? READ THIS BEFORE THEY TELL YOU “IT’S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD” ?

If you live in Pinal County — or anywhere in Arizona — and you care about what’s really happening to your water, you NEED to read this deep dive I’m about to post below.

This breakdown explains:
✅ What SB1611 really does (the so-called “Ag-to-Urban” water transfer bill)
✅ How it connects to HB2753 (our shiny new “let’s inject treated sewage into your aquifer” law)
✅ Who’s getting rich off your water rights and your property values
✅ How developers, lobbyists, and your own County Supervisors — like District 3 Chairman Stephen Q. Miller — spin this as “local control” while handing your water to massive HOA sprawl projects

I promise: Once you see the names, the tricks, and the money trail, you’ll never trust another politician or developer lawyer claiming they’re “saving water” by retiring a farm and replacing it with a thousand tract homes.

Arizona SB1611 “Ag-to-Urban” Water Transfer Bill – A Deep Dive

Background: What is the ‘Ag-to-Urban’ Water Bill?

SB1611, nicknamed the “Ag-to-Urban” bill, is a 2025 Arizona legislative proposal that creates a framework to transfer groundwater rights from agricultural use to urban development. It emerged as a response to housing growth stalled by Arizona’s strict groundwater laws. Under the 1980 Groundwater Management Code, developers in Active Management Areas (AMAs, like metro Phoenix and Pinal County) must prove a 100-year assured water supply before building new subdivisionsazmirror.com. In 2023, state hydrologic models showed a projected water shortfall in the Phoenix AMA, leading Governor Katie Hobbs to place a moratorium on new residential developments in fast-growing areas (Queen Creek, Buckeye, Goodyear) that relied solely on groundwaterazmirror.com. This effectively halted tens of thousands of planned home sites on the fringes of metro Phoenix for lack of water supply, prompting uproar – and even a lawsuit by homebuilders – over the development freezetherealdeal.com. SB1611 is the legislature’s attempt to solve this impasse by reallocating water from farms to housing.

Mechanisms: How SB1611 Shifts Water from Farms to Cities

SB1611 establishes a process for farmers to permanently retire irrigated farmland and sell the associated groundwater rights to developers for urban useroselawgroupreporter.com. The bill creates a new type of credit (a “physical availability exemption credit”) that a landowner receives upon relinquishing an irrigation grandfathered groundwater right, which can then be purchased by a developer to help satisfy the assured water supply requirement for a new subdivisionazleg.govazleg.gov. In simple terms, if a farmer stops farming a parcel, the water that would have been used for crops can instead be earmarked (in part) to supply a housing development. Importantly, the bill mandates that new urban developments use significantly less water than the farms did, so that on balance water use goes downazmirror.com.

Under the agreed plan, only a percentage of the farm’s former water usage can be applied to the subdivision, with the rest effectively left in the ground for conservationroselawgroupreporter.com. For example, news sources report that an acre of Arizona farmland can use 4–6 acre-feet of water per year for irrigation, whereas a residential subdivision on that acre would be limited to about 1–1.5 acre-feet under this programtherealdeal.com. In other words, the developer might only be allowed roughly 25–37% of the farm’s original water, presumably ensuring a net water savings. The exact ratios and rules are complex – the bill specifies different credit volumes and corresponding recharge requirements. For instance, one provision in an earlier draft allowed a credit of 2 acre-feet per retired-acre, but required 67% of any groundwater pumped to be replenished (recharged) by the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment Districttherealdeal.comtherealdeal.com. Other options included a 1.5 AF credit with 50% replenishment, or 1.0 AF credit with 33% replenishmentazleg.gov. These formulas illustrate the intent: the new houses can only consume part of the water the farm did, and water agencies must replace a portion of what the homes do pump, to protect the aquifer.

Geographic limits were also added to prevent abuse. An amendment limits how far away the new development can be from the retired farm’s locationtherealdeal.com. This was to ensure “no new development in desert land with no water” – i.e. you can’t haul credits across the state to build in truly water-starved areastherealdeal.com. Essentially, the water is meant to stay within the same general region or aquifer. SB1611 as passed applies immediately to Maricopa and Pinal County AMAs, with Pima County’s AMA potentially eligible if a similar groundwater moratorium is enacted therewatereducation.org. If Phoenix, Pinal, and Tucson areas all participate, over 400,000 acres of irrigated farmland could eventually be converted to housing under this schemewatereducation.org.

Finally, to ensure long-term accountability, the bill puts the onus on Arizona’s water authorities to manage the exchange. Developers using these credits must enroll in the Central Arizona Project’s replenishment program to replace water back into the aquifer over timetherealdeal.com. In sum, SB1611’s mechanism is a kind of water-rights trade: farmers “retire” water-heavy agriculture, and in return developers get permission to build houses using a portion of that water, with requirements to recharge some water and reduce overall consumptionazmirror.comtherealdeal.com.

Who Benefits Financially?

This legislation carries major economic implications, essentially creating winners in the real estate and development sector:

Homebuilders & Real Estate Developers: The primary beneficiaries are Arizona’s home developers. SB1611 provides a lifeline to builders who had projects on hold due to lack of a certified water supplyground.news. In fact, the Arizona Capitol Times reported that “housing developers left stranded and stalled by a lack of an assured water supply are getting a lifeline” through this dealroselawgroupreporter.com. By purchasing water credits from retiring farms, developers can satisfy state requirements and resume construction in high-demand areas. This could unlock a huge inventory of housing: one estimate suggested the program “could allow 1 million new homes statewide,” given the vast acreage potentially eligibleroselawgroupreporter.com. Major homebuilders see this as a boon – they had “been banned since 2023 from building in the Phoenix or Pinal AMAs if relying on those shrinking aquifers”, a ban that not only halted projects but also drove up housing costs amid a supply shortagetherealdeal.com. The Home Builders Association of Central Arizona even filed a lawsuit (via the Goldwater Institute) challenging the state’s moratorium on new builds, underscoring how high the stakes were for developerstherealdeal.com. By enabling construction to proceed, SB1611 directly translates into revenue: developers can buy cheaper former-farmland and turn it into profitable subdivisions. It’s no surprise “big developers are celebrating a win” with this billwatereducation.org.
Agricultural Landowners: The other obvious beneficiaries are farm owners willing to sell. Many farmlands on the urban fringe were already under pressure – economically marginal or increasingly encroached by suburbia. SB1611 gives these owners a new exit strategy: cash out water rights for development. Instead of farming in a water-scarce environment (where Colorado River cutbacks and groundwater limits make agriculture tougher), an owner can retire the farm and sell the water allocation to a builder. “Farmland owners would also stand to benefit... allowing them to bring in money on their land even after they retire,” noted one reporttherealdeal.com. This could be a lucrative deal for large landholders and agribusinesses in Pinal and Maricopa counties – effectively monetizing their groundwater. It’s a form of asset transfer: water that used to grow alfalfa can be sold to supply homes, and the farmer gets paid by the developer (or perhaps becomes the developer). In fast-urbanizing corridors, some farmers were “being priced out of working the land” anywayazmirror.com, so the bill offers them a financially attractive off-ramp.
Master-Planned Communities & HOAs: The bill also indirectly benefits future homeowners and associations in these new communities. By securing water rights upfront, developers can build master-planned subdivisions that otherwise would be infeasible. This means more housing supply and potentially lower home prices for buyers, as proponents emphasizedwestern-water.comwestern-water.com. Homeowner associations (HOAs) in these developments could gain a reliable water source for maintaining amenities (parks, pools, green belts) that require long-term water. While HOAs were not central in the legislative debate, the ability to guarantee water for landscaping and communal uses is an attractive selling point for new subdivisions – and thus a plus for developers and HOAs that will manage those neighborhoods. It’s also worth noting that separate legislation (in parallel to SB1611) has been strengthening water conservation in HOAs – for example, Arizona recently barred HOAs from prohibiting low-water landscaping or artificial turf. The overall trend is to reconcile HOA practices with water realities. With SB1611, HOAs and residents in growth areas get assurance that their community’s water won’t simply run dry under the 100-year supply rule. In short, the bill is pitched as helping “hardworking Arizonans achieve the American dream of homeownership” by opening up land for housingazmirror.com – a statement that aligns the financial interests of developers with the aspirations of prospective homeowners.
Related Industries: Allied sectors like real estate investors, construction trades, and local governments stand to benefit as well. Unlocking new housing development means more business for construction contractors, more home sales for realtors, and ultimately more property tax base for cities and counties. Even utilities (water providers) may gain new customers. There is a broad growth coalition in Arizona – including city governments in fast-growing towns and business groups – that supported Ag-to-Urban transfers to keep the growth engine running. For instance, representatives from cities like Queen Creek and Buckeye actively participated in stakeholder meetings on this conceptroselawgroupreporter.com, because their local economies depend on continued development. Pinal County officials likewise backed it as a path to both water conservation and economic development; Pinal’s groundwater had been overallocated, stalling many planned communities, so local leaders saw allowing farm-to-city water transfers as key to future growthroselawgroupreporter.comroselawgroupreporter.com.

In summary, the bill’s passage provides significant financial upside to real estate developers (and their lobbyists), land speculators, and certain rural landowners, by turning water into a commodity that can fuel new suburban expansion. Politically, that “growth lobby” included the Home Builders Association, major homebuilders (some represented by powerful firms like Rose Law Group), and coalitions like Pinal Partnership – all of whom have been pressing for solutions to the water/housing logjam.

Rose Law Group’s Role and Influence

Rose Law Group (RLG) – a prominent Scottsdale-based firm known for real estate, land use, and water law – is entwined with SB1611 in multiple ways. RLG has positioned itself as a key player in Arizona’s development circles, and their involvement can be seen through both their media arm (Rose Law Group Reporter) and their client advocacy:

Informing and Shaping the Narrative: Rose Law Group’s online publication, Rose Law Group Reporter, extensively covered the Ag-to-Urban bill’s journey. RLG Reporter aggregated news and provided key takeaways on SB1611, often emphasizing the bill’s significance for housing and water. For example, an RLG Reporter article by Capitol Media Services ran with Key Points like “Water proposal lets builders buy water from retiring farmers,” “Plan could allow 1 million new homes statewide,” and noted that “Rural areas feel left out, fear water shortages.”roselawgroupreporter.com. The site highlighted Senator T.J. Shope’s confirmation that a bipartisan deal had been struck and his bold claim that this is “the most consequential water bill” since the landmark 1980 Groundwater Actroselawgroupreporter.com. By amplifying such messages, RLG’s publication signaled strong support for the policy. It effectively served as a cheerleader for the bill’s housing-and-water win-win premise, while also acknowledging the rural criticisms (which demonstrates some journalistic balance). Notably, RLG Reporter is not an impartial news outlet – it is run by the law firm as a curated news service – so its consistent focus on development-friendly legislation is telling. Posts about Ag-to-Urban appeared in their Government & Politics and Water sections, and even RLG’s social media touted Shope’s bill. A Rose Law Group Instagram update summarized: “Water legislation: Shope's 'Ag-to-Urban' bill aims to convert agricultural water rights into a framework for development.” Such coverage by RLG likely helped shape public and client perception that SB1611 was a pragmatic solution, aligning with RLG’s pro-development stance.
Lobbying and Advocacy: Behind the scenes, Rose Law Group’s attorneys and lobbyists were almost certainly involved in pushing the bill or related efforts. Jordan Rose, the firm’s founder, is a well-known lobbyist for development interests and has built RLG into a powerhouse for real estate law. While specific lobbying disclosures for SB1611 are not readily available in public sources, RLG’s client list speaks volumes. For instance, Rose Law Group openly represents major homebuilders like Lennarfacebook.com and large landowner coalitions. In one water-policy case, RLG disclosed it “represents Pinal Partnership” – a regional developers’ consortium – on groundwater issuesroselawgroupreporter.com. Pinal Partnership has been heavily involved in advocating for water solutions to enable growth in Pinal County (the epicenter of Ag-to-Urban proposals). It’s reasonable to infer that RLG attorneys were lobbying or advising on SB1611 on behalf of such clients. Indeed, RLG’s Government Relations practice (led by seasoned lobbyists) regularly works at the legislature on land use and water bills. The firm even had one of its partners, Thomas Galvin, serve as chair of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors – an example of RLG’s influence in public policy. In early 2025, the Arizona Department of Water Resources held stakeholder meetings on Ag-to-Urban concepts, with over 80 participants including water experts, housing developers, and lawmakerswestern-water.com. It wouldn’t be surprising if RLG-affiliated individuals were in those rooms (either representing clients or even as invited experts), given their stake.
Legal Representation in Related Matters: Rose Law Group’s involvement can also be seen in tangential legal battles around water and development. The Home Builders Association’s lawsuit against the state’s moratorium, for example, was handled by the Goldwater Institutetherealdeal.com – but large builders in that suit (the HBA) have been RLG clients or partners. RLG’s litigation team has experience challenging regulations that hinder development, so even if not counsel of record in that case, they certainly had an interest in its outcome. Moreover, RLG has publicized cases where it represents developers in securing entitlements for big projects that needed water. An illustrative note: Rose Law Group often posts “Disclosure” statements on its Reporter site when it has a direct stake. In one recent water story, “Governor Hobbs signs important groundwater legislation benefiting Pinal AMA,” the site acknowledged “Rose Law Group represents Pinal Partnership in this issue.”roselawgroupreporter.com. No such disclaimer appeared on the SB1611 news posts, but that likely reflects that RLG wasn’t directly quoted in those pieces – not that they lacked interest. It’s worth mentioning that RLG’s Rose Law Group Reporter was co-founded by Phil Riske (now late) and Jordan Rose, explicitly to circulate news that “matters to Arizona.” Development and water policy are front and center in that mission.

In sum, Rose Law Group played dual roles: as a media amplifier framing SB1611 as a positive, and as legal counsel/lobbyists for the very stakeholders who benefit from it. Their fingerprints are subtly evident – from quotes of Jordan Rose praising water legislation in various forums to their direct representation of key players like Lennar and Pinal Partnership. The firm’s support for Ag-to-Urban can be seen as part of a broader strategy to “ease water restrictions in order to enable housing,” aligning with their clients’ goals. Transparency is enhanced by acknowledging this: RLG had a dog in the fight, which they mostly disclosed by curating news and noting client ties, but the casual reader of their Reporter might not realize the depth of the firm’s own stake.

Connected Developers, Landowners, and Notable Projects

Several specific developers and landholdings are closely tied to SB1611’s implications:

T.J. Shope & Gail Griffin (Sponsors) – Ties to Development: State Senator T.J. Shope (R-Coolidge) sponsored SB1611, and Rep. Gail Griffin (R-Hereford) ran the mirror bill in the Houseazmirror.com. Shope represents parts of Pinal County – a largely rural area rapidly transitioning to suburbs – and he has openly cast the bill as “win/win for farmers… and prospective homebuyers.”azmirror.com It’s notable that Shope’s own district stands to gain from unlocking farmland for new housing (Coolidge, Casa Grande, etc., where big master-planned communities have been proposed). Griffin, hailing from a rural area in Cochise County, has long been involved in Arizona water legislation; by backing this, she aligned with developers’ interests as well. These lawmakers worked with Governor Hobbs to tweak the bill so it could pass with bipartisan support – the Senate approved it 26-4, indicating many Democrats came on board after concessionstherealdeal.com.
Major Homebuilders (Pulte, Lennar, D.R. Horton, etc.): Although specific companies were not named in press reports, Arizona’s major homebuilders unquestionably have projects affected by the groundwater rules. The Phoenix metro’s fringes – areas like Buckeye (west), Queen Creek (southeast), and parts of Pinal County – have seen huge master-planned developments proposed by large builders. For example, Lennar Homes has been planning communities in the far West Valley and Pinal and is an RLG clientfacebook.com. Other national builders like D.R. Horton, Taylor Morrison, Meritage, Pulte, etc., are active in these regions. Many had bought former farm parcels betting on development, only to be caught by the assured water supply moratorium. An Arizona news piece noted developers saw “tens of thousands of potential home sites on the fringes of metro Phoenix stranded” due to the water constraintsground.news. SB1611 would “resurrect their projects” under the new water credit systemground.news. Thus, expect subdivisions that were on hold to move forward. While specific project names aren’t all public, some examples in Pinal County include the Saint Holdings land holdings (a company that assembled large acreage for development in the Casa Grande area) and El Dorado Holdings’ planned communities; in the West Valley, the massive Teravalis (formerly “Douglas Ranch” in Buckeye) had water uncertainty that this bill could help resolve. Homebuilders also organized politically: the Home Builders Association (HBA) of Central AZ’s involvement in suing the state shows companies like Fulton Homes and Toll Brothers (active HBA members) were keenly watching SB1611.
Local Landowners and Development Corporations: Beyond branded builders, a number of local land investment firms stand to gain. The Cowley Companies, for instance, is a Phoenix-based real estate investment firm that owns significant tracts of land. Its president, Mike Cowley, came out in support of SB1611, saying “we have housing projects in the Valley ready to be built on existing agricultural lands, but cannot [build] because of the [ADWR] moratorium”western-water.com. Cowley argued the bill “creates a responsible pathway” to develop needed housing while protecting aquiferswestern-water.com. This highlights that firms which amassed farmland on the edges of cities (anticipating eventual development) can now proceed. Other such players might include Vintage Partners or Arcadia Land (which have done entitlement of large suburban parcels). Agricultural enterprises that have been holding on in the Pinal AMA are also implicated – for example, Hickman’s Family Farms (the egg producer) owns large acreage in Buckeye; dairy and alfalfa farmers in Pinal who have seen diminishing water allocations might now sell. Some farming operations are actually backed by investment groups (including out-of-state or foreign investors) who might pivot to land sales.
Master-Planned Communities Mentioned: While not always named in news coverage, a few development areas were indirectly referenced as needing this fix. The Queen Creek and Buckeye areas were explicitly under building moratoriumazmirror.com, so developments there (e.g., Spur Cross in Queen Creek or Trillium in Buckeye) will be enabled by new water sources. In Pinal County, places like Maricopa (city) and Casa Grande have vast platted communities (some approved years ago but waiting on water). One estimate said over 400,000 acres of farmland in Maricopa, Pinal, and potentially Pima County could qualify for Ag-to-Urban conversionwatereducation.org. If even half that land converts, “over a million new homes” could eventually be built, according to proponents’ projectionswestern-water.com. This speaks to projects like the southeast Maricopa county expansions and the Red Rock area of Pinal.
Tribal and Municipal Stakeholders: It’s noteworthy that the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), a major water rights holder and neighbor to Pinal/Maricopa developments, gave a measured nod to the 2025 deal after being initially wary. GRIC Governor Stephen Roe Lewis said the revised bill is “dramatically better than the one… vetoed last year” and that it “sends a strong message that Arizona can… work together on major water policy in a bipartisan manner”therealdeal.com. GRIC’s support was earned by involving them in negotiations – important because GRIC controls significant water (and has opposed unfettered groundwater pumping that could affect their aquifer). On the flip side, some rural municipal leaders not in AMAs (e.g., in Cochise or Mohave counties) feel sidelined – more on that below. But within the affected area, cities like Buckeye, Queen Creek, Casa Grande are indeed “affiliated parties” in the sense that their future growth and tax revenue depend on such water transfers. Their lobbyists spoke in favor in legislative committeesroselawgroupreporter.com.

In summary, SB1611’s passage is closely tied to the fortunes of a who’s-who of Arizona development: from big-name builders and landowners ready to break ground, to the farmers-turned-land-dealers, to local governments eager for expansion. It is essentially enabling a large land use transition that these stakeholders have anticipated. The magnitude – possibly on the order of a million new homes over time – underscores why so many developers and land investors lined up behind the billroselawgroupreporter.com.

Criticisms, Red Flags, and Sustainability Concerns

Despite the near-celebratory tone among developers, SB1611 has raised serious concerns from rural communities, environmental watchdogs, and some water experts. Key criticisms include:

Rural Communities “Left Out”: Leaders in Arizona’s rural counties (outside the big AMAs) worry that the deal prioritizes urban growth at their expense. SB1611 was brokered to solve metro-area water needs, but it did not include new protections for groundwater in rural Arizona – something Governor Hobbs and others had also been pursuing. The Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) has reported significant groundwater depletion in rural areas that lack any regulation (areas not covered by the 1980 Act), and rural legislators and county officials have begged for tools to manage their wells. They feel that if the state is going to allow urban developers to siphon water (albeit via conservation credits) for Phoenix/Tucson growth, it should simultaneously safeguard the aquifers of outlying areas. When Hobbs agreed to the SB1611 deal, “elected officials in rural Arizona [criticized] Hobbs for backing the proposal without tying it to new protections for groundwater in their areas.”watereducation.org In other words, they see a double standard: generous accommodation for big developers, but no relief for small communities whose wells are going dry. An RLG Reporter summary bluntly stated “Rural areas feel left out [and] fear water shortages” from this policyroselawgroupreporter.com. One fear is water migration – that encouraging retirement of farms in regulated AMAs could push large agribusiness to relocate to rural counties where pumping is unrestricted, thus exporting the water problem rather than truly solving it. Rural advocates also note that pumping in one area can impact another; they worry about a future where urban areas thrive at the cost of surrounding valleys turned to dust.
Environmental and Conservation Groups: Environmental watchdogs have largely opposed the Ag-to-Urban approach, at least in its initial forms. The Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter mobilized against SB1611, labeling it a “bad water bill.” In fact, Sierra Club circulated a petition urging legislators to “protect Arizona water by voting NO on SB1611,” arguing that it would undermine long-term sustainabilitylinkedin.com. Their concerns are that the bill might sidestep the hard work of true water conservation by giving developers a loophole: rather than finding renewable water sources or limiting growth to what aquifers can support, this lets them keep pumping groundwater (albeit at a reduced rate) under the guise of conservation. There’s skepticism about the “no net increase” claim. Governor Hobbs herself, in vetoing the 2024 version, questioned “whether there really would be any savings” from the schemekawc.org. The logic of the bill is that retiring crops (a high-water-use activity) and replacing them with homes (lower use) yields a net water gain. But what if those farms would have been retired anyway? Some environmental experts point out that many farms in Pinal were already fallowing land due to dwindling Colorado River allocations. If so, the water “saved” by development might not be as large as advertised – instead, SB1611 could end up sanctioning additional groundwater pumping under the appearance of conservation. There is also the issue of climate uncertainty: the state’s assumption that a house uses X acre-feet and a farm used Y acre-feet may not hold in a hotter, drier future. Environmentalists would prefer more direct restrictions on groundwater use and serious investment in efficiency and reuse (like requiring advanced water recycling for new communities). By their view, SB1611 “may harm rural or agricultural water sustainability while being presented as beneficial.” It’s essentially a one-time trick – you can only retire the farmland once – and it doesn’t solve Arizona’s over-arching water imbalance. As Sandy Bahr of Sierra Club has often cautioned, Arizona needs comprehensive groundwater reform, not piecemeal exceptions that cater to development.
Precedent of Weakening the 1980 Groundwater Law: Another red flag is that SB1611 carves out an exception to Arizona’s cherished groundwater management framework. Governor Hobbs, in her 2024 veto message, said she was “hesitant to start crafting exceptions to the… 1980 Groundwater Act”, which was a national model for sustainable water usekawc.org. The Act’s principle was: no new development without a secure 100-year water supply. SB1611 effectively loosens that principle by creating a new kind of allowable supply (credits from retired farms). While proponents argue this isn’t a true exception – since it’s using an existing water right – opponents see it as political erosion of Arizona’s groundwater safeguards. Today it’s farm conversion; tomorrow, they worry, there may be pressure to allow other workarounds (like piping groundwater from rural basins to cities, etc.). The Arizona Republic reported that Hobbs initially feared “long-term groundwater depletion in Pinal County” from last year’s billtherealdeal.com. Without robust oversight, developers might concentrate pumping in certain former farm areas, potentially causing localized declines. To address this, the new bill did add distance limits and the replenishment mandatetherealdeal.comtherealdeal.com. But watchdogs ask: who ensures the replenishment actually occurs over decades? The Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District (CAGRD) is tasked with that, but CAGRD itself relies on finding water to recharge – which may be increasingly difficult and expensive. Thus, critics say the “water security” touted by the bill might be somewhat paper-thin if the backup water for recharge isn’t guaranteed.
“Ag-to-Urban” as Sprawl Accelerator: Some community groups and sustainability advocates frame SB1611 as essentially a green light for sprawl. By freeing up exurban lands for subdivisions, the bill could exacerbate problems like overdevelopment in fragile desert areas, loss of agricultural open space, and increased demand for infrastructure (roads, electricity) far from city centers. One could argue it’s trading one resource strain for another. If Arizona’s growth machine can add up to a million homes by paving former farmsroselawgroupreporter.com, that also means more groundwater wells, more stress on rivers (if surface water is tapped), and more people living in areas that are inherently water-scarce. During legislative debates, some lawmakers noted the irony that Arizona is trying to move away from groundwater dependency, yet this bill enables new development that – while using less water than farming – still relies on groundwater pumping (at least until replenishment catches up). There’s also a fairness issue: current residents in some communities have already cut use or seen their water rates rise due to conservation needs; they may resent new large developments coming in under special rules. For example, one public comment described the idea as “robbing Peter to pay Paul” – questioning if we are just shifting water around rather than truly saving it.
Missing Consumer Protections: Hobbs’ veto message in 2024 mentioned consumer protections as a concernazmirror.com. This refers to ensuring that homebuyers in these new “Ag-to-Urban” subdivisions aren’t left high and dry if the scheme fails. If a developer’s water credits prove insufficient or the replenishment doesn’t happen, will future homeowners face water shortages or big bills to import water? The 2025 deal presumably added some safeguards (for example, requiring enrollment in CAGRD which spreads the cost of replenishment). Still, consumer advocates wanted guarantees that the water really lasts 100 years as advertised. Without directly tying the bill to broader reforms, some see it as a stop-gap measure that might lull the public into thinking the water problem is solved, when in reality it’s been punted to the next generation.

In light of these red flags, even Governor Hobbs approached SB1611 warily. She did support the concept (calling it a policy with “broad potential benefits”kawc.org), but only after negotiations did she agree to sign on. Early in 2025, her spokesman pointed out that ADWR was working on a parallel Ag-to-Urban administrative rule with more stringent measures – implying that the legislative version (SB1611) didn’t initially contain all the “concessions” Hobbs wantedazmirror.com. Indeed, the ADWR draft rules were said to include “significantly more restrictions aimed at shoring up the water supply than the GOP-backed bill”azmirror.com. The eventual deal likely brought SB1611 closer to those standards, satisfying Hobbs enough to go along. Nevertheless, environmental groups remain skeptical, and some have hinted this fight isn’t over. We may see litigation or future legislation if the program is abused or doesn’t deliver the promised conservation.

Quote from a Critic

To capture the skepticism, consider Hobbs’ cautionary words when vetoing the 2024 version (SB1172): “The concept at the core of this bill… has broad potential benefits… [but] it should be carefully crafted to ensure that the water conservation savings and consumer protections are guaranteed.”azmirror.comkawc.org This sentiment – yes, we can do it, but we must do it right – echoes what many in the water community feel. Arizona’s water future is precarious; any solution that sounds too easy (“just move water from farms to homes!”) deserves scrutiny.

Conclusion

Arizona’s SB1611 “Ag-to-Urban” bill is a landmark experiment in reallocating water to balance growth and sustainability. On one hand, it embodies a pragmatic compromise: urban developers and state leaders teaming up to conserve water (by retiring thirsty farms) while enabling economic growth (much-needed housing)watereducation.org. The deal was strikingly bipartisan – a rarity for Arizona water policy – and was hailed by some as the biggest water policy move since the Groundwater Act of 1980roselawgroupreporter.com. It unquestionably benefits powerful stakeholders: real estate developers gain buildable land, farmers reap financial rewards, and politicians get to claim they addressed both the housing crisis and water conservation in one stroke. However, the broader implications cannot be ignored. This policy shines a spotlight on stakeholder motives – developers and their allies have sought to secure water for growth, and they largely succeeded, perhaps at the cost of sidelining deeper reforms. It also raises a cautionary flag about transparency: Will the public be kept informed about how much water is truly saved? Will there be oversight to ensure the “certain percentage” of water use isn’t quietly expanded in the future?

Critics from rural and environmental circles warn that shifting water rights around is not the same as creating new water. The Ag-to-Urban program will be closely watched to see if it genuinely reduces overall groundwater extraction or if it simply becomes a shell game that masks continued depletion. Community watchdogs are already gearing up to monitor its rollout. As one rural activist quipped, “In Arizona, every water ‘win-win’ can become a lose-lose if you’re not careful.” The success of SB1611 will depend on enforcement of its limits and perhaps complementary laws to protect areas not covered by it.

In conclusion, SB1611 exemplifies Arizona’s attempt to thread the needle between development and conservation. It offers a creative approach to reusing water rights – essentially recycling water from ag to urban use – and indeed could supply hundreds of thousands of new homes without increasing net water draw, if executed properlykawc.orgkawc.org. Yet it also underscores the ongoing tension: water in the West is finite, and every allocation has trade-offs. The bill’s champions, like Sen. Shope, argue it “will help secure our water future and help Arizonans achieve homeownership”azmirror.com. Detractors counter that real water security will require more than shuffling rights – it requires confronting overuse, safeguarding all communities (urban and rural), and perhaps asking tougher questions about limits to growth. As Arizona moves forward with this new policy, transparency and accountability will be key. All eyes will be on those fallowed fields and new subdivisions, to see whether this grand bargain truly benefits “us all,” as one optimistic supporter declaredtherealdeal.com, or whether it primarily benefits the usual players while leaving others thirsting for a fair share.

Sources:

Arizona Capitol Times (via Water Education Foundation) – “New deal on Ag-to-Urban water plan moving in Senate”watereducation.orgwatereducation.org
Arizona Mirror – “Arizona’s water shortage pits GOP lawmakers against Hobbs on ‘Ag to Urban’ proposals” (Feb. 28, 2025)azmirror.comazmirror.com
Rose Law Group Reporter (Capitol Media Services) – “New deal on Ag-to-Urban water plan moving in Senate” (June 19, 2025)roselawgroupreporter.comroselawgroupreporter.com
The Real Deal – “Proposed law gives developers OK to use farmers’ water for growth” (June 20, 2025)therealdeal.comtherealdeal.com
Western Water Magazine – “Arizona Senate advances water-saving ‘Ag-to-Urban’ housing bill” (Feb. 20, 2025)western-water.comwestern-water.com
KAWC (Capitol Media Services) – “Gov. Hobbs vetoes bills on water laws” (June 20, 2024)kawc.orgkawc.org
Rose Law Group Reporter – “Stakeholders provide input on current state of ‘ag-to-urban’ water” (Feb. 14, 2025, Pinal Central)roselawgroupreporter.com
Rose Law Group Reporter – Disclosure of RLG representation of Pinal Partnership in water legislationroselawgroupreporter.com
Ground News/Herald Review Media – “‘Ag to urban’ proposal gives lifeline to developers…”ground.news (syndicated report)
Social Media (Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter via LinkedIn) – call to oppose SB1611 as part of protecting Arizona waterlinkedin.com.

? CONCLUSION — CONNECT THE DOTS & FOLLOW THE MONEY ?

Now that you see how SB 1611 works — taking precious farmland water and flipping it to fuel massive suburban HOAs — here’s the final piece they hope you never connect:

? HB 2753 — passed right alongside it — legalizes pumping treated sewage (effluent) back into our aquifers so developers can claim they have “enough water” to satisfy Arizona’s 100-year supply rule.
In other words:
They kill the farm, sell the land for houses, and top off your future drinking water with toilet water and drug residue.

It’s a perfect racket:
1️⃣ SB 1611: “Look, we conserved water by retiring farms! Yay!”
2️⃣ HB 2753: “Oops, still not enough? No problem — inject reclaimed sewage straight underground and call it ‘safe.’”
3️⃣ Result: Developers build endless sprawl. Politicians get big donations. YOU get higher water bills and mystery chemicals on tap.

? Who wins?
Maricopa County developers. Rose Law Group. Pinal Partnership. The same insiders who bankroll local campaigns — then collect permits, tax breaks, and water credits while you’re stuck with the risk.

? Who loses?
Farmers who can’t compete. Private well owners whose aquifer slowly turns into a dump tank. Homeowners whose property values depend on clean water that’s getting harder and harder to guarantee.

? REMEMBER THIS: HB 2753 + SB 1611 = SHIT-SIPPING HOA SPRAWL.

If you don’t want that for your family, your farm, or your well, hold your local supervisors accountable and share this with everyone who still thinks these sell-outs work for the people.

#StopTheCrapWater #NoOnSB1611 #NoOnHB2753 #PinalCounty #FlushTheRINOs #KeepOurWaterClean