A controversial bill currently making its way through the Arizona Legislature would make it easier to transfer water rights from agricultural properties to housing subdivisions and would overturn the 2023 ban on using groundwater for new home developments in Pinal County and parts of metro Phoenix if those homes are built on farmland.
The Senate passed a far-ranging set of water legislation measures last week that will be taken up by the House in June.
A key consideration is the fact that residential developments use significantly less water than farming. Supporters say the legislation would enhance water conservation around the state. Opponents say the bill could reduce the effectiveness of the 1980 Groundwater Management Act and that there are no guarantees about water use savings.
The two sides differ significantly in their estimates of how much farmland would be converted and how much water would be saved.
What’s in the Bill?
Last June, the Arizona Department of Water Resources stopped issuing new 100-year Certificates of Assured Water Supply for portions of west metro Phoenix and in Pinal County based on results of a groundwater model that predicted shortfalls if all the planned development in the area took place.
Under current state law, developers can buy and retire farmland for conversion to subdivisions. They cannot, however, apply the groundwater savings from that conversion to meet the required 100-year assured water supply. Without that ability, there is little incentive to convert farmland to subdivisions.
The bill currently under consideration would let developers who convert farmland use two acre-feet of water per acre of a farm’s existing water rights toward the guaranteed supply requirements for 10 years. After that, they could apply 1.5 acre-feet.
The bill includes several items intended to make it more palatable to critics. New urban subdivisions resulting from converted farmland would have to replenish aquifers with renewable supplies to offset pumping. Developers building homes on farmland would also have to demonstrate to ADWR that the aquifer below their developments has enough water volume to be “physically available” for 100 years.
The bill is generally supported by developers, some water companies, area chambers of commerce, some economic development and agricultural land ownership groups, and the various municipalities where the current moratorium is in place.
Opponents include the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Action Fund and the Intertribal Association of Arizona, which represents 21 Native American Tribes.
The Arizona Municipal Water Users Association recently voted to change its earlier stance in opposition to one of neutrality.
Net Effects and Impacts are Uncertain
A key sticking point between supporters and opponents is uncertainty over how much land would be retired from farming uses and how much water would, or would not, be saved as a result. For the Phoenix area, three different savings estimates have been produced ranging from a low of 50,000 acre-feet up to 583,000 acre-feet.
Opponents also say the conversion would trade land that may or may not be used or abandoned over the next 100 years for a “permanent pumping situation” that could draw far more water over time with residential use versus agricultural.
One benefit of the bill is that it includes an actual study of the conserved water, which would reduce the uncertainty and firm up the inherently general nature of existing estimates.
What Else is in the Package
In addition to the farm-to-urban groundwater changes, the package includes several other components, including:
- Enhanced control over subdivisions of five homes or fewer.
- Establishing a 10-year hold on the requirement for some cities and private water companies in metro Phoenix to replenish aquifers to compensate for new pumping. That duty would be given to a three-county agency and benefit cities and water providers that gain new assured 100-year supply designations.
- Banning municipal water providers in urban areas for applying drinking water to ornamental turf in new developments or redevelopments and banning imposition of minimum requirements for turning in anything but recreational uses.
What’s Next for the Legislation?
Having passed the Senate, the House will take it up for consideration next month. If the bill passes there, it will go to Gov. Katie Hobbs for her signature or veto.
Hobbs’ office has declined to publicize her position, and she has not made any public statements as to whether she would sign or reject the measure. (Source)