HB2026 amends Arizona’s assured water supply law in A.R.S. § 45-576, which governs when subdivision plats and related public reports can be approved in active management areas. The bill adds a new rule directing the director to evaluate water availability based only on the proposed source or sources dedicated to the proposed use, even if the water delivery system is commingled with other supplies. In practical terms, this is aimed at clarifying how mixed water systems are treated when determining whether a development has an assured water supply.
The bill also preserves and expands several existing pathways for subdivision approval tied to assured water supply certificates, written commitments from designated water providers, and exemptions for certain previously certified plats. It retains provisions on gray water reuse, groundwater savings credits, and the 100-year assured water supply standard, while also keeping the financial-capability and management-plan requirements. The measure appears to be a technical but meaningful adjustment to how the Department of Water Resources evaluates water supply applications, especially for developments using blended or commingled water systems.
Impact
HB2026 would amend the state’s groundwater and subdivision approval framework by changing the criteria the director uses to assess assured water supply applications. The key statutory impact is on A.R.S. § 45-576, where the bill instructs the director to consider only the water sources dedicated to the proposed use, regardless of whether those sources are delivered through a commingled system. This could affect developers, municipal providers, private water companies, and applicants seeking certificates of assured water supply in active management areas, as well as local governments reviewing subdivision plats and the state real estate commissioner issuing public reports.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have had mixed but generally workable support in committee and on the floor, with enough backing to pass both chambers before being vetoed. It moved through House and Senate committees with favorable votes, though not unanimously, and the House and Senate floor votes were relatively close, suggesting some division over the policy. The veto indicates that, despite legislative approval, the governor did not agree with the measure as enacted.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be the bill’s treatment of commingled water supplies and whether the state should look only at dedicated sources when determining assured water supply. Supporters likely viewed this as a clarification that could help developments and water providers with mixed delivery systems, while opponents may have worried it could weaken or complicate water-supply oversight in already strained active management areas. The close floor votes, especially in the House and Senate, suggest concern among some lawmakers about the bill’s effect on groundwater management, development approvals, and long-term water security.