Vetoed May 12, 2025 · 57th Legislature, 1st Regular Session
HB2570
temporary non-expansion area
BLAME HOBBS!
THE CONTEXT: There are two ways communities can actively regulate and manage groundwater usage: 1) local landowners can petition the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) Director to designate an irrigation non-expansion area (INA) for one or more groundwater basins or sub-basins. The ADWR Director will do so upon determining that there is insufficient groundwater to provide a reasonably safe supply for irrigating cultivated lands at current withdrawal rates and establishing an AMA is unnecessary ( A.
WHAT THE BILL DID: The final vetoed version would allow the designation of a temporary non-expansion area in locations outside of an INA or AMA to be initiated by a petition to the ADWR Director signed by both of the following: a) at least half of the irrigation users of groundwater within the boundaries of the groundwater basin or subbasin specified in the petition; and b) at least 10 percent of the registered voters residing within the boundaries of the groundwater basin or subbasin specified in the petition, require the form of the petition to be substantially similar to an initiative petition except that the county recorder will perform the duties required of the Secretary of State, and prohibit the petition from being accepted more than 180 days after the application for the petition is submitted.
WHY IT MATTERED: The practical reason for this bill was to give Arizonans and public officials a defined option for temporary non-expansion area under state law. It would allow the designation of a temporary non-expansion area in locations outside of an INA or AMA to be initiated by a petition to the ADWR Director signed by both of the following: a) at least half of the irrigation users of groundwater within the boundaries of the groundwater basin or subbasin specified in the petition; and b) at least 10 percent of the registered voters residing within the boundaries of the groundwater basin or subbasin specified in the petition, and would also require the form of the petition to be substantially similar to an initiative petition except that the county recorder will perform the duties required of the Secretary of State, rather than leave the current rule unchanged.
Related vetoes
HB2324
forfeiture; digital assets; reserve fund
2025 · Government & transparency
SB1019
photo enforcement systems; prohibition
2025 · Government & transparency
SB1514
employer-employee arbitration; contract; disputes
2025 · Government & transparency
HB2948
amusements; 2025-2026
2025 · Government & transparency
HB2955
human services; 2025-2026
2025 · Government & transparency
HB2957
local government; 2025-2026
2025 · Government & transparency