Transcript Highlights:

• years' worth of water in the basin.
• Furthermore, identifying the total amount of water or years of water in a basin could signify that that
• years' worth of water in the basin.
• Furthermore, identifying the total amount of water or years of water in a basin could signify that that
• And I was aware that there were still flights of gray wolf pups into the state.

Bills: SB1005, SB1202, SB1278, SB1279, SB1280, SB1287

Keywords: cosmetics, animal testing, prohibition, manufacturers, sales regulation, state preemption, groundwater, water conservation, Arizona water resources, drought management, water quality, solar radiation management, environment, regulation, Arizona Revised Statutes, weather modification, licensing, environmental impact, public safety, cloud seeding

Summary: The Natural Resources Committee approved the minutes from January 20 and January 27, 2026, then heard several bills related to weather modification, water policy, wildlife, cosmetics, and groundwater management. SB 1278 would ban intentional solar radiation management in Arizona and bar public entities or recipients of public funds from supporting related technology development. Supporters argued it was needed to stop harmful geoengineering, while opponents said it would block research and distract from real pollution problems. The committee voted 5-2 with one not voting to give SB 1278 a do pass recommendation. The committee then considered SB 1279, which would regulate weather modification licenses, require ADWR and ADEQ review of chemicals, public notice, and public meetings, and—under a proposed strike-everything amendment—shift complaint enforcement to ADWR and require rulemaking. Testimony was largely in support from stakeholders and SRP, while ADEQ was neutral but warned it lacked standards, resources, and expertise to develop the required chemical limits on the bill’s timeline. The committee adopted the amendment and then passed the bill as amended 5-2 with one not voting. Members next passed SB 1005, which would prohibit the sale of cosmetics developed with animal testing, with supporters citing cruelty concerns and industry alternatives; the bill received a do pass recommendation 4-2 with two not voting. SB 1202, requiring ADWR to include more detailed data in five-year groundwater supply-and-demand assessments, drew opposition from ADWR over feasibility, cost, and the risk of misleading conclusions, but still received a do pass recommendation 4-2 with two not voting. The committee also passed SB 1280, which would bar Game and Fish from using public funds to transport Mexican gray wolf pups into Arizona; wildlife advocates opposed it as harmful to recovery, while Game and Fish said it would not affect core responsibilities and was neutral. Finally, SB 1287, with a conforming amendment, was approved 5-1 with two not voting to extend certain irrigation grandfathered-right groundwater uses to subsequent active management areas. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Paco Sewer and Water Company.
• to the Mexican gray wolf.
• To delist Mexican gray wolves.
• I find the Mexican gray wolf, I find the Mexican gray wolf...
• , how treating water, if it be the AWP, you know, recycling water, et cetera.

Bills: HB2013, HB2026, HB2056, HB2098, HB2113, HB2156, HB2158, HCM2011, HCR2057

Keywords: air pollution, wildfires, environmental standards, public health, Arizona Revised Statutes, assured water supply, groundwater, commingling, commingled water, water supply, Arizona Department of Water Resources, ADWR, active management area, AMA, subdivision plat, development approval, water rights, municipal provider, private water company, certificate of assured water supply

Summary: The committee approved the minutes from February 27 and March 3, 2026, and then heard several natural resources and water-related measures. House Bill 2013 would require ADEQ to submit an exceptional event demonstration to EPA when wildfire smoke from federally managed land affects Arizona air quality. The sponsor said this would help Arizona’s ozone/nonattainment position, while Sierra Club and ADEQ raised concerns that the bill duplicates an existing process and could waste staff time and resources. The bill passed 5-3. House Bill 2156 would appropriate $250,000 to the Livestock Compensation Fund. Supporters argued ranchers need help with livestock losses and drought impacts, while opponents criticized the board’s transparency and said the program already receives federal and prior state funding. The bill passed 5-3. House Bill 2113 would require RUCO to intervene in utility rate cases when a proposed increase reaches 100% or more; the sponsor said rural customers are being overlooked, while RUCO said it would need significant additional staff and funding and could not absorb the workload without more resources. The bill passed 6-2, with members noting they expected a future amendment to add funding. The committee also approved House Concurrent Memorial 2011, which urges Congress to delist the Mexican gray wolf and return management to states and local authorities. Supporters cited livestock losses and ranching impacts, while opponents said the species remains endangered and recovery decisions should remain science-based; the memorial passed 5-3. House Bill 2026, concerning how ADWR evaluates water availability when supplies are commingled, passed 5-3 despite concerns that it could weaken groundwater safeguards. House Bill 2056, which funds a feasibility study for brackish groundwater desalination sites, also passed 5-3 after debate over whether the study was necessary given existing groundwater accounting and treatment efforts. House Bill 2098, modernizing Pinal County Water Augmentation Authority bonding authority, passed unanimously 8-0. Finally, House Concurrent Resolution 2057, supporting a geothermal permitting roadmap and agency coordination for next-generation geothermal development, passed unanimously 8-0.

Transcript Highlights:

• , or improvements for the efficiency of use of water, or improvements in water reliability.
• We are here neutral on House Bill 2029, the water conservation grant fund.
• and the water supply being conserved.
• All projects have to have some level of water savings involved.
• and the Drinking Water Revolving Fund.

Bills: HB2029, HB2030, HB2096

Keywords: water conservation, grants, infrastructure, environmental protection, sustainability, grant fund, Arizona water law, A.R.S. 49-1332, water efficiency, water reuse, education programs, public outreach, rainwater harvesting, gray water, graywater, drought-resistant landscaping, xeriscaping, turf removal, groundwater recharge, aquifer health

Summary: The House Committee on Natural Resources, Energy and Water heard three bills related to the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority (WIFA) and county wastewater issues. HB 2029 would require applicants for water conservation grant funds to provide additional information about the long-term water savings, efficiency, reliability, and intended use of grant money. WIFA testified neutral, saying most of the information is already collected under agency policy and the bill would mainly codify existing practice. The committee passed HB 2029 on a 9-1 vote. HB 2030 would remove education and research programs from the list of allowable uses for the water conservation grant fund. Supporters of the bill argued the fund should prioritize projects that put more water savings “on the ground,” while opponents said education and research can support conservation and help identify effective projects. WIFA said about 15 of 211 funded projects had some education or research component, totaling about $10.5 million and an estimated 180,000 acre-feet in savings. The committee passed HB 2030 on a 6-4 vote, with several members opposing the bill because they saw value in those projects. HB 2096 would expand WIFA funding to allow counties to receive assistance for remediating, closing, or replacing cesspools that threaten groundwater, surface water, or public health, and would let counties offer income-based assistance and report annually on the program. County and association witnesses described cesspools as an ongoing rural public health problem, especially in Gila County, and said the bill would help homeowners afford required upgrades. WIFA and ADEQ were neutral, noting the bill would clarify county authority and use existing federal revolving fund dollars; testimony also explained that current law already requires cesspools to be upgraded when discovered or when a property is remodeled. The committee passed HB 2096 unanimously, 10-0, and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Gray wolves reintroduced into the wild. These animals are far from recovered.
• Do you remember what the goal was for recovery of the Mexican gray wolf?
• I have yet to see a Mexican gray wolf.
• You know, but I've seen more skinwalkers than I have gray wolves.
• The Mexican gray wolf was identified as a subspecies, hybrid experimental population.

Bills: SB1075, SB1144, SB1280

Keywords: foreign ownership, land sales, review commission, national security, property rights, veterinary technicians, certification, education alternative, Arizona Revised Statutes, veterinary education, Mexican gray wolf, Mexican wolf, Mexican gray wolf puppies, Arizona Game and Fish Commission, Arizona Game and Fish Department, endangered species, wolf reintroduction, wolf translocation, cross-fostering, wildlife management

Summary: The Committee on Land and Agriculture heard two bills, SB 1075 and SB 1280, with public testimony limited and several speakers appearing on each measure. SB 1075 would create a Foreign Entity Review Commission and prohibit the conveyance, sale, lease, or sublease of state land to hostile foreign entities without commission approval. Supporters said it was needed to protect land near critical infrastructure and military sites, while opponents argued it created unnecessary bureaucracy and duplicated existing safeguards. The committee voted 5-4 to give SB 1075 a due pass recommendation. The committee then took up SB 1280, which would bar the Arizona Game and Fish Commission from transporting Mexican gray wolf pups into the state or using public funds or resources for that purpose. Supporters said the bill would stop state involvement in importing wolves and argued the population had already reached sufficient numbers. Opponents, including representatives from Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter and Humane World for Animals, said the measure would undermine science-based recovery efforts, reduce genetic diversity, and harm a still-endangered species. Members debated the wolf population, recovery goals, and whether the bill would affect federal conservation efforts. After testimony and member discussion, the committee voted 4-3, with one absent, to give SB 1280 a due pass recommendation. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• lead into all the other water policy we're dealing with, whether it's groundwater or surface water,
• Gray testified to before me.
• Gray alluded to that in his testimony.
• Water is life, and we need to be cautious and not let Arizona give away and kneel to promising water
• Now, water is not my area of expertise, but even I know you're not going to find water there.

Bills: HB2026, HB2027, HB2028, HB2031, HB2078, HB2094, HB2095, HB2101, HB2102, HB2103, HB2260, HB2278, HB2827, HB2932, HB2933, HB2934, HB2986, HCM2009, HCR2038

Keywords: assured water supply, groundwater, commingling, commingled water, water supply, Arizona Department of Water Resources, ADWR, active management area, AMA, subdivision plat, development approval, water rights, municipal provider, private water company, certificate of assured water supply, written commitment of water service, groundwater savings credits, gray water reuse, replenishment district, Central Arizona Project

Summary: The committee on Natural Resources, Energy and Water heard and advanced several bills and memorials focused on water policy, mining, environmental regulation, and professional licensing. HB 2260, a veterinary board measure, HB 2986, an ADEQ cleanup/omnibus bill, and HB 2827, which extends Pinal AMA groundwater fee authority and related fund deadlines, all received due pass recommendations on unanimous 10-0 votes. HB 2078, clarifying that public notice for new aggregate mine reclamation plans applies only to new plans and can be satisfied by certain local notices, also passed 9-1 after testimony from the sponsor and mining industry representatives. HCM 2009, urging Congress to amend the Antiquities Act, address split estate mineral rights, and streamline mining permits, passed 5-4 along party lines and drew support from mining interests and opposition from members concerned about federal land protection and monuments. HCR 2038, supporting a seven-state Colorado River agreement, passed 9-1 with testimony emphasizing the importance of a negotiated river settlement to Arizona’s economy, food supply, and national security. The committee then took up a series of water-management bills that generated more extensive debate. HB 2026, which narrows how ADWR evaluates water availability by focusing on proposed dedicated supplies even if commingled in delivery systems, passed 6-4 despite concerns that it echoed previously vetoed language and could weaken water security. HB 2027, as amended, would limit application of Pinal AMA-style rules in the Phoenix AMA and alter physical-availability review for applicants enrolled in the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District; it passed 6-4 after strong opposition from CAP, municipal water users, and ADWR, who warned it could undermine assured water supply designations and CAGRD obligations, while home builders argued it was a fairness issue for development. HB 2028, removing ADWR’s exemption from appealable administrative-completeness determinations, passed 6-4 over agency concerns that it would turn deficiency letters into formal appeals and add workload, while supporters said it would give applicants the same legal rights as other regulated parties. The committee also approved HB 2031, an emergency measure setting a deadline for filing grandfathered groundwater rights in the Wilcox AMA, on a 5-4 vote, and HB 2094, which would require ADWR to re-review certain assured water supply determinations and retroactively validate some applications using specified models, also on a 5-4 vote; both were described as similar to previously vetoed measures. The transcript ends as the committee begins HB 2095, which would expand the factors ADWR considers in determining groundwater depth and physical availability for assured water supply applications, with an amendment being explained but no final action captured in the excerpt.

Keywords: KY LRC YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEllr-EVndg, 2026-06-21T07:17:03+00:00, 2.2.24, Data collected via generic collector engine, MEETING START 00:00 ROLL CALL 00:19 DISCUSSION WITH SECRETARY GRAY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ON THE 01:16 BRENT SPENCE BRIDGE CORRIDOR STATUS AND UPDATES. OVERVIEW AND SCHEDULING OF MULTIPLE PROJECTS IN THE STATE OF KENTUCKY; INCLUDING ROAD REPAIRS. UPDATES ON ALL ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS. COMPLETED ROAD AND BRIDGE PROJECTS. YEARLY BUDGET, EMPLOYEE STATUS, AND CURRENT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS., 958, all, 2.2.42, 2.1.47

Transcript Highlights:

• It would encourage projects that turn flood water or storm water into a valuable water supply, improving
• He could not use their water. He had to use the water from the CCN.
• water rights.
• , water supply, drainage, as well as water users and those who support the water industry.
• water troughs and our water wells.

Bills: SB863, SB1190, SB1261, SB1413, SB1624, SB1662, SB1663, SB1855, SB1967, SB2124, SB2204, SB1623

Keywords: Edwards Aquifer, water conservation, reclaimed water, aquifer storage, environmental protection, water loss, municipally owned utilities, Texas Water Development Board, administrative penalties, water audit, water infrastructure, water supply, state water plan, water management strategies, water financing, municipal bonds, revenue bonds, public debt, obligations, TWDB

Transcript Highlights:

• We've been told by the water company and TCEQ that this water is drinkable.
• He could not use their water; he had to use the water from the CCN.
• We established a Texas Water Bank in 1993 to facilitate the transfer, sale, and lease of water and water
• and irrigation, water supply, drainage, as well as water users and those that support the water industry
• get water.

Bills: SB863, SB1190, SB1261, SB1413, SB1624, SB1662, SB1663, SB1855, SB1967, SB2124, SB2204, SB1623

Keywords: Edwards Aquifer, water conservation, reclaimed water, aquifer storage, environmental protection, water loss, municipally owned utilities, Texas Water Development Board, administrative penalties, water audit, water infrastructure, water supply, state water plan, water management strategies, water financing, municipal bonds, revenue bonds, public debt, obligations, TWDB

Summary: The Senate Committee on Water, Agriculture, and Rural Affairs heard several water-related bills, with testimony focused on drinking water quality, groundwater contamination notice, flood infrastructure funding, water rights conservation, and utility service areas. SB 1662 would limit TCEQ’s advance notice to public water systems to no more than 24 hours before testing after a consumer complaint, to reduce the chance of temporary treatment affecting results. SB 1663 would allow TCEQ to notify private well owners, groundwater conservation districts, and nearby residents by direct means about known groundwater contamination, rather than relying mainly on first-class mail and annual reporting. SB 2124 would move the deadline for publishing the Texas Groundwater Protection Committee’s annual report from April 1 to June 1. Witnesses on the first two bills described long-running water quality problems and delayed notice in their communities and supported the measures. No opposition was recorded, and each bill was left pending for a later vote. The committee also heard SB 1967, which would expand eligibility for Flood Infrastructure Fund financing to multipurpose projects that both reduce flooding and create water supply. Senator Hinojosa and Hidalgo County representatives described the Delta Reclamation Project as a shovel-ready example that would capture flood and drainage water, treat it, and produce new potable supply while also providing detention and flood mitigation. A Sierra Club witness also supported the bill, saying such projects could help manage floodwaters and reduce polluted discharges to bays and estuaries. The bill was left pending. A lengthy and divided discussion followed on SB 1413, which would expand the streamlined expedited release process for landowners seeking removal from a water or sewer CCN in additional counties. Senator Nichols said the bill was a property-rights measure aimed at legacy monopolies and bad actors who use CCNs to hold landowners hostage, while supporters described cases where developers could not get timely service, including fire flow, or were asked to fund infrastructure without reasonable recoupment. Opponents from rural water corporations and utility associations argued the bill would undermine investment in water infrastructure, strand debt, and weaken the return on planned expansion. PUC and TCEQ resource witnesses explained that compensation is handled case by case through appraisal and can include stranded costs, planning, design, construction, and some legal fees, but members noted the statute is unclear and discussed possible committee substitute language. Public testimony was closed with the bill left pending. Later, SB 1624 would allow the Texas Water Trust within the Texas Water Bank to hold donated water rights for conservation purposes and protect them from use-it-or-lose-it cancellation, and SB 863 would address Edwards Aquifer utilities that straddle the aquifer boundary by allowing them to continue using Edwards water within their certificated areas under specified conditions. Both bills were laid out, received no public opposition in the hearing, and were left pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, what this really does is expands the use of the water trust and the water bank.
• or temporarily put it in the water bank or water trust to help other folks.
• Um, making the water bank and water trust more flexible will only help the state meet its water needs
• Uh, my background is in San Antonio Water System, Water Quality division.
• drinking water standards.

Bills: HB 5208, SB 863, SB 1243, SB 1624, SB 1965, SB 2660, SB 2702, SB 2885

Keywords: water filtration, public drinking water, health and safety, well maintenance, water quality, Edwards Aquifer, water conservation, reclaimed water, aquifer storage, environmental protection, public utility agency, dissolution, local government, regulatory framework, municipal authority, Texas Water Bank, Texas Water Trust, water rights, water banking, instream flow

Transcript Highlights:

• put it in the water bank or water trust to help other folks.
• Making the water bank and water trust more flexible will not only help the state meet its water needs
• My background is with the San Antonio water system's water quality division.
• On testing and licensing, or on water standards? Water standards.
• drinking water standards.

Bills: HB5208, SB863, SB1243, SB1624, SB1965, SB2660, SB2702, SB2885

Keywords: water filtration, public drinking water, health and safety, well maintenance, water quality, Edwards Aquifer, water conservation, reclaimed water, aquifer storage, environmental protection, public utility agency, dissolution, local government, regulatory framework, municipal authority, Texas Water Bank, Texas Water Trust, water rights, water banking, instream flow

Transcript Highlights:

• But today, I sit here as Vice Chair of Water Trust Board.
• So The story of water in 2017, our distribution of the Water Trust Board was zero.
• So, what that does for projects is that the Water Trust Board opens the notice of intents.
• The Water Trust Board, NMFA, NMFA Oversight, we all get our job completed by December.
• But what I might add to this is that all the water and wastewater projects that go through the Water

Bills: HM26, HB243, HB109

Keywords: insects, ecosystem, education, public awareness, wildlife conservation, state agency involvement, New Mexico, equine welfare, animal rescue, shelter funding, trust fund, veterinary care, water project fund, water project finance act, New Mexico Finance Authority, water infrastructure, water grants, water loans, regional water planning, water rights adjudication

Bills: HB 16, HB 1618, HB 2692, HB 2712, HB 2970, HB 3609, HB 3628

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: HB 16, HB 1618, HB 2692, HB 2712, HB 2970, HB 3609, HB 3628

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

Transcript Highlights:

• these water rights to the Texas Water Trust.
• , and the water we save is, again, the cheapest water that we get in this state.
• Water Plan here shortly.
• Can't live without water. Can't live without water.
• Can't live without water. Can't live without water.

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:

• water and sewer services.
• within the Texas Water Bank and is administered by the Texas Water Development Board.
• these water rights to the Texas Water Trust.
• and the water that we save is, again, the cheapest water that we get in this state.
• It is our business to work in water. If the water disappears, we don't have a business.

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:

• Conservation Grant Fund that receives water from a multi-county water conservation district.
• from a multi-county water conservation district.
• water savings and the water supply being conserved.
• Let me... ...water savings and the water supply being conserved.
• We need continued water security. We need continued water security.

Bills: HB2029, HB2096, HB2116

Keywords: water conservation, grants, infrastructure, environmental protection, sustainability, cesspool remediation, cesspool replacement, forgivable principal, forgivable loan, wifa, water infrastructure finance authority, clean water revolving fund, drinking water revolving fund, wastewater infrastructure, on-site wastewater system, septic system, groundwater protection, public health, nonpoint source pollution, county water projects

Summary: The Natural Resources Committee heard three bills, all of which received do pass recommendations. House Bill 2029 would require additional disclosure from applicants to the Water Conservation Grant Fund, including plans for how saved water will be used; an amendment broadened the disclosure requirement from only certain applicants to all eligible entities. WIFA testified neutral on the bill and amendment, noting it already collects much of the information. The amendment and the bill as amended both passed 8-0, with the sponsor indicating he may reoffer the amendment on the floor. House Bill 2096 would authorize counties to seek WIFA financial assistance, including forgivable principal, to remediate, close, or replace cesspools that threaten water quality or public health, and would clarify county authority to accept such loans without voter approval. WIFA was neutral and said the bill resolves ambiguity in the statutes. Supporters from the County Supervisors Association and Gila County described widespread cesspool problems in rural counties, especially Gila County, where thousands of cesspools remain and flooding caused sewage contamination and major cleanup costs. The committee approved the bill 8-0. House Bill 2116 would appropriate $1 million from the General Fund in FY 2027 to the Colorado River Litigation Fund. Supporters said the money is needed to prepare for possible legal challenges over Colorado River cuts, while several members emphasized they hope litigation will not be necessary and described the amount as a placeholder for future budget discussions. The bill passed 8-0 and was sent to Appropriations before the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• able to use the water for beneficial reuse locally where we, where we use the water is a huge advantage
• water rates from one particular water company.
• The unexpected water bills.
• So we have a water system.
• Everybody wants water, needs water.

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:

• It's a lot of water.
• and water failures.
• We want to point out that water saved is the least expensive water that we have.
• Additionally, water saved contributes to better water security.
• that saved water costs.

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:

• water for beneficial purposes.
• usage and their water rates from one particular water company, leading to much higher bills than they
• You guys do great work in trying to address the water needs and water infrastructure, and I know this
• is supposed to be a water session.
• Everyone wants water and needs water.

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:

• water.
• My small business uses water. We do abrasive water jet cutting, and it uses water.
• So my small business, which uses water—we do abrasive water jet cutting—uses water.
• water.
• Water.

Bills: HB2042, HB2052, HB2055, HB2056, HB2094, HB2098, HB2185, HB2328, HB2758, HB2798

Keywords: solar radiation management, environment, prohibition, Arizona Revised Statutes, public health, complaint process, Attorney General, groundwater management, water conservation, irrigation, water supply, brackish groundwater, water supply development, desalination, water infrastructure, financial assistance, environmental reviews, brackish water, groundwater, water resources

Summary: The committee first received an update from Arizona Department of Water Resources Director Tom Buschatzky on Colorado River negotiations and post-2026 operating rules. He described the legal framework governing Arizona’s allocation, argued that Arizona and the lower basin have already made substantial conservation cuts, and said the upper basin is pressing positions Arizona views as inconsistent with prior Supreme Court rulings. He emphasized the need to move water from upstream reservoirs to Lake Mead, warned of continued shortage risk, and said the state is seeking an equitable deal through ongoing federal and interstate negotiations. Members asked about outside water use, tourism and recreation impacts, and tribal water rights, including the Navajo-Hopi-San Juan Southern Paiute settlement. Buschatzky said the state’s delegation and bipartisan support have been helpful and urged continued public and legislative backing. The committee then heard House Bill 2758, which would expand McMullen Valley groundwater transportation authority and add related requirements and guardrails, including an amendment increasing the La Paz County transportation cap from 10% to 50% of the annual volume and adding conditions for sales or leases from historically irrigated acres. Supporters, including bill sponsor advocates, the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association, and the Home Builders Association, said the bill would create a lawful, regulated transfer option similar to the Harquahala model, support housing growth, and include oversight through hydrologic studies, pumping limits, and monthly reporting to ADWR. Opponents, including La Paz County Supervisor Holly Irwin’s statement, local residents, Sierra Club, and rural advocates, argued the bill would accelerate aquifer depletion, harm private wells and subsidence conditions, and benefit a New York hedge fund at the expense of rural communities. After debate, the committee adopted the Griffin amendment and then passed HB 2758 as amended on a 6-4 due-pass vote. The committee next took up House Bill 2098, which would modify bonding authority and public hearing notice requirements for county water augmentation authorities and allow local repayment agreements with WIFA. Pinal County Supervisor Stephen Miller and other supporters said the bill would clean up statutory language so the Pinal County Water Augmentation Authority can finance future water augmentation and infrastructure projects, including potential Bartlett Dam-related work, and better prepare for future Colorado River uncertainty. The Home Builders Association also supported the bill, saying it included proportionality protections for private utility water charges. The bill was moved for a due-pass recommendation and the committee proceeded to a roll call vote, with the transcript ending before the final vote result was shown.