Bills advancing in the Legislature would authorize counties and municipalities in Arizona’s rural areas to restrict construction of new subdivisions that don’t have assured long-term water supplies.
The Senate Natural Resources on Feb. 14 voted 4-3 for one bill (S1575) after changes were made to accommodate property rights supporters. A House committee approved a similar bill (H2693) on Feb. 5.
Dealing only with rural areas currently not part of the five so-called “active management areas” where developers must demonstrate 100-year water supplies for their projects, both bills would allow local governments to impose new restraints on development because of water supply concerns. Those five AMAs are centered on Phoenix, Tucson, Pinal County, Santa Cruz County and Prescott.
The legislation is part of a package of measures supported by Gov. Janet Napolitano and her Water Resources Department as important for the state to handle its burgeoning population growth.
Guenther: Laws have loopholes
Current laws controlling water supplies in non-AMA areas are riddled with loopholes, said Water Resources Director Herb Guenther. “Nobody has the authority to require a water supply for development,” he said.
Coconino County Supervisor Elizabeth Archuleta agreed, saying her county lost three court cases on the issue in the 1980s.
“We do not have the authority right now to determine water in land use planning,” Archuleta said.
Under the Senate bill, a county board of supervisors by unanimous vote could withhold approval of a final plat for a proposed subdivision in a non-AMA area if the project doesn’t have an adequate water supply. Also, a county ordinance would apply to cities and towns in that county, but cities and towns could do their own ordinances even if their county doesn’t.
Supporters cast the bill as a consumer protection measure to help ensure that property buyers either get water or at least know that they’re not.
“It’s a start to make the system functional in rural Arizona and hopefully for those boards of supervisor or towns or cities that would choose to adopt this, it would give them the opportunity to do good prior planning before they allow development,” Guenther said.
The Senate committee deleted a provision that would have allowed a property buyer to void a purchase within two years if lack of onsite water wasn’t disclosed on transaction documents. Instead, lots needing hauling of water from off the property would have to be stated on the deed.
That was a vital compromise that reduces opposition to the bill, said committee Chairman Jake Flake, R-5. “It’s what will bring the people on board,” he said.
Tom Farley, lobbyist for the Arizona Association of Realtors and a northern Arizona builders group, agreed and said approval of an ordinance by a local government wouldn’t necessarily mean that all development projects would have to have adequate water supplies. In many cases, projects could go forward as long as there is disclosure, he said.

Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.