Arizona House Bill HB2263

Arizona 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/20/26
• Report Pass: 2/17/26
• Report Pass: 2/23/26

Caption

Colorado River water; replenishment; restriction

Summary

HB 2263 amends Arizona’s groundwater savings facility statute to tighten where Colorado River water diverted from the river’s main stem may be used for replenishment in an active management area. Under the bill, that water may be used or conveyed for replenishment only if it is delivered to a permitted facility owned by a multi-county water conservation district or to a permitted groundwater savings facility located on state land or private land. The bill keeps the existing permitting framework for groundwater savings facilities, including requirements that the facility reduce groundwater pumping by substituting non-groundwater water on a gallon-for-gallon basis and that the applicant provide a satisfactory plan to document annual groundwater savings. The measure is aimed at clarifying and restricting the use of Colorado River water in replenishment activities, while preserving the state’s existing groundwater management structure. It does not create a new replenishment program; rather, it narrows the facilities eligible to receive diverted Colorado River water for replenishment purposes and reinforces the role of permitted facilities in active management areas. The bill also leaves intact the director’s authority to evaluate whether a proposed groundwater savings facility meets the statutory criteria for a permit. The general sentiment reflected in committee action appears cautiously favorable, with the bill advancing out of the House Natural Resources, Energy & Water Committee on a 6-3 vote and then passing House Rules unanimously on a 6-0 vote. The later House Committee of the Whole action shows the bill was retained on the calendar, indicating it had not yet completed floor action at the time of the provided history. The committee votes suggest some support for the bill’s regulatory clarification, but not unanimous agreement at the policy committee level. The main point of contention is likely the bill’s restriction on where Colorado River water can be used for replenishment. Supporters may view the limitation as a safeguard to ensure replenishment water is handled only through permitted, accountable facilities, while opponents may see it as an unnecessary constraint on water management flexibility or a narrowing of replenishment options for users in active management areas. The split vote in the policy committee suggests disagreement over whether the added restriction is an appropriate protection or an overreach into existing water-use arrangements.

Impact

HB 2263 would amend A.R.S. § 45-812.01, the statute governing groundwater savings facility permits, by adding a new restriction on the use or conveyance of Colorado River water diverted from the main stem for replenishment in an active management area. After enactment, such water could be used only if delivered to a permitted facility owned by a multi-county water conservation district or to a permitted groundwater savings facility on state or private land. The bill therefore affects water providers, irrigation and groundwater users, and entities involved in Colorado River replenishment and groundwater savings operations, while leaving the broader permitting criteria for groundwater savings facilities largely unchanged.

Sentiment

The available voting record suggests the bill had moderate support in committee but was not universally embraced. It received a 6-3 do-pass recommendation with amendments from the House Natural Resources, Energy & Water Committee and then a unanimous 6-0 vote in House Rules, indicating the bill was considered viable and procedurally acceptable. However, the later retention on the calendar shows it had not yet moved cleanly through the floor process, so the overall posture was supportive but still unsettled.

Contention

The central dispute is over the bill’s new limitation on replenishment uses of Colorado River water. Supporters likely argue that restricting replenishment to permitted facilities improves oversight, ensures compliance with groundwater management rules, and prevents diversion of Colorado River water to less controlled settings. Opponents likely object that the restriction could reduce operational flexibility for water managers, complicate replenishment arrangements, or limit access to Colorado River supplies for legitimate groundwater savings projects. The 6-3 committee split indicates that this policy choice, rather than the underlying groundwater savings permit framework, is the main source of disagreement.