Legislation Archive
Session Summaries
-
2023 - Fifty-sixth Legislature - First Regular Session
-
2022 - Fifty-fifth Legislature - Second Regular Session
-
2021 - Fifty-fifth Legislature - First Regular Session
-
2020 - Fifty-fourth Legislature - Second Regular Session
-
2019 - Fifty-fourth Legislature - First Regular Session
-
2018 - Fifty-third Legislature - Second Regular Session
-
2017 – Fifty-third Legislature – First Regular Session
Bill Archive
HB 2186: Remedial groundwater incentive; brackish groundwater
In Brief: Amends the definition of a hazardous substance to include brackish groundwater.
Sponsor(s): Kolodin
Last Action: This bill passed Senate NREW with an amendment and a 4-3 vote on March 21st.
Description: This bill would amend the definition of a hazardous substance under A.R.S. Title 49 to include groundwater with a total dissolved solids (TDS) content between 1,000 and 10,000 milligrams per liter. This bill also adds desalination of such brackish groundwater as a remedial action to be taken by relevant parties that wish to use such groundwater. This bill also makes conforming changes to include brackish groundwater as a hazardous substance that may be included in a remediation plan. This bill also states that this brackish (remedial) groundwater will be considered consistent with AMA management goals when applying for an AWS Certificate or Designation, without ADWR approval, if the applicant meets metering and reporting requirements for said groundwater. ADWR is required to create rules outlining how it will determine compliance with management goals for remedial groundwater. Applicants who wish to use such a supply in their AWS determination must provide ADWR with notice at least 120 days of notice. Lastly, this bill states that “remedial groundwater” will be metered and reported separately from “groundwater” when reporting to ADWR. This bill received an amendment on March 21st that took the focus away from “remediated” groundwater and instead focused on “brackish” groundwater itself. The amendment arguably made the bill slightly less bad because it added a requirement for the provider to submit a “Brackish Groundwater Plan” for ADWR approval before such water can be used. However, the bill remains extremely problematic because it statutorily categorizes brackish groundwater as a separate source of water, which goes against both the assumptions in ADWR’s models and hydrologic reality.
HB 2195: On-site wastewater treatment facilities; permitting
In Brief: Allows small on-site wastewater treatment facilities to operate under a general APP rather than having to obtain an individual permit.
Sponsor(s): Hendrix
Last Action: Last Action Taken – This bill passed Senate Third Read with a 28-0-2-0-0 vote on April 1st and House Final Read with a 59-0-1-0-0 vote on April 4th.
Description: This bill would allow an on-site wastewater treatment facility with a design flow between 3,000 and 75,000 gallons per day to operate under a general Aquifer Protection Permit (APP) rather than having to obtain an individual permit. The facility operator must comply with existing general permit rules, and the bill also requires ADEQ to create requirements for maintenance, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting that would apply to such facilities operated under a general permit. The Senate NREW Committee adopted an amendment which clarifies that the bill’s provisions apply to an on-site wastewater treatment facility with a design flow of more than 3,000 gallons per day until ADEQ adopts revised rules.
HB 2200: Groundwater transportation; Harquahala non-expansion area
In Brief: Allow a public service corporation to transport groundwater away from the Harquahala INA for use within an initial AMA.
Sponsor(s): Dunn
Last Action: This bill passed out of the House with a 38-18-3-0-1 vote on February 26th.
Description: This bill would allow a public service corporation that holds a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity in an initial AMA to transport groundwater away from the Harquahala INA for use within an initial AMA. This bill would also require ADWR to adopt rules to govern such transportation, as well as transportation by the state or political subdivisions of the state. This bill would require such transported groundwater to be used by the transporting entity within five years to serve its own customers and would require a transporting public service corporation to recoup fees for transport from customers of its own distribution system. A floor amendment was adopted that requires annual monitoring and reporting of any groundwater transported from the Harquahala INA, including the end use of that groundwater. The entity transporting the groundwater must also comply with the Assured Water Supply requirements relating to a hydrologic study.
HB 2201: Harquahala non-expansion area; groundwater transportation
In Brief: Allows a public service corporation to transport groundwater away from the Harquahala INA for use within an initial AMA or within La Paz County.
Sponsor(s): Dunn
Last Action: This bill passed out of Senate NREW Committee with a 4-3 vote on March 14th.
Description: This bill would allow a public service corporation that holds a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity in an initial AMA to transport groundwater away from the Harquahala INA for use within an initial AMA or within La Paz County. This bill would also require ADWR to adopt rules to govern such transportation, as well as transportation by the state or political subdivisions of the state. This bill would require such transported groundwater to be used by the transporting entity within five years to serve its own customers and would require a transporting public service corporation to recoup fees for transport from customers of its own distribution system. Similar to HB 2200, a floor amendment was adopted that requires annual monitoring and reporting of any groundwater transported from the Harquahala INA, including the end use of that groundwater. The entity transporting the groundwater must also comply with the Assured Water Supply requirements relating to a hydrologic study.
HB 2214: Water treatment facilities; loan repayment
In Brief: Removes a requirement that cities with more than 150,000 people must hold a public vote before using some federal funds through WIFA.
Sponsor(s): Terech
Last Action:
Description: This bill would remove from Title 9 a requirement that cities and towns with a population of more than 150,000 must hold a public vote before the city or town may enter into a federal financial assistance loan repayment program through the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority (WIFA). This bill would also remove a similar requirement that applies to all counties.
HB 2320: Watersheds; beneficial use; instream flows
In Brief: Requires ADWR to conduct watershed health surveys and allows AZGFC to acquire and lease surface water rights.
Sponsor(s): Travers
Last Action:
Description: This bill would allow the Game and Fish Commission to acquire and lease surface water rights for “watershed health uses and instream uses”. This bill also defines “watershed health uses” as water that is conserved in a natural watercourse and not otherwise used and that supports watershed health. This bill also requires ADWR to conduct a watershed health survey every three years after the initial survey (which is not described in this bill). The survey will evaluate the overall health of each watershed in the state based on hydrology, geomorphology, plant and animal biodiversity, landscape condition, and other factors. This bill also adds watershed health as a reason why a water right may be severed and transferred from the land to which it is appurtenant.
HB 2355: Subsequent active management area; designation
In Brief: Requires ADWR to designate as an AMA any area that meets the AMA designation criteria.
Sponsor(s): Stahl Hamilton
Last Action:
Description: This bill would require ADWR to designate as an AMA any area that meets the AMA designation criteria. The criteria include water quality degradation from groundwater use, land fissures, and active management to preserve groundwater for future use.
HB 2356: Subsequent irrigation; non-expansion areas; procedures
In Brief: Makes multiple changes to the process of initiating the designation of a subsequent INA.
Sponsor(s): Stahl Hamilton
Last Action:
Description: This bill would allow ADWR to consider “reasonable projections” of future irrigation groundwater use when considering whether to designate an area as a subsequent INA, rather than only considering current irrigation groundwater use. This bill also defines the acceptable amount of groundwater available for irrigation as a 100-year supply. This bill also specifies who may sign a petition to designate a subsequent INA, including someone who is the owner of irrigated land, has irrigated two or more acres in the basin in the past five years, or “is capable of irrigating the land in the future”. This bill requires these petitions to be submitted along with a numeric groundwater model and hydrologic report prepared by a professional geologist or hydrologist. Lastly, this bill states that ADWR’s final decision on the designation of a subsequent INA are not an appealable agency action but are subject to judicial review, and that after a refusal another petition to designate the area may not be submitted for three years.
HB 2357: Watershed health; use; survey
In Brief: Among other things, requires ADWR to complete a survey of the status of the waters of Arizona by December 31, 2026.
Sponsor(s): Stahl Hamilton
Last Action:
Description: This bill would require ADWR to establish criteria to evaluate the status of the relationship between “ecological water needs”, groundwater withdrawal, and surface water appropriations in Arizona. This bill also requires ADWR to complete a survey of the status of the waters of Arizona by December 31, 2026. This survey must include an assessment of the overall health of all watersheds in the state, and a lesser assessment of the health of sub-watersheds and the health of the ecosystems they support. ADWR must also determine the appropriate steps to be taken to remedy the problems in these watersheds and recommend legislation through which to take these steps. ADWR is also required to hold public meetings and receive and publish public comments on this survey and make the survey public when it is complete. This bill also includes the same requirements for follow-up surveys and the same definitions that are included in HB 2320.
HB 2358: State lands; leases; groundwater use
In Brief: Requires ADWR to levy a groundwater withdrawal feeupon each lessee of State Land for agricultural purposes that is located outside of an AMA or INA.
Sponsor(s): Stahl Hamilton
Last Action:
Description: This bill would require ADWR to establish rules to govern an annual groundwater withdrawal fee that it will levy upon each lessee of State Land for agricultural purposes that is located outside of an AMA or INA. These lessees would be required to submit a report to ADWR each year that details the locations of any wells, the amount of groundwater withdrawn from these wells, and why the groundwater was used.