[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:00] Call the order. The April 3rd, 2025, meeting in the Central Arizona Project, public policy committee will come to order. This case is called, call the roll.
[0:12] Lisa Akins, Ben Graff, Heather McRee, just a manual, Steven Miller, Amanda Monies,
[0:23] Martille.
[0:24] Here.
[0:24] All members of the President, Mr. Chair.
[0:26] Great.
[0:26] Thank you, Ms. Casey.
[0:28] I'd like to remind all presenters to identify themself for the record and anyway, I just want
[0:33] to say it's wonderful to be here in Penalty County.
[0:36] I always love the venue here, love the facility, I want to thank Director Miller or
[0:41] supervisor Miller for having us here and and always such a welcome place. So I really enjoy it. Thank you again.
[0:49] Let's go to item number one, consideration of action to prove the minutes of the March 6th, 2025 Public Policy Committee.
[0:56] Chair to entertain a motion.
[0:58] I move to approve the minutes for the March 6th, 2025 Public Policy Committee meeting.
[1:06] All right, you need to discuss your interchanges.
[1:09] All those in favor signify by saying aye.
[1:12] Aye.
[1:12] Any opposed?
[1:14] Okay, let the record reflect all members present, voted in favor of the motion.
[1:18] Go to agenda item number two.
[1:20] It's a report possible consideration of action on a recommendation or a recommendation
[1:24] to the board regarding state issues that could impact CAP.
[1:29] Mr. Gray?
[1:34] Good morning, Mr. Chair.
[1:35] board members for the record, Jeff Gray, legislative affairs manager.
[1:40] So Mr. Chairman, board members, for this morning, we've had a very busy last couple of
[1:45] months with positions on bills.
[1:48] Thankfully this morning we do not have any new staff recommendations on bills.
[1:53] The deadline to hear legislation in the opposite house has now passed.
[1:57] So the only thing we're really looking out for is amendments and updates on bills
[2:02] that we previously take in positions on.
[2:03] So there's no new items this month.
[2:06] So thankfully, we do not have the long list of items
[2:08] like we have the past couple of months
[2:09] that has certainly kept us busy during these meetings.
[2:13] First off, as I noted, the deadline has passed.
[2:17] And now we are facing a pretty long list of bills
[2:21] that need to be heard in the opposite house
[2:23] for cow rules committee, the caucus.
[2:27] So it's going through the process, the bill process,
[2:31] outside of the committee hearing process. Now I will say the only caveat to this is the budget.
[2:36] That still needs to obviously be introduced and move the process so that will obviously require
[2:41] committee hearings. But those are bills, the budget process is always outside of the traditional
[2:46] bill process as far as deadlines go. And we'll say that indications right now are that the
[2:53] budget process could still take some time.
[2:57] So once they wrap up the committee hearing or the bill process and the Minimumets of
[3:01] Center, there still can be some significant time for the budget as we are not hearing that
[3:06] they are near an agreement on that.
[3:09] So I think just in the back of our heads, we are planning on, or at least, there's certainly
[3:14] a possibility that this could extend out well into the summer for, ultimately, a past
[3:20] budget.
[3:21] There are also some indications, some comments that have been made, that the legislature
[3:25] can go to some of the hybrid schedule too, where they only meet partially throughout the
[3:28] week, or maybe every other week, which is again not uncommon to take place, and so again,
[3:33] we'll keep you a prize to win it if those decisions are made, but again, those are some
[3:37] indications of kind of a hybrid schedule that we can see them take, and again, part of that
[3:42] is if they don't have a significant agenda to work through every day, they only want to come
[3:47] every couple of days and worked through that process for them to bring it and work it through
[3:51] four or five bills and then going home to do everything in a couple of days and then recess
[3:55] for several. So again, we'll keep you a prized of all of that but just a lot of moving parts
[4:01] as the session begins to wind down for the year. Actually, when we made my item, I did
[4:10] if they'll mention, there was a resignation in the State Senate this past this past month,
[4:17] Center Eva Birch from East Valley stepped aside from her position.
[4:21] I think I've previously mentioned to that.
[4:23] They have the County Board of Supervisors has
[4:25] named an official replacement, Kiana Sears has been named to her
[4:30] to her position.
[4:31] And she is a school board member.
[4:33] It was a school board member.
[4:34] I believe in Mason Public Schools, possibly,
[4:36] or one of these valid districts before being named as a state center.
[4:40] So there are now officially 30 centers in office with the naming of the replacement
[4:45] for former Senator Birch.
[4:51] So update on the bill that we are working on the session.
[4:54] This is the GRD bill related to the annual Immership News.
[4:58] This bill has made it through.
[5:00] The Senate Natural Resources Committee, unanimously, my partisan vote. Since we posted this material,
[5:05] it has also made it through both rules and caucus. So the House, or the Senate Republican
[5:10] and Democratic caucuses, heard the bill, no issues were raised in either one of the caucuses. So
[5:16] because the bill is undemended in committee, it just simply waits a final third read vote in the
[5:23] state Senate. So again, no indication of timeline yet. At some point, they'll start to third read,
[5:28] sending the governor bills. But again, no specific indication on when that will take place.
[5:35] But again, as of today, no concerns have been raised and staff continue to meet with
[5:41] senators before any third-read vote were to take place. So some positive news there.
[5:50] Senate Bill 1611 and House Bill 2298. This is the act of urban legislation. No movement,
[5:58] No changes to this since the last time we updated this committee last month.
[6:03] I will say that there have been several stakeholder meetings.
[6:06] You probably have also heard from Ms. Graniano and the GRD staff and the update for the
[6:10] GRD and Underground Storage Committee for the regulatory rulemaking process that DWR
[6:14] has engaged in, but as we mentioned, there is also this parallel path with legislation
[6:19] that has been moved forward this year.
[6:22] No further compromises or agreements have been reached within the parties.
[6:27] In fact, there was a stakeholder meeting yesterday held by Senator Shope, also attended by Representative Griffin, who's sponsoring the House version of the bill brought it all parties together, and they say all parties that room had probably 40 plus people in it to discuss issues, and I will say that there are still a number of the bigger remaining issues have still been not been ironed out yet, including but not limited to three to five versus one to five years for farming aglan, the number of acre feet per acre.
[6:58] calculation in there and whether or not it would apply to member service areas and member
[7:02] lands.
[7:03] So those are obviously I've mentioned the policy dials that would impact the GRD and replenishment
[7:08] obligation and our message to them and what we've again communicated yesterday was that
[7:13] they look at the most conservative policy dials and decision points on all of this to keep
[7:18] the replenishment implications as low as possible.
[7:22] And so that was our message back as well as requesting that there be some form of legislative
[7:27] support for the ability to acquire replenish but supplies as well.
[7:32] So we've continued to communicate that and I would say that the feedback we are getting is
[7:37] certainly I think that their members are cognizant of that they understand that and I think
[7:41] they anything they want to move forward wants to be they want it to be achievable and actually
[7:45] a bill that is implementable. So that is the feedback we are getting but I will say those items
[7:52] that I highlighted those three items there certainly other ones as well have not been fully ironed
[7:57] yet on the development community side, they seem to want a higher per acre foot number,
[8:01] they believe that that is what is needed to make this pencil out for their developments.
[8:06] On the flip side DWR has wanted to see a lower number for water management purposes.
[8:10] Obviously, we have communicated a conservative number for our ability to replenish that water,
[8:15] that is a background water that is pumped. So I will say again, just no real agreement on this yet,
[8:22] it continues to be a priority for both the legislature and the executive, the legislature,
[8:27] We'll continue to work on this.
[8:29] Again, I will say that the executive legislature
[8:31] are continuing and have continued to talk about this.
[8:35] The folks have not gone to their respective corners
[8:36] and not shown a willingness to continue to negotiate
[8:40] at least, which is positive.
[8:43] But at a minimum, though, DWR and the executive
[8:46] have continued to express their willingness
[8:48] to move forward on a regulatory rule-making approach
[8:51] if this agreement is not ultimately come to hear.
[8:55] And again, you've heard some of those report from the DRD committee.
[8:59] Those policy dials there tend to be more ratcheted down to, I would say, the more conservative
[9:04] side, but applied to MSAs, one acre foot, et cetera, on that front.
[9:10] So without Mr. Chairman, happy to answer any questions on this, but that's essentially what
[9:14] we know today on the Ag to Urban Legislation, before I move on, I'll stop there for a brief
[9:19] moment.
[9:26] Okay, go ahead Mr. Ray.
[9:29] So then moving on, most of the rest of these bills will just be very brief updates on the status.
[9:33] So no new changes.
[9:35] House Bill 20204.
[9:37] This was a bill that dealt with the set aside under A-DOS.
[9:41] Originally this had a percentage number in there, but the bill was modified.
[9:45] And talks about the department cannot require more than a proportionate share of water needs under the A-DOS process as opposed to about 25% set aside.
[9:54] as you recall, any changes to the 25% set aside number under the A-DOS rules.
[10:00] Obviously, have impacts to GRD replenishment from those renewables, supplies being brought in to help offset groundwater pumping and replenishment implications.
[10:09] And so any number there would have impacts to the GRD, which is what we've continued to communicate to the legislature.
[10:16] So, this bill was modified to now just simply say a proportionate share.
[10:20] It's come unclear what exactly that means and how that would be potentially administered.
[10:23] But DWR, but again, the percentage numbers that was specific that highlight in the bill is no longer listed in there.
[10:31] Similarly, the House Bill 2297 has made its way through the process.
[10:35] I will say though that it failed on third read this one.
[10:38] Had a 25% reduced it to 5%.
[10:42] For the set aside, rather than 25%.
[10:45] That bill failed on third read.
[10:47] It had a prop one way clause.
[10:48] So one of the arguments from some of the opponents to the set aside is that it is a tax, essentially.
[10:55] And so in the bill, they attempted to codify the Ados rules and highlighted that they
[11:00] prop one a way to give them that they feel that it is a tax, and that nearly a two-thirds vote to make its way through the process.
[11:08] That bill failed because it did not achieve the necessary two-thirds vote to pass the house.
[11:15] and so that bill failed without getting that two-thirds majority.
[11:20] And so far, it has not been reintroduced.
[11:22] It seems to be that 2204 seems to be the primary vehicle
[11:25] that the proponents, legislature,
[11:27] home builders, etc., are moving on for the session.
[11:34] 2299.
[11:35] This is a bill that would have required eight.
[11:37] Or would require the DWR to review pending applications
[11:40] for certificates of the Phoenix AMA
[11:43] and issue them based on the previous hydrologic model
[11:45] rather than the updated model that DWR released a couple of years ago.
[11:50] This would have, as we previously called, about a 6,000 acre foot impact to the GRD.
[11:56] And again, we've continued to highlight with both these and the other bills about the overall aggregate.
[12:01] Add it to the impact of all of the GRD related replenishment legislation, what that would mean to us in the need to acquire acquisition or acquire supplies for the GRD.
[12:14] So if we continue to highlight this one again, this one is a certainly a much more modest number,
[12:18] compared to some of the other bills this session that get at the hundreds of thousands of
[12:22] acre feet, but again, we continue to communicate on this one as it makes its way through the process.
[12:28] It did fail in the House floor, the initial version, 2299, and then the Home Billvers brought it back as a
[12:33] striker and the Senate to House Bill 291. So it has been brought back, and as you've heard from me
[12:39] over the years, no bill is dead until the very end of session and the signing die, everything could
[12:43] prop pack either with a striker and amendment and some form refashion so we always continue to watch everything out there because it can be brought back and this is a perfect example of a piece of legislation
[12:53] That was brought back in the form of a striker.
[12:59] So I mentioned bills they have a significant impact similar to 1114 was the legislation that
[13:06] would have about a little over 200 plus half an acre-foot impact for GRD related purposes.
[13:12] This would grant a certificate to those that had an analysis in the process prior to the
[13:18] pause.
[13:19] That was announced by DWR, the Governor's Office a couple of years ago, moving all of
[13:23] those into an immediate certificate, and as well as the amendment that this would also
[13:26] apply to physical availability determinations, which is a process a little further earlier
[13:30] on, and for analysis, broadening that would have a pretty significant impact.
[13:35] So we did testify in opposition to the bill in committee.
[13:39] Did we see, at least, a comment by both, the sponsor, as well as the proponents that
[13:44] they are willing to work with us on this?
[13:46] We'll say, I don't know really how to amend the bill to reduce the impact on this to take
[13:51] it down to a number that is comfortable or achievable given the other bills that are moving
[13:56] this session like Act Urban, but again, again, I mentioned during the Act Urban process, folks
[14:02] are cognizant of the need for the GRD to be able to acquire these supplies and the challenges
[14:07] that we are under in the additive effect of all of these bills.
[14:12] So, but with that, we did highlight our opposition and the rationale as to why it was, I think,
[14:20] folks understand where we were coming from, but I think there is obviously some frustration and
[14:23] on the on the on the flip side to be able to get development to the process too. So with that said they did move move without a committee by a vote of five to three.
[14:33] We have not received any outreach yet from the opponents about any amendments on the bill. It was on the floor this this past week for committee of the whole it was removed before it was it was voted on so that's again some positive indication that they're
[14:45] I'm at least going to try to slow this down to some degree.
[14:51] Senate Bill 1521, this is another bill that we voted to oppose the
[14:54] community and the board voted to oppose last month.
[14:58] This would allow for this.
[15:00] If they were transfer of unbuilt certificates, again, this would have had an impact for replenishment purposes, and the 60,000 plus acre foot range for the GRD, ultimately the bill was used as a strike everything amendment and we did not need to oppose the bill and committee, although we did highlight this as well as 1114 and the impacts to the sponsor of the bill. So he certainly understood the implications.
[15:26] But this bill was used as a strike or no longer as impacts the GRD, the underlying bill.
[15:32] No longer relates to us, it relates to a financial issue with the community of Welton, I believe,
[15:38] an overspending issue.
[15:39] So under completely unrelated to water issues, now, so we can strike this one off our list
[15:44] for the time being in its current form.
[15:48] House Bill 2753 and 1393, this is a bill that would apply so last year's recall, this was the legislation run by Queen Creek that allowed for it longer phasin for the absorption of member lands for those eight Oz designations.
[16:06] The bill as it was drafted only applied to the Phoenix AMA, as you've heard me say, the rules as they passed the WR late last year applied both to Phoenix and Penal.
[16:14] This legislation would allow that similar statutory mechanism lasted applied to the PNL AMA.
[16:21] The bill was amended to add some language that was unrelated to the bill itself,
[16:25] but is being pushed and supported by the homeless.
[16:29] Related to require, you see the language that I won't read it specifically,
[16:34] but it relates to financial implications for acquisition supplies related under ADOS.
[16:41] So again not specifically related to the bill itself,
[16:42] but language that they wanted to see added to the bill.
[16:46] There are two vehicles moving to the process.
[16:48] What will probably happen is one version will make its way through,
[16:51] sent to the executive,
[16:53] and we'll see what the ultimate response is there.
[16:56] But again, there are two vehicles to move in case one does not.
[17:00] Receive the support of the executive when it does pass.
[17:04] So both bills are still alive at this point.
[17:10] Hospital 2103.
[17:11] This is the appropriation for the Department of Water Resources
[17:14] to defend, protect, and enforce the state's allocation of Colorado River Water.
[17:20] This passed out of Senate Natural Resources this past month by unanimous vote.
[17:24] Also it passed out of the Appropriations Committee recently as well, so this past week
[17:27] it was up in Appropes.
[17:28] After we submitted our materially, it was added to the Appropes agenda and the Senate.
[17:32] And so typically, as you've heard me say in the past, what you see with Appropriations
[17:35] bills, again, early decade plus ago, they had what was referred to as the box.
[17:40] These were appropriation bills that were set aside and put into the budgetary process,
[17:46] and then whatever surplus you would have for the year, those bills would essentially fight over that surplus.
[17:52] So this is probably what you're going to see this year. All of those appropriations
[17:55] were in the bills, and we set aside and negotiate and just pardon the budget process. So the fact that
[17:59] this bill is now passed out, and we're probably not moved. It's not indication of any concerns or
[18:05] position after this, it's a traditional negotiation process for the state budget.
[18:13] Then moving on to HCR 2046, this is a resolution, so it's not a particular statute
[18:20] of just highlights the opinion of the state legislature, and it has outlines issues for
[18:25] cause of decline for the Colorado River.
[18:27] It was amended to broaden the language, so it was specifically calling out Saul Seeders
[18:32] or plants, et cetera, I had a more broader language now, which is, I think, I think,
[18:39] good in highlights a little bit more broadly speaking, some of the broader challenges on
[18:43] the river.
[18:44] The bill passed out of committee, Senate Natural Resources by about a five to three.
[18:48] And again, this one waits a vote on the false Senate floor, as we call, we had a neutral
[18:52] position on this, in fact, again, with the amendments that does certainly solidify that
[18:57] neutral position.
[19:01] HCR-251, this is the U.M. Agriculture Water Rights Resolution, again similar to the previous
[19:05] bill, simply outlines the opinion of legislature, pass out of natural resources, similarly
[19:10] to the other resolution by about a 5 to 3, and it continues to contain the amendment
[19:15] language that we had worked on under the bill before it left the house.
[19:19] No changes have been made since then.
[19:23] HCR-2016, this is the width of bill, again, another resolution supporting fully funding
[19:29] at some point in the future does it specifically outline it, but it helps with a from the
[19:34] on the bond market side shows support within the industry of fully appropriated billion dollars
[19:39] for for with a we supported the bill in committee and passed out of the natural resources
[19:44] to be in a probes by six one and eight two respectively and again a way to say final vote
[19:49] in the state senate. HP 2106 this is a bill that has some cleanup language to it related to
[19:58] We'll use some of our best water per...
[20:00] A purification. That overall authorization passed the legislature several years ago, and that
[20:06] we're making the authority to do that. This bill, this session, had some language that would
[20:11] provide some clarification in that industry. Folks wanted to see attitude. We supported the bill along
[20:18] with Amma and some of the other cities who have been working on this. While it passed unanimously
[20:22] out of the House committee, it did not receive a further vote in the process. So we were trying to
[20:29] but to date it has not moved out of its initial house of origin.
[20:37] And with that Mr. Chairman that concludes my presentation this morning,
[20:41] I'm happy to answer any questions on any of these
[20:43] or other related legislative issues.
[20:46] Great. Thank you, Mr. Gray. Any questions or comments?
[20:52] I got a couple questions if that's alright.
[20:54] Maybe go on back to side number five.
[21:04] This is mainly just to make sure I understand that whole process.
[21:12] When you essentially reduce the current 25% offset in A-DOS to 0 or 5% or different percentages,
[21:21] I want to make sure I understand the mechanism where that is reduced.
[21:24] Why there's additional augmentation on C-A-G-R-D?
[21:29] Why does that burden come on us when that happens?
[21:32] So, I'll give a general answer, but I'll also look to Ms. Brenyano for if you get throw something
[21:37] to have me if I get this incorrect, but that offset is meant to, that 25% offset is what
[21:44] it's meant to do is reduce the groundwater pumping that those parties, I'm going to know
[21:48] the Ados, that they're when they go through that designation. So, if they don't have that
[21:53] additional requirement to bring on new water to offset that groundwater pumping that's taking
[21:57] place for future growth, then they're going to continue to pump and they're going to continue
[22:02] to replenish.
[22:04] So that offset essentially has meant to eliminate or reduce some of that current groundwater
[22:08] pumping that would be taking place into the designation.
[22:12] So that's probably an overly simplified version all look back.
[22:17] But I think that makes sense.
[22:19] Everybody understands it's kind of a different thing.
[22:21] So when you actually reduce the offset the obligation goes on us.
[22:24] I guess the main thing there is that the status quo kind of stays because they're currently
[22:29] pumping groundwater that additional supplier brings, supposed to essentially reduce that.
[22:34] By getting rid of it, you're going to continue to pump that groundwater in us, the GRD would
[22:38] have to replenish.
[22:40] So the status quo would continue.
[22:42] That makes sense.
[22:43] That's a good way of putting it.
[22:45] Thank you.
[22:46] Did I have another question?
[22:47] Just want to make sure on Senate Bill 11, 14, they talk about analysis of a sure water supply
[22:53] and also a PAD physical availability.
[22:55] Can you explain the difference between those two?
[23:00] Often, actually, I don't have my notes that describes that.
[23:03] I'm going to have to read one of my colleagues, specifically, highlight the definition
[23:07] about of a pad versus an analysis.
[23:09] I know it's a earlier part of the process, but I'm afraid I'm going to explain it.
[23:13] That's the specific difference.
[23:15] Reason I'm asking.
[23:16] It's such a large number and such an impact in GRD.
[23:19] I think we're a lot of us are familiar with analysis.
[23:21] of sure water supply but the PADs, I really didn't know where they were or why they're such
[23:26] a large impact.
[23:28] I think a good morning for the record, Laura Grignano, C.A.G.R.D. manager, and Chair Taylor,
[23:36] I don't know the technical difference between the two but I do know that the analysis
[23:41] does reserve fiscal availability in the model whereas the pad does not. And I can look
[23:50] those differences up and give you a fuller definition in a few minutes if you'd like.
[23:56] But I do know that the analysis does reserve fiscal availability in the model, but the
[24:02] pad does not.
[24:03] And that's the big difference.
[24:05] And the Senate bill is going to combine them together.
[24:07] Both of them would be allowed to be built.
[24:09] Yes, sir.
[24:11] Right.
[24:11] Thank you.
[24:13] And I just hit one other question.
[24:15] for Dr. Miller of the spot on House of the 2753 and others of men's on it. Do you have any thoughts
[24:21] surge? Do you want to go over anything on that? That's fine. I'll just, uh, we're okay with the
[24:29] amendments. They don't really affect the legislation itself. We just need to have Penal added in there
[24:37] and if the home builders' association feels like they have to have an amendment on there that
[24:42] makes them feel better, anything to get panel's name and head to the legislation, that's
[24:48] what we're at.
[24:49] And it doesn't, in fact, us, but it is important that if we're the eight odds happens to
[24:56] take place in Penalty with probably Arizona.
[25:00] Water, we will need this mechanism in place, so that's why we're for it. Okay, does that make sense?
[25:07] Okay, thank you.
[25:10] Thank you.
[25:11] It's on. Thank you, Director Miller. Any other questions or comments for you go to the federal?
[25:17] No? Okay.
[25:20] Mr. Ray will go on to agenda item, that was if for item two.
[25:24] So we go to agenda item three report possible consideration of action on a recommendation of board regarding federal issues can the impact CAP go ahead Mr. Gray.
[25:37] So I'll start off. Obviously board members have heard of the passing of Congressman Roe Gralva earlier this this past month.
[25:46] As you know, the Congress has been chair of the House National Resources Committee from
[25:51] 2019 to 2023, serve as ranking member for a number of years and two different segments
[25:56] from 2015 to 2019 and 2023 to 2025.
[26:00] He was chair during the DCP timeframe when that passed, and it certainly has been someone
[26:08] that we've been able to communicate with and work with during his time in Congress, so obviously
[26:13] wishing his family condolences during this time.
[26:17] But there's also with the passing initiates a process
[26:22] at the state level for the election to fill that seat.
[26:27] And so on the screen, you'll see the dates for that.
[26:30] The primary election will be July 15th.
[26:33] General election on September 23rd.
[26:36] We've heard at least two.
[26:38] It was multiple individuals that have announced
[26:40] to see, but two in particular, former State Legislator, and also well as his daughter,
[26:45] Kennedy Supervisor, have announced. So again, we'll continue to keep you a prize once the
[26:50] outcome of that election takes place in July and in September for the time being,
[26:56] that obviously that seats obviously vacant during that time frame.
[27:03] Is there a graph?
[27:06] This is just kind of a fun fact that I wanted to share with the passing of the Congressman
[27:13] And obviously this board has always been very supportive and appreciated of the Congressman's
[27:19] interaction with us and his staff.
[27:22] And I know this is unrelated, but his, his, I believe it is his great niece has just been
[27:30] re-elected as a student body president at the University of Arizona at her name's Adriana
[27:36] Graholva.
[27:36] So if you interact with the Associated Students down there or have that opportunity, it's just
[27:44] out of this very sad news, it's also really encouraging and quite neat that his family is
[27:50] continuing to have these leadership roles in Arizona. So she will be one of the few that has
[27:55] had two terms of student body president at the University of Arizona. So just just a fun fact I want to
[28:00] So,
[28:06] we've update on the state budget, are they seeming the federal budget.
[28:11] The previous continuing resolution was set to expire last month, and the Congress became
[28:18] very, very close to having a potential government shutdown, but ultimately, a deal was
[28:23] reached that was signed by the President and needed to have triggered the closure vote in
[28:32] the U.S. Senate in order for this to happen, but ultimately the bill did pass, funded the federal
[28:39] government through the end of September. And what you'll see is a process again just through the CR to
[28:47] appropriate monies for the agencies at the end of the federal fiscal year, and then the normal
[28:51] consideration of appropriations bills afterwards. So it's the will no longer have a dual track of a CR,
[28:59] And the following year is a preparation bill moving at the same time, which always is a challenge
[29:04] of two different budget processes moving potentially at the same time.
[29:09] But we'll keep you a prize of the water-related implications in particular, reclamation
[29:15] really implications to the federal budget, no specific updates yet or to date on that still
[29:21] very early in the preparation process for the following fiscal year.
[29:26] But, again, positive news is that there is a CR that does fund the federal government through
[29:30] the end of September and no additional risks of a government shutdown during that time
[29:37] frame.
[29:40] One final item, I do have one additional item on a hearing nomination hearing that took place yesterday
[29:46] morning early after this, but I do in a highlight, we included in your Britain material.
[29:52] But the Northern Northeastern Arizona Indian water rights settlement act of 2025 was reintroduced
[29:58] uh... led by many hard
[30:00] The delegation on the House and the Senate side, the bill was reintroduced as we call, we have a support position on this, similar to the MSCP legislation from last Congress.
[30:09] And I just wanted to highlight though that the bill had been, or the bills, I should say, dual introductions on the House and the Senate side have been reintroduced on on this related, related issue.
[30:21] And the final item I'll mention is that Kate McGregor did have her hearing yesterday in the Senate Natural Resources, energy and natural resources committee hearing.
[30:32] Senator Ruben Gaego from Arizona, since the committee did ask her a couple of questions related
[30:37] to the Colorado River and Glen Canyon Dam, similar to the questions he asked, the Secretary
[30:43] as well, but very, very similar with some versions of those will forward out typically.
[30:49] I'll show the video, but I've given the fact that it just happened less than 24 hours ago.
[30:54] We're able to get that uploaded, but we'll send you out the links to that so you can watch
[30:59] that if you, if you would like. So without Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks on federal
[31:05] issues. I'm happy to answer any questions on this or any other related issues.
[31:11] It's a little delay in the service. Any questions or comments?
[31:16] No. I did want to, I'm trying
[31:19] to remember MSCP. That was already reintroduced. What is the status of that right now?
[31:24] It has not been heard yet. It's just been reintroduced, but the bill has not been heard yet
[31:29] committee. Okay, great. Nothing else for this? Okay. Well, thank you, Mr. Ray. Appreciate all
[31:36] your help. Everything that you guys do. We'll go on to item number four public comment.
[31:42] Do we have any requests to speak? This is Casey. Mr. Chair, we do not. All right. With that,
[31:47] we'll go to German. Yep. With no further business to come before the committee this meeting is adjourned.
[31:52] Thanks, everybody.