Transcript Highlights:

• of it is when you're dealing with 5 different developments that are all in 5 different stages of planning
• It is also the approach we take when we, um, look at flood funding and flood planning, right, on regionalization
• several of our members have established bill assistance programs and they typically work out payment plans
• I was not planning to testify originally, but I, I wanted to offer as a resource to fill in some of the

Bills: HB 29, HB 685, HB 1633, HB 1689, HB 1690, HB 1918, HB 2010, HB 2500, HB 2608, HB 2626

Keywords: water audit, water loss, water loss mitigation plan, municipally owned utility, municipal utility, water conservation, Texas Water Development Board, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, water leakage, leak detection, billing data accuracy, utility validation, water audit validation, water scarcity, water management, infrastructure, public utility, conservation plan, administrative penalty

Transcript Highlights:

• Conservation District.
• The bill further suggests that water loss mitigation plans be rolled into the conservation plans that
• Plan, is there such a thing?
• conservation plan is both.
• having a more detailed plan.

Bills: HB29, HB685, HB1633, HB1689, HB1690, HB1918, HB2010, HB2500, HB2608, HB2626, HB29

Keywords: water audit, water loss, water loss mitigation plan, municipally owned utility, municipal utility, water conservation, Texas Water Development Board, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, water leakage, leak detection, billing data accuracy, utility validation, water audit validation, water scarcity, water management, infrastructure, public utility, conservation plan, administrative penalty

Transcript Highlights:

• is when you're dealing with five different developments that are all in five different stages of planning
• right pragmatic approach. ...It's also the approach we take when we look at flood funding and flood planning
• several of our members have established bill assistance programs, and they typically work out payment plans
• As y'all experienced members know, as you file bills, they don't always go as planned.

Bills: HB29, HB685, HB1633, HB1689, HB1690, HB1918, HB2010, HB2500, HB2608, HB2626, HB29

Keywords: water audit, water loss, water loss mitigation plan, municipally owned utility, municipal utility, water conservation, Texas Water Development Board, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, water leakage, leak detection, billing data accuracy, utility validation, water audit validation, water scarcity, water management, infrastructure, public utility, conservation plan, administrative penalty

Transcript Highlights:

• In support, Office of Planning and Sustainable Development, not present.
• Uh Ocean Conservancy, Ana Brandon Okay.
• of Planning and Sustainable Development in<00:29:54.960> support.
• Diana Sness from the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development.
• Nature Conservancy in support. VI in support.

Bills: HB644, HB1802, HB1569, HB1619, HB1620, HB1730, HB1749

Keywords: PFAS, single-use plastics, environmental health, food ware, pollution reduction, HB1802, conservation banking, conservation bank, mitigation banking, compensatory mitigation, incidental take permit, incidental take license, habitat conservation plan, HCP, DLNR, BLNR, Board of Land and Natural Resources, endangered species recovery committee, threatened species, endangered species

Summary: The committee heard several environmental and energy bills, beginning with HB 644 on single-use plastics. DLNR and DOH supported the measure, and environmental advocates said it would reduce plastic waste in oceans and landfills. Testifiers urged the bill to avoid weakening existing county ordinances, and some supported delaying implementation to use up inventory, while Upstream opposed compostable-plastic exemptions and urged prompt passage. Committee members asked whether reusable and refillable foodware could be added to the PFAS prohibition, and Upstream said that would be consistent with the bill’s goals. The committee then took up HB 1802 on conservation mitigation banks, HB 1569 on microfiber filters for newly manufactured washing machines, and HB 1619 on electric vehicle infrastructure. HB 1802 drew mostly agency testimony from DLNR, with opposition testimony noted from environmental groups, and members discussed whether suggested amendments would address concerns. HB 1569 received limited testimony, with support from the Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition and opposition from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. HB 1619 was supported by the PUC, Hawaiian Electric, the Department of Transportation, and several advocacy groups; Earthjustice said the bill was needed to address a widening EV charging shortfall and described the funding increase as relatively small compared with the benefits. The committee also heard HB 1620, which would increase the barrel tax to fund the EV charging rebate program. The State Energy Office and PUC offered comments, while the Tax Foundation of Hawaii opposed the special-fund approach and said the bill should also address the non-petroleum fossil-fuel portion of the barrel tax. Earthjustice and youth transportation advocates supported the measure, and the chair asked for information on unused hydrogen fueling subaccount funds; PUC said no hydrogen program funds had been deployed and estimated the balance was likely around $2 million, with exact figures to be provided later. Finally, the committee heard HB 1730 on wastewater systems, which would create a wastewater technical advisory group and fund positions at DOH. DLNR, DOH, OPSD, UH, and several environmental groups supported the bill, emphasizing cesspool pollution, affordability, and the need for more staffing and technical assistance. Testifiers suggested amendments to create a separate cesspool conversion implementation working group and debated the size and composition of the advisory group, including whether to include outside engineers and whether SHIP should be on the panel. No votes were taken during the hearing segment provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• HB 1633 was filed to strengthen the evaluation criteria used by groundwater conservation districts in
• And the mitigation plan currently in Gonzales County by the Gonzales County Underground Water Conservation
• It was filed to enhance the Post Oak Savannah groundwater conservation.
• Appreciate all... conservation issues as well, which we can if anybody has any questions about.
• land through conservation easements purchased by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

Bills: HB2018, HB1633, HB1689, SB612, SB3058

Keywords: agricultural conservation, land preservation, environmental protection, wildlife habitat, Texas Farm and Ranch, groundwater conservation district, Texas Water Code, water permit, permit amendment, groundwater permit, water rights, aquifer, well registration, exempt wells, beneficial use, water conservation, groundwater quality, well plugging, Hill Country Priority Groundwater Management Area, surface water resources

Summary: The Senate Water, Agriculture, Rural Affairs Committee heard several bills focused on groundwater management, water infrastructure, and agricultural land conservation. SB 612 would limit certain water districts in Hidalgo, Cameron, and Willacy counties from charging developers pipeline construction fees above actual, documented costs; the committee substitute removed a developer challenge mechanism to preserve district discretion over construction standards. HB 1633 would require groundwater conservation districts to consider registered exempt wells when reviewing or amending permits, and testimony from landowners, district representatives, and advocacy groups largely supported the bill as a way to protect domestic and livestock wells from drawdown caused by large export projects. HB 1689 would clarify that export fee revenues may be used for well operability, alternative water supplies, and aquifer monitoring, including through interlocal cooperation, and HB 3058 would give the Post Oak Savannah Groundwater Conservation District authority to use export fees for county road improvements and environmental programs tied to well inspection and groundwater management. HB 2018 would clarify that the Texas Farm and Ranchland Conservation Program is intended to purchase conservation easements only on working agricultural lands, with support from cattle raisers and Farm Bureau representatives. The committee also considered HB 29, which would require large water systems to validate water loss audits and submit mitigation plans; a committee substitute removed the water-loss threshold and adjusted the timeline for more detailed validation. Public testimony on the bills was generally supportive, with several witnesses describing declining well levels, road damage from export projects, and the need to preserve agricultural land and local water supplies. The committee adopted committee substitutes and voted favorably on HB 29, HB 1689, HB 2018, SB 612, and SB 3058, recommending several of them for the local and uncontested calendar; HB 1633 was left pending awaiting a committee substitute.

Transcript Highlights:

• HB 1633 was filed to strengthen the evaluation criteria used by groundwater conservation... districts
• Plan currently in Gonzales County by the Gonzales County Underground Water Conservation District is inadequate
• Gary Westbrook, manager for the Post Oak Savannah Groundwater Conservation District.
• land through conservation. purchased by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.
• The team will ensure that this program places an emphasis on conserving actual farms and ranches.

Bills: HB2018, HB1633, HB1689, SB612, SB3058

Keywords: agricultural conservation, land preservation, environmental protection, wildlife habitat, Texas Farm and Ranch, groundwater conservation district, Texas Water Code, water permit, permit amendment, groundwater permit, water rights, aquifer, well registration, exempt wells, beneficial use, water conservation, groundwater quality, well plugging, Hill Country Priority Groundwater Management Area, surface water resources

Bills: HB1601, HB1616, HB1603, HB1604, HB1605, HB1606, HB1802, HB1569, HB1619, HB1730, HB1749, HB644, HB1620

Keywords: biosecurity, invasive species, Hawaii Invasive Species Council, Department of Land and Natural Resources, appropriation, agriculture, aquaculture, commercial activity, swine production, Korean natural farming, land leases, Hawaii, extension, Department of Agriculture, housing, workforce, land use, zoning, public-private partnerships, tax credit

Transcript Highlights:

• Isn't that not the Texas Water Development Board's plan and the legislature's plan to be prepared for
• plan to be prepared for the future?
• million in planning.
• The state water planning process is sort of a 60,000-foot plan.
• It’s long-term, high-level planning, and it’s a 50-year plan. That’s a very long time.

Bills: HB1523, HB2109, HB2694, HB3525, HB3898, HB4646, HB5188, HB5219, HB5320, HB5651, HB5655, HB5659, HB5662, HB5672

Keywords: aquifer conservation, Class V injection well, environmental regulation, groundwater protection, municipal water supply, temporary prohibition, water management, reservoir construction, state water plan, Texas Water Code, environmental impact, Brazoria Drainage District, commissioners, elections, vacancies, resignation, HB 3525, North Texas Groundwater Conservation District, groundwater permit, permit amendment

Summary: The Committee on Natural Resources heard House Bill 2109, which would remove certain long-proposed reservoir projects from the state water plan after 50 years without progress. Chairman Van Deaver and many landowners, local officials, timber interests, and conservation advocates testified in support, arguing that the Marvin Nichols Reservoir has burdened Northeast Texas landowners for decades with the threat of eminent domain, depressed property values, and uncertainty over homes, farms, ranches, schools, churches, and cemeteries. Supporters also said the project would flood tens of thousands of acres, require extensive mitigation, harm timber and agriculture, and that Texas now has better alternatives such as conservation, reuse, aquifer storage and recovery, and desalination. Several members expressed sympathy for the affected families and questioned whether a project could remain in the plan indefinitely without progress. Opposition came from North Texas water interests, including the North Texas Commission, Tarrant Regional Water District, and the Texas Water Association, who argued that the bill would interfere with the state’s long-term water planning process and remove needed future supply options for a fast-growing region. They said Region C faces major projected shortages by 2070, that conservation and reuse have already delayed the need for new supplies, and that reservoirs remain one tool in the state’s water-planning toolbox. TWDB staff explained the existing inter-regional conflict process and noted that the substitute would affect several unique reservoir sites, not just Marvin Nichols. After testimony, Chairman Van Deaver closed by urging passage of the bill, but the committee withdrew the substitute and left HB 2109 pending. The committee then took up House Bill 5188, a brackish groundwater bill. The author said the bill would reduce permitting burdens for wells in designated brackish groundwater production zones, and the committee substitute added requirements on monitoring, groundwater-rights ownership, and allocation of pumpage limits while removing some exclusions and export-fee provisions. Texas Wildlife Association testified against the bill, warning that the exemptions could weaken groundwater conservation districts’ ability to protect freshwater resources and surface-owner rights. San Antonio Water System testified in favor, saying brackish groundwater is a key future supply and that the substitute would help speed development of desalination and brackish projects. The Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts testified neutrally but raised concerns about reduced district oversight, especially around injection-well exclusions and the loss of export fees, and said discussions on the bill were ongoing.

Transcript Highlights:

• water plan or the state water plan because it does not protect. ...our natural resources of the state
• I'm sure you're aware there's planned developments and concept plans in every city across the North
• It's a smaller portion of our plan.
• Of state water planning projects under the existing law, just keeping that separation between planning
• It's a 50,000 square foot plan. It's long-term, high-level planning.

Bills: HB1523, HB2109, HB2694, HB3525, HB3898, HB4646, HB5188, HB5219, HB5320, HB5651, HB5655, HB5659, HB5662, HB5672

Keywords: aquifer conservation, Class V injection well, environmental regulation, groundwater protection, municipal water supply, temporary prohibition, water management, reservoir construction, state water plan, Texas Water Code, environmental impact, Brazoria Drainage District, commissioners, elections, vacancies, resignation, HB 3525, North Texas Groundwater Conservation District, groundwater permit, permit amendment

Transcript Highlights:

• ASR is an essential part of the state water plan and Austin's 100-year water plan.
• the state water plan includes includes as many as 35 ASR projects in planning and piloting.
• This project is an ancillary project to Austin's water plan.
• Is there any more reservoir plans?
• For North Texas Groundwater Conservation District.

Bills: HB1523, HB2109, HB2694, HB3525, HB3898, HB4646, HB5188, HB5219, HB5320, HB5651, HB5655, HB5659, HB5662, HB5672

Keywords: aquifer conservation, Class V injection well, environmental regulation, groundwater protection, municipal water supply, temporary prohibition, water management, reservoir construction, state water plan, Texas Water Code, environmental impact, Brazoria Drainage District, commissioners, elections, vacancies, resignation, HB 3525, North Texas Groundwater Conservation District, groundwater permit, permit amendment

Transcript Highlights:

• Supply chain planning.
• I got a whole plan.
• They have plans to develop another 2,500.
• They can stop them at the planning phase when they give them, you know, you have to have it planned out
• They have plans to develop another 2,500.

Bills: HB24, HB2015, HB2149, HB2559, HB2701, HB2797, HB3172, HB24

Keywords: zoning, public notice, local government, residential development, protests, water conservation, municipal utility districts, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, environmental regulation, groundwater management, nonconforming uses, zoning regulations, land use, property rights, municipal authority, municipal moratorium, development moratorium, property development, subdivision, site plan

Transcript Highlights:

• There is no statutory requirement that they include a water conservation plan. conservation plan.
• , and we have no issue with implementing water conservation plans.
• . conservation plan after it has 3,300 active connections.
• All of the MUDs support conservation and support having the plan.
• We believe her goal is to have more districts with water conservation plans.

Bills: HB24, HB2015, HB2149, HB2559, HB2701, HB2797, HB3172, HB24

Keywords: zoning, public notice, local government, residential development, protests, water conservation, municipal utility districts, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, environmental regulation, groundwater management, nonconforming uses, zoning regulations, land use, property rights, municipal authority, municipal moratorium, development moratorium, property development, subdivision, site plan

Transcript Highlights:

• Fund, expanding its scope to include flood control and agricultural conservation.
• The state's first ever flood plan adopted last August lays us out clearly.
• The good news is we have the plans, we have the strategies.
• Good news is we have the plans, we have the strategies.
• We need to fund the state water plan strategies for the Rio Grande Valley.

Bills: HB16, HB16, HB1618, HB2692, HB2712, HB2970, HB3609, HB3628

Keywords: judicial administration, court reform, juvenile diversion, court security, mental health services, drug offenses, constitutional amendments, water infrastructure, Texas Water Development Board, financial assistance, water supply projects, rural municipalities, water access assessment, aquifer storage, Edwards Aquifer, water injection, environmental regulations, groundwater management, San Antonio River, pollution control

Transcript Highlights:

• plan.
• It follows a five-year planning cycle.
• with its planning process, leading to redundant work and strain on the agency's resources.
• Currently, when a groundwater conservation...
• Funding water projects is important if a desired future plan is challenged.

Bills: HB16, HB1618, HB2692, HB2712, HB2970, HB3609, HB3628, HB16

Keywords: water infrastructure, Texas Water Development Board, financial assistance, water supply projects, rural municipalities, water access assessment, aquifer storage, Edwards Aquifer, water injection, environmental regulations, groundwater management, San Antonio River, pollution control, flood management, water quality, conservation district, bonds, utility rates, ratemaking, water services

Bills: HB2592

Keywords: Mauna Kea, MKSOA, Mauna Kea Stewardship and Oversight Authority, University of Hawaii, UH, Board of Land and Natural Resources, BLNR, Department of Land and Natural Resources, DLNR, Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 195H, land management, transition period, management plan, administrative rules, rulemaking, lease extension, sublease, public lands, Native Hawaiian rights, cultural stewardship

Summary: The Judiciary Committee met on several decision-making agendas and first considered HB 1696, which would lower the minimum age for commercial driving in-state from 19 to 18 and adjust qualifying criteria. The committee agreed to accept amendments, including changes suggested by the Operating Engineers Union, and voted unanimously to pass the bill with amendments. HB 2333, which would authorize airport special districts and increase penalties for certain aeronautics violations, was deferred after concerns were raised about treatment of people outside airport security perimeters. On the next agenda, the committee passed HB 1710 with technical amendments only. That bill would allow the State Historic Preservation Division to conduct phase reviews of certain private-property projects and revise concurrence deadlines. HB 1737, clarifying allowable agricultural district uses related to farm dwellings and farm employee housing, also passed with technical amendments only. HB 1823, dealing with coastal zone management and excluding certain state- or county-funded infrastructure projects in Lahaina from the definition of development, passed with amendments from the Attorney General’s office. The committee then took up HB 1897, an alternative dispute resolution measure for condominium-related disputes, including facilitated mediation, evaluative mediation, and binding arbitration. Despite noting broad opposition and a reservation from Senator Buenaventura, the committee adopted the measure and moved it forward as is. Finally, HB 2576, which streamlines background check requirements for health care facilities and workers, passed with amendments reflecting input from OHA, HAH, and DOH. The meeting concluded with notice of a later joint agenda and adjournment.

Bills: HCR13, HCR91, HCR183, HR15, HR83

Keywords: coral reefs, sunscreen, environmental education, student stewardship, marine conservation, tree canopy, public schools, environmental equity, shade coverage, education, HCR183, House Concurrent Resolution, Department of Education, DOE, immigration enforcement, ICE, federal immigration officers, sensitive locations, school safety, student protection

Transcript Highlights:

• I work for Tall Timbers Research Station and Land Conservancy.
• planning efforts.
• Senate Bill 548 will establish a state definition of what plans...
• Plan-based methodology will cover that.
• Plan-based methodology will cover that.

Bills: S0014, S0016, S0024, S0168, S0288, S0548, S0686, S0830, S1138, S1234

Keywords: negligence, settlement, police conduct, municipal liability, personal injury, compensation, injuries, Miami-Dade County, rural electric cooperatives, energy production, Florida law, energy tariffs, regulation, impact fees, transportation capacity, local government, interlocal agreements, growth management, community planning, extraordinary circumstances

Summary: The committee met with a quorum present and took up a series of local claims, public records, growth management, permitting, and nuisance bills. It first heard and approved SB 16, SB 14, and SB 24, all uncontested claims bills providing relief related to injuries or settlements involving the City of St. Petersburg and Miami-Dade County. The committee also approved SB 288 on rural electric cooperatives, which narrows statutory language to protect co-op decisions on generation and power purchases while preserving consumer protections, and SB 830, which creates a public records exemption for certain personal information of county and city managers and their families due to reported threats against local officials. Members then considered SB 1138 on qualified contractors and development review, which would create a registry of licensed professionals to help local governments process pre-application reviews and plats more quickly. Local government groups raised concerns about preemption and preserving quasi-judicial authority, while private-provider supporters backed the bill; Senator Sharief voted no, and the bill was reported favorably. The committee also approved SB 168, expanding public nuisance law to include gambling houses and increasing penalties, and SB 686 on agricultural enclaves, which revises the enclave process, adds a public hearing path, limits it to certain residential projects in urban service areas, and was amended to change a date to June 30, 2026 before being reported favorably. The committee next approved CS for SB 548 on growth management and impact fees, which clarifies plan-based methodology, extraordinary circumstances, interlocal agreements, and refund procedures for improper fee collections. Testimony reflected support for clearer standards but also concerns about fee increases and refund administration. Finally, SB 1234 on building permits and inspections was reported favorably; it would extend permit validity, exempt some low-value work from permitting, create a statewide residential permit form, speed review timelines, and expand private-provider use, drawing opposition from a Miami-Dade building official who argued for continued local oversight and support from private-provider advocates. Senator Jones requested to be recorded as voting affirmatively on several tabs and negatively on tab 9, and the committee adjourned after all bills were disposed of.

Transcript Highlights:

• Next, we're going to take up Tab 4, SB 546 on conservation lands by Vice Chair Mayfield.
• State park unit management plans serve as the foundation for all planning, improvement, and management
• estimated $1.39 billion in new construction and development contemplated within our plans.
• State Park unit management plans serve as the foundation for all planning, improvement, and management
• Florida parks. park planning reflects both environmental stewardship and public interests.

Bills: S0544, S0636, S0848, S0546

Keywords: golf courses, best management practices, fertilizer regulation, Department of Agriculture, environmental protection, certification, beach management, beach erosion, beach nourishment, coastal resilience, shoreline protection, critical erosion, critically eroded beach, Florida DEP, Department of Environmental Protection, coastal flooding, compound flooding, storm surge, inlet management, coastal engineering

Summary: The Environment and Natural Resources Committee met with a quorum and took up several bills. SB 636 on beach management, by Senator Leek, would create additional pathways for counties and municipalities to obtain critically eroded beach or area of critical state concern designations, shifting the process toward a more proactive approach. Senator Smith and Senator Harrell raised concerns about local capacity and funding, and the Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association said the bill was an alternative pathway but emphasized the need for more recurring funding. The bill was reported favorably. The committee then considered SB 544, which transfers the Golf Course Best Management Practices Certification Program from DEP to FDACS and establishes certification and training standards there. Senator Smith and Senator Harrell asked about environmental oversight, taxation, and whether the change would affect state park restrictions; the sponsor said it would not change tax treatment or park rules and that DEP would still handle enforcement if BMPs are not followed. The Florida Springs Council opposed the bill, arguing golf courses are not agriculture and warning of weaker protections for springs, while the Florida Golf Course Superintendent's Association supported the move as a continuity and participation measure. After adopting a technical amendment, the committee reported the bill favorably, with Senator Smith voting no. SB 848 on stormwater treatment, also by Senator Trunow, was amended to clarify the role of water quality enhancement areas while stormwater rules are still being finalized and to make public-land project review forward-looking. Resource Environmental Solutions supported the amendment and bill as providing a clearer market for water quality credits, and the Florida Home Builders Association supported the measure. The committee adopted the amendment and reported the bill favorably. SB 546 by Vice Chair Mayfield would require 30-day public notice before meetings reviewing the sale or exchange of state conservation lands, including at water management districts; after a technical amendment, it received support from conservation groups and was reported favorably. The committee also received a DEP presentation on the State Park Amenities Report, which said Florida’s 175 state parks drew over 28 million visitors and generated a $3.6 billion economic impact. DEP identified nearly $759 million in needed repairs and upgrades over 10 years and $1.39 billion in contemplated new construction and development in unit management plans. No votes were taken on the presentation, and the meeting adjourned after no further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• “Okay, but that’s in order to conserve water in the surrounding area.
• , a natural resource conservation district board.
• We represent the natural resource conservation districts. Thank you.
• , a natural resource conservation district board.
• center where we're teaching kids about the benefits of conservation.

Bills: HB2024, HB2053, HB2097, HB2116, HB2117

Keywords: stormwater, recharge mapping, water resources, groundwater, appropriation, Arizona, irrigation, non-expansion areas, water management, agriculture, HB2116, Colorado River, litigation fund, water rights, Arizona water law, general fund appropriation, state budget, interstate water compact, Colorado River Compact, water litigation

Summary: The committee began with member and staff introductions, then heard House Bill 2024, which would expand the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority’s water supply development definition to include snowpack augmentation and related planning and facility work. Supporters argued cloud seeding and drone-based silver iodide deployment could increase snowpack and water supply at relatively low cost, while opponents raised concerns about weather modification, uncertainty in the science, and possible environmental or health effects. After debate, the committee approved HB 2024 on a 6-4 vote, with some members expressing reservations and requesting more information before floor consideration. The committee next considered House Bill 2053, which would direct the Arizona Department of Water Resources to update stormwater recharge mapping statewide and provide $100,000 for the work. The sponsor and ADWR said the bill would expand on prior state-land mapping and help identify recharge opportunities on private land; ADWR was neutral and said it could do the technical mapping but could not make legal determinations about appropriable surface water rights. Salt River Project opposed the bill’s language on surface-water rights, arguing that determinations about unappropriated water belong to the courts and that site-specific recharge projects could affect downstream rights. The committee adopted the Griffin amendment and then passed HB 2053 as amended on a 6-4 vote. Chelsea McGuire of WIFA then gave a broad presentation on the agency’s revolving funds, conservation grants, and long-term augmentation efforts, describing past investments, current grant awards, and seven potential augmentation projects under development. She said WIFA’s current budget ask was essentially for no additional cuts, while members asked about costs, project qualifications, and public-private structure. The committee then took up House Bill 2097, which would impose a six acre-feet-per-acre groundwater pumping cap in irrigation non-expansion areas, add reporting and well-measurement requirements, and set a $150 penalty for violations. ADWR said the bill could require additional staffing and that the cap and substitution provisions had technical concerns; environmental groups argued the cap was too high and could still encourage overpumping, while supporters said it would finally place a limit on INA pumping. HB 2097 passed 6-4. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 2116, which would appropriate $1 million to the Colorado River Litigation Fund; the sponsor described it as a contingency for ongoing Colorado River negotiations, and the committee moved the bill forward after brief discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• is office of planning here? is office of planning here? >> Yes. >> Yes.
• a planning overlay um, from the state. a planning overlay um, from the state.
• is responsible for planning and should be able, like they do with Waikīkī, to approve shoreline plans
• is responsible for planning and should be able, like they do with Waikīkī, to approve shoreline plans
• Uh, I don't think a plan like that would be approved. Nobody favors a plan like that.

Bills: HB1846, HB2205, HB1802, HB1571, HB2047, HB2434, HB2426, HB2361, HB2395, HB1712, HB2544, HB1619

Keywords: coastal erosion, shoreline properties, regional planning, mitigation districts, sediment management, environmental impact, public access, community financing, shoreline erosion, emergency permits, coastal management, erosion control, Hawaii Revised Statutes, HB1802, conservation banking, conservation bank, mitigation banking, compensatory mitigation, incidental take permit, incidental take license

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 1846, relating to shoreline mitigation districts. DLNR and the Office of Planning opposed the bill, arguing it would improperly shift regulatory roles between the agencies and prioritize private land interests over public trust and natural and historic resources. Supporters, including the Shoreline Preservation Coalition, Kahana Bay residents, and Hawaii Realtors, said regional planning is needed to address severe erosion, especially in Kahana, and that better coordination between state and county agencies could help move stalled projects forward. Testifiers emphasized that shoreline conditions vary by area and that science-based, region-specific solutions are needed. Members asked questions about whether existing law already allows regional planning and emergency shoreline responses. DLNR said it already has authority to process regional projects and cited an existing draft EIS for Kahana Bay that would proceed through normal permitting and public hearing channels. Supporters responded that the bill would provide a clearer regional planning framework and help communities facing urgent erosion impacts. No vote was taken on HB 1846 in the portion provided. The committee then took up HB 2205, relating to emergency erosion mitigation. DLNR opposed the bill, saying it already has authority to issue emergency permits and had recently done so quickly for a collapsed sidewalk at Queen Surf Beach, and warning that the bill’s language could weaken Act 16 by changing a prohibition on shoreline hardening to a requirement to merely minimize it. Kahana Bay representatives and other supporters argued the bill would create a limited, regulated short-term pathway for emergency shoreline solutions while long-term plans are developed, and said current permits have expired or stalled, leaving dangerous sandbags and no practical relief. Additional testimony from a private homeowner stressed that erosion is threatening homes and that private owners are often bearing the cost of protecting public shoreline access. The discussion remained focused on balancing emergency protection, public access, and long-term shoreline management, and no final action was taken in the excerpt provided.