House Environment, Energy and Technology Committee
Key Moments
Rod Furniss — Representative Furniss thanked the witness and asked about lead service lines in the state.
Rod Furniss — Representative Furniss asked when the systems were installed and noted older areas may be more likely to have lead service lines.
Rod Furniss — Representative Furniss moved to approve docket 580108-2501.
Rod Furniss — Moved to approve docket 5801-2-2501.
Rod Furniss — Rod Furniss moved to approve docket 58-0113-2501 and later moved to approve another docket, joking that it 'really stinks' while still making the motion. The chair then acknowledged his levity in response.
Rod Furniss — Addressed as Representative Furniss while asking how many grant dollars Idaho receives for the loan programs.
Rod Furniss — The response was directed to Representative Furniss regarding EPA funding amounts.
Rod Furniss — Asked whether all funds are being used, whether unused funds revert, and whether the funds go to smaller or larger cities.
Rod Furniss — The response emphasized that requests exceed available funding every year, citing American Rescue Plan Act demand levels.
Rod Furniss — Called on to make a motion; the transcript says 'Representative Furniss.'
Rod Furniss — Representative Furniss asked about private wells, groundwater impacts, and whether unregulated wells could affect the aquifer, and then was addressed in response regarding private wells and groundwater monitoring.
Britt Raybould — Britt Raybould is acknowledged twice during the same procedural exchange as the meeting moves forward, including a brief recognition of her comment that a motion is always in order.
Michael Simon — Introduced himself as the Air Quality Division Administrator for the Department of Environmental Quality.
Chris Bruce — Chris Bruce moved to approve the docket, repeating the same procedural motion in consecutive transcript segments.
Chris Bruce — Briefly indicated he had a question but then withdrew it.
Chris Bruce — Made the motion to approve docket 58-0116-2501.
Chris Bruce — Asked about the impact of data centers using existing groundwater rights and whether rules are being considered.
Chris Bruce — Was asked to clarify whether his question was about water quantity and high water use.
Chris Bruce — Moved to approve docket 58-111-2501 with exceptions for Section 003 and Section 200, subsection 01A.
Chris Bruce — Explained that he moved to exclude sections because unresolved federal standards should not be incorporated before they are final.
Chris Bruce — Was thanked after making the motion on the docket.
Jerry Henry — Jerry Henry, the Drinking Water Protection and Finance Division Administrator at DEQ, testified on lead service line reporting, explaining the number of systems reporting lead, galvanized, and unknown service lines and noting that installation dates vary widely across systems. The discussion then moved into docket 580108-2502, which Henry introduced as a technical correction related to static pressure requirements.
Jerry Henry — Introduced docket 58-0112-2501 on wastewater and drinking water loan fund administration.
Jerry Henry — Introduced himself as the Drinking Water Protection and Finance Division Administrator at DEQ and presented the groundwater quality rule docket.
Erin Bingham — Representative Bingham moved to approve docket 580108-2502 with an effective date of sine die.
Marianne Nelson — Marianne Nelson, the Surface and Wastewater Division Administrator for the Idaho DEQ, introduced herself and began presenting docket 5801-2-2501, explaining the purpose of Idaho's water quality standards.
Marianne Nelson — Introduced herself and began presenting docket 58-0116-2501.
Ms. Nelson — Thanked for presenting the docket.
John Woude — Addressed as Mr. Chairman in the committee proceedings.
John Woude — Addressed as Mr. Chairman during the question-and-answer exchange.
Mary Ann Nelson — Mary Ann Nelson, Surface and Wastewater Division Administrator for Idaho DEQ, introduced herself and presented docket 58-0116/58-0116-2501. She explained that the wastewater rules are intended to ensure systems are planned and built to protect public health, safeguard surface and groundwater quality, and promote long-term system reliability and safety, then concluded by asking the committee to support and approve the docket.
Soñia Galaviz — Raised a question about the drafting trend of changing 'must' to 'shall.'
Ms. Henry — Called up next to present docket 58-0112-2501.
Ms. Henry — Was asked to explain the meaning of “will” in the rule language.
Ms. Henry — Was invited to respond to the question about wells and aquifer protection.
Tanya Burgoyne — Representative Burgoyne questioned the meaning and usage of 'shall,' 'must,' and 'will' in the rule language. The ensuing exchange addressed the distinction between 'will' and 'must,' including a misheard reference to Burgoyne, and Burgoyne then continued the discussion by arguing that the language should remain 'shall.'
John Groff — John Groff is introduced as a wastewater treatment facility operator involved in a local reuse pilot project and is noted as being present in the back of the room.
Mr. McCurdy — Mr. McCurdy is introduced and then participates in a focused discussion about how state rules incorporate federal regulations by reference. He is asked how federal changes are tracked and why the rules are not written out in full, and he responds that the easiest approach is to use links to the federal regulations.
Mr. McCurdy — His explanation of the temporary and pending rule request is reiterated for the committee.
Michael McCurdy — Introduces himself as Waste Management and Remediation Division Administrator for DEQ and explains the presentation format.
Michael McCurdy — Introduced docket 5801-13-2501 and identified himself as DEQ Waste Management and Remediation Division Administrator.
Michael McCurdy — Michael McCurdy, DEQ’s Waste Management and Remediation Division Administrator, presented docket 58-016-2501 on solid waste management rules and explained the rulemaking process, including stakeholder meetings and where the materials appear in the review book. He then walked through examples of revisions made under the zero-based regulation effort, such as removing definitions already covered by statute or federal rules, updating incorporation-by-reference language, rewriting sections for consistency with section 0.05, and deleting unnecessary taglines and redundant provisions. He noted that similar cleanup revisions appear throughout several sections, including the deletion of a violations section deemed unnecessary because Idaho Code already addresses those issues. He concluded by requesting committee approval of the docket and later clarified that zero-based regulation was intended to remove unnecessary language and improve clarity, not to eliminate one rule for each new rule.
Heather Scott — Representative Heather Scott questions why the federal rules are not written directly into the state rules or law, arguing that if they are being treated as law, they should be fully typed out so the public can easily see and understand them.
Heather Scott — Asked whether zero-based regulation means eliminating a rule for every new rule.
Heather Scott — Asked why groundwater is treated differently from other federally regulated areas.
Heather Scott — Asked for an explanation of why groundwater is handled differently from other federal regulations.
Heather Scott — Explained that the language changes were influenced by a review of Idaho as the least regulated state and said she has historical context to share later.
Heather Scott — Said she wanted to introduce someone from the audience after the vote.
Heather Scott — Introduced John Groff and described his wastewater reuse project in her district.
Heather Scott — Closed her introduction of John Groff and described the project as a pilot involving water reuse and pharmaceutical monitoring.