Transcript Highlights:

• This bill would permit any hydroelectric facility, regardless of size or operational date, to qualify
• It's important to note that this legislation does not green light or permit any specific projects; it
• <00:04:49.560> permit<00:04:50.240> any green light or permit permit any green light
• or permit permit any specific<00:04:51.080> projects<00:04:51.639> it<00:04:51.759>
• <00:09:03.240> um think that in our committee process um think that in our committee process

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• district and then there is a process district and then there is a process already<00:11:22.839><
• 34:45.000> that get a permit under the conditions that get a permit under the conditions that
• He said it is a DOT process to permit that, but they do need to prepare information for Federal Highways
• process.
• process.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 332, a bill to add protection and remediation of surface waters as a new authorized purpose for New Hampshire village districts. Prime sponsor Rep. Rosemary Rung said the bill is intended to give local voters in lake communities a voluntary tool to address cyanobacteria blooms and other water-quality problems through village districts, including the ability to raise revenue, adopt ordinances, and pursue treatments or watershed management measures. She emphasized that the proposal is meant to complement, not replace, state law and that any district action would still need to comply with existing permitting and environmental requirements. Supporters, including Andrea Laro of New Hampshire Lakes and Elizabeth Harper of the Lake Sunapee Protective Association, said the bill would help municipalities collaborate on lake protection when state resources are limited. They argued that local districts could bring subject-matter expertise, access grants and technical assistance, and respond more quickly to problems such as septic impacts, runoff, culvert repairs, and in-lake treatments. They also suggested clarifying the bill’s wording around “protection and remediation” to better define the scope of authorized activities. Opponents, including Steve Wolf and Chris Norwood of the New Hampshire Association of Realtors, argued that village districts can already be overly broad and sometimes expand beyond their original purposes. Wolf said existing town and state agencies already handle shoreline protection and warned that village districts can impose ongoing taxes and create governance problems. Norwood urged a study bill instead, citing concerns about the scope of village districts and examples where some districts have taken on planning and zoning powers beyond their original mission. No vote or final action on HB 332 was taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• process.
• in of the permitting process and then in of the permitting process and then in paragraph<00:06:03.160
• process.
• So most, um, in regards with landfill permits, most have either a two-stage or a three-stage process
• /c> process or phase process um process or phase process um so<00:33:29.720> which<00:33:29.919

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Solid Waste Subcommittee met to discuss proposed amendments to HB 171 and HB 215. For HB 171, Representative Gerna outlined technical changes to a landfill moratorium bill: DES would be allowed to accept applications only to review them for completeness, a notwithstanding clause would override automatic approval timing rules, the word “fully” would be removed, and an unnecessary reference to perennial water bodies would be deleted. Members raised concern about whether applications deemed complete during the moratorium would still have to comply with later changes in law or rule. Director Mike Whap of DES said applicants would likely need to amend applications if policy changes occurred, and suggested the bill could explicitly state that later changes apply to pending applications. The subcommittee generally supported the revised language and agreed the amended bill could go directly to executive session, though one member said the underlying legislation was ill-advised but preferred the amended version over the original. The committee then turned to HB 215, which would create a two-stage landfill siting review centered on a “net public benefit” determination before full technical review. Representative Gerna explained that the amendment would define net public benefit, require an independent third-party assessment paid for by the applicant, and set up a process for selecting the contractor from a list submitted by the applicant, with DES and the host community involved and the commissioner choosing if no agreement is reached within 60 days. Members asked how “host community” would be defined; DES said it would generally mean the municipal governing body, though that body could appoint others. The amendment also broadened the factors considered in both harms and benefits, including human health, property values, tourism, recreation, wildlife, local economic benefits, and infrastructure improvements. The discussion also added a provision directing DES to consult with the Department of Transportation, the Department of Business and Economic Affairs, and the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources as needed when reviewing the third-party assessment. Director Whap said interdepartmental consultation is normal and that DES would likely adopt rules to guide the process. Members questioned whether the new framework would be too vague or burdensome for applicants, but Whap said it would not be designed to stack the deck against applicants and that the process should provide clearer, more balanced criteria. No votes were taken during the meeting, and the subcommittee appeared to continue refining the amendment language before further action.

Transcript Highlights:

• A comment on the processing facility permit section recommended greater specificity to a provision which
• A comment on the processing facility permit section recommended greater specificity to a provision which
• Permit application fees for critical mineral exploration and critical minerals processing facilities
• The PERS board does follow a standard process in our rulemaking process, which includes staff preparation
• Looking at page 193, it talks about a permit, and the permit is dealing with the primary prize under

Summary: The committee approved the March 12, 2026 minutes and granted the Board of Medicine an extension of time to implement rule changes tied to House Bill 1620/1622, which concern North Dakota’s entry into the physician assistant licensure compact. The Board said it is waiting on compact rules, especially fee structures, before finalizing its own rules. The committee then took up extensive Office of Management and Budget personnel rule revisions, covering salary administration, recruitment, leave policies, funeral leave, service awards, appeals, and shared leave. OMB said the changes modernize HR practices and implement recent legislation, including new hire leave and enhanced annual leave for hard-to-fill positions; the committee raised concerns about the subjectivity and fairness of the hard-to-fill leave provisions, but no action was taken against the rules. The North Dakota Lottery presented emergency and regular rule changes, including updates tied to the Millionaire for Life game and miscellaneous clarifications. The Board of Examiners for Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology described rule updates that add speech-language pathology assistants to the rules, ease continuing education requirements for out-of-state applicants, expand temporary licensure, and clarify supervision standards. The State Electrical Board reviewed numerous code updates, including changes to electrical and fire alarm standards, receptacle labeling, countertop receptacles, and a major new conveyance/elevator inspection program added by the Legislature; the board said it is preparing to begin inspections by August 1. The Industrial Commission’s Geological Survey Division presented new rules implementing House Bill 1459 on critical minerals in coal-bearing formations, including permit, reporting, confidentiality, and royalty-related provisions. The committee asked about confidentiality of exploration data and drilling depth. The Public Employees Retirement System outlined rule changes implementing several bills affecting defined benefit, public safety, defined contribution, insurance, deferred compensation, and retiree health credit programs, and noted possible future proposals to add state EMS or create a LOSAP-style plan. The Department of Health and Human Services presented substance use disorder voucher rules implementing House Bill 1012, including allowing individuals to apply directly and setting reimbursement procedures; the rules were expected to have a $250,000 general fund impact already included in the budget. The longest discussion involved the Gaming Commission rules. Members questioned whether the commission had authority to raise poker tournament buy-ins from $300 to $1,500, viewing it as an expansion of gaming rather than a mere clarification. After debate, the committee voted to void that specific rule section for lack of statutory authority. The rest of the gaming rules covered higher raffle limits from House Bill 1192, the change from “bar” to “alcoholic beverage establishment,” veterans’ organization proceeds, credit ticket voucher kiosks, online raffles, and advertising restrictions; the presenter said several public comments led to revisions or withdrawals of proposed language. The meeting ended with discussion of upcoming Ethics Commission travel-reporting rules and scheduling the next committee meeting in September.

Transcript Highlights:

• might help us jumpstart that process. ...might help us jumpstart that process a little bit.
• Our intake process and what we actually look at looks at people, process, and technology so we can line
• It doesn't permit generation.
• It doesn't permit generation.
• One is construction work in process.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:49.480> uh know a substantial amount of permit uh know a substantial amount of permit
• would limit in our opinion what permits would limit in our opinion what permits come<00:05:20.759
• <00:05:41.840> or be um required to submit that permit or be um required to submit that permit
• 740 relating to special permits 740 relating to special permits authorizes<00:35:36.839> the<
• Anyone else wish to speak to SB 740, relating to special permits?

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard several water, land, and natural resources measures. SB 5 would narrow the definition of historic property to properties eligible for the Hawaii Register of Historic Places or with important Native Hawaiian or ethnic cultural value. The State Historic Preservation Division said the bill would tighten the definition and could reduce or streamline reviews, while one testifier warned it could add another layer of review and delay. Support and opposition were both noted. SB 19 would appropriate funds to DLNR’s Division of Aquatic Resources to establish positions, and it drew strong support from DLNR and multiple ocean and reef advocates. SB 145, concerning declarations of water shortage and emergency, was supported by the Commission on Water Resource Management and the Board of Water Supply, which said rulemaking would improve transparency and public input. The chair also noted broader public concern about water use and pricing, especially on Maui. SB 44 would prohibit commercial sale of parrotfish caught by spearing and ban spearing them at night; DLNR supported the measure, while several fishers and gathering-rights advocates opposed it, arguing it would restrict traditional gathering and that resource management should focus on fish populations rather than methods. The committee noted 26 communications in support and opposition combined. SB 427 would bar the state from leasing or extending public land leases to parties in arrears, out of compliance with environmental obligations, or convicted of a crime, and would require gubernatorial certification for certain federal leases. DLNR said existing law and BLNR procedures already address compliance and cure periods, while supporters argued the bill would help ensure accountability for contaminated or poorly managed lands. The committee also began SB 457, dealing with submerged land reclamation and leasing of submerged/tidal lands; DLNR again said current statutes and BLNR protocols were already adequate, describing existing review and enforcement practices for shoreline structures and easements. No votes were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• engineers and related staff in order to expeditiously process permits.
• I would recommend that our permit processes be reviewed in order to make...
• Otis mentioned the permitting process, making certain that that is done in a timely manner.
• So I think making certain that we look at our permitting processes is key.
• And so when you lose the permit engineer, your permitting process comes to a standstill for a while,

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I have a process question. Sure.
• So in case of permitting till 2029.
• And so we would like to be able to have a more efficient process and more certainty about the process
• Burn permit.
• an education process. an education process. >> Fair<02:41:03.439> enough.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council met on May 27, 2026, approved the January 7 minutes and the day’s agenda, and reported no conflicts of interest. The executive director gave staff updates, including introductions of new staff member Cara Castanza and DNR liaison Jason Co., both of whom were welcomed by the council. Members were also informed about three minor easement/conveyance matters in the packet, including a small Bowser easement impact with about $1,600 returned to the Outdoor Heritage Fund, a Minnesota Land Trust easement request involving a DNR trout stream easement, and an access easement revision in Itasca County. The council also noted several upcoming dedication events and a June field tour in southeast Minnesota beginning in Winona on June 16, with visits to Whitewater WMA, bluff prairie and stream sites, and a river segment if a boat is secured. A major agenda item was a legislative session recap on the Outdoor Heritage Fund portion of Senate File 2077, the omnibus Outdoor Heritage Fund, Legacy, and Lands bill. Staff reported that all council recommendations were incorporated into the bill, which passed both chambers on May 17 and was expected to be signed by the governor. The fiscal year 2027 Outdoor Heritage Fund recommendations covered 53 programs totaling about $188.9 million, with the February forecast increasing the appropriation slightly so the final total was about $191.16 million; eligible programs were proportionately increased. Staff also highlighted a few changes made during the legislative process, including adjustments to the Roso Lake rehabilitation phase three project, the conservation partners legacy grant language, and statutory provisions affecting the council. The recap also covered policy changes in the bill: a public member term limit of eight years, with a short vacancy exception and transition rules for current members; a revised executive director hiring process allowing the Legislative Coordinating Commission to provide support while preserving the council’s final hiring authority and permitting closed meetings for candidate discussions; and an extension of the Upper Mississippi River invasive carp deterrent design deadline to June 30, 2027. Members discussed the Roso Lake amendment at length, with Senator Lang and Representative Burkel explaining that the added delay and injunction-related language were intended to address local concerns and preserve the council’s process while litigation proceeds. The meeting ended without any additional formal action beyond receiving the updates and discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• It provides for an expedited licensing and permitting process for facilities located within a sovereign
• <01:41:02.000> process<01:41:02.960> for<01:41:03.280> facilities and permitting
• process for facilities and permitting process for facilities located<01:41:04.719> within<01:
• without being destroyed by the process. without being destroyed by the process.
• process. Thank you. process. Thank you.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And if I'm permitted, one more introduction.
• Doing away with basic SMA permitting that protects our shoreline... permitting that protects our shoreline
• process as well.
• out of the process.
• Speed Task Force measures including faster permit processing, limits on corporate contributions... limits

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• from obtaining an exploration permit.
• A comment on the processing facility permit section recommended greater specificity to a provision which
• Permit application fees for critical mineral exploration and critical minerals processing facilities
• The PERS board does follow a standard process in our rulemaking process, which includes staff preparation
• Looking at page 193, it talks about a permit, and the permit is dealing with the primary prize under

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• process. Your traditional.
• So it being a complex process.
• So it being a complex process.
• We remediation process.
• >> Has administrative process.