HB 2758 Did Not Advance in 2026—But the Groundwater Debate Is Far from Over

On June 13, 2026, the Arizona Legislature adjourned its regular session without holding a final Senate vote on House Bill 2758. Because the bill did not complete the legislative process, it did not become law.

For residents of the McMullen Valley, this outcome is significant. HB 2758 would have changed portions of Arizona law governing who may withdraw and transport groundwater from the McMullen Valley Groundwater Basin. Its failure to advance means those proposed changes will not take effect this year.

However, the underlying questions raised by the bill have not been resolved. Groundwater transportation, declining water levels, the future of local agriculture, and the long-term reliability of domestic and community water supplies will remain important issues for La Paz County and the surrounding region.

What Would HB 2758 Have Done?

McMullen Valley is one of four areas in Arizona designated as a groundwater transportation basin. State law generally limits the movement of groundwater between basins, but it provides exceptions for certain lands, entities, destinations, and purposes within these designated transportation basins.

HB 2758 proposed modifying the rules for the McMullen Valley Basin. Among its provisions, the bill would have expanded the types of entities eligible to withdraw groundwater from historically irrigated land and transport it to certain locations, including an Active Management Area.

The legislation also contained provisions related to annual reporting, groundwater transportation fees, property disclosures, local water improvement programs, mitigation, and county improvement districts.

Supporters viewed the proposal as a way to place groundwater transportation within a more defined regulatory and financial framework. Opponents questioned whether the bill’s safeguards would be sufficient to protect rural communities, domestic well owners, public water systems, agriculture, and the long-term health of the aquifer.

Those competing perspectives illustrate why groundwater policy is rarely a simple question of being either “for” or “against” a particular project. The central policy question is often how benefits, costs, risks, and responsibilities will be distributed among different communities and water users.

What Does the Bill’s Failure Mean?

Because HB 2758 did not receive a final Senate vote before the Legislature adjourned, the bill is no longer active in the 2026 regular session. The existing statutory framework remains in place.

The official legislative record does not explain why the bill was not placed before the full Senate for a vote. It would therefore be speculative to attribute the outcome to any single legislator, political calculation, public campaign, or anticipated action by the governor. However, residents, local officials, organizations, businesses, and water users did communicate their views to lawmakers throughout the legislative process. Public participation is an important part of representative government, but the absence of a final vote does not establish which factors ultimately determined the bill’s outcome.

HB 2758 itself would need to be reintroduced in a future legislative session for its provisions to receive further consideration. Similar language could also appear in another bill. For that reason, the issue should be considered delayed rather than permanently settled.

Groundwater Transportation Is Only Part of the Larger Picture

Concern about groundwater transportation must also be considered within the broader condition of the McMullen Valley aquifer.

Research presented through Arizona State University’s Arizona Water Innovation Initiative indicates that current groundwater depletion in McMullen Valley is primarily associated with local agricultural pumping rather than groundwater transportation. Agriculture accounts for more than 99 percent of the basin’s estimated groundwater demand, and withdrawals substantially exceed the basin’s estimated natural replenishment.

This distinction is important. It means that preventing a particular transportation proposal would not, by itself, bring the aquifer into balance. At the same time, the fact that an aquifer is already declining makes careful analysis of any proposed additional withdrawal, change in use, or transportation arrangement even more important.

Transportation proposals can also vary considerably. In some cases, groundwater formerly used to irrigate farmland may be transported elsewhere after the agricultural use is retired. If the amount transported is equal to or less than the amount that would otherwise have been pumped for irrigation, the proposal may not increase total depletion under certain assumptions.

However, those outcomes depend on the details. Policymakers and residents need clear answers about how pumping limits will be calculated, whether retired agricultural use will remain permanently retired, how compliance will be monitored, and what will happen if neighboring wells or local water systems are harmed.

Questions That Still Need Answers

The pause created by the end of the legislative session provides an opportunity for more detailed and transparent analysis.

Before similar legislation is considered again, residents and decision-makers would benefit from answers to several questions:

How much groundwater could be withdrawn and transported under different development scenarios?
How would additional or relocated pumping affect groundwater levels across the basin?
Could domestic wells, agricultural wells, or community water systems experience reduced production or require deeper replacement wells?
Who would be responsible for investigating and paying for damage to existing water users?
What monitoring would be required before, during, and after groundwater transportation begins?
Would the retirement of historically irrigated land adequately offset the transported water?
How would pumping and land-retirement requirements be enforced over the long term?
What financial protections would be available to local residents and water providers?
Would local communities receive meaningful infrastructure, conservation, or economic benefits?
How would the proposal interact with other existing and potential groundwater withdrawals from the basin?

These questions should be evaluated using hydrologic data, clearly stated assumptions, independent technical review, and meaningful participation from the communities most likely to experience the consequences.

Time for Analysis, Not Complacency

The failure of HB 2758 to advance gives residents and public officials additional time, but it does not eliminate the need for action.

The McMullen Valley Basin continues to face a substantial imbalance between groundwater withdrawals and natural recharge. Domestic well owners, farms, businesses, public water systems, developers, and neighboring communities all have an interest in determining how the aquifer can support existing residents and future needs.

The coming months offer an opportunity to move beyond general arguments and examine the practical details of groundwater management. That work could include reviewing available well data, evaluating groundwater-level trends, identifying vulnerable areas, comparing pumping scenarios, examining mitigation models used elsewhere in Arizona, and developing standards for financial responsibility and public disclosure.

It is also important to recognize that groundwater management will require consideration of current local use as well as potential future transportation. A durable solution cannot focus exclusively on one project or one category of water user.

What Comes Next?

The Water Alliance of La Paz County will continue to follow proposed legislation and other developments affecting groundwater in the McMullen Valley and throughout La Paz County.

Our role is to help residents understand how groundwater policy works, what available data show, where uncertainties remain, and how members of the public can participate in decisions that may affect their communities.

HB 2758 did not become law in 2026. That outcome provides more time to study the proposal, evaluate potential consequences, and consider whether stronger protections or alternative approaches are needed.

The larger challenge remains: developing groundwater policies that recognize Arizona’s regional water needs while protecting the rural communities, economies, and families that already depend on these aquifers.