There has been a lot of talk recently about rural groundwater bills not getting a hearing at the Arizona Legislature.Over the years, proposed legislation has gone by many names, including “Groundwater Conservation Areas,” “Special Management Areas,” “Rural Management Areas,” and “Local Groundwater Stewardship Areas.” It also includes “Sustainable Groundwater Management Plans.”
Regardless of the name, the concept is the same, and all are bad.
While the idea of “local control” might sound good, the actual provisions are far from local or voluntary.Instead of requiring a local vote of the community, these bills would allow as few as two people in some counties to establish irreversible groundwater control districts throughout the county.
Rep. Gail Griffin, R-Hereford
Instead of being elected by the people, the members of these districts would be appointed by the governor.Instead of requiring a unanimous vote of county supervisors to adopt the most stringent assured water supply regulations in the nation, these bills would require only a simple majority.
Instead of applying equally across the entire watershed, these bills would allow only “portions” to be designated, meaning that individual properties could be singled-out for their water use, such as power plants, farms, mines, hydrogen production facilities and any business.
Instead of reducing the size of government, these bills would create new layers of government and give additional taxing, zoning, planning, and condemnation authority to a small group of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to decide the community’s economy and tell you what you can and cannot do with your private property.
Instead of voluntary conservation requirements, these bills would allow mandatory reporting requirements, groundwater supply rations and groundwater withdrawal fees (taxes).
Instead of holding government officials accountable for public funds, these bills would allow the governor to give up to $50 million each year to any nonprofit organization or Ind …