HB2089 amends Arizona’s groundwater management law governing the creation and removal of a “subsequent active management area” (AMA). Under current law, a groundwater basin outside an initial AMA can be designated as an AMA by petition of 10% of registered voters in the area followed by an election. The bill adds a new process allowing voters, after ten years, to petition to remove that subsequent AMA designation. The petition must be filed before a general election, and the applicant must be a resident of the subsequent AMA.
If a valid removal petition is filed, the county board of supervisors must forward it to the Arizona Department of Water Resources director, who then has 60 days to review groundwater conditions and decide whether the AMA designation is still necessary. If the director concludes the designation is still needed, the election to remove it is canceled. If the director concludes it is no longer necessary, or does not issue an order, the election proceeds. The bill also provides an appeal process for the director’s order and sets procedures for disputed voter residency, ballot handling, and cost allocation, including special rules for basins or AMAs spanning multiple counties.
Impact
The bill would amend A.R.S. § 45-415 to create a statutory pathway for removing a subsequent AMA designation, while preserving the state’s existing petition-and-election framework for creating one. It also clarifies county election administration duties, residency verification procedures, appeal rights, and how election expenses are shared among counties when a basin crosses county lines. The practical effect is to give voters in a subsequent AMA a formal mechanism to seek rollback of groundwater management status, subject to review by the Department of Water Resources.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have received mixed but generally favorable consideration, advancing through both chambers with narrow committee and floor margins. It passed the House Natural Resources, Energy & Water Committee 5-4 and the Senate Natural Resources Committee 4-3, and cleared the House and Senate floors by relatively close votes. That pattern suggests the measure was supported by a coalition sufficient to move it forward, but not with broad bipartisan consensus.
Contention
The main point of contention is the balance between local voter control and state groundwater oversight. Supporters likely view the bill as restoring a local option to remove an AMA designation after a basin has been under management for a decade, while opponents may be concerned that removal could weaken groundwater conservation protections before conditions truly justify it. Another likely area of dispute is the director’s gatekeeping role: the bill allows the Department of Water Resources to block an election if it finds the designation still necessary, which may be seen either as an important safeguard or as a limitation on voter authority. The close committee and floor votes indicate these policy tensions were significant.