Log in

CAPITOL

Arizona lawmakers return Monday with water, voting, ‘casitas’ among top issues

Posted 1/13/25

PHOENIX - State lawmakers return to the Capitol on Monday with the desire to do something about ensuring there's enough water for everyone who wants it.

Republicans, backed by developers and …

You must be a member to read this story.

Join our family of readers for as little as $5 per month and support local, unbiased journalism.


Already have an account? Log in to continue.

Current print subscribers can create a free account by clicking here

Otherwise, follow the link below to join.

To Our Valued Readers –

Visitors to our website will be limited to five stories per month unless they opt to subscribe. The five stories do not include our exclusive content written by our journalists.

For $6.99, less than 20 cents a day, digital subscribers will receive unlimited access to YourValley.net, including exclusive content from our newsroom and access to our Daily Independent e-edition.

Our commitment to balanced, fair reporting and local coverage provides insight and perspective not found anywhere else.

Your financial commitment will help to preserve the kind of honest journalism produced by our reporters and editors. We trust you agree that independent journalism is an essential component of our democracy. Please click here to subscribe.

Sincerely,
Charlene Bisson, Publisher, Independent Newsmedia

Please log in to continue

Log in
I am anchor
CAPITOL

Arizona lawmakers return Monday with water, voting, ‘casitas’ among top issues

Posted

PHOENIX - State lawmakers return to the Capitol on Monday with the desire to do something about ensuring there's enough water for everyone who wants it.

Republicans, backed by developers and some agricultural interests, are determined to have as little state regulation as possible and allow those affected to work out the problems on their own.

Senate President Warren Petersen says there's no need for state action. In fact, he contends there is plenty of water if the state simply gets out of the way and lets homebuilders make their own deal with farmers for their water.

But Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs contends the issues of protecting the state's groundwater supply are more complex.

Hobbs said she is willing to work toward a compromise.

At the same time, however, the governor's administration already is moving toward having the state impose solutions. And that is raising the ire of GOP leaders.

All this comes amid realization that the historic 1980 Groundwater Code only goes so far.

It requires that those who want to develop within one of the state's "active management areas'' prove there is a 100-year supply of water. But that leaves much of Arizona in the proverbial Wild West, with few rules - and essentially governed by the philosophy that whoever has the longest straw can take all the groundwater he or she wants.

There is the option for area residents to create their own active management area to curtail pumping. That's what happened in the Douglas basin in 2022 in the first-ever local use of that power.

But when voters in the Willcox area refused to go along, the Department of Water Resources stepped in last year and created the AMA itself. Doing nothing, state water officials said, would continue down the path where not just the water supply for the residents was being depleted but the ground itself was collapsing.

It was the first time the state used its power to create a new management area without local approval.

That action runs afoul of GOP goals to ensure such decisions are made at the local level. Republican senators even put out a position statement saying they want "ground-up solutions from rural Arizona and not force old broken policies from the state level.''

Hobbs offers no apologies.

"I'm committed to a legislative solution,'' she said.

"But if we can't get there, then I'll take action,'' the governor said. "And I did. And I'll continue to use the tools that we have.''

The state water agency, with Hobbs' blessing, is doing exactly that with what's called an "ag-to-urban'' approach, a plan to convert water now used for farming - which makes up about 70% of all water use in Arizona - for housing.

Lawmakers had approved their own plan. But it met with a gubernatorial veto as Hobbs said it needed work to "ensure that the water conservation savings and consumer protections are guaranteed.''

That, however, isn't keeping the administration from pushing through its own plan - sans legislative approval - with gubernatorial spokesman Christian Slater saying his boss "is committed to taking action where the Legislature won't secure our water future.''

Still, any plan would remain voluntary, with no mandate for farmers to sell.

There's a related problem occurring in the Buckeye and Queen Creek areas.

That came after the Department of Water Resources refused to issue necessary permits after its studies said developers can't show they can meet that requirement for a 100-year water supply.

"If we were to approve new applications with unmet demand, some other homeowner who's relying on that underground water could be shorted in water sometime in the future,'' DWR Director Tom Buschatzke said.

The Hobbs administration has proposed a work-around of sorts, one that would allow home building to occur -but with a requirement that developers acquire a renewable water source and then reduce groundwater pumping by 25%.

That, however, has left homebuilders unsatisfied, saying the requirement places an unfair burden on them and further raises the cost of housing - another issue again front and center at the Capitol.

Lawmakers and the governor did reach agreement last year over some proposals they argue will make housing more affordable. That includes allowing duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and townhomes in some areas now zoned for single-family homes and permitting the conversion of defunct malls and other commercial properties into residential use.

And a new law will require cities to allow homeowners to construct up to two "casitas'' on their properties that can be rented out to others.

But proponents say more is needed, including what they have called the "Arizona Starter Home Act.'' And that is anticipated to be back.

Its far-reaching provisions include barring cities from establishing minimum square footage or dimensions for a single-family home, limiting setback requirements and prohibiting any design, architectural or aesthetic elements except for homes in neighborhoods designated as historic.

The measure also would eliminate the ability of cities to require establishment of a homeowners' association as well as mandating things like turf features, screening, walls, fences or private roads.

Hobbs, in nixing the 2024 proposal, sided with various cities who said that would overrule their right to control development, calling the plan an experiment with unclear outcomes.'' But supporters say that ignores the rights of those who own the property to develop it as they see fit.

And some GOP lawmakers want to impose hard-and-fast deadlines on cities to approve necessary building permits, arguing the delay is driving up costs.

Another big debate is going to be over the issue of voting.

There has been at least one bill introduced seeking to assert state control over voting in federal elections.

That is designed to override the National Voter Registration Act which says that individuals can register to vote in federal elections - votes for president and members of Congress - simply by signing a statement attesting they are citizens and legally allowed to cast a ballot. By contrast, Arizona law requires "documented proof of citizenship'' to vote in state and local race.

There are approximately 45,000 such "federal-only'' voters registered in Arizona, though there is no estimate of how many actually cast ballots in the last election. It has led to claims, all unproven, that it has allowed noncitizens to vote and affect the outcome of races.

But the Secretary of State's Office said that federal form is more likely to be used by college students who may be away at school, the elderly and Native Americans who may not have easy access to birth certificates or other documents to prove citizenship.

There's also a bill to allow county recorders to put a registered voters into "inactive'' status if there is "reasonable cause'' to believe the person registered fraudulently or the information is incorrect. But the measure does not define what constitutes "reasonable cause.''

The bigger fight, however, is likely to occur over whether to curb the ability of Arizonans to drop off their early ballots at polling places on Election Day.

Arizona has allowed no-excuse early voting since 1991. And it has proved incredibly popular, with about 85% of the votes cast in November being on early ballots.

But close to 10 percent of those early ballots were dropped off at polling locations on Election Day.

The problem with that is these can't be dealt with until the actual live ballots cast there are handled. And then there's the fact that election officials can't even open those "late-early'' envelopes until the signatures on the outside are verified, also after other counting is done.

Petersen already has crafted legislation to move the deadline to drop off early ballots in person to 7 p.m. the Friday before the election. People still could bring in early ballots after that -- but only if they provide identification, something already required of those who vote in person to allow that early ballot to be instantly verified.

The plan is modeled after a similar law in Florida.

Hobbs already is signaling a veto.

"My line in the sand has been and will continue to be if you make it harder for Arizonans to continue to cast their ballot, that's a 'no' for me,'' she said.

One other big issue lawmakers have to address deals with money and education.

In 2016 voters approved Proposition 123. It settled a long-running lawsuit over education funding without raising taxes by providing more money for schools by increasing the amount that can be withdrawn each year from the state land trust.

Only thing is, authorization expires this year. And unless renewed by voters - something that likely would take a special election - the extra withdrawals would cease. That means either cutting state education spending by about $300 million or finding the money elsewhere in the state budget.

There is some consensus that the funding should be renewed. But it is complicated by calculations of how much the state can continue to withdraw from the trust fund without undermining its stability.

The current rate of withdrawal is 6.9% of the "corpus'' of the trust, a figure being embraced by some Republicans who want to continue the program. But state Treasurer Kimberly Yee said her projections show that would result in reducing the size of the trust, something she said is unsustainable and could undermine future earnings and distributions.

Her proposal is in the 4-5% range.

Hobbs, however, has an even more aggressive plan for the extension. She wants to boost the annual withdrawal to 8.9%, something she said would increase pah for teachers and support staff as well as put aside money for safety and security improvements

Yee called that "unfeasible,'' saying over the last decade there have been only 32 months with a 10-year return more than that figure.

Hobbs sniffed at Yee's concerns. She said Jeff DeWit, who was state treasurer a decade ago when Prop 123 was first proposed, made the same dire predictions "and the trust is healthier than ever.''

On X, Bluesky and Threads: @azcapmedia

Share with others