Arizona's administrative regulation agency is under fire

The Arizona agency in charge of vetting administrative regulations is under fire from legislative Republicans.

A new rule adopted by the Arizona Department of Water Resources allows developers to build in areas with limited supply of groundwater if they offset pumping by providing an alternative water supply.

Republicans filed a lawsuit challenging the rule, arguing it imposes what amounts to a tax on developers.

Sen. Jake Hoffman (R-Queen Creek) accused Governor’s Regulatory Review Council of trying to use “legal gymnastics” to make it seem that they complied with the law.

“When this litigation is complete, which the Senate is a party to, because we feel so strongly that you violated the law, we will be vindicated and that rule will be thrown out. GRRC has to do a better job of ensuring statutory compliance. Right now you're failing in that mission,” Hoffman said.

Sen. Jake Hoffman (R-Queen Creek) berated chair Jessica Klein for letting the rule change pass. He accused her of scheming to fast-track it:

“You had very limited public comment on a very controversial package that essentially added a extra statutory tax. And yet it was done in an extremely atypical way, when even members of your own Council were missing. I mean that it just, it reeks of deference,” Hoffman said.

Klein defended the agency’s actions and told Hoffman the rule change, which she said is not a tax, went through more than the usual amount of hearings before it was adopted, so that members could consider all the public comments.

She also contested his assertion that GRRC took an unprecedented and inappropriate action by passing the rule change in a “study session.”

“You keep calling this a ‘surprise session,’ but it was noticed on the agenda," Klein told Hoffman. “There was notice on the agenda that this could go into the voting session that it was not what you would call surprise.”

Agencies like GRRC periodically go through sunset reviews at the Legislature in which lawmakers determine whether the agency should continue for a certain amount of time or be dissolved.

Hoffman said that he won’t let the GRRC continuation bill advance until Klein gives him examples of other votes in study sessions.

He also wants GRRC’s continuation to be contingent on a new rule banning the agency from voting during study sessions.

Representatives from the state auditor general’s office told Hoffman’s committee that GRRC needed a better process for managing its review processes and needed to do better about reminding agencies when their review reports were due.

The auditor generals’ office told lawmakers that GRRC agreed with their findings and implemented all their recommendations.

The Republicans’ recommendation to only continue GRRC for two years (the minimum amount of time) was opposed by Democrats on the committee, who said it’s unnecessary and overly burdensome.