Transcript Highlights:

• House Bill 1209 provides for the withdrawal of surface water.
• There are existing laws, you know, giving rights to riparian owners for surface water use, and so there
• Nowadays, they are no louder than surface drives.
• He's not able to drive one of those surface drives anymore.
• To the property owner. Simple bill. All right. Thank you.

Keywords: 965, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• A surface owner can negate the movement. Senator Deavers, I had another one join the queue.
• Then, an individual owner of surface property could again negate the deal.
• Then, an individual owner of surface property could again negate the deal.
• I understand that the surface 100% of the surface owners have to vote in the city has to vote for the
• And then within the MDD, 100% of the surface owners have to have certain voting privileges.

Bills: SB1778, SB1570, SB134, SB1966, SB1636, SB1725, SB1726, SB259, SB504, SB592, SB2030, SB1572, SB843, SB1242, SB1255, SB1262, SB1264, SB1286, SB1581, SB1290, SB1316, SB1319, SB1369, SB1379, SB1381, SB1400, SB1427, SB1436, SB1461, SB1496, SB1509, SB1534, SB1553, SB904, SB1592, SB1645, SB1684, SB1767, SB1772, SB1813, SB1894, SB1928, SB1946, SB1980, SB2040, SB2060, SB2061

Keywords: reading instruction, literacy, educational equity, intervention services, third grade retention, Strong Readers Act, child welfare, child safety, administrative transition, Department of Child Safety and Well-being, Oklahoma Commission on Children and Youth, juvenile justice, foster care, retirement, public employees, reemployment, benefit adjustment, Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System, memorial highways, bridge designations

Transcript Highlights:

• I am here to speak as a business owner and as a property owner in Laramie as well as a property owner
• water surface water you are surface water surface water utility,<03:31:46.319> then<03:31:46.720
• authority to regulate surface water. authority to regulate surface water.
• to manage surface water. to manage surface water.
• surface, you know, create a surface surface, you know, create a surface water<03:51:05.520> drainage

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So they can regulate to protect all the property owners.
• Permitted as a surface through the Trinity River.
• So that means there's surface water that's permitted.
• water at that point because it ran over the surface.
• How many surface acres, land surface acres do y'all have in those?

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• owner, and may be severed from the surface owner.
• Any idea how many owners we're talking about, surface owners?
• In order to form a unit, do you need the consent of a certain percentage of the surface owners?
• There's a notice requirement that includes surface lessees and service owners.
• Are we impacting the existing agreements by saying that resides with the surface owner?

Transcript Highlights:

• As a property owner in East Texas, who's constantly trying to keep folks from just destroying the surface
• We're surface water, not groundwater.
• Owners protested it, did their own modeling.
• . well owners.
• The state owns the surface water.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• owner.
• Is this the surface owner, the mineral estate, or who?
• Once the owner of the mineral rights is established, that's the owner of the heat in that particular
• Clarifying that it's actually the surface owner, which I think makes it more simple in some ways.
• And so that then would, in my mind, be owned by the surface owner.

Transcript Highlights:

• and a surface estate owner to recover minerals has worked well as a property owner in East Texas who's
• the doctrine addressing the relationship between a mineral estate owner and a surface estate owner to
• We're surface water, not groundwater.
• or well owners.
• The state owns the surface water.

Summary: The committee held a hearing on high-capacity groundwater wells proposed in Anderson, Henderson, and Houston counties, with members framing the issue as one of local water supply, fairness, and the need to modernize groundwater law while protecting private property rights. Opening remarks focused on the scale of the proposed Redtown Ranch and Pine Bliss projects, the potential export of tens of thousands of acre-feet of groundwater annually, and concerns that the applications lacked sufficient technical detail and could harm nearby landowners, cities, agriculture, and manufacturing. Members also noted the broader context of the recent flooding tragedy in central Texas and the Legislature’s intent to address water-related loss of life in the upcoming special session. Witnesses from the Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts and the Texas Water Development Board explained the current groundwater management framework. They described groundwater conservation districts as the state’s preferred management method, the role of groundwater management areas and desired future conditions, and how the Water Development Board uses those conditions to calculate modeled available groundwater. They emphasized that districts rely on local data, monitoring wells, and planning processes, but that information is often more limited in areas without a district, where the rule of capture applies. Members pressed witnesses on recharge rates, export permits, subsidence, the effect of pumping on nearby wells, the age and real-time availability of model data, and whether the proposed project would exceed modeled available groundwater in some counties. TCEQ explained its limited oversight role over groundwater conservation districts, including inquiries, compliance actions, and, in extreme cases, dissolution authority. Water Development Board staff also outlined funding programs, saying the New Water Supply for Texas Fund is limited to projects such as brackish desalination, reuse, ASR, and other new-supply projects, and does not fund fresh groundwater exports alone. They said the project at issue had not applied for board funding. A water lawyer then testified on the rule of capture, ownership in place, and district regulation, arguing that districts must use permitting and other tools to manage production within modeled available groundwater and that the Legislature could consider additional authority over groundwater exports under current law.

Transcript Highlights:

• But when you talk about surface water rights, in the examples you gave... I understand those.
• We still have the right to separate, if you will, water rights from the surface.
• Just have a heart palpation and concern I have is with surface water, not with groundwater.
• I'm the owner of property, real property, and I decide I'm just going to sell the water rights. its surface
• Water rights owners aren't assessed by utility districts for water and waste water. service.

Bills: HB1520, HB1525, HB1530, HB1535, HB2068, HB2091, HB2347, HB2372, HB2805, HB2815, HB2867, HB3154, HB3482, HB3483, HB3663, HB3781, HB3901, HB3915, HB4135, HB4153, HB4158, HB4329, HB4331

Keywords: Angelina and Neches River Authority, river authority, Sunset Advisory Commission, Texas Sunset Act, Special District Local Laws Code, local government, natural resources, board of directors, director training, board governance, public testimony, open meetings, public information, conflict of interest, ethics, complaint system, general manager, board president, staggered terms, removal of director

Transcript Highlights:

• The owner is listed as the Story Project Water Users Association.
• So, the owner, as an owner for Cobresto Ditch and the Llano Ditch, they should be able to come up with
• But my question lies with the private property owners.
• Surface water quality—and you see this in the box plots—surface water quality is better than groundwater
• One regulated process water and surface impoundments.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, we have all the surface. We also have minerals that the previous owner did own, if they did.
• “So those surface acres would be leased for surface purposes, so like hunting and grazing, for example
• “That's not 13 million surface acres.
• That surface and minerals, 2.1 million on the surface, 2.1 million minerals directly underneath that
• You know, it takes that group to be able to convert to surface water or to start on surface water, and

Summary: The committee heard testimony first from the Texas General Land Office and School Land Board. GLO officials described the agency’s role in managing more than 13 million acres of state lands and mineral interests for the Permanent School Fund, overseeing the Alamo, coastal programs, veterans’ services, and federal disaster recovery. They said the agency has generated about $6 billion for the Permanent School Fund since Commissioner Buckingham took office, and that its disaster recovery portfolio is about $14 billion across multiple events, with more than 22,000 housing units rebuilt or reconstructed since Hurricane Harvey. Members asked about land purchases such as Brewster Ranch, rare earth mineral leasing, SpaceX-related beach access, and whether the lands are public access lands; GLO staff said the holdings are managed to maximize revenue for education, that most land is leased rather than open to public access, and that they are coordinating on coastal access and compliance. On the School Land Board, members sought clarification on the difference between GLO-managed lands and the Permanent School Fund Corporation’s investment role, and staff explained that GLO generates the revenue while the separate corporation invests it. No votes or formal actions were taken. The Board for Lease of University Lands then testified. University Lands officials explained that they steward 2.1 million acres of surface and mineral interests in West Texas for the Permanent University Fund, which supports UT and Texas A&M institutions. They said a 2025 lease sale produced about $50 million in bonus revenue from 28,000 acres, and described the Board for Lease’s role in approving lease forms, lease sales, and development agreements. Members asked about the size and use of the PUF, how distributions work through UTIMCO, whether PUF money can be used for athletics, and how the land is managed; the witness said the fund is a constitutional endowment, the land is largely leased rather than sold, and distributions are generally used for buildings, labs, and other permanent structures, with some institutions also using a portion for operations. No votes or formal actions were taken. The committee then took up municipal utility districts. Testimony from a law firm, the Texas Municipal League, Fort Bend County Commissioner Vincent Morales, and Johnson Development largely supported MUDs as a financing tool for infrastructure tied to growth. Witnesses said MUDs help fund water, sewer, drainage, roads, parks, and related infrastructure, allowing development to proceed without shifting costs to existing taxpayers and helping keep housing affordable. They emphasized that MUDs are created with disclosure to homebuyers, are subject to the Open Meetings Act and Public Information Act, and are overseen by TCEQ for bond issuance and related financial stress tests. Members questioned whether MUDs are taxing entities, whether they can be created inside city limits or ETJs, how much control cities and counties retain, and whether MUDs are becoming permanent local governments; witnesses acknowledged they levy taxes and debt, can exist within city limits with city consent, and often function as long-term local entities. The committee did not take any formal action during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Arthur, I'm kind of reading through your bill here, and as a landowner and a mineral owner as well, I'm
• And I would agree that there are instances where people who own the surface do not have the mineral right
• And that mineral right owner does have a right... ...right and that mineral right owner does have a right
• don't they, I mean, doesn't the ownership revert back to the original landowner, original mineral owner
• don't they, I mean, doesn't the ownership revert back to the original landowner, original mineral owner

Bills: HB4338, HB3977, HB2100, HB2975, HB3056, HB3406, HB3720, HB4316, HB3405, HB1907, HB3142, HB3173, HB3270, HB3728, HB2440, HB2596, HB3466, HB3469, HB4338, HB3977, HB2100, HB2975, HB3056, HB3406, HB3720, HB4316, HB3405, HB1907, HB3142, HB3173, HB3270, HB3728, HB2440, HB2596, HB3466, HB3469

Keywords: HB4338, Oklahoma Brine Development Act, brine unitization, produced water, produced water unit, oil and gas wastewater, produced water recycling, reclaimed water, constituent elements, brine rights, solution gas, Corporation Commission, unitization, royalty interests, surface owner, oil and gas produced water, recycling and reuse, wastewater disposal, mineral extraction, lithium extraction

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, you know, due to all the tremendous surface mining we have in Madison County... Thank you.
• Uh, you know, due to all the tremendous surface mining we have in Madison County, oh, wait a minute.

Bills: SB54, SB126, SB128, SB101, SB102, SB104, HB282, HB298, SB54, SB126, SB128, SB101, SB102, SB104, HB282, HB298

Keywords: sunset law, Alabama Surface Mining Commission, environmental regulation, mining, state commission, Alabama Private Investigation Board, regulatory oversight, agency review, continuation, sickle cell disease, healthcare, regulatory commission, public health, regulation, electrical contractors, state agencies, home medical equipment, board continuation, boards, commissions

Transcript Highlights:

• They're member-owners of ours.
• Oh, and we'll pick up any rocks that we've surfaced, because when you decompact land, you surface things
• And then it also has who the owner of the project or the owner of the output or the PPA is.
• Most states consider geothermal a surface owner.
• So even if you're developing in the subsurface, the surface owner still benefits from that development

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Energy Development and Transmission Committee met in interim session and approved the November 6 minutes. Chair Novak outlined the committee’s study agenda, including large energy users such as data centers, geothermal, landowner relations, wind and solar, and other energy topics across the state. The meeting was framed as informational only, with no bills or formal legislative action taken beyond the minutes approval. Testimony focused first on landowner relations. Oliver County Commissioner Dave Berger described the county’s energy history and local support for coal and related development. North Dakota Farmers Union President Matt Perdue emphasized proactive, face-to-face communication with landowners, respect for property rights, and the need for developers to be transparent about tradeoffs; he also discussed insurance and liability concerns tied to easements. Committee members asked about eminent domain, local versus state authority, and how communities can better understand the revenue and infrastructure implications of energy development. Department of Agriculture Deputy Commissioner Tom Bodine then described the department’s ombudsman programs for pipeline restoration and reclamation, wind restoration, and royalty oversight. He said the programs provide confidential, third-party assistance on reclamation and royalty disputes, but do not provide legal advice. Senators raised concerns about post-production deductions in royalty leases and whether the ombudsman can explain them; Bodine said the program can clarify statements and deductions but cannot resolve legal disputes. He also said the department has not received requests related to fiber lines. Representatives from Grid United and One Oak described their project development and landowner engagement practices. Grid United’s Brent Johnson discussed the North Plains Connector transmission project, its route selection process, voluntary acquisition approach, and efforts to avoid eminent domain by working closely with regulators, counties, townships, and landowners. One Oak’s Danette Welsh and Tom Giltner described the company’s midstream operations, extensive North Dakota footprint, and emphasis on direct landowner communication, consistent local regulation, careful construction practices, and post-construction reclamation. Members asked about setbacks, zoning consistency, invasive species prevention, outside advocacy groups, and eminent domain use; One Oak said it has not used eminent domain on its North Dakota projects, largely because most gathering lines are negotiated easements.

Transcript Highlights:

• Some of the property owners that approached my office stated that they were not provided the required
• It is unacceptable that the property owner not receive. Proper notice for any reason.
• Property owners should be assured that they will receive notice about anything that would affect them
• To control discharges of pollutants to surface waters including treated produced water in the oil and
• Discharge of treated produced water into surface waters, the Railroad Commission of Texas. currently

Bills: SB766, SB290, SB494, SB1145

Keywords: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, water regulation, environmental protection, pesticide management, natural resources, LP-gas, property owner notice, gas installations, safety notification, petroleum theft, task force, oil and gas, law enforcement, economic impact, environmental regulation, water permits, water quality, land application, 1185, senate

Transcript Highlights:

• die they project Killers When projects die they deprive<00:04:43.919> land<00:04:44.160> owners
• /c><00:04:44.479> of<00:04:44.600> lease<00:04:44.880> revenues deprive land owners
• of lease revenues deprive land owners of lease revenues towns<00:04:45.960> of<00:04:46.160><
• We're a solar and storage developer and owner-operator based out of Boston.
• operator based out of Boston um we owner operator based out of Boston um we operate<00:06:56.479>

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We also have small business owners.
• Behaves poorly goes too far much in violation of the rights of the property owners.
• . owner in place.
• I'm a local business owner. I'm a real estate investor.
• So we have to go out, we have to get surface water.

Bills: HB1520, HB1525, HB1530, HB1535, HB2068, HB2091, HB2347, HB2372, HB2805, HB2815, HB2867, HB3154, HB3482, HB3483, HB3663, HB3781, HB3901, HB3915, HB4135, HB4153, HB4158, HB4329, HB4331

Keywords: Angelina and Neches River Authority, river authority, Sunset Advisory Commission, Texas Sunset Act, Special District Local Laws Code, local government, natural resources, board of directors, director training, board governance, public testimony, open meetings, public information, conflict of interest, ethics, complaint system, general manager, board president, staggered terms, removal of director

Transcript Highlights:

• HB 332 would simply add a 15th reason to protect and remediate surface waters.
• HB 332 would simply add a 15th reason to protect and remediate surface waters.
• <00:10:00.160> water to improve the quality of surface water to improve the quality of surface
• For example, if a district decides to do an in-lake treatment, it still would have to seek a surface
• 35:08.639> who associations back property owners who associations back property owners who may

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:

• Once you're below the surface, it gets dark and murky very quickly.
• When he didn't surface, the supervisor searched the area, but Joseph wasn't there.
• Brady didn't surface for 30 minutes.
• LLC where the owner would otherwise be exempt if they were selling as an individual.
• a sale by a single owner LLC where the<00:45:10.800> owner<00:45:11.040> would<00:45:11.200

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, they both deal with surface water management and surface water fees, so they are the same type of
• water management and deal with surface water management and surface<00:03:54.560> water<00:03
• I'm a property owner, also Cheyenne.
• as a surface water management program. as a surface water management program.
• <00:19:42.000> water Title 16's reference to surface water Title 16's reference to surface

Keywords: 916, all