Attorney General Kris Mayes sustained a fatal blow in her case against the 2020 alternate electors for President Donald Trump.
Mayes doesn’t plan on giving up, though.
The Arizona Supreme Court denied Mayes’ appeal of lower court rulings in State v. Ward this week. This means that Mayes must start over to continue prosecution of the alternate electors.
Mayes’ spokesman Richie Taylor confirmed the attorney general plans to return to the grand jury to seek another indictment; he would not provide further comment.
Republican Rep. Abe Hamadeh (AZ-08) said Mayes’ persistence to prosecute despite the rejection of multiple courts proved her to be “completely unhinged” and in need of sanctioning.
“She’s wasting Arizona taxpayers’ money on her obsessive, Ahab-like pursuit of patriotic Arizonans who served as alternate electors after the stolen 2020 election,” said Hamadeh. “Her first sham indictment was already laughed out of every court in the state.”
She’s wasting Arizona taxpayers’ money on her obsessive, Ahab-like pursuit of patriotic Arizonans who served as alternate electors after the stolen 2020 election.
Her first sham indictment was already laughed out of every court in…
— Office of Congressman Abe Hamadeh (@RepAbeHamadeh) June 4, 2026
Senate President Warren Petersen (R-LD14) — who is running to unseat Mayes this November — said Mayes was the poster child of a “rogue” attorney general.
“This is what a rogue AG looks like,” said Petersen. “Loses at every level and still not tired of losing.”
This is what a rogue AG looks like. Loses at every level and still not tired of losing. https://t.co/UKhjcfDPZx
Mayes has sustained a series of losses in her attempt to prosecute the Trump electors, each court ruling increasingly diminishing the life of her case until it reached the point where it lies now — effectively on life support as it awaits another grand jury indictment that may not come.
Last September, the Arizona Court of Appeals rejected Mayes’ appeal of a ruling issued last May by the Maricopa County Superior Court. The latter court remanded Mayes’ case back to a grand jury, ruling that she violated the due process of the alternate electors by failing to give the grand jury a document critical to the indictment, the Electoral Count Act (ECA) of 1887.
The ECA is a federal law outlining the legal process for casting and counting electoral votes in presidential elections. It was modified recently in 2022 under the Biden administration through the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 (ECRA).
The ERCA, in part, limited the vice president’s involvement in electoral certification to a ministerial role, raised the congressional threshold for elector objections to one-fifth of Congress, and made state governors the authority for submitting the certificate of electors.
Key to the defense of the electors was the argument that they acted in good faith in accordance with the ECA.
Mayes has also been accused of receiving payment to prosecute the alternate electors, according to a whistleblower complaint filed last November.
That complaint alleged that States United Democracy Center (SUDC) paid around $200,000 to have prosecutorial influence over the alternate electors case. It was SUDC who advised Mayes’ office in a summer 2023 letter to prosecute Trump’s top supporters from the contentious 2020 election and its aftermath. Mayes’ office has denied the impact of the SUDC letter on their decision to prosecute the alternate electors.
Hamadeh asked the Department of Justice to investigate this alleged “pay-to-play” scheme.
That DOJ investigation is ongoing.
In April, a court of appeals judge ruled in another case that Mayes illegally withheld communications between her office and SUDC.
Trump has pardoned these alternate electors and supporters of the federal charges against them, but state charges like Mayes’ remain.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Arizona State University (ASU) professor Dr. Owen Anderson has asked the Arizona Supreme Court to hear his case challenging mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training after a lower court dismissed his lawsuit, according to a petition filed this week by the Goldwater Institute.
Anderson, a philosophy and religious studies professor at ASU, originally filed the lawsuit in 2024 against the Arizona Board of Regents. He argued that the university’s required “Inclusive Communities” DEI training violated an Arizona statute that prohibits public agencies from making employees participate in training that “presents any form of blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex.” Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen (R-LD14) and then-House Speaker Ben Toma (R-LD27) filed an amicus brief in support of Dr. Anderson’s lawsuit.
According to the Goldwater Institute’s petition, Anderson objects to the DEI training materials, saying they include concepts about race and identity that he believes are unlawful under state statute.
“No one should be forced to participate in divisive DEI training or endorse race-based ideology as a condition for holding a government job. That’s exactly why Arizona lawmakers banned mandatory trainings that teach discriminatory ideas about race, ethnicity, or sex. But a law without enforcement is no law at all,” Goldwater attorney Stacy Skankey explained. “We’re asking the Arizona Supreme Court to correct the lower court’s error and restore Arizonans’ right to hold government agencies accountable when they violate the law.”
ASU forced a professor to take DEI training as a condition of employment.
Goldwater stated in a press release, “There’s no way around it—a law is meaningless if it can’t be enforced. If allowed to stand, the error by the Arizona Court of Appeals would eliminate an essential civil-rights safeguard for public employees and taxpayers. The ruling changes how Arizona laws are enforced by removing the ability of an ordinary Arizonan to ensure government officials obey the law.”
In its February filing, Goldwater said the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that Anderson could not sue because it concluded the relevant law does not expressly provide an avenue for individuals to challenge such training in court.
The petition filed by the Goldwater Institute argues that allowing the Court of Appeals’ decision to stand would leave public employees without a means to enforce the statute and hold government employers accountable. It asks the Arizona Supreme Court to recognize an implied private right of action under the law, allowing employees to challenge alleged unlawful training mandates.
The case highlights a broader debate over DEI programs at public institutions. The previous lawsuit filed by the Goldwater Institute in March 2024 similarly challenged ASU’s DEI training and sought a court order preventing the Board of Regents from imposing or using public funds for the training, citing the same Arizona statute.
ASU has previously contested the Goldwater Institute’s claims, with university officials stating that its training reflects its commitment to inclusiveness and does not violate state law. However, as AZ Free News has previously covered, ASU lost 27 grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF) in 2025, worth approximately $28.5 million, in line with the NSF policy that ensures grants don’t prioritize certain groups or individuals.
Speaking of the ongoing lawsuit, Professor Anderson said in a statement, “Arizona State leaders broke the law when they forced me and every other employee to take part in an ideological training that taught that it’s okay to judge people on their race, ethnicity, religion, and sex. I simply refuse to do that. Ultimately, the question before the Arizona Supreme Court isn’t a left or right issue—it’s about whether a state employee has the right to hold their employer accountable when it violates the law.”
There is currently no set timeline for the Arizona Supreme Court to decide whether it will grant review of Anderson’s petition.
Courts across Arizona will host statewide oath reaffirmation ceremonies for legal professionals on Thursday, Feb. 12, 2026, as part of Arizona Rule of Law Day, officials with the Arizona Supreme Court and county court systems announced.
The events, scheduled simultaneously in all 15 Arizona counties, will invite attorneys and other legal professionals to reaffirm their Oath of Admission in local courthouse ceremonies. The reaffirmation ceremonies represent a formal recommitment to upholding the rule of law and administering justice.
The statewide celebration coincides with several milestones in American history, including the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, Abraham Lincoln’s birthday on Feb. 12, and Arizona’s 113th statehood anniversary on Feb. 14.
In announcing the ceremonies, Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer said renewing the oath on these historic dates underscores the importance of the rule of law in American governance. “On the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, lawyers across Arizona will come together to renew their oath — a reminder that the rule of law depends on the daily commitment of those sworn to uphold it,” Timmer said. “Reaffirming that oath on February 12, Lincoln’s Birthday, honors our nation’s founding ideals and our shared responsibility to serve justice with integrity and respect for the Constitution.”
Chief Justice Timmer’s remarks will be available for livestream and replay by courts statewide.
As of this report, the Arizona Judicial Branch provided scheduling and location information for ten of the state’s 15 counties.
Apache County — 11:00 a.m. Superior Court in Apache County, 70 W. 3rd St. S., St. Johns, AZ — Presiding Judge Michael Latham.
Cochise County — 11:30 a.m. Cochise County Board of Supervisors Hearing Room, 1415 W. Melody Lane, Building G, Bisbee, AZ — Presiding Judge David Thorn.
Coconino County — 11:30 a.m. Superior Court in Coconino County, 200 N. San Francisco St., Flagstaff, AZ — Presiding Judge Ted S. Reed.
Graham & Greenlee Counties — 12:00 p.m. Superior Court in Graham County, 800 Main Street, Safford, AZ — Presiding Judge Michael Peterson and Presiding Judge Jeremy Ford.
La Paz County — 10:00 a.m. Superior Court in La Paz County, 1316 Kofa Ave., Parker, AZ — Presiding Judge Marcus Kelley.
Maricopa County — 10:00 a.m. State Courts Building, 1501 W. Washington St., Phoenix, AZ — Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer and Presiding Judge Pamela Gates. Livestream available.
Mohave County — 12:00 p.m. Mohave County Board of Supervisors Auditorium, 700 W. Beale St., Kingman, AZ — Presiding Judge Steve Moss.
Pima County — 4:00 p.m. Superior Court in Pima County, 110 W. Congress St., Tucson, AZ — Presiding Judge Danelle B. Liwski.
Pinal County — 11:00 a.m. Superior Court in Pinal County, 971 N. Jason Lopez Circle, Building A, Florence, AZ — Presiding Judge Joseph Georgini.
Yavapai County — 4:00 p.m. Superior Court in Yavapai County, Historic Courtroom, 120 S. Cortez St., Prescott, AZ — Presiding Judge John Napper.
The reaffirmation ceremonies aim to highlight the central role that legal professionals play in a justice system where laws are applied fairly and equally. The events are being organized jointly by the Arizona Supreme Court, State Bar of Arizona, and courts statewide.
Yavapai County Presiding Judge John Napper said in a statement, “The Yavapai County Superior Court is honored to host this event. It is always important to take time to remember why we do what we do. I encourage all legal professionals to attend and reaffirm their dedication to the rule of law and justice.”
Correction: A previous version of this story listed the incorrect names of the some of the presiding judges. The story has been updated with their correct names.
In 1952, Republican Governor J. Howard Pyle appointed a 24-member Underground Water Commission to recommend a new groundwater framework for Arizona. Every member was a farmer or rancher— people who lived and worked on the land and relied on groundwater to survive.
After nine months of work and thirteen public comment sessions, the Commission issued a 172-pagereportrecommending that the Legislature adopt “correlative rights” as the new groundwater law for the state, calling it the fairest and most equitable way to apportion subterranean rights among adjoining landowners on the surface.
Farmers agreed. One testified: “The principle of correlative rights gets closer to solving the problem than any water code.” Another said that courts should eventually recognize that landowners should own the groundwater beneath their land, so long as it does not harm others—like the ad coelum doctrine and “no harm” principle described in Part 1.
Yet, the Legislature failed to act. With Democrats holding 15 of 19 Senate seats and 50 of 80 House seats, lawmakers left the issue to the courts, which rejected correlative rights in favor of “beneficial use,” leaving landowners with no legal means to protect or conserve their supplies.
It didn’t have to be this way.
We can restore private property rights to groundwater
In 1953, the Arizona Supreme Court rejected correlative rights not because the Court thought it was unfair, but rather because the Court believed it was technologically infeasible, saying: “Apportionment of subterranean percolating water between adjacent landowners is often, if not always, impossible.”
Today, that excuse no longer applies. Advances in groundwater modelling have made quantifying and allocating rights to subsurface water completely possible—especially in Arizona’s alluvial fill basins like Willcox, McMullen Valley, and the Big Chino, where the tragedy of the commons is already unfolding.
In 2011, for example, the Arizona Water Resources Development Commission issued a statewideassessment, finding that the Willcox, McMullen, and Big Chino basins contained approximately 42 million, 14 million, and 10 million acre-feet (AF) of groundwater, respectively, to a depth of 1,200 feet, providing critical data that demonstrates that implementing correlative rights is entirely feasible.
Since it’s been over seventy years since we’ve meaningfully considered correlative rights, many residents today have likely never heard of this term and would naturally have questions about how it would work, how it would benefit them, and how it would help advance our shared goals of conservation.
Here’s how it would work—using Willcox as an example
Once a basin is closed to new pumping, the groundwater is quantified and allocated to landowners based on the number of acres they own. With 42 million AF underground and about 1.2 million acres on the surface, each landowner in Willcox would receive about 35 AF per acre as a one-time “lump sum.”
For a 4-acre parcel (the minimum lot size in Cochise County), a landowner would receive 140 AF. A 160-acre quarter section would receive 5,600 AF, and a full 640-acre section would get 22,400 AF. This is similar to the proportional share-based approach utilized in oil and gas regulation.
It is also similar to the approach utilized in Arizona’s transportation basins, like Harquahala, McMullen Valley, Butler Valley, and the Big Chino. In Harquahala, the formula is 6 AF/acre annually. More acres mean more rights.
For municipal providers, lump sums would be allocated based on the acres they serve. A larger service area means a larger groundwater allocation. When residents interconnect, their allocations would transfer to the provider—allowing the provider to manage their supplies on their behalf.
State trust lands would also receive allocations, which lessees would be entitled to use through their leases. The more acres leased, the more groundwater available. In transportation basins that have large amounts of state trust land, cities would know exactly how many acres they’d need to lease to secure an assured water supply.
Additionally, landowners would be credited a proportional share of the annual natural recharge. A person owning one percent of the acres would receive one percent of the natural recharge.
Over time, these credits would add up. After five years, a person earning 0.2 AF/year would acquire a full acre-foot, while a resident with 28 acres would earn enough water annually to meet all of their household needs from recharge alone, allowing them to live off their recharge without touching their lump sum.
For lump sums, a minimum 4-acre lot would provide enough water to last 424 years. Adding recharge makes supplies last even longer. Additionally, increased recharge from proactive investments would be credited to the investor, incentivizing the development of new recharge projects.
Because the basin is closed to new pumping, existing landowners would be protected against subsequent users, like prior appropriation but without the complications. Additionally, because rights are transferable within the same basin, economic growth is still possible. Newcomers can enter, but only if they purchase land or water rights from existing users first.
To enforce all this, annual reporting requirements would be implemented, ensuring that no one pumps more than his or her fair share. Meanwhile, minimum well spacing requirements would be implemented to help ensure an even distribution across the basin, reducing impacts to existing well-owners.
Well monitoring has been a controversial issue in the past, largely because it has been seen as the camel’s nose under the tent for greater bureaucratic control. Here, however, users get certificated private property rights that can never be revoked and thus more, not less, freedom in exchange for their trouble.
For residential well owners, shared infrastructure is already possible through the adoption of water districts. A shared well drilled to 1,200 feet can provide greater long-term security than 100 wells drilled to 120 feet—allowing each landowner to access their full supply but at a substantially reduced cost.
Lastly, there would be no “safe yield” requirement. While states like California have applied correlative rights to only annual recharge, this model would not work in Arizona. In fact, the 1952 Underground Water Commission specifically rejected the California model, noting it would not provide enough water in our arid climate.
Instead, a hybrid approach is required, one that allocates rights to both the subterranean resource and the annual recharge, thereby maximizing the amount of water granted to each landowner and ensuring that every drop is accurately accounted for. That is the approach described here.
Your water, your choice
The most intriguing aspect of correlative rights is that, once the groundwater has been allocated, it’s yours to keep—permanently. If you don’t use it, there’s no risk of loss; it will still be there 10, 20, or 100 years into the future.
This stands in stark contrast to the current free-for-all described in Part 2, where leaving groundwater in the basin simply leaves more for someone else to take. Because there’s no forfeiture, landowners are free to use, conserve, lease, or transfer their water within the same basin as they see fit. The choice is theirs.
For farmers, this creates new incentives. A 160-acre farm with a center pivot may have enough water to last several years, while others may need to scale back, shift to less water-intensive crops, or acquire additional rights from others. Commercial farming is still possible, but only if land and groundwater use align, encouraging open space and land conservation.
Thus, the motivation to conserve is simple: when the property is yours, you—and you alone—are responsible for maintaining it. Once an allocation is gone, it’s gone for good, forcing users to make tough decisions and encouraging wise use. That’s the power of private property: when you own it, you protect it.
Turning water into wealth
For many rural residents, correlative rights would instantly turn an uncertain water future into a secure financial asset, creating real value that can provide both long-term water security and financial independence.
With a single AF selling at roughly $400 today, a 40-acre parcel would suddenly hold $560,000 in water value—plus an additional recharge credit worth about $200 a year, acting like an annual dividend. For someone living on a fixed income, that’s transformative.
A 160-acre quarter section would receive $2,240,000 in water value, plus $800 in annual credits, while a 640-acre full section would sit on nearly $9 million and receive $3,000 in annual recharge credits.
With outright ownership, landowners could monetize their allocations or borrow against them without pumping a single drop. Here, water is not a commodity—it’s a currency: the currency of your future, allowing rural residents to build real equity and generational wealth.
The question is: what would you do with your share?
Correlative rights can save our aquifers, farmers, and ranchers—it’s time to adopt them
For over seventy years, Arizona tried top-down bureaucratic approaches to addressing the tragedy of the commons in groundwater—but to no avail. As discussed in Part 3, what Arizona needs now is the only solution that we haven’t tried but should have adopted when rural farmers and ranchers recommended it in 1952: correlative rights.
By closing our alluvial-fill basins to outsiders who seek to pump them dry for short-term profit at the expense of others, and restoring private property rights to the groundwater beneath our feet through correlative rights, we can unlock millions of dollars’ worth of groundwater that will last thousands of years and finally give landowners the legal right and incentive to protect and conserve their supplies for themselves and future generations.
The Legislature can act. As the Arizona Supreme Court itself said in 1953: “If any change in the law is necessary, it should be made by the Legislature,” including the power to “invest” groundwater with the “character” and “attributes” of “private ownership.”
The moment to act has arrived. Imminent cutbacks to our Colorado River supply mean that our state can no longer afford the inefficiency of centralized bureaucratic control over our most precious resource. It’s time to end top-down bureaucratic control, give private property rights to groundwater back to the people, and fix a generations-old mistake.
From harvesting timber in national forests to grazing cattle on the open range, our nation has faced many tragedies of the commons over the years. Whether hunting big game in the wild or extracting oil and gas from underground reservoirs, each example presented our leaders with the same, fundamental issue: if nobody owns it, everyone will overuse it.
For rural Arizona, groundwater is no different. As explained in Part 2, Arizona’s groundwater challenges are a tragedy of the commons, stemming from the fact that groundwater is a finite resource with multiple landowners on the surface, any one of whom can tap into the common supply.
How we approach this tragedy moving forward will determine not only the health of the aquifers but also the future of our rural communities. While some proposals have been offered to date, none have been sufficient to earn legislative support, and most have been wrong for our state.
To get it right, we must consider the approaches that have been taken in other contexts to see which have worked and which have not, allowing us to determine which could be the best fit for groundwater.
The socialist approach views self-interest as the problem. It seeks to control human behavior through mandates, permits, and fees. Whether renewable energy standards for climate, catch limits for fisheries, or sustained yield mandates for national forests, all prioritize resource preservation through government control—maintaining communal ownership and regulating beneficial use through bureaucrats who decide who can use what, when, and how much.
The property-based approach, on the other hand, views communal ownership as the problem. It seeks to eliminate the tragedy by establishing private property rights to the resource, allocating individual shares and allowing users to manage and conserve their own supplies, limited only by the fundamental principles of private property rights, such as the “no harm” principle and “right to exclude.”
Mining claims have operated on “first in time, first in right,” and grazing allotments grant exclusive rights to leaseholders, thereby reducing conflicts among users and making individuals responsible for their own supplies.
To address rural groundwater, Arizona leaders must decide which of these approaches they will take.
Socialist options don’t work
Quod nullius est, est domini regis. It means: “What is the property of no one, belongs to the king.”
In 1976, after the Arizona Supreme Court declared groundwater a public resource, the Court said: “The legislature has the authority to determine which groundwater uses are most important to the general welfare and to allocate the state’s groundwater resources accordingly.”
This statement illustrates the truth about communal ownership: if no one owns the resource, then the government has absolute authority to act as king over its use. This is why the Arizona Department of Water Resources frequently reminds landowners that their right to use water is only “usufruct” to the land they own: meaning they don’t own the groundwater itself, the state does.
Like wild animals in Old England, communal resources belonged to the Crown—hunters could only hunt when, where, and how the king said they could. Those systems, like today’s socialist groundwater regimes, treat resources as communal property controlled by government fiat.
Such approaches typically fail because they lead to higher scarcity, higher prices, and worse outcomes for the resource itself. The federal government’s centralized control over national forests, for example, has produced catastrophic wildfires, endangered protected species, and restricted affordable timber.
In Arizona, the infamous “management area” is the hallmark socialist approach to groundwater— including 1948 “Critical Management Areas” and 1980 “Active Management Areas.”
According to Dean E. Peterson and Larry L. Deason in Arizona’s Groundwater Problem & Proposed Legislation, the 1948 Critical Management Areas “did not adopt any of the basic principles of water law,” but rather were an “exercise of the general police power of the state” through centralized restrictions.
In 1980, Arizona doubled down on its socialist approach with the Groundwater Management Act, establishing “Active Management Areas” that centralized control into the Arizona Department of Water Resources. This gave the agency near-absolute power over groundwater in AMAs, allowing its director to effectively act as king over the common supply.
In both cases, users rushed to drill before grandfathering deadlines, and corporate and municipal users entrenched their historical pumping, distorting market incentives. After 40 years, the 1980 Act has failed to achieve “safe yield” in most AMAs.
Despite their clear failures, proponents today continue to argue that Arizona should “finish what was started” with the 1948 and 1980 groundwater acts by expanding socialist-style control statewide through “Rural Groundwater Management Areas” and “Local Groundwater Stewardship Areas.”
These proposals must be rejected, as they would only impose new bureaucracies, tax personal groundwater withdrawals, and mandate volumetric reductions while maintaining the same communal ownership model that led to the tragedy in the first place.
Property-based solutions are best
Meum et tuum. It means: “What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is yours.”
According to John Locke in his Second Treatise on Government, the role of government is not to seek to control human behavior, but rather to protect private property by using the limited power of government to quantify and secure individual rights, prevent takings, support transferability, and uphold the “no harm” principle and biblical golden rule between and among property owners.
Rather than mandating conservation through coercion, property-based systems embrace human nature and seek to harness the power of self-interest to guide the invisible hand toward voluntary conservation.
History has proven that this approach works. When socialist mandates in American fisheries led to overfishing, policymakers switched to property-based catch shares and individual transferable quotas, which restored fish populations.
When hunters arrived in the New World, they rejected the Old English system and adopted the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which includes transferable hunting permits, helping to maintain healthy wildlife populations while providing a fair system of access.
Even “adopt a highway” programs harness self-interest to address trash and litter on public highways, granting exclusive naming and advertising rights to private parties in exchange for maintenance.
Overall, individual ownership protects scarce resources better than bureaucratic control because direct ownership creases individual responsibility. Where individuals are given ownership and responsibility, conservation increases because what belongs to someone is protected by someone.
Arizona needs correlative rights
To solve Arizona’s groundwater tragedy, we must remove it from communal ownership and apply a property-based approach. One solution designed specifically for finite underground resources like groundwater is “correlative rights.”
Derived from oil and gas law in resource-rich states like Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska, correlative rights allocate proportional shares of the resource to adjoining landowners on the surface, based on the amount of land they own. If a person owns five percent of the surface, then they own five percent of the oil and gas below, plain and simple. This is consistent with the ad coelum doctrine described in Part 1.
In many of these resource-rich states, policymakers have already adopted correlative rights for groundwater. In Texas, for example, the Edwards Aquifer Authority uses correlative rights to allocate groundwater. In Nebraska, natural resource districts administer correlative rights.
Because allocations are treated as real property, users are free to trade their shares among themselves within the same basin—allowing market forces, rather than government bureaucracy, to dictate the most efficient use of limited resources.
This is why correlative rights have been such an effective way to prevent the tragedy of the commons in finite underground resources to date. As a proven, property-based framework rooted in America’s traditional values, correlative rights are the right approach for Arizona.
It’s time to restore private property rights to groundwater
When the Arizona Supreme Court enshrined “communal ownership” into law, it likened groundwater to a wild animal, saying it was “free to roam as [it] please[d]” and the “property of no one” until “captured.”
In so doing, it wrongfully embraced the Old English model that Americans rejected and failed to follow the American path that utilizes private property rights to advance the public good. This must be undone.
To address the tragedy of the commons in Arizona, we must recognize the harms of communal ownership and reject the socialist schemes that seek to maintain it. Only by restoring private property rights to groundwater through the adoption of correlative rights can Arizona finally address the tragedy and allow landowners to protect and conserve the supplies beneath their feet.
It’s time that Arizona leaders consider a new approach to groundwater supplies. As Arizona Justice Duke Cameron wrote in 1976: “The time has come to consider again the doctrine of correlative rights.”
