In 1980, Arizona’s Groundwater Management Act identified 2025 as the year that the state’s three largest urban areas would balance the amount of groundwater withdrawn and replenished from the state. In 2025, lawmakers are still struggling to compromise on groundwater management, and those three urban areas are still nowhere near their goal.

The Groundwater Management Act was created to address severe groundwater overdrafts and provide a framework for its responsible allocation throughout the state. It created four active management areas and established the Arizona Department of Water Resources.

Kathleen Ferris, a water policy expert who served as the executive director of the Arizona Groundwater Study Commission, helped craft the Groundwater Management Act in 1980. In a recent interview, she reflected on the landmark legislation, the goals it set and whether or not lawmakers today could pass similar legislation.

“In hindsight, of course, you always think, ‘Well, I wish we would have done this or that,” Ferris said. “I wish we would have had more tools to reduce groundwater overdraft.”

The Groundwater Management Act paved the way for groundwater policy in Arizona and throughout the country. Ferris called the legislation “remarkable.” But with the benefit of 45 years of experience, Ferris now acknowledges that there are parts of the legislation she wishes she could change. 

One such change, Ferris said, would be giving the Arizona Department of Water Resources enough tools to reduce groundwater pumping by the new semiconductor and artificial intelligence industries.

“We only gave the Department of Water Resources really a few tools, primarily mandatory conservation requirements, but those haven’t reduced the cutbacks that are needed to achieve safe yield,” Ferris said. 

Closing the safe-yield gap

One of the primary goals for the Phoenix, Prescott and Tucson Active Management Areas, created by the Groundwater Management Act, was to achieve “safe-yield” by 2025. Safe-yield is the long-term balance between the amount of groundwater withdrawn in the AMA and the amount of recharge. 

None of those three AMAs have achieved safe-yield in 2025. Ferris said that goal felt attainable when the legislation was being crafted, but leaders could not have anticipated the changes in  Arizona’s water needs over the last half-century.

“I think it felt achievable at the time,” Ferris said. “It was a long-range goal, 45 years, five management plans, but I don’t think that we anticipated the extraordinary growth that has taken place in central Arizona, and I don’t think we anticipated climate change.”

Another unanticipated change came from the Colorado River, which provides a separate source of water to much of Arizona. As the seven states that share Colorado River water renegotiate the terms of their agreement, the river is in danger of running dry, and there’s a chance that Arizona will face cuts from its share. 

Ferris said those involved in drafting the Groundwater Management Act believed they could rely on Colorado River water, but cuts could force the state to use groundwater when there isn’t enough to go around. Currently, anyone leasing or selling land in an AMA must demonstrate that there is enough water to sustain the development for 100 years. Ferris said that isn’t enough anymore. 

“[We can’t] think that we can just pump groundwater and say, ‘Well, we’ve got it for 100 years, and that’s good enough,’” Ferris said. “Look at how fast 45 years has gone. I mean, for me, it’s really quite remarkable. One hundred years is a blink of an eye.” 

Looking 100 years ahead

Today’s lawmakers will spend yet another legislative session attempting to address groundwater issues, but the conflicts that have plagued their progress only persist. 

Lawmakers, the Governor’s Office and stakeholders have not come to a consensus on the best way to address depleting groundwater in rural areas of the state. Several proposals have been put forward over the years, but none with as much significance as the original Groundwater Management Act have made it into law. 

This session, Gov. Katie Hobbs worked with legislative Democrats and city and county leaders from both parties to introduce the Rural Groundwater Management Act, which mimics the original legislation. It would create Rural Groundwater Management Areas, similar to AMAs, emphasizing local control.

Rural Groundwater Management Areas would be more flexible than AMAs, given that much of the groundwater used in rural areas is needed for farming. However, despite the bipartisan support from city and county leaders, Republicans in the Legislature are not so supportive of the idea.

Ferris said she has not been involved in the Rural Groundwater Management Act, but offered some advice for lawmakers who are trying to create solutions through policy.

“My primary advice is to stop allowing new uses on groundwater,” Ferris said. “It’s unsustainable, and we have to figure out ways to make what we’ve got more sustainable and find out how we can stretch those supplies.” 

Ferris said she thinks it’s unlikely that legislation like the original Groundwater Management Act could make it through the Legislature today.

“We had a really sort of special few years leading up to the Groundwater Management Act, with a Legislature that wasn’t terribly partisan, and elected leaders who worked together, even if they were on different sides of the aisle,” Ferris said. 

She highlighted the participation of leaders like Alfredo Gutierrez, Burton Barr, Stan Turley and former Gov. Bruce Babbitt. In the years leading up to and after the Groundwater Management Act, Gutierrez, a Democrat, served as a leader of the Arizona Senate, Barr as Republican majority leader and Turley as president of the Senate.

Ferris said they all made a concerted effort to pass the legislation, and though lawmakers today are also making efforts, she hasn’t seen anything like the kind of effort that happened in 1980. 

“It was a different era,” Ferris said. “I just haven’t seen that kind of momentum and that kind of spirit of, ‘we need to get something done and we’re all trying to do something. Not the same thing, but we’re pushing toward the same goal.’”