Senate committee backs measure to allow limited transfers of irrigation grandfathered rights within subsequent AMAs
Loading...
Summary
The Senate Natural Resources Committee gave Senate Bill 11‑97 a due‑pass recommendation after testimony from environmental groups, ADWR and local officials. The bill would permit owners of irrigation grandfathered rights in subsequent Active Management Areas to sell, lease or transfer associated water duty within that same AMA, but senators sought clearer statutory safeguards to ensure transfers meet AMA management goals and avoid increased pumping.
PHOENIX — The Senate Natural Resources Committee on Thursday advanced legislation that would let owners of irrigation grandfathered rights (IGFRs) in subsequent Active Management Areas (AMAs) sell, lease or transfer the associated water duty to other irrigators within the same AMA.
Sponsor remarks framed the bill as a tool to help small agricultural and specialty crop producers, including wineries in the Wilcox Basin, to “square up” fields and expand production within the AMA framework. The sponsor said the bill is intended to work within the Department of Water Resources’ existing governance and processes.
Jennifer Martin, representing the Grand Canyon chapter of the Sierra Club, urged the committee to oppose the bill. "Senate Bill 11‑97 severs that connection," she said, arguing IGFRs were created to be land‑based to reflect historic irrigation and to limit groundwater pumping. Martin warned that severing land ties could "risk increasing overall groundwater pumping" and undermine the Groundwater Management Act's goal of moving toward sustainability.
Tom Przyzelski of Rural Arizona Action also opposed the bill in its current form, saying it lacks a requirement that transfers yield a net decrease in water use and could repeat past patterns that contributed to depleted wells and subsidence. "We do not see the current bill encouraging [net savings]," he told the committee, and urged language that would ensure transfers meet AMA management goals.
City of Wilcox representative Nick Ponder, registered neutral, said his community sees potential economic benefits but is concerned the bill is brief and does not explain how transferred water duties would comply with Wilcox AMA goals — noting a referenced conservation target of 50% over 50 years. David Fernandez of the Arizona Department of Water Resources told the committee the measure "conceives of a new and unique use for irrigation grandfathered rights" and that Title 45 of the groundwater code will need examination; ADWR said it is willing to work with the sponsor on statutory guardrails.
Committee members pressed for clarity on oversight, transparency and whether transfers would be required to align with AMA management plans or include pumping reductions. One senator noted there are currently two declared subsequent AMAs and that such designations are triggered by severe groundwater decline, arguing that transfers in those basins should be approached conservatively.
After discussion the committee adopted a motion to give Senate Bill 11‑97 a due‑pass recommendation. Several senators explained their votes — some citing the need for more safeguards and statutory clarity, the sponsor saying the bill remains a "work in process," and others supporting the measure as a means to allow local industries to adapt within AMA rules.
The committee's action sends the bill forward for further consideration; sponsors and ADWR signaled they intend to work on statutory language or rule changes to articulate appropriate guardrails and oversight for transfers within subsequent AMAs.
