Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:22:04.279><c> zone</c> up the water table in the coastal zone up the water table in the coastal
• Hawaiʻi shorelines and the coastal development along it are exposed to myriad coastal hazards, which
• Integrating the valuation, an economic valuation, of our ecosystems and natural coastal resources into
• Because it's our coastal ones at high priority, yeah.
• </c><01:32:58.840><c> communities</c> erosion on our Coastal communities erosion on our Coastal communities

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Bills: SB3225, HCR53, HCR57, HCR101, HB1878, HB1481, SCR40, SCR59, SCR114, SCR197, SCR198, SR30, SR107, SR185, SR186

Keywords: statutory revision, Hawaii Revised Statutes, clarification, obsolete provisions, legal accuracy, University of Hawaii, Board of Regents, associate degree, degree audit, reverse transfer, credit audit, student completion, credential attainment, community college transfer, four-year campus, higher education, postsecondary attainment, workforce development, student retention, graduation pathways

Transcript Highlights:

• Moving to item F, recommendations include an 8.4 million increase in general revenue funds for Coastal
• On item G, recommendations include a $5.7 million increase in GRD coastal protection accounts. 27, for
• restoration projects as part of the overall coastal Texas projects.
• risk reduction and ecosystem restoration needs.
• State match for Federal Coastal Texas Ecosystem Restoration Funding, $100.3 million.

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:

• The Karuk Tribe has long been a leader in advocating cultural fire and ecosystem restoration throughout
• With tribal stewardship, the results are wildfire resilience and healthy ecosystems.
• Growing older, bigger trees and restoring ecosystems at a landscape scale is the most meaningful path
• AB 2051 directs the Natural Resources Agency to convene a coastal resilience permitting working group
• AB 2051 directs the Natural Resources Agency to convene a coastal resilience permitting working group

Summary: The committee heard a series of natural resources bills, with several measures accepted on committee amendments and moved forward on party-line or near-unanimous votes. AB 2461 on oil and gas bonding and well-closure financial assurance drew strong support from environmental groups and some legislators, while an industry representative was neutral and warned about unintended consequences and reduced transfers. Senators Laird and Cabaldon supported the bill as a clarification of AB 1167, and the committee voted do pass as amended to Appropriations, with the bill placed on call. The committee also approved a consent calendar of 10 bills, which was moved and held on call. AB 53 by Assemblymember Ramos, as amended, would expand tribal eligibility for conservation grants and loans and express legislative intent to create a process for returning ancestral lands to federally recognized tribes. Tribal and environmental supporters argued the bill recognizes tribal stewardship and helps remove barriers to conservation participation, while county, farm bureau, and habitat league witnesses raised concerns about long-term land management, public accountability, easements, and jurisdiction if lands are transferred. Committee members emphasized the importance of preserving conservation protections and continuing work on the land-return framework; the bill was moved do pass as amended to Appropriations and held on call. AB 2679 on Lake Tahoe corridor safety and access was supported by local officials and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, who described dangerous parking, pedestrian conflicts, and a successful shuttle pilot, and the bill was moved do pass as amended to Appropriations. AB 1666, creating biomass innovation parks and other incentives for non-combustion uses of forest and agricultural biomass, received broad support from business, conservation, and local government witnesses, with senators framing it as a way to address wildfire debris and create rural jobs; it also advanced do pass as amended to Appropriations. AB 2494, which would modernize the demonstration state forest system and elevate biodiversity, recreation, carbon storage, and tribal stewardship over maximum sustained production, drew strong support from environmental and tribal advocates but significant opposition from forest industry, county, and research witnesses who warned it could undermine research, sustainable forestry, and local economies; the author said he would continue negotiations, and the bill was moved do pass to Appropriations. The committee also heard AB 2234, which updates the definition of geothermal exploratory projects, and AB 2521, which seeks to use the California Council on Science and Technology for watershed-wide water availability analyses to help identify excess water for groundwater recharge. Both bills had support from sponsors and some stakeholders, while AB 2521 drew concerns from agricultural water interests about agency reliance, public trust considerations, and funding. Both measures were moved do pass as amended to Appropriations. Finally, AB 2410 would extend a CEQA exemption for certain fuels-reduction projects in high fire-risk areas; local government groups supported it as a wildfire-prevention tool, while environmental and other opponents argued the remaining exemption still weakens habitat protections and public review, and one witness sought to remove conventional herbicides from the exemption.

Transcript Highlights:

• and ocean ecosystems, wildlife, fisheries, and valuable coastal economy.
• And, as we said with an earlier bill, this is a trillion-dollar coastal economy.
• Our coastal counties themselves...
• We said with an earlier bill, this is a trillion-dollar coastal economy.
• Our coastal counties themselves would be the 12th largest economy in the world.

Summary: The committee first heard SB 14, which would direct state agencies to reduce single-use plastics and improve waste diversion at state facilities by updating integrated waste management plans, increasing reusable foodware use, reducing paper purchasing, and requiring better employee education and recycling/composting practices. Supporters from the California Compost Coalition, Republic Services, Waste Management, and others said the bill would help build composting and recycling markets and let the state lead by example. Several groups that had opposed earlier versions said they were now neutral after amendments, including the removal of a 90% requirement. The bill was moved out on a due pass as amended recommendation. The committee then took up SB 326 on wildfire mitigation. The bill would create a framework for Cal Fire to evaluate the risk-reduction benefits of fuels management and landscape resilience investments, and it would accelerate implementation of Zone Zero defensible-space standards, including grants for local enforcement and broader application to rental and sale properties and post-fire reconstruction. Support came from Stanford climate researcher Michael Mastrandrea and several local government, insurance, and climate groups. With no opposition, the bill passed as amended to Appropriations. Next, SB 34 on port emissions and the South Coast Air Quality Management District drew extensive testimony. The author said the bill was narrowed by committee amendments to preserve the ports’ ability to reduce emissions while preventing cargo throughput caps and addressing concerns about automation, local control, and the timeline for port clean-air planning. Supporters included ILWU, business groups, and port-related stakeholders, while the South Coast AQMD and many environmental and community organizations opposed it, arguing it would weaken public-health protections and set a bad precedent. After lengthy debate, the committee approved the bill on a due pass as amended vote to Transportation, with some members voting no and others abstaining. The committee also heard SB 279, which would expand composting options for farmers and small community composters by allowing limited on-farm composting after large biomass events and increasing the amount small operations may process and sell. Supporters said the bill would help address agricultural waste, expand composting capacity, and reduce landfill disposal. Commercial composting representatives opposed it, warning that the bill could create regulatory inequities, strand recent investments in permitted facilities, and allow too much unregulated food waste. Despite those concerns, the bill passed to Appropriations on a due pass vote. The transcript also briefly referenced SB 613 on upstream methane emissions data, described as having no opposition and intended to improve tracking of imported oil and gas emissions.

Transcript Highlights:

• FWC should be led by those who value data-driven science-based policies to safeguard our state's ecosystems
• So I must ask, when our waters rise, our marine life dies, and our coastal defenses are destroyed, who
• So I must ask, when our waters rise, our marine life dies, and our coastal defenses are destroyed, who
• So I must ask, when our waters rise, our marine life dies, and our coastal defenses are destroyed, who
• role in maintaining the balance that is in each of those environments, each of those very diverse ecosystems

Summary: The Committee on Environment and Natural Resources met to consider confirmation appointments, beginning with Rodney Barreto’s reappointment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). Barreto described his background and defended his record, saying the commission has expanded public access, conserved land, supported youth conservation programs, and maintained strong law enforcement and wildlife management. Senators questioned him about public opposition to his confirmation, his role in supporting Amendment 2, a proposed use of submerged land near Singer Island, the Split Oak land swap, and whether FWC may reopen a bear hunt. Barreto said he saw no conflict in his Amendment 2 involvement, denied that any condo application existed for the Singer Island property, defended the Split Oak deal as a conservation and land-acquisition tradeoff, and said bear-hunt options would be presented later by staff and biologists. Several members of the public spoke against Barreto’s reconfirmation, arguing that FWC needs reform, term limits, and more scientific leadership, and criticizing his real estate and lobbying ties as conflicts of interest. Speakers also objected to his positions on development, habitat protection, trap use, herbicide spraying, and the handling of bear management and public notice at FWC meetings. Senator Avila spoke in strong support of Barreto, citing FWC’s role in Biscayne Bay restoration, juvenile redfish releases, invasive species control, and community involvement. The committee then voted to recommend Barreto’s confirmation favorably, with Senator Smith voting no. The committee next considered tabs 2 and 3, the reappointments of Kathy Chapman and Michael Kennedy to the Florida Inland Navigation District. With no separate vote requested and no public opposition, the committee recommended both confirmations favorably by voice roll call. The meeting concluded with thanks to staff and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have been in partnership with both the Coastal Commission and the State Coastal Conservancy ever since
• The California Coastal Act just turned 50.
• economies and ecosystems at risk.
• economies and ecosystems at risk.
• Commission approval of our local coastal program.

Summary: The committee heard a long series of bills, beginning with AB 2026 on groundwater recharge. The author and supporters said the bill would streamline permitting for recharge projects, codify long-standing CEQA exemptions for flood diversions to recharge, and add tribal consultation and other guardrails. Water agencies and local districts supported the measure as a way to capture high-flow water and reduce groundwater subsidence, while environmental groups and some irrigation districts opposed it, warning that the bill’s exemptions and broader diversion authority could harm rivers, Delta resources, and public trust values. The bill was discussed but not voted on because the committee lacked a quorum at that point. The committee then took up AB 1577 on data center energy accountability, which would require monthly reporting of energy-use data and permit-related estimates of energy and water demand. The author and the Little Hoover Commission argued the bill would improve transparency, help protect ratepayers, and give regulators better information for grid planning. Data center industry representatives opposed it as duplicative, burdensome, and uniquely targeted, while local governments, environmental groups, and some utilities supported it or supported it if amended. The bill was later reported out with a due pass recommendation once a quorum was established. Members also heard AB 2245 on a producer responsibility program for lubricant products and containers, AB 2170 on CEQA language-access and environmental review protections for overburdened communities, AB 2059 on rural transportation and VMT mitigation, AB 1808 on Western Joshua tree permitting and fee relief, AB 2182 on industrial energy efficiency program changes, and AB 2231 on streamlining two hospital projects. Testimony was mixed on most of these bills: supporters emphasized affordability, local control, environmental justice, or project urgency, while opponents raised concerns about CEQA scope, regulatory duplication, costs, and environmental impacts. Several measures received due pass recommendations and roll-call votes, including AB 2170, AB 2059, AB 1808, AB 2182, and AB 2231, with some members voting no or not voting and some bills left open for absent members.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our mission is to protect surf ecosystems across the globe.
• And at the heart of this mission, ...to protect surf ecosystems across the globe.
• From an international perspective, California is one of the leaders in coastal management.
• As amended, the amendments I'm taking today will clarify coastal.
• , protect, restore, or enable coastal ecosystems, infrastructure, or communities to withstand and adapt

Summary: The committee heard several bills, beginning with AB 1938, which would create a voluntary process for local governments to designate California surf reserves through the Ocean Protection Council. The author and supporters, including Save the Waves Coalition, the League of California Cities, and the California State Association of Counties, argued the bill would recognize surf breaks as important natural and economic assets. The bill received a due pass recommendation to Appropriations and passed on a roll call vote, with the measure left on call. The committee also approved the consent calendar, which included AB 1699, AB 1780, AB 1891, AB 1893, and AB 2566. The committee then took up AB 2051, which would convene a coastal resilience permitting working group to develop a roadmap for streamlining permits for coastal resilience projects. The author and supporters from the Bay Area Council, Port of San Francisco, and others said the bill would reduce duplicative permitting delays while preserving environmental protections. One member raised concerns about giving too much authority to the Coastal Commission, but the bill still received a due pass recommendation to Water, Parks and Wildlife and passed on a roll call vote. AB 2494, dealing with the management of demonstration state forests, drew substantial debate. The author said the bill would update outdated 1947-era management goals to emphasize biodiversity, carbon sequestration, wildfire resilience, recreation, research, and tribal co-governance, with strong support from Mendocino County, tribal representatives, and environmental groups. Opponents from the Farm Bureau, California Forestry Association, and others argued it would shift the forests away from sustainable timber production, create funding instability, and invite litigation. After extensive questioning about forest science, old growth, funding, and tribal co-management, the bill received a due pass recommendation to Appropriations and passed on a roll call vote. The committee also approved AB 2483, which would create a permanent certification pathway for formerly incarcerated firefighters who served on Cal Fire hand crews. Supporters said the bill would recognize their training and improve job prospects after release, and it passed unanimously to Public Safety. Finally, AB 1777, the California Clean Skies Act, was heard; it would affirm CARB’s authority to adopt indirect source rules to address pollution from vehicle-heavy facilities such as warehouses and ports. Environmental, health, and labor supporters backed the bill as a tool to protect public health, while trucking, business, port, and industry groups opposed it as costly and overly broad. The bill remained under discussion at the end of the transcript, with members debating whether it clarified existing authority or created new regulatory power.

Transcript Highlights:

• erosion as a coastal community.
• As a coastal community, we are taking this challenge seriously.
• As a coastal state, we have many climate flooding vulnerabilities.
• Salt marshes are extremely valuable ecosystems, as you know.
• Our focus is on restoration of coastal and inland wetlands.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing focused on the Healey-Driscoll administration’s Mass Ready Act, a $3 billion environmental bond bill. Administration officials said the bill would fund climate resilience, clean water, land conservation, parks, PFAS remediation, food security infrastructure, and coastal and inland flood protection, while also streamlining permitting for housing, restoration, and other resilience projects. They emphasized that the bond authorizes spending but does not itself obligate it, and said the proposal includes deauthorizations as housekeeping. Committee members asked about the new Resilience Revolving Fund, flood and drought management, MVP funding, land acquisition, Chapter 61 right-of-first-refusal changes, salt marsh carbon sequestration, and how the bill would help smaller municipalities and offset expected federal funding losses. Officials said the revolving fund would be managed through EEA and the Clean Water Trust, with criteria aimed at directing aid to communities most in need, and noted that drought issues would continue to be handled through existing DEP and drought commission tools. Several committee members and witnesses discussed specific policy provisions, including flood disclosure requirements for homebuyers and renters, expanded authority for regional planning and small-town access to grants, and permitting reforms that would exempt or expedite certain environmental restoration and priority housing projects from more time-consuming review processes. Administration witnesses defended the reforms as a way to achieve the same environmental outcomes faster and with more certainty, while some advocates argued the bill should go further, especially on Chapter 91 and restoration permitting. The administration also described investments in DCR facilities, water and wastewater systems, open space, agricultural easements, and a new focus on blue carbon and salt marsh restoration. Public testimony largely supported the bill. Mass Audubon, the Trustees of Reservations, the Environmental League of Massachusetts, The Nature Conservancy, MAPC, the Massachusetts Municipal Association, municipal officials, and others praised the bill’s resilience, conservation, and water infrastructure investments. Some witnesses urged additional funding for land protection, coastal resilience, buyouts, and restoration, and several called for stronger or simpler permitting reforms. Municipal witnesses from Boston, Beckett, Beverly, Conway, and regional planning organizations stressed the need for flexible financing, especially for small and rural communities facing costly infrastructure and climate adaptation projects. No votes were taken during the portion of the hearing provided; the committee heard testimony and asked questions before moving on to additional panels.

Transcript Highlights:

• And on the coastal front, thanks to your investments, coastal communities have resources to plan and
• The Legislature and Governor have established protecting 30% of our lands and coastal waters—30 by 30
• Wolves, bears, mountain lions—these are really important species for our ecosystems and the health of
• And then they enhance those ecosystem benefits that we're hoping to get out of moving them there.
• The California Coastal Protection Network supports the BCP for the education person at the Coastal Commission

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Resources, Environmental Protection, and Energy convened for its first hearing and heard an overview from the Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Natural Resources Agency. The LAO emphasized California’s strong current revenues but warned of a structural budget problem, projected out-year deficits, and the need for a high bar on new spending. It generally supported the administration’s Proposition 4 spending plan as reasonable and consistent with bond requirements, while urging legislative oversight and caution about using special funds and adding ongoing commitments. Secretary Wade Crowfoot responded with an overview of climate, wildfire, water, coastal, and conservation challenges and highlighted progress under the Newsom administration, including clean energy growth, wildfire resilience investments, land conservation, tribal co-management, and outdoor access initiatives. He also discussed federal staffing cuts affecting California’s response capacity and said the state has had to fill gaps in flood forecasting, land management, and park access. Members then questioned the secretary about the Delta conveyance tunnel and broader water reliability issues. Crowfoot said the project remains important, is being pursued as a beneficiary-pays project, and is moving through the State Water Resources Control Board’s permitting process, while also stressing that it is only one part of a broader water strategy that includes levee strengthening, subsidence, groundwater storage, recycling, and conservation. Senators also raised concerns about permitting delays, invasive species, and the impact of position cuts on agency capacity; Crowfoot said streamlining is needed but that staffing remains essential. The committee then moved to the Department of Parks and Recreation, where Director Armando Quintero described the state park system, tribal agreements, wildfire and deferred maintenance work, and outdoor access programs such as the State Library Park Pass and Adventure Pass. The LAO recommended rejecting the proposed ongoing $6.75 million General Fund transfer for the library park pass, arguing it did not meet the high bar for new ongoing spending, but several senators strongly supported the program as a low-cost way to expand access. Members also pressed Parks on reservation system problems and campsite no-shows. Department staff said they are updating website guidance, working with the reservation vendor, and implementing new no-show and reservation-modification rules effective July 1, including penalties for repeated no-shows and immediate reopening of vacant sites. The committee then heard a low-cost accommodations proposal, which Parks said would fund planning and construction at several sites using Proposition 68, reimbursements, and donations; the LAO said it had no concerns. Finally, the new director of the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Megan Hurdle, introduced herself and outlined the department’s mission, staffing, service-based budgeting, and Proposition 4 requests, including funding for salmon genetic tagging, hatchery repairs, and public access improvements. She said the department is focused on biodiversity, permitting streamlining, law enforcement, and human-wildlife conflict prevention, and noted that the agency is still updating its service-based budgeting analysis to identify gaps and priorities.

Transcript Highlights:

• Looking at the Coastal Commission cut, it does appear—I don't know if the Coastal Commission's in the
• Madeline Cavalary with the Coastal Commission.
• So I'll just leave the Coastal Commission positions at that.
• I don't think I have any follow-up on the Coastal Commission.
• I don't think I have any follow-up Coastal Commission.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• As somebody who represents a coastal community and sees the impact of worsening storms on our beaches
• Our state became a global leader in biotech by building upon the same horizontal ecosystem.
• My research focuses on adapting urban coastal areas to climate change.
• In Boston alone, a major coastal storm in 2070 could cause almost $10 billion in damages.
• Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.

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:

• You know, looking at the Coastal Commission cut, it does appear—I don't know if the Coastal Commission's
• Madeline Cavalary with the Coastal Commission.
• And so I'll just leave the Coastal Commission positions at that.
• I don't think I have any follow-up Coastal Commission.
• I don't think I have any follow-up Coastal Commission.

Summary: The subcommittee met to discuss budget issues related to vacant positions across several natural resources and environmental departments, with no votes taken and all items held open for a future hearing. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Finance explained the administration’s proposal to eliminate about 6,000 vacant positions statewide, including roughly 293 positions in the departments before the committee, as a way to capture salary savings and reduce flexible funding tied up in vacancies. The LAO recommended retaining special-funded positions, while noting that eliminating General Fund positions would reduce savings. Finance argued that vacancy levels have remained steady statewide, that departments need flexibility to manage operations and hard-to-fill jobs, and that some vacant positions can be reclassified to higher-priority work. Members raised concerns that many of the proposed eliminations would affect core public-safety, permitting, and environmental-protection functions. The Department of Fish and Wildlife said the cuts would affect permitting, environmental protection, and law enforcement, while State Parks said its proposed ranger reductions were chosen from historically vacant, hard-to-fill positions and would still leave many vacancies to fill through the academy. The Coastal Commission said its positions supported sea-level rise planning under SB 272. The Department of Pesticide Regulation and DTSC said the reductions would affect multiple program areas, though Finance said the special funds involved were not in structural deficit and the cuts could help avoid future fee increases. The State Water Resources Control Board said its proposed reductions were spread across programs, with public-health functions protected as much as possible. The committee then heard an overview from the State Water Resources Control Board on its responsibilities for water quality, water rights, drinking water, and funding for water infrastructure. Chair Joaquin Esquivel described ongoing work on the Bay-Delta Plan update, the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes voluntary agreements, and the need to actively administer water rights. Members also discussed the board’s response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Sackett decision, which narrowed federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction. The board requested $2.6 million and 12 permanent positions to address resulting permitting and enforcement gaps; the LAO said the request met its high bar for new proposals and was supported by the board’s data and reporting.

Transcript Highlights:

• If this is the and vibrant ecosystems.
• Uh, not taking action today causes a threat to our coastal marine ecosystems, limits the chance for our
• <c> well</c> to our coastal marine ecosystem as well to our coastal marine ecosystem as well cause<01
• </c><01:01:00.720><c> marine</c><01:01:01.200><c> ecosystems,</c><01:01:02.079><c> limits</c> our coastal
• marine ecosystems, limits our coastal marine ecosystems, limits the<01:01:02.640><c> chance</c><01:01

Bills: HB2101

Keywords: aquatic life, commercial aquarium purposes, Hawaii, environmental protection, sustainability, Native Hawaiian values, marine resources, 910, house, all

Summary: The joint committees on Energy and Environmental Protection and Water and Land heard testimony on House Bill 21101, which would ban or otherwise end commercial aquarium collection. Chairs opened the hearing with a short time limit for testimony and noted they would move to decision-making before the next committee meeting. The Department of Land and Natural Resources said it appreciated the bill’s intent and stood on written testimony, while the Office of Hawaiian Affairs strongly supported the measure as part of its legislative package, citing community calls to ban the practice. Many other organizations and individuals also testified in support, including environmental, Native Hawaiian, and community groups, with arguments focused on reef protection, public trust, cultural concerns, and the view that the trade is extractive and not sustainable. Supporters repeatedly cited declines in yellow tang and other reef fish, especially on West Hawaii and Oahu, and argued that reef recovery has not occurred where collection pressure existed. Several testified that legal aquarium collection has not occurred in West Hawaii since 2017 or on Oahu since 2021, and that the state should not reopen an industry that has been effectively shut down for years. Others said the program is fiscally inefficient because permits generate little revenue compared with the cost of administering and enforcing the program, and that aquaculture or other alternatives could provide jobs without removing wild fish. Native Hawaiian speakers and civic club representatives emphasized traditional and customary practices, community stewardship, and the need to protect resources for future generations. Opposition testimony came from aquarium fishers and related advocates who argued the fishery has been shown sustainable, that the EIS process was completed, and that the bill would unfairly target one user group over another. They said the trade provides livelihoods for local families, that management is solid, and that the legislature should not ban a fishery after requiring compliance with environmental review. Some opponents also argued that fish populations have increased in recent years and that the issue reflects broader user conflict rather than science. No vote or final committee action was taken during the portion of the hearing provided; the chair continued taking testimony, including on Zoom, as time allowed.

Transcript Highlights:

• tell you... ...Beach is in the coastal zone.
• We have been in partnership with both the Coastal Commission and the State Coastal Conservancy ever since
• The California Coastal Act just turned 50.
• economies and ecosystems at risk.
• Commission approval of our local coastal program.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• coastal areas.
• Those are also rising as a result of the climate crisis, which affects our marine ecosystems and coastal
• Storm surges and coastal flooding, for example.
• In addition to coastal wetlands that we see, In addition to coastal wetlands that we see, like Batiquitos
• California has three coastal management agencies: the California Coastal Commission, the California Coastal

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:

• The bill also strengthens the statutory requirements for eligible coastal municipalities that receive
• This bill clarifies and strengthens the process by which certain coastal communities access state hotel
• Moreover, the provisions in SB 2779 that require eligible coastal municipalities to allocate at least
• This is especially vital for coastal communities that rely heavily on tourism and must have the ability
• North Texas is an aviation powerhouse; aviation is a critical part of that ecosystem.

Bills: SB263, SB467, SB850, SB1030, SB1352, SB1453, SB2064, SB2206, SB2779, SJR84

Keywords: SB 263, Texas franchise tax, cost of goods sold, COGS, broadcasters, television broadcasting, radio broadcasting, media tax, broadcast license, FCC, 47 C.F.R. Part 73, 47 C.F.R. Part 74, film production, television production, tax deduction, margin tax, Texas Tax Code, depreciation, amortization, broadcast rights

Transcript Highlights:

• land to bare ground, remote vegetation, even if that includes the removal of native chaparral and coastal
• health on chaparral, shrubland, grassland, and coastal sage scrublands.
• Any projects in chaparral, shrubland, grassland, and coastal sage scrublands, other than those in the
• health on chaparral, shrubland, grassland, and coastal sage scrublands.
• Any projects in chaparral, shrubland, grassland, and coastal sage scrublands, other than those in the

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Remember, coral reefs are an ecosystem, many different components.
• They have several importances, and one of which is they provide coastal protection here in Florida.
• Corals provide critical habitat for fish and other marine species and protection for valuable coastal
• Each year, Florida's coral reef provides over $1.6 billion in flood protection for coastal communities
• So I would have to defer to ecosystems and we can get you that information because they have a specific

Summary: The Committee on Environment and Natural Resources heard a series of presentations focused on coral reef restoration, artificial reefs, biosolids management, and a proposed biosolids processing facility. Mote Marine Laboratory described the severe decline of Florida’s coral reefs, its restoration methods using microfragmentation, genetic banking, selective breeding, nurseries, and outplanting, and asked for a long-term state commitment to help restore reef areas. The Keys Marine Laboratory and Florida Institute of Oceanography highlighted their role as a hub for coral rescue, holding, propagation, and research, including emergency response during the 2023 bleaching event. The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission discussed the scale of reef loss, the state’s coral rescue and propagation efforts, and the economic and habitat value of artificial reefs, while noting permitting delays and material-selection concerns for reef projects. The committee then received a DEP update on the Osborne Reef tire cleanup. DEP explained that the original tire reef was a failure, that nearly 500,000 tires had been removed by 2024, and that the current effort is funded at $5 million for the fiscal year, with cleanup now shifting from large tire clusters to more difficult individual tires and coral relocation. Members asked about the future of the site after cleanup; DEP said that phase two decisions, such as whether to restore or monitor the area, have not yet been made. DEP also presented on biosolids rules, explaining that the 2021 rule tightened nutrient management, groundwater, and surface water protections, reduced the number of active land-application sites, and contributed to a shift away from Class B land application toward Class AA, landfill, or out-of-state disposal. Senators raised concerns about PFAS, nutrient loading, and the loss of disposal options, and a public speaker warned of a statewide septage disposal crisis. Finally, Sedron Technologies presented its VARCOR system and a planned Indiantown facility that would process dewatered biosolids into clean water, ammonia, and a dry Class AA product or fuel, with the company saying the process can destroy PFAS and help relieve regional disposal pressure. Senators expressed support for the technology as a potential solution to Florida’s biosolids challenges. No formal votes were taken on the presentations themselves, and the only action at the end of the meeting was adjournment after Senator Polsky moved to do so.

Transcript Highlights:

• AS A RESULT OF THE CENTER OF EXCELLENCE IT'S NOW SPUN OFF THE SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL COASTAL AND OCEAN
• IT'S ALL ECOSYSTEM IS WHAT YOU CAN LOOK AT.
• OUR VISION IS TRULY TO CREATE AN INNOVATION ECOSYSTEM.
• WE'VE TRIED TO EMPLOY THIS ECOSYSTEM TO PROVIDE SUPPORT TO EACH OF THE STAKEHOLDERS IN THE SYSTEM.
• WE ARE FOCUSED ON AN ECOSYSTEM OF SUPPORTS SO OUR LITERACY PROGRAM IS WHERE WE HAVE HAD THE GREATEST

Keywords: 999, senate, all