Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Policy Amas topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Caucus hears a package of water‑policy bills on subsequent AMAs, wildcat subdivisions and temporary protections; members express divided views
Summary
A package of bills on subsequent active management areas, land division rules and groundwater protections prompted lengthy caucus discussion; sponsors said the measures would close loopholes and create review processes, while critics warned they could undercut recent voter actions and create uncertainty for farmers and rural communities.
A series of water bills drew extended discussion in caucus. Sponsor Vicente introduced multiple related measures addressing subsequent active management areas (AMAs), the Department of Water Resources’ review authority, and land‑division rules often described as responses to the so‑called "wildcat subdivision" loophole.
Representative Vicente summarized House Bill 20‑88 as requiring the DWR director to periodically review areas designated as subsequent AMAs and allowing the director to remove the subsequent‑AMA designation if statutory criteria are no longer met. House Bill 20‑89 would allow petitioning by eligible voters in a subsequent AMA (10% threshold) to trigger review and, if the director does not find the AMA necessary, require a county election on removal. Sponsors said the bills create review mechanisms for subsequent AMAs.
Members raised several objections. Representative Liguori said voters had recently approved inclusion in a subsequent AMA and that a post‑designation petition mechanism could undercut the will of local voters. Representative Ligori (and others) said in the 35–40 years of AMAs only initial AMAs have met statutory improvement goals, and so a 10‑year review or the proposed thresholds may be too short or could create instability for agricultural users.
Related bills that address land divisions and lot sales — HB 2,090, HB 2,091, HB 2,092, HB 2,093 and HB 2,094 — were presented together. Sponsors said these measures seek to close the ‘‘wildcat subdivision’’ loophole by clarifying when separate conveyances or staggered sales should be counted collectively for compliance with subdivision and Assured Water Supply requirements. One bill (HB 2,090) would limit the prohibition on acting in concert to a 10‑year period; others would change disclosure and affidavit requirements for small land sales, modify penalties to apply per affected lot, and alter the definition of contiguous parcels.
Members signaled mixed views. Some said the bills would help protect groundwater by limiting circumvention of assured‑water‑supply rules; others worried the bills moved hastily and could be at odds with the Governor’s Water Council guidance or local voters’ choices. Representative Sandoval noted that some bills had stakeholder support from groups such as the Arizona Association of Realtors and opposition from environmental groups like the Sierra Club. Representative Liguori opposed several bills due to concerns that expanding eligibility or changing look‑back periods (from five to ten years in some drafts) materially alters grandfathering rules.
Other measures discussed included HB 2,551 (extended application window for the Wilcox AMA grandfathered rights) and HB 25‑70 (establishing temporary non‑expansion areas with restrictions on new groundwater withdrawals and irrigation for 10 years). Representative Ligori cautioned against preemptive extensions that could delay farmers’ certainty about water rights; she said ADWR was actively working with local users and a blanket extension could unnecessarily prolong uncertainty.
Ending: Sponsors and critics did not reach a caucus consensus; members asked for more stakeholder input and cross‑committee coordination, especially with ADWR and county supervisors, before any final caucus position.
