Groundwater replenishment; Pinal AMA
HB2753 amends Arizona’s groundwater replenishment law for active management areas, with a particular focus on the Pinal and Phoenix AMAs and municipal providers that rely on member service area agreements. The bill keeps the basic framework that district replenishment obligations must be met within three calendar years and that replenishment may be accomplished with CAP water or other lawful sources, but it adds a new option for certain municipal providers applying for a new assured water supply designation after September 14, 2024. Under that option, a provider may choose to let parcels of member land in its service area retain their parcel-level replenishment obligation for a limited period rather than immediately shifting that obligation away.
The bill then phases in a transition: if the provider elects to assume those obligations, it must begin taking on at least 10% of the groundwater deliveries and related replenishment obligation in the first reporting year and add at least another 10% each year until, within 10 years, the provider fully assumes the obligation and the parcels no longer have a separate replenishment duty. The bill also addresses how groundwater allowances and extinguishment credits tied to those parcels may be used during an initial full assumption or a staged assumption. It expressly prohibits adding new member lands to a municipal provider’s service area after the service area is designated as having an assured water supply.
In practical terms, the bill modifies Title 48 groundwater replenishment rules and affects groundwater districts, municipal providers, member lands, and the Department of Water Resources. It creates a more flexible mechanism for handling replenishment responsibilities in the Phoenix and Pinal active management area areas, while preserving the state’s broader replenishment and assured-water-supply structure. The law was approved by the governor on May 23, 2025, and became Chapter 216.
The overall sentiment in the legislative record appears generally supportive but not unanimous. The bill advanced through committee and floor votes in both chambers, including a strong Senate third-reading vote and a narrower House third-reading vote, suggesting broad acceptance of the policy direction but some lingering concern. The committee and floor actions indicate the measure was amended during consideration, which is consistent with a technical water-policy bill that required refinement before final passage.
The main point of contention appears to be how much responsibility municipal providers should assume for replenishment obligations versus leaving those obligations with the district or member lands, especially in areas experiencing growth and water-supply pressure. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a practical transition tool that aligns replenishment duties with assured water supply designations, while critics may have been concerned about shifting costs, timing, or the effect on existing member land arrangements and groundwater accounting.
HB2753 amends A.R.S. § 48-3771, which governs district groundwater replenishment obligations in active management areas. It adds a new election process for certain municipal providers in the Phoenix and Pinal AMAs that use member service area agreements when seeking a new assured water supply designation, allowing parcel-level replenishment obligations to remain temporarily and then be phased over to the municipal provider over up to 10 years. The bill also clarifies reporting, notice, and credit-use rules tied to that transition and bars the enrollment of new member lands after a service area is designated as having assured water supply.
The bill appears to have been viewed favorably overall, with passage in both chambers and relatively strong final votes, but not without dissent. Committee votes were close in the House Natural Resources, Energy & Water Committee and the Senate Natural Resources Committee, and the House third reading vote was notably narrower than the Senate’s, indicating some divided views on the policy. The absence of recorded committee transcripts limits insight into specific arguments, but the voting pattern suggests a generally supportive coalition with a meaningful minority opposed or cautious about the changes.
The central contention is the allocation and timing of groundwater replenishment responsibility: whether municipal providers should be allowed to retain or gradually assume parcel replenishment obligations tied to member lands, and how that affects districts, landowners, and water accounting. Another likely point of dispute is the bill’s targeted application to Phoenix and Pinal AMA rules and its interaction with assured water supply designations, member service area agreements, and groundwater allowances/extinguishment credits. Opponents may have been concerned about administrative complexity, potential cost shifts, or reduced clarity in long-term replenishment obligations, while supporters likely emphasized flexibility and a managed transition for growing municipal service areas.