Transcript Highlights:

• Paco Sewer and Water Company.
• is distributed through a water delivery system that is commingled with other sources of water supply
• , groundwater, surface water, into a... ...different water sources, so this can be effluent, groundwater
• It's already somebody's water.
• , how treating water, if it be the AWP, you know, recycling water, et cetera.

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

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

• groundwater replenishment district for the delivery of CAP water if it intends to store the water in
• prohibited for storage in this act, from both Colorado River water and CAP water to just CAP water.
• that is diverted from the main stem of the river for the purpose of replenishment in an AMA if the water
• management area if the water is river for the purposes of replenishment in an active management area
• In addition to the areas that Jeff mentioned, we also have concerns: could we store replenishment water

Bills: HB2099, HB2263, HB2264, HB2330, HB2341, HB2492, HB2757, HB2782, HB2843, HB2889, HB2912, HB2915, HB2918, HB4025, HB4100, HCR2020, HCR2057

Keywords: water storage, long-term storage credits, groundwater management, drought contingency, Arizona water regulations, Colorado River, replenishment, groundwater savings facility, groundwater storage, underground water storage, active management area, irrigation non-expansion area, Arizona water law, water rights, water replenishment, recharge, water conservation district, multi-county water conservation district, CAP water, Central Arizona Project

Summary: The committee heard a series of water, energy, housing, and environmental bills, with several measures amended before passage. House Bill 2099, as amended, would limit long-term storage credits and related CAP water storage during declared Colorado River shortages; water utilities, CAP, Phoenix, and other water interests raised concerns about flexibility, contracts, and the law of the river, while the sponsor said the bill was intended to address shortage conditions. The committee adopted the Griffin amendment and passed the bill 6-3. House Bill 2263, also amended, would restrict where Colorado River water diverted for replenishment in an AMA may be stored; CAP, tribal counsel, and AMWA opposed it as too restrictive and potentially excluding existing facilities, but the bill passed 6-3 after amendment. House Bill 2264, requiring the University of Arizona to promote Arizona history and the five Cs through the mining museum, passed unanimously. House Bill 2330 and House Bill 2341, both concerning certificates of environmental compatibility for energy projects, passed 6-3 after amendments expanding siting factors to include character of an area and known off-takers, respectively. House Bill 2918, which would end certain tax benefits for renewable energy and storage equipment after 2026, also passed 6-3. House Bill 2889, appropriating $1 million for uranium contamination monitoring and a statewide registry with tribal epidemiology partnerships, passed unanimously after discussion about moving the program to ADEQ and adjusting the reporting date. House Bill 2492, which would bar state and local urban growth boundaries that prevent new development, passed narrowly 4-3 with one present and two absent. House Bill 2782, focused on utility rate transparency and regulatory assets, passed 5-3 after a late amendment and a motion to suspend committee rules for amendment distribution. House Bill 4025, creating a study committee on gasoline and petroleum refineries, passed 6-3, and HCR 2057 supporting a geothermal permitting roadmap passed unanimously. HCR 2020, supporting housing developments outside designated service areas under certain groundwater conditions, passed 6-2. House Bill 4100, requiring notice to customers about potential water-rate increases if CAP water is lost, drew concerns about public confusion and negotiation impacts; testimony from municipal water users opposed the bill as too speculative and difficult to implement, and the transcript ends while that bill is still under discussion.

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.
• We replenish water in the three-county service area for our members that pump for those related purposes
• for replenishment purposes.

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:

• The Arizona Water Banking Authority is housed within the Department of Water Resources.
• of Colorado River water.
• So it's the different pool of water, CAP water.
• 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.
• "No, it's designated for use by city, town, or private water companies or groundwater replenishment districts
• My small business uses water. We do abrasive water jet cutting, and it uses water.
• water.
• Water.

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

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

• convey the associated water duty.
• high-water-use crops.
• scarce water state.
• scarce water state.
• And I do think that the way you encourage a transition from a high water use crop to a low water use

Bills: SB1041, SB1176, SB1197, SB1198, SB1199, SCM1004

Keywords: electronic monitoring, nursing care, assisted living, resident rights, privacy, consent, surveillance, stormwater, water storage, replenishment credits, groundwater, aquifer, Arizona Revised Statutes, irrigation rights, water duty, water allocation, management areas, Arizona beef council, beef promotion, agricultural marketing

Summary: The Senate Natural Resources Committee approved the January 13, 2026 minutes and held Senate Bills 1041 and 11676 by request for further review. The committee then heard Senate Bill 1197, which would allow irrigation grandfather rights and associated water duty in subsequent active management areas (AMAs) to be sold, leased, or transferred within the same AMA. The sponsor said the bill is intended to help wineries and other farmers in the Wilcox and Douglas areas adjust fields and expand while staying within existing water limits. Opposition testimony from Sierra Club and Rural Arizona Action argued the bill could increase groundwater pumping unless it includes stronger safeguards, such as a net reduction in water use and clearer ties to AMA management goals. The City of Wilcox and the Department of Water Resources were neutral but said the bill needs more work on consistency, oversight, and transparency. The committee passed SB 1197 on a 4-3 vote, with one member not voting. The committee then unanimously passed Senate Bill 1198, which continues the Arizona Beef Council for eight years until July 1, 2034. Testimony from the council’s executive director was supportive, and members discussed the importance of the beef industry and the value of longer continuation periods for agency review. Senate Bill 1199, which continues the Arizona State Veterinary Examining Board for eight years until July 1, 2034, also passed unanimously. Members used the discussion to raise broader concerns about the shortage of rural and large-animal veterinarians and the need for future funding and workforce support. Finally, the committee considered Senate Concurrent Memorial 1004, urging Congress to clarify the EPA’s powers and end what the sponsor described as regulatory overreach. Supporters framed it as a request for Congress to fix unclear federal law, while opponents said it would weaken science-based environmental protections and deny climate and public health realities. The memorial passed 4-3 with one not voting. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the only way to build that tax base is certificates and replenishment water.
• Camps, of course, the issue is where is the replenishment water going to come from?
• Camps, there is just simply not enough water to meet the future replenishment obligation of the CAGRD
• Camps, there is just simply not enough water to meet the future replenishment obligation of the CAGRD
• Do you replenish the water that you use?

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

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

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

Transcript Highlights:

• within an AMA for the transportation of other types of water for landscaping... ...body of water within
• It's an irrigation water storage lake that stores water that supplies the irrigation system, which waters
• To your point, in many cases the treated water is less contaminated than lake water or river water."
• effluent water, and that water went down the Santa Cruz Wash.
• You can pass that other water through, and... ...surface water in their lakes.

Bills: SB1137, SB1200, SB1419, SB1447, SB1560, SCM1004

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 heard several water and energy-related measures. SB 1200, as amended, addressed Arizona Department of Water Resources treatment of certain “conduit lakes” in active management areas, allowing some existing lake systems to continue using groundwater mixed with effluent for irrigation or landscaping purposes. ADWR testified in opposition to the amendment’s policy implications and enforcement concerns, while HOA, homebuilder, and resident witnesses argued the bill would grandfather existing communities, avoid costly system redesigns, and reflect prior agency practice. The committee adopted the strike-everything amendment and then passed SB 1200 on a 6-3 vote. SB 1419, dealing with residential rooftop solar installations, was amended to add consumer-protection and disclosure requirements, including roof inspection and installation standards, clearer contract disclosures, and contractor responsibilities. County and industry witnesses said the bill was the product of a lengthy stakeholder process aimed at addressing misleading sales practices and installation problems, though some technical issues were still to be resolved on the floor. The committee adopted the amendment and passed SB 1419 on a 6-1 vote with two members present and one absent. SB 1447, which extends Pinal AMA groundwater withdrawal fee provisions and related fund deadlines, was supported by irrigation and agricultural interests as a way to finance local infrastructure and conservation during Colorado River uncertainty; it passed 7-1 with one present and one absent. SB 1560 raised the maximum single loan amount from the Water Supply Development Revolving Fund from $3 million to $20 million. WIFA said the current cap was too low for larger rural water projects and that the change would better match demand without harming the fund’s revolving nature; the bill passed 8-1 with one absent. The committee also approved SCM 1004, urging Congress to clearly define EPA powers and duties, despite some members saying it was unnecessary or backward-looking; it passed 6-2 with one absent. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• What about the water? We're constantly talking about the issues of water.
• we're constantly talking about the issues of water you know we all about the issues of water you know
• areas assured water supply rules.
• The state of Arizona truly does not have enough sustainable water.
• a few comments in regards to water.

Bills: HB2014, HB2055, HB2145, HB2150, HB2696, HB2755, HB2763, HB2781, HB2782, HB2787, HB2795, HB2889, HB2975, HB2985, HB2986, HCM2009, HCR2020, HCR2038

Keywords: air emissions, fuel blends, environmental quality, feasibility study, Arizona Department of Agriculture, brackish groundwater, water supply development, desalination, Arizona Revised Statutes, water infrastructure, financial assistance, environmental reviews, fuel reformulation, gasoline standards, environmental regulations, ethanol supply, Air Quality, state land department, mineral lease, renewals

Summary: The Natural Resources Committee approved the March 17 minutes and then took up a long calendar of bills, holding HCR 2038. HB 2787, which would bar the state and its political subdivisions from using personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer, or cooperate with the Mexican wolf reintroduction program, drew opposition from Sierra Club and Humane World for Animals/Animal Defense League of Arizona, who argued it would hinder wolf recovery and undercut science-based wildlife management. The committee nevertheless gave HB 2787 a do-pass recommendation by a 4-3 vote. The committee then considered HB 2055 on a Brackish Groundwater Recovery Program Fund and HB 2782 on disclosure requirements for regulatory assets in utility rates. Testimony on HB 2055 raised concerns that brackish groundwater is still groundwater and that pumping it could cause localized impacts, but the bill initially received a do-pass recommendation before a later vote failed on reconsideration. HB 2782 prompted discussion about Corporation Commission authority and utility regulation, but it ultimately received a do-pass recommendation. The committee also heard HB 2781, a solar energy decommissioning and financial assurance bill, with testimony from environmental groups, industry representatives, and a local official; an amendment by Senator Sundareshan to strengthen financial assurance and remove the remediation fund failed, and the underlying bill also failed on a tied 4-4 vote. Later, the committee approved HB 2975, which would suspend use of solar scoring maps on state trust lands and require new mining and housing scoring maps, despite opposition from environmental groups and neutral comments from the State Land Department that the solar map is only a guidance tool. HB 2696, as amended, passed after the committee adopted amendments shifting the Arizona Commerce Authority’s fuel-price mandate and creating a fuel resiliency task force; testimony focused on fuel supply, pipeline capacity, refinery access, and whether the ACA was the right agency to lead the effort. The committee also passed HCM 2009 urging Congress to require legislative approval for new national monuments and to streamline mining and land-swap processes, and HB 2889, which funds ADEQ monitoring of uranium contamination and creates a statewide registry and tribal partnership program. Finally, the committee approved HB 2763, which would require legislative approval before the Arizona Game and Fish Commission could close a shooting range. Supporters said it was meant to protect facilities like Ben Avery and preserve safe shooting locations, while opponents argued the bill was unnecessary because existing review steps already exist and there was no imminent closure threat. The committee also heard testimony on the bill from Game and Fish, which said the measure would add another layer to an already extensive closure process and that the department was neutral on the proposal.

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.