Transcript Highlights:

• with Measure O funds.
• It would also determine the sources of funding, whether they come from general state funds, special funds
• any excess funds to contractors, including Metropolitan Water District, which I believe last year approved
• unspent funds DWR has retained and their planned use for those remaining funds.
• Every water district that's listed on here is a water district that will benefit from water being moved

Committee: Senate Joint Legislative Audit

Summary: The committee began with a status report from the State Auditor on staffing and audit capacity, noting 14 audit supervisors, 14 audits in progress, several audits scheduled for release, and a planned high-risk review of state financial reporting. The committee then approved a consent calendar covering six audit requests, including topics such as kindergarten oral health assessments, prison infrastructure management, Los Angeles fires prevention and response, community college financial aid and enrollment, wildfire management at Chino Hills State Park, and the Chiquita Canyon landfill. The first major item was Assembly Member Gonzalez’s request for an audit of Coachella Valley Unified School District’s contract and fiscal management. Supporters described long-running fiscal mismanagement, a projected $60 million deficit, layoffs, concerns about contracting practices, foundation donations, and weak governance. District representatives said they were already working with Riverside County Office of Education and FICMAT, had adopted a fiscal stabilization plan, and were making cuts to restore solvency. The State Auditor said the proposed audit would examine the district’s financial condition over 10 years, ELOP spending, partnership agreements, foundation funds, and contracting practices. After extensive discussion and public comment, the motion to approve the audit failed because it did not receive the required votes. The committee next approved Senator Wahab’s request for an audit of East Bay transit agency administrative oversight. The senator argued that the Bay Area’s fragmented transit system creates duplication and wastes resources, while agency representatives and transit advocates said the agencies already face extensive oversight and are actively coordinating through existing regional efforts. The State Auditor outlined objectives focused on agency autonomy, coordination, ridership, finances, and the potential effects of consolidation. After debate and public comment, the audit was approved. Finally, Senator Archuleta introduced a request to audit excessive unrestricted reserves at selected California Community College districts and Calbright College, arguing that reserve balances have grown substantially and may be diverting funds from student services and instruction. He said the audit would examine why districts are holding large reserves and whether those funds are being used effectively for students.

Transcript Highlights:

• put toward municipal water and water in general.
• This approach, the AWWA water audit method, is a widely recognized and This approach, the AWWA water
• Being proactive and making funds available to allow that proactivity to happen could make water use efficiency
• , and water use efficiency measures.
• Providing funding...

Summary: The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee opened its 2026 session with committee housekeeping, member introductions, and a reminder that schedules are set a week in advance and amendments must be submitted by the prior day’s deadlines. Chair Reeves emphasized solution-oriented, collaborative, and respectful participation, then outlined that the committee would focus on three interim reports relevant to its work this session: municipal water efficiency, ecosystem services, and food policy. The first presentation, from the William D. Ruckelshaus Center and WSU, reviewed Washington’s municipal water efficiency statute and regulation. Presenters said interviewees largely agreed on the need for better data collection, more technical assistance for smaller systems, and more state funding for both agency staffing and water system infrastructure. Most opposed shifting oversight of the conservation program from the Department of Health to Ecology, and the report recommended keeping oversight at DOH while improving collaboration across agencies and tribes. The presenters also urged broader statewide water planning, more consistent reporting using the AWWA water audit method instead of leakage percentage, re-evaluating the 500-connection threshold, and addressing outdoor water use, rebates, reuse, and public education. Members asked about creating a new office for water oversight, but the presenters said that idea was generally viewed as too costly and impractical under current budget conditions. DNR then presented its 2025 ecosystem services work group report. The department described ecosystem services markets it studied, including regulatory and voluntary forest carbon, avoided wildfire emissions, and water leasing, with lower potential identified for blue carbon, biodiversity, and water quality markets. DNR said about 15,000 acres of state forest land may have carbon-market potential, but emphasized that the analysis was broad and not project-specific, so the report recommends pilots, continued market monitoring, use of third-party developers, and clarification of authority through House Bill 2170. Committee members asked about economic feasibility, timber tradeoffs, and how success would be defined, and DNR said those questions would be better addressed in future, more detailed project-level work. The final presentation covered the Food Policy Forum’s 2025 report to the legislature. Speakers described broad consensus recommendations on food security, local foods in schools, farm-to-food-bank programs, a state farm bill, commercial access, and food system infrastructure. They highlighted pressures on agriculture from development, flooding, drought, water shortages, and the need to preserve farmland and support farmers, food banks, and local procurement systems. The committee chair thanked the presenters and noted that several related bills and policy proposals would be heard later in session. No votes were taken; the meeting concluded after the presentations and brief member questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Group A public water systems must submit water system plans, small water system management plans, or
• Group A public water systems must submit water system plans, small water system management plans, or
• a water district or a PUD.
• or funding the program through a utility surcharge or collection of utility funds.
• or funding the program through a utility surcharge or collection of utility funds.

Committee: Senate Environment, Energy & Technology

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:26:08.159><c> fund</c><00:26:08.480><c> Appropriations</c> due to clean water fund Appropriations
• from the Clean Water Fund.
• from the Clean Water Fund.
• </c><00:39:29.119><c> fund</c> will the funds from the Clean Water fund will the funds from the Clean
• </c><00:58:04.119><c> of</c><00:58:04.240><c> Legacy</c> Water fund which as co-chair of Legacy Water

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

Committee: House Agriculture Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• The Water Defense Fund, working with landowners, businesses, and government to protect the Carrizo-Wilcox
• Grant Management Standards, including the Research and Planning Fund, the State Water Implementation
• Revenue Fund, the Flood Infrastructure Fund, the Texas Water Bank, and the Colonial Self-Help Program
• SB 2204 would expand this exemption to include the Water Assistance Fund, the Water Loan Assistance Fund
• , and the Rural Water Assistance Fund to promote uniformity across all of the agencies' water development

Bills: SB863 , SB1190 , SB1261 , SB1413 , SB1624 , SB1662 , SB1663 , SB1855 , SB1967 , SB2124 , SB2204 , SB1623

Committee: Senate Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• Prop. 4 ensures more reliable water funding for rural communities, providing confidence to farmers to
• Good afternoon, Beth Olasso, on behalf of the Water Blueprint for the San Joaquin Valley Advocacy Fund
• Water District, Yuba Water Agency, and TreePeople, in support.
• So the fund is a big fund, and consumers—you buy—where is this fund? Is it? It's at CalRecycle.
• into the fund.

Summary: The committee heard several natural resources bills focused on wildfire resilience, recycling, forest management, and organic waste diversion. AB 442 would remove a requirement that a harvest area be limited to a single watershed for working forest management plans; the author and supporters from the California Forestry Association and Pacific Forest Trust said it would reduce barriers to forest resiliency work, and there was no opposition. AB 623 would require state agencies to report on the use of CEQA and Coastal Act suspensions for wildfire and fuel-management projects after the governor’s emergency proclamation; the author said the bill would provide data on how well the suspensions are working, and it drew support with no opposition. AB 35 would exempt Proposition 4-funded programs from the Administrative Procedures Act to speed implementation of climate, water, wildfire, and environmental projects; the author and a large coalition of local governments, water agencies, conservation groups, and fire organizations argued the exemption would help get funds out faster, while no opposition was present. The committee also discussed AB 3333, which would create a market-development payment to support end users of non-container glass, such as ground glass pozzolan used in cement, in order to divert glass from landfills and reduce carbon emissions. Supporters said the bill would create a productive use for hard-to-recover glass, while opponents from the Glass Packaging Institute, Californians Against Waste, and waste management interests argued it would divert beverage container recycling funds away from the bottle-to-bottle system and could undermine existing recycling investments and recycled-content goals. Members raised questions about the fund’s revenue sources, the purpose of the beverage container recycling program, and whether the bill would amount to “downcycling”; despite those concerns, the bill advanced on a due-pass-as-amended recommendation, with members noting fiscal and policy issues for further work. AB 643 would allow certain diverted organic material used as a beneficial agricultural amendment, including CDFA-licensed fertilizer products made from biosolids, to count toward SB 1383 recovered organic waste procurement targets. Supporters from wastewater agencies and Clean Water SoCal said the change would expand options for meeting procurement requirements and help move biosolids out of landfills, while Californians Against Waste and other opponents argued the bill could expand procurement credit beyond SB 1383’s original intent and weaken investments in composting infrastructure. Committee members questioned what kinds of biosolids would qualify, how the procurement credit would work, and whether the bill could be narrowed to historically landfilled materials; the author said she would continue working with opponents and wait for CalRecycle technical assistance. The committee adopted the bills’ amendments and passed AB 35 with urgency, AB 3333, AB 442, AB 623, and AB 643 to Appropriations, and also approved consent-calendar AB 946. After roll calls, all of the measures were reported out of committee, and the hearing adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Please keep our water, our sacred water, and our land protected.
• The only adjectives that should be acceptable are sacred water, clean water, pure water, healthy water
• You cannot divide pure water from contaminated water. It's either water or it's no longer water.
• water.
• When you clean water to an extremely high extent, either for produced water or brackish water, and you

Bills: HM45 , HB276 , HB300

Committee: House House Agriculture, Acequias And Water Resources

Summary: The committee first heard House Memorial 45, which asked the Water Quality Control Commission to promptly hear a petition seeking consideration of the beneficial reuse of treated produced water. The sponsor and supporters argued that produced water could help conserve freshwater, support agriculture and rural communities, and potentially aid compact obligations with Texas and industrial users. The committee also heard extensive opposition from acequia leaders, environmental groups, and residents who said the science is not yet sufficient, the water contains unknown or proprietary contaminants, and the memorial could pressure regulators or shift pollution burdens to other communities. After questions focused on the meaning of a memorial, the status of the petition, and the role of the Produced Water Research Consortium, a motion to table HM 45 passed, with members explaining they wanted the petition in hand before acting. The committee then took up House Bill 276, which appropriates $3.3 million to NMSU for the New Mexico Department of Agriculture to support celebration of the 400-year anniversary of winemaking in New Mexico. Supporters described the bill as a statewide agritourism and economic development effort tied to New Mexico’s long wine history, with marketing, signage, and tourism promotion intended to benefit wineries across the state. Members asked about the funding source, the anniversary date, and whether the effort would include wineries outside the south; the sponsor said the campaign would highlight wineries statewide. The committee voted do pass on HB 276. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 300, which would appropriate funds for the care and management of free-roaming horses and related domestic horse management, with an emphasis on tribal and local herd-control efforts using fertility control and trained community members. Supporters said the program would help address overpopulation, grazing impacts, and roadway safety, while opponents questioned relocation plans and whether the money should be spread across more counties. The sponsor and expert witness said trained personnel were already in place and the funds would support implementation. After discussion, the committee voted do pass on HB 300. The meeting ended with notice that the committee would meet again Saturday to hear House Bill 207.

Transcript Highlights:

• water state revolving fund.
• storm water. specifically to their funding sources. specifically to their funding sources.
• ><c> would</c> water development office funding would water development office funding would be<00:58
• Now, we have storm water federal funds.
• </c> funding through the drinking water SRF. funding through the drinking water SRF.

Bills: SF0101

Committee: House Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• Across the state, the water board and water users are working to address water challenges in every basin
• Another project that we've recently received funding through the Idaho Water Resource Board for is a
• Another project that we've recently received funding through the Idaho Water Resource Board for is a
• for funding.
• That's about a $400,000 project that the Idaho Water Resource Board funded at 50%.

Committee: House Resources and Conservation

Transcript Highlights:

• and emergency funding. ...for providing loans and emergency funding for our rural community water associations
• We've been loaning out funds since 1997, and a lot of good has been done out in our community, uh, water
• This all comes out of EPA grant funding for safe drinking water for the states.
• So, you know, all the water associations that had opportunity for ARPA funding pivoted from SRF loans
• </c><00:10:52.320><c> are</c> the m the funds are here the funds are the m the funds are here the funds

Committee: Joint Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• are funded by program fees, are swept into the state's general revenue fund.
• And the same with water.
• Very similar situation exists for water. A very similar situation exists for water.
• So how much water is consumed every day in St. Charles County just for residential water?
• I've had at least two boil water orders from my water.

Committee: House Conservation and Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• Prop. 4 ensures more reliable water funding for rural communities, providing confidence to farmers to
• Good afternoon, Beth Olasso, on behalf of the Water Blueprint for the San Joaquin Valley Advocacy Fund
• Beth Olasso, on behalf of the Water Blueprint for the San Joaquin Valley Advocacy Fund and Water Reuse
• So the fund is a big fund, and consumers—you buy... Where is this fund? Is it? It's at CalRecycle.
• So the fund, the fund is a big fund, and consumers, consumers, you buy, where is this fund? Is it?

Committee: House Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• The act allows for funding to be used for water, wastewater, solid waste, roads, housing, and flood control
• We use those primarily as state match funds for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.
• One of them, it's pretty simple: the Water Wastewater Grant Fund hasn't been operational in more than
• We would strongly advocate that if you don't fund the drinking water, we're not going to get those $36
• We get a water trust fund distribution of $4 million and $200 million for projects authorized in the

Committee: House New Mexico Finance Authority Oversight Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• They also have a bit of water sector money that can be used to fund this.
• So the subfund will be part of the solution, the USDA loan, the water sector commission funding, and
• for the water.
• Management and collect the funds for the water, but the company Patterson actually does the work.
• That the water sector and others want to put on this in order for y'all to receive the funds.

Summary: The committee heard extensive testimony on the City of Tallulah’s water system and a request to appoint a limited fiscal administrator for the water utility. Senator Jackson and state officials described a long-running water crisis, including repeated failing grades from LDH, a public health emergency declaration, joint receivership efforts, and the need to expand the project beyond plant repairs to include the distribution system. They said the total cost is now estimated at about $26 million, with funding expected from USDA loans and grants, water sector funds, possible Delta Regional Authority assistance, and an emergency subfund that becomes available through limited fiscal administration. Chris Province of the Legislative Auditor’s Office explained that the system had received F grades from 2022 through 2025, that the city entered joint receivership in 2024, and that the governor declared a public health emergency in February 2025. He said the city adopted a resolution in April 2026 to enter limited fiscal administration, which was the basis for the committee’s action. Governor’s office staff and the mayor supported the request, saying the state partnership had improved water quality and that the limited administrator would help secure additional funding and move the project toward completion over roughly 24 months. Two residents spoke in opposition. One argued that Tallulah had recently elected a new council and that the committee should wait for new local leadership. Another said the state had mismanaged the project, questioned the use of funds and contracts, and argued that the city should receive the full amount of promised state funding without deductions. Committee members said the legal standard was met by the system’s failing grade and the emergency conditions, and they emphasized that the limited fiscal administrator would control only the water system finances. A motion to appoint a limited fiscal administrator for the Tallulah water system was made, seconded, and passed, followed by adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Californians, and two-thirds of Californians depend on water from the State Water Project.
• SB 870 protects California's primary water delivery system by creating a fund that, upon appropriation
• Fund, special funds, GGR funds, and bond funds.
• Water District in support.
• Pass Water Agency, and the Chino Valley Water District, all in strong support.

Committee: Senate Appropriations

Summary: The Senate Committee on Appropriations heard a large suspense-file agenda and established a quorum at the start. SB 1167 was announced as not being heard and will be rescheduled. The Department of Finance did not attend because it had no comments on the bills before the committee. Most measures on the agenda were taken up briefly with public testimony, then moved to suspense without objection. Two bills received fuller presentations. SB 872 by Senator McNerney would create a fund to support repairs to Delta levees and State Water Project canals, with testimony from Restore the Delta, State Water Contractors, and numerous water agencies and coalitions emphasizing flood protection, water reliability for 27 million Californians, protection of state assets, and long-term infrastructure costs. Committee members noted the importance of the investment and the likelihood it would be considered in the final suspense decision; SB 872 was moved to suspense. SB 962 by Senator Archuleta would authorize CDCR to use blue emergency lights on parole vehicles, with supporters from the California Correctional Peace Officers Association citing the line-of-duty death of a parole agent and the need for a low-cost, discretionary safety tool. The bill was also moved to suspense. SB 950, dealing with coverage for FDA-approved medically necessary treatments for early-onset Alzheimer’s disease, was discussed as having a minimal near-term fiscal impact, though members noted costs could rise if new treatments emerge. The committee asked the author to consider a sunset amendment, but the bill received a do pass motion and was approved on a 7-0 vote, then placed on call for additional members. The remaining bills taken up, including SB 870, SB 1120, SB 888, SB 904, SB 986, SB 1029, SB 1186, SB 895, SB 1004, SB 1123, SB 909, SB 945, SB 1037, SB 953, SB 1001, SB 1188, SB 1407, SB 967, SB 1135, SB 1136, SB 988, SB 1069, SB 1000, SB 1024, SB 1179, SB 1025, SB 1040, SB 1081, SB 1091, SB 1131, SB 1138, SB 1146, SB 1279, SB 1158, SB 1401, SB 1162, SB 1293, SB 1334, SB 1382, SB 1397, SB 1178, SB 1414, SB 1214, SB 1218, SB 1257, SB 1265, SB 1286, SB 1322, SB 1337, SB 1340, SB 1276, SB 1358, and SB 1412, were moved to the suspense file without objection, with a few witnesses registering support or opposition on selected measures.

Transcript Highlights:

• Water and Wastewater Alliance. Recently, we have used GRO funds to support water operator training.
• So the numerous water projects no longer have funding that covers the numerous water projects for full
• It's the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Land of Enchantment Legacy Fund updates.
• For Allowing us to talk about the Land and Water. Conservation Fund.
• This is mandated by the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Every state must have one.

Committee: House Water & Natural Resources Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> clean water fund and the outdoor clean water fund and the outdoor heritage<01:35:44.960><c> fund
• It will not fund it from the Clean Water Fund.
• It will not fund it from the Clean Water Fund.
• It will not fund it from the Clean Water Fund.
• It will not fund it from the Clean Water Fund.

Committee: Senate Environment, Climate, and Legacy

Transcript Highlights:

• So I want to know if this money and the water districts are not funded, what type of impact?
• They operate all of the canals, I want to know if this money and the water districts are not funded,
• districts was drastically reduced. if the funding for the water management districts was drastically
• I can tell you point blank that if the South Florida Water Management District is not fully funded, my
• If the South Florida Water Management District is not fully funded, my home will be underwater.

Summary: The House took up the special order calendar for a proposed constitutional amendment on property taxes, CS/HJR 1F, which would create a new homestead exemption for non-school taxes, lower the annual assessment cap on non-homestead property, and restrict how counties and municipalities may use ad valorem tax revenue. The sponsor, Rep. Overdorf, said the measure would give homeowners tax relief and argued local governments could adjust spending or use other revenue sources. Opponents repeatedly questioned the ballot language, the lack of a fiscal estimate or backfill, and the potential impact on local services, public safety, and debt obligations. The House adopted the special order report and then debated the resolution and a series of amendments. Several amendments were offered to carve out or protect specific services from the tax changes. Rep. Bartleman’s amendment to protect Children’s Services Councils and Children’s Trusts was supported by members who said those entities fund early learning, mental health, aftercare, and other services for children and working families, but it failed 25-74. Rep. Cross offered an amendment to include water management districts in allowable ad valorem uses, warning of impacts on flood control, water quality, Everglades restoration, and water supply; that amendment also failed. Rep. Eskamani offered an amendment requiring the Legislature to backfill public safety funding if local revenues fall, arguing police and fire services, staffing, and response times would be at risk; it failed 25-71. The chamber then rejected Rep. Woodson’s amendment to require state backfill for senior services, with supporters citing Meals on Wheels, transportation, adult day care, and other local senior programs, and opponents saying the proposal was outside the bill’s scope. Finally, Rep. Gant offered an amendment to protect veteran services, saying local governments fund housing, mental health, transition, and family support programs for veterans; debate emphasized the importance of honoring veterans and avoiding cuts to those services. The transcript cuts off during debate on that amendment, before a final vote is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, many of the projects do receive Lassard Sams funding, clean water fund dollars, uh, the redboard
• funds, the local watershed funds.
• Uh, many of the projects do receive Lassard Sams funding, Clean Water Fund dollars, uh, the Red Board
• Uh, many of the projects do receive Lassard Sams funding, Clean Water Fund dollars, uh, the Red Board
• You do make a very good team. water fund dollars, uh, the redboard water fund dollars, uh, the redboard

Bills: HF2080 , HF356 , HF1968 , HF228 , HF569 , HF603 , HF692 , HF1455 , HF2224 , HF1361

Committee: House Capital Investment

Transcript Highlights:

• So my question to you is: why haven’t you just made this request through the Water Project Fund?
• And so my question to you is, why haven't you just made this request through the Water Project Fund,
• funding from the Clean Water SRF fund, will help us design and build that part of the sewer system.
• Board or the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.
• it can also go through the Water Projects Fund or the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.

Bills: SB22 , SB310

Committee: Senate Senate Conservation

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 22, which would allow certain motor vehicle manufacturers, including electric vehicle companies, to be licensed as dealers in New Mexico and sell/service directly to consumers. Supporters, including the sponsor’s office, Taxation and Revenue, Rivian, and clean-energy advocates, argued the bill would expand consumer choice, lower prices, improve EV access and service in-state, and bring new investment and jobs without eliminating existing franchise dealers. Opponents, including auto dealer associations, chambers of commerce, and franchise owners, argued the measure would weaken the franchise system, harm local businesses and jobs, reduce community reinvestment, and could disadvantage rural and tribal communities. After questions about trade-ins, tribal land sales, tax effects, and economic impacts, the committee voted to table SB 22 by a vote of 7-2. The committee then took up Senate Bill 310, which appropriates $1.1 million to the New Mexico Environment Department for planning, design, and construction improvements to the Mora mutual domestic water system. Supporters described aging water and wastewater infrastructure, an AOC related to discharge into the Mora River, flood and fire impacts, and heavy-metal contamination concerns in private wells. They said the project is part of a larger effort to address inflow and infiltration, improve treatment capacity, and protect public health, with additional funding already sought through the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund and the Water Trust Board. Some senators questioned whether the request should instead go through existing water funding programs and raised concerns about piecemeal financing and the Environment Department’s role, but others supported the need for the project. The committee approved SB 310 on a 5-3 due-pass vote.