Senate Natural Resources Committee advances bills on mining cleanup, groundwater, agriculture and energy; several receive do-pass recommendations

The Arizona Senate Natural Resources Committee on March 17, 2025 advanced a package of bills and memorials addressing mine cleanup and remediation, groundwater assessments and management, a produce-incentive appropriation, and energy planning. The committee issued do-pass recommendations or memorial endorsements on a set of measures the panel said respond to local contamination, water-supply questions and long-range energy planning.

The bills front-loaded by sponsors included House Bill 25-44, which would appropriate $957,175 and five full-time-equivalent positions for the Arizona Department of Agriculture’s animal services; House Bills 21-27 and 21-28 and House Concurrent Memorial 2007 responding to contamination and remediation at what speakers called the “Senator Mine” in Yavapai County; House Bill 22-71 directing expanded ADWR groundwater-basin assessments; House Bill 22-74 enabling a Cochise County special election on a domestic water improvement district in the Wilcox Groundwater Basin; House Bill 23-85 funding the state’s produce-incentive program; House Bill 25-73 on non-irrigation uses of groundwater (hydroponics and wine grapes); House Bill 27-69 transferring state sovereign land to Bullhead City for park use; House Bill 27-88 on integrated resource planning for electric utilities; and two memorials urging federal action on the San Carlos Irrigation Project (HCM 2009) and energy policy principles (HCM 2014), plus HCR 2051 on Yuma and Colorado River water rights.

Why this matters: Committee members described the package as a mix of local-response measures (mine cleanup, county-level water options) and statewide policy items (groundwater data, energy planning and utility oversight). Several measures drew detailed public testimony: residents and county staff described contamination and abandoned mine operations in Yavapai County; ADWR staff cautioned about technical limits to statewide basin quantification; and energy advocates and opponents debated a memorial that seeks federal attention to “only pay for what you get” reliability principles for power procurement.

Key bills and committee actions

House Bill 25-44 (Agriculture staffing): The bill would appropriate $957,175 and five FTE from the State General Fund in FY2026 to the Arizona Department of Agriculture for three livestock inspectors, one veterinary assistant and one veterinary technician; the sponsor offered a two‑page scope amendment (Schoep Amendment dated 03/17/2025). Rachel Andrews of the Arizona Department of Agriculture told the committee the department is “neutral on House Bill 25-44” and framed the request as a response to animal‑health crises, including avian influenza and detection in dairies. A representative of the Arizona Farm and Ranch Group said the industry supported staffing but had reduced the department’s original request to be a better steward of taxpayer dollars. The committee adopted the amendment and gave the bill a do-pass recommendation (final tally recorded as 6 ayes, 0 nays, 2 not voting).

House Bill 21-27 (Owner notice for hazardous-substance releases on qualifying property): Sponsored by Representative Selena Bliss (LD 1), the bill would require the owner of qualifying private property where there has been a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance to provide written notice to any prospective buyer, the director of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and the state mine inspector (if a mine or abandoned mine). Bliss said the legislation was prompted by contamination at several private mine sites in the Bradshaw Mountains that residents reported as inadequately managed by an out‑of‑state owner. Public testimony included Brenda Schultz, a Yavapai County resident, and Cynthia Gentle from Supervisor Mary Mallory’s office, who asked the committee to support the measure. ADEQ staff told the committee they are neutral on the bill and noted the matter is an active enforcement case in Arizona Superior Court. The committee voted to give HB 21-27 a do-pass recommendation (tally recorded as 8 ayes, 0 nays).

House Bill 21-28 (Prospective remediator agreements; ADQ authority): This bill would allow ADEQ to enter agreements with a prospective remediator who provides substantial funding or resources to perform remedial measures and would authorize ADEQ to provide a written release and covenant not to sue to that prospective remediator, subject to public notice and opportunity to comment. ADEQ testified it is neutral and described the bill as a state-level analog to recent federal Good Samaritan provisions that reduce liability barriers to third-party cleanups. The committee gave HB 21-28 a do-pass recommendation (8 ayes, 0 nays).

House Concurrent Memorial 2007 (Good Samaritan pilot): The committee also endorsed HCM 2007, which urges the State Mine Inspector and ADEQ to work with federal agencies and private partners to apply for the federal Good Samaritan Remediation of Abandoned Hard Rock Mines Act pilot. Supporters said the memorial complements HB 21-27 and HB 21-28; the committee recommended HCM 2007 (8 ayes, 0 nays).

House Bill 22-71 (ADWR supply and demand assessments): The bill directs the Arizona Department of Water Resources to include additional outlined data in five‑year supply and demand assessments for each groundwater basin (51 basins noted by ADWR staff). ADWR staff cautioned that some requested outputs would require complex, peer‑reviewed groundwater models and multi‑year staff efforts that are not feasible to produce for all basins. The committee gave HB 22-71 a do-pass recommendation after debate (final vote recorded as 4 ayes, 3 nays, 1 not voting).

House Bill 22-74 (Cochise County Wilcox DWID special election): The bill would allow the Cochise County Board of Supervisors to call a special election to ask Wilcox Basin residents in Cochise whether to create a domestic water improvement district with powers to deliver drinking water and build infrastructure to increase groundwater recharge. Sponsors said the measure provides a local tool for residents facing well‑head stress; some senators opposed it as a short‑term fix that does not address basin overpumping. The committee recommended the bill do pass (4 ayes, 3 nays, 1 not voting).

House Bill 23-85 (Produce incentive appropriation): The committee recommended do-pass for HB 23-85, which would appropriate $1,000,000 in FY2026 from the State General Fund to the Department of Economic Security to implement the state’s produce incentive program (known as Double Up Food Bucks). Witnesses from Pinnacle Prevention (Adrian Yu Darby) and the American Heart Association supported continued funding, noting the program reached more than 70,000 participants and operates statewide; program staff said current annual needs exceed $2,000,000 and requested multiyear funding if possible. Vote: 7 ayes, 0 nays, 1 not voting.

House Bill 25-73 (Non-irrigation groundwater uses; hydroponics and wine grapes): The bill would explicitly allow certain non-irrigation groundwater uses (hydroponic container-grown plants and wine grapes on certificated acres) without treating those uses as expansion of irrigation in Active Management Areas. Opponents, including the Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter and Creosote Partners, argued the bill would create a carve‑out that weakens the Groundwater Management Act and would encourage piecemeal exemptions; proponents argued it recognizes low-water, high-value crops. The committee recommended HB 25-73 do pass (4 ayes, 3 nays, 1 not voting).

House Bill 27-69 (Bullhead City state land transfer): The bill would transfer roughly 30.3838 acres of state sovereign land to Bullhead City for park and public recreation use, with a perpetual restriction that the land not be sold, exchanged or bartered. No public opposition was recorded; the committee recommended the bill do pass (7 ayes, 0 nays, 1 not voting).

House Bill 27-88 (Integrated resource plans; utility compensation metrics): HB 27-88 would require electric public service corporations to submit integrated resource plans (IRPs) to the Arizona Corporation Commission at least once every three years, require the commission to obtain an independent third‑party evaluation before approving or denying an IRP, and add a prohibition on compensation systems that measure employees’ or contractors’ performance by metrics that conflict with safe, reliable, affordable service. Supporters argued the bill sets minimum planning standards and independent review; opponents said the ACC already regulates IRPs and that the bill would politicize resource planning and could discourage clean‑energy investment. The committee recommended HB 27-88 do pass (5 ayes, 3 nays).

House Concurrent Memorial 2009 (San Carlos Irrigation Project divestment): The committee recommended HCM 2009, a memorial urging Congress to divest the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the San Carlos Irrigation Project’s electric system and to fund a system study and improvements. Testimony from electric cooperative representatives and local elected officials described high costs, inadequate hydropower from Coolidge Dam and recurring reliability problems for customers of the SCIP system. Vote: 8 ayes, 0 nays.

House Concurrent Memorial 2014 ("Only pay for what you get" energy principles): The committee recommended HCM 2014, a memorial urging the Arizona Corporation Commission and Congress to consider principles the sponsors described as ensuring ratepayers “only pay for what they get” from energy supplies. The memorial drew sharp debate: environmental and clean‑energy advocates said the memorial misstates cost and reliability data for renewables and would favor fossil fuels; supporters argued it would protect ratepayers from paying for non‑dispatchable capacity. Vote: 5 ayes, 3 nays.

House Concurrent Resolution 2051 (Protect Yuma agriculture and Colorado River rights): The committee gave a do‑pass recommendation to HCR 2051, a resolution expressing the legislature’s intent to protect Yuma agriculture and Arizona’s Colorado River water rights. Supporters said the resolution signals Arizona’s interest as interstate Colorado River negotiations proceed; opponents argued a statewide, balanced approach is required. Vote: 5 ayes, 3 nays.

Votes at a glance

- HB 25-44 (Agriculture staffing): amended and given do-pass recommendation (amendment adopted). Final tally: 6 ayes, 0 nays, 2 not voting. - HB 21-27 (Owner notice for hazardous releases): Do-pass recommendation. Final tally: 8 ayes, 0 nays. - HB 21-28 (Prospective remediator agreements): Do-pass recommendation. Final tally: 8 ayes, 0 nays. - HCM 2007 (Good Samaritan pilot): Do-pass recommendation. Final tally: 8 ayes, 0 nays. - HB 22-71 (ADWR basin assessments): Do-pass recommendation. Final tally: 4 ayes, 3 nays, 1 not voting. - HB 22-74 (Cochise—Wilcox DWID special election): Do-pass recommendation. Final tally: 4 ayes, 3 nays, 1 not voting. - HB 23-85 (Produce incentive appropriation $1,000,000 FY2026): Do-pass recommendation. Final tally: 7 ayes, 0 nays, 1 not voting. - HB 25-73 (Hydroponics/wine-grape groundwater carve‑out): Do-pass recommendation. Final tally: 4 ayes, 3 nays, 1 not voting. - HB 27-69 (State land transfer to Bullhead City): Do-pass recommendation. Final tally: 7 ayes, 0 nays, 1 not voting. - HB 27-88 (IRPs; independent evaluation; compensation limits): Do-pass recommendation. Final tally: 5 ayes, 3 nays. - HCM 2009 (San Carlos Irrigation Project divestment postcard): Do-pass recommendation. Final tally: 8 ayes, 0 nays. - HCM 2014 ("Only pay for what you get" memorial): Do-pass recommendation. Final tally: 5 ayes, 3 nays. - HCR 2051 (Protect Yuma agriculture/Colorado River rights): Do-pass recommendation. Final tally: 5 ayes, 3 nays.

What members and witnesses emphasized

- Local contamination and enforcement gaps: Representative Selena Bliss and multiple Yavapai County residents described private mine operations and tailings that they say contaminated Hassiampa (also spelled Hassamper/Haciampa in testimony) Creek and impacted private wells; they urged clearer notice and stronger remediation tools on private lands. - Technical limits on basin quantification: Arizona Department of Water Resources staff cautioned that some proposed additional basin outputs would require intensive groundwater modeling and multi‑year staff work and said simple depth‑to‑bedrock arithmetic is not reliable for quantifying aquifer volumes. - Tradeoffs in energy planning: Supporters of HB 27-88 and HCM 2014 argued independent review and tighter planning rules protect ratepayers and affordability; opponents said the ACC already regulates IRPs and warned that statutory micromanagement could chill clean‑energy investment and reduce transparency. - Food‑security and local agriculture: Produce‑incentive advocates urged continued funding of the Double Up Food Bucks program to support farmers and increase fresh‑produce access; witnesses said the program reached tens of thousands and that annual operating needs exceed the $1,000,000 appropriation in HB 23‑85.

What’s next

All measures that received do‑pass recommendations advance to further consideration by the full Senate. Several bills that were described as technical fixes or memorials had broad bipartisan support in committee; others (notably HB 22‑71 and HB 25‑73) passed after closer roll‑call divisions. Where committee members requested additional technical detail or amendments (for ADWR basin work and for the energy IRP language), staff and sponsors said they would continue discussions before floor action.

Ending

The committee concluded its calendar after completing the listed items and adjourning. Further floor scheduling and next‑step actions are set by Senate leadership and the Senate calendar office.