Transcript Highlights:

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

Keywords: 965, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

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

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

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

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

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

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

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

Transcript Highlights:

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

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

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

Transcript Highlights:

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

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

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

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

Transcript Highlights:

• all of the units in the project to owner all of the units in the project to owner occupants<00:43
• <00:44:14.400> occupant had removed some of the owner occupant had removed some of the owner occupant
• <00:44:56.760> owner-occupied owner-occupant owner-occupied owner-occupant owner-occupied residential
• to non-owner-occupied to non-owner-occupied residential<00:45:07.280> uses,<00:45:07.640>
• buyers, you know, non you know, owner buyers, you know, non you know, owner occupant<00:51:40.200

Bills: SB2069, SB2177, SB2342, SB2060, SB2544, SB3011, SB2061, SB2552

Keywords: SB2069, Hawaii housing, HHFDC, Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation, Dwelling Unit Revolving Fund, equity pilot program, housing affordability, homeownership, first-time homebuyer, for-sale housing, transit-oriented development, TOD, transit-oriented development zone, bus route, bus stop, critical workforce housing, health care workers, educators, law enforcement, correctional officers

Summary: The House Housing Committee opened its Friday morning hearing by noting potentially catastrophic flooding on the island and acknowledging that some members were absent helping their communities, so quorum for voting was uncertain. The committee then heard testimony on several housing-related measures, with most bills drawing support from housing agencies and community organizations and little or no opposition in the room. On SB 2069 SD2, SB 2177 SD2, and SB 2342 SD2, witnesses largely supported the measures. HHFDC supported SB 2069 and SB 2177, and HPHA supported SB 2342. For SB 2342, HHFDC raised concerns that the bill would alter the Qualified Allocation Plan outside the normal open, public process required by federal law and could exclude stakeholders; Kathy Charities echoed those concerns and also objected to changing point allocations in ways that could raise rents and weaken long-term affordability. Members questioned HHFDC about how the QAP is normally updated, the meaning of the point system, and whether a legislative working group could mandate changes; HHFDC said recommendations would still need public hearing and board approval. The committee also heard SB 2060 SD2, which would create a mixed-income subaccount in the rental housing revolving fund. HHFDC said the subaccount would likely use tier-two funds, estimated at about $100 million total, to support mixed-income projects above 60% AMI, citing Front Street Apartments as a possible example. Members asked about project selection and funding needs. On SB 2544 SD2, OHA opposed the bill’s Chapter 6E-related exemptions and mandatory review timelines, arguing that burial review protections should not be weakened and that the SPEED Task Force process was a better venue for streamlining. The sponsor later clarified that the bill was not meant to eliminate the 60-day review process but to make the deadline clearer. For SB 3011 SD1, which concerns public housing and pet ownership, HPHA and several humane organizations supported the measure, saying it would help low-income residents and seniors keep pets and benefit from animal companionship. HPHA explained its existing pet policy, including deposits, monthly fees, and restrictions, and said the requested funding would support ADA-accessible pet areas and related administration. Finally, on SB 2061 SD2, HCDA supported the bill while OHA opposed it unless protections for Hawaiian Crown and Government lands were strengthened. Committee members questioned the project’s 60/40 split between income-restricted and market-rate units, the 10-year owner-occupancy restriction, and the procurement exemption; the sponsor said the exemption was tied to a real estate transaction and that the project would still use 103D-like solicitation procedures. No votes were taken during the hearing, and several items were left for later action because quorum was uncertain.

Transcript Highlights:

• Not just who the owner is, but if there are beneficiaries or you know, supplements.
• Not just who the owner is, but if there are beneficiaries or you know, supplements.
• It's the name of the apparent owner, which presumably that's what they already have.
• You know, the surface owner, you know, initially could be a developer, a group of developers, whatever
• The thing to Remember, this gets started, the surface owner, the initial developer, so forth, puts this

Bills: SB683, SB1579, SB1389, SB1387, SB1390, SB1391, SB2063, SB1829, SB2060, SB1842, SB1398, SB1212, SB2158, SB102

Keywords: education, tax credit, student support, private school, Oklahoma Parental Choice Tax Credit, financial assistance, homeschooling, qualified expenses, property tax, valuation increase, taxpayer rights, homestead, protest process, school choice, tuition assistance, income limits, parental choice, accreditation, sales tax, motor vehicles

Bills: HB1527, HB1823, HB2490, HB2223, HB2325, HB2104, HB2593, HB2592, HB1927, HB1553, HB1964, HB1918, HB1990

Keywords: gambling prohibition, Aloha Stadium, University of Hawaii, amateur athletics, state lands, coastal resilience, Maui, Mantokuji Bay, coastal erosion, environmental protection, Native Hawaiian, spiritual sites, historic preservation, economic development, burial sites, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, cultural history, archaeology, Hawaii Revised Statutes, civil service

Summary: The committee first heard HB 1527 relating to gambling. The chair outlined hearing rules, including a two-minute limit and a warning that bills not heard would die. Testimony was overwhelmingly in support from a prosecutor, Honolulu Police Department, and Stop Predatory Gambling, all arguing that casinos and sports betting increase crime, sex trafficking, harassment of athletes, and broader social harm. No opposition testimony was presented, and the committee moved on without questions or action taken on the bill. The committee then heard HB 1823 relating to coastal zone management and HB 2490 relating to coastal resilience. For HB 1823, DLNR, the Office of Planning, and Maui County testified, with Maui County supporting the measure and its proposed amendments. For HB 2490, DLNR expressed concern about exempting a proposed Mokuji Bay pilot project from permits and regulation before a long-term plan is finalized, while the County of Maui, the Mokuji Soto Zen Mission, and the Office of Planning supported the bill as a coastal resilience pilot. The mission described severe erosion, sea-level rise impacts, and years of unsuccessful efforts to stabilize the shoreline; its consultant said the study is leaning toward nature-based and hybrid solutions. In questioning, members and DLNR discussed whether the bill should say the project “shall” or “may” be exempt, and the chair indicated the language would be adjusted to preserve DLNR discretion and to change the lead agency reference to OPSD. No vote was taken in the transcript. Finally, the committee took up HB 2223 relating to historic preservation reviews. SHPD said it stood on its written comments, while OPSD and DHHL supported the bill. DHHL argued the measure would streamline reviews, improve transparency, and help address long wait times for its projects, saying it could alleviate burden on SHPD and better serve beneficiaries. Representative Shimizu questioned whether the bill would create redundancy and expand government rather than strengthen SHPD, noting a separate staffing bill already exists. SHPD responded that DHHL is uniquely subject to 6E review and that the bill would not waive federal or state historic review requirements; the discussion also touched on possible federal-style grant support and the existing memorandum of agreement between SHPD and DHHL. The transcript ends during questioning, with no final committee action shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• If the owner rejects any offer from the residents, this section also requires the owner to share the
• Next, we have **Michelle Carlson**, real estate broker and owner of Mike Ives Realty.
• As a business owner, every business owner should have that right.
• I've been a community owner for 41 years.
• Therefore, it seems reasonable itself that a park owner should.

Bills: HF1143, HF1548, HF1340, HF2549, HF2559, HF1673, HF2740, HF2507, HF2461, HF2381, HF2695

Keywords: education funding, unemployment aid, special education, Minnesota statutes, appropriations, housing, redevelopment, local government, trust funds, community development, HF1340, housing infrastructure bonds, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, MHFA, affordable housing, supportive housing, permanent housing, adaptive reuse, area median income, AMI

Transcript Highlights:

• uh who's going to be the ultimate owner uh who's going to be the ultimate owner of<00:20:15.840>
• <01:09:11.159> from 10 would prevent a park owner from 10 would prevent a park owner from
• this section uh also requires the owner this section uh also requires the owner to<01:09:31.199>
• As a business owner, every business owner should have that right.
• As a business owner, every business owner should have that right.

Bills: HF1143, HF1548, HF1340, HF2549, HF2559, HF1673, HF2740, HF2507, HF2461, HF2381, HF2695

Keywords: education funding, unemployment aid, special education, Minnesota statutes, appropriations, housing, redevelopment, local government, trust funds, community development, HF1340, housing infrastructure bonds, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, MHFA, affordable housing, supportive housing, permanent housing, adaptive reuse, area median income, AMI

Transcript Highlights:

• In exchange, the owner could offset that loss by not paying property taxes.
• I'm frustrated, along with property owners and fellow owners who see complexes removed from the tax roll
• This is not a fair marketplace where responsible taxpaying apartment owners...
• That the original owner still owned the property; they had just done some financing.
• I'm a certified business owner. I'm a consultant.

Bills: HB21, HB211, HB223, HB323, HB524, HB530, HB636, HB762, HB21, HB211, HB223

Keywords: housing finance, multifamily residential, low income, tax exemption, audit requirements, affordable housing, local government, development bonds, housing assistance, financial assistance, low income housing, community support, affordability, veterans housing, community involvement, air conditioning, tenant support, healthcare, elderly, taxation

Bills: HB21, HB211, HB223, HB323, HB524, HB530, HB636, HB762, HB21, HB211, HB223

Keywords: housing finance, multifamily residential, low income, tax exemption, audit requirements, affordable housing, local government, development bonds, housing assistance, financial assistance, low income housing, community support, affordability, veterans housing, community involvement, air conditioning, tenant support, healthcare, elderly, taxation

Transcript Highlights:

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

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

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

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

Keywords: 908, all

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