Transcript Highlights:

• it would actually threaten the water system's safe drinking water.
• water side.
• through surface water, groundwater, and even recycled water supplies.
• Is it all municipal supplies turned in, or how do I know y'all test water regularly?
• Testing methods. Okay. I know it costs a lot to test water.

Bills: SB1169, SB1285, SB1583, SB1611, SB1898, SB1976, SB2160, SB2161, SB2658, SB2661, SB2662, SB2692, SB1055, SB1359, SB2660

Keywords: water service, sewer service, public utility, joint operation, infrastructure, municipality, compliance, SB 1285, bats, bat protection, wildlife protection, Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, Parks and Wildlife Code Section 63.101, hunting bats, bat possession, bat sales, bat trade, pest control, licensed pest control professional, animal control officer

Transcript Highlights:

• State water is water that the state owns.
• be paid for that water.
• People need the water; you've got to send the water." And that's what you just pointed to.
• Water District was created.
• We're pending Senate Bill 1976 by Senator Hughes, relating to water testing.

Bills: SB1169, SB1285, SB1583, SB1611, SB1898, SB1976, SB2160, SB2161, SB2658, SB2661, SB2662, SB2692, SB1055, SB1359, SB2660

Keywords: water service, sewer service, public utility, joint operation, infrastructure, municipality, compliance, SB 1285, bats, bat protection, wildlife protection, Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, Parks and Wildlife Code Section 63.101, hunting bats, bat possession, bat sales, bat trade, pest control, licensed pest control professional, animal control officer

Transcript Highlights:

• They're pumping that water.
• paid for that water.
• People need the water, you got to in the water. And that's what you just pointed to.
• OK, thank you for your test.
• We're pending Senate Bill 1976 by Senator Hughes relating to the water testing.

Bills: SB 1169, SB 1285, SB 1583, SB 1611, SB 1898, SB 1976, SB 2160, SB 2161, SB 2658, SB 2661, SB 2662, SB 2692, SB 1055, SB 1359, SB 2660

Keywords: water service, sewer service, public utility, joint operation, infrastructure, municipality, compliance, SB 1285, bats, bat protection, wildlife protection, Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, Parks and Wildlife Code Section 63.101, hunting bats, bat possession, bat sales, bat trade, pest control, licensed pest control professional, animal control officer

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:09:34.080> season, of just during the open water season, of just during the open water
• c> groundwater,<00:36:11.280> wells, further testing of groundwater, wells, further testing
• <01:13:00.080> and with the Minnesota Board of Water and with the Minnesota Board of Water
• the requirements for aquifer tests. the requirements for aquifer tests.
• Even though the water permit was already in place, the water use never changed.

Bills: HF4253, HF4257, HF3236, HF4264, HF4149, HF4019

Keywords: boat storage structures, public waters, natural resources, rule amendments, watercraft canopy, PFAS, environmental regulation, manufacturers, public health, product safety, groundwater, water appropriation, water-use permit, water permit, aquifer test, aquifer, well construction, groundwater permit, Department of Natural Resources, DNR

Bills: SB 1169, SB 1285, SB 1583, SB 1611, SB 1898, SB 1976, SB 2160, SB 2161, SB 2658, SB 2661, SB 2662, SB 2692, SB 1055, SB 1359, SB 2660

Keywords: water service, sewer service, public utility, joint operation, infrastructure, municipality, compliance, groundwater management, water conservation, district planning, environmental regulation, sustainability, groundwater, conservation, fees, agricultural uses, water regulation, wastewater treatment, environmental testing, pollutants

Transcript Highlights:

• I know at Heartland you might be facing this issue later on with the well testing.
• As you know, Mora doesn't have clean drinking water right now due to the effects of the fire, and this
• will help do some testing for private wells.

Bills: HB97, HB280, HB183, HB151, HB202

Keywords: Shaken Baby Syndrome, abusive head trauma, child safety, training and education, healthcare funding, youth internships, workforce development, education, grant funding, employment, drinking water, water quality, environment, public health, water filtration, private well testing, federal funding, childhood sexual abuse, time limitations, civil actions

Transcript Highlights:

• So, Senator Kavanaugh, are these products that are animal-tested or not animal-tested?
• years' worth of water in the basin.
• Furthermore, identifying the total amount of water or years of water in a basin could signify that that
• years' worth of water in the basin.
• Furthermore, identifying the total amount of water or years of water in a basin could signify that that

Bills: SB1005, SB1202, SB1278, SB1279, SB1280, SB1287

Keywords: cosmetics, animal testing, prohibition, manufacturers, sales regulation, state preemption, groundwater, water conservation, Arizona water resources, drought management, water quality, solar radiation management, environment, regulation, Arizona Revised Statutes, weather modification, licensing, environmental impact, public safety, cloud seeding

Summary: The Natural Resources Committee approved the minutes from January 20 and January 27, 2026, then heard several bills related to weather modification, water policy, wildlife, cosmetics, and groundwater management. SB 1278 would ban intentional solar radiation management in Arizona and bar public entities or recipients of public funds from supporting related technology development. Supporters argued it was needed to stop harmful geoengineering, while opponents said it would block research and distract from real pollution problems. The committee voted 5-2 with one not voting to give SB 1278 a do pass recommendation. The committee then considered SB 1279, which would regulate weather modification licenses, require ADWR and ADEQ review of chemicals, public notice, and public meetings, and—under a proposed strike-everything amendment—shift complaint enforcement to ADWR and require rulemaking. Testimony was largely in support from stakeholders and SRP, while ADEQ was neutral but warned it lacked standards, resources, and expertise to develop the required chemical limits on the bill’s timeline. The committee adopted the amendment and then passed the bill as amended 5-2 with one not voting. Members next passed SB 1005, which would prohibit the sale of cosmetics developed with animal testing, with supporters citing cruelty concerns and industry alternatives; the bill received a do pass recommendation 4-2 with two not voting. SB 1202, requiring ADWR to include more detailed data in five-year groundwater supply-and-demand assessments, drew opposition from ADWR over feasibility, cost, and the risk of misleading conclusions, but still received a do pass recommendation 4-2 with two not voting. The committee also passed SB 1280, which would bar Game and Fish from using public funds to transport Mexican gray wolf pups into Arizona; wildlife advocates opposed it as harmful to recovery, while Game and Fish said it would not affect core responsibilities and was neutral. Finally, SB 1287, with a conforming amendment, was approved 5-1 with two not voting to extend certain irrigation grandfathered-right groundwater uses to subsequent active management areas. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• water systems receive advance notice before testing occurs.
• Senate Bill 1662 would help ensure that testing accurately reflects water conditions and is not affected
• public water systems no more than 24 hours before testing a well after a consumer complaint.
• , 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:

• water systems receive advance notice before testing occurs.
• Senate Bill 1662 would help ensure testing accurately reflects water conditions and is not affected by
• water systems no more than 24 hours before testing. ...authorizing TCEQ to notify public water systems
• Nine days later, the investigator came out and then did tests on the water at the well.
• 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:

• There's always irregularities in water testing that haven't been explained.
• testing<00:03:17.840> that irregularities of water testing that irregularities of water testing
• And the way the testing works is you actually literally have to go out and pull water samples out of
• the water, and you send the samples to a lab on the mainland who does the tests.
• the water, and you send the samples to a lab on the mainland who does the tests.

Bills: SB2093, SB2095, SB2046, SB2096, SB2127, SB2155, SB2243

Keywords: fuel tank, environmental impact, groundwater, health and safety, military facilities, local communication, advisory committee, Hawaii legislation, PFAS, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, forever chemicals, toxic chemicals, environmental contamination, water pollution, drinking water, surface water, soil contamination, fish consumption, food safety, public health

Summary: The joint Senate Agriculture and Environment and Health and Human Services hearing opened with SB 2093, which would require the fuel tank advisory committee to meet at least quarterly and provide funding. The Department of Health offered written testimony, and multiple supporters, including the Honolulu Board of Water Supply, Sierra Club, and a public member of the advisory committee, said more frequent meetings were needed to keep Red Hill cleanup, water testing, and public engagement front and center. Senators asked about public participation and whether the bill should also require meetings outside business hours; testifiers urged at least one evening or weekend meeting to improve access. No vote was taken during the discussion shown. The committee then heard SB 2095, creating a PFAS working group within the Department of Health to study PFAS and related chemicals and report to the Legislature. DOH supported the concept but requested amendments and funding, while the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity deferred to DOH. The Board of Water Supply supported the measure and asked to be included in the working group. Members asked about the bill’s reference to “other residuals,” and DOH explained it could refer to remaining PFAS components in soil, water, or other media. The discussion emphasized the widespread and long-lasting nature of PFAS contamination. Next, the committee considered SB 2046 on underground storage tanks and Red Hill-related cleanup. DOH and the Board of Water Supply testified, and a long list of community and environmental groups supported the bill. Testifiers argued the Navy caused the problem and should be held accountable for cleanup, while one witness said the bill was necessary because the Navy had delayed meaningful remediation. Senators asked whether the bill’s “large landowner” language could include the state or counties under existing statutes; DOH said it would check and later explained that cleanup responsibility generally falls first on the responsible party, then on large landowners if no responsible party exists, with the Navy currently understood to own Red Hill. The hearing then moved to SB 2096 on wastewater management, which the Department of Land and Natural Resources supported, noting PFAS can harm marine resources, and DOH’s wastewater branch offered comments. SB 2127 on water pollution drew support from Agra Business Development Corporation and opposition from the Hawaii Cattlemen’s Council, Hawaii Farm Bureau, and others. The main debate centered on runoff, NPDES permitting, and whether the bill could unfairly affect agricultural and public entities; senators and witnesses discussed how heavy rainfall, cesspools, and mixed land uses complicate responsibility and compliance. The transcript ends with the committee still in discussion on SB 2127, with no final votes or actions shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• wells, such as well-water testing and treatment.
• And so within this amount, in essence, what it will do is it will be used for water well testing in these
• This appropriation provides essential support for water testing and treatment for those who provide their
• This appropriation provides essential support for water testing and treatment for those who provide their
• Whenever you are stating that these people can take their water in for testing, is there any—what is

Bills: SB47, SB110, SB122, SB143, SB168

Keywords: food recovery, composting, waste management, solid waste surcharge, organic waste reduction, environment, grants, advisory group, bosque management, Rio Grande, environmental protection, water resources, fiscal appropriation, drinking water, well owners, water testing, water treatment, public health, agriculture, New Mexico Department of Agriculture

Transcript Highlights:

• Most of our members are nonprofit water supply corporations and districts, water districts.
• water quality.
• the water caucus.
• There's so much need for water. That's all we've heard about how important water is.
• The water at the well was not tested until 9 days later.

Bills: HB 937, HB 2078, HB 2080, HB 3322, HB 3350, HB 4212, HB 4630, HB 4896, HB 4951, HB 5348, HB 5675, SB 565, SB 971, SB 1662, SB 2124

Keywords: special districts, notice requirements, Water Code, government transparency, public meetings, meeting notice, transparency, public engagement, notice, elections, groundwater management, water conservation, joint planning, environmental impact, desired future conditions, groundwater, conservation district, environmental quality, regulatory review, water utility

Transcript Highlights:

• Most of our members are nonprofit water supply corporations and water districts.
• Water utilities, both large...
• water quality.
• There's so much need for water. That's all we've heard about how important water is.
• It was assigned to the investigator on the 19th, the water. at the well was not tested until nine days

Bills: HB937, HB2078, HB2080, HB3322, HB3350, HB4212, HB4630, HB4896, HB4951, HB5348, HB5675, SB565, SB971, SB1662, SB2124

Keywords: special districts, notice requirements, Water Code, government transparency, public meetings, meeting notice, transparency, public engagement, notice, elections, groundwater management, water conservation, joint planning, environmental impact, desired future conditions, groundwater, conservation district, environmental quality, regulatory review, water utility

Transcript Highlights:

• 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.
• Members, we do have a resource witness from the TCEQ on test and licensing and water standards.
• On testing and licensing or on water standards? our standards. Chair calls Michelle Risco.
• So the, the test for y'all to meet those standards is not just that it meets the drinking water standard

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
• Members, we do have a resource witness from the TCEQ on testing, licensing, and water standards.
• On testing and licensing, or on water standards? Water standards.
• Okay, so the test for you all to meet those standards is not just that it meets a drinking water standard

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:

• Test. No, test, yes. Okay. Good morning, Madam Chair and committee. We have before you HB 243.
• Test test test. Test test test test test. Test test test test test test test.
• Test test test test test test test test.
• 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

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.