by Matthew Holloway | Feb 10, 2026 | Economy, News
By Matthew Holloway |
Legislation aimed at easing regulatory barriers for next-generation nuclear power projects in rural Arizona advanced last week after clearing a key House committee.
The House Natural Resources, Energy, and Water Committee approved House Bill 2795, sponsored by Arizona Rep. Michael Carbone (R-LD25). The bill would limit the ability of county zoning ordinances to block small modular nuclear reactor projects once federal safety, permitting, and public notice requirements have been satisfied.
Under HB 2795, counties would be prohibited from denying zoning approval for a small modular reactor after a project completes federal design certification and site permitting, and once those approvals are formally presented to local boards of supervisors.
Small modular reactors, or SMRs, are a class of nuclear reactors designed to generate electricity on a smaller scale than traditional nuclear plants. They are typically factory-built, use standardized designs, and incorporate passive safety systems that rely on natural physical processes, such as gravity and convection, rather than active mechanical controls. Developers and regulators have promoted SMRs as a potential option for expanding reliable, carbon-free energy generation, particularly in remote or rural areas.
“Advanced nuclear reactors are coming, and we need to be prepared,” Carbone said in a statement following the committee vote. He added, “We need these projects to keep up with China and compete on national security.”
Carbone continued, “Educating the public remains the number one issue, but I believe when members of the public see the facts, they will understand the substantial benefits these projects can bring. Small modular reactors offer safe, clean, reliable power with high-paying jobs and opportunities for economic development—especially in our rural areas. HB 2795 ensures that when federal safety standards are met, and the public has had its say, local zoning cannot be used to block these critical projects that can secure our future energy supply.”
Carbone said the bill preserves public input through the federal permitting process while preventing counties from blocking projects after those regulatory steps are complete.
In a related op-ed, Carbone and James Taylor (R-LD29) wrote that modern nuclear reactor designs are significantly safer than earlier generations, citing advances in passive safety systems and next-generation technologies.
They wrote:
“Fears of radioactivity and nuclear fallout sparked protests and public opposition, leading countries like Germany to dismantle reactors that were operating safely. Those memories linger today and often fuel organized resistance in local communities whenever new reactors are proposed.”
“The fear is understandable. Lives were lost, radiation was released, and entire communities were evacuated, with some residents never able to return. As tragic as those incidents were, it is important to understand why they occurred and why modern reactor designs address the specific failures that caused them.”
In the op-ed, the lawmakers pointed to features such as passive cooling systems, non-pressurized designs, and fail-safe mechanisms intended to address the conditions that contributed to past nuclear accidents, including Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.
The lawmakers also noted that advanced reactor concepts, such as molten salt and sodium-cooled designs, reduce reliance on active mechanical systems and external power sources.
Supporters of HB 2795 say the legislation aligns with broader efforts to expand reliable power generation, support rural economic development, and prepare for projected increases in electricity demand.
The bill now advances to the House Rules Committee before moving to the House floor, where it will be debated and voted upon.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Alexander Kolodin | Jan 12, 2026 | Opinion
By Alexander Kolodin |
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.”
Alexander Kolodin serves Legislative District 3 in the Arizona State House and has been practicing election law in Arizona for over a decade. He is currently running to be Arizona’s next Secretary of State.
by Gail Griffin | Aug 2, 2023 | Opinion
By Rep. Gail Griffin |
There has been a lot of talk recently about rural groundwater bills not getting a hearing at the Arizona State Legislature.
Over the years, proposed legislation has gone by many names, including “Groundwater Conservation Areas,” “Special Management Areas,” “Rural Management Areas,” and “Local Groundwater Stewardship Areas.” It also includes “Sustainable Groundwater Management Plans.”
Regardless of the name, the concept is the same, and all are bad.
While the idea of “local control” might sound good, the actual provisions are far from local or voluntary.
Instead of requiring a local vote of the community, these bills would allow as few as two people in some counties to establish irreversible groundwater control districts throughout the county.
Instead of being elected by the people, the members of these districts would be appointed by the Governor.
Instead of requiring a unanimous vote of county supervisors to adopt the most stringent assured water supply regulations in the nation, these bills would require only a simple majority.
Instead of applying equally across the entire watershed, these bills would allow only “portions” to be designated, meaning that individual properties could be singled-out for their water use, such power plants, farms, mines, hydrogen production facilities, or any business.
Instead of reducing the size of government, these bills would create new layers of government and give additional taxing, zoning, planning, and condemnation authority to a small group of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to decide the community’s economy and tell you what you can and cannot do with your private property.
Instead of voluntary conservation requirements, these bills would allow mandatory reporting requirements, groundwater supply rations, and groundwater withdrawal fees (taxes).
Instead of holding government officials accountable for public funds, these bills would allow the Governor to give up to $50 million each year to any non-profit organization or Indian tribe, regardless of geographic location, political ideology, or conflict of interest.
Instead of respecting the right to privacy, these bills would intrude into the personal lives and affairs of rural Arizonans and require active monitoring devices on private wells, including ranchers and farmers litigating water rights in ongoing stream adjudications.
Instead of authorizing temporary measures to help restore aquifer health, these groundwater control districts would be forever.
Instead of limiting absolute power, these bills would allow the unelected members of the board to essentially rule by fiat by establishing “local management goals” that would allow them to do whatever they want as the board.
Instead of requiring water to be put to “beneficial use,” these bills would open the door to “water markets” wherein water could be turned into a “commodity” and sold to the highest bidder, hoarded, and exported out of the district to big cities, environmental non-profits, and private corporations.
Instead of narrowly tailoring government power to prioritize human life and prosperity, these bills would allow the board to expand the definition of an “assured water supply” to require not only enough water for human activity over 100 years, but also enough water to protect endangered species, streams and rivers, and fish and wildlife habitat for 100 years (or longer). In other words, no water for people; only for the environment.
All of these are fraught with abuse and are unworkable for Arizona.
Thus, “local control” (in this context) is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, designed to trick voters into thinking the bills do something other than what they actually do.
We must do everything we can to identify bad legislation before it gets a hearing. And we must find solutions that make sense for Arizona and help strengthen our responsible use and management of water and natural resources.
We do have solutions moving forward, and we will continue to explore additional solutions that can help to address rural groundwater in Arizona.
As an elected official, I am committed to working with anyone who is willing to work with me and others to find reasonable solutions.
Until then, I will continue to fulfill my duty to the public to support good legislation, and oppose bad legislation, on rural groundwater management in our state.
Gail Griffin is a Republican member of the Arizona House of Representatives serving Legislative District 19, which includes areas of Greenlee, Graham, Cochise, and eastern Pima Counties. Griffin chairs the House Natural Resources, Energy & Water Committee and is co-chair of the Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Committee on Water Security.
by Terri Jo Neff | Jul 4, 2021 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
Tucked here and there among the $12.8 billion budget package signed into law last week by Gov. Doug Ducey are numerous water-related funding opportunities for rural counties across Arizona.
Among the budget items in SB1823, the general appropriations bill, are allocations of $3 million for water project assistance grants to cities and towns that provide water in Navajo and Apache counties. Another $2 million of water project assistance grants are available to irrigation districts in Cochise and Graham counties.
Those funds are in addition to $160 million moved from the state’s general fund on June 30 to the Drought Mitigation Revolving Fund. Of that, up to $10 million may be used for grants which facilitate the forbearance of water deliveries by June 30, 2025, while another $10 million may be used for Arizona State Land Department grants related to water use.
Ducey also signed into law changes to Arizona’s tax code which allow water utilities regulated by the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) to deduct contributions toward construction from their Arizona gross annual income. This can be particularly beneficial for companies which serve smaller communities where it can be difficult to spread out the cost of construction projects.
In addition, the Legislature passed a bill sponsored by Rep. Gail Griffin (R-LD14) to provide $40 million for the Water Supply Development Fund for assistance to water providers for improvements to water infrastructure and projects located in rural communities.
The ACC is encouraging owners and operators of small water utility companies which are regulated by the Commission to take advantage of the funding, which can go as high as $1 million per project, to improve their water systems and benefit customers. There is also an option of a $100,000 grant which does not require repayment.
Eligible water utility companies must serve at least 15 customers or at least 25 people for at least 60 days of the year, be located outside of an active management area, and be within a county with a population of less than 1.5 million people. The funding can be used for myriad purposes, including acquiring water or water rights; purchasing or refinancing debt related to water supply development projects; conveying, storing, or recovering water; reclaiming or reusing water; capturing or controlling stormwater; and replenishing groundwater.
Utilities can apply for the WSD Fund loans or grants to the Arizona Water Finance Authority.
“I encourage every regulated water utility that qualifies for these funds to take advantage of them as expediently as possible for the benefit of their customers,” ACC chair Lea Marquez Peterson said last week.
House Speaker Rusty Bowers (R-LD25) acknowledged the importance of the water funding allocations in a post-budget signing statement, calling the funding for infrastructure projects a “key to securing Arizona’s future, and one of our highest priorities.”
Page 1 of 11
