Transcript Highlights:

• Because permitting isn't the same in every city statewide, information about data centers and water use
• supplies before being permitted between water supply assessments connection fees and capacity charges
• permits.
• We believe water policy should focus on the actual water consumption and local water conditions, not
• , and denied bottled water when the facility's water system was releasing dark, rust-colored water.

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:

• Our Office of Water and supporting offices have engineers, hydrologists, toxicologists, permit writers
• It's authority to TCEQ to implement certain aspects of the Clean Water Act, meaning Texas can issue permits
• So, from 2023 to 2024, TCEQ issued water rights for two major water supply reservoirs, three reuse permits
• We're also working on the framework for the permitting of highly treated produced water.
• So if it's a standard permit, depending on the list, water that's an air example, but it's something

Committee: Senate Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In 2020, the Vista Ridge export permit began pumping and piping water from Burleson County to a growing
• storm sewer system or a general permit for storm water.
• They've got other districts in the same GMAs that are permitting out 10 times as much water per surface
• wells that produce water used for purposes permitted by TCEQ.
• To the restriction on permits authorizing a direct discharge of waste or pollutants into water in certain

Committee: Senate Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Fund to conduct essential water quality permitting enforcement work in response to the 2023 U.S.
• There is also permitting work that ramps up during drought, so water availability analysis... ...during
• , and, let's see, I have a number of other things that are related to water quality permitting as well
• those permits.
• Hi, I'm Mateo Kushner with Community Water Center, also on behalf of Clean Water Action, Water Foundation

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Christi Water.
• Corpus Christi attained our TCQ water rights permit in October of 2022.
• Our TCQ water discharge permit will be considered by the agency next month, uh, on March 13th, and our
• Um, and then finally, there's an Army Corps, uh, permit to do construction in waters of the United States
• We have a permitted annual firm yield of 1,250,000 acre feet of water.

Committee: House Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• state law before we issue a permit to put that water to beneficial use.
• The way we measure water when we issue these permits, we use a term called acre-feet.
• We use acre-feet, not gallons, when we measure our water and when we talk about permitting water resources
• , what we're seeing in interest, the projects that have approached us with interest for water permits
• Grand Forks has a permit from the Department of Water Resources for a little over 20,000 acre-feet in

Committee: Joint Energy Development and Transmission Committee

Summary: The committee met in Grand Forks, approved the February 26 minutes by voice vote, and recessed for a tour of the Mincota Power Cooperative headquarters before returning for presentations on large energy consumers, especially data centers. The first presentations focused on how North Dakota should respond to rapid growth in energy-intensive projects, with speakers emphasizing the need for reliable transmission, local decision-making tools, and factual information for county and township officials who are being asked to weigh major projects with limited staff and technical support. The North Dakota Transmission Authority director said local governments are being asked to make high-impact decisions on pipelines, transmission lines, large agriculture, wind, solar, carbon dioxide pipelines, direct-air capture, and data centers, and urged development of simple statewide decision tools and support from the League of Cities and Association of Counties. The Department of Environmental Quality’s air division director said North Dakota’s air remains among the cleanest in the nation, but large data centers can create air-quality concerns because of diesel backup generation; he said the department is requiring air monitors at some facilities and expects grid power and, potentially, cleaner natural gas backup to reduce emissions. Members asked about emissions standards, misinformation, monitoring costs, and staffing succession at DEQ. The Department of Water Resources director said North Dakota’s water law is based on common ownership and prior appropriation, and that data centers generally use relatively small amounts of water, often in closed-loop systems. He said the Missouri River and groundwater supplies are ample for projected needs, that the department’s permitting process protects senior water rights, and that even a worst-case data center scenario would use a very small share of Missouri River flow. Members asked about downstream impacts and compared data center water use with fracking. Later, McLean County State’s Attorney Ladd Erickson urged the committee to study how other states regulate data centers, warned against litigation-driven delays and overly broad local ordinances, argued reclamation bonding should be handled at the state level if at all, and said data centers can bring jobs and tax base but should remain subject to local zoning. The committee ended the morning session for lunch and later heard an EERC update from CEO Charles Gorecki on the center’s 75 years of work in energy and environmental technologies, especially oil and gas development and related research.

Transcript Highlights:

• Someone will get a permit, or someone will go to SOA, or someone will get denied a permit.
• We just introduced a permit search portal where Texans can search for any permit.
• And when you look at permitting a MUD, you have to check off on the water, correct? I don't know.
• And when you look at permitting a MUD, you have to check off on the water, correct? I don't know.
• We don't permit quarries. We don't permit quarries.

Committee: Senate Nominations

Summary: The Senate Committee on Nominations met with a quorum and first took up pending nominations from an earlier agenda. Members severed Douglas McReecken, nominated to the Texas Tech University System Board of Regents, from the rest of the list and then voted to report the remaining nominees to the full Senate by a 7-0 vote. The committee then voted on the severed nomination itself and reported Douglas McReecken to the full Senate as well, by a 5-2 vote. The committee heard testimony from Brooke Pop, reappointed as chair of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and later from Commissioner Katarina Gonzalez, also of TCEQ. Questions focused on whether TCEQ rules comply with state law, ex parte restrictions, public transparency, concrete batch plant permitting, MUD approvals, water availability, illegal dams, enforcement, and the agency’s role in local environmental disputes. Both nominees said they follow the law as written, described internal legal review of rules, and emphasized transparency, public outreach, and enforcement; Gonzalez said she had already sent back two rules she believed did not comply with legislation. Members also discussed TCEQ’s authority limits and the need for clearer public communication about what the agency can and cannot regulate. The committee also considered Alethea Sullivan, nominated to the Texas Southern University Board of Regents. Questions centered on TSU’s status as an independent institution, the role of HBCUs amid DEI-related legal changes, and student outcomes. Sullivan said she would focus on ensuring taxpayer and student resources produce valuable credentials and noted concerns from her review of graduation and bar passage rates. The committee then heard from Benjamin Barkley, appointed chief executive and public counsel of the Office of Public Utility Counsel. Barkley said OPUC’s main need is additional funding to recruit and retain attorneys and expert witnesses, reduce turnover, and continue representing residential and small commercial consumers in utility rate cases; he said the office was involved in 73 contested cases and saved Texans $2.2 billion in FY 2024. No final action was taken on the later nominees, and the committee recessed with nominations left pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• permit for a commercial disposal facility.
• wells or public water supply wells.
• If you don't do that, there's automatically a permit granted. regardless of what the technical permitting
• And two weeks after the commission approved the permit for Paxton, the technical permitting department
• recommended denial of renewing the permit. the permit for Wascom due to unpermitted structures being

Bills: HB3619 , HB3652 , HB4572 , HB4891 , HB4941 , HB5103 , HB5105 , HB5106 , HB5224 , HB5600

Committee: House Energy Resources

Keywords: surface estate, well plugging, Railroad Commission, landowner rights, liability, strategic reserve, gas supply, petroleum products, disaster response, Railroad Commission of Texas, energy security, emergency planning, oil and gas waste, environmental regulation, waste management, mining pits, groundwater monitoring, regulation, commercial disposal facilities, environmental standards

Transcript Highlights:

• providers when setting water rates, specifically tiered water rates.
• that accurately reflect the impact of high-volume water users on our water systems is critical.
• Cyrus, for the Coachella Valley Water District and the Los Burgess Municipal Water District, in support
• Valley Water District, in support.
• Valley Water District, in support.

Summary: The Local Government Committee met on March 25, 2026, hearing eight bills, with several measures focused on housing, water, and local government administration. AB 1621 by Assemblymember Wilson sought to speed post-entitlement housing permits by setting clearer timelines, limiting repeated plan checks, and restricting field changes that conflict with approved plans. Supporters from the building, apartment, business, and housing sectors said the bill would reduce delays and costs, while county and city representatives opposed it unless amended, warning it could limit local enforcement of building and environmental codes and create problems for incomplete applications. The bill passed after a roll call vote, with the committee noting it would continue working with local government groups on amendments. The committee also heard AB 1712, which would help Santa Fe Springs sell its small, financially strained water system to a larger regulated provider without requiring a municipal election, using a protest process instead. The author and city officials said the system faces contamination, major deferred maintenance, and rate increases that could otherwise triple; water industry representatives supported the bill and no opposition was heard. AB 2080, sponsored by county treasurers, would make county delegations of investment authority to treasurers ongoing until revoked rather than requiring annual renewal, with supporters saying it would reduce administrative burden and avoid technical lapses. AB 2640 would allow local governments to offset reductions in reimbursement for disallowed state mandate claims against other unpaid mandate reimbursements; Shasta County testified in support, describing a large audit disallowance and long-delayed state payments. Both bills passed. The committee also approved consent items AB 1622 and AB 1834. AB 2180, which would codify a framework for proportional water rates under Proposition 218 based on the Dreher decision, drew broad support from water agencies and local government groups, but opposition from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the California Association of Realtors, who argued the bill was premature while the Supreme Court reviews related case law. Despite that opposition, the bill passed on a 6-2 vote, and the remaining bills were advanced with roll calls left open for additional votes before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• providers when setting water rates, specifically tiered water rates.
• that accurately reflect the impact of high-volume water users on our water systems is critical.
• Cyrus, for the Coachella Valley Water District and the Los Burgess Municipal Water District, in support
• Water District, in support.
• Water District, in support.

Committee: House Local Government

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Treated produced water would require a permit.
• permitting.
• Unconventional oil and gas permits for the treatment and discharge of produced water.
• Water, agricultural water, which is the main use of water here in New Mexico, by the way.
• is water.

Committee: House Radioactive & Hazardous Materials Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• The inclusion of the word permits in the... ...to upend existing and future water rights practices.
• the water board and groundwater agencies the tools to create flexible permit timelines for operators
• AB 2026 is needed to remove barriers that currently exist to permitting water diversion for recharge
• And it also provides the State Water Board with the tools that it needs to improve permitted recharge
• We recommend caution in making significant changes to temporary water right permitting at this time.

Summary: The committee heard extensive testimony on AB 2218, which would declare state policy to recognize and address water-related inequities affecting California Native American tribes and require several state agencies to incorporate that policy into water-related decisions. The author and tribal witnesses said the bill would codify a seat at the table for tribes and build on existing consultation and equity commitments, while supporters from environmental and tribal organizations backed the measure. Opponents from municipal utilities, water agencies, cities, counties, agriculture, and business groups argued the bill was too vague, could create uncertainty for water supply and project approvals, and might invite litigation. The chair signaled support, and the author said the bill was intended as a consultation measure rather than one that would usurp agency authority. The committee then took up AB 1795, a wildfire smoke-damage bill that would establish statewide standards for inspecting, testing, and remediating smoke-damaged homes and create clearer insurance claim handling rules. The Department of Insurance supported the bill, saying it would bring consistency and accountability after major urban-interface fires, while wildfire survivors and advocates said current insurer practices leave families unable to safely return home. Insurance and local government groups opposed unless amended, warning about cost, implementation uncertainty, and the bill’s scope. Members discussed unresolved issues, including how the bill would interact with a separate wildfire health-and-safety bill, whether it would apply to existing policies, and how presumptions and testing standards should work. The committee voted AB 1795 out on a due pass as amended motion to Appropriations. AB 1642, another wildfire-related bill, was also heard and focused on setting science-based testing and clearance standards for homes, schools, and businesses after urban and wildland-urban interface fires. The author and a Caltech scientist described contamination from lead and other heavy metals in fire-affected homes and argued for a presumption that certain contaminants found after a fire came from the wildfire, to reduce costly disputes. Survivors and many advocacy groups supported the bill, while insurers and other industry groups opposed, saying the testing regime was too broad, the geographic scope was unclear, and the presumptions could function like strict liability and raise insurance costs. Senators pressed both sides on how AB 1642 would overlap with the CDI smoke-claims task force and with AB 1795, and the author said the two bills were intended to be complementary and would continue to be reconciled. The committee also briefly heard AB 1976, which would create a CEQA exemption for pedestrian malls and limit certain local procedural delays for pedestrian and traffic-calming projects. Supporters said it would make it easier to create safer, more walkable, and more livable streets, and there was no opposition testimony. The chair described it as a narrow CEQA exemption for active transportation-related projects and indicated support. The committee then moved on to AB 2026, a groundwater recharge permitting bill, with the author explaining that it would streamline permitting so more recharge projects can capture floodwater and store it for drought years; testimony on that bill began as the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our TCEQ water rights permit in October of 2022, our TCEQ water discharge... permit will be considered
• And then finally there's an Army Corps permit to do construction in water of the United States.
• There is a Corpus Christi polymer site that is already permitted for process water for desal.
• We have a permitted annual firm yield of 1,250,000 acre-feet of water, so this is going to get in one
• water.

Committee: House Natural Resources

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• prohibited for storage in this act, from both Colorado River water and CAP water to just CAP water.
• River for the purposes of replenishment in an active management area if the water is delivered to a permitted
• Thank you, Tom Farley. in particular that we would not be permitted that we are actively storing water
• permitted facility that is owned by a multi-county water conservation district established pursuant
• It requires permits.

Committee: House House Natural Resources, Energy & Water Committee of Reference

Summary: The committee heard and took action on several water, energy, housing, and natural resources measures. House Bill 2099, as amended, was advanced on a 6-3 vote after testimony from water utilities, CAP, ADWR, Phoenix, and agricultural interests about long-term storage credits, Colorado River shortages, and the need to preserve flexibility in underground storage. House Bill 2263, also amended, passed 6-3 despite concerns from CAP, Colorado River Indian Tribes, and others that it would restrict where Colorado River replenishment water could be stored and reduce operational flexibility. House Bill 2264, requiring the University of Arizona to promote Arizona history and the five Cs through the mining museum effort, passed 9-0. House Bills 2330 and 2341, both relating to power plant and transmission line siting criteria, passed 6-3 after the sponsor argued they would better account for an area’s character and for speculative projects lacking known off-takers. House Bill 2918, ending certain tax breaks for renewable energy and storage equipment after 2026, passed 6-3. House Bill 2889, appropriating $1 million for uranium contamination monitoring and a statewide registry, passed 9-0 after discussion of tribal health impacts and possible amendment to shift implementation to ADEQ. House Concurrent Resolution 2057 supporting geothermal permitting reform passed 9-0, and House Concurrent Resolution 2020 supporting certain housing developments outside designated provider service areas passed 6-2. The committee also heard House Bill 2843 on portable plug-in solar devices, with the sponsor and supporters arguing it would lower bills and expand access for renters and apartment dwellers. Electric co-ops and utilities raised safety, backfeed, inspection, and liability concerns, and the chair held the bill for further work rather than taking a vote. House Bill 2782, dealing with utility rate transparency and regulatory assets, drew testimony from the sponsor and constituents about alleged double-charging in Santan Valley; after a motion to suspend committee rules to consider a late amendment, the amended bill passed 5-3. House Bill 4025, creating a study committee on gasoline and petroleum refineries, passed 6-3 after the sponsor argued Arizona relies heavily on imported gasoline. House Bill 2912, requiring integrated resource plans and independent review for electric utilities, passed 6-2 after amendment. Finally, House Bill 4100, requiring notice to customers about potential rate impacts if CAP water is lost, drew opposition from municipal and private water providers who said the required estimates would be speculative and could not be prepared by the deadline; the bill was discussed with an amendment expanding its scope, but the transcript ends before a final vote is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• These water supply assessments give communities, developers, and water agencies the information needed
• to align growth with available water resources.
• put into place the requirement for urban water management plans, which are long-term plans for water
• The water supply assessment, or WSA, focuses on identifying the water supply needs for large-scale developments
• Santa Clara Valley Water District, in support.

Summary: The committee heard several bills related to wildlife access, groundwater enforcement, desert plant regulation, outdoor equity, and water supply planning. SB 1021 would direct the Fish and Game Commission to create accommodations for children with life-threatening illnesses to participate in hunting and fishing opportunities; supporters described the bill as therapeutic and family-centered, while an opposition group argued the state should focus on non-lethal outdoor activities. SB 997 would give the North Fork Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency lien authority to enforce fees and penalties under SGMA; the author and agency said the bill closes an enforcement gap for a special-legislation GSA, and it drew broad support from local government and agricultural groups. The committee also considered SB 1061, which would streamline relocation permits for Western Joshua trees on private property; the author and local officials said the current law creates burdens for homeowners and infrastructure, while supporters framed the bill as a balance between conservation and property rights. Members also heard SB 1268, which would codify the Outdoors for All initiative to expand park access and outdoor equity, especially in underserved communities; it received strong support from environmental, parks, local government, and community organizations, with members praising the effort to improve access. SB 1085 would restore water supply assessment requirements for large developments even when CEQA exemptions apply, so local agencies still receive early information about water availability; the sponsor and water agencies said the bill helps prevent “paper water” problems and supports planning in drought conditions, and the building industry indicated it would remove its opposition after amendments. The committee accepted amendments on several bills, took roll once quorum was established, and advanced the measures by vote. Votes taken included SB 997, SB 1021, SB 1061, SB 1085, and SB 1268, all of which were reported out of committee, with SB 1061, SB 1085, and SB 1268 later recorded as passing 11-0. SB 997 was approved on a due-pass motion to Judiciary, SB 1021 was sent to Appropriations as amended, SB 1061 and SB 1085 were sent to Appropriations and Local Government respectively, and SB 1268 was sent to Natural Resources. The meeting concluded with the committee adjourning after completing the votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• a permit.
• There are permits, there is a permit in place, but we're still going through through a process to renew
• water discharge permitting program.
• unusable water usable.
• Um, for oil and gas permits.

Committee: House Radioactive & Hazardous Materials Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• The Stormwater Board and nine regional water boards issue municipal separate storm sewer permits, or
• Contra Costa Water has environmental permitting experts on staff, and it still took five months to secure
• AB 2032 would streamline the permitting process, which will help water agencies respond with the urgency
• Board and implemented through discharge permits issued by the nine regional water boards.
• Board and implemented through discharge permits issued by the nine regional water boards.

Committee: House Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><02:13:56.000><c> and</c> permit for municipal portable water and permit for municipal portable water
• permitting. water and wastewater system permitting.
• </c> permit for municipal water connections. permit for municipal water connections.
• an amendment to the water or wastewater permit.
• permit and a to get a portable water permit and a wastewater<02:49:43.840><c> permit.

Keywords: 926, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The actions that we take are waste discharge requirements and NPDES permits under the Clean Water Act
• Well, the regional water quality control board does have a representative on there because we have permitting
• Regional Water Quality Control Board does have a representative on there because we have permitting decisions
• You can see both above water and below water.
• water.

Summary: The hearing of the Select Committee on Sea Level Rise and the California Economy focused on infrastructure, pollution, climate resilience, public health, access, and economic impacts of sea level rise in California, with an emphasis on San Diego and the Bay Area. Chair Tasha Boerner Horvath opened by describing the committee’s purpose, the state’s sea level rise action planning, and the need for better monitoring and early warning systems. She also referenced her prior bills AB 66 and AB 72, which supported Scripps research on coastal bluff collapse warning capabilities. Assembly Members David Alvarez and Jessica Caloza later joined and emphasized that sea level rise affects not only coastal communities but inland areas as well, and that the issue should inform future legislative and budget decisions. In the first panel, Dr. Mark Merrifield of Scripps Institution of Oceanography described observed sea level rise of roughly 0.8 to 0.9 feet since the early 1900s, with acceleration expected by mid-century and potentially much greater rise by 2100 depending on emissions. He highlighted flooding, groundwater rise, beach and cliff erosion, salinization, and risks to transportation, sewage, ports, and national security. Dave Gibson of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board discussed how sea level rise affects wastewater systems, stormwater, contaminated sites, wetlands, and coastal groundwater basins, and said the board is requiring climate adaptation planning, updating stormwater permits, and seeking more flexible state permitting and mitigation tools. Members and witnesses also discussed the need for better mapping, more monitoring, and more state funding, especially if federal support from NOAA and other agencies declines. The second panel addressed public health, equitable access, and local economies. Ramon Chiras of Un Mar de Colores described how sea level rise, pollution, and access barriers threaten the Tijuana River Valley and Imperial Beach, especially for underserved communities and youth programs that rely on safe, welcoming access to the ocean. He stressed the cultural and spiritual importance of coastal access and the need for water safety and environmental education. Jessica Fane of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission explained that the Bay Area faces major economic exposure from sea level rise, citing a regional estimate of $96 billion in adaptation costs versus $230 billion in potential losses from inaction, and said BCDC is working with local governments under SB 272 on shoreline adaptation planning, funding, and regulatory innovation. Members discussed the tension between environmental permitting and the need to move projects faster, including the possibility of planned retreat in some areas and the use of simultaneous permitting and longer-term state authority to streamline adaptation work. In the final panel, Philip Gibbons of the Port of San Diego described the port’s climate adaptation efforts and its vulnerability assessments under AB 691. He said the port manages state tidelands, supports maritime commerce and recreation, and is already seeing flooding at king tides and during El Niño events, including storm-drain backflow and damage to bikeways and parks. He explained that future sea level rise could inundate major port areas and disrupt operations, underscoring the need for continued planning, mitigation, and infrastructure investment. The hearing did not take formal votes, but it concluded with a clear call for more science, funding, coordination, and regulatory streamlining to prepare California’s coast and nearby communities for worsening sea level rise impacts.

Transcript Highlights:

• And with water or is it private water?
• Anything that you do within that 50-foot of the water, you have to go to DEES and get a permit for it
• , you have to go to dees and get a water, you have to go to dees and get a permit<00:26:14.320><c> for
• At that point, would the homeowner be permitted to say, close that off and rebuild as though that water
• Uh, alteration of terrain permitting essentially is about storm water management on large construction

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on SB 27FN, which would change how improvements to dwellings over water are handled and align those projects more closely with the state building code. The bill was presented by Trisha Milo on behalf of Senator Lang, and attorney John Cronin explained that it arose from a specific New Hampshire Supreme Court case involving the Newcombs’ lakeside property, but that it could affect a small number of older waterfront homes statewide. He said the intent was to give the Department of Environmental Services (DES) limited waiver authority for improvements that do not harm water quality, plant life, or fish, while still requiring DES review and local permits. Committee members asked several questions about the scope of the bill, including whether it was tied to one case, how many properties might be affected, what counts as “living space,” and whether the language could allow larger decks or other expansions. Cronin said the bill was meant to be narrow, focused on access and egress and not on creating new living space, and that DES would still be able to deny unreasonable requests. He also described the Newcombs’ project as a rehabilitation of an older structure that had been approved locally and later challenged by DES, leading to the current dispute. Darlene Forst, the Wetlands Bureau administrator at DES, testified in opposition. She said the department was surprised the bill was being heard because it believed the Senate had sent it to interim study, and she argued the language was unclear and could have broader statewide effects than intended. Forst also said the underlying case was still active and should not be effectively re-litigated through this bill. No vote or final committee action was taken during the portion of the hearing provided.