7913

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7913
• Author: Freshwater Society.
• Title: Water Management in Transition, 1985.
• USFW Year: 1985.
• USFW - Doc Type: Navarre, MN.
• Copyright Material: YES

Those who use groundwater
should share in the cost of
managing that resource.

Measuring Groundwater Withdrawals. . .

Like conservation, the requirement that water users measure their withdrawals
is long overdue. Arizona simply cannot manage its groundwater resources if it
does not know how much groundwater is being withdrawn each year. With
limited exceptions, all persons withdrawing groundwater in anAMAfrom a well
with a pump capacity in excess of 35 gallons per minute must use a water
measuring device approved by the director. After these devices are in use, the
Code requires the director to levy and collect a groundwater withdrawal fee,
not to exceed five dollars per acre-foot, to help defray the costs of groundwater
management.

Many water users long resisted requirements to "meter" their wells. As the
Groundwater Management Study Commission observed, "metering of
groundwater use has been an emotional issue in the past and ha.'i been opposed
primarily by agricultural users who fear the costs associated with metering and
the imposition of pump taxes after meters are required, "With this in mind, the
Commission recommended and the legislature agreed that a range of devices
approved by the director could be used to measure withdrawals. The range of
devices allowed may make the Department's enforcement efforts more difficult,
but it may also encourage more water users to comply with this aspect of the law.

. . . and "Sharing Costs" Through Taxes

When the concept of a "pump tax" was first considered by the Commission, it
was not out of extreme foresight. The Commission was not concerned with the
economic woes which might befall the state, but rather with the belief that those
who use groundwater should share in the cost of managing that resource,

In retrospect, the inclusion of a groundwater withdrawal fee may prove
invaluable by generating the necessary funds to keep the Code on track.
Additionally, although the fee is designed primarily to help defray the costs of
management rather than to reduce groundwater withdrawals, it may give some
water users a further incentive to conserve water and serve as a reminder to
larger water users of the need for better management of their withdrawals.

Constitutional Challenges

One of the most novel provisions of the Groundwater ManagementAct of 1980
is its nonseverability clause, which states that if any portion of the Act is declared
unconstitutional, the entire Act will be null and void. This provision emphasizes
the delicate nature of the compromises made by the negotiators and their desire
to see the losses and gains of all water users stand or fall as a whole,

Because of this clause, constitutional challenges to the Code were quick in
coming. To date, the DWR has had unqualified success in defending the Code
against challenges to its constitutionality. Considering the nonseverability clause,
nothing less than unqualified success would suffice.

43