Transcript Highlights:

• Well then, who owns the water?
• Water source that we have.
• Lake Py is Birmingham Water Works' secondary water supply.
• Other water boards should not have the ability to control bodies of water.
• Water is important for us.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• It was this current area they had developed and built a dam in that area to help provide a water source
• Well, there was a lot of water systems that were concerned, some that stated they had like an alligator
• those type issues, in order to keep from having every water system in the state against the bill.
• <00:11:50.399> down<00:11:50.640> to able to close their their waters down to able
• to close their their waters down to go<00:11:50.959> in<00:11:51.120> and<00:11:51.440>

Bills: HB387, HB387

Keywords: sales tax, food taxation, local government, financial growth, tax reduction, water recreation, public use, water bodies, sewer commissions, public interest, 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to the Board's Agency and Commissions Committee meeting.
• On the body of water, is there not... ...the body of water, is it not restricted today? No. Okay.
• If this was a pond that the Mobile Water Board owned, I... that the Mobile Water Board owned, I see,
• this water system.
• I don't think we heard from anybody that opposes clean water and good water systems for Mobile and surrounding

Bills: HB473, HB397, HB397

Keywords: water recreation, public access, water bodies, recreational use, water commissions, real estate, disclosures, equitable interest, disciplinary actions, Alabama Real Estate Commission, HB397, homestead exemption, ad valorem tax, property tax, tax relief, senior exemption, elderly homeowners, retiree exemption, disability exemption, blind exemption

Bills: HB386, HB387, HB388, HB389, HB386, HB387, HB388, HB389

Keywords: HB386, food tax, grocery tax, sales tax reduction, use tax, Education Trust Fund, state revenue trigger, tax cut, consumer tax relief, Alabama sales tax, Alabama use tax, groceries, retail tax, revenue growth threshold, county and municipal tax, fiscal trigger, sales tax, food taxation, local government, financial growth

Bills: SB319

Keywords: civil service, local government, employment policies, boards and commissions, appeals process, 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• gentlemen, this removes the prohibition against municipal officers serving on a municipal planning commission
• We're adjourned. commission for municipalities with less commission for municipalities with less than

Bills: HB468, SB366, HB468, HB561, SB227, SB32

Keywords: service of process, funding, Marion County, fees, legal documents, firefighters, rights, personnel procedures, state law, public safety, HB468, local commissions, local authorities, municipal planning commission, planning commission, zoning, land use, municipal official, municipal officer, city council

Transcript Highlights:

• Hawaii has never had a gaming commission.
• Hawaii has never had a gaming commission.
• Hawaii has never had a gaming commission.
• commission commission >> because<02:04:49.920> it<02:04:50.480> this<02:04:50.800
• > not<02:40:24.240> become nearshore waters should not become nearshore waters should not

Bills: HB2118, HB2473

Keywords: business development, arts, cultural affairs, Hawaii, commissions, administrative transfer, funding appropriation, Hawaiian culture, sense of place, land management, environmental stewardship, cultural preservation, 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard several bills related to permitting and economic development. On HB 2603, relating to permits, the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development said it supported the measure with comments. Committee discussion focused on the fact that the state’s facilitated permit process appears to have been rarely or never used, the need to identify specific projects that would use it, and whether DBEDT would need dedicated staffing to administer it. DBEDT said it had found no projects under the current process, had no capacity to run the program as structured, and estimated it would need about 7 to 9 FTEs, including permitting, coordination, data, systems, and possibly legal support. The chair suggested exploring a staff assignment and comparing the concept to federal FAST-41-style expedited permitting. On HB 2140, relating to essential permitting positions, the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development again supported the bill with comments. Testimony and questioning centered on a pilot program to help counties pay competitively for permitting staff. A DBEDT representative said the issue of competitive pay affected both county and state permitting offices and that the bill was intended as a temporary pilot, though a more permanent solution would be preferable. When asked how counties would fund the salary support, the witness said that was not yet discussed with the counties and agreed to follow up. The committee also noted the bill applies to participating counties. On HB 2598, relating to the Hawaii Technology Development Corporation, the State Procurement Office and HTDC offered comments, and the Department of the Attorney General raised constitutional concerns. The AG said the bill’s residency-based certification requirements, when tied to procurement, could implicate the dormant Commerce Clause, and that the required 1% contribution tied to state contracts raised unconstitutional-conditions concerns. In questioning, the AG characterized these as legal risks rather than automatic lawsuits. The committee did not take a vote. The committee then heard HB 2141, relating to state enterprise zones. Taxation, DBEDT, HCDA, the University of Hawaii Cancer Center, and HTDC testified in support, while the Tax Foundation noted the program was intended to help economically depressed areas create jobs. HTDC said the bill would help preserve the Maui Research and Technology Center’s enterprise-zone status after rezoning. Committee discussion focused on whether the enterprise zone program is being used effectively, how the bill might attract businesses to areas where the state is investing, and whether the program’s labor requirements are too burdensome for new businesses. DBEDT explained that the program requires a 10% workforce increase in the first year, which must be sustained, and said it promotes the program through county coordinators and in-person outreach. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• It protects county commissions, engineers, and employees from liability concerns, and, importantly, municipalities
• Um, when we got in with, uh, talking with law enforcement and county commission on that.
• Um, when we got in with, uh, talking with law enforcement and county commission on that.
• is create a partnership between APOS, which is the Alabama Peace Officers Standards and Training Commission

Bills: HB461, HB465, HB469, HB473, SB94, SB303, HB461, HB465, HB469, HB473, SB94, SB303

Keywords: fundraising, Alabama Educational Television, state authority, public broadcasting, legislation influence, emergency management, public funds, educational materials, promotional materials, state agency, ambulance services, balance billing, health insurance, emergency transportation, reimbursement rates, water recreation, public access, water bodies, recreational use, water commissions

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:

• , 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:

• 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:

• water rates from one particular water company.
• So we have a water system.
• How often do, uh, does the water system have to report to the Public utility commission, um, and, uh,
• A few years ago, the Texas legislature added a provision to Texas Water Code 13.182 that allows the commission
• 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