Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agricultural Water Rates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates agricultural water rates after CUC failed to adopt rules
Summary
Senate Bill 24-02 would set agricultural water rates for commercial farmers, ranchers and livestock producers; committee members and counsel said the statute authorizing a 25¢ per 1,000-gallon rate exists but CUC never promulgated implementing rules, and lawmakers pressed for cost analyses, PUC/CUC participation and infrastructure mapping.
Senate Bill 24-02, introduced to amend 4 CMC sections 81-82 and 81-83 and establish agricultural water-usage rates for commercial farmers, ranchers and livestock producers, drew wide debate about implementation, infrastructure access and which agency should set rates.
Senator Jude Hofschneider, a bill proponent in the committee, said the statute contains language on agricultural rates but agency action has been missing. “...the utility corporation never, promulgated the necessary rules at the time it was passed into law,” he said, explaining the bill adds livestock producers and clarifies obligations.
Committee counsel clarified there is currently no implemented rate because CUC never promulgated regulations: “There is no established rate yet. The original law gave CUC the authorization to establish. So they never…they opted not to establish the rates,” counsel told the panel. Members noted the text in the draft sets a 25¢ per 1,000-gallon rate where 24-hour water is available and a $25 monthly flat rate where continuous supply is not available; counsel and legislators said the draft would make the rate statutory unless CUC promulgates rules within a timeline the bill sets.
Lawmakers raised practical implementation questions. Representative Marissa Flores and others asked whether distribution infrastructure exists in parts of the Third Senatorial District and elsewhere; Flores said many grazers haul water because there is no pipe access and urged the committee to map where agricultural users can actually tap into a system before setting rates. Senator Manny Castro suggested exploring wells or alternative water sources for farms and said the bill should be seen as part of an economic strategy to reduce imports and support local production.
Members also asked about the financial impact on CUC and whether the government would subsidize any difference. Senator Karina Magofna asked where a subsidy would come from if the proposed statutory rate is lower than current commercial or residential rates; the committee requested CUC or the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) provide rate studies so members can evaluate fiscal impact.
Committee counsel said the bill seeks to place concrete rates in statute and then direct CUC to promulgate regulations; members discussed whether PUC rather than CUC should formally approve rates. No formal committee vote on Senate Bill 24-02 was recorded; members requested CUC, PUC and DLNR (for well infrastructure) be invited for follow-up sessions and asked staff to provide any existing CUC rate studies or cost-of-service analyses.
Ending
The committee left SB 24-02 at committee discussion, asked staff to obtain infrastructure maps and rate studies, and scheduled follow-up outreach to CUC and PUC. No committee disposition was recorded in the transcript.
