Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Drinking Water Rule 25 32 topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee flags notice error, approves DES drinking-water rule 25 32

JELCAR · November 21, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Staff told the committee the published notice for drinking-water rule 25 32 said 'no existing requirements were being changed' but the agency removed duplicative provisions in the final proposal; DES said affected entities were notified and hearings held and the committee approved the rule by voice vote.

Staff presented Department of Environmental Services rule 25 32 and told the committee that the published notice accompanying the final proposal incorrectly stated that 'no existing requirements were being changed' even though the agency deleted duplicative language from the final rule text. Staff outlined three options: issue additional notice, postpone for more notice, restore the deleted language, or approve as presented.

Aaron Johnson of DES responded that the deleted requirements still exist elsewhere in the rules and that the department presented the changes to the water council and regulated entities and held public hearings. "We had the public hearing for the 7 20 rules...we had an additional public hearing for the rules for, specifically drinking water 8 0 3," Johnson said, and acknowledged the notice might have better described the amendments as "minor amendments" rather than "no amendments," but maintained the public had been notified.

Committee members raised concerns that the general public impacted by such notices may not know where to look and that an incorrect summary could make it harder for the public to feel heard. One representative said their inclination was to hold another noticed hearing to increase participation. Staff and agency witnesses agreed the actual substantive requirements for applicants remained unchanged because duplicative provisions were relocated rather than eliminated.

Representative Lynn moved to approve rule 25 32, seconded by Representative Maguire. The motion carried by voice vote. Committee discussion and the agency's explanation were entered into the record.