Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pinal Ama Assured Water Supply topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Caucus reviews changes to bill on assured water supply in Pinal AMA; senate removes some prohibitions
Summary
Members reviewed House Bill 2753, which concerns municipal providers' replenishment obligations and conditions for an assured water supply designation in the Pinal Active Management Area; Senate amendments narrowed the bill by removing prior prohibitions on ADWR and political subdivisions.
House Republican Caucus members reviewed House Bill 2753, which addresses municipal provider replenishment obligations and conditions for a certificate of assured water supply in the Pinal Active Management Area (AMA).
The bill, summarized by Vicente, originally would have prohibited the Department of Water Resources director or a political subdivision from requiring subdivision lot owners to pay or provide a water source to reduce groundwater demands incurred off the owner's parcel as a condition for receiving a certificate of assured water supply. The Senate removed those prohibitions; the revised bill allows municipal providers to retain replenishment obligations for member lands in the Pinal AMA.
Nut graf: The discussion centered on whether the Senate amendment sufficiently addressed concerns from the Department of Water Resources and environmental groups; caucus members were told some stakeholders remain opposed while DWR reported being satisfied with the amendment.
Vicente summarized the change: "As passed the house, House Bill 2,753 allowed a municipal provider that submits an application for a new designation of assured water supply in the Pinal AMA to elect for all parcels of member land in the municipal service area to retain a replenishment obligation for a certain period of time... The senate amended the bill to remove those prohibitions that I just mentioned. So now it just allows municipal providers to retain those replenishment obligations for member lands in the panel AMA."
During discussion, Vicente said the sponsor concurs with the current language and that DWR had concerns earlier but was satisfied after the Senate amendment; the Sierra Club remained opposed. A member asked whether home builders still opposed the bill; Vicente said he was not sure of the builders' current position.
No formal caucus action was taken; members indicated they might discuss nuances of the amendment further. The staff presenter said the sponsor concurred with the amendment and offered to answer further questions.
Ending: Members proceeded to adjourn after the three-bill review; caucus staff and sponsors may continue outreach with stakeholders before floor votes.
