by Matthew Holloway | Feb 9, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Arizona House of Representatives nearly unanimously approved legislation on Tuesday to increase funding for the state’s legal defense fund related to Colorado River water rights, advancing the measure to the Arizona Senate. The bill passed the House with 56 votes in favor and 4 members not voting.
The measure, known as House Bill 2116, sponsored by Rep. Gail Griffin (R-LD14), and supported by fellow Republican Reps. Pamela Carter and Matt Gress of Legislative District 4, would appropriate $1 million from the state’s general fund to the Colorado River Litigation Fund for fiscal year 2026-27.
“Waiting until a lawsuit is filed to start planning would be reckless,” Griffin told AZ Family. “HB 2116 puts Arizona on offense, not defense.”
The Colorado River Litigation Fund was created during the 2025 legislative session to ensure that Arizona could pursue or defend legal action if disputes arise over its legally entitled share of Colorado River water.
In a joint news release, Carter said the additional funding would help protect Arizonans’ water supply by preparing the state for litigation if interstate negotiations fail. She noted that cities, including Phoenix and Scottsdale, remain dependent on water delivered through the Central Arizona Project (CAP).
“We must ensure a safe and reliable water supply for our residents,” Carter said in a statement. “If other states refuse to honor the Compact, we have to be ready to defend our rights in court. HB 2116 ensures Arizona is not caught flat-footed if negotiations fail and litigation becomes unavoidable. I voted yes to protect our water supply, families, jobs, and future.”
Gress emphasized that proactive funding was necessary in case the governor could not secure a satisfactory agreement in ongoing multistate negotiations over river water allocation, saying, “No one wants to go to court over water, but ignoring the risk of litigation would be irresponsible. This funding gives Arizona the ability to defend itself and its rights if the Governor fails to reach a fair agreement. When the water supply of millions of Arizonans and our state’s economy are on the line, every step we take in preparation matters.”
Griffin, chair of the House Natural Resources, Energy and Water Committee, also issued a statement highlighting the importance of readiness. “Other states have been positioning themselves for court long before this fund was created. Hopefully the fund will not be needed, but if it is — this bill makes sure that Arizona is ready to defend the water that millions of people and billions of dollars of economic activity depend on,” she said.
The House approved HB 2116, following bipartisan support in the House Natural Resources, Energy and Water Committee and the Appropriations Committee, and with unanimous approval from the House Rules Committee.
About 36 percent of Arizona’s water supply is drawn from the Colorado River, a resource shared by seven Western states that are currently negotiating a post-2026 operating agreement. If states fail to reach a new deal by the federal government’s deadline of Feb. 14, 2026, federal authorities could impose their own rules on water cuts.
Arizona’s top elected officials, both Republican and Democrat, penned a joint letter in November 2025, urging federal action in the absence of an agreement between the seven Colorado River Basin states. The letter cited the upper basin states’ refusal to commit to verifiable conservation.
In the news release from House GOP Leaders, they note, “Officials from Upper Basin states have openly stated they want to see [Central Arizona Project] CAP deliveries cut before accepting reductions themselves, despite their legal obligation under the 1922 Colorado River Compact to deliver minimum flows to Lower Basin states like Arizona.”
State leaders and stakeholders have increasingly framed the funding boost as a precautionary legal strategy amid complex negotiations and possible delivery shortfalls, as reported by KJZZ. Some water policy analysts say litigation may be difficult to avoid given entrenched positions among basin states; others urge continued negotiation to reach a sustainable agreement without court involvement.
The bill now moves to the Arizona Senate for further consideration.
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 26, 2026 | Opinion
By Alexander Kolodin |
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-page report recommending 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 statewide assessment, 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.
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 TJ Shope | Jan 23, 2026 | Opinion
By T.J. Shope |
One of my grandfathers was a proud Arizona miner. Another was a hard-working grocery store operator in a small Arizona town. Although both of these men led vastly different lives, they both were united around one very important fact for the desert they called home and were cultivating for their children and grandchildren: water is integral to survival, progress, and prosperity.
Past generations of Arizonans have understood the importance of our water future—especially with a critical source in the historic and life-giving Colorado River. Each generation has successfully built blocks on each other of water conservation, security, and innovation, allowing future men, women, and children to grow up, work, and raise their families in an environment that could support the tremendous growth of this state over the last century. Yet, as we see all around us, the exponential Arizona growth continues. The small towns my grandfathers inhabited so many years ago are becoming larger by the day. Houses, businesses, and schools continue to be built. Thousands of people move to Arizona in search of a better future. All require water to fuel and sustain the efforts and migration.
In generations past, Arizona has risen to the challenge, made the right decisions, and paved a water future for our children and grandchildren. And yet we face a new fork in the road that will determine what kind of Arizona we will pass along to our descendants.
Decisions are being made right now about the Colorado River that will shape Arizona’s water security for decades. The current rules that govern how water is shared across the West are set to expire at the end of this year, but the states that rely on the water from this river have until February 14 to comprise an agreement on future management plans. The federal government has now released draft options that could define how the river is managed well into the future. I’m thankful for the Trump administration’s willingness to listen and work with the basin states—especially Arizona—throughout this process, yet this resource is too important to our future to leave it solely in the federal government’s hands.
As Chairman of the Arizona Senate Committee on Natural Resources, Energy & Water, I’ve been deeply involved in these negotiations with local, state, Tribal, and federal partners, continuing my longtime efforts to enhance the Grand Canyon State’s water future and security. Arizona has already stepped up. We’ve conserved water, made real reductions, and passed commonsense laws to protect our long-term supply. Our farmers, cities, and businesses have done their part—and then some. The next agreement must be fair. Arizona families, farmers, and communities should not be asked to carry a heavier burden while other states avoid meaningful commitments. I’ve been clear about that in discussions with federal officials and other basin states. Cooperation remains the goal, but it has to be balanced and enforceable. The alternative is more uncertainty, more litigation, and higher costs for everyone. That’s a future I won’t leave behind for the next generation of Arizonans.
My grandfathers knew the importance of water to our state as they worked throughout their lives to build the foundation of our family and community. Their dedicated efforts are why I’ll continue fighting for a solution that protects the river, preserves Arizona agriculture, and secures a stable water future for our state. Future generations of Arizonans deserve nothing less from their public servants.
T.J. Shope is the Arizona Senate President Pro Tempore and represents Legislative District 16.
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 Daniel Stefanski | Jan 25, 2025 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Another Arizona lawmaker is pushing back against the governor’s budget for the upcoming fiscal year.
Earlier this week, Arizona State Representative Gail Griffin issued a scathing response to Governor Katie Hobbs’ recently released budget for Fiscal Year 2026. Griffin, the Chairman of the House Natural Resources, Energy & Water Committee, wrote, “As usual, the Governor talks a big game on water but does little to prioritize the solutions that matter.”
The all-important issue of “water” in Arizona has been a source of great contention over the past two years with the state’s current status of a divided government. In Hobbs’ State of the State address, she said, “As I said when I stood before you last year, we must act now to protect Arizona’s water. And when the Legislature did not, I did. I remain committed to true, bipartisan reform to protect our groundwater. But mark my words, if this Legislature fails to act. I will… Again. Further, any bills that attack our assured water supply program, undermine our water future, or are political cover for this Legislature’s lack of action on water security, will meet my veto pen.”
Hobbs proposed a $3 million investment to create a Colorado River Litigation Fund to “ensure that The Department of Water Resources (ADWR) has the resources to defend Arizona’s interests and water users who depend on the State’s precious Colorado River entitlement.” The governor also requested another six full-time employees for ADWR “to meet the demanding water policy challenges facing Arizona,” among other proposals from her team, including almost five million dollars for renovations to fish hatcheries across the state.
Representative Griffin also stated, “With Governor Hobbs’ latest proposal, it seems the Governor is more interested in building new homes for fish and birds than building new homes for hard-working Arizonans. Nothing in the Governor’s budget does anything to increase the critical supply of for-sale housing or support the American Dream of home ownership.”
Griffin added, “Arizona House Republicans are committed to advancing fiscally responsible solutions that address our critical housing and water supply issues, preserve the American Dream, and unleash economic prosperity in our state while protecting our individual rights and liberties. We will continue to put the interests of Arizona citizens first – and this will be reflected in our ongoing budget negotiations and proposals.”
The longtime Arizona Republican legislator’s comments about housing and water policies mirrored what two Senate lawmakers in her party had to say following the governor’s state of the state address earlier this month. In a video following the speech, Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen said, “We agree with the Governor that home ownership has become unaffordable for many Arizonans… but the Executive’s mandate halting home construction in two of the most booming areas of the valley was irresponsible, and first-time homebuyers are suffering the consequences of sky-high prices.”
Senate President Pro-Tempore T.J. Shope noted, “We must build. We have the water to support the growth. We use the same amount of water today that we did 70 years ago – and we have 6 million more people today! Arizona knows how to conserve water. Right now we have legislation to allow us to continue to grow and build homes while conserving water. Governor, sign our Ag-to-Urban bill. You vetoed it last year. Don’t make the same mistake twice.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
