Arizona legislative Republicans are requesting the state’s governor to take action to protect water and wastewater systems from cyberattacks.
On Tuesday, the Arizona State Senate Republican Caucus called on Governor Katie Hobbs “to take swift action to protect Arizona’s critical infrastructure from adversary nations seeking to unleash harm on the United States.”
🚨 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Senate Republicans Call on Governor Hobbs to Take Action to Protect Arizona's Water Systems from Cyberattacks
The demand from the lawmakers follows a letter from the White House to state governors, warning of “the impending threat of cyberattacks.”
In that letter, which was signed by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the White House identified two of those “recent and ongoing” threats. The first was from “threat actors affiliated with the Iranian Government Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.” This threat, according to the letter, has “carried out malicious cyberattacks against United States critical infrastructure entities, including drinking water systems.”
The second threat was from “The People’s Republic of China state-sponsored cyber group known as Volt Typhoon.” This adversary, per the letter, “has compromised information technology of multiple critical infrastructure systems, including drinking water, in the United States and its territories.”
Senate President Warren Petersen issued a statement in conjunction with his Caucus’ call to the governor, saying, “Water is vital to lives and livelihoods. It’s concerning the Governor has yet to share any information with the Legislature, or the public, on this matter. What’s even more concerning is at a recent stakeholder meeting on a completely separate issue, a representative from the Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs expressed to our lawmakers no knowledge of this warning from the White House.”
According to the Administration’s communication, these cyberattacks “have the potential to disrupt the critical lifeline of clean and safe drinking water, as well as impose significant costs on affected communities.”
Petersen also shared his thoughts on what the governor should do in order to protect the state from these cyberattacks. He wrote, “I encourage her to prioritize the safety and wellbeing of our citizens by taking steps to protect Arizona’s critical infrastructure from enemy nations who are a known threat to our state and country. This includes signing our legislation crafted specifically to mitigate these threats, such as SB 1403, SB 1340, and SB 1123.”
SB 1403, sponsored by Senator Janae Shamp, would “make it generally unlawful for specified foreign principals to purchase, own, acquire by grant or devise or have any other interest in (hold) real property” – according to the Arizona House overview.
SB 1340, sponsored by Senator Frank Carroll, would “prohibit a publicly managed fund from holding an investment in a foreign adversary, a state-owned enterprise of a foreign adversary, a company domiciled within a foreign adversary, or any other entity owned by or domiciled in a foreign adversary; or investing or depositing public monies in a bank that is domiciled in, or has a principal place of business in, a foreign adversary” – according to the summary from the Arizona House.
SB 1123, sponsored by Senator Wendy Rogers, would “prohibit a business or governmental entity in Arizona from entering into an agreement involving critical infrastructure if certain criteria apply.”
The letter from the Biden Administration officials requested the help of state governors “to ensure that all water systems in your state comprehensively assess their current cybersecurity practices to identify any significant vulnerabilities, deploy practices and controls to reduce cybersecurity risks where needed, and exercise plans to prepare for, respond to, and recover from a cyber incident.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
State Rep. Alex Kolodin (R-LD03) is urging the Arizona Senate to do away with a bill allowing the export of the Valley’s emergency water reserve.
The bill, HB2201 sponsored by State Rep. Tim Dunn (R-LD25), passed the House with bipartisan support, 33-23, on Monday. Kolodin said that such a measure would inevitably raise utility bills.
“HB2201 allows part of Scottsdale’s emergency water supply to be transferred to out-of-county users, raising our utility bills,” said Kolodin. “I voted no. Needs to die in the Senate!”
HB2201 allows part of Scottsdale's emergency water supply to be transfered to out of county users, raising our utility bills. I voted no. Needs to die in the Senate! pic.twitter.com/29I46oHCsA
Kolodin told AZ Free News that HB2201 will serve as a detriment to suburban ratepayers and force cities to compete for the dwindling supply.
HB2201 enables the interbasin transport of cities’ emergency groundwater supply from within the Harquahala Irrigation Non-expansion Area (INA) to any location within La Paz County. Dunn explained during last month’s hearing on the matter in the Natural Resources, Energy, & Water Committee that the bill would allow La Paz County to grow their existing water resources.
The Harquahala INA covers approximately 766 square miles within La Paz and Maricopa counties in the west-central portion of the state. Currently, Harquahala INA water supply may only be withdrawn and transported by the state and political subdivisions to the following initial Active Management Areas (AMAs): Phoenix, Tucson, Santa Cruz, Pinal, and Prescott.
AMAs rely heavily on mined groundwater and therefore come with higher levels of management than INAs. INAs regulate wells in rural farming areas where groundwater overdraft — the removal of too much water — is less severe. There are two other INAs in the state: Hualapai Valley and Joseph City.
These distinctions are outlined by Arizona’s Groundwater Management Act (GMA), passed over 40 years ago, which restricts interbasin water transportation for the state’s 51 groundwater basins in order to ensure AMAs maintain a 100-year water supply, also known as an assured water supply.
Healthy interbasin water transport hinges on a concept known as safe-yield: ensuring a safe balance between groundwater withdrawals and the natural and artificial recharging of water to AMA aquifers. Overdrafting can damage aquifer structure and limit future water storing capacity, increase the costs of drilling and pumping, and reduce the water quality.
Harquahala INA is considered an emergency savings account of sorts for water, saved in the event of prolonged drought: no groundwater has been transported out of the basin since 1990, according to the latest report from the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), the authority on water management. Yet, ADWR also reported that in almost all years from 2004-2022, the Harquahala INA had more water leaving the basin than entering mainly due to agriculture, which have made up 98 percent of the INA’s demand.
ADWR projected that annual supply would be insufficient for annual demand under any projected scenario over the next 50 years.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Gilbert residents may face a massive water rate hike of up to 130 percent next year.
The town council discussed three proposed options for water rate increases during its two-day fall retreat last week: cash funded, bond funded, or cash/bond gradual funded. The additional funds would address issues and needs instigated by the Colorado River shortage: a sharp increase in raw water supply cost, infrastructure needs to access groundwater, and additional conservation staffing and programs.
The cash-funded option would require an immediate rate increase of 130 percent: the average monthly residential water bill would increase from $34 to $78 next April. Under this option, there wouldn’t be any new increases planned for the following two years, no new debt, an ongoing capacity of $6 million for one-time Capital Improvement Project (CIP) in the operating fund, and an ongoing Repair & Replacement (R&R) fund capacity of $73 million in the 2029 fiscal year.
The bond-funded option would require an immediate rate increase of 95 percent, increasing the average monthly residential water bill from $34 to $66 next April. Under this option, there would be no increases planned for the following two years, but there would be $205 million of new debt with $110 million of anticipated interest paid over 20 years. The one-time CIP in the operating fund would have an ongoing capacity of $2 million, and the ongoing R&R fund capacity would be $37 million in the 2029 fiscal year. The town noted that this option would have the lowest overall rate increase by total percent.
The cash/bond gradual-funded option would require an immediate rate increase of 50 percent, followed by 25 percent in one year and another 25 percent in two years. This would result in the average monthly residential water bill to increase from $34 to $51 next April, then $64 in 2025 and $80 in 2026. Under this option, there would be a phased increase and $80 million in new debt, with $43 million in anticipated interest paid over 20 years. Additionally, the one-time CIP in the operating fund would be $5 million and the ongoing R&R fund capacity would be $66 million in the 2029 fiscal year.
The Public Works Advisory Board (PWAB) recommended the town council adopt the third option: the cash/bond gradual funded. PWAB further recommended that the town council dedicate staff to research additional financial assistance relief to offset the predicted burden of their preferred rate increase.
The town council expressed a preference for the cash- and cash/bond gradual-funded options.
The town estimated that it will cost around $2.8 billion to undertake pipe replacement when due between the years 2090 and 2110. They estimated that would come down to an average 50-year cost of $76 million annually.
In addition to water rates, town residents also face a 44 percent proposed rate increase for solid waste and recycling services.
Eric Braun, assistant public works director, said that the town had recently taken on the practice of only increasing two of four utility rates at a time because they felt it would mitigate the financial impact on residents. Braun admitted that the plan to not increase rates under the cash-funded option was promissory only and liable to change.
Per a history of rate increases, the town last increased water rates in 2022 by 29.6 percent. Solid waste and recycling increased by 28.6 percent.
Last year, the town increased wastewater and environmental compliance rates by 32.4 percent and 59 percent, respectively.
Rates for all four utilities had no increase from 2019 through 2021.
The town council is scheduled to approve a notice of intent to increase water rates and fees at its Nov. 28 meeting, with a recommended public hearing date of Feb. 6, 2024.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
More schisms have appeared between the state’s Democrat Chief Executive and Republican legislative leadership.
Earlier this month, Senate Majority Whip Sine Kerr, the Chair of the chamber’s Committee on Natural Resources, Energy & Water, announced her resignation from the Governor’s Water Council. Senator Kerr sent a letter to Governor Hobbs, which outlined the rationale behind her thinking.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Senate Republicans Withdraw From Governor's Water Policy Council Beholden to Out-of-State Special Interests@SineKerrpic.twitter.com/5bDvkK7vn1
In a subsequent statement, Kerr explained her reasoning for the decision, writing, “The Governor’s Water Policy Council is nothing more than a forum to rubberstamp the progressive environmental goals of special interest groups. Its ultimate objective has nothing to do with serving the best interests of our Arizona citizens and stakeholders who will be greatly impacted by any newly adopted groundwater management policy. The radical agenda being pushed has the potential to damage our economy and kill the livelihoods of our farmers and ranchers. Sadly, this community is not being provided with fair representation at the table.”
Kerr vowed to keep up her efforts to effect legislative change over the state’s water policies in spite of her perceptions of Hobbs’ current track with those endeavors. She said, “I’m incredibly disappointed in the Governor’s approach that seeks to alienate the voices of Arizona’s multi-generational land and water stewards. This extreme departure from Arizona’s historical, collaborative approach to water management favors her own political gains over sound policymaking. Had her approach been taken over the last forty years, we would not have the tools we have today under the Groundwater Management Act, or the major victories for water augmentation, conservation, reuse, recharge, and irrigation efficiency we have adopted at the Legislature in recent years. I plan to continue my work at the Legislature, in collaboration with the agriculture community, to adopt solutions on basin management issues that will benefit all Arizonans and help with continued efforts in security our water future.”
On January 9, Governor Hobbs created the Water Policy Council “to analyze and recommend updates, revisions and additions to the 1980 Arizona Groundwater Management Act (GMA) and related water legislation, which shall include without limitation, analysis and recommendations for groundwater management outside current Active Management Areas.”
On May 4, Hobbs rolled out the members of the Council, saying, “I’m committed to passing water policies that meet this moment and tackle the challenges we face. I know that with our new Water Policy Council, we will develop the path forward and ensure our state’s natural resources are available for generations of Arizonans to come.”
The Republican Senator wasn’t the only member to leave the Council. The Arizona Farm Bureau, on October 13, also announced that it would be withdrawing from the Governor’s panel, citing a “disappointment in what has been the works of the Rural Groundwater Committee of the Council. Stefanie Smallhouse, the President of the Bureau said, “After months of deliberation, the committee’s direction, and thereby the outcome of the greater Council, appears to be pre-determined as essentially a cross between the seriously flawed attempts of the past and an AMA. At best, our priorities have been given very little committee consideration or, at worst, have been totally dismissed. This is unacceptable to our members, farm and ranch families who will undoubtedly be impacted directly and immediately by any rural groundwater regulatory framework.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The town of Gilbert is offering up to $800 to residents and up to $3,000 to non-residential customers who swap their lawns for desert landscaping that uses less water.
The financial incentive in the Grass Removal Rebate programs isn’t cash: it’s applied as credit on the recipient’s water bills, and may take up to two bill cycles to appear. A Gilbert spokesperson told AZ Free News that they have a total of $120,000 per year to issue on their rebate programs, and that the allocated funding within that budget may change from year to year based on the popularity of each program.
Those who don’t qualify include those who have removed or are currently removing their lawns, those living in non-single family residential properties, and those with grass areas watered by flood or well water.
The grass must also be healthy and growing at 50 percent density, as well as routinely and permanently irrigated by a landscape irrigation system.
Gilbert residents may now be eligible to receive up to $800 for replacing their lawns with low-water-use landscaping.
The rebate requires an inspection of the resident’s grass landscape. The amount received by residents for the lawn removal also depends on the lawn’s size. On the low end, properties with 200 to 399 square feet of grass are worth $100; on the high end, those with over 1,000 square feet of grass are worth $500.
The additional $300 from the town comes as a reward for planting new shade trees or low water-use plants. Residents with a rebate area with at least 50 percent low-water-use or drought-tolerate plant coverage may receive an additional $200. Residents may also receive up to a $100 rebate for planting two trees from the Arizona Department of Water Resources’ Low-Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List.
As for non-residential customers, like HOAs and businesses, grass removal comes at $1 per square footage of grass, with a $3,000 cap.
Anyone who receives $600 or more in water bill credits must complete a W9 for the Gilbert Water Conservation, as per the Biden administration IRS reporting requirement enacted last year.
Those aren’t the only water conservation financial incentives that Gilbert has offered. The town introduced rebates up to $250 for residential, $400 for non-residential properties to install smart irrigation controllers.
Another municipality, Tucson, opted for involuntary compliance with water conservation. Last month, the city of Tucson prohibited new builds from installing lawns and reduced their water flow; in May, they increased water rates by reclassifying several winter months — billed at a lower rate — into summer months. The city of Phoenix cut water allowance, as well as raised its water usage fees.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
