Transcript Highlights:

• Cities should be able to raise real project concerns.
• These projects are critical to serving our customers...
• Opposition is forming against transit capital projects themselves.
• They are still supportive of the project.
• The county approved the project in 2018, at which point the project was sued.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a transformational project.
• Projects that will be needed—housing, hospitality, and other catalytic projects—can come in to complement
• No two projects are the same.
• We've seen developers submit the same project in multiple versions.
• That tells us the project doesn't rely on the hotel to move forward.

Summary: The committee first heard SB 753, which would modernize California’s shopping cart recovery rules by allowing cities and counties to return abandoned carts directly to retailers, recover documented retrieval costs, and avoid the current impound-and-wait process. The author and supporters, including San Jose officials and the League of California Cities, said the bill would help clear streets, sidewalks, and waterways and reduce local costs. Grocers and retailers opposed the measure unless amended, arguing it would turn cart retrieval into a new cost burden and could create incentives for cities to charge too much for stolen property. After extensive discussion about notice periods, cost caps, and local ordinances, the committee adopted amendments and passed the bill 6-0 as amended. The committee then took up SB 445, which would speed up permitting and approvals needed for high-speed rail by requiring early engagement, setting rules for third-party coordination, and creating a dispute-resolution process. The author said the bill was narrowed from an earlier, broader transit proposal and was intended to reduce delays caused by utilities, local governments, and other entities. Supporters said permitting bottlenecks add major costs and delays to infrastructure projects, while opponents from utilities, cities, counties, telecoms, and special districts raised concerns about safety, reliability, affordability, and the need to review the pending amendments. The bill passed 8-1 to the Utilities and Energy Committee. The committee also heard SB 9, a narrower housing bill focused on accessory dwelling units. The author explained that it would require local ADU ordinances to be submitted to HCD for review and would make state standards control if a local agency fails to submit a compliant ordinance or respond to HCD findings. Supporters from housing and YIMBY groups said the bill would improve enforcement of state ADU law and prevent local barriers from slowing housing production. There was no opposition, and the bill passed 6-0. The committee then began hearing SB 79, which would allow more housing near major transit stops; the author and supporters framed it as a response to the housing shortage and transit underuse, and the hearing continued with extensive support testimony as the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• How would this bill... ...projects?
• Yeah, it's for streaming, so it does not project, so you... Sounds great. I will project.
• I will project. Thank you.
• Those projects are those that...
• projects, the U.S.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee hearing focused on a broad set of climate, energy, and environmental justice proposals. Early testimony strongly supported the Climate Change Superfund or “Polluter Pays” bill (H.1014/S.58), which would assess the largest fossil fuel emitters for a one-time fee based on historic emissions to fund climate adaptation. Sponsors argued the bill is modeled on Superfund cleanup principles, would target only the largest multinational polluters, would not be passed on to consumers, and would direct a significant share of funds to environmental justice communities. Committee members asked about the number of companies covered, consumer impacts, and whether the bill would address other forms of environmental destruction; sponsors said it was limited to major fossil fuel companies with a Massachusetts footprint and did not cover other pollution sources. The committee also heard testimony on a fusion energy compact proposal (S.673) that would direct the administration to develop a framework for a New England regional compact to accelerate fusion research, workforce development, and supply-chain growth. Supporters from MIT and the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities said fusion could become a major clean-energy and economic opportunity, but acknowledged the technology is not yet commercially viable and still has unresolved technical, cost, and waste-management questions. Members pressed on environmental impacts, siting, waste, costs, and whether the bill would create a compact or only a framework; sponsors said it would only create the framework and that the administration would need to negotiate with other states. Another major topic was a pilot program for nature-based climate solutions (H.971/S.??), backed by legislators, Boston Harbor Now, and UMass Boston’s Stone Living Lab. Witnesses said the bill would help speed permits for research and demonstration projects such as living shorelines, marsh restoration, and hybrid “green-to-gray” flood protections, while maintaining safeguards and protecting Indigenous and historic resources. Committee members asked how the proposal would interact with other permitting reforms and whether it could conflict with housing or wetland-related streamlining; supporters said it was complementary and aimed at making projects faster, more affordable, and more data-driven. The hearing also covered climate-safe buildings and climate adaptation funding bills. Supporters of H.1004/S.583 said current building codes do not adequately account for future flooding, heat, and wind, and the bill would add climate expertise to the building board, allow stretch resilience codes, expand floodplain standards, and create a retrofit program. Related testimony backed H.938/S.572, which would create a dedicated climate and community resilience fund financed by a small fee on property insurance premiums; advocates said it would provide stable long-term revenue for adaptation, especially in environmental justice communities, and help replace unreliable federal funding. One witness from CLF supported the climate-safe buildings and funding bills but opposed S.560/H.939 as too broad. The committee also heard testimony on airport air-quality legislation (H.997) calling for more monitoring and mitigation of ultra-fine particulate pollution around Logan Airport and Massport communities. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, we need the money for these projects for them to be successfully implemented.
• When we started our IT project, as you know, we're on mainframe Fortran.
• We are finishing the wells and the projects that we have.
• The program awards funds for coastal improvement and recovery projects.
• The fund is intended to finance projects. That create new water supply.

Bills: SB1, SB 1

Keywords: appropriations, budget, state funding, education, healthcare, infrastructure, campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Members of the financier of this proposed project has already gone up on social media.
• I know the current project sites 11 wells in Houston County.
• And didn't realize that this project, the aquifer, just the magnitude of how big it is.
• I know, um, the current project sites 11 wells in 130 Houston County.
• And how long does that projection go forward? How many years are you looking forward?

Bills: HB24, HB27

Keywords: groundwater, conservation, water permits, sustainability, resource management

Summary: The committee met to hear House Bills 27 and 24 on groundwater issues in East Texas, with members and witnesses focusing on a proposed large-volume groundwater export project and the need for more science before major permitting decisions are made. HB 27, which was within the special session call, would direct the Texas Water Development Board to conduct a hydrogeologic study of the aquifers in the affected area and temporarily pause new export permits while the study is underway. HB 24, a separate bill that would limit certain production and export permits to 5% of modeled available groundwater, was laid out but the chair said it would not be moved out of committee. Testimony on HB 27 was largely supportive, though some witnesses were neutral. Supporters, including representatives from a water supply corporation, the Trinity River Authority, Environmental Defense Fund, and the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, said the region lacks enough hydrologic data, that the proposed pumping could affect private wells, surface water, and local economies, and that the state needs better information on sustainable yield and groundwater-surface water interaction. Several witnesses emphasized that groundwater conservation districts need clearer tools and better data, while also noting concerns about property rights and the rule of capture. Committee members discussed the scale of the proposed project, the absence of a groundwater conservation district in Houston County, and the possibility that the study should examine desired future conditions and maximum sustainable pumping rather than only modeled available groundwater. The committee adopted the committee substitute for HB 27 and voted it out favorably to the full House with a recommendation that it do pass, be printed, and be sent to the Committee on Calendars. The roll call was unanimous, 11 ayes and 0 nays. After the vote, members briefly reflected on the complexity of the issue and the need to continue working on broader groundwater policy in the interim and next session. HB 24 was discussed later in the meeting, but no final action on that bill was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:35:51.000> in domain the third is large project in domain the third is large project in
• The projects are tracked for five years following the closeout and completion of the projects to monitor
• These projects are self-contained.
• for those projects um the overall for those projects um the overall portfolio<00:47:07.800> of
• <00:47:15.240> are course um but these projects are course um but these projects are specifically

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There have been some challenges in the development of this project.
• and is available to any project meeting the qualifications.
• In 2014, we had two major projects that needed to get done.
• Is that your understanding of this project? That is my understanding.
• It is a massive project for us. We just want this project to go forward.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• system replacement phase one project that I mentioned before.
• So any projects that.
• That's additional funding that is now needed for that project. on how your projects are performing from
• the design of those projects.
• DeBell. said about the projection.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• One, those projects really weren't thoroughly vetted by anyone.
• The projects weren't really thoroughly vetted.
• So the projects weren't really thoroughly vetted.
• So we asked for some projects to be funding. There's no real funding, right?
• So we know they're good projects and we know they need to happen.

Keywords: 965, house, all

Summary: The Louisiana Ports and Waterways Investment Commission met on May 14, 2026, with a quorum present to reopen the commission’s work after a long gap. Members approved the July minutes and heard an update that a bill was moving in the Legislature to transfer the commission’s administrative home to the Office of Multimodal Commerce, with the strategic plan expected to be restarted and a consultant likely considered at a future meeting. The chair and vice chair emphasized that the commission now has stronger staffing and a clearer home for its work. The commission then repealed its July resolution that had requested a new ports and waterways infrastructure fund and identified priority projects. Members said the earlier resolution was well-intentioned but premature because the projects had not been fully vetted, LED had not been sufficiently involved, and there was no clear funding structure. They said the projects would still be considered in the broader strategic planning process, but in a more thorough and coordinated form. A major portion of the meeting focused on the collaborative marketing strategy for the five Lower Mississippi River ports, presented by Joe Toomey and Ken Erickson of Polaris, with LED’s Paige Carter confirming LED will serve as the administrative home for the plan. The presenters described a data-driven regional effort built around unity, not uniformity, to promote the ports’ combined strengths, increase trade, attract foreign direct investment, support economic growth, and strengthen funding requests. Members praised the effort as a pilot for statewide coordination, noted that the plan will live at LED, and said it should help the state present a more unified message to investors and policymakers. The commission also received an update from the navigation and safety task force. Members observed a moment of silence for the late Captain Toby Waddingney, and Steve Wall, the new NOBER president, said he would continue the work using Waddingney’s notes. Commissioners reported that several recommendations from the task force are already being implemented, including bridge air-gap sensors, GIS tools, and dredging project coordination. The meeting ended with no public comment, plans for another meeting in the next quarter, and adjournment by motion.

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 7 expands funding eligibility for water reuse, permitted reservoir projects, conveyance projects,
• We project $112 billion in long-term water infrastructure funding.
• Before my members get to build these projects, a lot has to happen.
• Procure projects and the way our contracts are put together and negotiated matters.
• you don't do all those things right, projects will cost more.

Bills: SB7

Keywords: water infrastructure, financial assistance, Texas Water Development Board, water supply, environmental sustainability, 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• . projects. projects.
• project managers signed up on it. project managers signed up on it.
• >> How many projects? I can get you that >> How many projects?
• . project. project.
• project has a >> 11 projects and each project has a different<02:49:52.640> number, different

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Institutions such as mine have had the ability to get projects into the pipeline.
• Currently, many Forest Service projects are carried out using expedited permitting process.
• I'd like, if I could, I received a letter from the Loma Katsky Project, which I request you.
• This project is a forestry and workforce development organization in Oregon and California.
• But it seems like you were saying that the delay in project implementation is not the NEPA.

Bills: HB471

Keywords: forest management, wildfire prevention, public lands, Tribal jurisdiction, Fix Our Forests Act, wildfire, forest health, hazardous fuels reduction, fuels treatment, prescribed burning, mechanical thinning, mastication, fuel breaks, fire breaks, wildland-urban interface, WUI, fireshed, fireshed management area, fireshed registry, Fireshed Center

Summary: The meeting primarily focused on H.R. 471, the Fix Our Forests Act, which aims to address the ongoing crisis of wildfires exacerbated by climate change and the need for updated forest management practices. Various committee members voiced concerns about past federal management failures and emphasized the necessity for collaborative approaches involving local communities and stakeholders in forest management. As discussions unfolded, there were varying perspectives on the implications of certain provisions in the bill, particularly around regulatory changes and their likely impacts on public participation and environmental reviews.

Transcript Highlights:

• And those projects are going on at multiple locations.
• And so another project that we have been doing is this the legendary harvest project.
• And my question is, is..." ...harvest project.
• a project, we apply investment, we wrap project management around it, we wrap the entrepreneurial resources
• What's the current age of the project?

Summary: The meeting began with approval of the prior minutes and opening remarks from NDSU President David Stewart, who emphasized NDSU’s land-grant mission of statewide service through teaching, research, and extension. He highlighted the university’s role in agriculture, water, soil health, and community outreach, and pointed to examples of research commercialization such as Lilac Agriculture’s work on nitrogen-fixing microbes for crops. He also said he is still early in his tenure and intends to spend time listening and learning across the state. The committee then received a detailed presentation on a state irrigation and drainage study from Tom Bodine on behalf of Agriculture Commissioner Doug Goehring. The study estimated that North Dakota could develop about 1.3 million additional irrigated acres, with major potential in counties such as McLean, Williams, Sargent, Burleigh, Mountrail, McKenzie, McIntosh, Dunn, and Bottineau. Testimony stressed the economic benefits of irrigation for crop yields, value-added processing, dairy, and potato production, while members also discussed water availability, aquifers, downstream water use, and the need for more flexible permitting. The drainage portion of the study found significant economic benefits from legal drains, and staff explained that the impacts were calculated through increased productivity and related input purchases. Greg Lardy then gave NDSU’s required agriculture update, saying agriculture accounts for more than $41 billion in annual economic activity, one in five jobs, and about 25 percent of state GDP. He reviewed the role of SBAR, the statewide research-extension network, new crop varieties, virtual fencing, AI and weather-network tools, and Extension’s county partnerships and youth programs. He also outlined NDSU’s priorities for the next session: restoring proposed budget cuts, increasing operating support, and addressing deferred maintenance. Members asked about storage shed construction, NDSU’s relationship with Grand Farm, and whether NDSU could help with water-related research tied to drainage and aquifers. The committee also heard from the North Dakota Water Resources Research Institute and a professor on water and data centers, who described graduate fellowships, a water workforce certificate program, and research on data center cooling, water use, and “Legendary Harvest” concepts that would reuse waste heat for greenhouse or aquaculture production. Questions focused on whether the cooling systems were closed-loop, who would own any related production facilities, and whether the project was still only a feasibility study. Finally, North Dakota AgTech described its NSF-funded “engine” project, saying it has brought millions in federal investment to the state, supported startups and on-farm trials, and is focused on commercialization, workforce development, and helping producers lower input costs and improve profitability.

Transcript Highlights:

• This includes mitigation projects.
• As well as projected water and cost savings from implementing these projects.
• There are so many capital improvement projects.
• There's no other pumping occurring in this picture, just the project.
• Projects are located near the county, near the borders of these GCDs.

Bills: HB29, HB685, HB1633, HB1689, HB1690, HB1918, HB2010, HB2500, HB2608, HB2626, HB29

Keywords: water audit, water loss, water loss mitigation plan, municipally owned utility, municipal utility, water conservation, Texas Water Development Board, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, water leakage, leak detection, billing data accuracy, utility validation, water audit validation, water scarcity, water management, infrastructure, public utility, conservation plan, administrative penalty

Transcript Highlights:

• SO THAT WAS A VERY SIGNIFICANT PIECE OF THE PROJECTED EXPENDITURES.
• THE LARGEST ONE OF THOSE WAS A PROJECTED CURRENT YEAR'S DEFICIT IN MEDICAID SERVICES.
• SO THE BLUE BARS ARE WHAT WE ARE PROJECTED LAST YEAR FOR THE 2024 OUTLOOK.
• ON NET IT'S A DECLINE ON THE PROJECTED EXPENDITURES OF 2.6%.
• NO PROJECT CHANGES OR BUDGET CHANGES. >> Chair McClure: QUESTIONS?

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• something on on what what projects something on on what what projects they've<00:04:42.919> approved
• For utility-scale projects, this does not cover utility-scale projects like what AES or Clearway or some
• So the benchmarking project that Mark was describing is a project that we've received federal funding
• The benchmarking project is, depending on when the contract actually gets executed, a two-year project
• at the project uh the benchmarking<00:29:37.799> project<00:29:38.200> is<00:29:38.600

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint hearing began with SB 133 on energy, which drew opposition testimony from James Abraham, who said the bill was unnecessary because the Public Utilities Commission had already opened a proceeding to investigate wheeling, including intergovernmental wheeling, and should be allowed to finish its collaborative process. The committees then moved to SB 161 on county permitting and inspection, where several agencies submitted written comments or opposition, while the Grassroots Institute and HCDA-related testimony supported the measure. Members raised concerns about accountability and whether state agencies would report back on projects approved under any permitting exemption, and witnesses suggested annual reporting or amendment language to address that issue. The hearing then turned to SB 232 and SB 588, both related to renewable energy permitting. Testimony on SB 232 was largely supportive, but Rocky Mold of the Hawaii Solar Energy Association said SB 232 was an older version of a bill and that SB 588 was the preferred, updated measure. Members discussed whether the bill should be limited to residential or behind-the-meter customer-sited systems rather than utility-scale projects, and Mold clarified that the proposal was intended for customer-sited systems, not utility-scale facilities. For SB 588, the Department of Land and Natural Resources warned that state or county laws inconsistent with the National Flood Insurance Program could jeopardize flood insurance eligibility and related federal assistance, while Mold argued the bill’s FEMA floodway exemption was needed to avoid blocking solar installations on existing structures. The chair expressed concern about risking federal funding and questioned whether the exemption could be narrowed without defeating the bill’s purpose. SB 412, also on renewable energy, received supportive testimony from the State Energy Office and others. Members questioned whether a single coordinating entity should compile agency assessments, and Mark Glick said the Energy Office could take on that role if given the duty and sufficient staff. The committee then discussed SB 635 on energy efficiency, which would require state agencies to use energy-efficient lighting. Mark Glick testified that much of the work was already underway through benchmarking and related contracts, and a DAGS representative said the state was already assessing 590 buildings over 10,000 square feet, with results expected around 2027. Members suggested amending the bill to require annual status reports so the committees could track progress and avoid duplication. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• He also asked what the estimated cost of such a project would be.
• So it's, you know, Sly Park water from the Bureau project.
• How are we going to sort of revamp the project?
• We flood those areas—about 1,000 acres of vines—for our project.
• They funded a lot of the beginning of the project.

Summary: The hearing focused on oversight of AB 658 and the State Water Resources Control Board’s five-year temporary permits for groundwater recharge. Assembly Member Arambula and committee members discussed how the permits are intended to help capture high flows during wet periods, support SGMA implementation, and store water underground for later use. The State Water Board chair said the five-year permits have become an important tool, with seven five-year permits issued this season and over 43,000 acre-feet authorized, but noted that actual recharge depends on hydrology and that the board is open to improvements. Members and witnesses discussed several possible changes to make the program more effective: allowing a two-year delay before the five-year permit clock starts, codifying CEQA exemptions that have been used through executive order, and shifting from a public objection model to a public comment model to reduce delays. There was also discussion of water availability analyses, with some members asking whether the state could develop a broader statewide assessment to reduce consultant costs and make permitting more predictable. The board said such an effort would be large and costly, but could potentially save applicants money and improve consistency. District representatives described their experiences. Stockton East said the five-year permit was more cost-effective than repeated 180-day permits, but that the 90-20 methodology, consultant costs, and a burrowing owl survey condition made use difficult. Omaha-Hartnell Water District said its recharge work depends on simple, low-cost infrastructure and that five-year permits, CEQA reform, and lower upfront fees would help small districts. A consultant working with Scott Valley and Sierra Valley said five-year permits can work well in different basins, but local infrastructure, stakeholder coordination, streambed alteration agreements, and upstream flow constraints can limit recharge. Members also raised concerns about basin connectivity, downstream water rights, and the need to pair recharge with sustainable groundwater pumping and broader water storage planning.

Transcript Highlights:

• These are projects to um takes projects.
• These are the project amendments for previous projects.
• There are 10 project time extensions for previous projects, and then there's one project with a new appropriation
• And then there's one project with a new appropriation. That project is a preconstruction project.
• In this project, the Hobach Junction project has moved forward to that point.

Bills: HB0122, SF0004, SF0012, SF0013, SF0067, SF0070, SF0124

Keywords: healthcare, rural health, transformation program, funding, incentives, training, access, perpetuity fund, Medicaid, emergency medical services, ground ambulance, healthcare funding, reimbursement rates, military, national guard, reenlistment, extension bonus, Wyoming, Wyoming National Guard, recruitment

Transcript Highlights:

• We're out of the project. Then how are they going to finish the project?
• Everyone has huge stakes in this project.
• of the project has been a success.
• It's not particular to this project. It's happening across all construction projects in New Mexico.
• the project at a very preliminary stage.

Transcript Highlights:

• So if— calendar year, almost $14 billion, and that's projects you know about and projects probably that
• Projects for FY26—you all passed a board for us.
• of that CRM project and also with the implementation of these other items.
• One thing we decided a couple of years ago, we had some large projects.
• So once we get the cabin project completed, we'll receive that $3.1 million back.

Summary: The committee first heard a presentation from the Oklahoma Department of Commerce on its FY26 priorities, recent performance, and budget requests. Commerce said it had helped announce about 8,000 direct jobs and nearly $14 billion in investment year-to-date, while noting challenges such as tariffs, workforce recruitment, staffing/FTE management, and the condition of its 100-year-old office building. The agency highlighted projects and initiatives including a new Taiwan trade office, Route 66 Centennial planning, the National Main Street conference in Tulsa, Olympic-related coordination, census outreach, and continued improvements to its grants and CRM systems. Requested funding included $8.3 million for building repairs or relocation planning, census support, $300,000 for EDGE, $135,000 for IT/cybersecurity upgrades, $250,000 for the Taiwan office, and additional support for Head Start, senior nutrition, and the Strategic Air and Space Commission. Members asked about the meaning of the investment totals, the building condition, delays in senior nutrition distributions, and staffing vacancies; Commerce said the investment figures reflected formal company capital announcements, the building had significant facade and roof damage, delays were due to multiple contracting layers, and several open positions were expected to be filled soon. The Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department then presented its FY26 budget and goals. New director Amy Blackburn and special advisor Sterling Zearley said the department oversees 38 state parks, six lodges, seven golf courses, and nine travel information centers, and emphasized tourism’s economic importance. They reported savings from bringing marketing and tracking functions in-house and from shared services, but said the department faces more than $271 million in deferred maintenance needs, staffing shortages, and connectivity problems at parks. Their goals include increasing park visitation to 10.2 million, raising occupancy to 36%, and growing travel to Oklahoma, with major marketing tied to the Route 66 Centennial, America 250, the FIFA World Cup, the Olympics, and other events. The department also discussed a request to raise its purchasing exemption cap from $25,000 to $75,000, a possible TravelOK.com redesign, and efforts to improve restaurant operations at lodges through a new RFP structure. Members questioned the apportionment cap, the size and timing of deferred maintenance requests, park revenue, and the use of parking pass funds; tourism said annual park-related revenue is about $32 million to $34 million and parking pass revenue is about $2.5 million. Finally, the OSU Veterinary Medicine Authority presented its budget request and program updates. The authority said it supports the veterinary teaching hospital and related student training, and that its FY26 budget is entirely state-appropriated. It requested continued support for hospital operations, the large animal scholarship program, and a new $12.5 million annual payment tied to the $250 million Legacy Capital Fund authorization for the veterinary teaching hospital, along with additional funding to expand in-state enrollment. Officials said in-state enrollment had increased from 58 to 69 students after prior funding, with a goal of reaching 90 of 106 total seats, and that there were 195 in-state applicants this year. Members asked whether standards would be lowered; the authority said academic standards would not change and noted strong board-pass rates and retention outcomes. It also said accreditation concerns tied to faculty shortages and off-site teaching had been addressed by bringing students back to the main campus and improving staffing. The committee ended by thanking the presenters and announcing its next meeting date.