Transcript Highlights:

• This bill is going to address public boards, water boards, from restricting public access to the water
• So you know, if it's a public water... can you deny someone access?
• So, DC would argue that the public has the right to access and fish, and recreate in the surface waters
• Even so, technically they would have no access to waters in which they have the right to access.
• Throughout the county or other areas, there are bodies of water that we can access.

Bills: HB471, HB473

Keywords: water authority, sewer management, fire protection, local governance, board of directors, local officers, water recreation, public access, water bodies, recreational use, water commissions, 1136, house, all

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:

• providers, that they can recover their stored water within one mile of the location where the water
• They can recover their stored water within one mile of the location where the water was stored, or, in
• Pumping as stored water recovery.
• Chair, and then, so wet water is ideal. We have 20,000 in wet water; the rest in long-term storage.
• At a time when Arizona is facing real water scarcity, we should be reducing real water scarcity—excuse

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.

Transcript Highlights:

• OK, Senate Water Committee on Agricultural, Water, Rural Affairs, come to order.
• As a result, these wells have seen serious drawdown in water access when major water export projects
• Water district will cooperate, which is most of the water districts and irrigation district.
• As a result, these wells have seen serious drawdown in water access when major water export projects
• validate the results of the water loss audits and submit water loss mitigation plans.

Bills: HB2018, HB1633, HB1689, SB612, SB3058

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

• The Senate Water Committee on Agriculture, Water, and Rural Affairs comes to order. Call the roll.
• Many times, the city or the developer will negotiate with the water district, and the water district
• As a result, these wells have experienced serious drawdown in water access when major water export projects
• they replaced the water well, but we were out of water for about almost a year.
• to validate the results of the water loss audits and submit water loss mitigation plans.

Bills: HB2018, HB1633, HB1689, SB612, SB3058

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

Transcript Highlights:

• of Colorado River water.
• So it's the different pool of water, CAP water.
• to access critical Water Banking Authority water?
• the recovery wells they need to access critical Water Banking Authority water?
• or for CAP M&I water, and so they might be storing that water.

Bills: SB1137, SB1176, SB1287, SB1335, SB1336, SB1445, SB1677

Keywords: underground utilities, utility locating, dig safe, call before you dig, 811, excavation safety, damage prevention, one-call center, locate request, white lining, large project coordination, buried infrastructure, subsurface utilities, utility marking, locator wire, locator strip, interactive positive response system, landlord duties, apartment community, mobile home park

Summary: The committee first received a presentation from the Arizona Water Banking Authority by Dr. Rebecca Burnett. She explained the authority’s role in storing Colorado River water as long-term storage credits, its funding sources, and its obligations to provide backup supplies for CAP municipal and industrial subcontractors, the Hualapai River Indian community, and Nevada. Members asked about future firming for CAP users, recovery of credits, water quality issues, and whether municipalities banking water themselves affects the authority’s supply. Burnett said the authority has no current firming policy for CAP M&I subcontractors, is waiting on Colorado River guidelines, and does not have excess water to bank because no surplus is available. No action was taken on the presentation. The committee then heard and voted on several bills. SB 1445, as amended, allows small municipalities to test bacteriological samples on site with EPA-approved equipment; the sponsor and a rural mayor argued it would save money and improve responsiveness, while some members questioned whether the change was already possible under existing law. The bill passed 6-4. SB 1137, with a Taylor amendment, modernizes Arizona’s 811 call-before-you-dig system by adding large-project coordination meetings, an interactive positive response system, and related procedures; it passed unanimously 10-0. SB 1287, which expands an existing groundwater use allowance for irrigation grandfathered rights from initial AMAs to all AMAs, passed 9-1. The committee also considered SB 1335, as amended, which in its final form addressed a temporary continuation of irrigation tied to the Ag-to-Urban program and groundwater savings credits; DWR said the amendment was still a placeholder and needed cleanup, while supporters said it would help manage timing issues for farmers and developers. It passed 5-4. SB 1336 reauthorized the State Land Department through 2030 and added oversight, reporting, and planning requirements; the department was neutral but raised concerns about the proposed oversight committee and implementation details. After debate over the need for another board and the length of reauthorization, it passed 5-4. Finally, SB 1677 appropriates $3 million to the Department of Forestry and Fire Management for salt cedar mitigation along the lower Gila River corridor. Supporters from Audubon Southwest, the City of Buckeye, and local landowners said the invasive trees increase flood and wildfire risk, consume large amounts of water, and crowd out native habitat; some members raised concerns about herbicide use and wanted more detail on the mitigation plan. The bill passed 9-0. The chair then thanked staff and members, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• water strategies, the state water plan projects a shortage of about 1.3 acre-feet of water per year
• losing water.
• the water very deep, about 1,200 feet deep, beyond where anybody is using water for drinking water purposes
• the water very deep, about 1,200 feet deep, beyond where anybody is using water for drinking water purposes
• of water.

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:

• of water.
• losing water.
• very deep, about 1,200 feet deep, beyond where anybody is accustomed to accessing it. using water for
• Does the water belong to Texas, or does the water belong where it landed?
• state water for use.

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:

• But we need water. We need water. water and the Rio Grande River ain't cutting it.
• pulling up water.
• Primary water source.
• Water is a primary source of water for cities, agriculture, and industry.
• And so, yeah, it's really the concern has been because they're in areas where they have access to water

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:

• Investments in water infrastructure not only secure water access, but also fuel job creation and economic
• , a newly created water access assessment account, the economically distressed areas program, and the
• , a newly created water access assessment account, the economically distressed areas program, and the
• We support removing the Water Access Assessment from the bill, as these provisions impose an entirely
• To ensure the growth in economic competitiveness of Texas, every community must access the water supply

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:

• Williamson County Water Plant supplies treated water to the city of Taylor and Jonah Water Special Utility
• Red Bluff Water District.
• We're injecting treated drinking water, standard water, through the aquifer, and that danger is not present
• The Water Development Board is responsible for developing both the state water plan and the state flood
• This bill provides a straightforward solution: amend the water code to exempt TWDB's water and flooding

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:

• They also informed me that it is a water district's bond council, not the water district itself that
• If no one's accessing it because no one's clamoring for this access, it's still an unfunded mandate that
• So we're the Texas Rural Water Association.
• With over 750 water district members.
• Water control improvement districts, underwater, uh, water conservation districts, freshwater supply

Bills: HB 279, HB 310, HB 365, HB 391, HB 420, HB 422, HB 638

Keywords: HB 279, uranium mining, uranium permit, production area authorization, production zone, Texas Water Code, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, contested case hearing, administrative hearing, groundwater restoration, groundwater baseline, water quality, mining permit, restoration values, natural resources, environmental regulation, in-situ uranium mining, permit amendment, public hearing

Transcript Highlights:

• Texans who maybe won't have access to basic infrastructure get access.
• Where's my water? We don't we don't do water. We're we're We're a county, we're unincorporated.
• Members, Texas faces ongoing challenges in water infrastructure and the Texas Water Fund fund, which
• It's going to let small municipalities access properly needed funding for water infrastructure and new
• water supplies.

Bills: HB279, HB310, HB365, HB391, HB420, HB422, HB638, HB279, HB310

Keywords: HB 279, uranium mining, uranium permit, production area authorization, production zone, Texas Water Code, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, contested case hearing, administrative hearing, groundwater restoration, groundwater baseline, water quality, mining permit, restoration values, natural resources, environmental regulation, in-situ uranium mining, permit amendment, public hearing

Transcript Highlights:

• They also informed me that it is a water.
• If no one's accessing it because no one's clamoring for this access.
• They're river authorities, they're special utility districts, but they don't have the access. access
• providers, Water Supply Corporation.
• There were a number of different water districts, including... Water control improvement districts.

Bills: HB279, HB310, HB365, HB391, HB420, HB422, HB638, HB279, HB310

Keywords: HB 279, uranium mining, uranium permit, production area authorization, production zone, Texas Water Code, TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, contested case hearing, administrative hearing, groundwater restoration, groundwater baseline, water quality, mining permit, restoration values, natural resources, environmental regulation, in-situ uranium mining, permit amendment, public hearing

Transcript Highlights:

• Sherryland Water Supply Corporation, which is a water corporation near Mission and McAllen.
• You're a rural water company, retail water utility, and you've invested a lot of money in a water plant
• So, you've invested in the water plant, you build the water plant, then you get decertified.
• To safeguard our water...
• This number has been growing as we are moving away from well water and on the ground water.

Bills: HB 1089, HB 1163, HB 1177, HB 1238, HB1318, HB1400, HB1407, HB1532, HJR7, HJR7

Keywords: coastal protection, environmental management, Gulf Coast, storm risk management, funding, Texas General Land Office, healthcare, insurance reform, patient access, insurance regulation, affordable care, health insurance, consumer rights, coverage transparency, claims process, insurance regulations, aggregate production, environmental impact, financial responsibility, reclamation

Transcript Highlights:

• , highlighting the need for water. water funding and flood funding this legislative session.
• investment in water.
• Our drinking water and clean water state revolving funds.
• Members, access to safe and reliable water is essential for everybody. community and as Texas continues
• House Bill 1407 strengthens the ability of PUAs to to access financial resources for critical water infrastructure

Bills: HB 1089, HB 1163, HB 1177, HB 1238, HB1318, HB1400, HB1407, HB1532, HJR7, HJR7

Keywords: coastal protection, environmental management, Gulf Coast, storm risk management, funding, Texas General Land Office, healthcare, insurance reform, patient access, insurance regulation, affordable care, health insurance, consumer rights, coverage transparency, claims process, insurance regulations, aggregate production, environmental impact, financial responsibility, reclamation

Transcript Highlights:

• And then on the third page, you'll see the clean water heritage fund.
• If you turn to the fourth page, you'll see the clean water fund, and the clean water fund is largely
• the clean water council revised recommendations.
• You'll see the clean water... Sorry, line 215.
• For Lassard-Sams, there's 33% for water.

Bills: HF2563

Keywords: HF2563, legacy finance bill, Legacy Amendment, outdoor heritage fund, clean water fund, parks and trails fund, arts and cultural heritage fund, Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council, Clean Water Council, Minnesota legacy funds, habitat conservation, prairie restoration, wetland restoration, forest conservation, riparian buffers, water quality, groundwater protection, drinking water, septic systems, watershed planning

Transcript Highlights:

• The Clean Water Fund is largely the Clean Water Council revised recs.
• The Clean Water Fund is largely the Clean Water Council revised recs.
• <00:09:53.920> On arts and arts access initiatives. On arts and arts access initiatives.
• our access our access programs.<00:35:09.599> We<00:35:09.839> would<00:35:10.079>
• <01:03:02.079> We Sams or the Clean Water Council. We Sams or the Clean Water Council.

Bills: HF2563

Keywords: HF2563, legacy finance bill, Legacy Amendment, outdoor heritage fund, clean water fund, parks and trails fund, arts and cultural heritage fund, Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council, Clean Water Council, Minnesota legacy funds, habitat conservation, prairie restoration, wetland restoration, forest conservation, riparian buffers, water quality, groundwater protection, drinking water, septic systems, watershed planning

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll rely on groundwater for this water supply.
• last 20 years, um, to the tune of, well, in 2022, there were 2300 private water wells drilled.
• feet, the water stays in the impoundment.
• But that water is available.
• We were using recycled water from wastewater plants.

Bills: SB 612, SB 1855, SB 2568, SB 3058

Keywords: SB 612, Texas Water Code, Section 49.2127, conservation and reclamation district, water district, reclamation district, developer fees, pipeline construction, water pipeline, sewer pipeline, associated infrastructure, subdivision infrastructure, cost recovery, fee cap, actual reasonable documented costs, engineering fees, legal fees, inspection fees, infrastructure relocation, utility connections