Irrigation water; assured water supply
SB 1304 would create a new pathway for a city or town to have a portion of its area designated as having an assured water supply, but only under narrow conditions. The bill applies to municipalities located in an active management area that have shown sufficient progress toward the area’s water management goals in at least three of the prior five years. It also requires the area to be entirely within an irrigation and water conservation district, and the city or town must have a 100-year contract with that district to receive water that district landowners are entitled to use on their lands, with the municipality treating and delivering that water for municipal use on district lands.
The bill further requires the director of the Department of Water Resources to find that adequate surface water or effluent will be continuously available for at least 100 years and that the city or town has the financial ability to build the needed infrastructure, including delivery, storage, and treatment facilities. The director may also review or later determine that a portion of a city or town does not have an assured water supply. In effect, the measure adds a specialized assured-water-supply designation tied to long-term irrigation district arrangements and municipal water infrastructure readiness.
SB 1304 would amend Arizona’s groundwater management laws in Title 45 by adding a new assured water supply designation for certain municipal areas within active management areas and irrigation and water conservation districts. It would expand the circumstances under which a city or town can obtain an assured water supply finding, while preserving the Department of Water Resources’ authority to evaluate progress, water availability, and financial feasibility. The bill could affect municipal planning, development approvals, irrigation and water conservation districts, and landowners whose water rights are tied to district lands, as well as the state agency responsible for water supply determinations.
The available voting history suggests the bill drew mixed but somewhat favorable committee support. It was initially held in Senate Natural Resources Committee, then advanced on a 4-3 vote, indicating a divided panel and some concern among members. It later moved through Senate Rules and was retained in Committee of the Whole, which suggests the measure remained under active consideration rather than moving smoothly through the process. No transcript excerpts are available, so the broader discussion appears to have centered on policy and technical water-management issues rather than public testimony captured in the record provided.
The main points of contention likely involve whether the bill appropriately broadens assured water supply designations and whether the long-term 100-year water contract and availability requirements are sufficiently protective. Supporters would likely emphasize the bill’s focus on conservation districts, long-term supply certainty, and municipal infrastructure readiness, while critics may worry about setting a precedent for municipal use of irrigation district water, the adequacy of the Department of Water Resources’ oversight, and the effect on groundwater management and development policy in active management areas. The close committee vote indicates disagreement over balancing water security, local growth, and existing water-rights arrangements.