of conservation land for public way purposes to replace the Pleasant Street Bridge and add pedestrian and bicycle accommodations; the witness said the affected area was limited and necessary for safety improvements. The hearing ended after testimony concluded, with the chair turning the gavel over and the committee adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, oh, we're going to have a runoff.
• And we had folks thinking that we were going to have a runoff, and that would be incorrect.
• No runoff. And I did find out from someone today, thank you, Mr.
• or not runoffs.
• or not runoffs.

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 3709, which would change the partial manual audit process so early voting could be audited by voting location rather than by randomly selected precincts. The author and several supporters said the current precinct-based process is antiquated, labor-intensive, and especially difficult in countywide voting systems and large counties. Opponents and some neutral witnesses raised concerns about whether the change would still allow an apples-to-apples audit against official precinct results, whether random selection procedures should be more clearly defined, and how ballot secrecy and mail ballots would be handled. The Secretary of State’s office said counties already use random selection methods and that the bill would largely standardize early voting audits with election-day procedures, while also noting ballot privacy issues can arise in public records requests. After testimony, the bill was left pending. The committee then took up House Bill 766, as substituted, which would require precinct chair applicants to provide an email address, phone number, or both, while making that contact information confidential. Supporters said the change would help parties and local officials contact applicants more efficiently. Opponents argued it could expose personal contact information to public records requests and harassment, and some suggested the information should instead be handled through party rules. The bill was left pending after the committee substitute was withdrawn. House Bill 3775 followed and would set clearer timelines for when early voting ballot boards may begin opening carrier envelopes, with different start times based on county size. Supporters said the bill would address counties opening ballots too early and improve ballot security, while opponents warned it could delay defect notices and cure opportunities for mail voters and create problems in large counties that process high volumes of ballots. Testimony also focused on whether the bill referred to carrier envelopes or secrecy envelopes and on how counties like Harris County currently image and secure ballot materials. The bill was left pending. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 4275, which would require countywide polling systems to have polling places in each election precinct, intended to address uneven distribution of polling locations across county commissioner precincts. Supporters said the bill would make polling place distribution fairer and more consistent, especially in Harris County, while opponents said it would undermine countywide voting, increase costs, require more equipment and staff, and reduce local flexibility. Several witnesses also raised concerns about ballot secrecy and the practical burden on large and rural counties. The bill remained under discussion as testimony continued.

Transcript Highlights:

• Lastly, I'd say some concerns about runoff.
• Lastly, I'd say some concerns about runoff.
• Also reduce chances of runoff by making sure we have a good boundary for...
• Is it a greater risk of loss under heavy rainfall events where there's any kind of runoff?
• Underneath the soil, and then it should be incorporated to prevent runoff.

Summary: The meeting focused on the use of biosolids on farm and ranch land, with testimony from Oklahoma State University experts, a conservation official, and an engineering representative about the benefits, risks, and regulatory implications. Dr. Lusk described OSU’s long history of soil fertility research and said biosolids can provide nutrients and organic matter, but also may carry contaminants such as PFAS, heavy metals, pharmaceuticals, microplastics, and pathogens. He emphasized that many questions remain unanswered, especially about contaminant uptake into soil, crops, livestock, and humans, and said existing EPA and Oklahoma DEQ regulations address some treatment and application standards but may not fully cover PFAS. Dr. Arnell expanded on nutrient management, explaining that biosolids can function similarly to manure as a fertilizer source, especially for nitrogen and phosphorus, but should be tested, incorporated into soil, and applied under permit conditions to reduce runoff and other losses. He said PFAS testing methods are not yet standardized and that more research is needed to determine sampling protocols, movement in soil, and long-term effects. Committee members asked whether farmers and ranchers should be notified of risks, whether PFAS is currently tested, how many counties use biosolids, and what research would be needed for a dissertation-level study. The witnesses generally agreed that landowners should be informed of known risks and uncertainties, but said the science is still developing. Dr. Arnell said a unified testing method is needed before reliable PFAS monitoring can be done, and suggested that a multi-year study would be required to understand soil movement, crop uptake, and livestock impacts. Greg Scott of the Oklahoma Conservation Commission framed the issue as a waste-management problem, noting that human waste streams contain contaminants and that soil type affects how pollutants move; he said sandy soils pose greater movement risks than clay soils and that current best practice is incorporation, careful timing, and avoiding steep or sensitive sites. He also said PFAS are widespread and not naturally occurring in the way some other compounds are, and that liability and cleanup costs are major concerns. Mary Elizabeth Mock of Garver Engineering focused on the practical and financial consequences of a possible moratorium on land application, saying most of Oklahoma’s biosolids are currently land applied and would otherwise have to go to landfills. She warned that many landfills are nearing capacity, tipping fees could rise sharply, and cities such as Tulsa and Norman could face large increases in disposal costs, which would ultimately be borne by ratepayers and taxpayers. She also said septic system maintenance costs could rise if land application options shrink, potentially leading to deferred maintenance and system failures. Mock urged a tiered, data-driven approach to PFAS regulation and said advanced treatment technologies may help in the future, but they are still emerging and expensive. No votes were taken; the session consisted of presentations and member questions.