Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos. Also known as the ad coelum doctrine, it means: “Whoever owns the soil owns everything up to the heavens and down to the depths.” This includes gold, silver, oil—or groundwater—that may be below.
In basic property law, the ad coelum doctrine comes with the “right to exclude,” which is the right for landowners to keep, sell, use, protect, and conserve their property—including preventing others from taking it.
Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas, also known as the “no harm” principle, means: “Use your own property in such a way that you do not injure the property of another.” This includes groundwater.
Articulated by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, the “no harm” principle represents the biblical golden rule: “Do unto others what you would have them do unto you.”
These principles form the foundation of American property law. And in Arizona, they were part of our groundwater code—that is, until 1953, when they were taken away.
Arizonans had property rights to groundwater
According to the Arizona Supreme Court in Davis v. Agua Sierra Resources (2009), Arizona’s common law on groundwater “evolved from the territorial-day view that a landowner has a property interest in groundwater underlying the surface estate.”
Indeed, as Ted Steinberg wrote in Slide Mountain: “Private property in the underground was real all right. At least there were a lot of people in Arizona who believed in it.” According to him, Arizona farmers swore they owned the groundwater beneath their feet, just like the ad coelum doctrine said they did.
In 1904, the Territorial Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed farmers’ beliefs, stating in Howard v. Perrin that “percolating waters are the property of the owner of the soil.”
After statehood, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the territorial view, stating in Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No. 1 v. Southwest Cotton Co. (1931) that groundwater was “the property of the owner of the land,” subject to the rules of the common law, which included the “no harm” principle and biblical golden rule.
These affirmations confirmed what landowners already knew: that the groundwater was theirs, and they had a right to use it as long as they did not harm the rights of others.
But this framework is very different than the ‘free-for-all’ we have today, which does not recognize private property rights or the golden rule.
What happened? How did we get here?
Arizonans’ property rights were taken away
In the mid-1900s, a dramatic shift occurred. Armon Cheatham, an industrial cotton farmer, sunk eleven wells near Laveen, creating a large cone of depression that dried up thirty-eight other landowners’ wells.
The small landowners had been using their water for modest means, like household use and ranching. Tom Bristor, one of those landowners, sued to protect his private property rights, enforce the ad coelum doctrine, and uphold the golden rule.
But in a sudden reversal of precedent, the Arizona Supreme Court in Bristor v. Cheatham (1953) rejected the territorial view and replaced the golden rule with a new doctrine called “beneficial use.”
This dealt the first blow—eliminating John Locke’s “no harm” principle and opening the door for anyone to pump as much as they wanted, “without limitation and without liability to another owner.”
Twenty-eight years later, the Arizona Supreme Court dealt the final blow, declaring in Town of Chino Valley v. City of Prescott (1981), that “there is no right of ownership of groundwater in Arizona prior to its capture and withdrawal from the common supply,” eliminating the ad coelum doctrine in our state.
Here, small well owners in Chino Valley sued to stop the City of Prescott from taking their water and piping it 17 miles away under the state’s new 1980 Groundwater Management Act.
Although their wells hadn’t gone dry yet, they argued that the city’s scheme (and the state’s new groundwater law) constituted a “taking” that required just compensation, including for future groundwater supplies that hadn’t been pumped but that residents wanted to ensure would be available for future use.
Unfortunately, the Court sided with big government and the city, ruling that the water beneath their property wasn’t theirs until they pumped it—ending the ad coelum doctrine and handing full control over to the government.
This was the final nail in the coffin for private property rights—eliminating the right to exclude and declaring all groundwater a public resource, shared by all but owned by none, preventing anyone from protecting or conserving a discrete supply and leading to the situation we have today.
Ownership of subsurface groundwater should never have been taken away
The judges who decided the 1953 case were all Democrats, and the governor who adopted the 1980 law was Democrat Bruce Babbitt. They broke from our state’s traditional values and sided with corporate industry over small landowners, leaving everyday citizens helpless against the political and financial elite.
Had Arizona’s leaders maintained the traditional values that founded our country, we would not be in the situation we’re in today.
Fortunately, the detrimental effects of these negative decisions can be reversed. We can correct the mistakes of the past and return private property rights back to the people.
Only then can we ensure a fair system that restores what was taken, upholds our founding values, and allows property owners to protect and conserve the groundwater beneath their feet.
As the end of 2025 nears, the question arises: What can Americans expect in the world of energy policy in 2026?
Predicting future events where energy is concerned is always a risky enterprise. After all, if anyone could accurately foresee where, say, the Brent price for crude oil would sit a week from today, that person would soon become fabulously wealthy and never have to work another day in his or her life. But no one can actually do that because too many widely disparate factors impact where prices will head on a daily basis. This overarching theme holds true in most areas of the widely diverse energy space.
Still, just as energy details like exact future oil prices or rig count levels are impossible to know with certainty, some overarching trends are entirely foreseeable. As an example, it was entirely predictable a year ago that 2025 would become a year in which an energy policy revolution would take place. Donald Trump had been elected to a second term and was in the process of naming cabinet nominees who would lead an effort to reverse the onerous regulations and economically ruinous subsidy spending of the Biden years.
A policy revolution was entirely predictable, even though, as I wrote at the time, it would take a somewhat different form than many were expecting. There would be no replay of the “Drill, Baby, Drill” agenda of Trump’s first term mainly due to a series of intractable economic factors. Instead, we’d have a “Build, Baby, Build” revolution in which policy changes have focused on setting the conditions for a boom in energy infrastructure like pipelines, LNG export facilities, baseload power generation, major transmission projects, new and expanded mining operations, and more into place.
With business-oriented cabinet officials like Chris Wright at the Energy Department and Doug Burgum at Interior leading the way, it was easy to predict that the second Trumpian energy revolution would focus on measures that allow markets, not the dictates of central government planners, to lead the charge. The command-and-control schemes, crony capitalism, and green subsidies would be repealed or phased away. Banks and investment houses would be put on notice that their discriminatory, ESG-focused lending practices would be policed. Rather than focus their personal energy on finding ways to punish disfavored energy players, administration officials would spend their days finding ways to speed up permitting processes.
Those things and more all came about in Year One of this second Trump presidency. It has been a true policy-driven revolution.
Now, as the dawn of 2026 nears, the direction of the administration’s Year Two agenda becomes equally predictable: Consolidation of the gains made in 2025.
The ending/phasing out of the green subsidies must be maintained since they distort markets by encouraging irrational allocations of capital. The capital thrown at wind and solar will be more productively allocated to building new natural gas and nuclear baseload plants and ensuring existing coal plants stay up and running to keep America’s lights on. The capital misallocated by legacy carmakers – like Ford and GM – to their foundering EV dreams must be reallocated to making cars American consumers can afford and actually desire to own.
With global markets creating rapidly rising demand for U.S. LNG, it’s time to “Build, Baby, Build” those needed new export facilities and the pipelines needed to feed the gas into them. Those energy gains can’t be consolidated without driving into action the streamlined processes to issue the needed permits.
And then there are the mines. Regardless of how quickly their permits can be issued, America can’t have any of the pipelines, LNG facilities, power plants, AI datacenters, or transmission lines without the raw mineral materials that make them work. America can no longer afford to be held hostage to supply chains for these materials dominated by China. That means more mines, and lots of them.
The President and his people have worked overtime throughout 2025 to ensure the executive branch’s side of this policy revolution is in place. Now, Congress must act to enshrine it permanently in law. Getting that done, consolidating the gains made in 2025 into action and statutes, will dominate the energy policy agenda throughout 2026. It’s all very predictable.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
The Trump administration took a major whack at the climate-industrial complex this week. It’s a fantastic move. But another event this week spotlights the need to do more.
White House Office of Management and Budget Chief Russ Vought announced this week that the Trump administration would “be breaking up the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado.” Vought added: “This facility is one of the largest sources of climate alarmism in the country. A comprehensive review is underway and any vital activities such as weather research will be moved to another entity or location.”
The announcement put climate hoaxers into orbit.
In “Trump officials to dismantle ‘global mothership’ of climate forecasting,” the Washington Post reported: “The announcement drew outrage and concern from scientists and local lawmakers, who said it could imperil the country’s weather and climate forecasting, and appeared to take officials and employees by surprise.”
“If true, public safety is at risk and science is being attacked,” Democratic Colorado Gov. Jared Polis said. “Climate change is real, but the work of NCAR goes far beyond climate science. NCAR delivers data around severe weather events like fires and floods that help our country save lives and property, and prevent devastation for families,” he added.
NCAR “is quite literally our global mothership,” said the Nature Conservancy’s chief scientist. “Dismantling NCAR is like taking a sledgehammer to the keystone holding up our scientific understanding of the planet,” she added.
Beam’em up, Scotty.
While NCAR does valuable research related to weather, its climate-related work is awful. In 1970, NCAR researchers predicted that a new ice age would set in during the first third of the 21st century – i.e., right about now.
In 1979, NCAR climate legend Stephen Schneider predicted that global warming could cause the entire East Coast to be flooded within decades – i.e., right about now.
In 2009, NCAR all-star researcher Kevin Trenberth was caught in the Climategate e-mail scandal admitting to fellow climate hoaxers: “The fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warmth at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
The good news is that the weather work NCAR does will continue. But NCAR’s always wrong, if not ridiculous, climate hoax work will be cut.
But as with other Trump administration efforts to terminate the climate hoax, fixing NCAR is not enough. Earlier this week, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued its annual “Arctic Report Card,” in which it claimed (as usual) that the Arctic is heating up faster than the rest of the planet. The climate hoax-friendly media outlet, The Guardian, headlined the story as “Arctic endured year of record heat as climate scientists warn of ‘winter being redefined.”
The science problem with NOAA’s report card is that it lacks any historical perspective. We don’t have very good data on the Arctic. The Soviet Union established the first temperature station near the North Pole in 1937. But summer ice melt washed it away. The U.S. didn’t make it to the Arctic until 1952 – in a submarine. The satellite record of the Arctic didn’t begin until 1979, which was the very end of the mid-20th century cooling period and so Arctic ice was at a peak.
It started warming in the 1980s – no one knows why for sure – and Arctic sea ice extent began to shrink. Arctic sea ice extent stopped shrinking in the mid-2000s (despite huge emissions growth) and has never been close to ice-free in the summer as Al Gore predicted it would be by 2014.
Yet NOAA is still sounding the climate alarm. The White House needs to get on top of NOAA and give it the NCAR treatment: Weather, yes. Climate, no.
Guess what! Inflation, growth, jobs: Conventional wisdom from America’s economic punditry was across-the-board wrong. Again.
At the year’s start the punditry predicted that Trump’s tariffs would cause a surge of inflation and would likely trigger recession. Well, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released Consumer Price Index (CPI) numbers on Thursday. Reuters’ polling of private economists predicted inflation would accelerate to 3.1% year-over-year, the fastest pace since 2023. The actual BLS figure came in at 2.7%, with core inflation even lower at 2.6%.
But the news gets better. Year-over-year inflation means it includes inflationary pressures from the end of Biden’s presidency. It’s a very lagging figure.
To understand what inflation’s doing now, and to filter out some of the data’s noise, a better gauge is to look at inflation over the last two months, which came in at 1.2% annualized, well below the Federal Reserve’s 2% target.
There is a small caveat to this good news. Due to the Schumer government shutdown, BLS was unable to collect all the usual data for the CPI report, so some items were left out. The economists who predicted accelerating inflation are thus arguing that inflation would, with all the data, have been much higher and thus excusing their bad forecasts.
However, as New York Fed President John Williams points out, the missing data “pushed down the CPI reading, probably by a tenth or so.” OK, so topline inflation was 2.8% while the annualized two-month figure goes to 1.8%, still well below consensus forecast and still below the Fed’s target rate.
What about Trump’s tariffs? To be sure, they pushed some prices up faster than they otherwise would have. But the tariffs only applied to a small fraction of all the goods and services sold in America. So, when it comes to overall inflation, the net effect could never be more than a one-time rounding error.
Further, inflation is fundamentally a monetary phenomenon. These tariff-induced price bumps occurred against a background of the underlying inflationary impulse from money supply interacting with money demand. The Fed has run a moderately restrictive policy for years, so naturally inflation is falling.
Assuming at least one of the Fed’s legion of economists can do this two-month calculation and has the temerity to show it to Chair Powell and the rest of the Fed’s leadership, then further Fed rate cuts should be assured and imminent on the road to neutral.
And what about that predicted recession? After inflation, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) soared 3.8% in the second quarter of this year, while the Atlanta Fed’s “Nowcast” of third quarter GDP is a still-impressive 3.5%.
Some of Reuters’ economists will likely portray this slight slowdown in growth as “scary” and a sign of pending recession. Nonsense. The economy is ripping, with the only recession pending threatening the salaries of those economists making silly forecasts.
Finally, those still desperate to argue economic weakness might turn to the labor market. The economy generated about 166,000 jobs a month during Biden’s last year in office. So far under Trump the economy has generated about 50,000 jobs a month. Sounds scary, but much of that decline occurred because federal employment fell by 27,000 jobs a month.
The even bigger jobs story is that employment by foreign-born workers has fallen by about 100,000 a month under Trump. This is what happens when immigration laws are enforced and the border is secured. Put it all together and private-sector native-born employment is doing very well.
And the cherry on top is that after stagnating for the four years of the Biden presidency, median real wages are now rising at a 1.6% annualized rate. Rising wages and plentiful private-sector jobs, not gimmicks like Obamacare subsidies and rent controls, are how you prosper American workers or, in today’s parlance, address “affordability.”
Just don’t be surprised if you don’t hear that from the legacy media.
J.D. Foster is a contributor to the Daily Caller News Foundation. He is the former chief economist at the Office of Management and Budget and former chief economist and senior vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He now resides in relative freedom in the hills of Idaho.
When people hear the phrase “left-wing political machine,” they probably think of local activist groups, paid protestors, and maybe even out-of-state wealthy progressive donors writing checks from afar. That mental model would be both outdated, oversimplified, and a major underestimation.
What operates in Arizona today is far more sophisticated and opaque. It’s best understood not as a movement (as the Left likes to brand themselves), but as a syndicate: multiple non-profits leveraging tax-deductible contributions to advance shared political goals through a permanent, year-round infrastructure.
Our newly released report, prepared in conjunction with the Arizona Liberty Network, examined the financial transactions between a consortium of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) operating in the Grand Canyon State, and illuminates just how far-reaching this system is…in Arizona, this liberal syndicate has its fingerprints on almost every lever of government.
A National Pipeline, Not a Local Movement
When examining the financing of the liberal syndicate, it’s important to note that virtually all of their funding comes from out of state sources. National, and in some cases multinational, donors and foundations are the primary sources of money. The NGO network also utilizes direct taxpayer subsidies through grants at the federal level.
Most of the individual donors and foundations bankrolling the syndicate provide their giving through a financial instrument known as a donor-advised fund (DAFs). A DAF lets wealthy progressives make tax-deductible contributions to a private fund, which then routs their donations to ideological nonprofits.
The other major trough of funding for the network comes from taxpayers in the form of government grants. The most notable federal agency providing these funds was USAID, which contributed over $50 million last cycle to progressive “philanthropic” organizations that then participate in political advocacy in Arizona.
From there, the money gets funneled through a web of intermediary organizations. Arabella Advisors (recently defunct and being replaced by Sunflower Services), Tides, and their affiliated funds dominate this space. These groups aggregate all that tax-advantaged and taxpayer-backed dollars, then redeploy them nationwide. Arizona is one of their preferred destinations.
Our report tracked more than 180 financial transactions, primarily from 2023 and 2024 alone. Altogether, the upstream sources pushed over $1.8 billion into the liberal NGO network, with nearly $200M ending up with organizations operating in Arizona.
So, this is no organic grassroots “movement.” It is a sophisticated syndicate: part tax-subsidized, part tax-advantaged, and built to operate year-round…
I’ve written frequently here in recent years about the financial fiasco that has hit Ford Motor Company and other big U.S. carmakers who made the fateful decision to go in whole hog in 2021 to feed at the federal subsidy trough wrought on the U.S. economy by the Joe Biden autopen presidency. It was crony capitalism writ large, federal rent seeking on the grandest scale in U.S. history, and only now are the chickens coming home to roost.
Ford announced on Monday that it will be forced to take $19.5 billion in special charges as its management team embarks on a corporate reorganization in a desperate attempt to unwind the financial carnage caused by its failed strategies and investments in the electric vehicles space since 2022.
Cancelled is the Ford F-150 Lightning, the full-size electric pickup that few could afford and fewer wanted to buy, along with planned introductions of a second pricey pickup and fully electric vans and commercial vehicles. Ford will apparently keep making its costly Mustang Mach-E EV while adjusting the car’s features and price to try to make it more competitive. There will be a shift to making more hybrid models and introducing new lines of cheaper EVs and what the company calls “extended range electric vehicles,” or EREVs, which attach a gas-fueled generator to recharge the EV batteries while the car is being driven.
In an interview on CNBC, Company CEO Jim Farley said the basic problem with the strategy for which he was responsible since 2021 amounts to too few buyers for the highly priced EVs he was producing. Man, nobody could have possibly predicted that would be the case, could they? Oh, wait: I and many others have been warning this would be the case since Biden rolled out his EV subsidy plans in 2021.
“The $50k, $60k, $70k EVs just weren’t selling; We’re following customers to where the market is,” Farley said. “We’re going to build up our whole lineup of hybrids. It’s gonna be better for the company’s profitability, shareholders and a lot of new American jobs. These really expensive $70k electric trucks, as much as I love the product, they didn’t make sense. But an EREV that goes 700 miles on a tank of gas, for 90% of the time is all-electric, that EREV is a better solution for a Lightning than the current all-electric Lightning.”
It all makes sense to Mr. Farley, but one wonders how much longer the company’s investors will tolerate his presence atop the corporate management pyramid if the company’s financial fortunes don’t turn around fast.
To Ford’s and Farley’s credit, the company has, unlike some of its competitors (GM, for example), been quite transparent in publicly revealing the massive losses it has accumulated in its EV projects since 2022. The company has reported its EV enterprise as a separate business unit called Model-E on its financial filings, enabling everyone to witness its somewhat amazing escalating EV-related losses since 2022:
2022 – Net loss of $2.2 billion
2023 – Net loss of $4.7 billion
2024 – Net loss of $5.1 billion
Add in the company’s $3.6 billion in losses recorded across the first three quarters of 2025, and you arrive at a total of $15.6 billion net losses on EV-related projects and processes in less than four calendar years. Add to that the financial carnage detailed in Monday’s announcement and the damage from the company’s financial electric boogaloo escalates to well above $30 billion with Q4 2025’s damage still to be added to the total.
Ford and Farley have benefited from the fact that the company’s lineup of gas-and-diesel powered cars have remained strongly profitable, resulting in overall corporate profits each year despite the huge EV-related losses. It is also fair to point out that all car companies were under heavy pressure from the Biden government to either produce battery electric vehicles or be penalized by onerous federal regulations.
Now, with the Trump administration rescinding Biden’s harsh mandates and canceling the absurdly unattainable fleet mileage requirements, Ford and other companies will be free to make cars Americans actually want to buy. Better late than never, as they say, but the financial fallout from it all is likely just beginning to be made public.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
