Transcript Highlights:

• And Representative Gress, this is a nice, clean million dollars into the litigation fund.
• other protective resources that are outside of the litigation.
• The 2007 agreement mandated a series of reductions as water levels decreased, measured by water levels
• Water is number one issue or one of the top issues this year and will continue to be.
• on what is or is not appropriable water.

Bills: HB2053, HB2116, HB2148

Keywords: stormwater, recharge mapping, water resources, groundwater, appropriation, Arizona, HB2116, Colorado River, litigation fund, water rights, Arizona water law, general fund appropriation, state budget, interstate water compact, Colorado River Compact, water litigation, A.R.S. 45-119, natural resources, water policy, river management

Summary: The committee first considered House Bill 2116, which would appropriate $1 million in fiscal year 2027 from the State General Fund to the Colorado River Litigation Fund. The sponsor said it was a repeat of last year’s request and was intended as a backup if the seven Colorado River basin states cannot reach a new agreement. Arizona Department of Water Resources staff testified in support, explaining the state’s role in ongoing Colorado River negotiations and distinguishing the litigation fund from the executive’s separate Colorado River Protection Fund. The bill received a due pass recommendation on a 17-1 vote. The committee then took up House Bill 2053, which appropriates $100,000 to ADWR for updated stormwater recharge mapping and expands the mapping effort beyond state trust lands to private lands. The committee adopted Chairman Livingston’s amendment, which extended the coordination timeline to one year, broadened the agencies involved, and revised language on site eligibility and the definition of stormwater. The sponsor said the bill would help identify more places to capture stormwater for recharge, while ADWR testified neutral, supporting the mapping work but raising a concern about language tied to appropriable surface water because that is a legal determination for the courts. The amended bill passed 11-7. House Bill 2148 was then heard, proposing to give the legislature authority to appropriate non-custodial federal monies, with requirements for specifying purposes and allowing agencies to spend such funds if the legislature does not act. An amendment excluded university and Board of Regents research grants from the bill’s scope, which the chair said was intended to avoid implementation problems. The sponsor framed the bill as a transparency measure, and members discussed the large amount of federal pass-through funding Arizona receives. The amended bill passed 11-7. After the bills, the committee received a lengthy JLBC presentation comparing the executive budget with the JLBC baseline. Discussion focused on revenue forecasts, the impact of federal tax conformity, state employee health insurance costs, SNAP administrative and error-rate costs under H.R. 1, developmental disabilities and AHCCCS growth, and K-12/ESA funding trends. Members repeatedly criticized the executive budget for funding some ongoing costs on a one-year basis and expressed concern about rising caseloads and supplemental needs. No formal action was taken on the presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• We hope we don't have to litigate, but this million dollars would be added to the litigation fund if
• And so it... ...to the litigation fund if we need it, and so it—we may need it.
• So if, hopefully, if we don't have to litigate and we continue to negotiate.
• But they're charged with the responsibility of bringing in more water.
• And so to throw this... ...for the responsibility of bringing in more water.

Bills: HB2003, HB2063, HB2111, HB2116, HB2210, HCM2007

Keywords: driver education, instruction permit, underage drivers, motorcycle licenses, traffic regulations, corrections oversight, appropriation, independent office, public safety, funding, driver license, examinations, motorcycle awareness, traffic laws, HB2116, Colorado River, litigation fund, water rights, Arizona water law, general fund appropriation

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 2003, which would lower the instruction-permit age for Class D, G, and M licenses from 15 and a half to 15, while increasing supervised practice requirements for minors: 50 hours for Class G with 20 at night, 50 hours for Class M, and a nine-month permit holding period before licensure. The sponsor argued the bill builds on Arizona’s graduated driver licensing system and is intended to improve teen safety, citing other states with longer permit periods and lower teen fatality rates. Questions focused on who certifies the supervised hours, with staff explaining that a parent, legal guardian, or custodial parent signs off, though driver education remains an alternative. The bill received a do-pass recommendation by a 9-1 vote. House Bill 2063, which appropriates $1.5 million from the General Fund in FY 2027 to the Corrections Oversight Fund, drew emotional testimony in support from a mother whose son died after a prison suicide, and from advocates who said the oversight office is needed given prison health care problems and federal receivership. The sponsor said the funding would support prison oversight and transparency. The committee then approved the bill unanimously, 10-0. The committee also passed House Bill 2116, appropriating $1 million to the Colorado River litigation fund, after the sponsor said the money would help Arizona prepare for possible litigation over Colorado River cuts and that the issue affects nearly every district in the state. Members discussed whether the funding should come from the WIFA fund instead of the General Fund, but the bill received an 8-0 do-pass recommendation with two not voting. The committee also considered House Bill 2210, which would prohibit the state, local governments, and private entities from using ADS-B aircraft surveillance data to calculate, generate, or collect aircraft fees. Supporters, including pilots and the Arizona Pilots Association, argued the technology was intended for safety and should not be used for billing, warning that fee collection could discourage pilots from keeping the system on. Opponents, including the Arizona Airports Association and the City of Phoenix, said airports should retain local control over fee collection methods and that the bill was a solution in search of a problem. After extensive debate about federal requirements, safety, and billing practices, the bill received a tied 4-4 do-pass recommendation. Finally, HCM 2007, a memorial urging renaming sections of State Route 69 to honor veterans of several wars, passed 5-4. The committee also briefly noted that some bills were being held at members’ request.

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:

• treatment systems, clean water and drinking water treatment facilities.
• treatment systems, clean water and drinking water treatment facilities.
• That can mean things like conveyance of water, storage of water, reuse of water, groundwater replenishment
• more water?'
• acre-feet of water.

Bills: HB2024, HB2053, HB2097, HB2116, HB2117

Keywords: stormwater, recharge mapping, water resources, groundwater, appropriation, Arizona, irrigation, non-expansion areas, water management, agriculture, HB2116, Colorado River, litigation fund, water rights, Arizona water law, general fund appropriation, state budget, interstate water compact, Colorado River Compact, water litigation

Summary: The committee began with member and staff introductions, then heard House Bill 2024, which would expand the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority’s water supply development definition to include snowpack augmentation and related planning and facility work. Supporters argued cloud seeding and drone-based silver iodide deployment could increase snowpack and water supply at relatively low cost, while opponents raised concerns about weather modification, uncertainty in the science, and possible environmental or health effects. After debate, the committee approved HB 2024 on a 6-4 vote, with some members expressing reservations and requesting more information before floor consideration. The committee next considered House Bill 2053, which would direct the Arizona Department of Water Resources to update stormwater recharge mapping statewide and provide $100,000 for the work. The sponsor and ADWR said the bill would expand on prior state-land mapping and help identify recharge opportunities on private land; ADWR was neutral and said it could do the technical mapping but could not make legal determinations about appropriable surface water rights. Salt River Project opposed the bill’s language on surface-water rights, arguing that determinations about unappropriated water belong to the courts and that site-specific recharge projects could affect downstream rights. The committee adopted the Griffin amendment and then passed HB 2053 as amended on a 6-4 vote. Chelsea McGuire of WIFA then gave a broad presentation on the agency’s revolving funds, conservation grants, and long-term augmentation efforts, describing past investments, current grant awards, and seven potential augmentation projects under development. She said WIFA’s current budget ask was essentially for no additional cuts, while members asked about costs, project qualifications, and public-private structure. The committee then took up House Bill 2097, which would impose a six acre-feet-per-acre groundwater pumping cap in irrigation non-expansion areas, add reporting and well-measurement requirements, and set a $150 penalty for violations. ADWR said the bill could require additional staffing and that the cap and substitution provisions had technical concerns; environmental groups argued the cap was too high and could still encourage overpumping, while supporters said it would finally place a limit on INA pumping. HB 2097 passed 6-4. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 2116, which would appropriate $1 million to the Colorado River Litigation Fund; the sponsor described it as a contingency for ongoing Colorado River negotiations, and the committee moved the bill forward after brief discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Affairs by Perry, relating to the provision by a political subdivision. and developers for certain water

Bills: SB7, SB13, SB14, SB15, SB7, SB13, SB14, SB15, SB7, SB13, SB14, SB15

Keywords: gender designation, civil penalties, private civil rights, multiple-occupancy spaces, Texas Women's Privacy Act, impact fees, water conservation, reuse projects, developers, builders, local government, infrastructure, water efficiency, law enforcement, confidentiality, personnel files, employee records, misconduct, real property, fraud

Bills: SB 49

Keywords: Galveston County, legal expenses, appropriation, litigation, state funding

Summary: The Senate Committee on Education K-16 heard several higher education bills and took public testimony on each. Senate Bill 60 would let public junior college libraries donate outdated, duplicative, or valueless materials instead of treating them as surplus property; no public testimony was offered, and the bill was left pending. Senate Bill 49 would expand performance-tier funding incentives so community colleges are also rewarded for student transfers to private four-year universities; it also received no public testimony and was left pending. Senate Bill 365 would allow higher education institutions to choose a transcript lookback period between 5 and 10 years for adult undergraduates seeking to waive older transcripts. Senator Eckhardt and witness Daniel Arrevalo described how old academic records can block adults from returning to college; the bill was left pending after testimony. Senate Bill 895 would expand the FAST dual-credit program beyond public school students to include eligible private school and homeschool students, with support from the Texas Private Schools Association, the Texas Homeschool Coalition, and a coordinating board witness explaining the funding structure; it too was left pending. Senate Bill 1400 would clarify what counts as a transfer for performance-tier funding by allowing students with 30 or fewer prior university credit hours to still be counted as transfer students when moving from a public junior college to a general academic institution. Former Representative Leighton Schubert testified that the change would address funding losses and better reflect modern student pathways; after testimony, the bill was left pending. The committee then recessed subject to the call of the chair.

Bills: HB3724, HB3392, HB3466, HB4060

Keywords: high-demand facilities, electric utilities, public infrastructure, water management, taxpayer-funded subsidies, decommissioning plans, local control, citizen initiative, referendum, electric utility, large load customers, infrastructure, utility planning, electricity rates, cost allocation, data centers, artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, ratepayer protection, HB3466

Transcript Highlights:

• MUDs aren't included in the tax code; they are found in the water...
• It directs the Texas Water Development Board to do a study of the aquifer inside the nature reserve in
• It directs the Texas Water Development Board to do a study of the aquifer inside the nature reserve in
• Now, there's been litigation around this going on right now, so I don't want to touch on that, but that's
• infrastructure by removing red tape with SB 18. allows districts to use permit exemption when diverting water

Bills: HB17, HB16, SB 10, HB27, HB23, SB 15, SB 18, HB 17, HB 16, SB 10, HB 27, HB 23, SB 15, SB 18

Keywords: property tax, school funding, enrollment changes, inflation adjustment, tax rate notice, judicial administration, court reform, juvenile diversion, court security, mental health services, drug offenses, constitutional amendments, property tax exemption, ad valorem tax, Texas Tax Code, nonprofit corporation, charitable organization, educational nonprofit, scientific nonprofit, agriculture support

Bills: HB17, HB16, SB 10, HB27, HB23, SB 15, SB 18, HB 17, HB 16, SB 10, HB 27, HB 23, SB 15, SB 18

Keywords: property tax, school funding, enrollment changes, inflation adjustment, tax rate notice, judicial administration, court reform, juvenile diversion, court security, mental health services, drug offenses, constitutional amendments, property tax exemption, ad valorem tax, Texas Tax Code, nonprofit corporation, charitable organization, educational nonprofit, scientific nonprofit, agriculture support

Transcript Highlights:

• brine, which some people call many different things, whether that's brine or wastewater, produced water
• House Bill 4316 modernizes outdated language related to rural water districts. Move for adoption.
• House Bill 2440 is a request from the Oklahoma Water Resources Board.
• They currently hire engineers and consultants for many projects and for the statewide water comprehensive

Bills: HB4338, HB3977, HB2100, HB2975, HB3056, HB3406, HB3720, HB4316, HB3405, HB1907, HB3142, HB3173, HB3270, HB3728, HB2440, HB2596, HB3466, HB3469, HB4338, HB3977, HB2100, HB2975, HB3056, HB3406, HB3720, HB4316, HB3405, HB1907, HB3142, HB3173, HB3270, HB3728, HB2440, HB2596, HB3466, HB3469

Keywords: HB4338, Oklahoma Brine Development Act, brine unitization, produced water, produced water unit, oil and gas wastewater, produced water recycling, reclaimed water, constituent elements, brine rights, solution gas, Corporation Commission, unitization, royalty interests, surface owner, oil and gas produced water, recycling and reuse, wastewater disposal, mineral extraction, lithium extraction

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.
• to the amount of water they are legally authorized to use, leading to costly litigation and additional
• 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.
• to the amount of water they are legally authorized to use, leading to costly litigation and additional

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