A Senate panel approved on May 31 a contentious proposal to allow the formation of a new water district in the watershed of the San Pedro River in southern Arizona.
Backers of the bill say it is needed to ensure that water keeps flowing in the San Pedro River and that Fort Huachuca, a military base in the area, is kept open.
Senate Minority Leader Marsha Arzberger told the Senate Appropriations Committee that the fort came close to getting on the closure list of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. One of the reasons cited was concern that the fort was affecting water supply of the river, which is a federally designated riparian conservation area. The commission, she added, also cited that growth in the area was partly fueled by people retiring from the fort.
“It is a unique situation. It is about the fort,” she said.
The formation of the Upper San Pedro Water District is hinged on the approval of voters under the bill given a preliminary nod by members of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
In fact, this was a key element in the striker to H2300 offered by Sen. Jake Flake, R-5. The original bill is sponsored by Rep. Jennifer Burns, R-25. Senators who voted for the measure said they like its structure since it places the ball in the court of local people, who have to vote to create the district and vote to give that district the authority to levy taxes.
“It has to be a vote, vote, vote of the local people. Not a mandate, mandate, mandate from the state or from the federal government on their backs,” said Flake, a strong advocate for local control. The senator prefers that local communities, rather than the state, solve water problems.
The district would include Fort Huachuca, Sierra Vista, Tombstone, Huachuca City, and a portion of Bisbee located in the upper San Pedro groundwater basin.
The bill, one of several measures tackling the complex issues of growth and drought in the nation’s fastest growing state, authorizes the district to earn revenue through the sale of water or water rights, the issuance of bonds, and the acceptance of gifts, grants and donations.
Sen. Karen Johnson, R-18, is not convinced by arguments in favor of the bill. A water management district is supposed to be established only when a water crisis exists, she said, as she voted “no.” She is concerned over creating another taxing district and allowing that district to issue bonds.
Opponents of the bill said it just creates another layer of bureaucracy — a taxing entity — when conservation districts can already do what needs to be done to preserve the river without placing the burden on taxpayers.
“We don’t need this water district. We already have the tools that we need across the entire state … in order to manage our resources,” Mary Ann Black, a supervisor on the Hereford National Resources Conservation District Board, testified in committee.