Transcript Highlights:

• He said that right now, a user only has to report water use, not measure how much water is actually applied
• , and that there has been a long-time fear that underground water users would lose water if they did
• He said that, as it stands right now, the bill is addressing water districts and moved for adoption.
• water before it's returned to the water table?
• brine water, back into the water table.

Bills: HB2976, HB4459, HB3142, HB4316, HB4338, HB4230

Keywords: environmental protection, water quality, aluminum, Department of Environmental Quality, EPA standards, groundwater conservation, water rights, permit allocation, metering, Oklahoma Water Resources Board, liquefied petroleum gas, safety regulation, LP-Gas Board, inspections, accident investigations, rural water service, district organization, emergency legislation, Oklahoma, water management

Summary: The House Energy Committee met for its second scheduled meeting and announced it would need to meet again the following week because of bill reassignments and new agenda items. The committee first considered House Bill 2976, which requires the Department of Environmental Quality to promulgate water quality criteria rules for aluminum. An amendment was adopted to extend the rulemaking deadline to December 31, 2027, to allow time for an OU study on aluminum in water to be completed. The bill then passed 9-0. The committee next heard House Bill 4459, which would create a five-year averaging option for certain water users, mainly irrigators, allowing flexibility in annual use while requiring measurement and reporting over the five-year period. Members questioned whether the bill could encourage excessive use during drought years and whether it would improve reporting accuracy; the author said he was open to discussing a possible reduction from 200% to 150% and emphasized long-term aquifer conservation. HB 4459 was reported out due pass. House Bill 3142, described as a revised version of a bill vetoed last year, also passed unanimously after the author said it addressed the governor’s veto concerns. The committee then advanced House Bill 4316, which updates outdated language related to rural water districts and passed 11-0. House Bill 4338, the so-called Brine Act, was adopted with a PCS and would allow wastewater or produced water to be used in ways that could expand Oklahoma’s iodine production industry; the author said it would create value from material now disposed of and would not change disposal rules. Members asked about treatment and environmental safeguards, and the author said the bill only recognizes the activity as legal and does not mandate it. HB 4338 passed 11-0. Finally, House Bill 4230, which expands the ability to use qualified outside suppliers for training and technical assistance, passed 11-0 after brief questioning about who those suppliers might be.

Transcript Highlights:

• of water rights for environmental and conservation purposes.
• Water Trust by expanding Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's ability to manage water rights in the
• The Texas Water Trust allows landowners to donate both groundwater and surface water rights currently
• these water rights to the Texas Water Trust.
• or water rights donors?”

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:

• Romero: voluntary dedication of water rights for environmental and conservation purposes.
• Currently, all surface water rights placed in the trust must be reviewed and approved Representative
• HB 4530 strengthens the framework for the dedication and management of water rights in the Texas Water
• surface water rights currently.
• these water rights to the Texas Water Trust.

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:

• And so that relates to Wyoming water right holders whose water right might be injured.
• water right.
• Under their water right.
• <c> right</c> Many other Wyoming water right Many other Wyoming water right diversions<01:13:25.440><
• ><c> right</c> of the program and how water right of the program and how water right owners<01:16:44.960

Bills: SF0050, SF0084, HB0133, HB0116, HB0011, HB0044

Keywords: groundwater, water resource management, state engineer, aquifer study, corrective controls, monitoring wells, public reporting, water conservation, Colorado River, drought, irrigation, water rights, voluntary program, interstate agreements, conservation districts, supervisors, elections, agriculture, local governance, beneficial use

Bills: SF0050, SF0084, HB0133, HB0116, HB0011, HB0044

Keywords: groundwater, water resource management, state engineer, aquifer study, corrective controls, monitoring wells, public reporting, water conservation, Colorado River, drought, irrigation, water rights, voluntary program, interstate agreements, conservation districts, supervisors, elections, agriculture, local governance, beneficial use

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> constitutional rights. constitutional rights.
• A right without a remedy is not much of a right at all.
• A right without a remedy is not much of a right at all.
• All right. I'm going to go to &gt;&gt; Okay. All right.
• </c> rights when their constitutional rights rights when their constitutional rights have<01:19:37.440

Bills: HF3477, HF3414, HF103, HF3661, HF3146

Keywords: civil rights, law enforcement, federal collaboration, accountability, state law, constitutional rights, color of law, 42 U.S.C. 1983, section 1983, civil action, damages, injunctive relief, attorney fees, law enforcement task force, federal-state cooperation, intergovernmental agreement, federal agency partnership, Minnesota Constitution, U.S. Constitution, police accountability

Transcript Highlights:

• rights.
• It doesn't matter right now where the data center is getting their water from or who they're getting
• It doesn't matter right now where the data center is getting their water from or who they're getting
• Right.
• All right.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• All right, thank you, Madam Chair.
• I'm reading your right, Madam Chair. She's okay.
• So, the story of water in 2017: our distribution of the Water Trust Board was zero.
• So what that does for projects, right, we, the Water Trust Board, we open the notice of intent.
• Yeah, the Water Trust Board...

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

Summary: The committee first heard House Memorial 26, a student-presented memorial encouraging state agencies to participate in insect education and conservation efforts, including free workshops sponsored by Wild Friends. The young witnesses emphasized the ecological and agricultural importance of insects, especially pollinators, and clarified that the memorial would not restrict fishing bait or other insect use. After brief questions about fishing, the University of New Mexico connection, and a planned BioPark bugarium, the committee approved the memorial on a due pass motion by unanimous consent. The committee then heard House Bill 243, which would provide more stable funding for shelters that care for homeless, abused, abandoned, or surrendered horses, donkeys, and mules. The bill would appropriate $500,000 to the existing Equine Shelter Rescue Fund, move administration of the fund from the Livestock Board to the Department of Agriculture, strengthen grant and reporting requirements, and create an Equine Welfare Trust Fund seeded with $5 million. Supporters from Animal Protection New Mexico, the Livestock Board, and the Department of Agriculture said the shelters are essential, underfunded, and at capacity, and that the bill would provide a more reliable funding stream. Some public testimony raised concerns about how animals are tracked and whether any horses could end up at auction or slaughter. Committee discussion focused on whether equine care should be funded through recurring appropriations instead of a trust fund, whether the Livestock Board or Department of Agriculture should administer the money, and whether the bill could affect wild or free-roaming horses. The sponsor and supporters said the bill would not change the Livestock Board’s enforcement role and that the trust fund was intended to create long-term support. A motion to table the bill failed, and the committee then voted 4-4 on the due pass motion, so HB 243 did not advance. One member explained his support but said the bill was not a good long-term solution. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 109, which would temporarily, through December 2029, allow the New Mexico Finance Authority to award water project funds without separate legislative authorization after projects have already been vetted. The sponsor and NMFA and Water Trust Board witnesses said the current authorization step delays projects for months, increases costs, and especially hurts small rural communities and acequias. They said the bill keeps existing oversight and evaluation processes, adds technical assistance for smaller applicants, and was amended to extend the sunset date to 2029 and remove an unconstitutional two-thirds-extension requirement. The committee approved HB 109 on a due pass motion by a vote of 7-1.

Transcript Highlights:

• All right, thank you, Madam Chair.
• They're located right there at UNM.
• Next up is Representative Cates I broke it, I pay for it, right? All right.
• So The story of water in 2017, our distribution of the Water Trust Board was zero.
• But what I might add to this is that all the water and wastewater projects that go through the Water

Bills: HM26, HB243, HB109

Keywords: insects, ecosystem, education, public awareness, wildlife conservation, state agency involvement, New Mexico, equine welfare, animal rescue, shelter funding, trust fund, veterinary care, water project fund, water project finance act, New Mexico Finance Authority, water infrastructure, water grants, water loans, regional water planning, water rights adjudication

Transcript Highlights:

• It's right picture I just showed you.
• All<00:15:54.320><c> right.</c><00:15:54.880><c> Um,</c> All right. Um, All right.
• , your rights against unlawful searches and seizures, of course, your Second Amendment rights.
• , your rights against unlawful searches and seizures, of course, your Second Amendment rights.
• , your rights against unlawful searches and seizures, of course, your Second Amendment rights.

Bills: SF0069, SF0084, SF0050, SF0109, HB0069, HB0098

Keywords: wastewater, stormwater, infrastructure, environmental quality, public data, data collection, funding, study, water conservation, Colorado River, drought, irrigation, water rights, voluntary program, interstate agreements, groundwater, water resource management, state engineer, aquifer study, corrective controls

Bills: SF0069, SF0084, SF0050, SF0109, HB0069, HB0098

Keywords: wastewater, stormwater, infrastructure, environmental quality, public data, data collection, funding, study, water conservation, Colorado River, drought, irrigation, water rights, voluntary program, interstate agreements, groundwater, water resource management, state engineer, aquifer study, corrective controls

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, let's talk right into the mic. All right, we should have a very quick meeting.
• So we'll jump right to Senate Bill 1202.
• So the second one you said, it has to deal with a tribal water rights or—no, it was just... ...it has
• This essentially creates a water mound in the aquifer, saying there's more water here because it's been
• , whether that's surface water effluent.

Bills: SB1202, SB1287, SB1418, SB1785, SCM1007

Keywords: groundwater, water conservation, Arizona water resources, drought management, water quality, irrigation, active management area, domestic use, stock watering, water rights, small modular reactors, energy regulation, environmental compatibility, utility construction, agricultural use, industrial users, water storage, recovery well, Arizona Revised Statutes, water management

Transcript Highlights:

• I think that's going to be work, because right now, they just buy the right-of-way, and so they write
• They truly want to get it right. And if we don't have regulations, this right.
• They truly want to get it right.
• They truly want to get it right.
• Right now.

Bills: SB1246, SB1510, SB1979, SB1929, SB1930, SB1976

Keywords: environmental permitting, Oklahoma, Department of Environmental Quality, public participation, regulatory framework, administered applications, energy, wind energy, financial assurance, property restoration, environmental regulation, mining, blasting, residential protection, buffer zone, Department of Mines, public utilities, electric transmission lines, landowner rights, payment regulations

Summary: The committee heard several energy, mining, and environmental bills. Senate Bill 1246, a DEQ request bill, was described as a permitting reform measure intended to reduce delays, increase transparency, and improve public notice; members discussed newspaper publication and digital alerts, and the bill passed 11-0. Senate Bill 1929 proposed a new framework for transmission lines that would compensate landowners with recurring payments for lines crossing their property; members raised concerns about eminent domain, ratepayer impacts, existing easements, and whether payments would transfer with land sales, but the bill passed 6-5 after the author said it was an idea to start a broader conversation. Senate Bill 1510 addressed bonding requirements and reclamation standards, with the author saying the goal was to make bonds meaningful and ensure funds are available for cleanup if operators fail to reclaim sites. Members discussed bond levels, acceptable financial instruments, and the need to balance industry viability with land restoration; the bill passed 11-0. Senate Bill 1979, the Mining and Blasting Residential Protection Act, would create an 800-foot buffer around residences and sensitive facilities near mining and blasting operations and require notifications/signage; the author said it was a constituent-driven good-neighbor bill, but members worried it could affect existing mines, raise costs, and potentially be read to restrict current operations. After title was struck, the bill failed 2-8. The committee also passed Senate Bill 1930, which creates a framework for compensating surface owners when iodine is recovered from produced water for commercial use, and Senate Bill 1976, which phases in surety requirements for small oil and gas producers to soften the impact of prior regulatory changes. Both bills passed unanimously or near-unanimously after brief discussion about balancing regulation with economic impacts. The meeting ended with adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, this guy's land was right next to that. He thought he could get water from Montgomery.
• water rights.
• Water Bank to accept and hold donations of water rights for environmental purposes, like the preservation
• This bill, Senate Bill 1624, would allow for water rights to be held in that trust in the Texas Water
• in trust, it provides protection from cancelling water rights.

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:

• rights to the flows within the drainage ditch system, district has obtained permits for the water rights
• So this guy's land was right next to that. He thought he could get water from Montgomery.
• Water Bank to accept and hold donations of water rights for environmental purposes like the preservation
• This bill, Senate Bill 1624, would allow for water rights to be held in that trust in the Texas Water
• in trust, it provides protection from canceling water rights.

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:

• All right, thank you.
• water savings and the water supply being conserved.
• Let me... ...water savings and the water supply being conserved.
• All right.
• 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

Transcript Highlights:

• All right. Thank you. All right, thank you. All right, if necessary, sign in.
• All right. Thank you. Thank you for being here. All right. Thank you.
• Right.
• All right. Thank you. All right. Sandy Barr. All right. Sandy Barr. Mr.
• All right, all right. Let's move the bill. Mr.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• All right. Uh, we've got here is Senate File 68, Water Districts Funds for Maintenance Projects.
• right holders and senior water right holders the opportunity to be uniquely collaborative, sets up a
• way for them to actually think about ways that they can share adjudicated water rights without losing
• </c><00:09:02.399><c> water</c> water right holders and senior water water right holders and senior water
• </c> that they can uh share adjudicated water that they can uh share adjudicated water rights<00:09:15.120

Bills: SF0050, SF0068, SF0084, HB0087, HB0029, HB0061, HB0090

Keywords: groundwater, water resource management, state engineer, aquifer study, corrective controls, monitoring wells, public reporting, irrigation, water management, funding, maintenance projects, tax assessments, state law, water conservation, Colorado River, drought, water rights, voluntary program, interstate agreements, water development

Transcript Highlights:

• Putting the Anita Ditch, which is the supply ditch for the reservoir, as well as existing water rights
• Putting the Anita Ditch, which is the supply ditch for the reservoir, as well as existing water rights
• </c> reservoir as well as existing water reservoir as well as existing water rights<00:13:18.160><c>
• Um, but I also know if we don't do this right now, I mean, what's our water going to look like in a year
• now, I mean, what's don't do this right now, I mean, what's our<01:08:03.280><c> water</c><01:08:03.599

Bills: SF0050, SF0068, SF0084, HB0087, HB0029, HB0061, HB0090

Keywords: groundwater, water resource management, state engineer, aquifer study, corrective controls, monitoring wells, public reporting, irrigation, water management, funding, maintenance projects, tax assessments, state law, water conservation, Colorado River, drought, water rights, voluntary program, interstate agreements, water development

Transcript Highlights:

• All right. Thank you.
• So on water, this is a very important and dire time right now for us as a state, and I think it should
• All right, we'll go to the top of the page. We'll start on the water bills of 2026.
• All right. We'll go at the top of the page. We'll start on the water bills of 2026.
• All right, let's move 295.

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