Transcript Highlights:

• surface water—I'm assuming most of those water rights are allocated to Tarrant County Regional Water
• or develop their water.
• water changes ownership hands as it moves from surface water to groundwater.
• Uh, GCDs, when you look at what you can regulate—regulate, or I guess the question to you, they regulate
• GCDs, when you look at what you can regulate—regulate, or I guess the question to you, they regulate

Bills: HB24, HB27

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

• Washington's municipal water efficiency statute and regulation. Jed Chalupa, Dr.
• , specifically because they also do a lot of the health regulation of the water, not just the quantity
• Then there was also fear of either losing water rights or splitting the regulation of the conservation
• There are regulating benefits, controlling the flow of water, cleaning water and air, pollination, cultural
• Regulating biodiversity and habitat, voluntary biodiversity habitat, and then water quality markets.

Summary: The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee opened its 2026 session with committee housekeeping, member introductions, and a reminder that schedules are set a week in advance and amendments must be submitted by the prior day’s deadlines. Chair Reeves emphasized solution-oriented, collaborative, and respectful participation, then outlined that the committee would focus on three interim reports relevant to its work this session: municipal water efficiency, ecosystem services, and food policy. The first presentation, from the William D. Ruckelshaus Center and WSU, reviewed Washington’s municipal water efficiency statute and regulation. Presenters said interviewees largely agreed on the need for better data collection, more technical assistance for smaller systems, and more state funding for both agency staffing and water system infrastructure. Most opposed shifting oversight of the conservation program from the Department of Health to Ecology, and the report recommended keeping oversight at DOH while improving collaboration across agencies and tribes. The presenters also urged broader statewide water planning, more consistent reporting using the AWWA water audit method instead of leakage percentage, re-evaluating the 500-connection threshold, and addressing outdoor water use, rebates, reuse, and public education. Members asked about creating a new office for water oversight, but the presenters said that idea was generally viewed as too costly and impractical under current budget conditions. DNR then presented its 2025 ecosystem services work group report. The department described ecosystem services markets it studied, including regulatory and voluntary forest carbon, avoided wildfire emissions, and water leasing, with lower potential identified for blue carbon, biodiversity, and water quality markets. DNR said about 15,000 acres of state forest land may have carbon-market potential, but emphasized that the analysis was broad and not project-specific, so the report recommends pilots, continued market monitoring, use of third-party developers, and clarification of authority through House Bill 2170. Committee members asked about economic feasibility, timber tradeoffs, and how success would be defined, and DNR said those questions would be better addressed in future, more detailed project-level work. The final presentation covered the Food Policy Forum’s 2025 report to the legislature. Speakers described broad consensus recommendations on food security, local foods in schools, farm-to-food-bank programs, a state farm bill, commercial access, and food system infrastructure. They highlighted pressures on agriculture from development, flooding, drought, water shortages, and the need to preserve farmland and support farmers, food banks, and local procurement systems. The committee chair thanked the presenters and noted that several related bills and policy proposals would be heard later in session. No votes were taken; the meeting concluded after the presentations and brief member questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the Water Board has a regulation that it's working to finalize.
• So the water board has a regulation that it's working to finalize.
• People who are part of the program, are they going to be exempt in any way from Water Board regulations
• The State Water Board retains its absolute authority as the regulator under the Porter-Cologne State
• Water Board enforces.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The Water Board conducts an annual drinking water needs assessment.
• So the Water Commission went through their process to develop those regulations, which took multiple
• Board does regulate both discharges and has a water quality...
• Hi, Kasha Hunt here with Valley Water, Santa Clara Valley Water.
• Hi, Kasha Hunt here with Valley Water, Santa Clara Valley Water.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on water and coastal resilience heard an overview of the governor’s Proposition 4 spending plan, with presentations from the Department of Finance, the State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Water Resources, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and later coastal agencies. Members discussed the water chapter’s major allocations for drinking water and wastewater, recycled water, tribal water infrastructure, groundwater recharge and SGMA implementation, dam safety, flood protection, integrated regional water management, Salton Sea projects, and water data/stream gauges. The LAO noted that many programs are established and have clear funding processes, but some newer or less-defined programs may warrant more detailed future budget requests and reporting. No votes were taken on the agenda items. Members raised concerns about groundwater subsidence, water deliveries from the Delta, the pace of water storage investments, instream flows, and whether bond dollars were being used to backfill General Fund reductions. Administration witnesses said groundwater recharge spending is being paced because prior years already funded substantial SGMA work, that Delta operations are governed by water quality, salinity, and species requirements, and that Proposition 1 storage projects have moved slowly because they are locally led and require permitting and financing. The Water Board and DWR said they use public needs assessments, annual plans, and existing grant processes to prioritize projects, and Finance said some General Fund programs were shifted to Proposition 4 to help balance the budget. Members also asked for clearer public tracking of bond spending and more concise future reporting. In the coastal resilience portion, the Ocean Protection Council and Coastal Conservancy described Proposition 4 funding for sea level rise adaptation, coastal flood management, habitat restoration, public access, and San Francisco Bay projects, with a multi-year rollout based on project readiness and recent large state investments. The Conservancy said it would use its existing rolling grant process, while OPC said its sea level rise grants would build on existing programs and new technical assistance. The Department of Fish and Wildlife explained its proposed use of bond funds for climate-ready fisheries, hatchery modernization, salmon monitoring, whale- and turtle-safe fishing gear, and a specific hatchery operations request tied to the Friant settlement. The LAO said the coastal chapter’s proposed first-year spending is relatively modest but generally reasonable given staffing and project readiness, while members emphasized oversight, transparency, and coordination across agencies and jurisdictions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Specifically, the requirement that the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the State Water Resources
• Specifically, the requirement that the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the State Water Resources
• Control Board work together to Regulation and the State Water Resources Control Board work together
• In other words, DPR allows paint to have this much copper, and the water board regulates how much copper
• can be in the water.

Summary: The Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee heard four measures and approved one consent item. AB 1617 was taken up on consent and passed to Appropriations. The committee then heard AB 1604, which would phase out bisphenol A in paper receipts by 2027 and all bisphenols by 2028. The author and supporters from Breast Cancer Prevention Partners and Californians Against Waste argued receipts are a source of worker and consumer exposure and waste contamination, while no opposition testified. The bill passed to Judiciary. AB 1642, dealing with post-wildfire smoke and contamination standards for returning to homes, workplaces, and schools, drew extensive testimony. The author, a Caltech professor, and Eaton Fire survivors described heavy metals and other contaminants found in smoke-damaged homes and said California lacks clear science-based clearance standards. Insurance and real estate groups opposed or expressed concern, arguing the bill could overlap with insurance claims handling and add costs, while the author and supporters said it only sets scientific standards and does not regulate claims. The bill passed to Appropriations on a 5-2 vote. AB 1691 addressed copper-based anti-fouling paint on boats and conflicting state water quality and pesticide regulations. The author and the City of Newport Beach said the bill would require DPR and the State Water Resources Control Board to coordinate on studies and consistent standards, while boating groups warned about unintended consequences and the possibility of a de facto ban. The committee also heard AB 1744, a truth-in-labeling bill sponsored by a high school eco club that would prohibit sunscreen from being marketed as reef-safe or reef-friendly if it contains chemical UV filters; it passed unanimously to Privacy and Consumer Protection. After add-on votes, the committee confirmed the earlier actions and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• and Regulation to Business and Commerce.
• utilities to the Texas Water Development Board to Water Agriculture and Rural Affairs Senate Bill 1191
• Water agriculture and rural affairs.
• supply projects included in the state water plan to water for Agriculture and Rural Affairs.
• Implementation Fund for Texas Advisory Committee as the Texas Water Fund Advisory Committee to Water

Bills: SJR36, SJR3, SB616, SB565, SB384, SB5, SJR52, SJR53, SJR54, SJR55, SCR18, SCR19, SCR22, SB27, SB29, SB35, SB1151, SB1152, SB1153, SB1154, SB1155, SB1156, SB1157, SB1158, SB1159, SB1160, SB1161, SB1162, SB1163, SB1164, SB1165, SB1166, SB1167, SB1168, SB1169, SB1170, SB1171, SB1172, SB1173, SB1174, SB1175, SB1176, SB1177, SB1178, SB1179, SB1180, SB1181, SB1182, SB1183, SB1184, SB1185, SB1186, SB1187, SB1188, SB1189, SB1190, SB1191, SB1192, SB1193, SB1194, SB1195, SB1196, SB1197, SB1198, SB1199, SB1200, SB1201, SB1202, SB1203, SB1204, SB1205, SB1206, SB1207, SB1208, SB1209, SB1210, SB1211, SB1212, SB1213, SB1214, SB1215, SB1216, SB1217, SB1218, SB1219, SB1220, SB1221, SB1222, SB1223, SB1224, SB1225, SB1226, SB1227, SB1228, SB1229, SB1230, SB1231, SB1232, SB1233, SB1234, SB1235, SB1236, SB1237, SB1238, SB1239, SB1240, SB1241, SB1242, SB1243, SB1244, SB1245, SB1246, SB1247, SB1248, SB1249, SB1250, SB1251, SB1252, SB1253, SB1254, SB1255, SB1256, SB1257, SB1258, SB1259, SB1260, SB1261, SB1262, SB1263, SB1264, SB1265, SB1266, SB1267, SB1268, SB1269, SB1270, SB1271, SB1272, SB1273, SB1274, SB1275, SB1276, SB1277, SB1278, SB1279, SB1280, SB1281, SB1282, SB1283, SB1284, SB1285, SB1286, SB1287, SB1288, SB1289, SB1290, SB1291, SB1292, SB1293, SB1294, SB1295, SB1296, SB1297, SB1298, SB1299, SB1300, SB1301, SB1302, SB1303, SB1304, SB1305, SB1306, SB1307, SB1308, SB1309, SB1310, SB1311, SB1312, SB1313, SB1314, SB1315, SB1316, SB1317, SB1318, SB1319, SB1320, SB1321, SB1322, SB1323, SB1324, SB1325, SB1326, SB1327, SB1328, SB1329, SB1330, SB1331, SB1332, SB1333, SB1334, SB1335, SB1336, SB1337, SB1338, SB1339, SB1340, SB1341, SB1342, SB1343, SB1344, SB1345, SB1621, SJR57

Keywords: dementia, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, research funding, state budget, prevention, healthcare, medical research, Dementia Prevention and Research Institute, aquifer, water management, Edwards Aquifer, sustainability, regulatory framework, SB 565, Texas Water Code, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, compliance agreement, enforcement suspension

Transcript Highlights:

• So I think our current regulations are more than adequate to protect the groundwater and surface water
• We also have storm water regulations that look at pre- and post-development to see what kind of runoff
• We also have storm water<00:17:08.240><c> regulations</c><00:17:09.039><c> that</c><00:17:09.679><c>
• look</c><00:17:09.919><c> at</c><00:17:10.079><c> pre</c><00:17:10.319><c> and</c> water regulations
• that look at pre and water regulations that look at pre and post<00:17:10.880><c> development</c><00:

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:

• We need to defend our water.
• And so it's helped them uphold any kind of zoning regulations or any kind of regulations that they might
• water.
• to protect our drinking water supply.
• Would raise any kind of issues with air, land, and water.

Transcript Highlights:

• Board as our regulator.
• So the Water Board has a regulation that it's working to finalize.
• People who are part of the program, are they going to be exempt in any way from Water Board regulations
• The State Water Board retains its absolute authority as the regulator under the Porter-Cologne State
• conflict between environmental advocates and water agencies destroy our water sustainability.

Summary: The hearing focused on the governor’s May Revision proposals for transportation, natural resources, climate, and related programs, with the Department of Finance and the LAO presenting competing views on the state’s fiscal condition. Finance said the budget remains balanced over two years, with major climate-bond, water, parks, transportation, DMV, and agriculture proposals, while the LAO argued the state still has a structural deficit and should reject or defer many new discretionary spending items, preserve reserves, and be cautious about ongoing commitments. The LAO specifically questioned the timing and scale of new spending for programs such as Clean California, Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, and the Golden Gate Fields acquisition, and urged more clarity on future obligations and revenue scenarios, including for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. A major portion of the hearing was devoted to the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes proposal for Bay-Delta water quality implementation. Secretary Wade Crowfoot and Finance described it as an enforceable, science-based alternative to a more traditional regulatory approach, with the state’s $25 million request intended to support early implementation, monitoring, habitat restoration, and environmental flows. The LAO countered that the Water Board has not yet adopted the updated Bay-Delta plan, that the proposal may be premature, and that the Legislature should wait for more information on the state’s total funding commitment and the program’s long-term costs. Several members expressed support for the program as a way to reduce conflict and protect water reliability, while others echoed concerns about timing and fiscal exposure. The committee also examined the proposed $125 million Proposition 4 contribution toward acquiring the Golden Gate Fields property for a shoreline park and habitat project. State officials said the acquisition is a time-sensitive, once-in-a-generation opportunity, with an appraised value of $175 million and additional philanthropic and local funding expected to close the gap. Members questioned whether the project had gone through the usual competitive process, whether the site is the best use of scarce park bond dollars, and how public access, habitat, and disadvantaged-community priorities would be protected. The discussion ended without a vote, and the committee moved on to transportation items including Clean California litter abatement, the Games Route Network, homeless encampment coordinators, and DMV modernization and field office proposals, with LAO recommending rejection or delay on several of those requests as well.

Transcript Highlights:

• I support this legislation to better regulate the water and electrical issues.
• I also support regulations on water usage, and I would like to see them more stringent.
• utilities like Missouri American Water, Liberty, and other regulated water utilities.
• large users and PSC-regulated utilities like Missouri American Water, Liberty, and other regulated water
• Unlike electricity and gas, waters primarily sold through non-PSC regulated utilities.

Summary: The Conservation and Natural Resources Committee heard Senate Bill 953, sponsored by Sen. Jason Bean, which would address a projected shortfall in the Department of Natural Resources’ air pollution control program. Bean and supporters from Associated Industries of Missouri, quarry and sand producers, engineering firms, the Missouri Chamber, forest products, and municipal utilities said the bill would stop sweeping unused program funds into general revenue and dedicate a portion of existing sales and use tax revenue from utilities to keep the program solvent without raising permit fees on businesses that have reduced emissions. One informational witness from Armour Vine warned that moving funds out of general revenue could affect broader state revenue and tax triggers. DNR also testified that the fee fund is projected to become insolvent in fiscal year 2028 if current trends continue. No opposition testimony was presented, and the bill hearing was closed. The committee then heard House Bills 3362 and 3364, sponsored by Reps. Colin Wellenkamp and Mike Koslow, which would create guardrails for AI/data center buildout around electricity and water use. The sponsors said the bills are intended to protect ratepayers and local water systems by requiring large-load customers to bear their own infrastructure costs, extending consumer protections to co-ops and municipal utilities, and requiring permits and review for major water withdrawals, with emergency shutoff provisions in water shortages. Support came from environmental groups, conservation organizations, rural advocates, Renew Missouri, the Sierra Club, Missouri Municipal League, Missouri Electric Cooperatives, Ameren Missouri, and Missouri American Water, though some witnesses urged tighter thresholds, more frequent reporting, stronger water-quality protections, and clearer definitions to avoid legal ambiguity. Several witnesses also raised concerns about transparency, local impacts, and whether current thresholds are high enough to protect aquifers, springs, and utility customers. The chair closed testimony after noting time limits and adjourned the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• While public water systems were designed to provide customers with safe and reliable drinking water,
• Public water systems were designed to provide customers with safe and reliable drinking water and to
• Jamie Miner, on behalf of Eastern Municipal Water District as well as Santa Margarita Water District,
• Water District, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District, in support.
• , Walnut Valley Water District, and Rallon Water District, in support.

Summary: The Committee on Emergency Management heard several bills related to public safety, wildfire preparedness, and fireworks regulation. SB 1299, by Senator Arreguín, would place in statute a certification and training framework for fire sprinkler fitters and apprentices after a court decision disrupted prior State Fire Marshal regulations. Supporters said the bill would protect life safety by ensuring qualified installation and maintenance of fire suppression systems, while opponents raised concerns about added costs, housing affordability, and labor-related effects. The committee passed the bill as amended to the Committee on Labor and Employment on a roll call vote, with DeMaio and Hadwick voting no. SB 1153, by Senator Caballero, would require urban retail water suppliers to incorporate wildfire-specific procedures into emergency plans and clarify that water systems are not designed to serve as wildfire defense systems. Supporters from water agencies and fire organizations said the bill would improve coordination, planning, and ratepayer protection while acknowledging infrastructure limits. Members discussed transparency, backup generators, and whether the bill should require more public disclosure; the author said he would continue working on possible amendments. The committee passed the bill as amended to the Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials. SB 828, by Senator Cabaldon, responds to the Esparto fireworks warehouse explosion by requiring fireworks licensees to disclose storage locations, verify local permits, and meet other compliance conditions. The author said the bill was developed with the State Fire Marshal and local public safety partners to close information gaps and improve enforcement. An opposition witness argued the permit-verification requirements could not be met in all jurisdictions, especially for hobby rocketry and small-scale uses, prompting discussion about clarifying different rocket categories and administrative implementation. The committee passed SB 828 as amended to the Committee on Local Government, and the meeting then adjourned after all bills were reported out.

Transcript Highlights:

• But we've also seen a trend recently where the State Water Board is using emergency regulations as a
• The information will better inform the public, the regulated community, and any future permanent water
• supply. water system.
• Our client, the Valley Ag Water Coalition... GS regulation and fees.
• So that way, encouraging water suppliers to put aside water for that non-rainy day.

Summary: The committee heard a long agenda of water, parks, transportation, species protection, and fisheries bills. AB 430 would require the State Water Resources Control Board to publish an economic and environmental impact study when emergency water regulations are extended over multiple years; the author and supporters from agricultural and water groups said it would add transparency without limiting emergency authority. AB 1139 would expand a CEQA exemption to let county park agencies open existing roads and trails for non-motorized recreation, with supporters emphasizing access to nature and opponents warning about impacts to sensitive habitat, tribal resources, and fire risk. AB 929 would temporarily exempt small community water systems and managed wetlands from certain SGMA pumping reductions and fines; supporters said it would protect vulnerable communities and wetlands, while farm and water coalition opponents argued it would undermine basin-wide groundwater management and shift burdens to other users. AB 1225, creating an Accessibility Advisory Committee for State Parks, drew broad support and passed unanimously. The committee also heard AB 514, which would encourage local water suppliers to develop emergency water supplies for drought and service interruptions; it passed with broad support, though one member cautioned against using scientific research as a loophole. AB 550 would let developers seek incidental take permits for species under consideration for listing, aimed at reducing delays for clean energy projects; environmental groups supported the goal but asked for clearer standards, limits on using research as mitigation, and a fee provision, and the bill passed as amended. AB 697 would authorize an incidental take permit for the State Route 37 interim project in Solano and Marin counties, balancing congestion relief and habitat restoration; supporters stressed long commutes and urgent restoration deadlines, while opponents raised climate, sea-level-rise, and tribal concerns. The bill passed, with some members noting they would continue to work on the measure. Other measures discussed included AB 975, which would give Sutter County a narrow, temporary exemption from streambed alteration agreements for certain damaged small bridges and culverts; county officials described repeated flood damage and long permitting delays, and the bill passed as amended. AB 1056 would phase out transferability of set gillnet permits after 2027, allowing only a final family transfer; supporters framed it as a gradual response to bycatch concerns, while fishing industry opponents said it would unfairly target an existing fishery and set a bad precedent. The committee also took up AB 1146, described by the author as a response to politically motivated water releases; supporters from conservation and water organizations backed the bill. Several bills were voted out to Appropriations, some were left open for later action or add-ons, and the committee repeatedly noted it was working through the agenda without a quorum early in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• A regulator, by definition, is at a real disadvantage relative to the regulated firm in understanding
• So they want to make sure, the regulator wants to make sure, that the regulated entity is not just throwing
• So the regulator has to work with the regulated utility to determine what is the right level of reliability
• regulation.
• The floor would be dirtier using the water prior to the water hauling.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications held an oversight hearing focused on electric rates, utility regulation, affordability, wildfire costs, and the California Public Utilities Commission’s role. Chair and members framed the discussion around the challenge of transitioning to a cleaner grid while maintaining reliability and keeping bills affordable. The hearing also served as the annual update from the CPUC and the Public Advocates Office, with testimony from Professor Severin Borenstein and CPUC President-designate Alice Reynolds. Borenstein gave a primer on utility regulation, explaining that generation is largely deregulated while transmission and distribution remain regulated, and that most rate-setting follows cost-of-service regulation. He emphasized that the hardest issue is setting the allowed return on equity: too high can raise bills and encourage capital-heavy spending, while too low can deter investment and harm reliability. He argued there is no silver bullet, said performance-based regulation and price caps have limits, and suggested some costs now charged through electric bills—such as climate programs, low-income subsidies, and wildfire-related public policy costs—might more appropriately be paid through the state budget. Reynolds described the CPUC’s oversight role, saying the commission reviews utility spending through general rate cases, balancing accounts, and other proceedings, and that affordability is addressed through front-end scrutiny, post-spend accountability, and legislative direction. She highlighted wildfire mitigation as a major driver of rate increases, noted recent progress on clean energy procurement and battery storage, and said the CPUC is working on return-on-equity decisions, FERC advocacy on transmission costs, and implementation of SB 254 and other statutes. Members pressed on a range of issues, including wildfire securitization, load growth from EVs and data centers, gas-system stranded assets, balancing accounts, and a water-service dispute in Keene involving Union Pacific. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational, with several follow-up commitments from the CPUC to provide data and updates.

Transcript Highlights:

• And information issues: a regulator, by definition, is at a real disadvantage relative to the regulated
• regulation.
• And they started trucking in water. It was supposed to be a two-year... ...water.
• The floor would be dirtier using the water prior to the water hauling.
• entities and the regulator just in some asymmetry between regulated entities and the regulators just

Summary: The Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications held an oversight hearing focused on electric rates, utility regulation, affordability, reliability, and wildfire-related costs. The chair framed the discussion around the challenge of transitioning to a cleaner grid while keeping bills affordable and the system reliable, and noted the hearing also served as the annual update from the CPUC and Public Advocates Office. Professor Severin Borenstein gave a primer on utility regulation, explaining the split between deregulated generation and regulated transmission/distribution, the basics of cost-of-service regulation, and the role of return on equity. He argued that high allowed returns can encourage capital-intensive spending and that many public policy costs now embedded in rates would be better funded through the state budget, while warning that price caps or performance-based regulation are not silver bullets. CPUC President-designate Alice Reynolds described the commission’s role as economic regulator of investor-owned utilities and said affordability is being addressed through rate case scrutiny, reasonableness reviews, and legislative direction. She said wildfire mitigation and insurance costs have been major drivers of rate increases, but some wildfire-related costs are time-limited and will roll off rates over time. She also highlighted progress on clean energy procurement, battery storage growth, and integrated resource planning to meet climate goals while maintaining reliability. Reynolds said the CPUC is reviewing utility spending, disallowing imprudent costs where appropriate, and litigating at FERC to challenge transmission costs. Members pressed both witnesses on several issues, including whether rates are being inflated by legislative mandates and balancing accounts, whether utility returns are too high, and whether the state should shift more public-policy costs off electric bills and into the General Fund. Senators also raised concerns about load growth from data centers and ports, gas-system stranded assets as electrification advances, and whether the CPUC is over-regulating or discouraging innovation. Reynolds said the CPUC is working with the Energy Commission, CAISO, and the Air Resources Board on a holistic planning process, and pointed to tools such as interconnection reforms and demand flexibility. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational, with several follow-up requests for reports and data.

Transcript Highlights:

• quality of water.
• And so California water reuse in California under Title 22 Code of Federal Regulation...
• Water reuse in California under Title 22 Code of Federal Regulation initially was based on doing pathogenic
• in water.
• RSV in water, and you don't have some adenovirus in water.

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Biotechnology and Medical Technology held an informational hearing on the role of biotechnology industries in wastewater treatment, hosted at Bakar Labs on the UC Berkeley campus. Opening remarks emphasized California’s water scarcity, the rising cost of wastewater infrastructure, and the need to reuse and clean contaminated water. Committee members framed the hearing as a look at both current treatment challenges and emerging technologies that could improve water quality, affordability, and resilience over time. The first panel focused on statewide wastewater challenges. BACWA Executive Director Laurie Fono described wastewater plants as part of a broader circular economy, noting their roles in recycled water, environmental enhancement, biosolids management, carbon sequestration, and renewable energy generation. She highlighted major challenges including aging 1970s-era infrastructure, nutrient reduction mandates, sea level rise, evolving regulations, and PFAS source control. She said Bay Area agencies face about $11 billion in nutrient reduction costs, with rate increases, state revolving funds, WIFIA loans, and bonds as the main financing tools. Members asked about regional differences, energy revenue opportunities, smaller decentralized plants, and agricultural collaboration. The second panel featured researchers and lab experts discussing biotechnology solutions. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab’s Dr. Romine Chakarvati described using microbial communities and machine learning to help break down PFAS and treat produced water. CEL Analytical’s Dr. Yigi Dearborn explained pathogen testing for direct potable reuse, wastewater monitoring, and the need for larger sample volumes and more funding to validate methods for viruses and protozoa. Stanford’s Dr. Chunhung-Shin presented an anaerobic membrane system that turns domestic wastewater into clean water and energy with less biosolids and lower operating costs. Committee members asked about AI, assay development, scaling technologies, and funding priorities. Public comment from the California Association of Sanitation Agencies stressed the need to balance scalability, reliability, and affordability, and the hearing adjourned without any formal vote or action.

Transcript Highlights:

• Role divisions between the State Water Board, third-party providers, and water suppliers.
• water.
• That’s for bottled water, for drinking water, and for drainage water.
• Bottled water and wastewater, and we should not be having bottled water at all.
• This is not excessive regulation.

Summary: The committee heard several bills focused on environmental quality, climate planning, transparency, water affordability, plastics, recycling, and refinery transition planning. SB 1087, by Senator Cabaldon, would modernize SB 375 regional climate and transportation planning by extending planning cycles, clarifying target-setting and review processes, and reducing time and cost burdens; metropolitan planning organizations strongly supported it, while environmental groups and industry raised concerns about VMT, GHG metrics, CEQA, and implementation details. Committee members generally agreed the process is too costly and complex, but urged the author to keep the bill focused on simpler, less expensive planning and better progress reporting. The bill was moved as amended to Senate Transportation and kept on call. SB 1239, by Senator Jones, would require CARB to update its standardized regulatory impact assessment when a major regulation is materially changed; supporters framed it as a transparency and affordability measure, while the chair argued it could slow rulemaking and discourage agencies from incorporating public feedback. The bill failed on the committee vote and was kept on call. SB 1125, by Senator Menjivar, would create a statewide low-income water rate assistance program, contingent on funding, to help households facing rising water bills; public water agencies, environmental justice groups, local governments, and community members from rural areas testified in support, emphasizing affordability and the lack of statewide assistance. The chair and members expressed support for the need for such a program, and the bill passed 3-1 and was kept on call. SB 1180, by Senator Allen, would establish implementation rules for the plastic pollution mitigation fund created by SB 54, including eligibility, reporting, transparency, and technical assistance for smaller organizations and tribes; environmental justice, conservation, and local government groups supported it, while producer and industry groups opposed unless amended, seeking tighter links to measurable mitigation outcomes and the covered products under SB 54. The bill passed 3-0 and was kept on call. SB 1161, by Senator Valadares, would require CARB to provide clearer, plain-language economic analysis of regulations and their impacts on households; supporters described it as a transparency and affordability measure, while some environmental groups offered respectful or qualified opposition. The chair said she could support it as amended, and the bill passed 4-0 and was kept on call. The committee also heard SB 955, by Senator Blakespear, to update California’s beverage container recycling program so major sellers participate and consumers have convenient return options; supporters said it would improve redemption access and program effectiveness, and the bill passed 5-0 and was kept on call. Finally, SB 1259, also by Senator Blakespear, would require refineries to provide earlier disclosure of cleanup liabilities and closure planning information so the state and communities can plan for refinery site remediation and reuse; the author framed it as a transparency and transition-planning measure, and testimony began in support as the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, the current conforming Waters of the U.S. regulations still fail to align with the ruling, creating
• It allows water features to be considered jurisdictional, even if they're not covered by the Clean Water
• Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act make sure that rivers, lakes, and sources of drinking water
• When I think of building regulations, I tend to think of the city, county, and state regulations.
• Harris talked about with the Clean Water Act, I mean, we've got language in the regulation that is being

Keywords: environmental review, permitting process, infrastructure, bipartisan legislation, economic growth, Nucor, West Virginia

Summary: The meeting focused on critical discussions surrounding the need for modernizing the federal environmental review and permitting processes. Witnesses from various sectors, including Nucor, provided testimony on the delays and costs associated with current regulations, emphasizing the impact on infrastructure and economic growth. Major projects in West Virginia, such as the Corridor H and Coalfield Expressways, were highlighted as examples of initiatives stalled by excessive permitting hurdles, prompting calls for bipartisan legislation to streamline these processes while maintaining environmental protections. The committee expressed a commitment to address these issues immediately, highlighting the urgency to enhance efficiency in permitting to facilitate economic development.

Transcript Highlights:

• The environmentalists and the water contractors don't all agree on how that water should be distributed
• We are an organization of 27 public water agencies who all receive water from the State Water Project
• water delivery continues.
• regulated at the local level.
• We are layering regulation on top of regulation. We're driving up costs.

Summary: The committee heard SB 872, which would direct $150 million annually each for Central Valley subsidence repairs and Delta levee work. Senator McNerney and supporters from Restore the Delta, the State Water Contractors, and many water agencies, labor groups, environmental organizations, and local governments argued the bill is urgent to protect water delivery for 27 million Californians, safeguard levees and state assets, and address climate-related flood risks. There was no opposition testimony, and members asked about the bill’s focus on state-owned conveyance; the author said the distinction reflects the separate state and federal water projects. The bill was held while the committee lacked a quorum, with no vote taken at that point. The committee then heard SB 981, which would require CARB to include cost-of-living impacts in its existing regulatory analysis for major rules. Senator Niello and supporters from agriculture, manufacturing, business, propane, restaurants, and commercial property groups said the bill would improve transparency about how regulations affect gasoline, electricity, food, housing, and business costs. Opponents, including Coalition for Clean Air and the Union of Concerned Scientists, argued it would add delay, cost, and redundant analysis to CARB rulemaking and could not reliably measure the effects the bill seeks to capture. Committee members raised concerns that CARB already estimates costs, that the bill is burdensome and narrow, and that it does not fully account for benefits or the role of other agencies. No vote was recorded in the transcript. SB 887, by Senator Padilla, would require data center projects to undergo CEQA review while creating a streamlined path for projects meeting strong environmental, labor, and community-benefit criteria, including zero-carbon electricity, on-site storage, recycled water or water-efficient cooling, and full cost responsibility for grid upgrades. Supporters said data centers are rapidly expanding, can strain energy and water resources, and should be held to clear standards while still allowing beneficial development; labor and environmental groups backed the measure. Opponents from the Data Center Coalition, Silicon Valley Leadership Group, and business groups said the bill is overly prescriptive, discriminatory toward one industry, and could drive investment and jobs out of state. After discussion, the committee established a quorum and voted 3-1 to pass SB 887 as amended to the Senate Energy, Utilities, and Communications Committee, with the bill kept on call. The committee also heard SB 1008, which would renew a CEQA exemption for the closure of at-grade rail crossings ordered by the California Public Utilities Commission. Senator Ochoa Bogh and Union Pacific testified that the measure would help the state act quickly on rail safety by removing redundant environmental review for crossing closures, while still requiring collaboration with local jurisdictions and the PUC. There was support from railroad and business representatives and no opposition. The committee voted 4-0 to pass SB 1008 to the Senate Energy, Utilities, and Communications Committee, and the bill was kept on call.

Transcript Highlights:

• the standards for what you regulate and how you regulate are federal.
• But there is confusion at times on what TCEQ can regulate and what we cannot regulate.
• There are certain areas that we just cannot regulate. We cannot regulate the traffic.
• We cannot regulate the siting.
• Their attestation that they're providing enough water for X number of years, firm water.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Nominations met with a quorum and first took up pending nominations from an earlier agenda. Members severed Douglas McReecken, nominated to the Texas Tech University System Board of Regents, from the rest of the list and then voted to report the remaining nominees to the full Senate by a 7-0 vote. The committee then voted on the severed nomination itself and reported Douglas McReecken to the full Senate as well, by a 5-2 vote. The committee heard testimony from Brooke Pop, reappointed as chair of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and later from Commissioner Katarina Gonzalez, also of TCEQ. Questions focused on whether TCEQ rules comply with state law, ex parte restrictions, public transparency, concrete batch plant permitting, MUD approvals, water availability, illegal dams, enforcement, and the agency’s role in local environmental disputes. Both nominees said they follow the law as written, described internal legal review of rules, and emphasized transparency, public outreach, and enforcement; Gonzalez said she had already sent back two rules she believed did not comply with legislation. Members also discussed TCEQ’s authority limits and the need for clearer public communication about what the agency can and cannot regulate. The committee also considered Alethea Sullivan, nominated to the Texas Southern University Board of Regents. Questions centered on TSU’s status as an independent institution, the role of HBCUs amid DEI-related legal changes, and student outcomes. Sullivan said she would focus on ensuring taxpayer and student resources produce valuable credentials and noted concerns from her review of graduation and bar passage rates. The committee then heard from Benjamin Barkley, appointed chief executive and public counsel of the Office of Public Utility Counsel. Barkley said OPUC’s main need is additional funding to recruit and retain attorneys and expert witnesses, reduce turnover, and continue representing residential and small commercial consumers in utility rate cases; he said the office was involved in 73 contested cases and saved Texans $2.2 billion in FY 2024. No final action was taken on the later nominees, and the committee recessed with nominations left pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• air, water, and water resources; water, ground, everything that you deal with.
• The standards for what you regulate and how you regulate are federal.
• But there is confusion at times on what TCEQ can regulate and what we cannot regulate.
• Their attestation that they're providing enough water for X number of years, firm water.
• from the waters.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all