Transcript Highlights:

• Water Commission and Department of Water Resources.
• The model enables the State Water Commission or Department of Water Resources to compare forecasted revenue
• Absent state action, reimbursing the Water Infrastructure Revolving Fund from the Resource Trust Fund
• And that's what was stated in the Dakota Water Resource Act.
• Through the state of North Dakota, your State Water Commission, Department of Water Resources, has participated

Summary: The Water Topics Overview Committee met with a quorum and received updates from the Department of Water Resources and the State Water Commission, followed by presentations from Deloitte on two legislative studies required by House Bill 1020. Director Reese Haas reviewed major project and budget updates, including the Northwest Area Water Supply and Southwest Pipeline projects, Resources Trust Fund balances, carryover spending, project prioritization, bid conditions, regional water system coverage, and department process improvements. Members also discussed how the commission prioritizes projects, maintenance expectations, and the impact of limited municipal water supply funding. No formal committee action was taken during the DWR update; the commission’s municipal funding decisions were described as pending its April 8 meeting. Deloitte then presented the cost-share policy study, which found that under current policy and forecasted revenues, North Dakota faces an estimated $1.3 billion shortfall over 14 years, with a near-term gap of about $1.8 billion through 2031. The firm outlined seven recommended options, including tighter definitions and a 25% cost share for eligible replacement projects, caps and financing strategies for the Mouse River and Red River Valley projects, aligning cost share with commission priority guidance, delaying lower-priority projects, using available lines of credit, and adjusting reimbursement timing for revolving loan funds. Committee members questioned inflation assumptions, affordability, user fees, and the use of legacy fund earnings for bonding, but no decisions were made. In the governance and finance study, Deloitte said final recommendations are still being refined, with a final report due May 29. The study examined the Southwest Pipeline, NAWS, and Red River Valley systems using governance and finance criteria such as decision authority, transparency, affordability, risk, and access to funding. For Southwest, Deloitte outlined options ranging from improved state-authority coordination to transferring ownership to the Southwest Water Authority; for NAWS, options focused on strengthening the authority’s role and potentially transitioning operations and maintenance; and for Red River, options ranged from enhanced facilitation to formal state oversight or state ownership. Members asked follow-up questions about ownership transfer, capital repayment streams, and why NAWS was not considered for transfer, and Deloitte said NAWS’s limited organizational maturity made that option less viable in the near term.

Transcript Highlights:

• Conservation Commission with the Department of Water Resources.
• Conservation Commission with the Department of Water Resources.
• Resources and the Soil Water Conservation Commission.
• Water Resource Board.
• that to the Idaho Water Resources Board.

Committee: Senate Agricultural Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• of Resource Districts, and the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources.
• Water Commission and Water Resources, the Bank of North Dakota, cities, counties, townships, water resource
• come before the State Water Commission.
• The State Water Commission could potentially just take care of it for these water resource districts,
• So what we did for them is come to the State Water Commission through the Department of Water Resources

Committee: Joint Water Topics Overview Committee

Summary: The Water Topics Overview Committee met to review several interim studies and receive updates from the Department of Water Resources. The committee approved the March 26, 2026 minutes, observed a moment of silence for the late Representative Conmy, and welcomed Representative Hansen to the committee. Staff then reported that the watershed management study and the stormwater/wastewater study had both satisfied the presentation requirements in their study directives, with no further required testimony unless members wanted additional information. The department’s main presentation focused on major water projects and agency operations. Reese Haas and staff updated members on the NAWS project, the Southwest Pipeline Project, Devils Lake outlet operations, low-head dam safety work, floodplain management repository implementation, data center water use, and the 2027 Water Development Plan. Members asked detailed questions about NAWS funding sources, remaining project costs, capacity concerns for All Seasons and other users, and whether current construction is being designed for future demand. The department said NAWS remains on track for substantial completion by October, that remaining NAWS funding will come from a mix of federal, state, and local sources, and that current construction is designed for ultimate capacity while some future components will be adjusted for increased demand. A large portion of the meeting was devoted to the department’s cash management, Resources Trust Fund revenues, carryover balances, and the State Water Commission’s cost-share program. The department reported $340.6 million in carryover remaining, explained that much of it is already obligated to long-term projects, and noted that oil price forecasts and stripper-well exemptions will affect future revenues. Members raised concerns about large carryovers, affordability for local sponsors, and whether the state should continue obligating money multiple bienniums ahead. The department said it is working with the commission on a revised prioritization framework, including high/moderate/low project categories and a two-tier pre-construction/construction approach, to better manage obligations and affordability. The committee also reviewed Deloitte’s finalized studies on regional governance/finance and cost-share policy. Deloitte presented options for Southwest, NAWS, and Red River governance, with stakeholders generally favoring keeping NAWS largely as is, using the current Southwest model with improvements, and pursuing a more structured governance option for Red River. On cost share, the department said Deloitte’s recommended package would cover projected needs through the 2030s, but would require policy changes such as lower percentages for some project types, a 25% replacement-project rate with a cap, and possible bonding or delayed reimbursement strategies. No votes were taken on these policy questions, and the chair indicated the committee would continue the discussion at future basin meetings and the September Water Topics meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Which enables us to develop large projects in water-constrained areas without impacting those water resources
• We have an arid state and less surface water than many others around us.
• We need to manage the limited water resources that we have.
• I work in a group that's focused on water resources.
• We have something on the order of 570 community water systems in the state.

Committee: House Economic & Rural Development & Policy Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• Water Commission and Water Resources, the Bank of North Dakota, cities, counties, townships, water resource
• I'm the Water Development Division director with the Department of Water Resources.
• been obligated by the State Water Commission.
• The State Water Commission could potentially just take care of it for these water resource districts,
• So what we did for them is come to the State Water Commission through the Department of Water Resources

Summary: The Water Topics Overview Committee met to receive interim status updates on several water-related studies and Department of Water Resources projects. The committee approved the March 26, 2026 minutes, observed a moment of silence for the late Representative Conmy, and then heard updates on the watershed management study and the stormwater/wastewater study. Staff reported that the committee had already received the testimony contemplated in the study plans, including input from state agencies, local governments, and out-of-state entities, and that any further action would be at the committee’s discretion. The Department of Water Resources then provided project and budget updates on NAWS and the Southwest Pipeline Project. Reese reported NAWS is expected to serve about 81,000 users, with a total projected cost of about $571 million and about $96 million remaining, while the Southwest Pipeline Project is estimated at $1.06 billion total with about $409 million remaining. Members asked about funding sources, capacity needs, and whether current and future construction is being designed for increased demand; department staff said current work is designed for ultimate capacity, but some future components may need redesign based on new requests. The committee also discussed local cost shares, Minot’s role in NAWS funding, and whether the system is adequate for peak demand. A major portion of the meeting focused on the department’s cash management, carryover, and long-term water funding outlook. The department said Resources Trust Fund revenues are tied to oil extraction taxes and are affected by stripper well exemptions and future oil price declines. Members expressed concern about large carryover balances and whether the state is obligating more money than can realistically be spent in a biennium. The department reported about $340.6 million in remaining carryover and said it is trying to reduce that through a two-tier pre-construction/construction process and closer project vetting. The department also summarized the Deloitte studies on regional governance and finance and on cost-share policy. Stakeholders generally favored keeping the current governance structures for NAWS and Southwest with improvements, while Red River stakeholders leaned toward a different option; the department said it will bring an implementation plan back in September. On cost share, Deloitte’s recommendations would reduce some percentages, prioritize projects differently, and use other measures to close a projected long-term funding gap. Members debated affordability, local burden, deferred maintenance, and whether statutory changes may be needed to allow the commission more flexibility in prioritizing and funding projects. No formal votes or final actions were taken beyond approving the minutes and receiving the updates.

Transcript Highlights:

• So also the Idaho Department of Water Resource Board. We did a cost-sharing grant.
• the Water Resource Board, not only in staff support but in monies to help move Resource Board, not only
• the state to the other water managers to see what they're experiencing.
• Officer for the Department of Water Resources.
• Officer for the Department of Water Resources.

Committee: House Resources and Conservation

Transcript Highlights:

• Water Commission and Water Resources, the Bank of North Dakota, cities, counties, townships, water resource
• been obligated by the State Water Commission.
• come before the State Water Commission.
• The State Water Commission could potentially just take care of it for these water resource districts,
• So what we did for them is come to the State Water Commission through the Department of Water Resources

Committee: Joint Water Topics Overview Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• I also serve as director of the Idaho Department of Water Resources.
• Resources and the Soil and Water Conservation Commission.
• I'd Department of Water Resources is that appropriate state agency for a number of reasons.
• So this isn't a new concept to the Department of Water Resources.
• beyond water resources.

Committee: House Agricultural Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• It basically moves the Soil and Water Conservation Commission into the Idaho Department of Water Resources
• to the Department of Water Resources, where it belongs.
• the Department of Water Resources.
• to use the engineers from the Department of Water Resources.
• the state. ...to address water supply challenges really throughout the state.

Committee: Senate Resources and Environment

Transcript Highlights:

• So I'd like to invite the State Water Board and Department of Water Resources.
• In 2022, DWR released its recommendation report to the State Water Resources Control Board, or State
• I'm the Chief Deputy Director for the State Water Resources Control Board.
• I'm the chief deputy director for the State Water Resources Control Board.
• I'll add some additional. the Chief Deputy Director for the State Water Resources Control Board.

Committees: House Water, Parks and Wildlife , House Water, Parks, and Wildlife

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm sorry, the 2021 State Water Plan site.
• Lagged in the state water planning process by the regional water planning groups, that would be determined
• If the Water Development Board had the resources to put up a water pervader facing, A resource for them
• companies that build water infrastructure across the state of Texas.
• management and executing water supply infrastructure projects across the state.

Bills: HB24 , HB27 , HB24 , HB27

Committee: House Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• Finally, the department and the Idaho Water Resource Board contracted with IWRRI, the Idaho Water Resources
• Finally the department and the Idaho Water Resource Board contracted with IWRIE, the Idaho Water Resource
• and Water Conservation Commission with the Department of Water Resources and to identify efficiencies
• Okay, all right, I'm Jeff Raibold, Chairman of the Idaho Water Resource Board.
• sustainable water supply for all the citizens of the state of Idaho.

Committee: Senate Resources and Environment

Transcript Highlights:

• Let's have State Water Resources Control Board. Let's spread the love. Make sure everybody...
• I am Joaquin Esquivel, I'm the chair of the State Water Resources Control Board.
• So there are a lot of pressures on our water systems and our water resources within the state.
• A lot of pressures, certainly, on our water systems and our water resources within the state, but we
• I'm the legislative director for the State Water Resources Control Board.

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:

• I'm calling the Committee on Natural Resources, Energy and Water to order.
• it too: we are running out of fresh water, so water is definitely... ...a scarce and finite resource
• As you know, several years ago, the Arizona Department of Water Resources and the State Land Department
• reductions in water use, and that's across the state.
• water providers across the state, and we did not ask them, 'Do you need more water?'

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

Summary: The committee heard introductions from members and staff, then took up several water and natural resources bills. House Bill 2024 would expand Water Infrastructure Finance Authority (WIFA) authority to include snowpack augmentation and related planning and permitting costs. Supporters, including a cloud-seeding company, argued the technology can increase snowpack and water supply at relatively low cost, while opponents raised concerns about weather modification, chemicals such as silver iodide, uncertainty in the science, and potential environmental effects. After debate, the committee passed HB 2024 on a 6-4 vote, with some members explaining they wanted more research but were willing to advance it for further consideration. House Bill 2053 would appropriate $100,000 to the Arizona Department of Water Resources to update stormwater recharge mapping statewide, including private land, and the committee adopted an amendment extending the timeline and revising language about recharge sites and surface-water conflicts. ADWR said it could do the mapping but noted legal concerns about determining appropriable surface water rights. SRP and the Sierra Club opposed parts of the bill, arguing the language could affect existing water rights or exclude nature-based recharge areas. The bill passed as amended on a 6-4 vote. The committee then heard a presentation from WIFA director Chelsea McGuire on the agency’s revolving funds, conservation grants, and long-term augmentation efforts, including seven proposed augmentation projects and a request for no budget cuts. House Bill 2097, which would cap groundwater pumping in irrigation non-expansion areas at six acre-feet per acre and add related reporting, exemptions, and substitution provisions, drew support from the sponsor as a conservation measure but opposition from ADWR and environmental advocates who said the cap was too high or could encourage pumping; it passed 6-4. House Bill 2116, appropriating $1 million to the Colorado River Litigation Fund, passed 8-1 amid comments that it was a precaution in ongoing Colorado River negotiations. Finally, House Bill 2117, a cleanup bill shifting environmental special plate fund authority to the new conservation district board and updating distribution rules, was presented as a technical correction and education-fund update; the transcript ends before a final vote on that measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• Natural Resources is very important to our state. Excellent. And I am T.J.
• I'm the research intern for Natural Resources, and I'll be from Arizona State University.
• water state revolving funds in Arizona.
• And as a result, we have clean and affordable water for Arizonans across the state.
• in water use, and that's across the state.

Committee: Senate Senate Natural Resources Committee of Reference

Summary: The Natural Resources Committee convened for introductions of members, staff, interns, and pages, with members briefly noting their districts and roles. The committee’s only agenda item was a presentation from the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority (WIFA) by Director Chelsea McGuire, who outlined WIFA’s mission and recent work financing water infrastructure across Arizona. McGuire described three major funding programs: the rural water supply development revolving fund, the water conservation grant fund, and the long-term water augmentation fund. She said WIFA has financed nearly $3 billion in water infrastructure over 30 years, awarded about $87.3 million through the rural fund, and allocated $211 million in conservation grants expected to save 6.6 million acre-feet of water. She also said WIFA is out of conservation money and requested continued state support, while noting the revolving funds remain stable even if federal funding declines. A large portion of the discussion focused on the long-term augmentation fund and its competitive solicitation process. McGuire said WIFA identified a projected 100,000 to 500,000 acre-foot supply gap in 10 to 15 years and selected seven projects for further due diligence after receiving 17 responses, including desalination, reuse, groundwater storage, and exchange-based projects involving private partners. Senators asked about public transparency, project timelines, costs, and the need for state funding; McGuire said public engagement will continue, the projects are intended to match the identified time frame, and state funding is needed both to pay for due diligence and to reduce project risk and cost. No votes or formal actions were taken, and the meeting adjourned after the presentation and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I'd like to invite the State Water Board and Department of Water Resources.
• In 2022, DWR released its recommendation report to the State Water Resources Control Board, or State
• I'm the Chief Deputy Director for the State Water Resources Control Board.
• I'm the chief deputy director for the State Water Resources Control Board.
• I'll add some additional. the Chief Deputy Director for the State Water Resources Control Board.

Summary: The informational hearing focused on California’s future water supply and, in particular, how the state tracks and manages commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) water use, including data centers. The chair and members framed the issue as a “trifecta” of climate-driven supply uncertainty, limited monitoring of CII uses, and rapidly changing industries with significant water demands. Committee members emphasized the need for better data before imposing broad regulations, while also expressing concern about protecting ratepayers and ensuring new large users pay their fair share. Representatives from the Department of Water Resources and the State Water Resources Control Board reviewed the state’s existing framework: urban water management plans, water supply assessments for large projects, SBX7-7’s 20% by 2020 conservation goals, and the 2018 Making Conservation a California Way of Life law. They explained that process water, including data center cooling water, is statutorily excluded from some conservation targets, and that current CII reporting is aggregated rather than facility-specific. They also noted that local water suppliers and land use agencies retain major responsibility for approving development, while state rules and groundwater sustainability requirements provide additional checks. Committee members pressed the agencies on whether data centers should be treated differently, how recycled water is categorized, whether process water should remain exempt, and whether the state has enough information to understand the water impacts of new facilities. The agencies said they could not recommend specific water sources for individual facilities, but could support community-by-community planning and best management practices. They also said the Legislature could direct additional data collection if needed. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational only. The second panel, from CalWEP and California Water Service, described how suppliers are implementing CII programs in practice. They said CII use varies widely by sector and location, making one-size-fits-all benchmarks difficult. They highlighted tools such as AI-assisted customer classification, mapping of disclosure buildings, outreach guides, and customized rebate programs for high-use customers. Examples included water-saving projects at a hydrogen plant, a commercial laundry, and fire department training systems. Speakers stressed that CII conservation work is resource-intensive, often takes years, and works best when paired with local planning, customer outreach, and targeted incentives.

Transcript Highlights:

• Water is this state's most precious resource.
• Revolving, State Revolving Fund, and the Drinking. water state revolving fund.
• innovative water projects like D cell, produced water, aquifer storage and recovery, out-of-state water
• So, water systems throughout the state send us water lost. surveys.
• to over 110 water systems across the state.

Committee: House Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• The State Water Resources Control Board. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome, Chair Esquivel.
• I am Joaquin Esquivel, chair of the State Water Resources Control Board.
• So there are a lot of pressures on our water systems and our water resources within the state.
• A lot of pressures, certainly, on our water systems and our water resources within the state, but we
• I'm the legislative director for the State Water Resources Control Board.

Transcript Highlights:

• funds, water conservation, water supply development revolving fund, and our state revolving fund by
• water state revolving funds in Arizona.
• water state revolving funds in Arizona.
• water state revolving funds in Arizona.
• in water use, and that's across the state.

Committees: Senate Natural Resources , Senate Senate Natural Resources Committee of Reference

Transcript Highlights:

• Across the state, the water board and water users are working hard to address water challenges in every
• And when there is some water available, under the Idaho Water Resource Board recharge right, we will
• make that resource reliable because water fluctuates, the supply fluctuates.
• We have funding to do monitoring wells, both from the State Water Resource Board and from the federal
• , better utilize those surface water resources.

Committee: Senate Resources and Environment