Transcript Highlights:

• changes that could shake out people or kick people out, it's much easier for people to be all on the boat
• and for them to be, unfortunately, it's hard for them to be shaken off than never be on the boat entirely

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on CalFresh enrollment, food insecurity in California, the recent federal shutdown’s disruption of SNAP benefits, and the long-term effects of H.R. 1 on eligibility, benefits, and state and county costs. Opening remarks emphasized that millions of Californians rely on CalFresh, that the shutdown briefly delayed benefits for the first time in the program’s history, and that state and local governments, including Alameda County, stepped in with emergency food aid and funding. Members also framed the issue as both a hunger and affordability problem, with several noting that California’s agricultural abundance contrasts sharply with persistent food insecurity. The first panel presented research and advocacy perspectives on food hardship. PPIC’s Tess Thorman described food insecurity rates, disparities affecting households with children and Black and Latino households, and the role of nutrition programs in reducing poverty. Nourish California’s Betzabel Estudio argued that hunger is a policy choice and highlighted campaigns to expand state-funded food assistance for immigrants, support reentry populations, and continue the CalFresh fruit-and-vegetable incentive program. The California Association of Food Banks’ Josh Wright said food banks are seeing sustained high demand, lower federal food supplies, and cannot replace CalFresh, while urging more state support for food purchasing, school meals, and SunBucks. The second panel reviewed CalFresh operations and participation. The California Department of Social Services reported that CalFresh participation has risen over the past decade, with the state closing much of the participation gap through outreach, simplified applications, and demonstration projects such as the Elderly Simplified Application Project and a minimum nutrition benefit pilot. Alameda County Social Services described local caseloads, application trends, and emergency food distributions during the shutdown, while also warning that H.R. 1’s work requirements, immigrant eligibility restrictions, and possible cost-sharing could reduce enrollment. A student CalFresh ambassador testified about the burdensome application and recertification process and urged more funding for campus basic-needs centers and outreach to reduce stigma and administrative friction. In the final panel, county, food bank, and policy witnesses described the shutdown response and the expected impact of H.R. 1. Alameda County Community Food Bank and the County Welfare Directors Association said counties, food banks, and community partners mobilized emergency funds, pop-up pantries, and food purchasing to bridge the shutdown gap, but warned that hundreds of thousands of Californians could lose benefits under the new federal rules. The California Budget and Policy Center began outlining the scale of federal cuts, noting that H.R. 1 will significantly reduce SNAP funding and shift costs to states. No votes or formal committee actions were taken; the hearing was informational and concluded with discussion of possible state responses, including backfilling benefits, preserving outreach funding, and improving administrative systems to protect enrollment.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that's the boat I'm in right now.
• And that's the boat I'm in right now.

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Child Care Costs held its third hearing, focused on how transitional kindergarten (TK) fits into California’s mixed-delivery early learning system, with an emphasis on the Central Valley. Opening remarks stressed that TK and child care should complement each other, not compete, and that families need both part-day school-based options and full-day, year-round care. Committee members outlined hearing goals around aligning TK with existing programs, understanding family needs, and examining the economic impact of early learning on workforce participation and local economies. Panelists from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, Every Child California, Early Edge, Children Now, and others described TK’s rapid expansion to all four-year-olds, the growth in enrollment, and related changes to state preschool and after-school programs. Witnesses generally supported TK but warned that its expansion has shifted enrollment away from community-based providers, especially centers and family child care homes, creating financial strain, vacant classrooms, and staffing challenges. They urged stronger partnerships between school districts and community providers, more flexible licensing and facilities support, higher and more uniform reimbursement rates, permanent authority for state preschool to serve two-year-olds, and better compensation and training for educators across settings. Parents and providers testified about the importance of trusted, culturally and linguistically responsive care, the need for infant-toddler and home-based options, and the difficulty of affording child care when TK is not full-day or does not fit family schedules. Several speakers emphasized that many families still face long waits for subsidies and that reimbursement and payment delays threaten provider stability. Public comment echoed these concerns, with providers calling for true cost-of-care rates, more vouchers, support for transportation and nontraditional hours, and protection from insurance and facility costs that can force programs to close. State education officials said California’s UPK system works best when TK, state preschool, Head Start, and community-based providers are treated as a shared system, and noted that planning and implementation grants and local coordination efforts have helped build mixed-delivery partnerships. The hearing ended without formal votes or actions, but committee members indicated they would continue gathering input to inform future policy and budget decisions.

Transcript Highlights:

• a homeowner is now 40 years old, and that means that myself, at the age of 32, if I am in the same boat
• The second thing it does is require any community assets to pay for attorney's fees in a divorce, which
• might sound like a good idea, but... community assets to pay for attorney's fees and a divorce, which
• , all of those types of complicated things. ...the rights and duty of parents, attorney's fees, all of
• HB 2210, aviation surveillance technology fees prohibition.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The Senate convened, approved the journal, received House messages and first-read a large number of bills, then moved through several Committee of the Whole calendars. On Calendar 2, SB 1419 on solar energy inspection contractors was amended with a Carroll floor amendment and passed; a Sundareshan amendment aimed at requiring utilities to shield residential ratepayers from costs tied to large loads such as data centers was debated at length, but failed on a 12-15 division. SB 1498 (Department of Public Safety appropriation) and SB 1502 (unlawful flight/reckless endangerment) also received do-pass recommendations. The Committee of the Whole report was adopted, and the Senate later rejected an attempt to add the failed data-center amendment to the report by a 13-14 vote. On Calendar 3, the Senate advanced SB 1165 (insurance cost sharing for breast exams), SB 1206 (storm-related insurance claims), SB 1212 (health insurance reimbursement rates for vaccines), SB 1215 (firefighters’ occupational disease/workers’ compensation), SB 1290 and SB 1291 (agricultural property notices/classification), and SB 1347 (fertility preservation coverage), with committee amendments adopted on most of them. A Warner substitute floor amendment to SB 1347 was adopted to address insurer concerns by allowing prior authorization with a 72-hour processing requirement and clarifying storage-cost responsibility. The Senate also retained SB 1503 on the calendar. On Calendar 1 and the additional calendars, the Senate advanced SB 1013 (public employees merit hiring), SB 1108 (cash transactions and rounding, with an emergency clause added), SB 1178 (naturopathic physicians), SB 1186 (document retention/proposals/donations), SB 1286 (veterinary visits and prescriptions), SB 1366 (commercial buildings and telecommunications), SB 1431 (municipal design prohibitions), SB 1671 (gaming/racing/boxing conflict-of-interest continuation), SB 1004 (ESA students’ interscholastic activities), SB 1116 (AHCCCS access/claims review/behavioral health), SB 1162 (health care institution licensing complaints), SB 1179 (group home monitoring), SB 1475 (school district governing boards/eligibility), SB 1821 (DCS training and child placement), and SCR 1012. Several floor amendments were debated and adopted or rejected, including a Kavanaugh emergency-clause amendment to SB 1108, a failed Sears amendment to SB 1178 on prescription drug price gouging, a failed Sundareshan transparency amendment to SB 1186, a failed Kavanaugh amendment to SB 1286 on veterinary prescriptions, a Gowan amendment to SB 1366, a Payne amendment to SB 1077, a Carroll amendment to SB 1479, a Petersen amendment to SB 1566, and an Angius amendment to SB 1018 expanding the definition of foreign law to include certain harmful practices. The Senate adopted the Committee of the Whole reports and properly assigned the bills after each calendar.

Transcript Highlights:

• Universities would then have to go through and determine who is eligible and not eligible for those fee
• They're just going to not going to get the fee waiver that they had in their previous semesters.
• I'm talking about students who are in a fee waiver, and let's be clear about something.
• I'm talking about students who are in a fee waiver, and let's be clear about something.
• States that a student who's right now in grade nine through the 12th grade can remain eligible for a fee

Summary: The Senate opened with a quorum, prayer, and the Pledge of Allegiance, then read an amended joint proclamation expanding the special session call to include financial penalties for government officials, criminal penalties for offenses committed by illegal aliens, and programs and appropriations to support law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. No committee reports, governor’s messages, or House messages were on the desk before the chamber moved to the special order calendar. The main item was Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 2B, the immigration bill, along with a late-filed strike-all amendment by Senator Gruters. Gruters said the amendment aligned terminology with federal law, increased penalties for crimes by unauthorized aliens, added transnational crime organizations to gang definitions, required stronger participation in the federal 287(g) program, created financial penalties for noncompliance, offered a $1,000 bonus for officers assisting ICE in large operations, directed more information-sharing with federal agencies, and barred DHSMV from issuing licenses or IDs to unauthorized aliens. He framed the bill as supporting President Trump’s immigration agenda and focusing on criminal illegal aliens rather than street-level enforcement. A long question-and-answer period followed, with Senators Polsky, Pizzo, Smith, Jones, Roscoe, Berman, and others pressing the sponsor on scope, legality, costs, and implementation. Questions focused on whether the bill would require participation beyond jails and detention centers, whether schools or churches could be affected, liability and immunity for local agencies, the size and purpose of the proposed appropriations, and the impact on undocumented students receiving in-state tuition waivers. Gruters and Senator Fine said the 287(g) provisions were intended to apply to jails and detention facilities, that green-card holders and lawful residents would not be affected, and that the tuition waiver repeal would end discounted tuition for students in the country illegally while not affecting their ability to attend. Fine also defended the mandatory death penalty provision for certain capital offenses committed by illegal immigrants, acknowledging it would likely be challenged in court but arguing the bill was designed to test and advance the policy. No final vote or other action on the bill is reflected in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Universities would then have to go through and determine who is eligible and not eligible for those fee
• They're just going to not going to get the fee waiver that they had in their previous semesters.
• I'm talking about students who are in a fee waiver, and let's be clear about something.
• I'm talking about students who are in a fee waiver, and let's be clear about something.
• states that a student who's right now in grade nine through the 12th grade can remain eligible for a fee

Summary: The Senate opened with a prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the reading of an amended joint proclamation expanding the Legislature’s immigration agenda. The proclamation added items calling for financial penalties for government officials, enhanced criminal penalties for offenses committed by illegal aliens, and programs and appropriations to support law enforcement in enforcing federal immigration law. The chamber then took up the special order calendar, beginning with Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 2B, the immigration bill. Most of the meeting was devoted to debate and questions on the strike-all amendment to SB 2B. Sponsor Senator Gruters described the bill as a broad immigration enforcement package aligned with President Trump’s agenda. He said it would require greater cooperation with federal immigration authorities, strengthen participation in the 287(g) program, create a chief immigration officer and council, authorize financial penalties for noncompliance, provide bonuses for officers assisting ICE, and direct information-sharing with federal agencies. He also said the bill would bar DHSMV from issuing licenses or ID cards to unauthorized aliens and would end in-state tuition waivers for undocumented students. Senators Polsky, Pizzo, Smith, Jones, Berman, Osgood, and others questioned the scope of the bill, whether it would affect schools, churches, cities, nonprofits, and green-card holders, and how the 287(g) provisions would work in practice. Gruters repeatedly said the operational focus was on jails and detention facilities, not street-level enforcement. A major point of controversy was the bill’s proposed mandatory death penalty for unauthorized aliens convicted of certain capital offenses. Senator Fine said the covered crimes were the most serious capital felonies, including murder, child sexual battery, destructive-device offenses causing death, and certain trafficking offenses, and argued the provision was intended to withstand constitutional challenge. Senator Pizzo raised Eighth Amendment concerns and questioned whether the bill could mandate death sentences. The tuition waiver provisions also drew extended debate: Fine said the state would save about $41 million by ending discounted tuition for undocumented students, while Democrats argued the savings would not return to general revenue and that the policy would harm students who are already enrolled. Fine and Gruters said green-card holders would not be affected and that the bill targeted only students in the country illegally. The discussion also covered appropriations and implementation. Senator Smith asked about the bill’s large funding levels, and Fine broke down the spending as including $375 million for the chief immigration officer, $100 million in grants to local law enforcement, $29 million for the new Office of State Immigration Enforcement, and $10 million for an unauthorized-alien transport program. Gruters said the funds would reimburse local governments and help address staffing shortages, while critics questioned the lack of benchmarks and the fiscal impact. No final vote or disposition on the bill appears in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Secondly, what the bill does is it assigns $50 billion worth of fees to be paid by companies.
• municipality or the mall license fee, both.
• , including any type of court fees or attorney fees, could go back to the tenant, and that's if the case
• And then now we want to add an additional fee.
• This fee, and that... ...of correctional services is subject to a fee.

Keywords: 1146, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We've launched an enhanced prepayment review for fee-for-service in the 14 high-risk services.
• this money willy-nilly and fraud and they didn't want it reported, and that they were actually buying boats
• reported and that they were actually reported and that they were actually buying<01:37:04.159> boats
• c> state<01:37:05.280> and<01:37:05.520> federal<01:37:05.840> tax buying boats
• with state and federal tax buying boats with state and federal tax dollars<01:37:06.960> and<

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I, my neighbor who will remain nameless, one of them will not pay the road fee.
• will not pay remain nameless one of them will not pay the<00:06:35.080> road<00:06:35.400> fee
• 60-year-old private road, and we get a bill, and you can pay it, not pay it, whatever floats your boat
• 60-year-old private road, and we get a bill, and you can pay it, not pay it, whatever floats your boat
• may want to think about a TIF and use the raised-assessment kind of pay for it, along with parking fees

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's the last time you're running the boat anyway, you know, I hope...

Bills: HB17, HB23

Keywords: property tax, school funding, enrollment changes, inflation adjustment, tax rate notice, property tax exemption, ad valorem tax, Texas Tax Code, nonprofit corporation, charitable organization, educational nonprofit, scientific nonprofit, agriculture support, youth programs, community education, county population threshold, large county, local government revenue, leasehold interest, possessory interest

Transcript Highlights:

• He was tragically lost at sea while conducting a mission on a boat off the coast of Somalia on January

Bills: HCR46, HB1389, HB3359, HB5629

Keywords: commemoration, military, navy seal, honor, January 12, Nathan Gage Ingram, military funeral honors, JROTC, veterans, training, grant program, military honors, community engagement, funeral services, education grants, community service, HB 3359, veteran status, Texas Veterans Commission, veterans services

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, at this point in time, I'm just gonna call the boat to see if we move then, or I actually my, my.

Transcript Highlights:

• Their boat had crashed and, and sank, and, and, uh, we were able to walk, uh, Parks and Wildlife game

Transcript Highlights:

• California already applies industry-specific taxes and fees where sectors create significant public costs
• creates that framework by establishing a statewide decontamination standard for watercraft, that's boats
• A statewide decontamination standard for watercraft, that's boats going from lake to lake, creating reciprocities
• The bill I’m presenting today does the same thing, but rather than evaluate fees to utilities, it requires
• This bill would authorize HCD to waive annual monitoring fees when necessary to maintain the fiscal integrity

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly convened, first dealing with quorum and routine procedural matters before moving through a series of third-reading bills, many focused on immigration enforcement, worker protections, child care, and school or voting-site safety. Early measures included AB 2393, AB 1994, AB 1929, AB 1633, AB 1650, AB 1655, AB 1851, AB 1896, and AB 2230, with authors and supporters arguing these bills would provide accountability, protect immigrant communities, preserve access to benefits and services, and limit intimidation by immigration enforcement. Opponents repeatedly argued the bills were anti-law-enforcement, unconstitutional, or based on exaggerated or nonexistent threats. Several bills passed by recorded vote, including AB 2393 (41-15), AB 1994 (58-0), AB 1929 (41-17), AB 1650 (44-19), AB 1655 (50-14), AB 1851 (56-0), AB 1896 (41-19), and AB 2230 (42-15). AB 1633, a 54-vote bill imposing a tax on for-profit detention facilities, was debated at length but the roll was not completed in the excerpt and the item was moved on from temporarily. After a caucus break, the House returned and took up additional bills. AB 2379 would require child care providers to be informed of constitutional protections and receive multilingual training regarding immigration enforcement; it passed 59-10 on both the urgency and the measure. AB 2460 would direct the education department to update referral protocols so schools can better respond to students affected by immigration enforcement trauma and family deportation; it passed 52-8. AB 2495 would expand prohibitions on unfair immigration-related practices by employers, making immigration-related threats unlawful in workplace disputes; it passed 50-15. Throughout the day, debate was highly partisan and often heated, with repeated exchanges over whether the bills addressed real harms or were political messaging, but the Assembly ultimately advanced the measures that came to a vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• The state needs to be able to procure a range of energy sources without paying fees to the utilities
• So there is an existing charge today on customer bills, so this doesn't create a new fee.
• So it's the same fee on the bill; it's not changed.
• I share my chair and colleagues' concern with the interest and fees associated with any borrowing.
• Boats matter. The last two testifying together, Christina DeBagas and Anna Nelson.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on H. 4144, the Governor’s Energy Affordability, Independence, and Innovation Act, with the administration arguing the bill would lower bills in the short and long term while expanding clean energy supply and innovation. The Governor and Secretary said the bill would reduce or restructure charges on customer bills, reform Mass Save, expand securitization as a financing tool, speed interconnection, create energy-ready zones, strengthen consumer protections in competitive supply, and allow broader state procurement of energy resources. They said the package could save consumers billions over time and would help address high energy costs, especially during extreme heat and winter spikes. Committee members pressed the administration on several provisions, especially securitization, asking whether the bill requires an apples-to-apples comparison of total costs over time, including interest and lost tax revenue, versus paying through rates. Administration witnesses said DPU review and public comment would be required and said they would work to clarify the language if needed. Members also questioned the bill’s solar and procurement provisions, including reduced net metering compensation for some large facilities, the scope of all-resource procurements, and whether hydro, solar, and nuclear would be included; the administration said those resources were contemplated and that procurement would still be reviewed by DPU. Other questions focused on the short-term relief from bill changes, the treatment of low- and moderate-income discounts, and whether the bill’s heat pump and Mass Save reforms would help customers who cannot afford upfront costs. Several witnesses and committee members discussed Mass Save reforms, including securitization of program costs, on-bill financing, pre-approval of rebates, and shifting program administration away from gas utilities. Administration witnesses said the changes were intended to reduce volatility, lower administrative costs, and better align costs with long-term savings. Questions also touched on geothermal permitting, municipal participation in offshore wind procurement, and the proposed repeal of the ballot requirement for nuclear power, which the administration defended as preserving future options under heavy review. No votes were taken during the hearing portion described. Supportive testimony came from labor, environmental, business, planning, and development groups. The AFL-CIO, NECA, and the Environmental League of Massachusetts backed the bill, emphasizing lower bills, job creation, labor standards, just transition protections, and cleaner energy. NAIOP, the Massachusetts Business Roundtable, and MAPC supported provisions on energy-ready zones, interconnection reform, microgrids, extreme-heat shutoff protections, and Mass Save improvements. A HEET representative praised the bill’s use of securitization, geothermal, and utility financing tools but urged guardrails and workforce protections. Overall, testimony was broadly favorable, with most witnesses calling for refinements rather than opposing the bill outright.

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 4112, HD1, relating to capital improvement projects at state small boat harbors and state parks.
• SB 2146 HD2, relating to traffic infractions, fines, and fees. Just the center in support on Zoom.
• A second amendment would be to expand it again to add fees. Right now it would just look at fines.
• And you don't see fines without fees.
• That's something that is really important to understand how these fines and fees impact the community

Bills: HCR93, HCR14, HR85

Keywords: image-based sexual abuse, working group, gender-based violence, Hawaii Commission on the Status of Women, prevention efforts, survivor protections, new technologies, legal reform, HCR14, House Concurrent Resolution, perpetual easement, non-exclusive easement, state submerged lands, submerged lands, shoreline easement, drainage outfall, stormwater outfall, lagoon outfall, pipelines, Kahala Hotel & Resort

Transcript Highlights:

• It ranges from court filing fees, which could be under $100 to hundreds of dollars, plus the survey as
• It ranges from court filing fees, which could be under $100 to hundreds of dollars, plus the survey as
• don't it ranges from Court filing fees don't it ranges from Court filing fees um<00:50:22.520>
• Fees vary depending upon whether you're hiring an attorney.
• You do have court entry fees, sheriff's fees, second set of sheriff's fees when you get the writ of possession

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:42:01.360> and relative to dog license fees and relative to dog license fees and establishing
• They can keep what they collect on a fee basis.
• Can you and the other on a fee basis.
• , collection box where there's a fee, collection box where there's a fee, that's<02:03:12.480>
• And so there will be some sort of application fee.” produce the rule.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• a fee?
• <00:41:11.680> approval also a question about the fee approval also a question about the fee
• Is it the public utilities impose a fee?
• I will say we are in a similar boat.
• There's about 19 other similar boat.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Bills: SB3136, SB2521, SB2851, SB3154, SB3262, SB2387, SB3001, SB2818, SB2972, SB2372, SB2108, SB888, SB3320, SB2798, SB2110, SB3007, SB2615, SB2095, SB2101, SB3138, SB2756, SB3229, SB2969, SB3286, SB3238, SB2557, SB3140, SB2014, SB3097, SB3096, SB3069, SB99, SB2930, SB2268, SB2543, SB3022, SB3109, SB3215, SB3152, SB3156, SB3234, SB3053, SB3067, SB2673, SB411, SB2041, SB2919, SB2532, SB2152, SB2721, SB2446, SB2601, SB2239, SB2804, SB3324, SB2802, SB2577, SB2320, SB2706, SB2595, SB2781, SB2961, SB2433, SB2657, SB2340, SB3045, SB3203, SB2861, SB3245, SB2803, SB3204, SB3025, SB2138, SB2645, SB3082, SB2109, SB2261, SB3332, SB2811, SB2567, SB2125, SB2866, SB83, SB874, SB2386, SB3137, SB3132, SB2175, SB2272, SB2271, SB847, SB3302, SB2089, SB2102, SB2050, SB2694, SB2487, SB2061, SB709, SB3083, SB2151, SB2852, SB2471, SB2568, SB2253, SB2697, SB2429, SB2929, SB3032, SB2057, SB148, SB2353, SB2075, SB2907, SB2074, SB3219, SB3218, SB2367, SB3048, SB17, SB3253, SB2376, SB3103, SB2999, SB3255, SB1166, SB3157, SB2698, SB3029, SB2146, SB2470, SB3040, SB3076, SB2575, SB3294, SB2438, SB2530, SB2688

Keywords: lead-free, lead in drinking water, drinking water, water infrastructure, public water system, plumbing, pipe fittings, solder, flux, fixtures, cast iron pipe repair, nonpotable water, Safe Drinking Water Act, Department of Health, water quality, lead exposure, lead contamination, water utilities, backflow preventer, fire hydrant

Bills: SB3136, SB2521, SB2851, SB3154, SB3262, SB2387, SB3001, SB2818, SB2972, SB2372, SB2108, SB888, SB3320, SB2798, SB2110, SB3007, SB2615, SB2095, SB2101, SB3138, SB2756, SB3229, SB2969, SB3286, SB3238, SB2557, SB3140, SB2014, SB3097, SB3096, SB3069, SB99, SB2930, SB2268, SB2543, SB3022, SB3109, SB3215, SB3152, SB3156, SB3234, SB3053, SB3067, SB2673, SB411, SB2041, SB2919, SB2532, SB2152, SB2721, SB2446, SB2601, SB2239, SB2804, SB3324, SB2802, SB2577, SB2320, SB2706, SB2595, SB2781, SB2961, SB2433, SB2657, SB2340, SB3045, SB3203, SB2861, SB3245, SB2803, SB3204, SB3025, SB2138, SB2645, SB3082, SB2109, SB2261, SB3332, SB2811, SB2567, SB2125, SB2866, SB83, SB874, SB2386, SB3137, SB3132, SB2175, SB2272, SB2271, SB847, SB3302, SB2089, SB2102, SB2050, SB2694, SB2487, SB2061, SB709, SB3083, SB2151, SB2852, SB2471, SB2568, SB2253, SB2697, SB2429, SB2929, SB3032, SB2057, SB148, SB2353, SB2075, SB2907, SB2074, SB3219, SB3218, SB2367, SB3048, SB17, SB3253, SB2376, SB3103, SB2999, SB3255, SB1166, SB3157, SB2698, SB3029, SB2146, SB2470, SB3040, SB3076, SB2575, SB3294, SB2438, SB2530, SB2688

Keywords: lead-free, lead in drinking water, drinking water, water infrastructure, public water system, plumbing, pipe fittings, solder, flux, fixtures, cast iron pipe repair, nonpotable water, Safe Drinking Water Act, Department of Health, water quality, lead exposure, lead contamination, water utilities, backflow preventer, fire hydrant