Key Points:

• Lawmakers say they are committed to new rural groundwater management policy 

• Two attempts to establish a regulatory framework stalled last session

• Residents are growing frustrated with legislative inaction

State lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have vowed to continue addressing the depletion of groundwater in rural areas after attempts to pass a regulatory framework stalled during the last legislative session.

Legislators introduced multiple bills that would’ve enacted restrictions on groundwater pumping in rural basins, but the measures were ultimately derailed by disagreements over the extent of regulation needed to preserve groundwater in the mostly unregulated areas.

While lawmakers continue to debate how much pumping should be reduced and juggle the interests of various stakeholders, residents and local lawmakers in rural areas have grown increasingly frustrated with the Legislature’s inaction.

“It should be important to the whole state to keep Arizona strong, not just the urban areas, but all of Arizona strong,” said Mohave County Supervisor Travis Lingenfelter. “And to do that, we have to have certainty in our water.”

The state hasn’t approved a groundwater management plan since lawmakers created the Groundwater Management Act of 1980, which established Active Management Areas covering mostly urban areas of the state.

However, rural areas have remained largely unprotected from excessive groundwater pumping as various proposals introduced throughout the years have stalled, with some not even receiving a committee hearing in either the Senate or the House.

Two major measures were introduced last session that aimed to establish a framework for managing groundwater in the depleted basins.

Sen. Tim Dunn, R-Yuma, introduced Senate Bill 1520, which would’ve created Basin Management Areas and imposed a series of restrictions intended to preserve groundwater in Gila Bend, Hualapai Valley and the Willcox Groundwater Basin. 

The legislation would’ve repealed the Willcox Active Management Area, which was established to preserve the existing groundwater supply in the Willcox Basin, and converted it into a Basin Management Area.

However, the bill stalled in the final weeks of the legislative session after Dunn and other stakeholders failed to come to an agreement during negotiations.

An update from the Arizona Department of Water Resources on the draft management goals for the Willcox Active Management Area also delayed progress on the bill after officials asked if Dunn’s measure could align with those goals, he said last month.

However, Dunn said he’s still committed to working with stakeholders to develop a framework that’s better than the current options available to rural communities.

“I believe Arizona needs a better tool than the existing AMA and (Irrigation Non-Expansion Area) options for groundwater management,” Dunn said in a statement. “We have made progress with a wide group of stakeholders at the table hearing their concerns and goals. All basins should not be treated the same.”

Another set of twin bills introduced earlier this session by Sen. Priya Sundareshan, D-Tucson, and Rep. Chris Mathis, D-Tucson, would’ve also enacted groundwater preservation measures in certain rural areas.

The legislation, dubbed the Rural Groundwater Management Act, would’ve created Rural Groundwater Management Areas in the Gila Bend Basin, Hualapai Valley Basin, Ranegras Plain Basin, and San Simon Sub-basin. The Willcox AMA would’ve been converted to a Rural Groundwater Management Area.

However, the measures never received a hearing, despite being touted as bipartisan by the governor and a group of Republican rural lawmakers, including Lingenfelter of Mohave County.

Sundareshan said she would continue to pursue rural groundwater management reform, although any bill she introduces will probably look different than this year’s legislation.

“It will probably take a different form because the bill that we had introduced this year was reflective of the negotiations that we thought the Republican legislators wanted to see,” she said.

She said she hopes to work directly with rural residents, small farmers and rural Republican elected officials to better understand what needs must be addressed to gain support for future legislation.

“We’ll continue to have this conversation because the need hasn’t gone away,” she said.

Sundareshan and Mathis’ legislation would’ve proposed up to a 40% reduction in groundwater pumping over 40 years, although the cuts would have been incremental and started at a lower rate, while Dunn’s legislation would reduce pumping by 10% — 1% each year — within 10 years of the formation of a Basin Management Area.

Critics of Dunn’s proposal said the bill didn’t do enough to reduce groundwater pumping and would continue to benefit large farming corporations. Those who disagreed with Sundareshan’s and Mathis’ proposals stated the legislation called for groundwater reductions that could hurt the agricultural industry.

Lingenfelter initially supported the Democratic proposal but was hoping to negotiate a groundwater pumping reduction within a 20-25% range, he said.

“We were hoping that the senators and the representatives would get together, they would bring some of us that are stakeholders to the table, along with working with the governor’s staff, negotiate something that would be in between their bills that everybody could live with,” he said. “And then that would actually be the version that would get passed. But that didn’t happen. We had, I think, two meetings the whole session, and that’s really it.”

The Department of Water Resources designated the Hualapai Valley Groundwater Basin in Mohave County as an Irrigation Non-Expansion Area, which places limits on the expansion of irrigated lands.

But the restrictions have done little to stem the flow of groundwater pumping in the area.

Lingenfelter said an ideal framework for his county would include a council appointed by state lawmakers with members who reflect the local economy.

There would also be no certificated water rights, limited government involvement, measures to prevent corporate interests from taking over basins, and technical assistance from the Department of Water Resources, he said.

Conservation targets would have to be customized to the specific basin, he said.

“Anything that’s required on the management plan would not be some sort of formulaic, one-size fits-all type of thing,” Lingenfelter said.