assured water supply; well depth
HB2095 would amend Arizona’s assured water supply law in A.R.S. § 45-576, which governs when subdivided lands in active management areas may be approved for sale or lease. The bill keeps the existing framework requiring a certificate of assured water supply or a qualifying written commitment from a designated provider, but adds a new physical-availability test for certain unreplenished groundwater. Under the bill, the Department of Water Resources would have to find that unreplenished groundwater is physically available if the department’s groundwater model shows that, at the end of 100 years of pumping, the annual volume at the point of withdrawal is at or below the lesser of the depth to bedrock or specified depth limits in the Pinal and Phoenix active management areas.
The bill also clarifies how groundwater savings credits and stored water recovered outside the area of impact are treated for assured water supply purposes, exempting those volumes from the physical availability requirement while preserving other assured water supply requirements. It retains and restates the existing 100-year supply standard, consistency with management goals, and financial capability requirements for water facilities. The bill continues to allow certain exemptions for designated cities, towns, private water companies, mineral extraction and industrial uses, and it preserves the special exemption for qualifying plats with prior type A certificates and unchanged plats served by the same water provider.
If enacted, HB2095 would affect subdivision approvals, public reports issued by the state real estate commissioner, and DWR’s review of assured water supply applications in active management areas. It would likely be most significant for developers, municipal providers, private water companies, and groundwater users in the Phoenix and Pinal AMAs, where the bill imposes explicit depth-based limits tied to groundwater modeling. It would also interact with conservation districts, replenishment obligations, and the use of gray water and groundwater savings credits in water-demand calculations.
The bill appears to have had mixed but meaningful support in committee and on the House floor, but it ultimately failed. It received a 6-4 do-pass-as-amended recommendation in the House Natural Resources, Energy & Water Committee, then passed House Rules 7-0, and later advanced on third reading by a 30-24 vote. That pattern suggests the measure had support among some lawmakers concerned about groundwater depletion and long-term water planning, but not enough to secure final passage.
The main point of contention appears to be the balance between stricter groundwater protection and development flexibility. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a way to tighten assured water supply standards and better align pumping with aquifer conditions, especially in fast-growing areas. Opponents likely worried that the new depth-to-bedrock and AMA-specific thresholds would make it harder to secure water approvals for housing and development, potentially constraining growth or creating uncertainty for applicants relying on groundwater, credits, or existing provider commitments.
HB2095 would amend A.R.S. § 45-576, the core assured water supply statute for subdivisions in active management areas. The bill would add a new rule requiring the Department of Water Resources to deem certain unreplenished groundwater physically available only when modeled pumping levels remain at or below the depth to bedrock, with specific caps for the Pinal and Phoenix AMAs. It would also clarify treatment of groundwater savings credits and stored water, while leaving the existing 100-year supply, management-plan consistency, and financial-capability requirements in place. The practical effect would be to tighten water-supply review standards for subdivision and plat approvals, especially for developers and water providers in groundwater-stressed areas.
The available vote history suggests the bill drew some support but also significant resistance. It moved out of the House Natural Resources, Energy & Water Committee on a 6-4 vote, passed House Rules unanimously, and then passed the House on third reading by a narrow 30-24 margin before ultimately failing. That pattern indicates lawmakers were divided, with a coalition willing to advance the measure but not enough consensus for enactment. Overall, the sentiment appears to have been cautious and polarized, reflecting competing concerns about groundwater conservation and development impacts.
The central contention was whether Arizona should impose a stricter, model-based depth limit on unreplenished groundwater used to satisfy assured water supply requirements. Supporters likely favored stronger groundwater safeguards and clearer limits in the Phoenix and Pinal AMAs, while opponents likely argued the bill would make it harder for developers and water providers to qualify projects, especially where groundwater, credits, or existing commitments are part of the supply portfolio. The bill also implicates tension between state water management goals and local growth pressures, particularly for subdivision approvals and housing development.