Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: ADWR

Lawmakers bicker with Hobbs over groundwater supply

Key Points 
  • Republican lawmakers say they don’t know how much groundwater Arizona has
  • The governor and Department of Water Resources disagree with that assertion
  • Water policy experts worry about recent attacks on ADWR and its data collection

How much groundwater does Arizona have? The answer you get could depend on who you ask.

Lawmakers, stakeholders and water advocates are beginning to squabble over how much groundwater remains in the state and are already unable to agree on how to replenish or protect it.

In recent months, Republican lawmakers and conservative groups have resisted claims from Gov. Katie Hobbs and the Arizona Department of Water Resources about the state’s groundwater supply. In December, three Republicans in the Legislature sent a letter to ADWR asking simply, “how much water do we have?”

In a press release sent in March after ADWR responded to the Legislature’s letter, Rep. Gail Griffin, R-Hereford, said the response was not comprehensive enough and argued that “lawmakers are not receiving a clear picture” of groundwater in rural basins. Griffin, who represents a largely rural district in the state, said the response was not comprehensive enough.

“What good is a water budget if we don’t know how much is in our bank account?” Griffin said in a statement released in March. A spokesperson for the Arizona House Republican caucus did not respond to a request for comment on Griffin’s behalf. 

The Goldwater Institute and the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona went so far as to accuse Hobbs and ADWR of manufacturing a crisis, saying the Hobbs administration’s water policy agenda is predicated on a “deeply inaccurate and flawed claim that Arizona is running out of water.”

The two entities filed lawsuits against ADWR earlier this year, arguing that the department’s rules regarding assured water supplies for residential developments were implemented illegally and are contributing to the housing shortage in the Phoenix area. 

Hobbs and ADWR have firmly denied the claims made by Goldwater and the HBACA and also disagree with the recent characterization of the state’s water situation by lawmakers like Griffin.

“We have hydrogeological experts at ADWR that are doing this work, and I don’t see any of those experts in the Legislature,” Hobbs said during a press conference on April 22. 

One water policy expert says bickering over the state’s water supply does not change the fact that it is being used up faster than it can be replenished.

“The question really isn’t, are we running out of groundwater? I think the question is, are we protecting this finite resource for a sustainable future?” said Kathleen Ferris, one of the architects of the 1980 Groundwater Management Act and a former ADWR director.

Ferris said determining groundwater levels requires money, time and staffing which ADWR has not always been well equipped to provide.

“If people think that they need more data from the department then they need to fund the department so that the department has the staff in order to develop that data,” Ferris said. 

In January, Hobbs announced that ADWR would receive $5.5 million in federal funds for hydrogeologic studies that would help the state better understand its groundwater situation. Griffin introduced a bill this session to require the department to provide more data in its periodic supply-and-demand assessments of each groundwater basin in the state but did not attach a funding mechanism to the legislation.

Hobbs vetoed the bill on April 18, calling it and other groundwater bills from Griffin “political cover” for the Legislature’s failure to take meaningful action on rural water usage. 

“We are currently negotiating an alternative framework for rural groundwater management, and I will not entertain any rural groundwater legislation that is outside the context of those negotiations,” Hobbs wrote in her veto letter. 

She told reporters at a press conference on April 22 that she is looking for comprehensive legislation similar to the original Groundwater Management Act, which took three years to negotiate.

“The bills that I vetoed … didn’t do anything meaningful,” Hobbs said. “They weren’t going to solve the problems of homeowners or farmers in Wilcox. And we’re committed to staying at the table. We’re in year two. Let’s continue to work to get it done.” 

With groundwater conversations already fractious and often unproductive, Ferris said she is worried that disputes over the details could derail much needed reform efforts.

“I haven’t seen this kind of attack historically on the Department of Water Resources, both by the home builders and the Goldwater Institute, (and) by the Republican leadership and the House of Representatives,” Ferris said. “To me, that is so discouraging. The department was established in 1980 with the Groundwater Management Act and it is our technical expert on groundwater and we need to respect that and not turn it into a political football.”

Legal complications pile up against state agency’s water requirement for new developments

Homebuilders are asking a judge to void what they are calling an illegal “tax” they have to pay to get permission to build in certain areas around Phoenix and in Pinal County, a levy they say will drive up already high home prices.

The lawsuit filed March 10 alleges the state Department of Water Resources lacks the legal authority to tell them that if they want to build they have to show their water provider has access to not just the water they need for the next 100 years, but another 33% on top of that.

Attorney Andrew Gould said that runs contrary to state law which requires only proof that they have the water for their own specific project. And he said even if that were legal — a point he does not concede — that 33% “is not defensible, lacks rationale, and is unsupported by the acceptable data.”

But even if the Homebuilders Association of Central Arizona prevails in this action and the additional “tax” is voided, that doesn’t end the dispute.

The organization already has separate litigation against the state over the way the Department of Water Resources is implementing the rules that govern when development can occur. That case, filed in January, has yet to have a hearing.

All this has exploded not just in the courthouse but also at the Capitol as legislative Republicans who have joined the homebuilders in this lawsuit have accused the agency — and Gov. Katie Hobbs who is over it — of acting in ways that will drive up the already high price of housing by making it harder to build new homes. Hobbs, for her part, said the department is simply following the law and ensuring the long-term supply of groundwater.

What’s behind both lawsuits is the 1980 Groundwater Code. It says that for affected areas of the state identified as “active management areas” there has to be a finding that there is a 100-year supply of water for any development.

Existing and private water companies are currently presumed to have their own 100-year supply. So there is no additional requirement on those who want to build within their service areas.

But Tom Buschatzke, director of the Department of Water Resources, reported in 2023 that a newly completed analysis of the groundwater in the basin along the fringes of the Phoenix area shows there simply won’t be enough to provide the legally required 100-year supply of water in those areas.

That specifically includes much of Queen Creek that doesn’t have its own 100-year certificate of assured water supply.

The same is true of a large swath of Buckeye. And then there are large unincorporated areas, all of which Buschatzke said the modeling shows cannot be guaranteed enough groundwater beneath them to support the development for 100 years.

In filing suit in January, the association said the modeling is flawed.

But they also specifically objected to a provision that says if there is a well anywhere inside of the “active management area” that will go dry within 100 years — not just the one that is proposed to serve the development, then the builder cannot get the required certificate to begin construction.

All that provoked an outcry among developers and criticism of Hobbs by Republican lawmakers.

Since the original problem was identified, the Department of Water Resources has crafted what has been billed as a potential solution to that problem of groundwater shortages in the Phoenix and Pinal “active management areas.”

It says that water providers can make up for the lack of available groundwater — and the construction projects in their area can be approved — if they obtain what the agency calls “new alternative water supplies.” That can include effluent, surface water, allocations from the Central Arizona Project and water transported from elsewhere.

Buschatzke, in a statement late March 10, defended the rules and said that they do not impose a tax on developers. Instead, he said, they provide an alternate path for water providers to be designated as having an assured water supply without demonstrating the physical availability of groundwater through an acceptable model.

But Gould, the attorney representing the homebuilders, said that is not an acceptable solution.

He said that to take advantage of the rules require the water provider who intends to serve the development to secure an additional 33% of this alternative water supply “beyond the needs of the applicant’s proposed use.” All that, Gould said, is arbitrary.

“That ADWR has no model or study that it could cite to is ultimately unsurprising,” he wrote. “ADWR has publicly admitted that its number presents a political compromise, rather than the product of any defensible rulemaking.”

And then there’s the legal issue.

“It is not the job of ADWR to make political compromises,” Gould said. “That is the Legislature’s responsibility.”

So far, though, state lawmakers have not approved any plan to either alter the 100-year requirements in the Groundwater Code or any sort of exceptions.

Even if they did, Hobbs has said she will not sign piece-meal changes to the state’s water laws but instead is looking for a comprehensive plan that deals with current availability problems while not endangering future supplies.

Gould has another legal argument.

What is happening here, Gould said, is the water department is requiring water providers to find that additional 33% supply of water — presumably at some cost — as a condition for developers to be able to build on their own property.

The homebuilders are not alone in filing suit against the Department of Water Resources. They were joined by House Speaker Steve Montenegro and Senate President Warren Petersen, both Republicans — and both critics of Hobbs and the agency under her direction.

What gives them standing, according to the lawsuit, is arguing that the department has exceeded its authority and tread into the area reserved for the Legislature. Montenegro, in a prepared statement, said the agency “has gone rogue.”

But he also took a partisan slap at the department and its actions, accusing it of mounting “a direct attack on hardworking Arizona families who will see the price of new homes increase by thousands.”

No date has been set for a hearing

45 years after the Groundwater Management Act, one of its architects reflects on the landmark legislation

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.”

Kathleen Ferris

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.’”

How one Yuma farmer sees Arizona’s water future

A group of agriculture workers package heads of cauliflower on a farm in Yuma, the nation’s primary producer of leafy greens and other vegetables in the...

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

ADWR completes Kingman area ‘basin sweep’

A team of Arizona Department of Water Resources field researchers recently finished a two-month-long “basin sweep” in the northwestern part of the state, intensively evaluating the...

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

Fondomonte well rejection will have limited impact

The Arizona Department of Water Resources has withdrawn a pair of well-drilling permits it had issued last year to a Saudi-owned farming company that operates in...

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

Cooperation is imperative to protect our water

Arizonans have a history of putting partisanship aside and finding common ground when it comes to resolving our water disputes. With vision and leadership, we have created a thriving economy...

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

You don't have credit card details available. You will be redirected to update payment method page. Click OK to continue.