WSP03940 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

003211 i . but the law did not say what inadequate was. In testifyin~ to the Legislature at that time, I advised them that if they didn't tell me what it was, I was going to establish a policy that there had to be a wate~' supply that would last for at least one hundred years on the basis that some of the subdivisions won't build out for a considerable number of years and the guy that spent his money ought to be assured that he has got a water supply that lasts at least for the life of his loan and to build in a safety factor. No one is that certain of groundwater supplies. So then on the basis of the Legislature not establishing a criterion and not finding fault with the one I was going to adOPt if they didn't set one in the law, the Water Commission adopted that criterion over very strong objections from the building industry. If we found that the supply was inadequate, we notified the Real Estate Commissioner and the Real Estate Commissioner in turn was required to require the subdivider to include within his sales contracts and all his pro- motional material, including radio and TV spots, billboards, or whatever, the fact that the Water Commission found that the supply was inadequate. That tended to discourage a lot of the type of sub- divisions that Arizona had in the past, but it really didn't do any- thing, or did very little I should say, for water management be- cause a lot of these subdividers went ahead and put it in very fine print, in parenthesis at the bottom of the contract or the bottom of the page, or had one of those guys that talk very fast on the radio. Seriously, it did a lot for the buyer but little for water management. Under the new Act, the law was changed within the active management areas. Everywhere else the old law with the adequacy of water clause still prevails, but within the active management areas B-19 - ~~~