Bills: SB 1194, SB 1215, SB 1253, SB 1268, SB 1302, SB 1484, SB 1532

Keywords: water management, bond issuance, eminent domain, regional authority, fee structures, local governance, environmental quality, oyster cultivation, coastal management, natural resources, marine ecosystems, Texas Parks and Wildlife, Texas Water Development Board, guidance principles, flood plan, state water plan, rule review, infrastructure, water discharge, general permit

Transcript Highlights:

• plan that would benefit from dedicated state funding.
• water supply in Texas and Central Texas, as included in current and past state water plans.
• We need to fund the state water plan strategies for the Rio Grande Valley.
• $80 billion in new water supply projects reflected in the 2022 state water plan.
• as identified in the 2024 State Flood Plan.

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:

• The Water Development Board is responsible for developing both the state water plan and the state flood
• plan.
• agency resources, and ensure our state water and flood planning systems continue to serve Texas efficiently
• In the event that a desired future plan is challenged, HB3609 allows the Texas Water Development Board
• 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

Transcript Highlights:

• cost sharing and up to 75% inclusion into the state strategic beach management planning program.
• and water quality improvement is working throughout the state.
• State park unit management plans serve as the foundation for all planning, improvement, and management
• The Florida Park Service analysis of our unit management plans for all 175 state parks identified and
• State Park unit management plans serve as the foundation for all planning, improvement, and management

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:

• state.
• Uh, state policy on water infrastructure funding, a really big conversation this session.
• And as another example, state water policy includes a specific statement encouraging and promoting the
• Across the state, members, many Texans see significant increases in their monthly water bills.
• 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:

• If an entity doesn't plan on using any of the water, they don't pay for anything.
• , which has been established by the Water Development Board, create a water loss mitigation plan that
• Jennifer Walker stated, and I quote, "The state of Texas experienced water loss of 500,000-plus acre-feet
• Large utilities like SAWS should have water loss mitigation plans.
• The bill further suggests that water loss mitigation plans be rolled into the conservation plans that

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:

• state.
• State policy on water infrastructure funding, a significant conversation this session, aims to encourage
• water for beneficial purposes.
• Across the state, members, many Texans see significant increases in their monthly water bills.
• 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:

• might not know um but the state might not know um but the state legislature<00:02:03.799> originally
• paid to the state because the state<00:02:22.480> had<00:02:22.640> to<00:02:22.760>
• I'm Olivia's mom. organization pays more to the state in organization pays more to the state in taxes
• The state plays an important role, but the state can't meet all the needs.
• The state plays an important role, but the state can't meet all the needs.

Bills: HF169, HF195, HF194, HF1756, HF2133

Keywords: HF169, Minnesota insurance, health plan, summary of benefits and coverage, SBC, patient assistance program, deductible, health insurer, consumer disclosure, out-of-pocket costs, medical assistance funds, copay assistance, health coverage transparency, chapter 62Q, enrollee, HF195, Fairmont, street reconstruction, bonding bill, capital investment

Transcript Highlights:

• In total, three water treatment plants are planned, and a fourth one is planned for Willisee County.
• Water systems in our state with 150,000 or more customers suffer median water losses of 50%, or 50,000
• Senate Bill 1261 supports large regional water supply projects that are included in the state plan without
• state water challenges.
• Grant Management Standards, including the Research and Planning Fund, the State Water Implementation

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:

• In total, three water treatment plants are planned in Hidalgo County, and a fourth one is planned for
• supply projects that are in the state plan without adding to the state debt or funding.
• state water challenges.
• grant management standards, including the Research and Planning Fund, the State Water Implementation
• grant management standards, including the Research and Planning Fund, the State Water Implementation

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:

• The updated brackish water groundwater study has been completed and is at the Department of Water Resources
• Water is one of the top issues for the state of Arizona, especially with Colorado River water being negotiated
• state law.
• state.
• of Washington, the state of Arizona, the state of Louisiana, looking at New Orleans, the state of California

Bills: HB2056, HB2202, HB2207, HB2224, HB2303, HB2344, HB2532, HB2759, HB2798

Keywords: brackish water, groundwater, desalination, water resources, feasibility study, environmental impact, dementia care, telementoring, healthcare education, rural communities, grant funding, braille, disability access, education funding, state corrections, inclusion, produce incentive, agriculture, economic support, funding

Summary: The Appropriations Committee met on January 28 and heard several bills, beginning with member and staff introductions and a reminder about amendment deadlines. HB 2056 would appropriate $100,000 to the Arizona Department of Water Resources for a feasibility study of brackish groundwater desalination sites; the sponsor said Arizona should explore potential water supplies amid Colorado River concerns. A witness opposed the bill, and members debated whether brackish groundwater should be treated as a resource or a threat to aquifers. The committee approved HB 2056 on an 11-6 vote, with one member not voting. The committee then considered HB 2798, as amended, which would provide $100,000 to the University of Arizona/Arizona Geological Survey to compile data on materials related to nuclear energy, including thorium and other non-uranium fuels. The sponsor framed the bill as an economic development and national security effort, while opponents questioned whether Arizona has enough of the material to justify public spending. The University of Arizona supported the work as within the Geological Survey’s mission. The committee adopted the amendment and passed the bill 11-5, with one member present and one not voting. HB 2303 would codify investment rules for the State Treasurer, requiring safety and principal preservation ahead of return and prohibiting speculative investments and insider-benefit conduct. The Treasurer’s Office said the bill reflects current policy and ethics rules already in place, and members asked about how “speculative” would be defined and whether the bill would affect other investment-related statutes. The committee passed the bill 15-0, with two members present and one not voting. HB 2344 would require the Treasurer to manage the local government investment pool and allow a third-party backup only in emergencies; the Treasurer’s Office argued this preserves a low-cost, high-liquidity service for local governments, while some members questioned whether it limited future Treasurers’ discretion. The committee passed HB 2344 12-2, with three present and one not voting. Later, the committee heard HB 2759, which would appropriate $500,000 to the Department of Veterans’ Services to partner with an educational institution in Yavapai County for veteran programs. A retired Navy SEAL and campus veterans coordinator described emergency housing, equipment, and professional-development needs for student veterans at Embry-Riddle, while several members supported the effort and others objected to using state funds for a private institution or a county-specific program. The bill passed 11-6, with one not voting. The committee also passed HB 2207, appropriating $300,000 for the prison Braille transcription program, after testimony that the program trains inmates in a skilled trade and has had no recidivism among released participants; it passed 17-0, with one not voting. Finally, HB 2224, as amended to reduce the appropriation from $2 million to $1 million, would fund the Double Up Food Bucks produce incentive program through SNAP. Supporters said it helps families, farmers, and local economies and can improve health outcomes, while members discussed budget constraints; the committee approved the amended bill after testimony from program advocates and farmers.

Transcript Highlights:

• any regional water plan or the state water plan because it does not protect the agriculture or natural
• That's what our state water plan does.
• were in the original 1961 or 1968 state water plans.
• When something enters the state water plan, When something enters the state water plan, are permits sought
• The state water planning process is sort of a 60,000-foot plan.

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
• This is what the state water plan has...
• The envy of the country with our very innovative state water plan.
• That are of unique value in the State Water Plan.
• were in the original 1961 or 1968 State Water Plan.

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:

• regional water plans.
• water plan, the people of Laredo are still waiting.
• 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.

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:

• As both the regulator of water use for the state and a co-rustee of the 3M PAS... manager for the city
• the regulator of water use for the<00:16:16.399> state<00:16:16.720> and<00:16:16.959>
• plan, and it was determined that they wanted to not bring surface water out.
• <01:14:07.280> conservation<01:14:07.840> plan uh conservation water conservation plan
• uh conservation water conservation plan meant.<01:14:08.719> and<01:14:08.960> we<01:14

Bills: HF1531, HF4017, HF3399, HF4146, HF4019, HF3677

Keywords: crossbow, crossbow hunting, archery season, deer hunting, bear hunting, turkey hunting, fishing, common carp, rough fish, game and fish, wildlife management, hunting license, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, DNR, sunset clause, expiration removal, archery equipment, outdoor recreation, infectious waste, pathological waste

Transcript Highlights:

• management strategy in the state water plan with costs more than $750 million.
• supply projects that are in the state water plan without adding to the state's debt or funding.
• And it has to be for projects that are in the state water plan that are in excess of $750 million.
• We plan on providing water for everyone.
• For HB 3628 only applies these updates to the state water plan, leaving, leaving an inconsistency in

Bills: HB 1520, HB 1525, HB 1530, HB 1535, HB 2068, HB 2091, HB 2347, HB 2372, HB 2805, HB 2815, HB 2867, HB 3154, HB 3482, HB 3483, HB 3663, HB 3781, HB 3901, HB 3915, HB 4135, HB 4153, HB 4158, HB 4329, HB 4331

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

Transcript Highlights:

• management strategy in the state water plan with costs more than $750 million.
• supply projects that are in the state water plan without adding to the state's debt or funding.
• And it has to be for projects that are in the state water plan that are in excess of $750 million.
• help provide those water supplies to the state.
• For HB 3628 only applies these updates to the state water plan, leaving an inconsistency in their. process

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

• in the state of Texas, that if it is sold or transferred those water rights, that the public has right
• growing water shortages that this state faces.
• The state faces a very real possibility of a severe water shortage. in certain parts of the state by
• . by statute to be able to require water conservation plans or programs for development what this means
• They have to development a storm water management. plan.

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

• The public and the state agencies should participate in protecting them.
• You know, the state goes into each rescue and registers them.
• 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.
• 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

Transcript Highlights:

• Arizona is one of these states.
• that we have in our state?
• And so we have the WIFA board that works on our main water resources for the state, looking out for those
• You need to plan for your crops. You need to plan for your banker.
• But we have to have a plan.

Bills: SB1082, SB1200, SB1335, SB1336, SB1559, SB1761, SB1762, SB1785, SCM1007

Keywords: petting zoos, animal encounters, public health, handwashing, supervision, sanitization, safety regulations, civil penalties, water supply, groundwater, Phoenix, certificates, long-term storage credits, water conservation, municipal provider, replenishment obligation, water banking, annual report, Arizona Water Banking Authority, water supply management

Summary: The Senate Natural Resources Committee first considered two nominations. Jessica Manuel was introduced as a nominee to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, where testimony emphasized her science background and experience working with agencies and stakeholders. Members asked about wolf management and her qualifications, and the committee voted 8-0 to recommend her confirmation. Stephen Williams was then introduced for the Arizona Livestock Loss Board, with discussion focused on his livestock and State Land Department experience and how the board handles wolf-related livestock losses. The committee also voted 8-0 to recommend his confirmation. The committee then took up several bills. SB 1785, which would codify ADWR’s one-mile safe-harbor policy for recovery wells near groundwater storage facilities, passed 5-3 after ADWR said it largely reflected current practice but requested clarifying language. SB 1082, requiring sanitation measures and signage for petting zoos and similar animal encounter exhibits, drew strong testimony from a parent advocate describing severe E. coli/HUS cases and opposition from fair/agriculture representatives who argued the bill was too broad and unnecessary; after amendment, it failed 4-4. SB 1336, extending the State Land Department and creating a temporary oversight committee with a broad amendment on lease holdovers, notice periods, and committee membership, passed 6-2 after significant debate over the committee’s composition and scope. Later, SB 1200, which would require ADWR to revisit certain Phoenix AMA assured water supply applications using older groundwater models, passed 5-3 despite opposition from CAP and ADWR over added replenishment obligations and concerns about relying on outdated models. SB 1335, requiring the Arizona Water Banking Authority to post its annual report online, passed 7-1. SB 1559, creating rural groundwater management work groups in each basin to report to ADWR, passed 5-3 after supporters said it would improve basin-level coordination and opponents argued it created new bureaucracy without enforcement tools. SB 1761, appropriating $47.7 million to the University of Arizona for the Yuma Center of Excellence for Desert Agriculture, Cooperative Extension, and the Experiment Station, passed 7-1 amid broad support but some concern about funding levels. Finally, SCM 1007, urging Congress to divest and improve the San Carlos Irrigation Project electric system, passed unanimously.