A staple of Arizona’s most conservative coalition of lawmakers is running to rejoin the state legislature.
Anthony Kern is seeking to once again represent the 27th legislative district, held by incumbent Republican State Sen. Kevin Payne. Kern and Payne are the only two Republicans in the race; three Democrats have filed statements of interest.
Kern last represented that district in the Arizona Senate from 2023 to 2025. Kern departed from the state legislature in order to make his unsuccessful run for the 8th Congressional District in 2024. Prior to the state senate, Kern represented the 20th legislative district in the Arizona House of Representatives from 2015 to 2021.
While in the legislature, Kern built a reputation as one of its more outspoken conservative members. This was reflected by his membership with the Arizona Freedom Caucus, and A-ratings for conservative lawmaking from the Conservative Political Action Committee, NumbersUSA, American Conservative Union, National Rifle Association, and Keep Arizona Free.
Kern held a number of committee leadership positions, including chairmanships of the Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee and the House Rules Committee, and a vice chairmanship of the Senate Public Safety Committee.
President Donald Trump and Turning Point USA have been among a number of Republican powerhouses to take notice of Kern. Trump commended Kern as “an incredible fighter for election integrity,” and pardoned him from the 2020 Trump electors case put together by the Biden Department of Justice. Turning Point USA’s affiliate, Turning Point Action, has endorsed Kern.
Although the federal charges against Kern and other electors were dropped, Democrat Attorney General Kris Mayes has pursued her own case. A court of appeals ruled last month in a loosely related case that Mayes illegally withheld communications in which she conspired with States United Democracy Center to prosecute Trump’s allies.
Prior to joining the legislature over a decade ago, Kern worked in municipal code enforcement and other public safety roles in the West Valley.
It appears that this background — combined with his repeated public commitments to limiting administrative rulemaking and expanding legislative oversight of regulations — has influenced a take from Kern that puts him at odds with other Republican lawmakers, though not with fellow conservatives.
Kern’s platform includes an opposition to automatic license plate readers (APLRs), such as the Flock Safety cameras. Unlike Kern, Payne as chairman of the Senate Public Safety Committee sponsored a bill in support of APLRs earlier this year, SB 1111.
Other aspects of Kern’s platform include healthcare reform, proposing health providers must offer one single price for products and services, and health insurance premiums and medical expenses must be tax-free; and private property protections, proposing a removal of certain alleged loopholes to squatter prevention laws.
Kern has described himself as pro-life, an election integrity advocate, an opponent to illegal migration, and a supporter of parental rights and school choice.
He has lived in LD27 for nearly 40 years and attends Fresh Start Church in Peoria.
The Arizona Clean Elections Commission is scheduled to host the LD27 primary debate on June 22.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The Arizona Senate is advancing two measures to strengthen protections for property owners and close gaps in the state’s deed recording process. Senate Bill 1479 advanced through the Senate Regulatory Affairs and Government Efficiency Committee with a 5-2 “Do Pass” recommendation on Wednesday. Senate Bill 1254 advanced from the Senate Finance Committee in late January.
Senate Bill 1479, sponsored by Senate Majority Whip Sen. Frank Carroll (R-LD28), would establish new identification and documentation requirements intended to deter fraudulent property transfers. According to the official bill text, the legislation would require individuals who submit deeds in person to present valid government-issued photo identification to the county recorder, though the recorder would be prohibited from retaining or copying that identification.
🚨FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Senator Carroll Advances Legislation Cracking Down on Deed Fraud with Tough New Protections for Arizona Property Owners
The bill would also require county assessors to establish a voluntary notification system alerting property owners to changes in ownership or mailing address associated with their parcel. Additional provisions strengthen affidavit requirements for certain real estate filings and mandate that notaries obtain thumbprints in their journals for specified real property documents.
“Property ownership is the cornerstone of financial security for families, seniors, and small businesses in Arizona,” Sen. Carroll said in a statement. “When criminals are able to forge documents, record false claims, or quietly transfer property without the rightful owner’s knowledge, it erodes trust in our entire system. These bills deliver a strong message: Arizona will not tolerate deed fraud. We are enhancing identity verification, increasing penalties for offenders, improving notification systems, and ensuring that no property changes hands without proper approval. This initiative aims to protect homeowners, restore confidence in our public records, and ensure that the law firmly supports legitimate property owners.”
SB 1479 would increase the criminal penalty for knowingly recording a forged instrument affecting real property, reclassifying the offense as a Class 4 felony.
A separate measure, SB 1254, sponsored by Sen. J.D. Mesnard (R-LD13), addresses deed acceptance requirements. Under current Arizona law, a deed must be signed by the grantor, acknowledged before a notary, and recorded to transfer real property. The bill would amend A.R.S. § 33-401 to require documented acceptance by the grantee before a deed may be recorded.
SB 1254 would allow acceptance to be demonstrated either through the grantee’s signature on the deed or by attaching a certificate or resolution of acceptance. The measure advanced from the Senate Finance Committee with bipartisan support.
The legislation comes amid ongoing concerns about deed and title fraud in Arizona. In 2022, then-Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich warned Arizonans of an increase in deed fraud reports, noting that his office had received 65 homeowner complaints from Jan. 2021 to August 2022. In December 2025, the Phoenix Business Journal reported that vacant land parcels were the primary targets in 2024 real estate fraud schemes that cost Arizonans nearly $50 million.
Sindy Ready of the Arizona Realtor Association told AZ Family in December, “In Arizona, many times. it’s out-of-state owners that have these properties that think it’s down the road they’re going to build a second home on the property.” Speaking to the outlet, Jeff Cayton, a Valley realtor with a decade in Arizona property sales, said, “The fraud is running rampant right now. The land fraud is very big, and I’ve experienced this multiple times, as well as my team members and people in my company.”
The Senate Finance Committee advanced SB 1254 last week. The bipartisan measure, sponsored by Committee Chairman J.D. Mesnard (R-LD13), is designed to strengthen protections for Arizona property owners against deed fraud and related disputes by closing a key loophole in real estate conveyance laws.
The legislation addresses a longstanding gap in state law that has left transfers vulnerable to fraud, confusion, and unexpected ownership changes.
Under current Arizona Law (A.R.S. § 33-401), deeds must be signed by the grantor, notarized, and recorded within specific timeframes. However, there is no explicit requirement to confirm the grantee’s acceptance of the property.
This omission can allow deeds to be recorded without the recipient’s knowledge or consent, potentially enabling fraudulent transfers or leading to costly legal disputes.
SB 1254 amends Section 33-401 of the ARS to require documented acceptance by the grantee before a deed can be recorded with the county.
Acceptance can be demonstrated in ways such as the grantee’s signature (or the signature of their authorized agent, if properly documented in writing) directly on the deed, or a simple certificate or resolution of acceptance attached to or printed on the deed.
The bill provides a sample form for such a certificate:
“This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the deed or conveyance to (name of grantee) is accepted and the grantee consents to the recording of the deed or conveyance.”
“This legislation is about making sure the system works the way people reasonably expect it to,” stated Senator Mesnard. “No one should ever be surprised to learn their property changed hands because of a paperwork loophole. Property rights are fundamental, and this bill reinforces those rights by requiring clear agreement from both sides of a transaction. It’s a straightforward fix that prevents confusion, reduces disputes, and helps guard against fraud, without adding cost or bureaucracy.”
With committee approval secured, SB 1254 now advances to the full Arizona Senate for further consideration. If enacted, the changes would apply to future real property conveyances across the state, providing an additional layer of protection amid ongoing concerns about deed fraud and title issues in Arizona.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
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.
Across rural Arizona, wells are going dry. Unmitigated groundwater pumping is depleting aquifers and leaving rural communities helpless.
In places like Sunizona and Salome, large industrial users are to blame. As corporate interests come in and drill thousands of feet deep, everyday residents on the surface are left with dwindling supplies.
Meanwhile, in areas like Prescott and Paulden, it is the proliferation of domestic wells that is putting strain on the local aquifers. As new residents move in, they drill faster than nature can keep up, adding hundreds of new wells without considering the impact to existing residents.
Rural groundwater is a “tragedy of the commons”
All of these challenges reflect one simple fact: Arizona’s groundwater basins are limited, subterranean resources with multiple landowners on the surface.
If anyone with a well can access the common supply, then there is nothing stopping people from pumping themselves—or each other—dry. That’s what legal scholars call the “tragedy of the commons.”
Lack of private property rights is the problem
The cause of this tragedy is not the large industrial users or new residents themselves, but rather the legal system that allows new users to come in, drill new wells, and pump more groundwater without having to demonstrate a water right first.
This is not accidental. It is the consequence of the “beneficial use” doctrine discussed in Part 1, which eliminated John Locke’s “no harm” principle and the “right to exclude” others from the groundwater beneath our feet.
As Arizona Justice Duke Cameron explained in his 1976 dissent, beneficial use “encourages wasteful over-consumption and proclaims a right that cannot be protected.”
“Two adjacent landowners may pump each other dry to the detriment of themselves and everyone else,” noting that “access to water is not based on ‘first in time, first in right’ … [but] rather … by a race for consumption controlled … by … the physical ability to extract water from the common supply.”
“To the small or family farmer,” he concluded, “[T]he right to water then becomes a cruel illusion, proclaimed by law, but unobtainable in practice.”
People know something is wrong
Rural residents understand intuitively that the lack of property rights is the cause of this situation, but no one has been willing to articulate their desired solution in clear terms—until now.
When rural residents say things like “we were here first,” “they’re coming into the basin,” and “they’re taking our water,” they are not asking for more bureaucratic regulation or government control; they are calling for prior appropriation.
Under prior appropriation, whoever is there first wins
Qui prior est tempore potior est jure. It means: “First in time, first in right,” and it represents the system of property law used in western states to effectively allocate shares of surface water, like streams and rivers, to landowners based on who was there first.
Under prior appropriation, when a user diverts water first, the user receives a senior right and can force others to cut back in times of need—avoiding the tragedy of the commons in streams and rivers.
When it’s applied to groundwater, senior users can prevent others from drilling new wells if there isn’t enough to go around, thereby protecting existing rights and upholding John Locke’s “no harm” principle.
This is exactly what residents in places like Prescott and Paulden have been asking for.
Arizona had a chance to adopt prior appropriation
Between 1931 and 1969, nearly all western states—including Utah, Colorado, Nevada, Wyoming, and New Mexico—applied prior appropriation to groundwater. But Arizona did not, making it the only state in the broader Colorado River basin that does not recognize priority rights to groundwater.
When the Court was evaluating Bristor v. Cheatham in 1953, it had a chance to adopt prior appropriation, but it chose beneficial use instead, leading to the bifurcated system we have today.
This was the ‘original sin’ of Arizona groundwater law
From this misguided decision, all other groundwater challenges have followed.
From the growth of industrial agriculture in Sunsites and Salome to the proliferation of domestic wells in Prescott and Paudlen, all of Arizona’s most pressing challenges can be traced back to this fateful decision.
Had the Court established prior appropriation, many of these challenges could have been avoided. Residents in Sunizona and Salome could have stopped new industrial operations from coming in, while residents in Prescott and Paulden could have stopped new residential wells from being drilled.
Unfortunately, it’s too late to adopt prior appropriation today. Doing so would require a complete legal overhaul and would likely take years to implement.
And even if it could be implemented, there are very real questions about how it would work, such as whether thousands of well owners could be forced to cut back if a single, shallow well owner went dry. Additionally, prior appropriation is subject to the “use it or lose it” rule, which is not ideal for finite groundwater resources if the goal of adopting a new framework is to promote conservation.
Despite these challenges, some form of private property rights is needed; without them, there is little that rural residents can do to stop the tragedy of the commons from occurring in their basins.
Restoring private property rights is the only way
To truly address the tragedy of the commons, we must recognize it for what it is and explore solutions that are specifically designed to address it.
Ultimately, Arizona will be required to choose between two fundamentally different futures: one ruled by centralized bureaucratic control, or one that restores real, enforceable rights to the groundwater beneath the surface, allowing landowners to protect and conserve their supplies for future generations.
Without such a solution, the right to water will remain nothing more than a cruel illusion, “proclaimed by law, but unobtainable in practice.”
