Senate committee advances bill allowing limited groundwater transport from McMullen Valley despite rural opposition

The Senate Natural Resources Committee advanced House Bill 2758, which would permit eligible entities that own historically irrigated acres in the McMullen Valley Groundwater Basin to withdraw and transport groundwater to an initial Active Management Area (AMA), the Arizona Water Banking Authority or La Paz County, subject to a cumulative cap. Committee staff summarized the bill as limiting transported volume to no more than 10 percent of the annual volume that the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) determines is available for export from the basin.

Sponsor Stan Barnes, representing Wilder Asset Management and Carbon State Consulting Group, said the bill adapts the Harquahala model and would let private capital invest in pipes, pumps and other infrastructure to both provide augmentation for population centers and fund local improvements. "We're taking the Harquihala model and putting it in McMullen terms," Barnes said, adding that his client plans to reduce alfalfa production and invest in local water security.

Supporters including Jim Downing, manager for the McMullen Valley Water Conservation and Drainage District, and Barry Ahrens of the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association said augmentation options are essential as Central Arizona Project supplies shrink. Ahrens warned that augmentation will require large investments and said cities currently have no immediate plans to import McMullen water but need access and strong guardrails if transport becomes necessary.

Opponents focused on local impacts. Holly Erwin, a La Paz County supervisor, said her constituents face failing wells and documented land subsidence and urged the committee to reject the bill: "House Bill 2758 is reckless and a direct attack on a little county for those who reside in it," she said. Resident and county planning official Devonna Sater used a visual analogy to describe cumulative removals and said community outreach to date was insufficient. Farmer Ed Curry testified that the proposal risks monetizing rural Arizona and harming local livelihoods.

Committee members pressed sponsors on limits and protections. Staff and the sponsor said the bill restricts recipients of transported water to municipalities, the state, or private water companies as specified in statute and noted the 10 percent cumulative cap tied to ADWR determinations. Senators on both sides offered extended explanations of their votes, highlighting the tension between long‑standing rural groundwater concerns and municipal augmentation needs.

The committee voted to give HB2758 a due‑pass recommendation after debate. No amendments were adopted during the hearing. The recommendation moves the bill forward in the legislative process, where it can face further floor action and additional amendments.