U.S. Water News Online
PHOENIX -- A quarter of a century after Arizona lawmakers passed a historic law to regulate groundwater use in urban areas, those legislators' successors are preparing to take on the contentious issue again.
Lawmakers this time are focusing on areas long regarded as rural but now increasingly strained by population growth, either right in their own back yards or because nearby urban areas are competing for scarce water amid stubborn drought conditions.
"We're finally saying that something has to be done," said Patrick Call, a Cochise County supervisor who worked on a statewide water task force that called for action. "We didn't have this sort of growth 10 years ago."
Bills advancing in the Legislature this session include measures to permit local governments to place new restrictions on development in areas lacking adequate water supplies and to help areas short on water find ways to pay for augmenting supplies.
But like most things associated with water in this mostly desert state, it's not been smooth sailing for those bills and others.
While supporters say the various proposals are long overdue, critics say some of the measures could tread on the rights of voters and property owners.
The 1980 groundwater law that imposed new pumping restrictions on Phoenix, Tucson and certain other parts of the state was a hard-fought compromise between cities, farmers and other interests, and a key legislator in the current effort said there are similar dynamics at play today.
"Arizona is notoriously independent, and especially rural Arizona is notoriously independent, but at this point we have recognized with growth and private property rights that we hold dear that we need to regulate and protect our natural resources," said Rep. Lucy Mason, R-Prescott.
Arizona is the nation's fastest growing state. While approximately four of every five current and future residents will live in the Phoenix and Tucson metro areas, smaller cities and towns also are facing strains from that population growth.
In parts of eastern and northern Arizona, residents have to truck in water. Elsewhere, there are fears groundwater pumping could dry up streams and rivers.
"Growth is causing a need for some better management tools in rural areas," said Sen. Marsha Arzberger, a Willcox Democrat who is sponsoring a bill that is the cornerstone of the legislative effort.
Arzberger's bill would let rural counties and municipalities hinge their approval of new subdivisions on whether they have assured water supplies.
The bill has been awaiting a final House vote since mid-March, when it was put on ice while lawmakers focused on other bills.
Though at least for now it wouldn't appropriate any state dollars, the primary companion bill would create a state fund to help communities pay for projects to augment water supplies.
"The last thing I want to see is the regulation (bill) go through without the fund," said Mason, chairman of the House Water and Agriculture Committee.
Also in the mix: newly unveiled and hotly debated House and Senate versions of a contentious proposal to create a new water district in the watershed of the San Pedro River, one of Arizona's few free-flowing rivers and site of a sensitive riparian area.
Supporters say action is needed to ensure Fort Huachuca, a major Army base in Sierra Vista, doesn't close because of concerns for enough water for the habitat.
"We have to do something and we have to do something now," said Herb Guenther, director of the state Department of Water Resources.
The San Pedro measures are controversial, in large part because of questions over whether the state should require voters to approve the district's creation and whether its future actions to round up new water supplies would put new costs on taxpayers to import water.
Mary Ann Black, a Sierra Vista real estate agent and member of a conservation district board, said state legislation isn't necessary because there are alternatives available to protect the aquifer.
"We know what we can do with recharge and storm water harvesting," Black said.
Meanwhile, Yavapai County Supervisor Carol Springer is urging other local officials to oppose Arzberger's subdivision bill.
Once a county or municipality declares subdivisions need an assured water supply, they can't reverse that decision down the road, she noted. "So much for local control over local ordinances."
Arzberger said it wouldn't be fair to a subdivision developer who bears the cost of finding an assured water supply if subsequent projects next door don't have the burden.
It was because of the gravity of such declarations that the bill requires a county's decision be by a unanimous vote of its supervisors, Arzberger said.
The Sierra Club criticizes the funding bill as merely a mechanism for fueling sprawl and the San Pedro measures as short on specifics to protect the river's flows.
"If you do a word search, it never says 'San Pedro River,"' said Sandy Bahr, a lobbyist for the environmental group.
Meanwhile, the Arizona Association of Realtors says lawmakers should be careful about what wording they include. Otherwise, they could give environmentalists a toehold to sue, said association lobbyist Tom Farley.
Rita Maguire, a former state water resources director under two Republican governors, acknowledged local officials will hear opposition from developers and others concerning the costs of water restrictions and supply projects.
But current residents of those areas need to weigh in because water shortages won't affect only newcomers, Maguire said. "People tend to forget that," she said. "It protects their existing water supply."
Return to the U.S. Water News Archives page Or Return to the U.S. Water News Homepage
Editor@uswaternews.com
*Your Name:
*Your Email:
*Friend's Email:
Use a comma to separate e-mail addresses:
*Your Comments:
Hi, I thought you might like to read this article.
*Required Fields