Transcript Highlights:

• </c> is budgeting. is budgeting.
• Our total Road Fund budget is about $1.9 billion. So our maintenance budget is about 25% of that.
• </c> the transportation budget uh Mr. the transportation budget uh Mr.
• budget.
• </c> funding come from in this last budget? funding come from in this last budget?

Summary: The House Budget Review Subcommittee on Transportation met without a quorum at first, then later approved the minutes once quorum was established. The committee heard presentations from Transportation Cabinet officials Mike Hancock, Jeremy Slinker, and Sean McCarnieran on maintenance, vehicle regulation, general administration, highways, and related capital projects. Hancock emphasized that maintenance is the cabinet’s most visible public service, especially for snow and ice removal and routine roadway upkeep, and said rising costs have outpaced funding. He cited a 61% increase in highway construction costs since 2020 and said maintenance spending was $488 million in FY 2024 and $511 million in FY 2025, while the FY 2026 baseline request was $483.3 million. The cabinet’s additional maintenance request would add $23.6 million in FY 2027 and $38.6 million in FY 2028, with expected impacts on litter pickup, mowing, vegetation management, and pothole repair if not funded. The cabinet also outlined five maintenance-related capital projects: additional funding for Ballard County maintenance/salt storage, Hopkins County maintenance/salt storage, Whitley County maintenance/salt structure, and the District 2 office and materials lab, plus reauthorization of the Breckinridge County maintenance and salt facility. Hancock also asked for budget language allowing the cabinet to use unexpected restricted and federal funds more quickly, similar to existing authority for federal earmarks. McCarnieran described the governor’s inclusion of funding for the ASHTOWare system, employee health exams, priority IT projects, and a District 7 office renovation request, noting that some items were not funded because they ranked low among competing projects. He also said the governor’s budget included a $7.5 million annual maintenance pool for the cabinet’s 1,200 facilities and requested additional restricted fund authority for Trimark and the Cumberland Gap Tunnel. Slinker focused on the Department of Vehicle Regulation, saying recent investments in staffing and equipment had reduced wait times and improved customer service in driver licensing offices. He requested $535,600 to keep temporary contract workers in place for the rest of the year, warning that without it regional office operations would have to be reduced. He said the surge in demand was driven by new 15-year-old licensing requirements, vision testing, and Real ID implementation, but believed the volume was beginning to level out. He also outlined FY 2027 and FY 2028 plans totaling $20.38 million and $19.85 million, including six new regional offices and a shift away from temporary workers toward state positions. Additional requests included $106,000 for debt service on the new driver’s license modernization system and operating costs of $5 million in FY 2027 and $2.5 million in FY 2028 to support the transition from the old system. Members asked about the cabinet’s funding sources, and officials said the road fund is the primary source, supported by motor fuels tax, usage tax, driver-related receipts, and some restricted funds; they stressed that the requests were not for additional general fund dollars. Questions also covered employee health exam reimbursements, the annual Trimark/Cumberland Gap contract, and the District 7 renovation request. No votes were taken on the budget items during the meeting, beyond approval of the minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• But once we get the maintenance budget done, we need to get what we can within the maintenance budget
• budgets.
• that affect every state budget.
• budget.
• the budgets.

Summary: The Senate Finance and House Appropriations committees met to review budget rescission options and related statewide budget decisions for fiscal year 2026. Keith Bybee of DFM walked members through a packet outlining the governor’s recommended rescissions, plus two additional agency reduction scenarios of 1% and 2%. He explained that the governor’s package would reduce appropriations by about $177.5 million and nearly 100 FTEs, while the added 1% and 2% scenarios would deepen reductions further. He also clarified that some agencies were exempt or partially exempt from the additional cuts, including public schools, Medicaid services, corrections, and Idaho State Police, and that the Secretary of State had proposed a one-time contract savings instead of participating in the full additional reduction. Members discussed why the committee was considering further reductions despite existing reserves and a balanced budget outlook, with supporters emphasizing uncertainty around tax conformity, revenue forecasts, and other policy bills that could affect the budget. Several members expressed concern that the proposed cuts were ongoing, broad, and could create instability for agencies, while others said the process would give work groups a clearer target and more flexibility to adjust budgets later. Bybee and the co-chairs repeatedly stressed that the goal was to right-size the budget and preserve flexibility as more revenue and policy information becomes available. The committee also reviewed proposed cash transfers totaling about $106.7 million to help balance the budget, including transfers from the In-Demand Careers Fund, Water Pollution Control Fund, Strategic Initiatives Fund, Idaho Opportunity Scholarship Fund, and Permanent Building Fund. Members asked whether those transfers were legally permissible and were told the legislature has authority to move money in the treasury for balancing purposes. Finally, Bybee outlined statewide decisions for maintenance budgets, including personnel benefit cost increases, contract inflation, statewide cost allocation, a small military CEC adjustment, and options for a 3%, 4%, or 5% ongoing base budget reduction. The co-chairs said motions would be brought forward on Friday, and the committee adjourned with plans to continue hearings the next day.

Transcript Highlights:

• The budget total is $114.5... The budget totals $114.5 billion.
• Some highlights of our budget: the budget totals $49.2 billion, representing an increase of more than
• funding in the budget.
• Chair Hooper, I'm voting yes on this budget, and I appreciate how you and all of your budget chairs have
• The budget was examined. Certainly balance sheets were examined. The budget was examined.

Transcript Highlights:

• statewide budget pressures.
• the total UC budget.
• So if you look at my budget, the budget I get to allocate is about...
• So if you look at my budget, the budget I get to allocate is about $1.6 billion to $1.7 billion.
• in the budget.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance held an extended hearing focused primarily on University of California budget issues, enrollment, housing, and Title IX. Chair David Alvarez opened by noting the governor’s proposed 8% ongoing General Fund reduction to UC, the deferral of compact funding, and the College of the Law budget item, while emphasizing that no votes would be taken that day. Public commenters, including UC Davis employees and lecturers, urged restoration of UC funding and opposed the hiring freeze, saying cuts would worsen staffing shortages, reduce research capacity, and harm students and patients. On UC core operations, the Department of Finance said the governor’s budget maintains the compact but defers $240.8 million in ongoing support and continues a planned 7.95% reduction, while the LAO recommended rejecting the deferrals and instead making any changes in the budget year. UC San Diego’s chancellor and UC Office of the President argued the cuts and deferrals would create major campus shortfalls, force hiring freezes, larger class sizes, fewer course offerings, delayed projects, and possible layoffs. Committee members questioned whether cuts could be shifted away from students and toward administration, discussed UCOP reserves and bond debt, and noted that UC’s budget structure makes the campus-level impact larger than the headline reduction. The committee also reviewed enrollment trends and nonresident replacement. The LAO said UC resident enrollment has grown and recommended revisiting 2026-27 targets and pausing the nonresident replacement plan if state funding does not improve. UC said it has exceeded California undergraduate enrollment and nonresident replacement goals, but warned that continued growth without funding would force enrollment reductions and harm quality. Members discussed the role of nonresident and international students, tuition rates, and the value of UC as a pathway for California students and a source of talent for the state. A separate housing item covered the state’s Higher Education Student Housing Grant Program. UC reported that recent bond savings could support additional affordable beds at UC Davis and UC Santa Barbara, but the LAO and Finance noted the Legislature would need to decide how to use the $6.2 million in savings from the original projects. The committee also heard a Title IX update from UC’s systemwide civil rights office, which described campus Title IX structures, training, and policy enforcement, and said the system has been working to improve confidentiality guidance and streamline complaint processes after survey feedback showed confusion and lengthy procedures.

Transcript Highlights:

• We can pass the budget after this. We can adjourn sine die. We can deal with the budget impacts.
• We can pass the budget after this. We can adjourn Sonny Die. We can deal with the budget impacts.
• But yet we continue to see our budget growing while we're seeing our families' budgets decreasing.
• budget, Mr.
• That was because of this budget and this legislature's negligence in budgeting.

Bills: HB2720 , HB2073 , SB5816 , SB5919 , SB5831 , SB6244 , SB6044 , SB5109 , SB5877 , SB6258

Keywords: behavioral health, emergency services, health insurance, provider access, mental health funding, premium assistance, funding, healthcare, subsidies, juice grapes, agriculture, commerce, state regulation, market access, fire safety, insurance incentives, best practices, community protection, voluntary measures, mortgage modification

Transcript Highlights:

• budget window of 2024-25, 2025-26, and the budget year.
• So within the three-year budget window, the Governor's budget projects that the minimum guarantee will
• And then third, the Governor's budget doesn't commit all of the new funding in the budget to ongoing
• in the 2025 Budget Act.
• These amounts are the only outstanding deferrals as of the Governor's budget, but the Governor's budget

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance held its first hearing of the year on Proposition 98, focusing on the Governor’s budget estimates for the three-year budget window, the Public School System Stabilization Account (PSSA), and repayment of education deferrals. The Department of Finance said the minimum guarantee would rise by about $21.7 billion over the 2025 Budget Act, with increases in each year, full repayment of the existing settle-up obligation in 2024-25, a new $5.6 billion settle-up obligation proposed for 2025-26, and a higher guarantee in 2026-27. Finance also noted revised downward estimates for transitional kindergarten attendance and Los Angeles County property tax reimbursements, and said community colleges would be funded above the split because of enrollment growth. The Legislative Analyst’s Office emphasized fiscal risk and volatility, warning that recent revenue gains are tied heavily to the stock market and tech sector and could reverse quickly. The LAO argued the Governor’s proposed $5.6 billion delay shifts risk into future years and recommended instead fully funding the current estimate, making a larger reserve deposit, considering advance payments or pension-related uses, and finding additional non-Prop 98 solutions to reduce the state’s structural deficit. On the reserve and deferral items, Finance described revised PSSA deposits and withdrawals that would leave about $4.1 billion in the reserve by 2026-27, and both Finance and the LAO supported paying off the remaining LCFF and SCFF deferrals as good fiscal practice. Committee members questioned the size of the settle-up amount, the degree of revenue volatility, the use of the reserve, and the ongoing K-12/community college split. Finance said the proposal is meant to avoid overappropriation if revenues fall, while the LAO said a buffer of roughly $3.5 billion would address typical forecasting risk. Public commenters, including school boards, county offices of education, teachers, and advocacy groups, largely opposed the $5.6 billion withholding or settle-up delay, calling it a manipulation of Prop. 98 and urging full funding and more stable revenue solutions. Several speakers also urged dedicated funding for students experiencing homelessness. The hearing ended with no vote, and the chair announced that broader program discussions would occur in later hearings.

Transcript Highlights:

• budget window of 2024-25, 2025-26, and the budget year.
• So within the three-year budget window, the Governor's budget projects that the minimum guarantee will
• And then third, the Governor's budget doesn't commit all of the new funding in the budget to ongoing
• in the 2025 Budget Act.
• These amounts are the only outstanding deferrals as of the Governor’s budget, but the Governor’s budget

Transcript Highlights:

• On lines 17, 18, and 19, you can see where the maintenance budgets, enhancement budgets, and any program
• So the core budget challenge we have is the governor’s budget includes 3%...”
• out of the budget for the current budget year that we are in right now.
• We put it into the maintenance budgets, and in the maintenance budgets, we cut and we decide what we're
• budget.

Summary: The committee first received a briefing on the updated “green sheet” budget materials and how to read the FY 2027 columns, along with a review of several bills with fiscal impacts, including HB 503, HB 556, HB 559, and HB 578. Staff explained where the documents could be found online and answered questions about the timing and size of the bills’ fiscal effects, including the tax conformity bill and county jail reimbursement changes. The main business was the 2026 Idaho Budget Rescissions Act. Members debated whether to adopt the governor’s 3% rescission, add an additional 1% reduction, or add an additional 2% reduction. Supporters of deeper cuts argued the state needed structural balance, a larger ending balance, and a response to revenue uncertainty and the pending tax conformity bill. Opponents said across-the-board cuts were too blunt, could harm Medicaid, education, public safety, and other programs, and should be handled agency by agency. The committee first rejected the 1% and 2% substitute motions, then approved the governor’s 3% rescission motion on a due-pass recommendation. The committee then approved a transfer of $22,366,500 from the Public School Income Fund to the General Fund, with the motion passing after a roll call vote. It next took up statewide decisions, starting with ongoing base reductions for selected state agencies. After debate over whether the reductions should be 3%, 4%, or 5%, the committee rejected the higher-cut substitutes and approved the governor’s 3% base reduction recommendation. Members emphasized that the work groups would still have flexibility to adjust individual agency budgets later. Finally, the committee considered personnel benefit cost increases for FY 2027. Staff explained the proposed health insurance and other variable-rate adjustments, and members debated whether to use the governor’s recommendation or a DOGE Working Group recommendation that slightly changed the funding mix and total. The governor’s recommendation was defended as more consistent with prior employee-benefit review practice, while supporters of the DOGE proposal said it would tighten legislative control over funding. The governor’s recommendation was ultimately rejected, and the committee moved on after the roll call votes on the competing motions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you, Madam Chair, for welcoming me as a guest on the Budget Sub 1, Budget Sub of Health.
• I ask that we push back on this budget and have the governor return with a more equitable budget.
• The current $12 billion budget shortfall has forced us to look deeper to balance the budget.
• In your budget assumptions?
• In budget year plus two, it will be 451,000, and in budget year plus three, it will be 672,000.

Transcript Highlights:

• The proposed budget totals $117.4 billion.
• The budget for these agencies is mostly trust-funded, meaning that their budgets are funded by dedicated
• , the budget also includes funding reductions.
• So we are now having to cover that in our PERC budget.
• [Continuation of presentation on the Floridians' First Budget] The budget would implement the gold and

Committee: Senate Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government

Summary: The committee first took up confirmation of five water management district appointees: Ted Everett and Jerome Pate to the Northwest Florida Water Management District, Michael Romano to the Big Cypress Basin Board of the South Florida Water Management District, and Paul Bissfam, John Hall, and Virginia Johns to the Southwest Florida Water Management District. Senator McClain moved confirmation, the roll was called, and the committee recommended all appointees favorably. Members then received the Governor’s Florida First budget presentations for environmental agencies. The environmental package totaled about $5.8 billion and emphasized Everglades restoration, water quality, resilience, land conservation, state parks, hazardous waste cleanup, wildlife management, wildfire response, and citrus support. DEP highlighted more than $1.4 billion for water resources, including $810 million for Everglades restoration, $202 million for Resilient Florida, $150 million for Florida Forever, $70 million for state parks, and $221 million for contamination cleanup. FWC, Agriculture, and Citrus funding priorities were also outlined. Members asked about Florida Forever funding, state park wastewater and septic needs, a reduction at the Florida Wildlife Research Institute, and beach renourishment funding for storm damage. The committee also heard the General Government portion of the budget, which totaled about $2.9 billion and covered DBPR, Lottery, Financial Services, Management Services, Revenue, PERC, and the Gaming Control Commission. DBPR requested funds for license processing, an animal abuse hotline, fleet replacement, and IT retention. FGCC sought new enforcement squads and an IT licensing/enforcement system. The Lottery proposed marketing, retail engagement, IT, and retention funding. DMS emphasized building modernization, fleet telematics, 911 and radio upgrades, cybersecurity, a local government cybersecurity grant program, and data interoperability. PERC described a sharp increase in labor cases and elections after SB 256 and requested staffing, election administration, and hearing officer pay increases. DFS highlighted My Safe Florida Home, fire marshal and first responder support, financial investigations, and gold and silver legal tender implementation. Revenue requested operational and IT funding and support for fiscally constrained counties. Questions focused on DBPR’s condo and HOA initiatives, cybersecurity grant reductions, and the My Safe Florida Home program’s abandoned grants and matching requirements. No additional votes were taken, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• recommended budget.
• budget, as well as the house recommended<00:18:18.559><c> budget.
• budget is made.
• It wasn't reflected in our budget when we were given level budget targets to start this budget process
• </c> cutting the budget. cutting the budget.

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• ,</c><00:04:21.519><c> despite</c> so in the governor's budget, despite so in the governor's budget,
• </c><00:18:32.960><c> The</c> retirement system budget. The retirement system budget.
• </c> we we budget the debt service. we we budget the debt service.
• </c> current budget, it was still amvertised. current budget, it was still amvertised.
• Budget.

Summary: The committee met to hear a presentation from Dr. Hicks on the governor’s recommended budget for the next biennium. He reviewed the revenue outlook, noting modest general fund growth, a large rainy day fund balance, and the impact of recent income tax reductions. He said the budget was built around recurring reductions, lower debt service and retirement contribution rates, and the use of excess restricted funds, while protecting K-12 education, Medicaid, postsecondary education, public safety, and pension obligations. Dr. Hicks outlined several major spending and reserve proposals, including $350 million from the Department of Insurance’s excess restricted funds to support Medicaid in the first year, $150 million for the affordable housing trust fund, $125 million for rural hospitals, $100 million to offset lost federal ACA premium tax credits, $75 million for utility assistance, and $50 million for food assistance. In education, the proposal included a phased pre-K for all plan funded by sports wagering tax revenue, a 3% annual salary increase for full-time school personnel, continued full funding of teacher pensions, a 2.5% annual increase in SEEK base funding, and additional support for career and technical education and school facilities. He also discussed Medicaid cost pressures, including higher managed care, pharmacy, behavioral health, and nursing facility costs, and explained the expected effects of federal HR1 changes on Kentucky’s Medicaid program. Those changes include work and community engagement requirements and more frequent eligibility redeterminations for expansion members, which the administration estimated would reduce enrollment by about 4,300 in the first year and 28,000 in the second year. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the meeting, which was limited to the budget presentation and member questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Senate budget totals $115 billion.
• Their budget silos.
• for districts to make budget reductions over time.
• Senator Burgess, move on to the PECO budget. In the pre-K budget and PICO. Okay. Thank you, Mr.
• The budget actually gives us, let me see. $136.9 million in the budget that actually is the EASE grant

Transcript Highlights:

• The budget chairman's motion.
• This is a lean budget year, the first of many lean budget years, but we did not decrease.
• Speaker, can I just inquire of the budget chair briefly? Inquire of the budget chair.
• I inquire quickly of the budget chair. Does the budget chair accept? I do.
• That budget isn't fun.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, approval of the prior day’s journal by roll call, and a long series of special guest introductions recognizing family members, interns, public servants, nonprofit leaders, students, and a park ranger honored for life-saving actions. Committee reports and Senate messages followed, including Senate nonconcurrence on numerous amendments to Senate Bill 1421 and the appointment of a conference committee on another bill. The main floor action centered on budget conference committee reports, especially House Bill 2002 on public education. Members debated whether the conference version fully funded the foundation formula, with supporters arguing it maintained record-level funding and opponents saying it left schools about $190 million short and relied on uncertain funding sources such as blind pension, lottery, and possible ARPA dollars. After a substitute motion to send the bill back to conference was defeated, the House adopted the conference report 83-68 and then third-read and passed House Bill 2002 by the same margin. The House then took up House Bill 2003 on higher education, where members discussed a move toward a future performance-based funding model while keeping current funding flat; the conference report passed 119-28 and the bill was third-read and passed 109-32. The chamber next considered House Bill 2004, covering the Departments of Revenue and Transportation. Debate focused on transportation funding, rural roads, and a small local safety project in Lebanon that had already been addressed by MoDOT. The conference report was adopted 128-21 and the bill was third-read and passed 127-27. Finally, the House began debate on House Bill 2005 for the Office of Administration and IT-related functions, with the sponsor and supporters emphasizing IT accountability, the Movers project, and the transfer of some staff to DSS; the transcript ends during discussion of that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• reason that I'm supporting this budget. ...in this budget package.
• Members, let's be clear about this budget. This budget is a partisan budget.
• This is a budget for the young. This is a budget for the old.
• This is a budget for working families. This is a budget for the vulnerable.
• This is not the people's budget. This is not a budget for working families.

Transcript Highlights:

• The budget maintains efficiency reductions included in the 2024 Budget Act intended to address ongoing
• statewide budget pressures.
• Looking to the budget year 2025-26, the state budget plan for UC maintains the 7.95% base reduction,
• If you look at my budget, the budget I get to allocate is about 1.6 to 1.7 billion dollars.
• Into our budget, and we had the payments for that to pay it off in our budget.

Transcript Highlights:

• First of all, the budget staff, who was critical in putting together this measure, led by our budget
• First of all, the budget staff, who was critical in putting together this measure, led by our budget
• First of all, the budget staff, who was critical in putting together this measure, led by our budget
• First of all, the budget staff, who was critical in putting together this measure, led by our budget
• First of all, the budget staff, who was critical in putting together this measure, led by our budget

Transcript Highlights:

• 97% of our budget.
• million budget.
• With our budget priorities, our statutory areas of responsibility, our core mission budget, this budget
• budget?
• 79% of our budget and encompass our major budget priorities.

Committee: Senate Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government

Transcript Highlights:

• So, on to the budget targets.
• ideologies in the budget process.
• </c> budget targets when they start meeting. budget targets when they start meeting.
• </c> budget targets.
• These are the uh budget budget targets.

Summary: House Democratic leaders and House Republican leaders announced a compromise set of budget targets reached Friday night, describing it as a numbers-only deal that leaves policy issues aside. They said the targets are the first step in the budget process: House committee chairs will write bills to fit the targets, those bills will go to Ways and Means, and later leaders will negotiate global targets with the governor and Senate. Leaders emphasized that the agreement reflects compromise rather than either party’s ideal budget, and that they will continue talks with Governor Walz and the Senate over the next several weeks. The speakers highlighted what was not included in the deal, saying it does not target paid family and medical leave, earned sick and safe time, reproductive rights, or universal school meals. They said the House priorities that did make it in include housing, education, pensions, public safety, and transportation. On education, they said the compromise provides $40 million in new money in the first biennium for the READ Act and no cuts in either biennium, contrasting that with larger cuts in the governor’s and Senate proposals. They also said schools could still choose to fund unemployment insurance for school workers from existing resources, though it was not earmarked in the targets. Leaders said the agreement leaves room for committee chairs to make choices within the targets, including in health and human services, where they described the target as a reduction in projected growth rather than a cut to existing appropriations. They said the budget plan sets aside discretionary inflation adjustments in the first biennium while preserving inflation indexing for items like the K-12 formula. They also said the deal improves the state’s long-term balance, with a projected $1.6 billion balance in the first biennium and a $1.3 billion deficit in the second, and that the House’s numbers do not include the same revenue assumptions as the governor’s and Senate’s plans. In questions, leaders said conference committees will require majority support from both House and Senate conferees, and that the House will send equal numbers of Democratic and Republican conferees. They said the bonding bill size is still under discussion, but the adopted numbers would allow for roughly a $700 million general obligation bill. They also said large state spending for professional sports facilities is likely over, and explained that the press conference was held without Republican leaders for logistical reasons after the deal was reached late Friday.

Transcript Highlights:

• 97% of our budget.
• million budget.
• With our budget priorities, our statutory areas of responsibility, our core mission budget, this budget
• budget?
• 79% of our budget and encompass our major budget priorities.

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government heard budget presentations from the Northwest Florida, Suwannee River, St. Johns River, Southwest Florida, and South Florida water management districts for FY 2026-2027. Each district described its preliminary budget, major funding sources, staffing levels, and priorities within the four core missions of water supply, water quality, natural systems, and flood protection. Common themes included reduced budgets from the prior year due to completion of major projects, continued reliance on state appropriations and ad valorem revenue, rising construction and maintenance costs, and the need to maintain aging infrastructure while advancing alternative water supply, springs restoration, flood control, and land management projects. Committee members repeatedly asked how much of each district’s budget and personnel were devoted to the core missions, how maintenance and operating projections were developed, and how projects were selected. The districts generally said most spending was tied to core responsibilities, with administrative overhead relatively small, and explained that budgets are built through a mix of staff analysis, governing board direction, strategic basin planning, and cooperative funding with local, state, and federal partners. Several districts highlighted specific projects, including Water First North Florida, Black Creek, Taylor Creek Reservoir improvements, Crane Creek, Everglades restoration, and various springs and watershed projects. The districts also noted challenges from hurricanes, inflation, cybersecurity, and aging water control structures. South Florida Water Management District’s presentation focused on Everglades restoration and the large-scale infrastructure needed to move, store, and clean water in South Florida. The director said the district’s $1.05 billion preliminary budget is largely for flood control, water supply, ecosystem restoration, and maintenance of extensive canals, levees, pumps, and reservoirs, and emphasized that recent restoration investments are producing measurable water quality and salinity improvements. No votes were taken on the district budgets, and the committee adjourned after the presentations and questions.