by Yendi Parker | Sep 17, 2026 | Opinion
By Yendi Parker |
For residents of Yuma County, concerns over biosolids are nothing new.
For years, residents, growers, businesses, and local officials have raised concerns about odors, flies, dust, debris, and the sheer volume of treated sewage sludge being brought into southern Yuma County and applied to agricultural land.
And for years, Yuma kept asking for action.
On September 10, the Arizona State Land Department finally acted, finding AgTech LLC in default on one State Trust Land lease and declining to renew four others after determining that continued leasing was not in the best interest of the State Land Trust.
According to the state, AgTech applied more than 68,000 dry metric tons of treated sewage sludge in 2025 alone, with more than 97 percent originating from California utilities.
But Yuma’s fight over biosolids did not begin in 2026.
Yuma County’s own timeline shows the Board of Supervisors formally discussing nuisance and public health concerns surrounding biosolids as far back as 2016. In 2020, the Board formally opposed a proposed 6,000-acre biosolids site. Then, in 2025, the Board formally asked the Arizona State Land Department to terminate AgTech’s lease in response to continuing complaints about odors, flies, dust, and debris.
The County could not terminate the lease itself. That authority belonged to the state.
Still, another year passed.
The issue has since received considerably more attention from statewide officials, with the recent action publicly highlighted by both the Governor’s Office and Attorney General’s Office.
Then, on September 10, 2026, after years of local complaints and more than a year after Yuma County formally requested termination of the lease, the State Land Department acted. The decision came less than two months before Arizona’s general election.
For local grower Tyler Woodman, however, the story goes back much further.
“I have been ‘dealing with it’ for about 20 years,” Woodman said.
Woodman farms roughly a mile north of some of the sites and described years of smelling trucks and odors when the wind shifted, watching the number of trucks traveling through the area and hearing concerns from agricultural workers and neighbors about flies.
Eventually, he said, frustration turned into action.
“Seeing that every route that everyone has ever taken never seemed to bear fruit for whatever reason, I just simply had enough,” Woodman said.
Woodman began filing public records requests with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and Arizona State Land Department and digging through inspection reports and other records himself.
“After that, I did FOIAs for ADEQ and ASLD, and the stuff I was reading in their inspection reports troubled me deeply,” Woodman said. “So, I just kept digging.”
His questions increasingly centered on the amount of biosolids being applied, the acreage being used, and whether existing oversight was sufficient.
Woodman said one of the things that troubled him most was the feeling that responsibility for oversight was fragmented among agencies.
“Overall, I just kinda got this weird feeling that no one was really in charge and ADEQ didn’t really have the tools they needed to enforce things even if they wanted to,” he said.
The recent State Land Department decision does not settle every question surrounding biosolids in Yuma. Residents continue to call for additional environmental testing, while AgTech disputes the state’s conclusions and has said it intends to appeal the lease decision. The company maintains that it has been a responsible steward of the land and has challenged the process used by the state.
Woodman himself is also now facing a defamation lawsuit filed by AgTech over statements he made while speaking publicly about the company’s operations.
But perhaps his explanation for continuing to dig best captures why the issue has resonated with so many people in Yuma.
“It’s a double-edged sword,” Woodman said. “You don’t want to be wrong about what you think is going on, but you also don’t want to find out you’re living next to a superfund site.”
Whatever comes next, one part of the history is already clear: Yuma did not suddenly discover this issue in 2026.
Residents had been complaining. Growers had been asking questions. County officials had been pressing state agencies for action. The Board of Supervisors had formally requested termination of the lease.
For years, Yuma kept making noise.
This September, the state finally listened.
Yendi Parker is an English teacher at Yuma Catholic High School. She also serves as the Western Arizona Chapter Manager for Our America and 3rd Vice President for the Arizona State Federation of Republican Women.
by Yendi Parker | Aug 28, 2026 | Opinion
By Yendi Parker |
For anyone who has lived in Yuma, the sound of military aircraft overhead isn’t unusual. It’s part of daily life.
So perhaps it is fitting that an effort to significantly expand property tax relief for Arizona’s disabled veterans has roots here.
The reforms, championed by Rep. Michael Carbone, whose Legislative District 25 includes portions of Yuma and Maricopa counties, have unfolded over multiple legislative sessions. They significantly expand Arizona’s property tax benefits for disabled veterans, with additional changes taking effect in tax year 2027.
But the story didn’t begin at the Capitol. It began with his constituents.
Yuma resident and military veteran Josh Pembleton wrote the original constituent proposal and brought it to Carbone about two years ago. Fellow veteran Josh Wright also provided his thoughts and perspective as the idea developed.
“That makes me so proud, because it came from our citizens,” Carbone said.
Pembleton said the idea grew from conversations with veterans frustrated by Arizona’s existing property tax exemption system. Income restrictions and other requirements meant too few veterans were benefiting from the policies already in place.
He began looking at what other states were doing and saw an opportunity for Arizona to do better.
“I think it is more than fair to provide a benefit to those that have sustained lifelong injuries while providing service to our great country,” Pembleton said. “If the VA recognizes these veterans in reference to disability rating, we should too.”
Barry Todd, also a veteran, was part of the effort, listening to disabled veterans across Arizona about where the system was falling short.
“Our goal was never political,” Todd said. “We simply wanted the law to reflect the sacrifices veterans made and remove barriers that kept them from receiving benefits they had earned.”
That persistence eventually paid off.
Arizona now provides a full property tax exemption on the primary residence of qualifying veterans with a 100% service-connected disability. Veterans with service-connected disability ratings from 10% through 90% can receive property tax relief prorated proportionally according to their disability rating.
The reforms also removed the previous property-assessment ceiling for disabled veterans and provide protections for qualifying surviving spouses. Beginning in tax year 2027, disabled veterans and their surviving spouses will no longer be subject to the household income limits that previously prevented many from qualifying.
For Carbone, the changes represent a dramatic improvement in Arizona’s treatment of veterans.
“The thing that makes me the happiest is going from one of the worst to one of the best now,” Carbone said. “We want you to stay here in Arizona. And it is the right thing to do.”
House Republicans describe the resulting program as one of the most generous veteran property tax benefits in the nation. For those who helped push the reforms forward, the goal is to lead from the front while honoring veterans and making Arizona a place where they can afford to put down roots after their military careers.
Passing legislation, however, is only part of the job. Arizona’s county assessors now have to make it work.
Yuma County Assessor Stevie Seale said his office will be prepared to help local veterans navigate the new benefit when implementation begins.
“Starting in January 2027, Yuma County will be ready to implement this new law and make the process as clear and straightforward as possible for our veterans,” Seale said. “The Legislature got this right. This was an issue I advocated for while running for assessor, and it’s rewarding to see it become a reality and provide this benefit to those who have served our country.”
Veterans seeking the exemption will work through their local county assessor, putting those offices on the front line of turning the statewide reform into a tangible benefit for veterans and their families.
For Yuma Mayor Douglas Nicholls, the effort fits a community where supporting military families and veterans is part of its identity.
“Yuma is a community that takes a lot of pride in our military and veteran presence,” Nicholls said. “We want Arizona to serve as our veterans’ home after they retire. We welcome them here in Arizona and in Yuma.”
That commitment has earned national recognition. Yuma was named a 2025 Great American Defense Community, one of only three communities nationwide selected that year.
As a Yuma resident of eight years and the wife of an active-duty Marine now in his 21st year of service, I’ve seen that relationship firsthand. Here, military service isn’t something observed from a distance. It is woven into everyday life.
That’s also why this story is about more than property taxes.
Veterans who choose Arizona after leaving the military become our community members. Helping them build their next chapter here honors their service while strengthening the communities they join.
And maybe that is the best part of this story.
A Yuma veteran saw a problem and wrote a proposal. Other veterans lent their voices. Their state representative listened and carried the issue to the Capitol. Lawmakers acted. Now local officials will help deliver the benefit.
Years from now, most Arizonans probably won’t remember the bill numbers.
But disabled veterans and their families may remember something far more important: Arizona made it easier for them to remain in the place they chose to call home.
And behind that statewide change is a story with roots in a community where military service has never been an abstract idea.
It has always been part of life in Yuma.
Yendi Parker is an English teacher at Yuma Catholic High School. She also serves as the Western Arizona Chapter Manager for Our America and 3rd Vice President for the Arizona State Federation of Republican Women.
by Yendi Parker | Jun 19, 2026 | Opinion
By Yendi Parker |
Eight years ago, the United States Marine Corps moved my family to Arizona. Since then, my husband and I have used Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program to help provide the education our three children need to succeed.
As both a mother and a teacher, I have seen firsthand the difference educational choice can make in a child’s life. That is why I oppose the so-called Protect Education Act.
Despite its name, this measure does not protect education. It limits educational opportunities and restricts parents’ ability to choose the learning environment that best fits their children’s needs.
My own children have benefited from ESAs, and many students at the high school where I teach attend through the program as well. These are real children with unique learning styles, goals, and challenges. The ESA program empowers parents to make decisions based on what is best for their child, not what is most convenient for a government system.
Critics often claim that ESA programs drain funding from public schools. The reality is that the typical ESA award is only a fraction of the combined state and local tax dollars spent on a student in the public school system. When a student leaves a public school and uses an ESA, the state generally spends less on that individual child.
Opponents also point to isolated examples of misuse within the ESA program. No government program is perfect, but the Arizona Department of Education reports that the overwhelming majority of ESA families follow the rules. State analyses have found that truly egregious fraud accounts for approximately 0.3% of ESA spending. By comparison, federal SNAP benefits experience improper payments and fraud estimated in billions of dollars annually, representing a far larger percentage of total program spending. Yet no one argues that food assistance should be eliminated because a small number of people break the rules.
The answer is accountability, not fewer choices for families.
Arizona has become a national leader in educational freedom because we trust parents. Whether a family chooses a public school, charter school, private school, homeschool, or another educational option, that decision should remain with the people who know the child best: their parents.
The Protect Education Act would move Arizona in the wrong direction. It would limit options, create new barriers, and make it harder for families like mine to access the educational opportunities our children need.
For the sake of educational freedom, parental rights, and student success, I encourage Arizonans to look beyond the title and reject the Protect Education Act.
Yendi Parker is an English teacher at Yuma Catholic High School. She also serves as the Eastern Arizona Director for Our America and 3rd Vice President for the Arizona State Federation of Republican Women.
Page 1 of 11
