Transcript Highlights:

• So the notion that we're now on a place in which the person in charge of protecting us in this area is
• call up Presidential Nomination 13-6, David Fatui of Virginia, to be Deputy Administrator of the Environmental
• Protection Agency. I move to approve and report the nomination favorably. Is there a second?

Keywords: Environmental Protection Agency, David Fatui, nominations, climate science, environmental policy, public testimony

Summary: During this committee meeting, members engaged in substantial discussions regarding the nominations for key positions at the Environmental Protection Agency. The nominations for David Fatui as Deputy Administrator and another nominee received favorable reviews, with several members expressing support for their qualifications and the importance of their roles in addressing environmental issues. Notable conversations highlighted concerns about the current administration's stance on climate science and regulatory practices, particularly focusing on a controversial statement made by one of the nominees that undermined established climate science. Senator Whitehouse expressed deep frustration over the implications of this viewpoint on future environmental policy and regulation.

Bills: SB 243, SB 1586, SB 1891, SB 1959, SB 2159, SB 2568

Keywords: wastewater treatment, environmental permits, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, package plant, environmental protection, water utilities, sewer services, ratemaking, regulatory authority, Class A B C D utilities, rate proceedings, financial integrity, aquifer, Edwards Aquifer, water injection, environmental regulation, groundwater management

Transcript Highlights:

• You'll see the air appropriation increase from the environmental fund to keep them in compliance with
• These trails aren't proposed without extensive planning, including thorough environmental reviews in
• These services preserve, protect, and enhance the wonderful natural resources we all enjoy.
• Please protect the funding necessary to continue Minnesota's environmental efforts.
• Protecting these precious resources benefits all Minnesotans. Thank you so much.

Bills: HF2439

Keywords: environmental protection, pollution reduction, waste management, climate change, funding allocations

Transcript Highlights:

• I show you registered as Vanessa Pug-Williams on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund, testifying
• I really want to emphasize how this is a positive mechanism for the protection of property rights.
• I'm neutral on this bill to the extent that it doesn't go far enough in the protections necessary.
• of our citizens, protective of our public safety, and protective of our natural resources.
• of our citizens, protective of our public safety, and protective of our natural resources.

Bills: HB4530, HB4931, HB5559, HB5560

Keywords: water rights, Texas Water Trust, water bank, environmental conservation, water quality, instream flows, aquifer, water injection, Edwards Aquifer, environmental regulation, groundwater, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, water conservation, drought, utility regulation, water use restrictions, Public Utility Commission, civil penalties, drought contingency, environmental protection

Summary: The Committee on Natural Resources met with a quorum present and first took up several pending bills for reconsideration and committee substitute adoption. House Bill 2692, relating to codification and clarification of local laws concerning the San Antonio River Authority, was reported favorably to the full House and sent to the Committee on Local and Consent Calendars by an 11-0 vote. House Bills 1407, 1520, 1535, 2970, 4153, 291, 3663, and 3915 were also reconsidered or laid out as pending business, with committee substitutes adopted where needed and each bill reported favorably, generally by unanimous vote, to the full House and then to Calendars or Calendars/Calendars-related referral as applicable. The committee then heard House Bill 4530, which would expand the Texas Water Trust framework to include groundwater rights, require Texas Water Development Board review and approval of groundwater dedications, and notify local groundwater districts when groundwater rights are placed in the trust. The bill’s author and witnesses from the Environmental Defense Fund, The Nature Conservancy, and Chispa Texas supported the measure as a conservation tool and a way to create a clear process for voluntary donations; a Texas Water Development Board witness testified neutrally. The bill was left pending. House Bill 4931, relating to an aquifer storage and recovery project in Medina County, drew support from the author, the Medina County judge, and a regional water alliance witness, who described severe stress on the Edwards Aquifer, low levels at Medina Lake, and the need for a local water-supply tool. The bill was left pending. House Bill 5559, which would clarify enforcement of drought contingency plans for investor-owned water utilities and involve the PUC in model plan development, received support from groundwater district representatives but also concerns from water company and utility witnesses about enforcement authority, approval procedures, and potential conflicts with existing obligations to provide continuous service; the committee substitute was withdrawn and the bill was left pending. House Bill 5560, which would raise the maximum civil penalty for certain groundwater conservation district enforcement actions from $10,000 to $25,000 per violation, prompted debate over whether current law is already sufficient; supporters said the higher cap would better deter overpumping, while opponents argued existing penalties are already severe. That bill was also left pending, and the committee adjourned subject to call of the chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• I really want to Vanessa Puig Williams: emphasize how this is a positive mechanism for the protection
• We're going to close the regulatory gap, strengthen conservation, protect regional water planning, and
• It's cost-effective, environmentally sound, and it gives us local control over our own water security
• It's about preparing for tomorrow's challenges and protecting our communities for generations to come
• of our citizens, protective of our public safety, and protective of our natural resources.

Bills: HB 4530, HB 4931, HB 5559, HB 5560

Keywords: water rights, Texas Water Trust, water bank, environmental conservation, water quality, instream flows, aquifer, water injection, Edwards Aquifer, environmental regulation, groundwater, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, water conservation, drought, utility regulation, water use restrictions, Public Utility Commission, civil penalties, drought contingency, environmental protection

Transcript Highlights:

• Protection to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
• Next, we're going to take up Tab 5, presentation by the Department of Environmental Protection on the
• I'm the Deputy Secretary of Land and Recreation with the Department of Environmental Protection.
• Protection.
• 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:

• So, and uh groundwater protection work.
• public safety deployments and protection public safety deployments and protection of<00:09:48.800
• > and thorough environmental reviews and thorough environmental reviews and coordination<00:19:15.360
• Please protect the funding necessary to continue Minnesota's environmental legacy.
• protecting our investments out there. protecting our investments out there.

Bills: HF2439

Keywords: environmental protection, pollution reduction, waste management, climate change, funding allocations, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And at that time, I had written in after the meeting, By Florida Department of Environmental Protection
• We have Alex Cronin with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, waving in support.
• up tab number 4, SB 1510, on the Department of Environmental Protection, by Senator Masuolo.
• This particular bill is from the Department of Environmental Protection to make that agency a little
• Alex Cronin, representing the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, waived in support.

Bills: S0912, S1196, S1422, S1510, S7034

Keywords: battery collection, battery stewardship, environment, recycling, hazardous waste, waste management, regulation, environmental protection, facilities, hazardous materials, coral reefs, natural resource, climate change, coastal flooding, solar facilities, wastewater treatment, nutrient reduction, land conservation, water conservation, Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Summary: The Environment and Natural Resources Committee met with a quorum and took up several environmental bills and one appointment. SB 1422, as amended by a strike-all focused on coral reef protection and designating coral reefs as critical natural infrastructure, was reported favorably after support from Audubon Florida was noted. The committee then considered SPB 7034, a DEP rule ratification related to minimum flows and levels for the Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers and associated recovery strategy; witnesses from the Florida Springs Council and local river advocates criticized the plan as too delayed and too dependent on a single future water project, while committee members raised questions about funding and utility responsibility. Despite concerns, the committee approved the bill as a committee bill, with Senator Smith voting no. The committee next heard SB 1510, as amended, which made technical changes to DEP-related provisions including B-MAP notice and timing, septic system requirements in Florida Springs areas, biosolids, fees, land acquisition, and rulemaking procedures. The main public testimony came from the Florida Springs Council, which opposed the 60-day delay for B-MAP effectiveness as harmful to spring restoration, while DEP and others supported the measure. The bill was reported favorably. The committee also considered SB 1196, a targeted siting bill restricting new ash-producing incinerators or waste-to-energy facilities within two miles of large federally authorized water impoundment areas, with an amendment narrowing the practical effect to Miami-Dade and Broward counties. Supporters, including the City of Miramar, argued it would protect water resources and communities; opponents from the Florida Waste-to-Energy Coalition argued it would limit local waste-disposal options and could force more landfilling. The bill was reported favorably. Finally, the committee heard SB 912, the Safe Battery Collection and Recovery Act, which would require battery stewardship organizations and related recycling plans to keep batteries out of the waste stream. Industry and recycling representatives supported the bill, citing growing battery volumes and fire risks at recycling facilities. The committee also recommended confirmation of Gary Jennings to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. All measures were approved favorably except that Senator Smith voted against SPB 7034; the meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• It says it provides protections for exceptional value wetlands.
• Environmental Control.
• By protecting the health of our wetlands, we protect the health of our most vulnerable communities.
• By protecting the health of our wetlands, we protect the health of our most vulnerable communities.
• some of the environmental folks.

Bills: SB9

Keywords: wetlands protection, nontidal wetlands, Delaware, environmental sustainability, climate change, carbon sink, permitting process

Summary: The House Natural Resources and Energy Committee met and first considered SB 321 with Senate Amendment 1, the community solar utility billing bill. The sponsor explained that it would consolidate the two-bill system for community solar subscribers into one utility bill, with the utility forwarding the subscriber fee to the solar facility through an escrow mechanism so costs are not shifted to other ratepayers. Testimony from the solar industry, the Public Advocate, and environmental advocates supported the measure, emphasizing easier enrollment, fewer barriers for low-income customers, and guaranteed savings. The committee initially lacked enough members present to release the bill, but after a roll call vote it was released from committee. The committee then heard SB 9 with Senate Amendment 1, a wetlands protection bill creating a state non-tidal freshwater wetlands permitting program. The sponsor and DNREC described a framework of exemptions, general permits, and individual permits based on wetland type and value, with an advisory committee to develop regulations. Witnesses explained that “exceptional value” wetlands would include unique wetland communities and high-functioning wetlands, and that the bill was intended to preserve important habitat while allowing farming, drainage, and other exempt activities to continue. Some members raised concerns about flooding, land classification, and the balance of the advisory committee, while supporters said the bill was the product of broad stakeholder consensus and would protect wetlands without unduly harming agriculture or development. Public comment on SB 9 was strongly supportive from environmental groups, the Delaware Native Species Commission, the Home Builders Association, the Farm Bureau, The Nature Conservancy, and affordable housing advocates, who said the bill balanced conservation with practical land use concerns. After remote testimony, the committee took a roll call vote and SB 9 was released from committee. The meeting concluded with remarks thanking the chair for her service and instructions for members to sign the backers before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill will protect wetlands in the state of Delaware in a smart way.
• It says provides protections for exceptional value wetlands.
• Alison, environmental scientist for the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
• It says provides protections for exceptional value wetlands.
• By protecting the health of our wetlands, we protect the health of our most vulnerable communities.

Bills: SB9

Keywords: wetlands protection, nontidal wetlands, Delaware, environmental sustainability, climate change, carbon sink, permitting process

Summary: The House Natural Resources and Energy Committee met to consider two Senate bills. SB 321, with Senate Amendment 1, would change community solar billing so subscribers receive one consolidated utility bill instead of separate bills from the utility and the solar provider. Supporters said the bill would simplify enrollment and payment, improve customer retention—especially for low-income customers—and include safeguards such as guaranteed savings and an escrow mechanism to prevent cost shifts to other ratepayers. After public testimony from solar developers, the Public Advocate, the Sierra Club, and others, the committee initially lacked enough members present to release the bill, so the vote was circulated to absent members and the bill was later reported out for floor action. The committee then heard SB 9, with Senate Amendment 1, a long-negotiated wetlands protection bill. The sponsor and DNREC explained that it would create a state non-tidal wetlands program with exemptions for certain agricultural, conservation, and routine activities, general permits for some lower-impact projects, and individual permits for higher-value wetlands. Witnesses described the bill as a compromise among environmental, agricultural, development, and local government stakeholders, while some members raised questions about flooding, landowner impacts, wetland delineation, and the role of the regulatory advisory committee. Public testimony was broadly supportive from environmental groups, the Farm Bureau, builders, engineers, and affordable housing advocates. The committee then voted to release SB 9 from committee. At the end of the meeting, members offered thanks and remarks recognizing the chair’s service and leadership on environmental and energy issues. Both bills were ultimately released from committee and reported out.

Transcript Highlights:

• Convening the Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection.
• recommendations on the establishment of dust monitoring stations in and around Waimanalo Gulch to protect
• public health and environmental quality.
• :03.760> and committee on energy, environment, and committee on energy, environment, and protection
• protection. My name is Andrew Kahapea. protection. My name is Andrew Kahapea.

Bills: SCR142, SCR39, SCR40, SCR83, SCR168, SCR96, SCR166, SCR172

Keywords: dust monitoring, public health, environmental quality, Waimanalo Gulch, air quality, particulate matter, community engagement, health risks, pollution mitigation, mattress stewardship, environmental protection, recycling, producer responsibility, solid waste management, environment, pollution, tourism, disposable bodyboards, polystyrene, marine ecosystems

Summary: The Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection held its final hearing of the session on April 17, 2026, and took up a series of Senate concurrent resolutions focused on environmental protection, waste reduction, and energy policy. Measures discussed included SCR 142 on dust monitoring near Waimanalo Gulch, SCR 39 on a mattress stewardship program, SCR 40 on banning disposable bodyboards, SCR 83 on a lithium-ion battery disposal facility, SCR 168 on a demolition waste reduction working group, SCR 96 on reporting on the Hawaii Electric Reliability Administrator, SCR 166 on PUC considerations for a generational energy commitment, and SCR 172 on a comprehensive analysis to reduce costs and financial risk while meeting state goals. Testimony was generally supportive of the environmental and waste-management measures. The Department of Health supported SCR 39 and provided comments on SCR 142; Climate Protectors Hawaii supported SCR 39, SCR 83, SCR 168, and SCR 172; the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development and Hawaii Reef and Ocean's Coalition submitted comments or support on SCR 168; and the Public Utilities Commission provided comments on SCR 96 and SCR 166. On SCR 166, Greenpeace Hawaii testified in opposition to LNG, arguing it would worsen pollution and climate impacts, while Earthjustice supported the intent but suggested amendments. Earthjustice also supported SCR 172 and offered friendly amendments to improve the study language. In decision-making, the chair recommended deferral of SCR 142 because an existing regulatory framework already addresses the issue. The committee then voted to pass SCR 39, SCR 40, SCR 83, SCR 96, and SCR 166 unamended. SCR 168 was passed with amendments to reflect OPSD's requested changes and to make the working group temporary, with a two-year term and annual reports due before session. SCR 172 was passed with amendments accepted from Earthjustice. Rep. Quinlan was noted as excused for the votes, and the committee adjourned after adopting the final recommendation.

Transcript Highlights:

• House Bill 2145 is conditionally enacted on the United States Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA
• For instance, protecting property rights. This is about protecting property rights.
• It protects property rights.
• Enactment of the legislation is conditioned on approval by the Environmental Protection Agency of proposed
• ... ...the certificates of environmental compatibility help you to understand what more of the environmental

Bills: HB2014, HB2113, HB2145, HB2331, HB2340, HB2389, HB2400, HB2401, HB2428, HB2494, HB2696, HB2756, HB2795, HB2955, HCM2008

Keywords: air emissions, fuel blends, environmental quality, feasibility study, Arizona Department of Agriculture, utility consumer, rate intervention, public service corporation, Arizona Revised Statutes, residential rates, consumer protection, fuel reformulation, gasoline standards, environmental regulations, ethanol supply, Air Quality, energy reliability, electric service providers, reliable resources, public power entity

Summary: The committee heard several energy and transportation bills, with testimony largely split between sponsors, industry groups, local governments, and environmental advocates. HB 2428, dealing with county and ADEQ authority to issue voluntary permits certifying emission reduction credits for mobile and non-road sources, drew neutral support from ADEQ and support from Maricopa County; it was amended and passed 10-0 with a due pass recommendation. HB 2145, which expands who may petition on gasoline supplier alternative standards, also passed, 5-4, with no amendment. A lengthy debate followed on HB 2331, as amended, which would require electric utilities to ensure 85% of generating capacity serving retail load comes from “reliable resources” by 2030. The sponsor and supporters argued the bill was needed to preserve affordable, dependable power and prevent overreliance on intermittent renewables, while opponents from the Sierra Club and Rural Arizona Action said it would effectively favor fossil fuels, raise costs, and limit cleaner energy options. The committee adopted the strike-everything amendment and the sponsor’s amendment, then passed the bill 6-4. HB 2795, which limits county zoning authority over small modular reactors once federal permitting and certification steps are met, drew strong support from nuclear and business advocates and opposition from county, city, and environmental representatives concerned about local control, safety, waste, and preemption; it passed 6-4 after amendment-related discussion. The committee also passed HB 2340, which allows the power plant and transmission line siting committee to evaluate the plant itself when reviewing transmission line applications, by a 5-4 vote. Finally, HB 2400, an emergency measure to suspend the motor vehicle fuel tax in Areas A and C during summer months and replace the lost revenue with state highway funds, prompted testimony about gas prices, boutique fuel requirements, and transportation funding needs; cities and counties opposed the diversion of highway funds, while the sponsor argued it would help consumers facing higher fuel costs. The Griffin amendment was adopted, and the bill passed with a due pass recommendation after debate on affordability versus road funding.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm joined here today by Kelly Billings-Ray, who is the Chief of our Environmental Protection Division
• Thank you. and other attorneys from our Environmental Protection Division were in Pittsburgh last week
• Protection Division, which serves as the chief enforcer of the state's environmental laws and regulations
• The Environmental Protection Division's job is to... ...provide legal enforcement support to an array
• System, which is a federally delegated program from the Environmental Protection Agency.

Bills: SB766, SB290, SB494, SB1145

Keywords: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, water regulation, environmental protection, pesticide management, natural resources, LP-gas, property owner notice, gas installations, safety notification, petroleum theft, task force, oil and gas, law enforcement, economic impact, environmental regulation, water permits, water quality, land application, 1185, senate

Transcript Highlights:

• We are in Conference Room 411 for the joint committees on Energy and Environmental Protection and the
• protect protect If<00:25:49.200> you<00:25:49.360> guys<00:25:49.520> can<00:25
• will protect This bill will protect our<00:36:48.160> fishing,<00:36:49.359> our<00:36:
• about the environmental review process. about the environmental review process.
• impacts of a Hawaiian marine protected impacts of a Hawaiian marine protected area<01:18:42.560>

Bills: HB2101

Keywords: aquatic life, commercial aquarium purposes, Hawaii, environmental protection, sustainability, Native Hawaiian values, marine resources, 910, house, all

Summary: The joint committees on Energy and Environmental Protection and Water and Land heard testimony on House Bill 21101, which would ban or otherwise end commercial aquarium collection. Chairs opened the hearing with a short time limit for testimony and noted they would move to decision-making before the next committee meeting. The Department of Land and Natural Resources said it appreciated the bill’s intent and stood on written testimony, while the Office of Hawaiian Affairs strongly supported the measure as part of its legislative package, citing community calls to ban the practice. Many other organizations and individuals also testified in support, including environmental, Native Hawaiian, and community groups, with arguments focused on reef protection, public trust, cultural concerns, and the view that the trade is extractive and not sustainable. Supporters repeatedly cited declines in yellow tang and other reef fish, especially on West Hawaii and Oahu, and argued that reef recovery has not occurred where collection pressure existed. Several testified that legal aquarium collection has not occurred in West Hawaii since 2017 or on Oahu since 2021, and that the state should not reopen an industry that has been effectively shut down for years. Others said the program is fiscally inefficient because permits generate little revenue compared with the cost of administering and enforcing the program, and that aquaculture or other alternatives could provide jobs without removing wild fish. Native Hawaiian speakers and civic club representatives emphasized traditional and customary practices, community stewardship, and the need to protect resources for future generations. Opposition testimony came from aquarium fishers and related advocates who argued the fishery has been shown sustainable, that the EIS process was completed, and that the bill would unfairly target one user group over another. They said the trade provides livelihoods for local families, that management is solid, and that the legislature should not ban a fishery after requiring compliance with environmental review. Some opponents also argued that fish populations have increased in recent years and that the issue reflects broader user conflict rather than science. No vote or final committee action was taken during the portion of the hearing provided; the chair continued taking testimony, including on Zoom, as time allowed.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, my question is, is this how we really want to protect Texas waters?
• This ensures that water quality standards are protective and workable.
• negligence—when profit outweighs protection.
• Biosolids have environmental and health impacts.
• So, we have a number of kind of health protective assumptions.

Bills: HB1341, HB1674, HB4028, SB2321

Keywords: hydrogen sulfide, public health, environmental regulation, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, ground level concentrations, emissions limit, emissions limits, ground-level concentrations, air quality, PFAS, agriculture, environmental protection, health risks, criminal offense, chemical regulation, preproduction plastic, water quality, pollution control, industrial waste, emissions

Transcript Highlights:

• So, starting off, HB 1953, establishing a two-year conservation and environmental stewardship pilot program
• really see this as an opportunity to partner and support farmers to do things around, you know, protecting
• On the first measure, HB 1953, on the 2-year conservation and environmental stewardship pilot program

Bills: HB1730, HB1985, HB1749, HB1921

Keywords: cesspool, wastewater systems, public health, environmental protection, affordable upgrades, coral reefs, water quality, Hawaii legislation, cesspools, wastewater, environment, pollution, Hawaii, sustainable development, sewerage system, real estate, disclosure, environmental impact, wastewater management, housing

Summary: The committee heard several agriculture-related bills. HB 1953 would create a two-year conservation and environmental stewardship pilot program in the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity (DAB); testimony from Agriculture Stewardship Hawaii supported investing in conservation agriculture and farm practices that protect waterways and native species. HB 248 would establish a climate-resilient food systems grant program, with DAB explaining the types of equipment and processing investments such grants could support, such as coffee roasting, packaging, harvesting equipment, and other value-added infrastructure. HB 2246 would create a grant administration program and revolving fund to help DAB manage grants; DAB said the bill would help leverage federal, state, county, and private funding by retaining part of the indirect cost recovery to meet matching requirements. HB 2549 would create a clean plant program to produce and distribute disease-free plant material, and reforestation advocates said it would support large-scale reforestation efforts. HB 2551 would fund an area fruit fly suppression program; DAB described sterile fruit fly technology and said the program could help reduce fruit fly populations statewide. HB 2216 would authorize DAB to package and sell part of its loan portfolio to third parties, and HB 2152 would clarify liability and penalties for dog attacks on livestock, with the Hawaii Sheep and Goat Association discussing proposed language and the Hawaiian Humane Society’s suggested amendment on euthanasia procedures. Testimony was largely supportive across the measures, with DAB, Hawaii Farm Bureau, and other agriculture and conservation groups generally backing the bills. There was some discussion on funding levels and implementation details, including DAB’s estimate of about $750,000 for three clean plant stations and a question about the appropriations needed for the fruit fly suppression program. For HB 2152, the chair noted an amendment incorporating Hawaiian Humane Society language that would require surrender of a dog found to have caused livestock loss or damage for humane euthanasia within 24 hours. In decision-making, the committee voted to pass all of the measures discussed, most with technical amendments or date-defect amendments to July 1, 2050. HB 1953, HB 2548, HB 2549, HB 2551, HB 2216, and HB 2152 were all adopted unanimously by the members present, and HB 2246 also passed with technical amendments. The chair’s amendment to HB 2152 was specifically adopted to include the humane euthanasia language.

Transcript Highlights:

• Matt, Department of Health, Environmental Health Services.

Bills: HB1730, HB1985, HB1749, HB1921

Keywords: cesspool, wastewater systems, public health, environmental protection, affordable upgrades, coral reefs, water quality, Hawaii legislation, cesspools, wastewater, environment, pollution, Hawaii, sustainable development, sewerage system, real estate, disclosure, environmental impact, wastewater management, housing

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several cesspool-related measures. HB 1730 HD2 would create a cesspool conversion implementation working group to help the Department of Health review rules and practices and develop changes to make conversions more affordable. DOH and DLNR stood on written testimony, while environmental and wastewater advocates strongly supported the bill, emphasizing the need for dedicated staffing, technical expertise, and smaller, more focused advisory groups. Members discussed the high cost of upgrades and the need for new technologies that reduce excavation and leach field costs. The bill was passed with amendments, including clarifying the DOH director’s discretion over the size of the working group, and the committee noted DOH’s appropriation request for consideration. HB 1985 HD1 would extend certain cesspool conversion deadlines and authorize funding for consultants, while also advancing outreach and education. Testimony split sharply: advocates supported the education component but opposed deadline extensions as premature, arguing the state still has many years before the 2050 mandate and should not weaken the conversion timeline. The committee agreed to amend the bill to delete the deadline-extension portion, keep technical changes, and note DOH’s position request. HB 1749 HD2 would require sellers to disclose cesspools to buyers before a real estate purchase contract is executed and direct DOH and the Real Estate Commission to create a standardized form. Realtors supported the intent but asked to avoid duplicative statutory form requirements, and advocates stressed that disclosure should be prominent and not buried in paperwork. The committee adopted amendments removing the standardized-form mandate and passed the bill. HB 1921 HD2 would allow certain existing cesspools in priority level three areas to continue serving dwellings with additional bedrooms under conditions. DOH brought the measure, and supporters from the real estate and environmental sectors discussed innovative wastewater technologies, retrofits, and composting toilets as ways to reduce costs while improving treatment. The committee amended the bill to require DOH director-approved wastewater technology using solid waste separation for bedroom-count increases and to clarify priority-level determinations using block-level data from the Hawaii cesspool prioritization tool, then passed it. The committee also heard HB 2310, an emergency appropriation for the Department of Human Services to restore funding used to keep SNAP benefits flowing during the federal shutdown; DHS, public health, children’s advocates, and others supported it, and members questioned why it was not handled through the budget. The discussion clarified that the bill sought new money to move quickly for ACA-related premium support. No final vote on HB 2310 was shown in the excerpt.

Bills: SCR159

Keywords: Waikiki, beach restoration, shoreline management, public access, environmental protection, coastal resources, tourism, economic development, traditional practices, 910, house, all

Bills: SB154, SB362, SB544, SB714

Keywords: conservation, water management, Colorado River, environment, sustainability, mining, federal minerals, Bull Mountains, Montana, coal, land management, environmental impact, mining regulation, hardrock mining, land use, environmental protection, Abandoned Hardrock Mine Fund, critical minerals, energy regulation, material designation

Transcript Highlights:

• morning, everyone, and welcome to our first hearing of the session, House Committee on Energy and Environmental
• Protection.
• 54.720> climate um with environmental and climate um with environmental and climate related<00
• reaching sustainable um environmental reaching sustainable um environmental goals.<00:24:28.799>
• I understand the environmental health. I understand the the<00:45:59.200> concern.

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.