House Natural Resources, Energy & Water

And I think Cooper is here. He'll be here momentarily. For everybody's notice, we are holding 1444. So knock that one off the agenda. And the first three bills we will hear is 1128, 1538, and 1730. So first bill is 1128.

Senate Bill 1128 would allow the Attorney General to file a suit on behalf of the state against the EPA if the agency does not approve a demonstration that establishes that this area of the state would achieve and maintain the national ambient air quality standards for emissions originating from outside of the United States. Madam Chair, there is an amendment that I can't explain. Yes. The amendment dated 3-24-25 at 10-31 a.m. Representative Gers' name changes zone to ozone in Section 3 of Senate Bill 1128. And with that, I'm available for any questions.

Considering the best interest of the taxpayer, while Arizona is generally allowed to consider costs in developing control measures to determine the best mix of controls to achieve the goals of the Clean Air Act, it is unclear what variables the bill intends to be considered when determining the best interest of the taxpayer. This may be interpreted as being broader than simply the cost the taxpayer may bear alone, for example, considerations of the health and welfare benefits of reductions to air pollution.

Concerning causal factors affecting air quality, ADEQ currently considers all interstate impacts when developing SIPs as appropriate.

When interstate transport is a factor, we evaluate the relevant impacts of all possible sources and not just transportation. ADEQ would need clarity on the intended scope of the term solar radiation and related heat increases. While ADEQ does take meteorological conditions into account when developing SIPs, it is important to note that federal national ambient air quality standards are health-based and are not necessarily derived just in the manner that takes local or regional climate into account.

Ultimately, we believe it is important to ensure that any considerations to be taken into account in developing SIPs be directly related to and aimed at satisfying the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Further, as amended, the bill also adds that ADEQ, when considering SIP provisions, is prohibited from considering any emissions that emanate from outside the borders of the U.S. This prohibition would likely prevent ADEQ from developing demonstrations on the Clean Air Act, specifically 179B.

A 179D demonstration is used to show that non-attainment area would be able to attain and maintain, or would have attained, the relevant national ambient air quality standards, but for emissions emanating from outside the U.S. An approval of a 179D demonstration provides relief from the attainment demonstrations, requirements, and the requirements that EPA determines whether the area has attainment.

by the relevant attainment date. 179B demonstrations have proven to be a useful tool in the past. For example, in 2012, a 179B demonstration for Nogales, PM10 non-attainment planning area, was approved. Ultimately, while ADQ appreciates the sponsor's concerns about the impact of out-of-state admissions, we want to ensure that the state has all the necessary and appropriate tools in developing SIP and SIP provisions. With that, I'll stand for questions. Questions?

I'd be happy to get back with our program folks and follow up with more specifics on some of that information and some of the other work that the agency is currently doing.

The new EPA administrator was in town last week and met with many of us and tells us that he's going to be working on these type of issues too and is very concerned about the time limit that it's taken to address these issues in the past and says that

He's wanting to work with the state of Arizona and resolve some of these issues that we're discussing today and other issues.

Madam Chair, Representative, I apologize. I don't have to. That's OK. No, thank you for that. Appreciate it. I can say at least a couple of years.

I guess not. OK. All right. Any other questions or discussion from the committee? Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman, would you please move 1128? The amendment, right? You moved the bill first. Madam Chair, I move that Senate Bill 1128

No. That's a comment. Just pass the bill, I'd appreciate it. Okay, all right, we've heard the motion. All those in favor of the Griffin amendment dated 3-24-25 at 10-31 a.m. signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed say nay. The ayes appear to have it, do have it, so ordered. Would you move the bill as amended please?

You know a number of years continue to tick up and a huge portion of that I think is also, you know wildfires that we don't That I haven't heard yet be something that's a factor in this if you take out What's attributed from wire wildfires are we have a significant drop? And where we are at right now, and that's something we need to consider as you know the

planet keeps warming and fires are more abundant. Unfortunately, I have concerns with this on kind of clarity and scope. I think it puts, as we heard testified, there are certain things for ADEQ from a funding standpoint. So I'm not able to support this bill today. I'm voting no, but I do hope that it is something we can continue to have bipartisan alignment on to figure out what that exact solution is so that the air is healthier for all Arizonans.

talking about sources of electric generation. Find out our law for line sighting goes back 1971. In that time, there's a whole classification of electric generation that was not on the books because it didn't exist in that day. Namely, what we classify as what's called non-thermal, meaning solar, wind, batteries, and whatever else is to come as technology advances forward.

So the thinking here was to modernize the statute and line citing, add the definition being non-thermal to it, whether energy has come forward in a different form other than thermal, non-thermal, nuclear, and hydroelectric. Of course, we'll make the move to add that at that time. But it's talking about things at scale.

meaning the size and output of the nameplate that's on the energy generation. And these are the things that I'm addressing right here. So this means that it goes in front of the Corporation Commission. This evens the playing field across every type of energy source. And I'm open to any questions.

When you just said level the playing field, it made me think of that, because I don't know if this would level the playing field. And my question to you is, it seems that it would further exempt fossil fuels from needing to get CEC permits. And then it would also make it harder to regulate solar and wind. And so your comment about modernizing this, we're now in a society where in 1970, they probably didn't

We are adding other types of energy generation. And just like gas fired, nuclear, if it's coal fired, whatever, it doesn't matter. That's not the point. We're not picking winners and losers. Everybody gets the same day in front of the court commission.

That's the point of the bill. That's the point of the law from 1971. It's just the technology advanced to something completely different. It still makes electricity. And this subject is about electric generation. So by adjusting this bill and putting this language in there for non-thermal, that's what I mean by changing the playing field. Everybody goes before the court commission. Same degree, same scale, same method, and same discussion.

It's not about picking winners and losers, and I know many people have said that, but it's not true about this bill.

That's your court commission that you elect. They examine it, they have rules, they have procedures that they follow, including line citing and evaluating what's gonna work best, what's the appropriate economy that's gonna work for Arizona. They weigh all of those things. It's just that right now, without that being in there, this is exempt from that consideration. So adding this language, one word, thermal or non-thermal, to the definition,

Okay, in the non-thermal, just to add to that, Madam Chair and Representative Contreras, that just says the way that system works is there's a direct connection between, let's say, with solar. It's that photovoltaic effect that comes in as a result of the energy that's coming from the sun. Wind, it's the result of the energy generated through wind that's transferred mechanically into wind jams.

Okay, and then when you get into batteries, which is the other one, that's not thermal That's a chemical reaction that takes place in order to produce electricity. They're just not mentioned in the law So this is what I'm bringing this just what I mean by modernizing it adding to it. So that helps you So thank you. That was a very good explanation. Madam chair. Mr. Senator Carroll. So why are we doubling the threshold to thermal?

Madam Chair and Senator, excuse me, you're not there yet. Someday when you get the opportunity. Thank you. Yeah, I know. I appreciate it while you got it.

The increase is the fact that a lot of what we were able to do in advancements in technology in all of those arena, whether they're thermal or non-thermal and nuclear, we have greater output capabilities of those. So they're going to be much more improved in smaller packages. So I thought it was appropriate to move the labeling up as part of the consideration.

Beyond that there's no, Madam Chair and Representative Contreras, there's no other rationale behind it other than it seemed appropriate to do. Well, it seems to me it would limit our ability to use solar or wind in this kind of a case. Madam Chair and Representative Contreras, it's not true. Okay, this is just about going in front of the Corp Commission where we have this. You still can do smaller scale projects and be fine.

into consistency with thermal generating. I don't love new regulation overall. I think there could be an argument potentially if knowing why the original regulation was put in place to say maybe neither are regulated in this particular model. But I'm assuming that's where you're coming from, right? You're trying to just bring use of, you know, parity, try to bring consistency between our two different types of generation. Is that accurate?

get under the most scrutiny for whatever reason. But let's keep it simple, because that's all it is. Just what you mentioned. Thank you, sir. Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you. Mr. Vice Chair? Stan Barnes?

I appreciate, I want you to know I have worked in this space for 25 years. I would dare say I know more about this topic than anyone in this room, perhaps anyone in the building. I've been through the line signing committee dozens of times. I've had projects approved and disapproved. I can tell you that the simple spirit of parity yields nothing.

in this legislation. In fact, it's just the opposite. Representative Cooper, your instinct is right. We don't need a new regulation. We need to go the other way. Instead of adding non-thermal, we need to strike thermal. We have a lack of energy development in the state of Arizona. SRP says it took 100 years to get to 8 gigawatts of load, and they need to triple that in the next 10 years. Why would we add regulatory uncertainty, cost

and slow down the development of any energy. That's what this bill does. In the name of some ideological parody that has gone to its extreme and making no sense, that's my argument. And I've told all of this to the Senator in the past, and I was hoping I didn't have to do this here, but I will remind you, since I only have two minutes, this very committee passed a bill that said you don't need a CEC at the Corporation Commission for nuclear energy.

But yet this would bring solar into that regulatory structure when the counties already have it. And the cities already have it. You would get no improvement in reality, and you would add regulation. That's my comment. I would love a few questions, Madam Chair. Thank you, Stan. Question. Madam Chair? Yes. Thank you. Thanks, Stan. And I appreciate being deputized. I've never been a cop before. Is he looking at you? I'm excited. She's like, I want to be the cop.

generating station outside of Kingman, Arizona. Because we had done that one, we got hired for the next one, and the next one. And so, in the course of 25 years, I've experienced tens, dozens of clients going through the regulatory process and citing generation, gas, solar, wind, battery storage, and transmission lines.

And so normally, I'm an inch deep on some of these topics. But in this one, I'm more than an inch deep, because I've lived it. And I can attest to you that this new regulatory environment will yield you nothing in the real world, but will indeed slow down things in the real world. I don't know why you'd want to do that.

managed to pass a bill recognizing that it was taking over a year to get through the regulatory process at the Corporation Commission. She helped that situation by saying if your transmission line is a mile or less, you don't need to.

So if you and I invested in a solar company and it was over 200 megawatts by this bill, we would have to go through, even if the transmission's less than one mile. But the transmission does go through. That's the key, and it's a very important point for this committee to understand. It's not like renewable energy doesn't have its day in the public square.

counties decide whether or not, and cities decide whether or not you can do it. They're doing it all over the state of Arizona. It's happening already. It's already regulated. The transmission

then goes to the Corporation Commission, and they decide whether or not you could string the wire from the generator. The Corporation Commissioners, if they were here, would tell you that when they're thinking about the transmission, they're also thinking about the generation. Even though they don't have direct jurisdiction over non-thermal generation, they know that if they say yes to this transmission, that that solar field or that wind farm is going to get built.

So, the transmission is the key, that would still remain, that does still remain with the Corporation Commission, which is another reason you don't need this bill. So, Madam Chair, one more. Is that the same if you want to do a gas-fired plant or any other plant? They do have to go through the Corporation Commission to do anything, don't they, or not? That's right, Madam Chairman, they do. If they're over a certain nameplate threshold,

the thermal units must go through the Corporation Commission. The transmission, in any respect, still has to go through. We worked on transmission projects that are just infrastructure, not connected directly to a generator. They all have to go through. And I know the answer to Mr. Cupper's question, if he wants to ask it again. Well, but wouldn't it be reasonable to just level the playing field and make both

thermal and non-thermal just go through this exact same process through the Corporation Commission. That seems more reasonable to me. Madam Chairman and Mr. Heap, I appreciate where you're coming from and at one simple level, yeah, you would achieve something. But what would be the outcome? There would be new doubt and variables in signing energy.

but you would not improve whether or not the energy got built and applied to the local people. The local jurisdictions are already deciding that. So if you make solar and wind and battery storage, I might add, which is most of what's happening today, if you make them jump through a new hoop in the name of some parody,

You may feel good about it, but you've done damage to the whole process, even as we need energy now. As I say, if you're really interested in parity, go the other way and let locals zone thermal, which they're doing, but let the Corporation Commission handle the transmission. Instead of adding non-thermal, take thermal out. You'll have parity, and you'll have a market-oriented development to help catch us up where we are delinquent.

we would be creating more hoops to jump through. But the hoops are already there for one. And so it would seem logical to me that you would say you do want this one on because you don't like hoops. But that's not what you're saying. And so I feel like there's a disconnect in the two different things you're saying. On the one hand, you're saying,

And I'll tell you what I think personally now, we have all that experience. That the way to get to where Senator Carroll wants is to take thermal out. Because now we have parity. We take a cloud, a doubt over energy generation and remove that cloud. The transmission is still at the Corporation Commission. And the locals get all the zoning they want. Believe me, they turn down projects. And adding a regulator.

because you believe it achieves parity, I think, is taking an ideology and going so far with it that it makes no sense. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Stan. Thank you, Madam Chair. And he was always also a radio personality, too, Representative Carter. I would never have known. I hope I get the first name right. It looks like Colt Rich.

Arizona needs more energy right now than we've ever needed in the history of the state. We need it now. We need it for the lowest cost that we can get. We are literally turning away businesses that want to locate here that need tremendous amounts of energy to locate.

But instead, this bill, with that backdrop, it increases regulations, it increases the cost of building that energy that we need, it increases the time it takes to do that, it increases the risk for developers that are doing it, it grows government, it grows bureaucracy.

We don't need that bill, this bill right now. Madam Chair, you did a great thing a few years ago. You ran a bill, as Stan referenced, that made it take less time to go through the Line Sighting Committee and accepted out energy projects that are much needed that have transmission lines that are less than one mile. This bill would all of a sudden make all of those projects have to go back through this process and undo the great progress that we made a couple years ago, a couple sessions ago.

There's been a lot of talk about parity. You have two choices. You have more regulation or less regulation. The idea that to get parity we would go towards the more regulation just seems perverse to me. If we're really concerned about parity, let's look at what we value, which is less regulation. Arizona has a very well-earned

reputation for having a low regulatory touch, a light regulatory touch, why would we think parity means let's upregulate? No, if we want parity and that is the goal, let's do it the right way. And if that means less regulation, then great. But the idea of making something worse for someone because it provides parity just seems perverse. At the end of the day,

This bill is just more regulation. It's more cost. It's more time. It's more risk. And who pays that price? It's the consumers that buy energy in Arizona. And I submit that this committee doesn't want that and has done bill after bill over the years to try to keep energy rates low and keep government effectively operating. I'm happy to answer any questions. I appreciate your time.

There are dozens, if not 100 or more, energy projects that were never intending for this bill, never understanding that this regulation would ever apply to them, that would get whiplashed by this. Now understanding that this new regulation in this state that has a low regulatory reputation, all of a sudden would apply to them, and that would change everything. So I think you're certainly correct that those risks are there. Again, that's the case for less regulation, not more. Why impose, in the name of parity, why impose risks as opposed to remove them?

Madam Chair? Yes. Thank you. Arizona's had power for far longer than 50 years, so wouldn't the people who cited power plants before this original regulation was in place, wouldn't they have felt the same situation that you're identifying now? Madam Chair, Representative, I mean, I certainly can't speak to what they were thinking back then, but certainly I would imagine that more regulation at that time probably drove up energy prices too. Thank you.

If it's riskier, the cost of borrowing money, these are billion dollar projects or half a billion dollar projects. Every little amount of risk costs money and adds to the cost of that project. Then when it comes time to sell the energy from the project to the public in Arizona through our utilities,

the price of that energy is going to be higher. Because if I pick up the phone today to try to get on the agenda at the line siting committee, it's going to be a year or more before I can get on that agenda. If all of a sudden every single one of these projects has to go back into that pool and get on that agenda, it's going to be even longer. And we need the energy today, and we need it fast. And so the longer it takes, the more it costs.

So you could choose not to go with the higher rate. In fact, it did increase the rate. Madam Chair, Representative.

The consumer ends up paying that one way or the other. They can't choose one or the other. And frankly, if you're forced to choose something else because the cheaper one got more expensive, you're paying more because you're being forced to buy something that you wouldn't have bought for more. Madam Chair, but that doesn't necessarily mean I would choose solar or wind. It doesn't mean that as a consumer I could choose

something else. A company that would produce something else or even the utility company. Madam Chair, Representative, the utilities go through competitive processes when they go to buy power to sell to all of us. They say, give me your best offer. And so solar companies and gas companies and coal companies and whoever

tell the utility, here's what I can get you, and here's what it's going to cost. And then the utility picks the lowest cost version of that. A lot of that has been renewable or clean energy, that then the cost of that would go up as a result of this regulation. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. OK. Thank you, Court. Thank you. Sandy Barr.

impacting some of the decision-making that's taken place there over how they rate the different energy sources. Apparently their focus seems to be affording gas power or thermal generation. And yes, it's true, everything should be on the table. The point of the bill here, and I think the crux of it is, if you want to take everything off the table, that includes

Thermal, nuclear, and hydroelectric as well. So those things would come off. The point here is we've been doing this, and when I say make the playing field level, thermal gets the same consideration. It has to go before the corp just like thermal does, just like nuclear does, all of that. And a lot of those areas are advancing quite a bit in technology. They're fair game. And that's all we're looking for here. So I'm going to come back to parity.

Whether people like the way the Corp Commission thinks about its rules and operations, that's up to the Corporation Commission members that were elected. Okay, this is just from a statutory standpoint saying we left something out that we didn't know existed at the time that this bill, that law was put in place.

So to me, that's modernizing the law and that's making it a fair game for everybody. They have to work just as hard. This does not increase regulation. This does not increase costs. It makes it on par with what you get with thermal and nuclear and so on and so forth. So please support the bill. I hope you will. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Madam Chair? Yes. If I may, I'd like to ask a question about McGorry. Okay. Yes.

Yeah, I think so. And then also the 100 to 200 megawatt change in it too. Okay, Madam Chair, further question? Yes. Thank you. It was brought up by a couple of the people testifying that they thought if we wanted parity to go the other way and just remove the regulation, is that something you would be in favor of? Representative Licari. I'd be happy to have a conversation deeper about this outside of committee, sure.

Madam Chair, just a comment. Yes. I guess I keep getting stuck on what I see Senator Carroll trying to do here is, like he said a few times now, it really does seem like it's a parody. I think 50 years ago, we didn't quite have these other technologies to the level they are today to produce the megawatts that they produce now. And it's great that we have more options now. I think it's fantastic.

Like I mentioned earlier, I really like consistency. I don't love over-regulation, but I do love consistency. It's just interesting to me that some of what I'm hearing in testimony, at least maybe not the personal choices, but the clients themselves,

it almost seems like they want to carve out, and I'm not trying to impugn their motives, but it sounds like they may want to carve out for themselves that the other entities aren't getting. And I don't like that. I like consistency, I like treating each equally. All right, nobody else has signed up to speak. So Mr. Vice Chair. Madam Chair, I move that Senate Bill 1538 be returned with a due pass recommendation.

The way that the bill is written essentially does not apply to new gas-peaking plants at all. So it favors dirty energy providers. It also puts communities at risk, which also opens up the door to a lot of health harms of having gas-powered plants closer to our communities.

And my final comment there ties into the bill that we just heard, where gas-powered plants are, they do emit volatile organic compounds, which are contributing to ground-level ozone. So it seems we're trying to solve in one, but then we're also favoring a dirty energy that would continue to contribute to the problem on the other hand. So happy to be in conversations after this, but not supporting the bill today.

This will include lands opened by the state and not held in a trust. The DNR with the commission will appoint a director and a commission will consist of five board members appointed for a term of five years. Three of these members will be appointed by the governor, one by the Speaker of the House, and one by the President of the Senate. And with that, I'm available for any questions. Any questions for staff? Thank you. Sponsor the bill, Senator. Madam Chair, members, thank you for hearing this bill.

We've got Game and Fish that own some land and they grow hay and they compete with farmers to feed wildlife, mainly deer, elk, the larger animals. We have the DFFM that they do what they can to try and manage what has become, if any of you caught the

fire insurance crisis hearing that we had last week over in the Senate. They do what they can with the resources that they have to manage the fire load. We've got a number of other organizations that are charged with watershed management. We've got all these agencies and we've got all these

these organizations within state government, we don't have a unified Department of Natural Resources. Now, many of you probably know I come from Michigan. There, if we use that as a model, which this quite frankly was the model of Michigan, we have a situation where the state of Michigan has about 1% of its land under federal control.

State of Michigan runs the state forests, state parks, state campgrounds, licensing for fishing, game, licensing for harvesting hardwoods that become furniture. All of the natural resources within that state are managed by the Department of Natural Resources, DNR. They have various divisions, but they're agencies within the department.

But one of the things that is coming our way is the federal government right now has an appetite for divesting, for essentially distributing the unappropriated lands that are currently managed, for the most part, by BLM. There are other pieces of land, like Forest Service. Madam Chairman, I'm glad that you read my mind in talking about the map.

It occurs to me that we have, every single term that I've been in the House of Representatives, we have a discussion about education funding. How on earth do you think you're going to fund education when we only control 11% of the tax base?

where in other states it's up to 95%. That's why states like Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, that's why they're able to pay double what we do on a per student basis. I'm not going to go down the tax package side. What I want to focus on today is we do not have an organization

That is prepared to accept federal lands that are not These are not what we're talking about is non trust land. We already got Arizona land trust that's already taken care of It's its own division set up at statehood. They manage trust land

We're talking about non-trust land. This is the land that when, for example, the Department of the Interior decides that it's going to instruct the BLM to dispose of the unappropriated lands that are proprietorial interest only. That means that it's the lowest level of land possession or authority over lands that the federal government maintains. Now, of course, there's people that have said, made wild claims, oh, we're going to see wholesale destruction of the public lands

Building everywhere. Well, we also have a housing shortage. So we've got a bunch of competing interests here. I think we would be well advised to have a Department of Natural Resources that brings all of that under one roof so that we have a coordinated, sane land management policy organization to execute on the policy that this body lays forward. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

And the Trump administration, I'm hearing from a number of folks in D.C. that they are now open, especially the Department of the Interior, which houses the Bureau of Land Management, they are open to disposing of those unappropriated lands. So essentially, this Department of Natural Resources would be that organization where the catchers met to catch what hopefully will be a fastball.

More state sovereignty over our entire land over our entire state mass and sort of that this is the golden opportunity to be able to have our states more in control.

An enclave was specifically for one of two purposes. 10 square miles, known as the Washington District of Columbia, okay? Then for forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings, like VA hospitals, okay? It did not contemplate, in fact, Elbridge Gerry said, if the national government, which at the time, we didn't have a federal government, they were debating this very idea.

Elbridge Gerry argued that if the national government is permitted to possess too much land in a state, it will bring that state, it will yield, the state will have to yield. It will be awed into submission. So what do we have today? A national government that every time it decides that it wants to blow on the state of Arizona, something bad happens. So not only do we have the historical reference to that,

We have a president who has openly said that he believes in the concept of federalism. That means the federal government is supposed to be taking care of national security, things that are common to all the states. But the state government, under the 10th Amendment, by the way, where the authority for the federal government came from, from the states, the states do have sovereignty, okay?

I would remind you, in fact, maybe you don't know, 1976, Congress passed law instructing the Department of the Interior that they should re-seed, not putting seeds in the ground, but to re-seed, in other words, to send back to the states, on appropriate land,

dispose of the unappropriated land. That was 1976. 1978, Congress passed a similar bill instructing the same thing to happen with the Department of Agriculture, which is where the Bureau of, I'm sorry, the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Park Service reside. Now why they didn't put it all under the Department of Interior, I could find out. Seems like an oversight to me, but I live not more than a mile from the Prescott National Forest.

And every time I drive by that sign, I'm wondering, why is that not the Prescott State Forest? I mean, you look at the overgrowth of trees, and I'm happy to provide the photographic evidence of the San Juan fire, if you would like. U of A says, in their scientific work, a healthy forest is 35 to 45 trees.

I have a photograph of a state-managed forest directly across the firebreak road from Federal Forest, which has about 300 trees per acre. So we talk about proper forest management. Well, the Forest Service has not exactly done a great job, but in their defense, and limitedly so, you have organizations like the Sierra Club and Center for Biological Diversity. They want to litigate everything having to do with land management.

Well, therein lies the problem. If the state were to go in and treat, in other words, thin some of this fuel, ladder fuels, and some of this fuel load, we wouldn't have the catastrophic fires that we're now seeing. I think that the federal government has recognized, particularly this administration, has recognized that the federal policy going back decades

has contributed to mismanagement of the lands. And by the way, the Forest Service is supposed to do two things. Not just take care of the forest, but what? Water. Improve the watershed. How do you do that? You know, we have a lot of discussion about water policy, okay?

it takes water to grow trees. And when you say, for example, you have a mature pinyon juniper, that's pulling 47 gallons of water out of the ground a day. Multiply that times 100,000 just in the metro area. It seems kind of funny to call it metro, but just in the immediate area of Prescott and Prescott Valley. That's a lot of water. And then you add to it, you get into tall timber, you've got trees that should be thinned,

I believe it's an 8-inch tall pine that's going to drop between 110-150 gallons of water a day. A day! There are areas where you've got 300-400 trees per acre. It's so thick that a full-grown elk can't walk through that area.

So that's a problem. And I believe the state of Arizona could do a better job under the Department of Natural Resources to do everything from manage our gas, because we do have gases here. We have helium. We have petroleum gases. We have a number of carbon dioxide, for example. But we have a lot of natural resources that would go to funding education, funding infrastructure, public safety. A lot of the things that we have a challenge with

when it comes time for appropriation. So to answer your question in a word, yes, the federal government is ready, in my estimation, what I'm hearing out of D.C. and the relationships I have back there, they're ready. That would be nice. That would be nice. We have a long agenda. Let's move on. Sorry, one quick question. Yes. Thank you. Senator Fincham, thank you for being here. I didn't see a fiscal note. Is there a projected cost to establish this?

That would be up to the scope that the governor's office wants to set. This simply establishes the office. That would be probably an exercise for next year. Once the office is established, then the governor would step forward and populate that in a manner that she would, well, that the governor would prescribe.

There is study in the right way to do things, okay? Within that map, though, you've also got some municipal lands, but you also have, and it doesn't show the checkerboard. If you'd like, I can get you a full-size map so you can visualize this. There is land that's controlled by the BLM, the Forest Service, the Park Service, and

There's also a wildlife preserve down. It would not take over the military range. And quite frankly, I don't think we want to take responsibility for the Goldwater Range, considering there's a lot of live ordinance out on the ground out there. They can keep that. And to that effect, I have a map in my office I'm having brought down. Does it qualify?

state trust lands, military, reservations, Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service. So it would be BLM and Forest Service, I would imagine that you're talking about. Yeah, Madam Chair, to that point, and this is a number, you're probably gonna have a hard time wrapping your head around it, because I did, okay? 3.2 million acres. BLM, Forest Service, Park Service.

That's those guys. Everything else, this doesn't do anything with, okay? It would just be whatever lands, in fact, federal lands, unless the federal government cedes it back to us, it's not a part of DNR, would not be a part of DNR. Now, to reference the study you were talking about, ma'am, I know you've got a long agenda, but this is, I would urge you to look up the study, Divided Lands, that was published by PERC about 10 years ago.

And it explains the difference between land management styles. When the state manages land, it makes about a buck 27 an acre. When the federal government manages land, I think it loses like 92 or 97 cents an acre. One actually brings something back to the state. The other costs the taxpayers just for sitting on top of it.

What I hear from that is we would like to take back these lands to sell or extract or use them from a profit-driven perspective. So that's a question. Is that accurate? And then how would we increase education funding by creating this new regulatory body? That's a great question, Madam Chair, Representative Laguerre. I'll just take one small piece of this, okay? Do you know where Rayon comes from?

wood pulp. So, you are able to go through and harvest, some people call it thinning, but let's just, for the sake of grins and giggles, harvest the excess over 45 trees per acre. Some of it is going to be timber that can make lumber, but a good portion of it is going to be too small for timber. So, we're talking about 4 inch to 8 inch trees. Yes, I was a stump knocker with a crew for a few years.

But you have four to six inch trees, they're pulling up 100 gallons a day. You come in and you harvest those trees to make the larger trees more healthy, reduce the water consumption. That wood pulp can be sold on the market, I love that wood, can be sold on the market intended for wood pulp manufacturing.

for a whole host of things, everything from paper to rayon to a whole host of products. That is the map, by the way, where you see the blue and white. That's what's called a checkerboard. That's where you have private property mixed in with federal property. The BLM and Forest Service is yellow and green.

It's rock, it's dirt, not a lot of topsoil. It's pretty, but you've got people that want to hike on it, they want to recreate on it. That's a premium, okay? But you also have forested lands and you have watershed. Again, the Department of Natural Resources, we have this tendency to think of water not really as a natural resource, but try getting along without it.

It's a natural resource that I think when we bring all of these agencies under one roof, the Department of Natural Resources, we now have a coordinated response to managing all of that. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let's move on. Michael Cravens. Michael, are you here? No? I guess that's it. All right. Any further discussion?

And finally the bill asserts September 1st of 2025 to begin the one-year submission window and that past that day any applicant who is not timely submitted an application for reimbursement would lose eligibility without Thank you any questions Thank You Mike Williams

that money stays encumbered. And so we want to give them a one-year timeline to do it. We also want a report sent to the legislature on how much money is in the fund and what's actually been being used and what's not being used. Two years ago, we swept a big portion of the money out of the fund because the legislature has no idea of what's been encumbered and what hasn't, what's been committed for cleanup.

So this report will be issued annually to the legislators. And Madam Chairman, because you have a long agenda, I'll be happy to answer any questions. Any questions? Mr. Williams, we've been working on.

Very long history, Madam Chairman. Yes, yes. Any questions for

We will go to 1134.

The Strike Everything Amendment to Senate Bill 1134 allows monies to be deposited in the authority's general fund or in a bond fund. It repeals and rewrites the authority to issue revenue bonds and the requirements for the board to notify the Attorney General of its intention to issue bonds.

It modifies the scope of resolution for a bond issue and expands the authority of who can set a time and place for a board hearing. The Strike Everything Amendment to Senate Bill 1134 additionally modifies requirements relating to bonds including sale, redemption, and issuance. It allows the authority to borrow monies from the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority and to enter into a loan repayment agreement and finally defines or alters the definition of drinking water facility, wastewater facility, and project. With that, I'm available for any questions. Any questions for Corbin?

The Pinal County Water Augmentation Authority has been in place since 1993, as they said, but the text has never been clear as to the ability to bond projects for infrastructure. So this is cleaning up the text.

We've had some bond attorneys workforce get that the text cleaned up so that we can now Finance some infrastructure projects in Pinal County the bonds will be paid back by the

the proceeds from the sale of the water and or leasing, whatever we do in the future. So that being said, this is the purpose for this bill. It's been sorely needed for many years. And all the years I've been a county supervisor, I kept getting told that, no, it's not worded correctly. Now it's worded correctly. We need to be able to go forward.

It's certainly needed in Pinal County for infrastructure in the future. So I'd ask that you give it the support. And I'm standing for any questions. Any questions for supervisor? Thank you, Steve. Thank you. John Singleton. Joe. I apologize, Joe Singleton.

And you, Madam Chairwoman, for sponsoring the amendment and the rest of our local delegation are members of this committee. Supervisor Miller did a pretty good job of explaining the situation. The line item technical provisions that you heard from staff are based on recommendations that we received from Professional Bond Council on how to modernize and update our statutory language that had been in place since 1993 and never used.

Would add just for your benefit this particular section of statute is unlikely to ever apply to anybody but us But the way that the formation provisions are written you need to have under a certain population being an AMA Have somebody in the AMA with the CMP subcontract. So It's not prohibited. It couldn't ever apply to somebody else Necessarily by the size or you can create subsequent AMA's as we've seen but I think the fact that you have to have a CMP contract probably narrows the field to us and

There's a separate section the statute this speaks to a different kind of counter water augmentation authority I think it's two chapters after us, but that's that's not ours. So With that I appreciate you hearing us today. Maybe have any questions you might have any questions Thank you for being here. Thank you Craig McFarland

so we're here to just emphasize really how important this SB 1134 is to our county it gives us another tool in our tool chest for to try and help us with our water future and if it all county is going to continue to grow these are the kind of tools that we need so we'd appreciate your support on this and thank you and answer any questions if you have any. Any questions for Mr. McFarland? Thank you.

Thank you. Would you move to strike all Griffin amendment? Madam Chair, I move that the Griffin strike everything amendment dated 3-21-25 at 2-43 p.m. be adopted. Thank you. I've heard the motion. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed say nay.

If ayes appear to have it, do have it, so ordered. Would you move the bill as amended, please? Madam Chair, I move that Senate Bill 1134, as amended, be returned with a do pass recommendation. Thank you. I've heard the motion. Any further discussion? Seeing none, please call the roll. Representative Carter? Aye. Representative Contreras? Aye.

and particularly thankful for Supervisor Miller, who's been steadfast and probably the best water buffalo I've ever met. Also, to my dear friend, Craig McFarland, with that, I enthusiastically vote aye. Thank you. Representative Mathis? Aye. Representative Pescatore? Aye. Vice Chairman Lopez? Madam Chair? Yes. Well, can I say that Representative Martinez already hasn't, but with that, I also say aye.

and credit 95% of the volume of recharged water as replenishment credits. It prescribes how ADWR is to conduct the accounting of these replenishment credits and Senate Bill 1236 additionally allows for the use or transfer of replenishment credits to any other eligible entity and the credit to upon use then to offset the credit holder's replenishment obligation within the same sub-basin for any year if certain requirements are met.

Additionally, it mandates that replenishment credits be treated as groundwater and not stored water. And finally, it authorizes the director of ADWR to issue a water storage permit that is either solely for the storage of stormwater or a combination of water sources. And with that, I'm available for any questions. Any questions for Corbyn? Thank you, Corbyn. Reed Bailey.

of appropriable surface water to which other users, including farmers, cities, homeowners, and SRP itself, among others, already have a right. I think the fundamental question here is, where is that water going today? If it's going into the ground, then it's already recharging the aquifer, and it's part of the AMA picture.

If it flows in a channel and flows downstream, then it's appropriable surface water that's already spoken for. There are several issues that we see with the bill, at least in its current form. First, it does not define stormwater, which leaves in place our concerns related to conflicts with vested water rights. Second, it potentially double counts stormwater recharge.

that is already factored into ADWR's existing groundwater models. It's worth noting that ADWR does not currently consider stormwater as an acceptable water source for recharge, stating that it has to be deducted for the purposes of calculating long-term storage credits. Lastly, the bill as drafted directs DWR to make a prescriptive determination that 95% of the total recharge stormwater materializes as an aquifer benefit, which we,

consider somewhat of a large assumption when compared to the volume of credits that would be earned on paper. This legislation doesn't really specify how these credits could be reliably measured, and a lacking data-based analysis, any such overestimation, we think undercuts storage-based investments that other entities have already made.

So for the reasons stated, we respectfully urge a no vote. However, we would welcome an opportunity to work with the proponents to explore whether there's a pathway for the concept in some form. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, Madam Chair. I'll be happy to answer questions. Thank you. And since this is the Senate President's bill, I'm sure he would sit down and work with you on it.

If ADWR already counts stormwater and this is talking about crediting stormwater, what would make it more clear, I guess, if you could help me out? Madam Chair, Representative Koepper, so this creates a new form of credit that we're still trying to understand. So welcome to explore options. I'm not sure what the solution would be at this point. Madam Chair? Yes. Thank you. Did I hear right that you mentioned

Thank you. And we, Madam Chair, Representative Pepper, we are working with some partners on a demonstration project involving stormwater-related technologies. So, we've kept that up in mind. Any other questions for Fareed? Madam Chair? Yes, Representative Liguori. Thank you. Fareed, with the credits, like,

making more water and just because I have this bucket doesn't mean I should get those credits.

Evaporates before it gets into the ground So this is a way to get to catch it and put it and quantify it put in the ground And get credit for it. So that's pretty much The way I read the bill Madam chair. Yes. Thank you, madam chair Is it true that this would also apply outside of the AMA is where there's no replenishment obligation I

Madam Chair, members of the committee, I'm Michael Monti here for the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association. We're here in opposition to this bill. I would simply echo Mr. Bailey's comprehensive testimony on those points regarding the lack of definition and the nebulousness of the stormwater term, the double counting possibility and recharge, the uncertainty about who owns the stormwater runoff,

and the fact that it creates an unnecessary new credit system. I think that the AMWA position on this

more succinctly is that this is premature legislation. Maybe a good idea, but that it's being implemented too soon because there are many questions yet to answer about how much of that water can be counted versus what's already counted and about ownership and those other issues. In point of fact though, there is a study, a collaboration with ADWR and our three universities

that is working on studying that issue right now. It's called the Arizona Tri-University Recharge and Water Reliability Project. And so our position is that type of research should be allowed to play out more before legislating a credit system that really relies on precise understanding of where the water winds up before we legislate a system for creating credits for it.

Camarata Ranch, the owner of Camarata Ranch, I'm surprised to come speak to you today. And I authored this legislation and will answer some of the questions that you had about location. This is only for the providers and potentially member lands of the CAGRD. It references the replenishment obligations, which are primarily, you know, Phoenix, Pinal, and Tucson AMAs.

What this is intended to do is to provide an incentive for something that people aren't doing right now, which is capturing stormwater when we have it. It's very rare, but it does happen, and give them an incentive to make the investments and the operation and management trouble.

to get that water into the ground to recharge groundwater where it's taken out. There are restrictions on the area. And the type of credit that they get through this program is all of the mechanisms that this program uses are already set up. This doesn't add much of anything. There are already extinguishment credits that work exactly the same way as the replenishment credits would in practice. They're not the same thing.

The replenishment credits would be something that DWR tracks. It already tracks other types of credits. They would allow a provider who has to pay CGRD to replenish in some place where CGRD decides to replenish. They would allow the avoidance of paying that charge if the provider can prove that through their own investment, their own efforts, they are getting their own water into the ground. As far as the objection that was lodged about the definition of stormwater, I know what stormwater is.

It's what falls from the sky that isn't effluent, that isn't surface water, that isn't groundwater. Surface water is a very specific definition in the statute. And at the point at which it becomes surface water, then it would no longer be stormwater. So that's not a barrier to approval of this program. That's not a term that necessarily even needs to be defined. The program will benefit the local groundwater aquifer because it will offset groundwater withdrawals right where they occur.

The incentive should also be effective because CGRD currently charges those water providers, including potentially some of the ones that are in AMLO, although some of them do self-replenish already, but it charges those who require replenishment services in the 2024-2025 fiscal year $856 per acre foot to replenish

an acre foot of water. A city that takes the initiative, does all the things that the Department of Water Resources tells it to do, does all of the things that Department of Environmental Quality tells it to do to treat this stormwater as it should be treated to get it into the ground effectively,

then they will be rewarded by avoiding that charge that they would otherwise have to pay to CAGRD by showing CAGRD. I really don't think I have too much to add, but if you do have questions, I'm here and available. Any questions? Madam Chair? Yes. Did you work with the stakeholders process with SRP? I have talked to SRP after it was drafted, but no, I was just asked to draft the testimony. I'm a mere caveman lawyer.

I did not organize this matter. I just wrote the legislation at request of a client. Madam Chair? Yes. Who is the client? Camerata Ranch and Surprise, the owner of the land. Madam Chair? Yes. And who are they? They're an owner of a land that would like to see, frankly, and I hesitate to say this, they'd like to see more effort spent on groundwater recharge with stormwater in the Surprise area.

This is embarrassing, but I do not know because this particular landowner owns a lot of other parcels too, but I don't know. I apologize for that. We can get that information for you. Thank you. A follow-up? Yes. Thank you. To the best of your knowledge, is the term stormwater defined anywhere in statute?

I do not think I'd search for that. I would have to search. Madam Chair? Yes. Thanks. So you mentioned that you don't believe it needs defined because other things are defined, and so I would assume what you're going by is if everything else is defined, you can assume what's not defined is this. I would argue and push back against that, though,

The words we use in our bills matter very, very much so because I think we need to do the best we can. We'll never make a perfect bill, but I think we need to do the best we can to not leave things up for interpretation. Would you be open to adding a definition of stormwater?

Okay, Mr. Vice Chair, let's move the bill. Madam Chair, I move that Senate Bill 1236 be returned with a do pass recommendation. Thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing none, please call the roll. Representative Carter? Pass. Representative Contreras? Nay. Representative Heap? Aye.

It won't do anything to help water-scarce areas. The fact that we can't define credits and that experts in the room don't understand what the bill is, language is getting at. It could increase pumping. I think it goes against kind of everything we're doing when we're looking at water management here. I vote no.

6 with a do pass recommendation. Thank you. 1236 what did I say? Okay. With your vote of 6 ayes 4 nays you have passed Senate Bill 1236 with a do pass recommendation. Thank you. All right. Next bill on the calendar is 1520.

The bill outlines the requirements, maintenance, reporting, and operation of certificates of groundwater rights and a flexibility account associated with each certificate in a BMA. It prescribes duties of the director of ADWR and the department relating to water rights, regulations, and the functioning of the BMA designation. It requires a Basin Management Council be created in each BMA and outlines the council's membership, duties, jurisdiction, and authorized actions. It provides goals for the BMA and Basin Management Council

And finally, repeals the Wilcox AMA and supplants the Wilcox BMA and additionally requires the director of ADWR to file an order designating the Wilcox AMA as repealed and outlines further requirements of the order. With that, I'm available for any questions. Thank you, Corbyn. Any questions for Corbyn? Seeing none. Thank you. The sponsor of the bill is here. Senator Dunn.

So those farmers have been you're no more no more well drilling those are those are shut down But they're not limited on the amount of pumping you'll hear some testimony from folks up there Wilcox is represented here. I know and we were seven conversation that basin has been heavily

It's one of the depletion of groundwater is extensive. And so what do we need to do? We're trying to do something better than what the current AMA that's proposed that's being established in Wilcox. We're trying to do something better than the INA that makes it equitable for the whole region. This gives a certificated groundwater right to those people that are pumping and goes back 10 years.

take out the zero years. There's a lot of agreement that we've been working with the Governor's office and Representative Mathis and the leaders in adoration over the last year and a half and we're going to continue to work so. We need to continue to come together as far as what we need to do to help these citizens that want to do something.

You'll hear that this bill is not going far enough, that we should be doing something like Representative Mathis' bill that will add 40% cuts to the offer over 40 years. So you'll hear testimony on both sides of what is the right balance.

And I'm not saying this bill here is perfect but we do want to do something for the citizens that and to protect the landowners the people that are pumping down there because We know that these are the three or the basins that are in peril and we have a lot of conversation What should we do for the rest of the state?

I've been engaging with conversations with folks all around on both sides of the issue, and we can continue to have those conversations. But what we can do is try to work on these three basins, open a conversation with the department. We've asked for a couple of the basins that was in Representative Mathis' bill.

You know, what is it? What is the hydrology in those areas? You know, you know, we need to be factual you look at the basis of where the Hydrology shows us we know that these three bases do Considering looking at those other ones when they give us a hydrology and we talk those conversations So it's very you know

A lot of conversations over rural groundwater and what we should be doing, and this is an attempt to make sure that we listen to the constituents in these three districts, work with our stakeholders, work with everybody on both sides of the, what do you want to call it, the aisle. Water shouldn't be partisan, but there seems to be folks on both sides of the situation that says we're going to

We're not doing enough. We've got to do way more, but we have to at least do something. This is my version of doing something, taking that, the regulations they're asking for. I'm not sure if Ben Hoffman is here, but when the Gila Bend Irrigation District votes to support this bill, they'd rather have this certainty as opposed to an AMA. With certain dairy farmers, this is their livelihood. So these guys want to do something, and so I'm asking for your support

pushing this forward, give us a chance to continue talking about that. Because we want to have the safeguards, we want to control what's going on in these areas while at least stopping it at the 10% and making sure that we have the council set up with the right people that are going to work on that. We've been doing this for two years, I could talk for an hour on this, but we'll answer questions and if you have any questions of me.

They're able, but they can't add any more acres to it. So that closes the basin for agricultural pumping, but nothing else. The AMA in Wilcox, that closes the basin for all new pumping. There's some additional certain things, but I believe there's only a limited amount of reductions. So if the residents are wanting reductions, the BMA gives the certificate of rights so we can do things that's better than what the AMA is down there. The Gila Bend Basin does not currently have

An overlay, but they were being threatened with one last year from the Department of Water Resources because they do have benchmarks that they've hit that is potentially in a Could be an AMA so that that's the one that that would be the only new the new spot But they've asked to do this certainty as opposed to not

This would create a new agency. Is that what you're asking for? It's it's it's within it's still within the Department of Water Resources So it's a it's a management of water. So currently we have the ability to have an AMA like the Phoenix sits in and Tucson and we have

So this is not creating an agency. This is taking the authorization or taking the regulation of the water that's in those areas. Right now they can do an INA, do nothing, or do an AMA. And this is a basin management area, so they give the director or the citizens the petition by vote the ability to control some of their destiny.

The water supply for farmers ranchers dairy or would you sit or agriculture. There is no agriculture involved in this.

then the citizens can take 10% and go out and get a petition and say we want to put this on our area. It's only right now in this bill restricted to these three areas. You'll hear testimony that they would like to have it expanded across the state and we'll have those conversations but the bill that you're voting on today is restricted just to those three.

But that's just some small technical stuff. The bigger conversation, we didn't want to try to pick and choose which amendments that we, Mr. Chair Griffin and I agreed to. So there's going to be more conversation. There will need to be a COW amendment. And so there will have to be a lot of conversation. I keep saying prior to, right up until the week we sign it, I, is when we would probably hopefully get an agreement, maybe before then. But that's, you know, so we can further explain it if you can help me get it out of committee.

How should we approach this hearing today given that and given that this this is still in flux I know we're gonna hear a lot of testimony from folks on various aspects of it, but But that is the that is the situation and you were talking about we may well be Talking about this up until sine die last year. We got up to sine die and we weren't done yet and so he had a bill that was sent up it was vetoed and and now here we are again and

So I just wondered if you could touch on that, and also, Madam Chair, if you would wish to, just as kind of where we are in the process.

I think it gives us something concrete that we can work around this framework. We continue to have the amendments language. We continue to know where we're at. And we, in good faith, kind of continue negotiating and know where, you know, because we have folks that are concerned on both sides of the aisle that what is this bill going to do? How are we going to go too far, not enough? And so this is the framework we can move forward so that we can kind of continue to have those conversations back and forth and continue to debate it between us as we grow, go through and get our stakeholders process. And so it just keeps us focused.

And so And my goal would be that we could Because because I'm hearing from people and all these residents in these areas that we wanted we don't want to do nothing Again, we need to do something even if it's for just these three And so you know so like we we wait to wait for perfect or do we get instead of good or do we? And or we continue to kick the ball down the road

It alters what's included in substantial capital investment for irrigation users and alters the authorized regulations that a Basin Management Council can adopt in the BMA management plan. Without the bill, for any questions on the amendment. Any questions for Corbin? We'll move on to speakers. Stephen Kissel.

We know it will take a number of generations to make necessary changes, but residents in the area now feel a renewed hope that our water future will be more secure. But much work is left to be done. We've said all along that changes need to be made to the AMA framework to better address the specific needs of groundwater protection in rural Arizona. We need more flexibility.

We need more local input, because every basin is not the same. We need more local input in the decision-making process, and we need new tools and additional resources. We hope the legislative process could help address these needs. Unfortunately, this latest bill, the Basin Management Area, SB 1520, this falls far short of what we had hoped for, and it is clearly the wrong solution to replace an AMA in a place like the Wilcox Basin.

After carefully reading SB 1520 multiple times, it became obvious to me that this bill does more to maintain the current levels of groundwater depletion than it does to reduce the actual overdraft. Simply put, this bill will leave the Wilcox Basin high and dry. There are numerous provisions in this bill that constrain the local council's ability to effectively manage our groundwater.

and meet the needs of the basin in terms of groundwater reductions. But the most troublesome aspect of this bill are the prescribed limits of 10% on required reductions indefinitely, if I'm reading it right, and the absence of meaningful tools and resources to realize any significant voluntary reductions. Because if you can't do it all with required reductions, you're gonna have to get some voluntary reductions.

I don't have time to go into all the specifics in my two minutes, but it is clear to me that with the constraints put on required reductions, a lack of committed resources, and tools for voluntary reductions, the Wilcox Basin will never attain combined voluntary required reductions much greater than 10%. That is simply a death sentence for the Wilcox Basin.

And to reduce that overdraft, we're going to need voluntary and required reductions.

In the voluntary category, I would put things like a cut to the aquifer with any transfer or conveyance of water. We talk about flex credits within this bill. Those flex credits can be sold in this bill, and there's no cut to the aquifer when that sale is made. The same thing with any conveyance. There's only one condition in this aquifer for conveyance.

that offers any cut to the aquifer and that's 15% for just for just for Conveyances from agriculture to municipal or industrial So those are those are a few of the examples that we could use madam chair. Yes, I call for the question So that we can vote on this if we might we have a lot of people that came a long way to

And we're dealing with a 350% overdraft. So that means three and a half times more water's been pulled out of the ground water now than is going back in. You simply can't offset the amount of water. A 10% reduction in pumping

would roughly be, you know, I don't know the exact numbers because, you know, we haven't gotten all the irrigated groundwater, the grandfathered rights established yet, but I'm guessing 10% would be somewhere on the order of 18,000 acres. Our overdraft is closer to 100,000 acres. I'm sorry, acre feet, I said acre, I meant acre feet.

So clearly 10%, and the way this bill is written, you might even be lucky to get 10%, especially in any, there's so many, I would say, unreasonable constraints on the hydrological conditions when you go to subsequent management plans after the first management plan that would allow the council to increase the amount of reduction.

If they hadn't already reached eight ten percent, but I believe the bill actually caps it at ten percent ever But let's say after the first measure plan, you only had eight percent The only way you could increase that in the second management plan would be if the basin was dropping Across the entire basin. I mean a mean decline of five feet per year time. That's huge Thank you, sir. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Yes a comment, but feel free to you know

Well, actually it's working great right now because I can't tell you how many times I would leave the house I do a lot of bicycling in the area how many times I would see the the big Earth movers pulling out mesquite and clearing land and we know what they're doing. They're using it for it's not for development It's not for housing. Trust me. I

So the AMA is working? The AMA is certainly helping in terms of keeping new irrigation from starting up. That's for sure. It's too early to know if it's working because we haven't even established the irrigated IGFRs, the Irrigation Grandfathered Rights. But I have hope that under a subsequent AMA that we'll have a little more flexibility than they had in the initial AMAs. But it's still not enough. There's a lot of things lacking in the AMA that we'd like to see.

and the co-owner of a vineyard and winery in the Wilcox Basin. And I'm here today in opposition to 1520. As a small farmer, I recognize that the AMA designation is not the optimal solution for managing rural groundwater.

And more effective legislation is required to address the dramatic depletion of water from the aquifer, while also providing some flexibility for farmers to transition to an economy that's more suitable for the water realities of the 21st century. And also securing a stable water supply for residents. And 1520 just doesn't meet those needs. The first and most glaring inadequacy is just what Steve was talking about.

The conservation goals are not going to get us to where we need to be. The 350% overdraft is not going to be dramatically impacted by a mere 1% per year or 10% reduction over the first 15 years. The second one size fits all approach that is being proposed for regulating irrigators

Sounds like it would be really fair, but it's imposing the same requirements on a small farmer that is growing a low water use crop and using great irrigation practices as is one that is growing a high water use crop and perhaps doing nothing to mitigate their impact.

And thirdly, I think that this transfer of water rights and having no opportunity to return any portion to the aquifer is a huge missed opportunity. So I think there's a lot of work to do, and I urge the committee to work on a more bipartisan solution to addressing what we need in the Wilcox Basin. And I can answer any questions.

versus someone who is using huge amounts of water right now. So I would hope that we can come up with a more equitable framework that supports low water use promise, and would still focus reductions on those that are using the larger amounts of water. Thank you. Thank you. Next. Nick Bonder.

We've already seen this on housing and in water. When the hedge funds come in, the taxpayers lose. We have a concern with that. Two, rural economies are not monolithic. They're not all the same. The way that this bill is set up, every rural basin basically gets two guaranteed seats for agriculture. All basins are not all agriculturally based. So we don't think that that's fair. I've also heard the chair talk often about

the consent of the governed. However, the way that this bill is set up, 80% of the council can come from outside of the basin. That gives us concerns. Item three, the conservation limits under the bill with particular

Steve's already talked about the Wilcox Basin. I'll speak to the Hualapai Basin. Under the Hualapai Basin, we would never reach beyond the 10% conservation limits. The criteria for anything greater would never be achieved. That 10% cut would keep us at a 29,600 acre foot deficit into perpetuity.

Item four, the limited scope, and this is more for Mojave County than, again, it is for Wilcox, the city of Wilcox. Subsequent basins are not protected. We've waited 45 years for rural groundwater management. We can't wait 45 years for further management. The issue that got us into this situation, at least in part, was a lack of protections from out-of-state and international speculators coming in, muscling out generational farmers,

nothing in this bill deters that from happening. Happy to take any other questions. Thank you.

Madam chair. Yes Mr. Ponder. Can you tell us a little bit about Mojave? County and Like expand a little bit on the concerns. Yeah, so great question So the Hualapai Valley Basin and this goes to not all basins being monolithic The Hualapai Valley Basin had just had co-op farms. It was not an agricultural basin Has a lot of other industry in 2011

There was a groundwater analysis. It had a groundwater deficit of about 5,000 acre feet. So you do an analysis of your inflow to outflow, your natural recharge versus your discharge, your outflow. And we had about a 5,000 acre foot deficit at that point in time.

In 2017, the Arabian Peninsula banned the growing of alfalfa. In 2014, I think it was, California passed SGMA legislation regulating their groundwater. After those two incidents happened, we saw the influx of farms moving into the Hualapai Valley Basin.

Between effectively 2015 and 2021, we saw the groundwater deficit go from the 5,000 acre foot in 2011 to a 34,000 acre foot in 2021. 34,000 acre foot deficit according to USGS and the Department of Water Resources. That is what precipitated us to getting the irrigation non-expansion area in December of 2022.

So, that's just a microcosm of, I think, our concern with respect to Mojave County in particular. Our concern about subsequent basins not being protected. In particular, we have the Kanab Plateau up near the border with Utah.

that could potentially need to be protected in the future. This bill would not allow that to be protected going forward. So we would have to wait for future protections whenever that could come. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

the Wilcox community, and are oft referred to Senate Bill 1341, which was passed by Republican majority and signed into law April 14th, 2011. This bill took away our county super's authority to zone specifically industrial dairies and dairy feedlots, making the Wilcox ground basin the only basin denied by our legislature.

the ability to control and regulate our finite water. We now have a mega-dairy, and today we are pumping out over three and a half times the water that is put back into the aquifer, dropping the average depth to water to 458 feet. We are not in this situation because of our ranchers, our small farmers,

our businesses, our residents, but because our desert climate aquifer cannot sustain this tremendous scale of industrial agriculture. Growth, just for the sake of growth, can eventually destroy everything that makes an environment valuable.

So I stand before you today to ask you to vote no on Senate Bill 1520, a bill whose restrictions are so burdensome that it would prevent any basin from being able to achieve groundwater protection. It actively undermines water control and forbids the basin to have mandatory reading, the very tool needed to acquire new data for all basins. Thank you very much for being here. Thank you.

The restrictions on groundwater withdrawal were too small to do much good, if any good. There was no accountability or enforcement. There was virtually no local control of basin management. So what's the purpose? And then I saw it. At the bottom of page 18, the bill's purpose is to destroy the Wilcox AMA.

One of the things most troubling, I think, is this sense that somehow this bill allows for local control. But if you look at the makeup of the council, it's really not local control at all. It would be possible, for instance, for a dairy owner in Buckeye to represent someone with a certificate of groundwater rights in the Wilcox Basin.

Or a vendor in Phoenix who happens to grow grapes on the Wilcox bench, but doesn't live in the area. That person could represent an irrigation user in our basin. There would be a municipal user. There would be an industrial user who could be from the industrial dairy out of Minnesota that is pumping

billions of acres out of our finite groundwater source. And then there could be an at-large member who used to be in the legislature and who now is an official in Cochise County and who is definitely against AMAs or regulation as far as I can tell. So I'm against this and I would respectfully urge you all to please vote against this. Thank you for being here.

As you know, Arizona's Groundwater Management Act limited groundwater pumping within AMAs and left groundwater pumping largely unregulated in most of Arizona. This has allowed massive agricultural and sometimes industrial entities to move in and further deplete precious water resources, contributing to land subsidence, earth fissures, and other lower groundwater levels that contribute to wells drying up. This is all at enormous cost to individuals who live in these areas.

We need real solutions, not bills like Senate Bill 1520. Others have covered that it only addresses Wilcox, Gila Bend, and Hualapai, and in effect would weaken groundwater limits in Wilcox.

And so that's a problem in and of itself. It caps the reduction at 10%, which is much less than is needed to stabilize the aquifers in these areas. I just am going to end, because I know I don't have a lot of time, and I want to make sure everyone else has time. We have been accused of being anti-growth. Well, you know what's anti-growth?

Anti-growth is land subsidence, earth fissures, and people's wells drying up. Running out of water is anti-growth. We urge you to reject Senate Bill 1520. Thank you. Thank you, Sandy. I think there's Kendra Faulkner. Is she here?

I think it was effectively stopped with the INA, and that was two years ago. A year and a half ago, the INA came in and stopped the bleeding in that basin. It's going to be a long time before we find out the actual water use for those trees. They're all immature trees. I'm concerned about provisions in this that ask for a 10% reduction.

when you have some of those farmers having a tremendous technology that's already reducing. Another woman spoke about that. You can't beat them up for doing that. Maybe we'll want to put money in upgrading technologies in any or all of the basins. I also believe that having a committee like this is going to be a huge problem because you have five people that are invested because they use water.

I doubt they're going to have the knowledge for what is sustainability. We have to have an agreement on what the goals are. And they're going to have people there on a committee saying, I want to protect my water. And I just think it's a huge problem. In Mojave County, things are very political. And I think that water would be used like that. These provisions are really awesome for industrial manufacturing. They're not awesome for the irrigated users, even if they're doing a tremendous job.

I think the committee would have to be supported by professional staff, maybe from where you are. And also, you put in here for the tree farms that they would start at three acre feet per acre. And if you do that, you will effectively kill off thousands of acres of trees, because they're going to need between three and four. And if you reduce it, it's like suicide for the tree farmers. Happy to answer questions.

And so those are those issues are being taken into consideration We've been meeting for two years like senator Dunn had stated and I don't know if there's any particular individuals that have Represented the tree farmers. Is there anybody here that represents tree farmers? Okay. Are you gonna speak? Okay I

So this is a work in progress. Like I said, we had 112 meetings on last year's bill. And so we want to get to a point that if we move forward that it satisfies everybody and we come out and talk to the people that we have not talked to yet. We would welcome that. And I've worked with and for the tree farmers for years, and also the industrial manufacturing.

I'll give you the perspective from the farmer, from this farmer. Kingman, Arizona is going to produce probably the best pistachios in the world. It's not just because of the water, it's because of the very, very cold winters, the very hot.

summers, the solar units it gets, and the high desert, the 3,000 to 4,000 elevation. It represents kind of what people are used to in the Iranian pistachio product, although we don't have the pest pressures and the aflatoxin that Iran does. So people are already starting to request Arizona pistachios because they've got better quality.

So when we come in here to develop an orchard, it doesn't stop with just drilling wells and planting trees. It gets into hotel rooms. It gets into restaurants and buying Ford trucks and tractors and hiring people and supporting the community. And that's what we want to do.

Our development began in 2019, and we're over $100 million invested in the Kingman area. We're probably 25% of everything that's planted. So you can see what the numbers are. There's a lot of investment in industry in an area that needs it, okay? Kingman's a wonderful town, a lot of good people, a little tourism, but not a lot in the way of industry.

This is God's gift to us to plant this raw desert land into beautiful, high-quality, world-class production pistachio orchards. We've got people willing to come here and do this, people willing to invest in this area, and thankfully it's got the natural resources that are required to make the highest quality pistachios in the world.

There's no shortage of water. We've got three massive sub-basins. To cut to the chase, the INA is in place to limit how much we can plant. We are limited. It's capped. We need 20 years minimum to know what the effects of that INA are. The orchards are very young. We need to see how many of these acres will actually be planted and what the actual draw of the mature orchards will be. Will it be three feet, four feet, somewhere in the middle?

And we've offered to the ADWR and our local officials, anytime anybody wants to do a branch tour and see what these orchards look like, see what water management looks like, what recharge pits look like, what the software programs look like that help us gauge our water usage, we'd love to do those tours. So open that up to anybody in the room here. We might want the committee to come out if anybody's interested in doing that. That would be nice. Thank you. Stephanie Knight, Dubin.

ABWC is neutral on SB1520 because there are a number of things that the bill did not include. The problem's been a long time in the making and legislation needs to be worthwhile and solve problems. This type of legislation is absolutely necessary to address the mining and the state and we need to treat each basin separately.

include basins that are asking to be concluded, and they work with stakeholders that are asking to be included as well, and they're addressing their concerns. ABWC would like to thank the bill sponsor, Senator Tim Dunn, Madam Chair Griffin, and the Governor's Water Council for all the time and effort that they've been putting into addressing this important issue. No bill is better than a bill that does not address everyone's concerns, and we're solving a lot of problems that are in rural groundwater in Arizona.

The name is Louis Manuta, M-A-N-U-T-A. I signed in earlier today. I don't have you, so would you fill out a form? You haven't? Okay, okay.

This is unequivocally and indisputably due to the overpumping by the industrial agricultural users that have taken over our valley. Let me repeat that. The residences and the local family owned farms, ranches and vineyards are the victims and the abusers are the industrial agricultural users.

I know a lot about victims and abusers. I retired last year as a legal aid lawyer who for the past several years represented domestic violence survivors. The abusers' lawyers always brought into court their courtroom theater with them even when they knew they had no case. And I truly believe that is what's happening in this room today as well. The sponsors of this bill know that

1520 provides virtually no relief from dwindling groundwater supplies, but they want to provide legislative theater to make it look like they're doing something beneficial to constituents. Believe me, it does not. I traveled three hours from Cochise County to here with my friends and neighbors and

to personally express my opposition to SB 1520. Let me give you two reasons why the bill is not the answer to the groundwork challenges facing the Wilcox Basin. Under the proposed Basin Management Area, industrial users would not be required to meter their water use. Rather, they would only need to estimate their water usage to ADWR.

What incentive would an industrial agricultural user have to tell the truth about the water usage when the enforcement mechanisms are vague at best? Further, my conversations with neighbors show overwhelming support for local control. However, the proposed BMA creates a five-member governing council, but only one member of the council is actually required to live in the Wilcox Basin. So what do we do from here? I urge this committee to scrap the entire

10 seconds and to work on a true bipartisan basis to better ensure a stable water supply in Wilcox Basin for this in the next iteration No more legislative theater. No more power to the abusers. We need real solution Please wrap up water is life Thank you Yes

tree farms is a problem with taking absolutely no measures to reduce their water usage. And that has been the problem. They make up the vast majority, I would say over 90% of the over-pumping is because of the feedlots. There's one company that owns two of them there and the orchard growers who don't even put any kind of restrictions on their water use.

You know, we say water shouldn't be a partisan issue, which it shouldn't be if we're working for a holistic, long-term, sustainable goal for everyone. I know that Cochise County has been particularly active and vocal. I'm just curious, and I know there's not even alignment in some of these groups down there either.

And that's okay. I am just curious if you could give us any sort of descriptors or sense of what is the sentiment down there in Cochise County when it comes to your future, your neighbor's future, the town's future when it comes to water, like if you could just describe to me, so I can get a feeling as if I'm there, you know, right now in the middle of these discussions, like what are the feelings?

just in the last year. I think the real differences of opinion is what to do about it. As we all know, there was an AMA vote in the Wilcots Basin, and one of the main reasons why it went down was a really concerted misinformation campaign where people who live in the Village of Sunsides were explicitly told, this doesn't apply to you, you got inadmissible water.

Well, where does the municipal water come from? It's just a different straw in the same aquifer. And there was other allegations made that, oh, even if you have an exempt pump, you're going to need to meet a ratoon. There's going to be restrictions on you. Obviously, none of this was true. So there's just a lot of distrust. But that distrust is couched by a sincere understanding, I believe, of all the residents.

But there's also a lot of smaller ranches. Those are family owned, but we're talking about really small family owned with maybe like 50 heads of cattle that they have on their ranch. And they don't have the wherewithal to be able to just pick up shop and go somewhere else if their well goes dry.

And that's why I was saying that they're not the problem. The vineyards are not the problem. The small farmers are not the problem. They get it. They don't have the ability to pick up and move from the well that it's drawn. Because you really have two options. One is either you move, or you die there from lack of water. And that's the situation that we're in. Thank you.

First of all, I would like to thank the committee chair and the sponsor of the bill, Senator Tim Dunn, for all the work that they've put into this concept. This is a concept that started several years ago when the Arizona Farm Bureau met with many of our members in these rural communities to find out what sort of solutions they would like to see in rural Arizona.

One of the things we heard over and over again, and I think you've heard from several of the folks testifying here today, both in support and in opposition to this bill, that the AMA is not a great solution for these communities outside of where they exist today. And so we set about trying to find a solution that created

Certainty for water users in these communities that have invested there, that have built their businesses there, flexibility to allow those economies to evolve over time, and balance. Balance between the local control that everyone has talked about without creating an unfettered local council that would have control over these areas, but also to create a balance for those folks at DWR and the Arizona State Legislature that are familiar with these policies and legislation.

You know, today we've talked, you've heard a lot about cuts and the need for cuts and more cuts in these basins. And it's awfully easy to talk about those cuts when those cuts are on paper and they're theoretical. But we had a study done, and for our members, just the agricultural communities in one of these basins, you're talking about tens of millions of dollars of economic activity coming out of these rural areas.

In many of these areas, agriculture is a huge economic driver. And even if it's not, they will be the ones that will have to take the largest cuts. And I don't know about you, but if I had to take a 10% cut in my household income, that would have an impact.

And that would be detrimental and that would be difficult for us. And so that's where this balance comes in. It's finding a balance that helps stabilize these aquifers, finds a solution for groundwater usage in these areas that rely on that for their economic well-being, but also provides some certainty and some flexibility for those folks that operate there.

That doesn't exist under our current options under the AMAs and INAs. We've talked about other options to create some flexibility in subsequent AMAs, and I appreciate those concepts. I think those are well-founded, and those are things that we should continue to talk about. But this bill is a framework that has undergone a lot of work, has undergone a lot of change, and deserves continued debate.

That being said, we recognize there's a lot of concerns about this bill. We recognize that there's a lot of things in this bill that weren't necessarily anticipated when it was crafted and introduced. But that's what this process is for, is to continue those conversations, to resolve some of those issues and work together in a manner that gets us to the best solution possible.

Water regulation doesn't happen overnight, especially something as monumental as what we're talking about today. But the Arizona Farm Bureau is here to continue the conversation and continue the discussion. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Any questions? Representative Carter.

That is the local control component of this, is those local councils will have the ability to determine what is best for their council and set those numbers.

And then when talking with our members, we thought it was prudent to start the discussion at that 10% mark, and then continue the conversation as this bill continued to evolve. There's a lot of components to this bill, and they all have to be taken together as a whole in understanding what the impact is gonna be, and that takes time to work out. So I would say that, again, this bill is a work in progress, and that is certainly a subject of conversation.

Appreciate that sir madam chair and I get that perhaps also applies to the concept of subsequent management periods over and above the first 10-year period Is that you're thinking as well? I know that has been a topic of conversation and that is something that a lot of folks have approached us with and and have said that they're very concerned that there is no pathway for subsequent basis and

I counter that by saying there is a pathway. You have the potential to come to the legislature and work through that and create eligibility for those basins to become a basin management area. So that would be one possibility. The second thing that I say to that is that we are putting together a pretty novel approach to groundwater regulation in these areas. And we believe it would be prudent to

Institute a policy as we agree to it, and then as some of the other speakers have alluded to, let's see how it works. And let's make sure that we have a proof of concept and this actually does benefit those basins and rural areas before we move on to others.

But really, there was a negotiating team that included several Democratic lawmakers, and I can't tell you who all they spoke with as a part of that stakeholder process. Large stakeholder process on both sides? It was, yes. But no one, Madam Chair, no one directly from the tribes or no one from a rural area that wasn't informing?

Madam Chairman, Representative Liguori, we've had we've had offline conversations with several members, both in and outside of farming, individuals in and outside of farming, about this legislation. And, and we've talked through various concepts, we've brought those to the table. And I know that there's a lot of representatives that were part of that were have been part of the negotiations so far. But again, the discussions are ongoing.

And there's only one that has to live actually reside in that area. One is appointed by the governor and then the rest are appointed. I'm a little concerned about that area. Can you speak to how this was decided upon decided.

yet live in town or live in an adjacent town that aren't necessarily within the basin. However, they do have a significant nexus to that basin as a water user and as an investor in that basin, which is why they do need to have an active water right and they do need to be a resident in the state of Arizona. So we try to put some limitations in there to ensure that these council members had a nexus to that basin, but it's not necessarily where they reside or register to vote.

Okay. Well, I wasn't different. I didn't transition basins water transportation basins each have a separate page in our statute And so we're talking about that as well. So madam chair So these five members may ask a question sure. So the five members would be a part of all three of those No, it's this is one way separate counsel for each basis separate counsel Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you, sir

When I grow up, I can make it short. I hope to be as sharp as you, honey. I hope to be as diplomatic as Senator Dunn, and I want to thank him for bringing this to us.

And I'm going to include Chris Mathis in that, because they're two really good diplomats. And I hope I can speak as clearly as Fareed Bailey back there. Fareed can say something. You can hear it. I love that about Fareed. Now, about Ed Curry and what I'm here. I'm a chili farmer. Have you ate your chili today? That's the first question. Second question. Good, she has. What the time boy is, he ate his. But, you know, first off,

We got the San Simone Basin that I've talked to you all about a little bit. It's not on this bill so let me talk to you later about that. Talk about this bill. We need it in there or we need something for them boys. And you asked specifically about the pecan group. I've represented the Arizona Pecan Growers Association several times in this because they need real water savings and

Honestly, they don't feel like the 10% is enough to make sure that they got water for 100 years for those trees. That's the first thing I'll say. I'll include that. So I talked about the San Sebastian. I'm going to talk about the 10% that, in my humble opinion, we need a little bit more. And up to 25% or something over 40 years, surely,

On my farm, we've had cactus and other rosemary and some things besides the chili, and I did that to balance the water. There's ways. Lastly, power. Our co-op in our valley is farmer-owned originally, and we need to make sure that we don't ask them to cut anymore. It's common sense that we need power. Ten seconds. That's enough said. Questions?

I told you I'd be short. And I'll share with you later about San Simón and what I'm doing for San Simón. Okay, good. Madam Chair? Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Hello, Ed. How long have you been farming in the Wilcox Basin, sir? Too long. No, I love what I do. I've been farming there. This is my 54th crop there. Thank you for asking, Chris.

And could you talk a little bit about the need to deepen wells in that area? So this became real apparent. And forgive me if I don't address you all right. I'm just a country boy come to town. And the only thing I'll say is if I don't address you right, you just know that I follow a man from Galilee that said we need to love one another. So I love you. If I don't say it right, forgive me, OK? But so in answer to your question,

Some years ago, after Riverview Dairy moved in, I had put some thousand acres of a cactus crop in, of which I will get shot if I say exactly what it is, but you come to the farm and we'll talk about it. And I'll feed you chili. If any of y'all come to the farm, we'll have fun.

Well started going down even though we weren't using them because I went from Anywhere from two and a half to three acre feet on most crops Some of them higher than that. I have a little bit of pecan orchard. That's where I come into the pecan growers a second

So the wells, they kept going down and we deepened them to a thousand foot. How's that? Mickey's hand didn't move. Madam Chair, how much does it cost for somebody to deepen a well?

In 2023, to go to 1,000 foot on one and 1,200 on another, one of them, around 600,000 for the two, 300 grand apiece. It's not cheap. What size well is it? That was a 12-inch casing. 12-inch casing. Thank you for asking. Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. Did you have some more questions? Please go ahead.

When we got the big corporate farms, we went like that. Let me make a statement. In the years I've been there, I've seen three times where, because of economics, agriculture slowed down. A lot of farmers went broke, or they parked acres. When they did that, the water came back up. And DWR has the proof of that in 1990, that that level came back up. That's why, if we can incentive follow,

I think in the 80s is when the INA went into effect and the water tables came back up. And I have that information as well. I'd be happy to share that with everybody. Thank you. I can tell you from just what happened with our wells, but it's recorded. Yes, ma'am.

And what is, what do you think is, what level of conservation do you think is reasonably achievable? I understand situations differ, basins differ, but what have you found to be the case?

You've got a $165 billion chip company coming in here. Water, it's going to be like throwing a rock in a pond and you get the ripples. It will affect rural Arizona eventually because it starts here. So, all I'm going to ask is recognize that the big picture, we need to do something sooner rather than later because of national security, the feds will take control of this. Thank you.

this bill or nothing. There are other ideas on the table, other proposals on the table to provide flexibility, local governance, and most importantly certainty for the residents of rural Arizona about their water future. And this could be potentially a start for negotiations. I just

It just doesn't seem like a very good start right now. And the status quo is unacceptable, whether that status quo is an AMA that doesn't quite work for the problems of the Wilcox Basin, for instance, or this proposal, which has

a distinct lack of ambition as far as conservation goals and such. And we also need to consider that the economy of these places is much more diverse than agriculture, and even the agricultural economy is quite diverse, and that is not accounted for in this bill. Thank you, Tom. Thank you. All right, this young lady here. One minute. Are you Donna or Aaron?

whose water security is already under threat. While SB 1520 does not directly apply to tribal lands, it could impact tribal members living just beyond those borders. And it fails to address groundwater depletion in northern Arizona where our aquifers function very differently from those in the southern parts of the state, which in the future could be in need of protection.

Northern Arizona relies on plateau aquifers that recharge extremely slow, unlike the basins covered in the bill. Overpumping in our region can lead to permanent loss of water, threatening our communities for generations. I'd like to conclude by offering two points to consider. One, respect tribal sovereignty and bring us into the discussion, and two, recognize the difference between plateau aquifers and basin and range systems when shaping groundwater policy.

In Representative Griffin's latest press release, she said there have been 112 stakeholder meetings across the state. How many of them have been in the Wilcox Basin and open to the public at large? I'll answer that question. Zero. Zilch. Simply stated, not one single stakeholder meeting has been held in the basin that has the greatest depletion of groundwater in the state.

My apologies to the members of this committee who might possibly support my position, but I shall use the remainder of my time to do what Representative Griffin has done to us. Thank you for being here. Water is life. Any questions?

And I have been in the area. I have been in the district. Well, I certainly haven't seen meetings. And I've been very well informed. Would you put your contact information on the sheet, please? Yes, I would be happy to do that. Thank you. And a point of clarification, the Fort Sill Cherokee Apache Reservation people have four acres in the Cochise Stronghold. So they are represented in the basin. I stand corrected. Thank you. Thank you. OK. All right. I think that's it, huh? Yes. All right.

Thank you, I've heard the motion. Just for the record, this is a work in progress. We will continue to work. The 112 meetings we had previously last year, we will continue having stakeholder meetings on this particular bill. And so, any further discussion other than that? Seeing none, please call the roll. Representative Carter? Madam Chair? Yes.

I've only been here three years. I'm disheartened that we can't. Effectively come together as our predecessors have in the past to put aside. Our personal interest to put aside. External interest. And to roll up our sleeves. And to really do this for the work of the people and the future of our state.

And I applaud Senator Dunn and those who have been in these conversations. And it is just disheartening to see that although ideas are presented, they always seem to miss the mark. And year after year, time is wasted, water is running out, and people feel frustrated that we are not listening to them.