By J. Charles Coughlin
Throughout my professional career, I have greatly admired my former employer and mentor, Mr. Robert Robb— Arizona’s own version of the nationally syndicated columnist George Will. Like me, Bob, has a magnifying glass on Arizona issues and of course, the political climate they develop within. That’s why I was surprised to see his recent Substack column recommending that Governor Hobbs accede to Republican demands on rural groundwater management.
His instincts in this column were spot on. For a compromise position on rural groundwater management to come forth, the Governor and the GOP legislature need to find common ground on a reasonable policy to accomplish both rural groundwater conservation and groundwater management for economic users.
But Bob also knows that the pseudonym for the GOP Legislature in this case is the Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, Gail Griffin, herself a veritable institution, representing Cochise County on and off again for the better part of the past twenty years. I’ve known Gail since the 1990s, and I hold deep admiration and affection for her. She reminds me of my mother—a strong and resilient woman.
People who are serious about Arizona politics, and Bob is one of those people, know that if you are attempting to amend Arizona water policy it will go through Ms. Griffin’s committee. It’s equally well-known among policy insiders that Ms. Griffin is a steadfast champion of Arizona’s agricultural economic development and ranching interests. If a proposed solution doesn’t align with those interests, it’s as good as dead on arrival.
That has been exactly the case for the past six years as Ms. Griffin and those powerful interests have blocked any attempt at reasonable groundwater legislation. The last big water policy that the State developed was under Speaker Rusty Bowers leadership in 2019, when then Governor Ducey signed the legislation authorizing the drought contingency plan for the Colorado River…. That was six years ago!
Ms. Griffin’s policy gospel in this matter is to limit wherever possible any reasonable regulation on rural groundwater management legislation. She is a staunch defender of the free-market system that currently dictates water use in rural Arizona. This reflects the age-old maxim: those with the gold make the rules—or, in this case, ensure there are no rules.
Under the current system rural Arizona gets left behind, with no safeguards against water speculators pumping as much groundwater as they want, wherever and whenever they choose, regardless of the impact on neighbors or the land. Some have unbridled interests in pumping.
Where Bob’s column naively suggests is that “The GOP Legislature has a reasonable proposal to address rural groundwater overdrafts, embodied in a bill last session, Senate Bill 1221.”
I was taken aback by Bob’s suggestion that the GOP — er Ms. Griffin’s proposal was “reasonable”. One more sip of coffee is necessary here to evaluate Ms. Griffin’s definition of “reasonable.”
Dive in here….
What Ms. Griffin’s Republican bill will do vs. What the Democrat compromise will do
- The Republican Bill creates a byzantine 16-step process before a groundwater basin could even begin to develop a plan for local conservation. A federal bureaucrat should love this proposal, and it seems designed to stop any rural management from happening.
- The Democrat Bill allows a local council to develop a plan for that basin with criteria similar to an Active Management area today but managed by that local council
- The GOP Bill caps local conservation in a regulated basin at 15% over a basin’s lifetime.
- The Dem Bill creates mandatory 10% conservation in the first 10 years and then 5-10% in subsequent decades. Those decisions are made by a local council.
- The GOP Bill allows 80% of the seats on that local council regulating that basin be given to parties outside the basin without a vested interest in the local basin (see big Ag and big ranching).
- The Dem Bill requires 80% of the seats to come from the local basin
- The GOP Bill grants groundwater credits as a property right – something Arizona law has never done, and a move that threatens the foundations of the historic 1980 Groundwater Code.
- The Dem Bill grants groundwater certificates and maintains the “right of use” currently afforded under Arizona law (Usufruct rights for you Water experts).
- The GOP Bill allows for the banking of unused groundwater rights for use in future years which would undoubtedly affect the local groundwater basin in negative ways by creating a water market offering rural water to the highest bidder.
- The Dem Bill does not permit banking unused groundwater rights.
- The GOP Bill does not provide any protection for taxpayer investment in municipal water conservation efforts. Taxpayers pay for a conservation system and then a user could use that conserved water without any regard for how that water came to be.
- The Dem Bill Protects taxpayer investments in water infrastructure projects and prevents water speculators from usurping those supplies.
These policy conflicts have been known for some time, as the Governor’s water policy council developed all of these alternatives during their meetings over this summer— meetings Ms. Griffin boycotted and which she continues to ignore.
While there’s plenty of room for negotiation, calling the “GOP” proposals “reasonable” – bill that was written entirely by three special interests: the Arizona Farm Bureau, Cattlemen’s Association of Arizona, and the Arizona Diarymen – isn’t where a productive discussion should begin.
That discussion should start with the idea that the development and Agricultural interests at the Legislature are very interested in passing an Ag to Urban bill this year. That bill would give agricultural interests which are retiring land from agricultural production a water right to claim some of that Agricultural water for use in future development of the agricultural property. Governor Hobbs rightfully vetoed that bill this past session because of its failure to holistically address the needs of all Arizonans when it comes to managing the State’s water interests.
Throughout the six years this firm has been working on this issue by far and away the best thing that has happened is the opportunity to develop a much more personal relationship with former Governor Bruce Babbitt, the original driver behind the State’s groundwater management code which is still in effect today.
He has told us that his greatest regret was not establishing some framework for rural Arizonans to protect endangered rural aquifers and to promote rural conservation in their own communities. That effort was made over 40 years ago, it’s time we move on, drink a hot cup of black coffee and get back to the table to negotiate.
Water is not a Democratic or a Republican issue, it is in the public’s interest at large to see that Arizona’s water is deployed wisely and regulated thoughtfully.
Get back to the table, get both bills – Ag to Urban and rural groundwater – passed with “reasonable” compromise on both sides.