Is rural Arizona ready to cut back water use? We’ve reached a crossroads in that fight

Riverview grows crops to feed its cattle on Coronado Farms, near Willcox.

Rural Arizona has reached a pivotal moment for groundwater management.

After years of getting nowhere at the Legislature, local groups at opposite ends of the state are using existing state law to press for additional protections.

And there could be long-ranging consequences, depending on what happens next.

Will voters say ‘enough’ in Willcox and Douglas?

Voters in southeastern Arizona will decide this November whether to create Active Management Areas (AMAs) in the adjoining Willcox and Douglas groundwater basins.

Voters have had this ability for 40 years, but this is the first time a group has circulated petitions to put it on the ballot.

And it’s no small thing: If voters say yes, they would essentially be going from no restrictions on groundwater use in the Willcox basin and minimal requirements in the Douglas basin to the most restrictive the state has to offer.

Another view: Will lawmakers do more to address rural groundwater problems?

An AMA won’t fully solve the problems with water overuse that have caused so many wells to run dry, roads to crack as the ground sinks and the underground aquifer to permanently shrink.

That’s because roughly 90% of groundwater use in the area goes to agriculture. The only way to stop massive overdraft in the long term is to remove acres from cultivation – which would be an even tougher sell than an AMA.

A grassroots group that spurred the election argues that it’s better to solve some problems than none, and that an AMA is the best of limited options in state law to address overuse.

No new land could be irrigated, and there would be well spacing requirements to help prevent new wells from running existing wells dry.

Groups all over the state are watching

A center pivot irrigates a field while a new 1,200-foot well is drilled on a farm in the Kansas Settlement area, south of Willcox.

But there’s also a lot of uncertainty about how that will play out.

Most of the key details – like what the AMA’s management goal will be and the timeframe to achieve it – can’t be set beforehand. There will be public input, but ultimately, state law says those decisions are up to the state water director.

Story continues

Essentially, that means voters must say “yes” and then trust the Arizona Department of Water Resources to work with them on the details.

Again, that’s no small thing – especially for these communities, which already have a deep distrust of outside interests.

But that’s precisely why this election has statewide implications. If voters approve one or both AMAs, groups in other rural areas with groundwater challenges are already eyeing their playbook.

But it also could embolden the opponents of rural regulation to pare back provisions that allow voters to weigh in on groundwater management.

And if voters say no? It might not kill efforts to set some ground rules on water use, but it could be years before anyone asks voters to approve an AMA again.

Is the third time the charm for Mohave County?

Meanwhile, in the opposite corner of the state, Mohave County supervisors are pressing the state water department to designate the Hualapai Valley basin as an Irrigation Non-expansion Area (INA).

If it obliges, the basin would be Arizona’s fourth INA – and the first in more than 40 years.

The designation would require large-capacity wells to be metered and report their water use. It also prohibits any new acreage from being farmed.

It won’t stop overuse, as folks in the Douglas groundwater basin can attest. An INA hasn’t slowed aquifer drawdown, which is why the AMA question is now before voters.

Nevertheless, the Hualapai Valley basin north of Kingman has seen a dramatic increase in farming – and water use – over the last few years. Proponents fear, among other things, that new agricultural pumping could lower water levels beyond the city’s well depths, forcing them to drill new, deeper ones at great cost.

The county unsuccessfully lobbied for an INA in 2016 and 2020. Both were dismissed without a formal review because the available data did not yet point to problems, which is required by state law.

So, Kingman and the county funded the creation of a groundwater model that could regularly track changes in water use. Its latest run now suggests that nearly four times as much water is being withdrawn from the aquifer as is replaced and that agriculture, though virtually non-existent a decade ago, is now responsible for 60% of that use.

It also found that several sections, mostly on the southern end of the groundwater basin, could struggle to provide sufficient groundwater over time under current withdrawal rates.

The Department of Water Resources has now called a formal hearing in November, which also freezes the amount of agriculture in production until the water director can make a ruling.

Why both efforts matter statewide

It’s anyone’s guess what he or voters in the Willcox or Douglas basins will decide.

What’s significant is that there are a growing number of voices arguing for restrictions to protect what, in many communities, is their sole source of water.

If either effort is victorious, expect more people to take the law into their own hands. Maybe not a groundswell at first.

But with each successful effort, there will be more.

And, yes, interests on both sides of the regulation debate are keenly aware of haven’t already thought of that.

Reach Allhands at joanna.allhands@arizonarepublic.com. On Twitter: @joannaallhands.

If you love this content (or love to hate it – hey, I won’t judge), why not subscribe to get more?

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Rural Arizona has reached a crossroads on groundwater regulation