Northern Gila County residents urge supervisors to join rural groundwater working group, flag SB1425 risks

Residents from northern Gila County urged the Board of Supervisors to engage with a statewide rural groundwater working group and to consider local protections after outlining concerns about pending legislation and the governor's stated plans for a "Rural Groundwater Management" approach.

Chris Ray, introduced as a resident and the first speaker, told the board that state authority over groundwater is broad and that recent moves — including an administration reference to a rural-groundwater act and the governor's use of executive orders — mean state-level decisions could affect local wells. "We... have to consider what Arizona State and our policies will actually do and might impact national security," Ray said, noting the state's interest in water for advanced manufacturing projects and other infrastructure.

Carolyn Epler, another resident presenter, identified Senate Bill 14 25 (referred to in testimony as SB1425) and the governor's announced "rural groundwater management act of 2025" as the day’s focus. Epler said many bills under consideration include provisions that could be harmful to Gila County because they were drafted with other counties' conditions in mind. She flagged several possible effects if the legislation is enacted or implemented by executive order: required measuring devices on residential wells that exceed thresholds, restrictions on sale or lease of water rights, and the creation of local councils with powers to set rules for a declared rural groundwater management area.

Presenters and supervisors discussed technical details the state uses to assess basins. Epler and others indicated the Department of Water Resources (DWR) relies on approximately 1,450 monitoring wells and satellite data; they cautioned that statewide median-based statistics can obscure local declines or spikes. Epler warned that a proposed monitoring threshold in the legislation would require measuring devices for wells producing more than 35 gallons per minute or more than 10 acre-feet per year and that counties with multiple residential wells could face new monitoring obligations.

Shirley Dye, another presenter, described the governance structure outlined in bill drafts and the potential for a local council to be formed after a petition of as little as 10% of a local voting population. She said councils could include representatives from irrigation districts, industry and municipalities and could have grant-making authority and regulatory power in a basin. Dye and other presenters recommended that the county consider steps such as: participating in the rural groundwater working group, establishing a Gila County research committee to analyze proposed legislation and impacts, and seeking statutory guardrails for sale/lease limits, appeal rights, and use of "best available science."

Board members asked questions about tribal sovereignty and monitoring coverage. One board member noted that some monitoring gaps exist on reservation lands and asked how that affects the state's data. Presenters said the DWR's datasets and well coverage vary across basins and cautioned that small sample sizes can mask local conditions.

Presenters urged supervisors to consider attending a March 4 working-group meeting at the state capital and to collaborate with neighboring rural counties already active in the group. No formal board action was taken during the meeting; presenters asked the board to consider participation and promised to provide further materials and invitations.