Transcript Highlights:

• , and allowing the acquisition of water from out of state through the new Water Supply for Texas Fund
• made available by the new water supply fund.
• Uh, into, uh, the new water supply fund.
• It comes from a water supply that we cannot control.
• Um, relying too heavily on water supply conveyance coordination to meet our water supply needs could

Bills: SB 7

Keywords: water infrastructure, financial assistance, Texas Water Development Board, water supply, environmental sustainability

Transcript Highlights:

• water supply portfolio.
• And recommendations relating to transporting water made available by the new Water Supply fund.
• Reuse is a vital strategy to augment water supplies.
• We'd also like to see the inclusion of water loss mitigation under the new water supply for Texas.
• The new water supply for Texas has a focus on produced water and seawater desalination.

Bills: SB7

Keywords: water infrastructure, financial assistance, Texas Water Development Board, water supply, environmental sustainability, 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• New water supplies are critically needed.
• supply, a survey indicated that 52% of the state's water supply is inundated.
• Fund, primarily for new water supply development.
• through... ...a water supply contract.
• Governing water supply contracts for in-state water do not apply to contracts for water import.

Bills: SB7

Keywords: water infrastructure, financial assistance, Texas Water Development Board, water supply, environmental sustainability, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Executive Administrator for Water Supply and Infrastructure.
• We need water for finding new supply, new sources of water, and then we need water to firm up our existing
• correct Swift is for new water supply project in the state water plan.
• use water supply areas.
• at the $1 billion for the Texas Water Fund. The 25% had to be used for new water supply.

Keywords: infrastructure, water supply, flood mitigation, Texas Water Fund, community projects, funding allocations

Summary: During this committee meeting, the focus was on discussing critical infrastructure funding, especially related to water supply and flood mitigation projects. Chairwoman Stepney and the Water Development Board presented extensive details regarding the Texas Water Fund, which included $1 billion appropriated to assist various financial programs and tackle pressing water and wastewater issues. Additionally, funding allocations aimed at compromising the state's flood risk and improving water conservation were hotly debated, emphasizing collaboration among committee members and the necessity of addressing community needs in such projects.

Transcript Highlights:

• I can't say that the designation of an alternate designation of a shared water supply essentially is
• Arizona created the assured water supply program to ensure that when we approve new development, there
• is a reliable 100-year water supply behind it.
• The assured water supply program is one of the most important consumer protections we have for homeowners
• This bill changes how water availability can be counted when supplies are commingled in the system.

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:

• It generates 4,200 megawatt hours of electricity, supplies water to 40 million people when you include
• In the last couple of years, La Paz County has been the target of supplemental water supply for urban
• Tucson Water is supplying water to a huge population of unincorporated Pima County.
• as having an assured water supply in an initial AMA that receives Central Arizona Project water.
• These companies have designations or will have designations of assured water supply.

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:

• I think it's probably less than a third of our new water supply proposed.
• association that's focused on water supply and management.
• This bill also would undermine the state water planning process by limiting the range of our water supply
• So you do need additional water supplies.
• And the Region C plan has typically relied on surface water, significant surface water supplies, for

Bills: HB1523, HB2109, HB2694, HB3525, HB3898, HB4646, HB5188, HB5219, HB5320, HB5651, HB5655, HB5659, HB5662, HB5672

Keywords: aquifer conservation, Class V injection well, environmental regulation, groundwater protection, municipal water supply, temporary prohibition, water management, reservoir construction, state water plan, Texas Water Code, environmental impact, Brazoria Drainage District, commissioners, elections, vacancies, resignation, HB 3525, North Texas Groundwater Conservation District, groundwater permit, permit amendment

Summary: The Committee on Natural Resources heard House Bill 2109, which would remove certain long-proposed reservoir projects from the state water plan after 50 years without progress. Chairman Van Deaver and many landowners, local officials, timber interests, and conservation advocates testified in support, arguing that the Marvin Nichols Reservoir has burdened Northeast Texas landowners for decades with the threat of eminent domain, depressed property values, and uncertainty over homes, farms, ranches, schools, churches, and cemeteries. Supporters also said the project would flood tens of thousands of acres, require extensive mitigation, harm timber and agriculture, and that Texas now has better alternatives such as conservation, reuse, aquifer storage and recovery, and desalination. Several members expressed sympathy for the affected families and questioned whether a project could remain in the plan indefinitely without progress. Opposition came from North Texas water interests, including the North Texas Commission, Tarrant Regional Water District, and the Texas Water Association, who argued that the bill would interfere with the state’s long-term water planning process and remove needed future supply options for a fast-growing region. They said Region C faces major projected shortages by 2070, that conservation and reuse have already delayed the need for new supplies, and that reservoirs remain one tool in the state’s water-planning toolbox. TWDB staff explained the existing inter-regional conflict process and noted that the substitute would affect several unique reservoir sites, not just Marvin Nichols. After testimony, Chairman Van Deaver closed by urging passage of the bill, but the committee withdrew the substitute and left HB 2109 pending. The committee then took up House Bill 5188, a brackish groundwater bill. The author said the bill would reduce permitting burdens for wells in designated brackish groundwater production zones, and the committee substitute added requirements on monitoring, groundwater-rights ownership, and allocation of pumpage limits while removing some exclusions and export-fee provisions. Texas Wildlife Association testified against the bill, warning that the exemptions could weaken groundwater conservation districts’ ability to protect freshwater resources and surface-owner rights. San Antonio Water System testified in favor, saying brackish groundwater is a key future supply and that the substitute would help speed development of desalination and brackish projects. The Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts testified neutrally but raised concerns about reduced district oversight, especially around injection-well exclusions and the loss of export fees, and said discussions on the bill were ongoing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Consistent and reliable water supply issues continue to persist.
• for the sake of scarcity in water supply? Yes, sir.
• Policy Association that's focused on water supply and management.
• This bill also would undermine the state water planning process by limiting the range of our water supply
• So you do need additional water supplies.

Bills: HB1523, HB2109, HB2694, HB3525, HB3898, HB4646, HB5188, HB5219, HB5320, HB5651, HB5655, HB5659, HB5662, HB5672

Keywords: aquifer conservation, Class V injection well, environmental regulation, groundwater protection, municipal water supply, temporary prohibition, water management, reservoir construction, state water plan, Texas Water Code, environmental impact, Brazoria Drainage District, commissioners, elections, vacancies, resignation, HB 3525, North Texas Groundwater Conservation District, groundwater permit, permit amendment

Transcript Highlights:

• The Woodlawn Water Supply Corporation located in my home county of.
• Angelina believes that it is in the best interest of their water supply corporation and its members.
• The board may provide, may provide financial assistance for water supply projects.
• Securing a safe and reliable water supply is. crucial for the economic prosperity of our state.
• This prohibition would significantly impact the region's long-term water supply planning.

Bills: HB1523, HB2109, HB2694, HB3525, HB3898, HB4646, HB5188, HB5219, HB5320, HB5651, HB5655, HB5659, HB5662, HB5672

Keywords: aquifer conservation, Class V injection well, environmental regulation, groundwater protection, municipal water supply, temporary prohibition, water management, reservoir construction, state water plan, Texas Water Code, environmental impact, Brazoria Drainage District, commissioners, elections, vacancies, resignation, HB 3525, North Texas Groundwater Conservation District, groundwater permit, permit amendment

Transcript Highlights:

• Citizens expect their public water supply systems to provide clean, safe drinking water.
• It would encourage projects that turn flood water or storm water into a valuable water supply, improving
• So what's your water... The water supply is still up in the air. Okay.
• That water could have supplied the annual water supply needs for many large cities.
• , water supply, drainage, as well as water users and those who support the water industry.

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:

• Texans expect their public water supply systems to provide clean, safe drinking water.
• sources into a usable potable water supply source.
• supplied the annual water supply needs for many large cities.
• Imagine mine. supplied the annual water supply needs for many large cities.
• water supplies for the state's future needs.

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:

• of assured water supply.
• As you can imagine, we have to acquire water supplies in order to do that.
• There's not any water supply except potentially Hark and McMullen. Very limited supplies.
• of a certificate of assured water supplies to use.
• all under the assured water supply program.

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:

• of action if the application is for a certificate of assured water supply for land located within the
• supply already and the municipal provider... ...has not issued a certificate of assured water supply
• Finally, the bill requires a certificate of assured water supply issued pursuant to the outlined requirements
• supply under outlined rules adopted by... ...an application for designation of assured water supply
• Due to that continued growth, as well as tightening water supplies in general and challenges in the Colorado

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.

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:

• This court order has nothing to do with the environment, groundwater supplies, or water quality.
• the City of Lake Elmo's concerns about meeting their important water supply and drinking water needs
• <00:19:01.120> supply,<00:19:01.679> POS their needs regarding water supply, POS their
• the water because other ways to supply the water because collectively<00:24:05.760> together<
• This change eliminated non-priority one uses, meaning uses besides domestic water supply.

Bills: HF1531, HF4017, HF3399, HF4146, HF4019, HF3677

Keywords: crossbow, crossbow hunting, archery season, deer hunting, bear hunting, turkey hunting, fishing, common carp, rough fish, game and fish, wildlife management, hunting license, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, DNR, sunset clause, expiration removal, archery equipment, outdoor recreation, infectious waste, pathological waste

Transcript Highlights:

• of both water and wastewater.
• of both water and wastewater.
• At the same time, we are trying to provide basic safe drinking water because safe drinking water has
• water coming into the river.
• We wanted to ensure that our people have clean drinking water, and of course the water and the reuse

Bills: SB22, SB310

Keywords: motor vehicle manufacturers, licensing, dealers, franchise agreements, consumer protection, water supply, sewage improvements, environment, funding, Mora County, 996, all

Bills: SB 1194, SB 1215, SB 1253, SB 1268, SB 1302, SB 1484, SB 1532

Keywords: water management, bond issuance, eminent domain, regional authority, fee structures, local governance, environmental quality, oyster cultivation, coastal management, natural resources, marine ecosystems, Texas Parks and Wildlife, Texas Water Development Board, guidance principles, flood plan, state water plan, rule review, infrastructure, water discharge, general permit

Transcript Highlights:

• that supply available and accessible. that supply available and accessible.
• of supply. of supply. >> Yeah,<00:25:07.919> follow.
• water to the reservoir.
• <01:15:58.719> Um<01:15:59.120> so supply water to the reservoir.
• Um so supply water to the reservoir.

Bills: HB0078, HB0087, SF0070, SF0068, SF0017, SF0043

Keywords: forest health, grant program, state forester, wildfire prevention, environmental conservation, habitat improvement, water development, feasibility studies, appropriations, water management, rehabilitation, irrigation, public works, agricultural supply, municipal water, funding, maintenance projects, tax assessments, state law, forestry management

Transcript Highlights:

• that point, it moves on to select water that point, it moves on to select water committee<00:05:
• Um, the purpose of the project in this case is municipal water supply.
• funding that goes into that small water. funding that goes into that small water.
• <00:47:15.440> because<00:47:15.760> of water supply year after year because of water
• Can we get them a steady supply?

Bills: HB0078, HB0087, SF0070, SF0068, SF0017, SF0043

Keywords: forest health, grant program, state forester, wildfire prevention, environmental conservation, habitat improvement, water development, feasibility studies, appropriations, water management, rehabilitation, irrigation, public works, agricultural supply, municipal water, funding, maintenance projects, tax assessments, state law, forestry management