by Staff Reporter | Apr 26, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The housing moratorium crippling new construction in the Valley imposed by Gov. Katie Hobbs’ administration may not go on for much longer.
The Maricopa County Superior Court struck down the moratorium on Tuesday in Home Builders Association of Central Arizona v. Arizona Department of Water Resources, et al.
Under Hobbs, the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) issued new groundwater regulations rolled out in November 2024 dubbed the “Unmet Demand Rule” and the “Depth-to Water Rule.”
Per the court, these rules went impermissibly beyond the longstanding obligation for builders outlined in Arizona law, which required assurance of sufficient groundwater supply in order for each development to take place (100 years’ worth).
ADWR imposed the rules based on a groundwater model claiming that unmet demand and exceedance of the 1,000-foot depth-to-water limit existed throughout Phoenix. In other words, their regulations meant a developer seeking a certificate for one subdivision had to answer not just for their development area, but for the water status of the entire Valley. This resulted in ADWR’s indefinite suspension on granting certificates to any developers.
The consequence of these regulations brought new home construction to a halt throughout Maricopa County. The Home Builders Association of Central Arizona (HBACA), a trade association for the residential construction and development industry, challenged ADWR’s authority to impose new rules.
ADWR attempted to style the Unmet Demand Rule as a new implementation of an old rule, but the Maricopa Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney rejected that view as an undoing of the necessary limitations of administrative agency powers.
“‘To permit this would neuter all statutory limits on agency rule-making[,]’” stated Blaney in his ruling, quoting HBACA’s argument.
Blaney also found that ADWR didn’t follow state law on agency rulemaking under the Administrative Procedures Act. Blaney invalidated both rules.
“ADWR acted unlawfully by implementing two agency rules without first complying with the mandatory provisions of the APA[,]” wrote Blaney.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) called the court ruling a win and criticized ADWR’s model justifying the overturned regulations as flawed.
“The Maricopa County Superior Court has struck down the Hobbs Administration’s attempt to impose a sweeping housing moratorium based on its flawed water model — a stinging loss for Katie Hobbs and a ruling that the state failed to follow proper legal procedures,” stated AFEC. “This is a major victory for transparency, accountability, and Arizona homeowners.”
Jonathan Riches, vice president for litigation and general counsel for the Goldwater Institute, represented the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona. Goldwater Institute’s vice president for legal affairs, Timothy Sandefur, hailed the ruling as a necessary check on an administrative state attempting to impose greater burdens than that which the law requires.
“The case is also a reminder of the dangerous power that the pervasive ‘administrative state’ wields over our daily lives — as unelected and unaccountable bureaucracies exert authority over every detail of construction, business, and property ownership, to cite just a few examples,” said Sandefur. “The only solution to the arbitrariness and lawlessness of these agencies is to rein in their power — and for courts to ensure that they obey the law.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Apr 23, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney ruled Tuesday that the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) did not comply with state law when implementing a policy that restricted residential development in parts of Maricopa County.
In the order, the court found the agency “did not comply” with Arizona law in adopting the challenged requirements and declared the policy invalid.
The policy, commonly referred to as the “Unmet Demand” approach, was used by ADWR in evaluating whether proposed developments could meet the state’s requirement to demonstrate a 100-year assured water supply in the Phoenix Active Management Area.
Arizona law requires developers in designated areas to obtain a certificate of assured water supply demonstrating access to sufficient groundwater or other supplies for 100 years before construction can proceed.
According to the lawsuit, ADWR’s application of an “Unmet Demand” standard required consideration of projected groundwater demand across the broader management area rather than focusing on the water supply available to an individual development.
The court rejected the agency’s justification for the policy, stating that its interpretation of the law “lacks merit.”
The case was filed in January 2025 by the Goldwater Institute on behalf of the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona, challenging the policy’s legality under state administrative procedures.
In a statement following the ruling, Goldwater Institute Vice President for Legal Affairs Timothy Sandefur said the court’s decision invalidated the agency’s approach to regulating development under the policy.
He explained, “The reality is that although Phoenix is a desert, there’s plenty of water to serve the needs of development. Yet the ‘Unmet Demand Rule’ transformed overnight how home building could work in Maricopa County—restricting construction at a time in which the limited supplies of residences have caused housing prices to soar. And that was illegal, because the Department had no power to adopt the ‘Unmet Demand Rule’ in the first place.”
He added, “State law sets forth a process for creating new rules, and the Department didn’t bother trying to comply with those processes. Instead, it claimed that it had simply discovered somehow that this was what the law required all along.”
The challenged policy had affected development planning in portions of the Phoenix metropolitan area, including Buckeye and Queen Creek, where groundwater availability determinations are required for new subdivisions, according to court filings and statements in the case.
Sandefur called the ruling “a crucial victory for Arizonans, not just in Phoenix but throughout the state, who might well have been on the Department’s target list had it been allowed to get away with redefining the rules in this way.”
He added, “The case is also a reminder of the dangerous power that the pervasive ‘administrative state’ wields over our daily lives—as unelected and unaccountable bureaucracies exert authority over every detail of construction, business, and property ownership, to cite just a few examples. The only solution to the arbitrariness and lawlessness of these agencies is to rein in their power—and for courts to ensure that they obey the law.”
The court’s ruling focused on whether ADWR followed the procedures required under Arizona law to implement new regulatory requirements. The order concluded that the agency did not follow those procedures in adopting the “Unmet Demand Rule” approach.
In a statement to Capitol Media, a Department of Water Resources spokesman said the agency intends to appeal Judge Blaney’s ruling, stating, “Although there is no final judgment yet, the Arizona Department of Water Resources intends to challenge the decision once it is final.”
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 Matthew Holloway | Mar 4, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled that prevailing wage ordinances enacted by the cities of Phoenix and Tucson violate state law, ruling in favor of the Associated Minority Contractors of Arizona, represented by the Goldwater Institute in a lawsuit challenging those laws.
The decision holds that local ordinances requiring contractors on certain public works projects to pay “prevailing wages” are prohibited under a 1984 state statute, A.R.S. § 34-321(B), that forbids cities from imposing prevailing wage requirements. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s judgment that the ordinances conflict with state law.
Goldwater’s lawsuit was brought on behalf of the Associated Minority Contractors of Arizona, the Arizona Builders Alliance, and the Arizona Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America, who argued that the ordinances exceeded cities’ authority under Arizona statute.
In a statement, Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute, said, “The real winners in today’s ruling are Arizona taxpayers—as the court itself made clear.”
Sandefur then quoted the court’s language, writing: “The Cities’ interpretation would grant the Cities broad power. With that power, the Cities could dictate how much any employer pays any employee anytime an employer contracts or subcontracts with the Cities. Put differently, the Cities by ordinance could dictate pay whenever an employee works under a public contract, regardless of the contract’s value or the nature of the work performed.”
He added, “That, of course, would cost taxpayers more—reducing their freedom of choice and their ability to invest in their own futures—all for the benefit of politicians and politically well-connected lobbyists.”
In a post to X, he wrote, “The decision’s an important victory for taxpayers throughout the state, who’d otherwise be forced to pay inflated prices for public works projects even though a state law approved by voters abolished ‘prevailing wages’ over 40 yrs ago.”
Prevailing wage laws, distinct from minimum wage laws, require employers on public contracts to pay workers based on wage rates calculated by formula, often higher than standard minimum wages. The 1984 state law expressly prohibits cities from requiring public works contracts to include prevailing wage provisions.
In the case before the appellate court, Phoenix and Tucson had passed ordinances applying prevailing wage rates to city contracts exceeding defined monetary thresholds, $4 million for Phoenix and $2 million in Tucson, and set wage requirements by reference to federal Davis-Bacon Act wage schedules.
Attorneys for the cities had argued that subsequent voter-approved minimum wage measures, including the 2006 voter-approved Minimum Wage Act and subsequent amendments, allowed local governments to regulate minimum wages and thus could support prevailing wage requirements. The court rejected that interpretation, finding that the statutory authority for cities to regulate minimum wage does not extend to prevailing wage mandates.
In its ruling, the appellate panel wrote that prevailing wage provisions do not qualify as “minimum wages” under the relevant Arizona statutes, noting that prevailing wage requirements apply only to a subset of workers on specific public contracts, whereas minimum wage laws apply generally to all employees once employed.
“Section 34-321(B) prohibits political subdivisions from requiring contractors or subcontractors to pay the prevailing rate of wages on public works contracts,” the court wrote. The panel further held that Phoenix’s and Tucson’s ordinances “conflict with § 34-321(B) and are therefore invalid.”
The court concluded that the 1984 prohibition on prevailing wage requirements remains in effect and was not repealed by later minimum wage laws, determining that the newer statutes and the prevailing wage prohibition can coexist without conflict.
“The Local Permission Provision authorizes regulation of minimum wages,” the court wrote, referring to § 23-364(I). “Prevailing wages are not minimum wages.”
Prevailing wage ordinances have been the subject of multiple legal challenges in Arizona. In 2024, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge similarly ruled against prevailing wage ordinances in Phoenix and Tucson, finding they violated the same state prohibition.
The appellate decision affects not only Phoenix and Tucson but also any Arizona city considering similar prevailing wage mandates under state law, consistent with the court’s interpretation of A.R.S. § 34-321(B) on municipal wage-setting authority for public works contracts.
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 Matthew Holloway | Jan 25, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Goldwater Institute is asking a federal judge to allow Maricopa County taxpayers to see how public funds have been spent during more than a decade of federal oversight of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO).
In a friend-of-the-court brief filed on Tuesday, Goldwater urged the U.S. District Court to reconsider a 2014 order that keeps the federal monitor’s invoices confidential. Under that order, the court-appointed monitor, Warshaw & Associates, submits billing records exclusively to the judge, placing them outside public view.
Scrutiny of the court-appointed monitor has been growing in recent weeks. Over $300 million has been spent on oversight in the past 14 years, with approximately 10% going to the court monitor, Robert Warshaw, according to Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Chairman Thomas Galvin. The Board submitted a court filing in December asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona to end federal oversight of MCSO. Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell agreed in a post to X, writing, “There is no defense for this ‘federal monitor.”
Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute, Timothy Sandefur, explained, “That means Maricopa County taxpayers have no way of knowing how their tax dollars are being spent on one of the most important services the county provides.”
“Although the Goldwater Institute has repeatedly requested copies of these invoices, the county does not have itemized statements, and the federal monitor refused to produce them,” he added. “But as we point out in the brief we filed on Tuesday, the government should not be allowed to keep such information secret unless there’s good reason, and even then, they’re required to specify what those reasons are. The court in this case has never done so—and even if it had, circumstances have changed in the decade since the lawsuit began.”
The filing comes as Maricopa County separately argues that continued federal oversight of MCSO under the Melendres v. Arpaio ruling is no longer justified. In a pending motion, the county contends that the sheriff’s office has implemented substantial reforms and that the monitorship should be terminated.
In its brief, Goldwater argues that the continued sealing of the monitor’s invoices prevents taxpayers from knowing how their money is being spent and undermines transparency principles embedded in Arizona and federal law.
“History did not end in 2014, and continued federal oversight of MCSO cannot be based on decade-old facts,” the brief states. “It’s crucial that Maricopa County taxpayers be permitted to know where their tax dollars are going — and that’s hindered by the existing orders and continued federal oversight without a full public accounting.”
The court has not yet ruled on either Maricopa County’s motion to end federal oversight or Goldwater’s request for public access to the monitor’s billing records.
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 Matthew Holloway | Nov 14, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Arizona Supreme Court recently declined to review an Appeals Court ruling holding the City of Tucson liable for a public nuisance caused by homeless encampments, siding with three property owners who suffered property damage and financial losses. The Goldwater Institute highlighted this case as “welcome news for all Arizonans,” following the adoption of voter-approved Proposition 312.
The case, Bradford v. City of Tucson, comes on the heels of a similar court ruling against the City of Phoenix over its “Zone” encampment and is now being highlighted by the Goldwater Institute alongside voter-approved Proposition 312—a 2024 measure that lets property owners seek refunds when cities decline to enforce basic public nuisance laws.
Filed on behalf of three Tucson residents, the lawsuit sought injunctive relief against the City of Tucson, after homeless encampments near their homes and businesses in the Navajo Wash developed with makeshift toilets, dangerous fires, and individuals engaging in violent and criminal behavior.
The appellate court, reversing a trial court ruling against the residents, found that the “record is replete with testimony of specific incidents which proved that camping in the Navajo Wash has caused unsanitary and indecent conditions that invade the rights of the neighboring residents and business owners,” and demonstrated that Tucson was not shielded from liability “because the City knew the activity of homeless camping in this location was being carried on and that it repeatedly and continually caused a nuisance, yet consented to it anyway.”
Prop 312 now gives property owners a reimbursement tool in situations like those described in Bradford v. Tucson, allowing Arizonans to seek relief when a municipality “follows a policy, pattern, or practice of declining to enforce existing nuisance laws prohibiting illegal camping, obstructing public thoroughfares, loitering, panhandling, public urination or defecation, public consumption of alcoholic beverages, or possession or use of illegal substances, or maintains a public nuisance,” according to the Goldwater Institute’s explanation of Prop 312 claims.
Reimbursements are capped at the amount of property taxes paid the prior year, with any excess eligible for reapplication later.
Goldwater explained the law’s necessity on its website:
“Rampant homelessness is overtaking Arizona’s cities, as municipalities refuse to enforce laws against public camping, loitering, intoxication, and other nuisances. The result has been a rise in violent crime, biohazardous pollution, property destruction, and even death. Residents and business owners have had to take matters into their own hands, installing fences, hiring security, and cleaning up garbage, human waste, and other hazardous materials themselves—services the city is supposed to provide with the tax money these residents pay every year.”
Under Prop 312, once the Department of Revenue notifies a municipality of a claim, the city has 30 days to accept or reject it. If rejected, property owners may challenge the decision in superior court; if the city does not respond in time, the refund is deemed approved. Goldwater has offered to assist residents, saying, “If you believe your claim was improperly denied and you would like legal assistance, please contact us! Our lawyers may be able to help you.”
Claims are filed through the Department of Revenue’s online portal at prop312reimbursement.aztaxes.gov, which requires proof of property ownership, tax payment, and mitigation costs. The department notifies cities and issues approved reimbursements by check.
The decision represents a major blow to a large Arizona city’s assertion of immunity and underscores growing frustration with Tucson’s approach to homelessness amid public safety concerns.
In an op-ed Monday, Timothy Sandefur, Goldwater’s vice president for legal affairs, urged city leaders to act:
“Homelessness is a tragic and frustrating issue. But policies that leave people living on the streets aren’t the answer. Instead, they only create a new set of victims: the innocent taxpayers who must pay for police protection that they don’t receive. The time has come for city officials to shoulder their responsibilities—instead of forcing homeowners to shoulder the costs.”
Sandefur also warned that property owners in other states lack similar protections, citing Utah, and encouraged lawmakers elsewhere to “follow Arizona’s lead” by adopting Goldwater’s proposed Safe Neighborhoods Act.
Correction Notice: A previous version of this story incorrectly linked the Bradford v. Tucson case to the Goldwater Institute and cited an unrelated ruling.
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.
