by Andy Biggs | Mar 12, 2026 | Opinion
By Arizona State Representative Gail Griffin and U.S. Representative Andy Biggs |
After decades of finger pointing and failed negotiations over the rights and distribution of the Colorado River, the future of the West stands at a crossroads. The stalemate over water scarcity between seven western states threatens America’s economy and national security. It’s the kind of stalemate that only a grand deal and a major investment can break through to save our region.
With the Colorado River under strain, and time running out, America needs a visionary, a builder and a deal maker. Thankfully, we have all three of those in President Donald J. Trump.
For over half a century, the construction of large dams and canals was the mark of a truly great president. Beginning with Teddy Roosevelt, the first major water reclamation project in the West—the Roosevelt Dam—was authorized to provide Arizona with water that expanded our country’s agricultural, industrial, and military base.
That achievement proved Washington could turn big ideas into reality. Following Roosevelt, nearly every U.S. President across the political spectrum championed large-scale water infrastructure projects in the West, building the dams, canals, and reservoirs that allowed western states to grow. In fact, the West would not be what it is today had it not been for great presidents building great water infrastructure.
Calvin Coolidge authorized the Hoover Dam and All-American Canal; Franklin D. Roosevelt approved the Colorado—Big Thompson Project; Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized the Glen Canyon Dam, Central Utah Project, and initial storage units in the Upper Basin; Lyndon B. Johnson authorized the Central Arizona Project; and John F. Kennedy authorized the San Juan—Chama Project.
Our nation’s greatest modern presidents have left their mark through building major water infrastructure projects and the time is right for the next wave of investment to begin. Americans want their leaders to put America first, refocusing federal spending at home.
By building something big and meaningful, President Trump could save the West and leave a lasting legacy for the next 250 years in America. President Trump could “Make American Water Great Again.”
Few political figures have had President Trump’s instinct for sensing when a looming issue is about to explode into a defining national moment—spotting opportunities before others see them and acting decisively when others freeze. That instinct, combined with his willingness to act, has led some to speculate that Trump may already be eyeing a major water play in the West. Trump also understands the value of strategic federal assets—such as the Panama Canal—which advance the nation’s interests on a grand scale.
As a builder, constructing a new water resource would fit perfectly with Trump’s identity. A new dam or canal would be the crown jewel of his American portfolio, a monumental project built not for private business but for the American people, turning big ideas into physical steel, concrete, and—most importantly—water that can sustain America for generations.
And he wouldn’t have to start from scratch. Long-shelved proposals—intended to be built but killed by environmental activists—still loom in the background. Big projects like the Marble Canyon Dam (Arizona), Echo Park Dam (Colorado), and Temperance Flat Dam (California)—assumed to be dead—could be revived at any time. President Trump would have the opportunity to succeed where others have failed.
At the same time, numerous new projects have been proposed that could increase water supplies in the West. Large-scale desalination projects, interstate water pipelines, storage facilities, reservoirs, and advanced water reuse systems have all been proposed and are ready to go. Arizona has taken the lead on developing these projects, but multiple western states would benefit from them if any were constructed. With President Trump’s support and blessing, these projects could be moved from a hope to a real revitalization of American infrastructure.
Building any one of these would make a difference. Building all of them would define an era. All President Trump would need to do is pick one, announce it, and build—instantly taking credit and moving us closer to saving the Colorado River for our nation’s economy and national security. Perhaps one could even be named after him: the Donald J. Trump Imperial Dam.
Such a project would not only grant the President unprecedented negotiating power in the West, but also provide thousands of blue-collar jobs that would help to reinvigorate America’s working class. Over 21,000 workers were employed during the construction of Hoover Dam, which created critical jobs at a time when many Americans felt uncertain about the economy.
America remembers its greatest presidents because of what they built—big, bold projects constructed at a scale worthy of a great nation. President Trump can do the same. If President Trump wants to build a lasting legacy, the path forward is clear: solve the Colorado River crisis by building big, bringing new water resources to the West, and increasing the supply for everyone.
Representative Gail Griffin chairs the Arizona House Natural Resources, Energy & Water Committee and has been a leading voice on water and resource policy in the Southwest. Congressman Andy Biggs represents Arizona in the U.S. House of Representatives and has long advocated for policies that strengthen the economy, protect American resources, and support the future of the West.
by Matthew Holloway | Feb 4, 2026 | Economy, News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona’s growing role as a national hub for data centers could be undermined by municipal regulations driven by concerns over water use, electricity demand, and land use, according to a new policy report released by the Goldwater Institute. The report, Data Centers: A Free Market Model for the Digital Future, argues that Arizona’s success in attracting data center investment stems from long-standing policy choices that favor predictable regulation, private property rights, and a stable legal environment.
The authors note that “artificial intelligence has dramatically accelerated these trends. Demand for data has increased exponentially. How communities, businesses, and policymakers respond to this transformation will shape economic competitiveness for decades to come.”
The report also cautions that a rise in local-level restrictions could threaten the state’s competitive position in the digital infrastructure sector.
William Beard, municipal affairs liaison at the Goldwater Institute and a co-author of the report, explained, “Data centers are the physical backbone of cloud computing, artificial intelligence, digital commerce, and national security. They are core infrastructure, no different in principle from transportation networks, energy production, or large-scale agriculture built to meet the demands of a particular era.”
Beard added that Arizona’s emergence as a leader in data center development has already produced economic benefits for the state. “Arizona is thriving as a leader in data centers, the state is reaping the economic benefits, and policymakers must take steps to ensure that continues,” he said.
According to the report, the Greater Phoenix region has become one of the top data center markets in the United States, with capacity projected to exceed 5,000 megawatts—an expansion of more than 500 percent. Goldwater attributes the dramatic growth to regulatory predictability and policies that encourage investment rather than discourage it, as well as “affordable land; reliable energy; and a legal environment anchored in strong private property rights.”
However, the report also warns, “Continued growth is no guarantee, especially as local governments threaten data centers with restrictive policies.”
Data center developments, such as the 290-acre data center Project Blue in Pima County and Project Baccara in Surprise, have sparked heated controversy at the municipal and county levels.
Citing growing municipal resistance to data center projects, Jen Springman, coalitions manager at the Goldwater Institute and a co-author of the report, said opposition is often rooted in misunderstandings about the impacts of infrastructure.
“Arizona’s advantage is increasingly threatened by a growing municipal-level regulatory backlash, often driven by misconceptions about water use and electricity demand,” Springman said.
Regarding water consumption, Springman said, “Modern data centers are among the most water-efficient industrial facilities ever built.”
The report further challenges claims that data center development is responsible for rising electricity prices. “Electricity prices, meanwhile, are not a data center problem; they are a policy outcome,” Springman said.
She added that misdirecting blame can lead to ineffective policy responses. “Blaming infrastructure for political energy choices obscures the real cause—and produces the wrong solutions,” Springman said.
Goldwater’s report argues that local restrictions do not reduce demand for digital services, but instead risk shifting investment to other states while increasing costs for consumers and businesses.
In a summary of the report’s conclusions posted to X, Goldwater stated, “The question is not whether data centers will exist, but whether Arizona will continue to lead—or retreat in the face of the future.”
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 Staff Reporter | Feb 1, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
A committee within the Arizona Senate approved a bill banning fluoride additives in public water systems.
The Senate Committee on Government advanced SB 1019 solely through Republican support. Democratic lawmakers voted against the bill based on the opposition of certain major health organizations.
The bill would prohibit individuals and political subdivisions from adding fluoride or fluoride-containing compounds to public drinking water.
State Sen. Janae Shamp (R-LD29), a registered nurse, sponsored the bill.
Shamp argued that water fluoridation is no longer necessary for public health due to the widespread availability of fluoride in dental products and treatments. Shamp also cited research connecting adverse health effects to ingesting fluoride: neurodevelopmental harms resulting in IQ reduction, weakened bones, arthritis, and thyroid dysfunctions.
“It’s more effective when applied to the teeth rather than ingested,” said Shamp during a committee hearing on Wednesday. “If there is absolutely any possibility that their child could have their neurodevelopmental [development] delay[ed] because they’re ingesting systematically a product that works better topically, I would question anyone who is against stopping [this ban].”
Shamp dismissed opposition to the bill from certain healthcare organizations as the typical resistance to change among institutions. Among those opposed are the Arizona Dental Hygienists Association, Arizona Dental Association, and Arizona Public Health Association.
“As we move forward with the science, we have to make sure we’re staying up to date with evidence-based practice,” said Shamp. “The evidence is showing this is not the way to decrease tooth decay in the population.”
State Sen. David Farnsworth offered his own anecdote on the matter. Farnsworth said he was diagnosed with fluoride sensitivity after suffering headaches while using the first formula for Crest toothpaste to brush his teeth.
Jessica Robertson on behalf of the Arizona Dental Association and American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry said water fluoridation was necessary because certain communities, especially tribal communities, were too poor to afford toothbrushes or toothpaste. Robertson credited water fluoridation for her not coming down with cavities in her youth.
Valerie Brady on behalf of the Arizona Dental Hygienists Association argued against the bill as a “significant risk to public health.” She said that thousands of studies and decades of scientific evidence back the perception that fluoridated water prevents tooth decay. Brady said fluoridated water was significantly impactful to communities with poorer dental hygiene habits or inconsistent dental care.
“It is the ability to provide consistent low-level exposure to fluoride ions in the mouth, helping prevent tooth demineralization and promoting enamel remineralization,” said Brady.
Shamp questioned why those opposed to the bill don’t factor in the variable levels of fluoride people might ingest — or the disparate impacts those variable amounts could cause. The senator claimed this was the opposite of informed consent.
“The fact of the matter is this is a chemical that is added to water and there is absolutely no one out there telling people, ‘Well, you should use this much toothpaste if you drink this much tap water,’” said Shamp. “You don’t know how much someone is ingesting. You don’t know if their only source of water is tap water. You don’t know if they’re using mouthwash three times a day.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Ethan Faverino | Jan 28, 2026 | Economy, News
By Ethan Faverino |
Arizona State Representative Chris Lopez (R-LD16) introduced House Bill 2826, which would exempt materials such as concrete, used in the improvement and maintenance of agricultural irrigation canals, from Arizona’s transaction privilege tax on prime contracting.
The “No Tax on Concrete” bill aims to reduce costs for farmers, strengthen water conservation efforts, support food affordability, and boost irrigation efficiency by conserving water resources critical to Arizona’s agricultural sector as the state faces ongoing water security challenges.
Specifically, HB 2826 would establish a targeted exemption under the prime contracting classification in ARS § 42-5075 for materials and supplies used to improve and maintain ditches, irrigation lines, and canals on agricultural lands.
Concrete-lined canals offer significant benefits over traditional unlined earthen canals. Unlined systems can lose 30%-50% or more of conveyed water volume to seepage into permeable soils.
By contrast, concrete lining reduces these losses dramatically, increases flow velocity, minimizes erosion and weed growth, and lowers long-term maintenance needs. Such projects can save thousands of acre-feet of water annually, providing a highly cost-effective approach to water conservation.
Projects funded by the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona (WIFA) and awarded to irrigation districts—Buckeye Water Conservation & Drainage District, San Carlos Irrigation & Drainage District, and Roosevelt Irrigation District—are anticipated to conserve between 135,000 and 368,864 acre-feet over their lifetimes, at only an estimated cost of $2 to $3 per acre-foot.
“The House Republican Majority Plan is focused on affordability, and that starts with food on the table and the cost of water to produce that food,” stated Rep. Lopez. “Converting dirt canals to concrete-lined canals saves thousands of gallons of water, which reduces pumping costs, energy, and other expenses that go into the price of food. Eliminating the tax on concrete and other contracting costs to convert these canals to concrete lining not only helps to reduce the costs even further but also helps to conserve water at a time when water conservation has never been more critical for our state.”
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
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.
