Chandler water case to be heard by state’s Supreme Court
State bill would require taxing districts to serve citizens
Courtesy of City of Chandler
Two major developments have happened recently in the city of Chandler’s longstanding dispute with a local water district. The Arizona Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal of a case between the city and the Roosevelt Water Conservation District. Unrelated, House Bill 2125 advanced from the House by a 44-11 vote in February and remains alive in the state Senate.
Two major developments have happened recently in the city of Chandler’s longstanding dispute with a local water district.
The Arizona Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal of a case between the city and the Roosevelt Water Conservation District.
Unrelated, the city has been pushing for state legislation that would obligate taxing districts such as the RWCD from walking away from or not servicing agreements.
The state’s Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in “City of Chandler v. Roosevelt Water Conservation District” on Tuesday, June 10.
The legislative bill — House Bill 2125 — advanced from the House by a 44-11 vote in February. Once the bill was amended by Sen. J.D. Mesnard (R-Chandler) in the Senate, leadership decided April 22 to “retain” HB 2125.
Mayor Kevin Hartke said the city and RWCD leadership signed a water services agreement in 2002 that ensures the district’s water rights continue to serve a beneficial purpose.
“However, for nearly a decade, RWCD has been refusing to honor the agreement, which is valid until 2086, and has denied purchases for Chandler, even as we have upheld our obligations,” Hartke said in a written statement.
Mesnard and House Rep. Julie Willoughby created HB 2125 to correct what Hartke calls “an injustice.”
“The concept of the legislation is simple,” Hartke writes. “An irrigation district, like RWCD, can’t walk away from legal agreements with taxpayers by stalling, or by simply not honoring the contract terms.”
Hartke said litigation and legislation have become necessary steps because RWCD continues to charge Chandler residents $1.7 million annually in property taxes, while the district is failing to honor its agreement to provide Chandler with water for domestic uses.
“Both of these measures (ligation and legislation) intend to end RWCD’s one-sided practices of collecting taxes from property owners who receive no benefit in return,” Hartke stated. “Our efforts to litigate through the courts and pursue legislative changes are intended to hold RWCD accountable and end the blank check they enjoy today.”
Neither RWCD leadership nor any of their attorneys could be reached to answer questions for this story.
The district was formed more than 100 years ago, when irrigating and farming in the East Valley were more prominent parts of both the state’s economy and government work. Dr. A.J. Chandler, the founder of the city, was among the people involved in the RWCD’s formation.
Hartke stated about 27,000 properties in the southeastern portion of the city are within RWCD’s taxing authority. The 2002 agreement is valid until 2086.
“We’re meeting with homeowners’ associations and residents in these areas to keep them informed,” the mayor wrote.
In an interview with the Chandler Independent in March, Hartke said since 2002, Chandler has purchased 40,545 acre-feet of water under an agreement with RWCD that uses an “objective, transparent formula.”
“Amid drought conditions and surface water shortages, RWCD has elected to let its water resources go to waste by being released from Salt River Project reservoirs rather than sell the water to Chandler,” the mayor said.
The basic definition of an acre-foot is enough water to cover one acre in one foot of water, or about 326,000 gallons.
The city stated, in a news release about the dispute, that the tax total that its residents pay to RWCD increases most years. From the tax year 2023 to 2024, for example, the total increased from about $1,690,0000 to about $1,702,000.
Hartke said negotiations have not led RWCD to get them to commit to what the city considers a fair price or water quantity, Hartke said.
“I haven’t heard a good reason yet why they shouldn’t,” he said. “It’s just that they don’t want to do it.”
Jason W. Brooks News Editor | Chandler Independent
Jason W. Brooks joined Independent Newsmedia, Inc., USA, in July 2021 as an associate editor. After a year covering Buckeye, he has covered Chandler since the fall of 2022, in addition to assisting the Daily Independent throughout his time at INI.
Education: University of New Mexico, bachelor of arts in journalism and mass communication, print emphasis, English minor.
Random Fact: He and his siblings witnessed a Space Shuttle launch and landing in the same year in person, on opposite coasts.
Hobbies: Karaoke, bicycling and American Sign Language.
By 
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here