Transcript Highlights:

• Where is the aquifer piece of this puzzle? Anyway, it's been a longstanding history.
• There being none. test the noise. Now, closing on HCR 76; HCR 76 will be left pending.
• It's based on what's in the aquifer.
• It's a bad aquifer. And I'm over here, and I'm in... So you're not taking...
• What it comes down to is, what will the aquifer support? Fair enough? Yes, sir.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The aquifers of New Mexico.
• We'll know better where aquifer recharge is happening, which we can then use for managed aquifer recharge
• You can see these blobs here, which resemble a Rorschach test or an inkblot test.
• We are testing how this survey works in some of the bedrock aquifer regions to determine if it's a good
• We're doing this to test out different kinds of exploration concepts related to the relative testing

Transcript Highlights:

• So you need a great diversity when you're testing. Testing in one spot can be...
• We're not intending to have our own test spaces. We leverage other test spaces.
• We leverage Grand Farm and Farm... ...test spaces. We leverage other test spaces.
• You know, we're not intending to have our own test spaces. We leverage other test spaces.
• We leverage, you know, Grand Farm and Farm. test spaces. We leverage other test spaces.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's just to test the concept. It's a, it's a research place.
• President, Senator, clarify the brackishwater aquifer or freshwater aquifer.
• It has been tested.
• All that is runoff water that backfills those aquifers.
• With dozens of aquifers.

Transcript Highlights:

• We've gone beyond the test phase.
• We can gain regional knowledge of the depth and extent of our aquifers.
• Our brackish brown water aquifer in New Mexico. It is good news.
• They inject it into the deeper aquifer. And that aquifer has regulations.
• That could contaminate our aquifers.

Transcript Highlights:

• Will the reclaimed water be tested?
• Chemicals, pharmaceuticals, this is a Rick Nease: testing cost for the chemicals being polluted.
• And it is all worth it if we could increase flow and put clean water back into the aquifer.
• A lot of that water ends up as runoff and not in the aquifer.
• It's not just wastewater being directly discharged into the aquifer.

Bills: S0598, S0934, S1260, S1300, S1452, S1510, S1566, S1580, S1668, S7034

Keywords: funeral homes, cemetery law, cremation, embalmer, funeral director, preneed contract, preneed funeral, human remains, unclaimed cremated remains, disposition of remains, hospice, palliative care, end-of-life care, direct disposal, mortuary science, funeral service arts, licensure by endorsement, cemetery license, contiguous acres, consumer services

Transcript Highlights:

• The extra money that you're seeking here would not produce any more water in the aquifer and would not
• It has a short-term life expectancy, and that's what I'm told that aquifer does.
• This is how we value our land and our aquifer systems.
• The TCEQ is not getting tested like the groundwater conservation... ...districts are.
• We're pending Senate Bill 1976 by Senator Hughes, relating to water testing.

Bills: SB1169, SB1285, SB1583, SB1611, SB1898, SB1976, SB2160, SB2161, SB2658, SB2661, SB2662, SB2692, SB1055, SB1359, SB2660

Keywords: water service, sewer service, public utility, joint operation, infrastructure, municipality, compliance, SB 1285, bats, bat protection, wildlife protection, Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, Parks and Wildlife Code Section 63.101, hunting bats, bat possession, bat sales, bat trade, pest control, licensed pest control professional, animal control officer

Transcript Highlights:

• Are the testing costs for all these chemicals included in the costs?
• If we could increase flows and put clean water back into the aquifer.
• We get 51 inches of rain a year, about 25% of which on average ends up in the Florida aquifer.
• It doesn't end up in the aquifer.
• Johns River Water Management District to test the ability to remove all PFAS and pharmaceuticals.

Bills: S0598, S0934, S1260, S1300, S1452, S1510, S1566, S1580, S1668, S7034

Keywords: funeral homes, cemetery law, cremation, embalmer, funeral director, preneed contract, preneed funeral, human remains, unclaimed cremated remains, disposition of remains, hospice, palliative care, end-of-life care, direct disposal, mortuary science, funeral service arts, licensure by endorsement, cemetery license, contiguous acres, consumer services

Summary: The committee first took up appointments, recommending confirmation of James Patrick Grambling and Brian J. Aungst on a single favorable vote. It then heard and approved several committee bills, including CS/CS/SB 1260 on building code inspections, which directs the Department of Management Services to contract with private providers for plan review and inspections; CS/SB 1668 on NICA, which updates benefits, oversight, funding, and immunity language; SB 1300 on a workforce/CDL training program for selected nonviolent inmates; CS/CS/SB 598 on funeral and cemetery services; CS/SB 1580 on illegal gaming enforcement; CS/SB 934 on Florida Keys affordable housing tax exemptions; and CS/CS/SB 1452, an agency bill updating DFS programs and licensing rules. Each of those bills was reported favorably after committee debate and, in several cases, amendments were adopted. The committee spent substantial time on CS/CS/SB 1510, the DEP package, which reorganizes environmental rulemaking and land acquisition authority, expands septic-to-sewer and nutrient-reduction requirements in sensitive areas, updates stormwater and resilience provisions, and revises related permitting and grant programs. Two amendments were adopted, including one adding solar-energy and stormwater-related provisions and another removing septic disclosure reporting language. Testimony included support from DEP and concerns from environmental advocates about septic timelines and implementation. The bill was ultimately reported favorably. The committee also considered CS/CS/SB 1566 on local government budget transparency, requiring counties and municipalities to post budgets and related materials online for extended periods in a standardized format. The League of Cities opposed the bill as an unfunded mandate, while the sponsor argued it would improve taxpayer access and accountability; the bill was reported favorably. Finally, the committee heard SB 7034, a rule ratification for minimum flows and levels for the lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee rivers and priority springs, with testimony focused on the proposed Water First restoration strategy, conservation measures, and concerns about water quality, funding, and local opposition. The transcript ends during closing remarks on that ratification bill, before a final vote is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Often these larger operations dig wells into deeper aquifers, but then pollute into more shallow aquifers
• Often these larger operations dig test.
• c> shallow</c><00:03:52.280><c> aquifers</c><00:03:53.200><c> where</c> pollute into more shallow aquifers
• </c> we don't even have all of our aquifers we don't even have all of our aquifers mapped<00:08:25.960
• </c><00:42:09.080><c> in</c><00:42:09.160><c> the</c> aquifer and the private aquifers in the aquifer

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• What I will tell you is, NMED is still testing as many wells as possible.
• So, testing their wells—not people, sorry—testing their wells and testing as many wells as possible.
• But initial test results are showing that the initial test results that were completed by the private
• But initial test results are showing that the initial test results that were completed by the private
• We think it's really beneficial for the aquifer in the lower real grand.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> testing um especially for subdivisions. testing um especially for subdivisions.
• </c> and the local aquifers. and the local aquifers. Thank<00:24:26.559><c> you.
• that want multiple test pits or they want some soil conservation group to come out and witness the test
• that want multiple test pits or they want some soil conservation group to come out and witness the test
• </c> outside services to witness test bits. outside services to witness test bits.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee opened discussion on SP 170 and worked through the bill section by section, focusing first on housing discrimination language and then on land-use and development provisions. On the housing section, members discussed adding “school enrollment status” or a similar term as a protected class to prevent municipalities from steering students into specific zones, especially in Durham. Some members questioned whether “status” was too vague and suggested “enrollment status” or “school enrollment status” for clarity. Public testimony raised concerns that adding a new protected class could have broader implications beyond this bill and could affect municipal zoning authority, while supporters argued the language was needed to prevent discrimination against students in housing access. The committee then heard testimony on provisions limiting municipal authority over septic test pits and well-siting requirements. DEES officials and a builder testified that state standards are already protective of groundwater and surface water and that some local requirements are more stringent than the state’s, adding cost and delay to housing projects. Supporters said uniform state standards would make housing development faster and more predictable. Opponents warned that local rules can protect aquifers, wellhead areas, and drinking water in specific communities, and that removing municipal flexibility could weaken those protections. The subcommittee appeared comfortable keeping these sections, though members discussed whether to clarify the language and whether some local review authority should remain. The meeting also covered road-length limits, caps on the number of lots on dead-end roads, and subdivision design rules. Members generally supported prohibiting municipalities from using maximum road length or lot caps to block development, with one amendment suggested to allow such limits where adequate water and sewer capacity is lacking. The committee also discussed allowing utilities and infrastructure such as septic systems, wells, electric systems, drainage structures, and shared leach fields to be placed in subdivision open space or perimeter buffers when those areas are not protected wetlands or shoreland. Finally, the committee reviewed a provision requiring municipalities to stamp and accept plan changes within three days after initial review, with members explaining that the goal is to prevent repeated, incremental changes from dragging out the approval process. No final votes were taken in the portion of the meeting provided, but members indicated general comfort with several sections as amended or clarified.

Transcript Highlights:

• Only with a heartworm test, sir. And I refer people to a heartworm test, sir. Tell me what that is.
• It is a blood test. It is a snap test, which we can do in-house. And it is available...
• It is available as an appointment or a walk-in test.
• An amount of it does seep in and reach the aquifer.
• , the Limas test under the Nolan-Dolan case.

Bills: SB1176, SB1186, SB1235, SB1286, SB1446, SB1458, SB1515, SB1616, SB1641, SB1668, SB1670, SB1678, SB1747, SB1787

Keywords: stormwater, water storage, replenishment credits, groundwater, aquifer, Arizona Revised Statutes, disclosure, state contracts, procurement records, donations, transparency, EMS, reciprocity, interstate compact, paramedics, emergency medical technicians, licensure, public safety, military personnel, veterinary telemedicine

Transcript Highlights:

• As part of an aquifer storage and recovery project, the Chair moves that Senate Bill 2885, without amendment
• Our district is on the outcrop of the Trinity Aquifer, so we're unique in that you can tap into a major
• aquifer.

Bills: SB612, SB1855, SB2568, SB3058, HB49

Keywords: SB 612, Texas Water Code, Section 49.2127, conservation and reclamation district, water district, reclamation district, developer fees, pipeline construction, water pipeline, sewer pipeline, associated infrastructure, subdivision infrastructure, cost recovery, fee cap, actual reasonable documented costs, engineering fees, legal fees, inspection fees, infrastructure relocation, utility connections

Transcript Highlights:

• Yes, we have drug testing.
• for a net zero aquifer level change there.
• The blue area is the aquifer.
• It’s not a map of the aquifer as well? Correct, because I think the aquifer is very large.
• Pilot test specifically focusing on that.

Transcript Highlights:

• So is there follow-up testing?
• We're putting questions about subsequent water testing and blood testing off for a couple weeks.
• Testing off for a couple of weeks.
• We're including heavy metals in that testing. We are also testing for PFAS.
• Yep, testing one, two, three. Slightly better. Yep, testing one, two, three. Slightly better.

Summary: The committee first heard a presentation from the Environment Department on PFAS contamination in private wells in La Cienega, Santa Fe County. Staff said the plume likely came from historic use of firefighting foam associated with airport and National Guard fire-training activities, with possible additional contribution from septic systems and consumer products. They described the contamination as affecting about 200 private wells, the short-term response of providing residential filters through a $2 million legislative appropriation, and ongoing work to define the plume’s full extent, identify responsible parties, and consider longer-term regional water solutions. Members asked about filter costs, replacement schedules, disposal of used cartridges, follow-up testing, health studies, and whether cleanup or containment had begun; the department said cleanup would follow once the plume is fully mapped and that DOH is soliciting interest in a blood study. The committee also discussed the need to track disposal of PFAS filters and the possibility of broader statewide capacity for similar work. The committee then took up abandoned uranium mine cleanup. NMED and EMNRD staff reviewed the new uranium mine reclamation program created by HB 164, the state dashboard tracking sites, and the FY26 appropriation of $20 million for neglected contaminated sites, of which $12 million is being used for neglected uranium mines and the remainder for other contaminated sites. They said six contractors were hired, three priority sites in Grant County are moving forward quickly, and additional sites are being prepared for possible FY27 work. Members pressed for details on how funds are spent, why the revolving fund remains unfunded, how federal, state, tribal, and landowner requirements are coordinated, where contaminated material will be moved, and whether cleanup could also address homes built with contaminated materials. Staff said the work is governed by multiple regulatory layers, that the state is seeking an additional $25 million for FY27-FY28 plus a time extension, and that partnerships with tribes would require longer-term agreements. The committee also discussed federal cleanup efforts and the new Good Samaritan law, with members urging stronger advocacy for New Mexico sites, including tribal lands, and asking whether the Attorney General should pursue legal action against federal parties responsible for legacy contamination. Staff explained that some sites are already covered by settlement funds tied to responsible parties, while neglected sites are those with no responsible party and no other cleanup program. The committee then heard from EMNRD on Class VI carbon sequestration primacy. Staff said New Mexico currently has no operating Class VI wells, about 27 Class II acid-gas injection wells are operating, and only a small number might be candidates for conversion. They explained that the state’s primacy application would require more public outreach than federal rules alone, and that cost estimates for post-injection site care are based on long planning horizons, with some costs borne by operators and some by the state after closure. No votes were taken on the substantive items discussed; the committee approved the prior meeting minutes and took a brief recess between presentations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, recharge of the actual aquifer, the actual aquifer zone.
• What aquifer are we exempting? It's the Maine-San Antonio aquifer. Sorry, name escapes me.
• recharge zone and relates to the protection of an aquifer.
• stacked on top of one another and what they might do from an aquifer standpoint.
• This is a clarification from from Senate Bill 147 that was simply a 51% test.

Bills: SCR5, SCR13, SB3, SB6, SB10, SB12, SB13, SB15, SB17, SB18, SB19, SB24, SB35, SB57, SB65, SB112, SB284, SB290, SB388, SB400, SB402, SB412, SB495, SB499, SB502, SB509, SB621, SB706, SB740, SB815, SB842, SB854, SB875, SB893, SB917, SB974, SB1025, SB1061, SB1073, SB1106, SB1268, SB1281, SB1300, SB1362, SB1379, SB1447, SB1451, SB1555, SB1902, SJR36, SJR12, SCR13, SCR25, SCR5, SCR22, SCR12, SCR24, SB495, SB412, SB10, SB18, SB565, SB372, SB842, SB765, SB62, SB19, SB666, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB706, SB847, SB290, SB13, SB1248, SB740, SB14, SB1006, SB504, SB917, SB925, SB388, SB1902, SB1121, SB995, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB35, SB6, SB815, SB3, SB1281, SB1379, SB1300, SB1497, SB1499, SB1498, SB1451, SB1061, SB15, SB65, SB241, SB304, SB402, SB499, SB621, SB974, SB1023, SB1024, SB1025, SB1106, SB686, SB112, SB371, SB204, SB400, SB609, SB1447, SB670, SB502, SB427, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1555, SB1362, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB987, SB1539, SB893, SB447, SB875, SB406, SB509, SB985, SB965, SB17, SB1119, SB1505, SB12, SB24, SB57, SB1194, SB1253, SB1215, SB1532, SB1268, SB1302, SB856, SB650, SB583, SB673, SB840, SJR57, SCR8, SB213, SB681, SB1172, SB1252, SB378, SB610, SB918, SB1343, SB608, SB487, SB955, SB957, SB988, SB990, SB1019, SB1021, SB1120, SB251, SB958, SB535, SB761, SB1, SB541, SB315, SB379, SB1018, SB1737, SB266, SB1415, SB3, SB6, SB15, SB35, SB290, SB706, SB842, SB917, SB1281, SB1451, SB1902, SB12, SB13, SB17, SB19, SB388, SR261, SR265, SR276, SR277, SR281, SR286, SR293, SCR5, SCR13, SB2425, SB2880, SB10, SB12, SB13, SB17, SB18, SB19, SB388, SB412, SB495, SB2425, SB2880

Keywords: SCR 5, Senate Concurrent Resolution 5, Texas School for the Deaf, TSD, Robert Rives, gymnasium naming, building naming, honorary resolution, commemorative resolution, deaf education, hard of hearing, Gallaudet University, alumni hall of fame, football coach, school facility naming, education K-16, State Affairs, Texas Legislature, public school tribute, water rights

Transcript Highlights:

• So is there follow-up testing?
• We've had discussions about subsequent water testing and blood testing.
• For heavy metals, we are also testing for PFAS, so when we can, we are trying to test for PFAS and find
• First, we don't want to dewater the aquifer; we consider the aquifer a very precious resource.
• And in the case of Los Alamos, some additional testing—geotechnical testing, things like trenching—to

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and it also uh does a number of aquifer and it also uh does a number of other<00:18:53.600><c> um</c
• </c><00:20:24.440><c> that</c> definition of a significant aquifer that definition of a significant aquifer
• , as well as putting ash into roads over the aquifer.
• , with no liners under these roads and then driving all over it with no protection for the aquifer.
• </c> putting an ash landfill over an aquifer putting an ash landfill over an aquifer as<00:29:10.320>

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee on Energy and Environmental Protection heard several measures focused on water quality, waste management, aquifer protection, wastewater, and climate-related funding. SB 984 on water pollution drew opposition from DLNR and the Hawaii Cattlemen’s Council, with the latter arguing the bill could unfairly blame landowners for runoff caused by terrain and storm events; the chair noted there were also supporters and commenters submitted in writing. SB 639 on underground storage tanks received support from the Department of Health, the Board of Water Supply, and the Sierra Club, with testimony emphasizing environmental restoration standards after jet fuel releases; no opposition was noted in the live testimony. SB 946 on wastewater management was presented as clarifying that the ban on discharging wastewater or raw sewage into state waters applies to treatment plants, and it drew support from the County of Maui, DOH, and Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition, with no questions or opposition raised in the hearing. The committee also heard SB 438 on waste disposal facilities near significant aquifers. DOH and the Water Commission offered comments, while the City and County of Honolulu’s Department of Environmental Services opposed the bill because of a provision affecting ash recycling; the Board of Water Supply and Sierra Club supported the measure, and the Makakilo-Kapolei-Honokai Hale Neighborhood Board and Energy Justice Network raised concerns about fly ash and bottom ash recycling, landfill capacity, and potential contamination of aquifers. Testimony reflected a split between environmental protection concerns and arguments that the bill could block beneficial reuse of ash. The committee then took up HB 1395 on state funds, which would direct interest from the Emergency and Budget Reserve Fund to the general fund when the reserve exceeds the state’s target. The Governor’s office, emergency management, the State Energy Office, the Hawaiʻi Green Infrastructure Authority, the Nature Conservancy, and several other groups supported the bill’s climate-resilience intent, while the Tax Foundation and committee discussion raised concerns that the measure functioned mainly as a revenue transfer without a dedicated spending mechanism. Members discussed whether a special fund or legislative appropriation process would better ensure the money was used for climate mitigation and related projects.

Transcript Highlights:

• of shape our aquifers are in.
• I'm on the Trinity Aquifer.
• I have a Seymour aquifer. And the Blaine aquifer, he said it wasn't being utilized.
• And that aquifer can handle it.
• So we're digging up our aquifer and we're draining our aquifers.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We need to do some test wells.
• But it doesn't address... ...brought to an aquifer, usually surface water.
• monitoring... ...very diverse aquifers, and we are monitoring.
• monitoring... ...very diverse aquifers, and we are monitoring.
• And to date, each one does their own DFCs based on what’s in the aquifer.

Summary: The committee met with limited attendance at first, then took up a series of water, agriculture, and rural affairs measures. HB 3898 would allow the Texas Water Development Board to provide financial assistance for brackish water desalination projects in certain border counties and related nonprofit suppliers even if the projects are not in the state water plan. Supporters said it is needed to address severe water shortages in places like Webb County and to support future planning; opponents, including the Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts, argued it bypasses the regional and state water planning process. The bill was left pending after testimony. The committee also heard HB 5339, which would create a higher-education grant program for regenerative agriculture research. A rancher testified that regenerative methods improved soil health, water retention, and farm viability, while a senator noted existing university research but said better coordination could help. Public testimony was closed and the bill was left pending. Members then heard HB 1523, a temporary prohibition on TCEQ issuing Austin a Class 5 injection well permit for an aquifer storage and recovery project in Bastrop and Lee counties until December 2027. Local officials from Bastrop supported the pause, citing unanswered questions about water treatment, recovery rates, and impacts on the aquifer, while Austin Water opposed the substitute, saying the project is central to its long-term water plan and that stakeholder talks were already underway. TCEQ explained its ASR permitting process and said public participation is possible but not always used in the current authorization process. The bill was left pending. HB 5659, concerning the Northeast Texas Municipal Water District and requiring majority city-council approval before certain water sales or interbasin transfers, drew testimony from district officials who said the change could interfere with existing contracts and district authority, but the chair emphasized the need for local buy-in and said the stakeholders had reached a workable compromise; testimony was closed and the bill was left pending. The committee also heard HB 1690, which would expand notice requirements for groundwater export permits so neighboring landowners and potentially affected aquifer areas are informed by certified mail and publication. The sponsor tied the bill to impacts from the Vista Ridge project, and no one testified against it; it was left pending. HB 3333 would prohibit TCEQ from issuing new wastewater discharge permits directly into the Devils River in Val Verde County. The sponsor and a conservation witness said the bill protects one of Texas’s most pristine rivers and reflects a local stakeholder agreement, while TCEQ said it can ensure water quality but acknowledged the river’s unique sensitivity; the bill was left pending. The committee also heard HCR 108 urging continuation of the U.S.-Mexico tomato suspension agreement, with supporters warning of major Texas job and consumer-price impacts if it ends, and HCR 76 urging federal action on imported shrimp, citing public health and industry concerns; both were left pending. Additional measures heard and left pending included HB 4158 on compensation for Texana Groundwater Conservation District directors, HB 654 creating a dismissal path for certain first-time deer hunting violations after self-reporting and hunter education, HB 4530 requiring Texas Water Development Board review of groundwater rights placed in the Texas Water Trust, HB 2128 directing a study of rural versus urban firefighting and rescue disparities, and HB 278 requiring groundwater districts and management areas to track progress toward desired future conditions over shorter intervals. On HB 278, witnesses split over whether the bill’s interim tracking would improve accountability or create new triggers that could be used against local districts, but no final vote was taken and the bill was left pending.