Transcript Highlights:

• He said the bill allows limited access to expunged data only for permit-to-carry and permit-to-acquire
• data only for permit to carry and<01:04:26.000><c> permit</c><01:04:26.400><c> to</c><01:04:27.039><
• </c> public confidence in the permit process. public confidence in the permit process.
• </c> us, we cannot lawfully deny that permit. us, we cannot lawfully deny that permit.
• </c> prohibited do not receive a permit prohibited do not receive a permit because<01:10:01.040><c> of

Bills: HF962 , HF3541 , HF2936 , HF3762 , HF2879

Committee: House Public Safety Finance and Policy

Keywords: Capitol security, public safety, emergency management, state buildings, law enforcement, corrections, legislative approval, rule-making, financial impact, jail regulations, expungement, firearm eligibility, criminal records, organized retail crime, retail theft, supply chain theft, theft enterprise, organized theft, cargo theft, shoplifting

Transcript Highlights:

• for construction and technical permits for its facilities so long as the RTA provides proof of notice
• And finally, it removes the provision requiring applications submitted by an RTA for permits under the
• state building code to be considered under the building permit ordinances in effect at the time the
• state building code to be considered under the building permit ordinances in effect at the time the
• state building code to be considered under the building permit ordinances in effect at the time the

Bills: SB6181 , SB6154 , SB6211 , SB6234 , SB6242 , SB5633 , SB6279 , SB6291 , SB6274 , SB6309

Committee: Senate Local Government

Keywords: city incorporation, local governance, municipalities, state law, government structure, culvert replacement, fish passage, hydraulic project approval, Department of Fish and Wildlife, stream crossing, bank stabilization, flood control, erosion control, emergency permit, expedited permit, SEPA, environmental review, local government, county authority, agricultural irrigation

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> state level permitting requirements. state level permitting requirements.
• </c><00:28:57.440><c> for</c> Land Management to issue permits for Land Management to issue permits for
• The permit to protections in place.
• But with very expeditious permitting.
• ,</c> with our eyes, without a federal permit, with our eyes, without a federal permit, the<00:42:18.079

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Thursday, April 23, 2026, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• permits.
• Statewide permit fee schedules are not new.
• for residential and commercial solar permits.
• costs providing permitting services.
• costs providing permitting services.

Summary: The committee heard several housing, local government, coastal, and infrastructure bills. AB 306 would create a statewide appeal and code-interpretation process for building code issues at the California Building Standards Commission; supporters said it would reduce inconsistent local interpretations and speed housing delivery, while no opposition testified, and it was moved on a do-pass-as-amended vote to Appropriations. AB 956 would clarify ADU law to allow up to two detached ADUs on a property and address ADUs in HOAs/common interest developments; supporters framed it as a flexibility and housing-supply measure, while local government and county groups raised concerns about ministerial approval, parking, density, and impacts on neighborhood character. After committee questions, the bill was moved do pass as amended to Appropriations on a 2-0 vote, with the bill remaining on call. Members also considered AB 1751, which would create a ministerial approval path for qualifying townhome projects and allow local inclusionary ordinances for larger projects. Supporters said it would expand attainable homeownership and help produce missing-middle housing, while cities and counties objected to reduced density, by-right approval, and potential housing-element net-loss issues. The bill was moved do pass as amended to Appropriations on a 2-0 vote and remained on call. AB 912, which would revise the governance structure of the Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District board, drew unanimous support from the district, city, and county; it passed 3-0 to Appropriations and remained on call. AB 1710, aimed at preserving housing project entitlements from later regulatory changes, also advanced on a 4-0 do-pass-as-amended vote after opponents said they were awaiting the committee amendments. The committee also heard AB 2080, which would make county treasurer investment authority delegations ongoing until revoked rather than requiring annual renewal; supporters said it would reduce technical noncompliance and administrative burden without reducing oversight, and it was moved to the Senate Floor. AB 1740, a coastal bill for Santa Monica, would set timelines and reporting for a local coastal program and create an expedited Coastal Commission process for bike, transit, and pedestrian projects; supporters said it reflected a negotiated path forward with the city and commission, and it passed 3-0 to Appropriations. AB 2181, backed by Unite Here, would limit use of hypothetical density bonus value in hotel and motel appraisals; supporters said it would protect hospitality jobs from speculative lease-rent increases, and it was moved to the Senate Floor on a 4-0 vote. Finally, AB 2469 on data centers and water use drew the most extended debate. The bill would require water supply and water use assessments before approval, and shift infrastructure costs to project proponents; supporters said it would improve transparency, protect ratepayers, and ensure local governments have information before approving water-intensive facilities. Opponents, including business, city, county, and tech groups, argued existing law already covers water assessments and fees, warned the bill could create a separate permitting regime, and raised concerns about privacy, security, and investment impacts. The committee had not yet taken final action on AB 2469 when the transcript ended, and members were still asking technical questions about data center cooling and water reuse.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will now segue into building permits in New Mexico.
• What is the time permitted between the request of the permit and the approval of the permit?
• I'll leave out permitting right at the moment.
• expedited permit review for particular projects.
• They were able to get all of those permit fees.

Committee: House Mortgage Finance Authority Act Oversight Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• , because as you know, the federal permitting process is very lengthy and difficult.
• immediately, or how long before you actually start working on permits to build the reservoir?
• We are opposed to allowing brackish groundwater of any TDS level to be exempt from permitting.
• Right now, just keep it permitted. It's already set up in 101.5 to expedite.
• We're charged to do the opposite and promote these projects, but while still permitting them.

Bills: HB1523 , HB2109 , HB2694 , HB3525 , HB3898 , HB4646 , HB5188 , HB5219 , HB5320 , HB5651 , HB5655 , HB5659 , HB5662 , HB5672

Committee: House Natural Resources

Keywords: aquifer conservation, Class V injection well, environmental regulation, groundwater protection, municipal water supply, temporary prohibition, water management, reservoir construction, state water plan, Texas Water Code, environmental impact, Brazoria Drainage District, commissioners, elections, vacancies, resignation, HB 3525, North Texas Groundwater Conservation District, groundwater permit, permit amendment

Summary: The Committee on Natural Resources heard House Bill 2109, which would remove certain long-proposed reservoir projects from the state water plan after 50 years without progress. Chairman Van Deaver and many landowners, local officials, timber interests, and conservation advocates testified in support, arguing that the Marvin Nichols Reservoir has burdened Northeast Texas landowners for decades with the threat of eminent domain, depressed property values, and uncertainty over homes, farms, ranches, schools, churches, and cemeteries. Supporters also said the project would flood tens of thousands of acres, require extensive mitigation, harm timber and agriculture, and that Texas now has better alternatives such as conservation, reuse, aquifer storage and recovery, and desalination. Several members expressed sympathy for the affected families and questioned whether a project could remain in the plan indefinitely without progress. Opposition came from North Texas water interests, including the North Texas Commission, Tarrant Regional Water District, and the Texas Water Association, who argued that the bill would interfere with the state’s long-term water planning process and remove needed future supply options for a fast-growing region. They said Region C faces major projected shortages by 2070, that conservation and reuse have already delayed the need for new supplies, and that reservoirs remain one tool in the state’s water-planning toolbox. TWDB staff explained the existing inter-regional conflict process and noted that the substitute would affect several unique reservoir sites, not just Marvin Nichols. After testimony, Chairman Van Deaver closed by urging passage of the bill, but the committee withdrew the substitute and left HB 2109 pending. The committee then took up House Bill 5188, a brackish groundwater bill. The author said the bill would reduce permitting burdens for wells in designated brackish groundwater production zones, and the committee substitute added requirements on monitoring, groundwater-rights ownership, and allocation of pumpage limits while removing some exclusions and export-fee provisions. Texas Wildlife Association testified against the bill, warning that the exemptions could weaken groundwater conservation districts’ ability to protect freshwater resources and surface-owner rights. San Antonio Water System testified in favor, saying brackish groundwater is a key future supply and that the substitute would help speed development of desalination and brackish projects. The Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts testified neutrally but raised concerns about reduced district oversight, especially around injection-well exclusions and the loss of export fees, and said discussions on the bill were ongoing.

Transcript Highlights:

• mechanism for a community to review a project before a building permit is granted.
• , sure, we’re going to give you the permit on this, and what was your name again?
• It's made impossible by the need to have to get a special permit.
• by removing the need to get a special permit to build housing on this land.
• Last year, we permitted just 14,338 new housing units, one of the lowest per capita rates of permitting

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Housing

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Housing held a hybrid hearing on zoning, Chapter 40B, and related housing bills. Much of the testimony focused on the “Yes in My Backyard” bill (H. 1572/S. 962), which would expand by-right development of missing middle housing, reduce barriers such as minimum lot sizes and parking mandates, and support duplexes, triplexes, and other small-scale housing. Supporters included housing advocates, developers, local officials, and municipal leaders from places like Cambridge, Salem, and Braintree, who argued that state action is needed because local zoning often blocks needed housing and that the bill would help create more affordable, neighborhood-compatible homes. Several witnesses also backed a companion “Yes in God’s Backyard” bill (H. 2347), which would allow faith-based institutions to build housing on their property by right, with testimony emphasizing the potential for new units, added municipal tax revenue, and partnerships between religious organizations and housing developers. The committee also heard testimony on Senate Bill 1021 to modernize Chapter 40R incentives. Senator Pavel Payano and others said the program’s payments have not kept pace with inflation since 2004 and should be increased to better encourage smart-growth zoning near transit and town centers. Another major topic was H. 2298 on site plan review, which would codify and standardize the process in state law. Rep. Kristin Kassner and witnesses from MAPC and NAIOP said current site plan review practices vary widely across the state, creating confusion, delays, and litigation, while a uniform framework would give municipalities clearer tools to review by-right projects without undermining local oversight. The hearing also included testimony on Chapter 40B reform, including S. 1005 and H. 1537. One witness supported further review of 40B and stronger regional planning, while another backed a proposal to allow certain pre-2010 40B condominium owners to sell at market value under a framework that would recapture some of the subsidy benefits. Committee members asked several questions about local zoning changes, housing goals by county, and how the proposed bills would affect communities. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the chairs indicated that written testimony would be welcomed for technical details and additional comments.

Transcript Highlights:

• We need to accelerate the siting and permitting of those facilities.
• You have conditional use permits in the six counties that we cross.
• So locally is where the permitting authority begins in North Dakota.
• It's five miles and we've been waiting for a permit for 1,250 days.
• Five miles, and we've been waiting for a permit for 1,250 days.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Energy Supply, Energy Conservation, and Energy Resilience

Summary: The Joint Committee on Energy Supply, Energy Conservation, and Energy Resilience opened by electing Senator Shoemake as chair and Representative Alex Ibarra as vice chair. Members then moved into a series of work sessions focused on data centers, transmission, and workforce needs tied to Washington’s clean energy and grid planning challenges. Kate Bruns and Glenn Blackman presented preliminary findings from the governor’s Data Center work group, created under Executive Order 25-05. They said the group met for six months, received more than 1,000 public comments, and included representatives from agencies, industry, tribes, labor, utilities, environmental groups, and research institutions. The presenters emphasized that data centers are expected to be the largest source of load growth over the next five to ten years, creating concerns about grid capacity, ratepayer impacts, forecasting, water use, backup generation, and compatibility with Washington’s energy and climate laws. They described nine recommendations, including protecting existing energy and climate policy, improving forecasting, seeking more clean power and transmission, and encouraging flexible data center operations. A proposed tax incentive change that would have expanded eligibility while tying the exemption to new clean electricity sources narrowly failed in the work group. Members asked about tribal consultation, cooling technologies, and local benefits from data centers; the presenters said tribal consultation was ongoing and a final report would follow. Keegan Moyer of West Tech then outlined a regional transmission study showing major strain on the Western grid from load growth, electrification, resiliency needs, and limited transmission capacity. He said the 10-year study identified about 12,000 line miles of needed projects across the West, with roughly $56 billion in estimated costs, including planned projects, reliability upgrades, and new interregional transfer projects. He stressed that many projects are upgrades within existing rights-of-way, but new corridors are still needed, and he previewed recommendations on permitting, equipment procurement, cost allocation, and project sponsorship. In response to questions, he discussed the difficulty of crossing jurisdictional “seams,” the role of federal coordination, landowner compensation, eminent domain as a last resort, and the limited role of public financing beyond a federal GRIP grant. Stephanie Scott of Commerce presented the transmission workforce study, which focuses on substation technicians, line workers, and line clearance tree trimmers. She said current workforce levels are far below what will be needed under a clean energy expansion scenario, and that active projects are essential because apprenticeship training depends on thousands of hours of hands-on work. She highlighted barriers such as high upfront CDL and pre-apprenticeship costs, the need for wraparound supports, and the importance of expanding access for women, people of color, and tribal communities. Members asked about tribal utility apprenticeship programs, utility-run training pipelines, and whether the study included funding sources; Scott said the report would include an inventory of apprenticeship programs and tribal considerations, but revenue ideas were outside the study scope. Finally, Brant Johnson of Grid United described the North Plains Connector as a case study in large transmission development. He said the project, a 420-mile, 3,000-megawatt HVDC line connecting Montana and North Dakota, has relied on early stakeholder engagement, route changes, tribal consultation, and coordinated federal and state permitting to reduce risk and shorten timelines. He said the project aims for permits by the end of 2026 and construction beginning in 2028, with an earliest commercial operation date of 2032. In response to questions, he discussed the challenges of crossing regional seams, interconnection queues, land acquisition and compensation, eminent domain, and financing, noting that the project is primarily privately financed with a $700 million federal grant covering a portion of costs.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's
• AB 1738 takes a balanced, common-sense approach by limiting RVIs to simple, low-risk permits that are
• system, that we capture not only the permit record, but the... ...permitting system, which is again
• a third-party system, that we capture not only the permit record, but the results of the inspections.
• And to be honest, many of them just choose not to get the permits.

Summary: The Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee heard a full agenda of housing-related bills, with most measures receiving broad support and advancing on unanimous or near-unanimous votes. Early in the hearing, AB 2035 by Assembly Member Dixon was presented as a narrowly tailored fix for a large senior HOA in Laguna Woods Village, allowing a lower vote threshold to amend outdated CC&Rs after repeated failed elections; members raised questions about broader impacts, but the bill passed 12-0 to Judiciary. AB 1684 by Assembly Member Ward would bar HOAs from restricting homeowners’ ability to install or replace cooling systems; supporters cited heat-related health risks and a constituent’s experience, while HOA representatives sought amendments to preserve reasonable rules on drainage, electrical capacity, and common-area protection. The committee discussed those concerns and advanced the bill 8-0 to Judiciary. AB 1710 by Assembly Member Carrillo would extend SB 330-style vesting protections to state and regional permitting agencies so housing projects are not subjected to shifting post-entitlement standards, with supporters arguing it would improve predictability and speed housing production. Special districts and utilities opposed unless amended, warning about conflicts with changing state and regional rules, but the bill passed 9-0 to Local Government. AB 1738 by Assembly Member Crewe would require remote virtual inspections for certain simple home renovations; supporters from SPUR and Placer County described faster, lower-cost inspections already in use, while labor groups raised concerns and sought amendments. Members emphasized keeping inspections jurisdiction-based and not replacing safety oversight, and the bill passed 8-0 to Local Government. The committee also approved AB 1890 by Assembly Member Curry, which increases state matching support for Napa County farmworker housing centers from $250,000 to $500,000 annually through 2036; supporters described the centers as a successful public-private model providing housing and services for farmworkers, and the bill passed 8-0 to Appropriations. AB 2433 by Assembly Member Alvarez would modernize the density bonus law by improving notice, clarifying eligibility and ministerial approval, and adding incentives for for-sale affordable housing; it drew strong support from housing and business groups and passed 10-0 to Local Government. AB 1567 by Assembly Member Ta would allow assisted living communities to be counted in housing element reporting and RHNA-related planning, and it passed 10-0 to Local Government. The consent calendar, including AB 1573 and AB 2162, was also approved unanimously, and the committee adjourned after taking roll-call votes on the remaining items.

Transcript Highlights:

• there to streamline and improve permitting further?
• Is that our permitting process in the 12-year time frame?
• Do they begin at the start of the permitting process?
• Permitting is how much?
• The permitting cost, when you have to do all the studies required to apply for the permits, are in the

Committee: House Utilities

Summary: The Committee on Utilities first met in executive session and adopted a House Committee substitute for House Bills 2658, 2147, 2472, and 2546 by a roll call vote of 20 ayes and 1 no. The substitute expanded telephone solicitation language to include unsolicited real estate solicitations, adjusted reassigned-number compliance language, and refined spoofing-related definitions to focus on intent to cause harm or wrongfully obtain value. Members also discussed how the no-call list, existing business relationships, and political fundraising calls would be treated under the substitute. The committee then heard House Bills 1626 and 2122, both relating to nuclear energy and construction work in progress (CWIP/QIP) financing for nuclear projects. The sponsors argued the bills would remove an outdated barrier to nuclear construction in Missouri, especially for small modular reactors, by allowing utilities to recover construction costs during construction and thereby reduce interest and overall project cost. They emphasized ratepayer protections through clawback provisions, the role of the Public Service Commission, future energy demand, economic development, and keeping Missouri competitive with other states. Several members raised concerns about higher utility rates, the risk of cost overruns, the possibility of ratepayers paying for projects that are delayed or never completed, and whether the proposal was premature given that SMRs are not yet widely deployed in the United States. In response, the sponsors and supporters said the bill would include refund protections similar to Senate Bill 4 and that the PSC would oversee prudence and timing. Public witnesses in support included business, utility, and municipal representatives, as well as Missouri S&T’s chancellor, who stressed workforce development and the growing national and global move toward nuclear power. The hearing on House Bills 1626 and 2122 was then closed.

Transcript Highlights:

• We need pipelines, plants, permits, and a purpose.
• And if our companies can't get permits to produce, permits to build transmission, we will be behind in
• That's a fully permitted project.
• I'm very strongly in favor of permitting reform, but a step which withdraws an already issued permit,
• It relates to finding ways to streamline the permitting processes.

Committee: Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• So around 20 permits are issued annually. Around 20 permits are issued annually.
• Permits are only good for...
• the permit application.
• The permit is only good for the geographic area defined in the permit application.
• Or do these permits...

Committee: Senate Agricultural Affairs

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• AB 2215 seeks to undermine existing processes for extending water rights permits.
• What does that mean if the Water Board has issues with how the department is managing the permit?
• Per the committee's analysis, the state water. are subject to municipal stormwater permits.
• AB 2322 can ensure that existing MS4 permits are applied accurately and fairly across California.
• One, that municipal stormwater permits do not directly regulate CII facilities.

Committee: House Appropriations

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• to</c> and the annual permit from $35 to and the annual permit from $35 to $45<00:21:17.120><c> I</c>
• We're asking for a group of permit writers and permit engineers that would essentially be a SWAT team
• processes may have more than permitting processes may have more than one<00:46:55.119><c> permit</c>
• </c><00:58:57.319><c> Ombudsman</c> number of FTE the permitting Ombudsman number of FTE the permitting
• </c><01:46:34.159><c> for</c> River who have a discharge permit for River who have a discharge permit

Committee: Senate Environment, Climate, and Legacy

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The recharge permit statute contains the requirements for the department.
• The recharge permit statute contains the requirements for the permits. Okay, DWR is here, so...
• Okay, they could change your permit. Any other questions?
• And so we're not changing what's there as to that aspect of the permit statute. All right.
• Van Buffam explained: a constructed underground storage facility permit allows a permit holder to operate

Bills: SB1202 , SB1287 , SB1418 , SB1785 , SCM1007

Committee: House Natural Resources, Energy & Water

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

Transcript Highlights:

• Current law does not allow permit to carry holders to carry in a school based on their permit alone.
• So moving to permit-to-carry holders, current law does not allow permit-to-carry holders to carry in
• So moving to permit-to-carry holders, current law does not allow permit-to-carry holders to carry in
• So moving to permit-to-carry holders, current law does not allow permit-to-carry holders to carry in
• </c> school based on their permit alone. school based on their permit alone.

Bills: HF3409 , HF3487 , HF3401

Committee: House Education Policy

Keywords: immigration status, undocumented students, immigrant rights, K-12 education, public school enrollment, Plyler v. Doe, school district, charter school, cooperative unit, law enforcement access, ICE, immigration enforcement, civil lawsuit, private right of action, injunctive relief, mandamus, student records, directory information, parental engagement, equal access to education

Transcript Highlights:

• Fill material, general permit, general permit coverage, pathogen, point source, responsible party, surface
• Speaker, gentlemen, the state water permitting program would not issue a permit if that were the case
• and other permitting of. discharges.
• We can also use general permits to expedite that permitting in the case of an emergency.
• over to the state permitting program if you have that permit already from the EPA, so that won't change

Transcript Highlights:

• CEWCD or a permitted groundwater savings facility, a GSF, on state lands or private lands.
• So all three of those would not be permitted under this proposed bill. There are others as well.
• It requires permits.
• roadmap, alignment of agency geothermal permitting rules, and innovative resource development.
• Support the development of a geothermal permitting roadmap, alignment of agency geothermal permitting

Bills: HB2099 , HB2263 , HB2264 , HB2330 , HB2341 , HB2492 , HB2757 , HB2782 , HB2843 , HB2889 , HB2912 , HB2915 , HB2918 , HB4025 , HB4100 , HCR2020 , HCR2057

Committee: House Natural Resources, Energy & Water

Keywords: water storage, long-term storage credits, groundwater management, drought contingency, Arizona water regulations, Colorado River, replenishment, groundwater savings facility, groundwater storage, underground water storage, active management area, irrigation non-expansion area, Arizona water law, water rights, water replenishment, recharge, water conservation district, multi-county water conservation district, CAP water, Central Arizona Project

Transcript Highlights:

• And studies and planning, but it doesn't allow TCEQ to actually affect a Class 5 injection well permit
• Well, this works well for residents who reside within the permitting district.
• storm sewer system or a general permit for stormwater and associated non-stormwater discharges.
• wells that produce water used for purposes permitted by TCEQ.
• And I was going to ask you the question, is what TCQ permit, is that pretty much, as you just did?

Committee: Senate Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs

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:

• on the permites.
• </c> over to the permit restriction section. over to the permit restriction section.
• Um the uh as far as enforcement, it's written on the permit uh that the permit signs.
• </c> um it must always not be permitted. um it must always not be permitted.
• uh that the it's written on the permit uh that the permit<00:55:10.000><c> signs.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee opened with routine business, including the Pledge of Allegiance, seating alternates, and approval of the minutes and consent calendar. Both were approved without opposition. The committee then moved to the regular calendar, beginning with Department of Environmental Services drinking water rules (2532). Staff noted that the final proposal deleted requirements that had been in the initial proposal, making the published notice technically inaccurate because it said there were no substantive changes. The agency responded that the requirements still exist in other rules, that regulated entities and the Water Council were notified, and that the public had notice through related hearings. After discussion about whether a new noticed hearing was needed, the committee approved the rule. The next item was Department of Administrative Services personnel rule 2510 on seniority and employee performance evaluation. Staff raised informational comments and one unclear comment about language that appeared to require a checkbox even though no form exists, and about evaluation categories that could overlap. The agency said the checkbox language should be removed, but defended the overlapping categories as part of a long-standing template used by agencies for the past 10 years. Members discussed whether the language was too ambiguous or could lead to inconsistent application, but the committee ultimately approved the rule with a condition striking the checkbox language in the affected sections. The committee then considered personnel rule 25109 on investigations, discipline, non-disciplinary communications, and non-disciplinary removal. Staff recommended clarifying language distinguishing license suspension from termination for cause, and questioned whether the sexual-harassment discipline language was too broad because the same conduct could fit multiple discipline levels. The agency agreed to add the suggested clarification for the license-suspension provision, but argued the sexual-harassment language should remain because another rule already provides the factors for determining the appropriate discipline and the agency needs discretion for fact-specific cases. The discussion included concerns about how non-verbal conduct might be treated, but the committee moved toward conditional approval with the agreed clarification and approval of the rest of the rule as written.