Citizen Portal
Sign In

Committee reviews bill to create water‑quality study group, delays vote for edits

Natural Resources & Energy · February 24, 2026

Loading...

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

The Natural Resources & Energy committee reviewed S‑223, which would create an 11‑member study group to inventory classified waters, evaluate reclassification criteria and anti‑degradation obligations under the federal Clean Water Act (frozen to 2026‑01‑01 in testimony). The committee paused a vote to allow a brief rewrite.

The Natural Resources & Energy committee on Feb. 24 reviewed S‑223, a bill to create a water‑quality study group to inventory classified waters, identify high‑quality waters that may qualify for reclassification and assess the state's obligations under the federal Clean Water Act as of Jan. 1, 2026.

Legislative counsel told the committee the work group would include 11 members: two House members, two Senate members, the secretary of natural resources or a designee, a water‑quality scientist, two business representatives that interact with water‑quality permitting, two representatives from nonprofit environmental advocacy groups and one representative from a federation of lakes and ponds. Counsel described duties that include developing an inventory of classified waters, assessing anti‑degradation requirements and evaluating whether state statutes or rules need modification to support reclassification.

Counsel said the bill would require a report by Dec. 15, 2026; the first meeting would be called by the secretary of natural resources; a chair would be elected from among the legislators at the group's first meeting; and the group would sunset on Feb. 15, 2027. Counsel also described member compensation for up to eight meetings.

During discussion, members asked for a small reordering in the draft so regulatory certainty appears ahead of potential reclassification language. A committee member said the changes could be completed quickly but the group agreed to postpone the vote while staff finalized the edit. "So we'll hold off on on that vote for now," an unidentified committee member said.

No formal motion or recorded roll‑call vote took place on S‑223 during the session. The committee signaled willingness to take a contingent vote after the technical rewrite.

The committee will reconvene consideration of S‑223 after staff circulate the revised language and members have reviewed the changes.