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 Matthew Holloway | Jan 20, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
U.S. Representative Eli Crane (R-AZ-02) has introduced H.R. 6931, the Yavapai-Apache Nation Water Rights Settlement Act. The bill would ratify and authorize the Yavapai-Apache Nation Water Rights Settlement Agreement reached in 2024 between the Tribal Nation, the State of Arizona, the Salt River Project, the U.S. Department of the Interior, and local stakeholders.
The agreement, approved by the Yavapai-Apache Nation Tribal Council on June 26, 2024, resolves water rights claims that have been pending in Arizona courts for over four decades.
A central component of the settlement is the Cragin-Verde Pipeline, a roughly 60-mile-long pipeline that will deliver surface water from the C.C. Cragin Reservoir on the Mogollon Rim to the Verde Valley. The pipeline will provide reliable drinking water to the Nation, reduce groundwater pumping, support housing and economic development on the reservation, and contribute to the sustained health of the Verde River, as explained by the ASU Arizona Water Innovation Initiative.
H.R. 6931 would codify the Nation’s water rights, authorize federal funding for construction of the Cragin-Verde Pipeline and the Yavapai-Apache Drinking Water System, and establish dedicated trust funds for water, wastewater, watershed restoration, operations, and maintenance.
Under the legislation, the U.S. Department of the Interior would oversee planning, design, and construction of the Cragin-Verde Pipeline as part of the Salt River Federal Reclamation Project. The bill also authorizes the Nation’s use of Central Arizona Project (CAP) water, establishes a permanent CAP delivery contract, and allows the Nation to store, lease, or exchange CAP water within Arizona.
The settlement would provide water reliability for the Nation’s more than 2,500 enrolled members across five tribal communities and enhance long-term water security throughout the Verde Valley, according to a press release from Crane’s office.
Yavapai-Apache Nation Chairman Buddy Rocha Jr. stated, “The passage of the Yavapai-Apache Nation Water Rights Settlement Act will finally resolve our water rights claims that have been pending in Arizona’s courts for over four decades, providing water certainty for the Nation and our neighbors throughout the watershed. On behalf of the Yavapai-Apache Nation, I want to thank Congressman Crane for his commitment to the Settlement and to his constituents here in the Verde Valley. We are also truly grateful to Congressman Crane for his recent visit to the Nation, where he, and Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs Kirkland, saw first-hand how the Settlement will help support critically needed housing and economic development on our Reservation for years to come.”
Rep. Crane said in the press release, “I’m honored to introduce this legislation to help secure long-term water security for the Yavapai-Apache Nation, develop critical infrastructure, and finally move toward a permanent solution. After visiting and meeting with tribal leaders and surrounding communities, it was clear how much certainty and stability this bill would provide. I’m proud to fight for rural Arizona.”
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 Ethan Faverino | Jan 8, 2026 | Economy, News
By Ethan Faverino |
As Arizona lawmakers prepare to convene for the 2026 legislative session, a leading nonpartisan think tank is warning of a demanding agenda driven by fiscal discipline, persistent housing shortages, and critical water policy decisions.
Katie Ratlief, Executive Director of the Common Sense Institute (CSI), emphasized the need for urgent action from the Legislature and Governor Katie Hobbs to address these issues. In a recent report by The Center Square, Ratlief highlighted that the session will require decisive leadership to tackle spending trends, affordability barriers, and the state’s long-term water security.
Arizona’s budget has expanded significantly over the past decade, rising from approximately $10 billion to nearly $18 billion, with $6 billion of that increase occurring in just the last five years. Ratlief urged policymakers to rein in spending increases and reassess recent commitments to determine whether they remain necessary, warning against expenditures outpacing economic growth.
Housing affordability remains a top concern for CSI Arizona, with the latest quarterly report underscoring ongoing challenges despite some cooling in the market. The average home price stands at $426,164—$53,400 more expensive than pre-pandemic trends—leaving households facing high costs amid elevated mortgage rates.
According to CSI Senior Economist and Research Analyst Zachary Milne, Arizonans now need to work more than 64 hours per month, at the average wage, just to afford a typical home payment, significantly up from the historical average of 45 hours.
Real-time estimates show an instantaneous housing shortfall of 52,846 units in Q2 2025, a 6.9% improvement from the revised 56,812 units in 2024. Arizona faces a cumulative housing deficit of 121,334 units, as of 2024, reflecting years of inadequate construction relative to population growth.
Ratlief believes the housing shortfall is not the result of state policy but of holdups originating within cities, noting that local governments control permitting, building codes, and enforcement—factors that can significantly slow housing development.
CSI revealed that most Arizona counties—including Maricopa, with a projected deficit of 34,737 units—are falling behind demand. Even with recent improvements in permitting, Maricopa County is still building thousands of units short of what is needed annually.
Water policy will also dominate discussions this legislative session, as ongoing negotiations over the Colorado River allocations approach a pivotal February 14, 2026, deadline set by the U.S. Department of the Interior.
This is viewed as likely the final opportunity for the seven basin states to reach a consensus agreement on sharing the river’s water before current operating guidelines expire at the end of the year. With Arizona’s unique constitutional requirement, any agreement reached will require legislative approval, setting the stage for intense debate in the 2026 session. Ratlief indicated that if states finalize a deal, the Legislature will debate and vote on authorizing the Department of Water Resources to sign on, potentially shaping Arizona’s water future for decades.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
