PHOENIX β Arizonaβs Senate president said he does not plan to introduce legislation to alter water supply requirements for new development despite his criticism of the historic 1980 law that created them.
Sen. Warren Petersen said his comments, given last week to the Arizona Tax Research Association where he was asked to preview his legislative priorities, were meant to emphasize that the mandate to show an assured source of water will be available for 100 years was βarbitrary.ββ
βWhy not 95?β he asked. βWhy not the same as California?,β which he said requires only a 25-year supply.
He complained about the Arizona Department of Water Resources halting new construction in two areas on the edges of Phoenix earlier this year. He said that would not have happened if the standard here were something less, like Californiaβs.
βWe could say weβll go five years or 10 years higher than anybody in the whole nation,ββ Petersen said, meaning a 30- or 35-year supply mandate, since he said Californiaβs 25-year rule is second-highest behind Arizonaβs. And with that as the standard and new βmodelingββ of available supply, he said, βthereβs suddenly a boat-load of water for housing.ββ
By extension, that would eliminate the bar on development in areas of Queen Creek and Buckeye.
But Petersen said despite his criticism of the law and its affect on housing availability he is not seeking to change the law but to make the point that the focus on β and regulation of β the amount of water needed for residential development ignores a bigger issue.
βPeople donβt realize that housing is a small piece of the pie,ββ said Petersen, a Gilbert Republican.
The Arizona Department of Water Resources says about 20% of the stateβs water supply is for municipal use, most of that for residential. The lionβs share of whatβs left goes for agriculture, with the balance for industrial uses.
Yet Petersen said the attention on conservation has largely been on new homes.
βOur focus needs to be on the big piece of the pie for solutions,ββ he said. Housing already is βregulated to the hilt and conserving well,ββ he said.
As for agriculture, βWhy isnβt there a 100-year water supply on them?ββ he asked.
Petersen had no answer for how the state might get agriculture to give up some of the water farmers are claiming and using, however.
He said that is being addressed by Sen. Sine Kerr, R-Buckeye. She chairs the Senate Committee on Natural Resource, Energy and Water. She also is a dairy farmer.
βSheβs got 20 common-sense things that can deal with the piece of the pie that is the largest β and, by far, really where we need to be talking,ββ Petersen said.
Kerr did not respond to repeat messages seeking specifics.
Leaving aside his feelings on the mandate of a 100-year assured water supply, Petersen said he sees no reason to revisit requirements on residential development.
βHousing, we are doing a fantastic job,ββ Petersen said, saying todayβs 7.5 million Arizonans are using the same amount of water as the 1.5 million people who were here in 1963.
βMost of it has been the housing industry has adopted water-saving toiletsββ and similar devices, he said. There also are requirements for xeriscaping with drought-tolerant plants.
Petersenβs suggestion the state could rein in agricultural use, especially in rural areas, could prove more difficult. In fact, when Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbsβ Water Council began talking this year about regulating agricultural use, two members quit: Kerr and Stefanie Smallhouse, president of the Arizona Farm Bureau.
βThe Governorβs Water Policy Council is nothing more than a forum to rubber stamp the progressive environmental goals of special interest groups,ββ Kerr said at the time. βThe radical agenda being pushed as the potential to damage our economy and kill the livelihoods of our farmers and ranchers.ββ
There may be some movement in the commercial and industrial sector, however.
Rep. Gail Griffin, R-Hereford, already introduced legislation for the 2024 legislative session. It would require the Department of Water Resources to adopt rules for those users βthat provide for greater water efficiency, conservation and on-site waster reuse and recycling.ββ
But it also spells out that these rules may not require such a user to obtain a certificate of assured water supply β the kind now necessary for new residential development.
The bottom line, said Petersen, is to look beyond residential use when finding ways to conserve.
βWe should never be talking about limiting or stopping home construction,ββ he said. βThat is a tiny little sliver of the water supply. And we have to be able to continue to grow.ββ
Petersen acknowledged that the idea of a 100-year supply predates the 1980 Groundwater Act and its mandate within the stateβs active management areas, urban areas including the Phoenix and Tucson areas.
It originated nearly a decade earlier when lawmakers sought to deal with land fraud, with unsuspecting buyers being sold property that had no access to water. That resulted in laws saying buyers must be told if there is an βadequateββ supply of water, defined as enough for 100 years.
Only later was that incorporated into the βassuredββ supply mandate for active management areas.
But the looser disclosure requirement still is the law in most rural areas of the state. And they do not preclude a sale even if the 100-year supply is not there.
βMakes people hate developers,ββ Petersen said of the fraud that led to the laws. βBad people ruin it for everyone.ββ