by Jonathan Eberle | Dec 16, 2025 | News
By Jonathan Eberle |
Arizona State Senator Janae Shamp (R-LD29) has introduced legislation that would prohibit the addition of fluoride and fluoride-containing compounds to public drinking water systems across the state. The proposal, Senate Bill 1019, would bar state agencies, municipalities, and other political subdivisions from fluoridating public water supplies. Shamp, a registered nurse and former Senate majority leader, says the bill is intended to limit what she characterizes as government-mandated medical treatment and to give individuals greater control over their health decisions.
In announcing the legislation, Shamp cited concerns about the practice of water fluoridation, including questions about consent and potential health risks. Supporters of the bill argue that fluoride is widely available through toothpaste, mouth rinses, and dental treatments, making its addition to drinking water unnecessary.
Shamp also referenced research suggesting that excessive fluoride exposure may be associated with adverse health outcomes, including potential impacts on cognitive development in children and risks to bone health. Public health authorities, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have long maintained that water fluoridation at recommended levels is safe and effective in reducing tooth decay, a position that has been the subject of ongoing debate nationwide.
“Medical decisions should be made by individuals and families, not imposed through public utilities,” Shamp said in a statement. She added that banning fluoridation would allow residents to choose whether and how they use fluoride products.
The senator also pointed to financial considerations, arguing that eliminating fluoridation could reduce costs associated with chemicals, equipment, and maintenance for water systems. Those savings, she said, could be redirected toward infrastructure improvements or water conservation efforts. The bill comes as other states have reconsidered fluoridation policies in recent years, with lawmakers in Utah and Florida passing measures to limit or ban the practice in certain jurisdictions. Shamp framed SB 1019 as part of a broader movement emphasizing individual choice and medical autonomy.
If approved by the Legislature and signed into law, Arizona would join a small but growing number of states restricting fluoride use in public water systems. The bill is expected to generate debate among lawmakers, public health officials, and dental professionals as it moves through the legislative process.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Dec 5, 2025 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
Despite the noble work of Republican lawmakers over the past five years to reduce the state’s burden on taxpayers (lowering and flattening the income tax, eliminating tax on renters, and addressing taxes on food,) cities and towns are constantly undermining this progress through rampant tax, fee, and utility rate increases.
Arizona’s affordability is being eroded through the insatiable tax-hungry decisions of city and town councils and their year-over-year spending sprees. If taxpayers have not noticed already, surely, they are feeling the pinch as these tax and fee hikes continue to stack one on top another. Red or blue, no city is immune, most likely your costs are going up…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Matthew Holloway | Dec 4, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Beginning Dec. 6, 2025, all in-park hotels on the South Rim of Grand Canyon National Park, including El Tovar, Bright Angel Lodge, and Trailer Village, will shutter indefinitely to overnight guests. The closure decision was prompted by a series of significant breaks in the 12.5-mile Transcanyon Waterline supplying the park’s water, the National Park Service revealed Tuesday.
As of mid-November, water is no longer being pumped to the South Rim, the National Park Service said, forcing park officials to suspend overnight stays and dial back visitor amenities. The NPS reported that overnight stays at accommodations outside of the park in nearby Tusayan are unaffected.
According to NPS, “The waterline has exceeded its expected lifespan and experiences frequent failures, which require expensive and continuous maintenance work to repair leaks. The National Park Service started construction in 2023 on a multi-year, $208 million rehabilitation of the Transcanyon Waterline and upgrades to the associated water delivery system. This crucial investment in infrastructure will ensure the park is able to meet water supply needs for five million annual visitors and approximately 2,500 year-round residents. The project is expected to be completed in 2027.”
The Park Service is asking year-round residents to help conserve water by taking steps to reduce usage, such as limiting showers to 5 minutes or less, turning off faucets while shaving or brushing teeth, flushing toilets only when necessary, washing laundry only with full loads, and reporting leaks to the appropriate authorities.
In a Tuesday press release, the agency said that “Dry Camping,” requiring campers to transport their own water, will continue to be permitted, with water spigot access available at the Mather Campground check-in kiosk; however, spigots inside the campground have been shut down. Faucets in park bathrooms will also remain operational.
Grand Canyon National Park Public Affairs Officer and Communications Lead, Joëlle Baird, suggested that the closure could be resolved relatively quickly, saying, “If all planned work proceeds without additional issues, we anticipate being able to restore water service and begin reopening overnight lodging as early as next week.”
The outlet reported that welding repairs to the 1960s-vintage pipeline were progressing on Wednesday despite a fresh snowfall, and the current repair schedule calls for flushing and recharging the system over the next several days.
In the aftermath of the devastating Dragon Bravo fire, hotel closures are an additional blow to parkgoers. In addition, a complete prohibition on all fires remains in place for the South Rim and inner canyon areas, such as “outdoor wood burning and charcoal fires, including campfires, warming fires, and charcoal barbeques.”
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 |
Arizona’s top elected leaders — Democrats and Republicans alike — have joined forces to demand federal action after the seven Colorado River Basin states missed a critical deadline to finalize post-2026 water-sharing rules. In a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, they warned that refusal by upper basin states to commit to verifiable conservation has pushed the negotiations to a breaking point.
The letter, dated November 11, 2025, highlights Arizona’s role as a leader in water conservation and criticizes upper basin states for refusing to commit to verifiable reductions, which the signatories say have stalled a seven-state agreement needed to sustain the river amid ongoing droughts.
The seven Colorado River Basin states—four in the upper basin (Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico) and three in the lower basin (Arizona, California, Nevada)—missed a federal deadline on November 11th to submit a consensus plan for sharing water shortages after 2026, when current operating guidelines expire. Federal officials, including the Bureau of Reclamation, have urged the states to reach an accord to avoid potential court intervention or unilateral action by the Trump administration.
In the letter, the Arizona leaders commended Burgum’s efforts over the past year to develop a framework preserving the century-old 1922 Colorado River Compact, which allocates water among the states. They emphasized the river’s critical role in fueling Arizona’s advanced technology ecosystem, world-class agriculture, military bases, and communities home to millions, including 22 of the basin’s 30 Native American tribes.
“Arizona’s cutting-edge semiconductor industries and IT infrastructure are making it possible for the onshoring of manufacturing operations that are critical for maintaining American technological leadership,” the letter states. It notes that Yuma County, one of the world’s most sophisticated agricultural regions, produces over 90% of the winter leafy greens supplied to the United States and Canada each year.
The signatories stressed that Arizona’s allocation is vital not only to the state’s citizens but to national economic growth and independence. They warned that the upper basin states’ refusal to offer “meaningful, verifiable conservation commitments” over the last two years risks these foundations of growth.
Arizona has positioned itself as a basin-wide leader in water efficiency, the letter asserts, partnering with California and Nevada to propose creative and significant post-2026 operating criteria. Under most scenarios, Arizona’s plans would conserve 1.5 million acre-feet of water per year, representing more than 27% of the state’s entitlement in most years. This follows more than 3 million acre-feet in efficiencies already offered by the lower basin states since 2023 to stabilize Lakes Mead and Powell.
In contrast, the letter points out that upper basin states have repeatedly refused to implement any volume of binding, verifiable upper basin reductions. “This extreme negotiating posture—four of the seven Basin States refusing to participate in any sharing of water shortages—has led to a fundamental impasse that is preventing successful development of a 7-State consensus plan for management of the Colorado River,” it reads.
The group urged Burgum to use his authority to ensure that any alternative considered by the Department of the Interior “contains measurable and enforceable conservation requirements” for the upper basin, guaranteeing the resource remains available for Arizona’s contributions to the economy and national security.
Signatories to the letter include Governor Katie Hobbs (D), Senate President Warren Petersen (R-LD14), House Speaker Steve Montenegro (R-LD29), Senate Democratic Leader Priya Sundareshan (D-LD18), and House Democratic Leader Oscar De Los Santos (D-LD11).
A joint statement from the seven states and federal officials acknowledged the missed deadline. Still, it affirmed a shared recognition of the basin’s challenges, with negotiators committing to continuing talks despite the setback. Lake Mead’s surface elevation stood at 1,057 feet as of recent measurements, with commenters noting that’s just 37 feet above levels that could trigger a “devastating” crisis for Arizona, including potential mandatory cuts to urban and agricultural users.
The full text of the letter is available here.
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 David Winstanley | Nov 6, 2025 | Opinion
By David Winstanley |
I recently conducted an informal survey among about 50 of my neighbors, asking them, “What do you think your City of Mesa utility payment is used for at the city?” Some said ‘water.’ Some said, ‘water and sewage.’ And a few said, “water, sewage, and trash.” But only 2 of 5o included ‘other city government services including police and fire.’ Those two individuals had been at an Encore Conservative Club meeting where we had discussed this exact subject.
I believe this simple survey is representative of the entire City of Mesa, where more than 90% of the residents are totally unaware that 30% of their utility bill is transferred from utility payments to the “General Governmental Fund” for the City.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, there are two definitions of “transparency” that are relevant to this discussion: 1) the quality of something, such as a situation or an argument, that makes it easy to understand, and 2) the quality in something, such as an excuse or a lie, that allows somebody to see the truth easily. The current City of Mesa utility bill is not “transparent” according to these definitions because it does not make clear to those paying the bill what they are being charged for: 70% for city utilities and 30% for other government services. I would like to challenge the mayor, and city council to make Mesa utility bills more transparent by including exactly what is paid for. And I might also suggest that the 30% of utility bills for general governmental uses should not have sales tax applied to it.
Councilman Adams stated in the September 22nd council meeting that the City was transparent about this subject because “if you looked you could find it.” But I would argue based on the above informal survey that you have to know that you need to look and further, that you need to understand where to look! While I applaud the City posting a special link to proposed utility rate adjustments on its website, including dates of relevant city council meetings, an informative video, and an online comment card, the information is somewhat obtuse. A 164-page “Current Utility Rate Book” is not at all helpful for the average Mesa resident; the staff presentations from the September 22nd council meeting are helpful but take multiple steps in website navigation to find (if you know they exist there).
I want to be abundantly clear. I am not accusing anyone, council nor staff, of concealing or hiding anything. Council and staff are following the existing process. But it has taken me more than a year of making mistakes and misinterpretations to understand how the City works, including being politely but repeatedly corrected by city financial staff (thank you!). I am a former Director of Engineering who has managed budgets of millions of dollars. If it takes me this much effort to understand, what chance does the average resident have?
Even for those who know that their utility payments contribute to the general governmental fund, few understand the consequences of the rigid application of the 30%. Because it is a percentage applied to the total revenues, it means that there is an “automatic tax increase” due to the corresponding increase in General Funds Transfers every time there is a utility rate increase. The City Ordinance (#5559) does not require 30%, but both city council and staff very rigidly apply it each year. In past years, there has been no discussion of whether this tax increase is needed or not. It just happens. I would like to challenge the city council to hold that tax increase to zero (no increase, no decrease) for this upcoming year, rather than just applying the 30%; the net result will be 28.8% instead. This will have zero impact on utilities because their requested increases can be approved as requested.
But this proposal (to fix the Transfer to General Fund from Utility Fund) illustrates another complication: the value for the General Fund Transfer, currently shown as $147M, was set during the budget process in May/June of this year. So, any change now would require city staff to revise the budget. That’s not impossible but highly unlikely especially considering these funds are earmarked for public safety. Public safety funding can be held constant by using other funds such as Environmental and Sustainability.
Another place for unintended obfuscation is in the Debt Service Transfers, with a proposed increase of $18.7M or 16.1% for FY25/26. This line item covers paying for principal and interest on utility bonds. This is the biggest increase for this year and, all future years, based on the 5-year plan presented to the council. Debt Service Transfers total 38% over the next 5 years leading to a total projected increase of 51%! These bonds are approved in a wholly separate meeting in June by the council, so most of these increases are required or major construction projects will be stopped. Most residents of Mesa assume that they get to vote on “bonds,” which is true of bonds supported by secondary property taxes (and school bonds), but not utility bonds, which are approved by city council vote. What the average resident does not understand is that when utility bonds are approved at a council meeting in June, it is a commitment to increase utility rates for up to 30 years into the future. And we already have a commitment of 38% increases in the next 5 years!
Taken together, the General Fund Transfer increase ($9.3M), and the Debt Service Transfer increase ($18.7M) constitute 65% of the requested utility rate increase but are effectively pro forma because they were approved previously. While not at all hidden, is that transparent to the typical Mesa resident?
Finally, I do support the proposed “Water/Wastewater Capacity Fee,” which is related to the utility rate adjustments because if passed, it removes $400M in future utility bonds from current Mesa residents and instead charges developers and new growth users to pay for the additional capacity. If passed, this capacity fee will result in a smaller increase in this year’s adjustments but will reduce future increases even more.
One last picky comment: the utility rate adjustment presentations use a “typical user,” but the exact definition of which seems to be a pretty minimal water user. I would suggest that the city staff use a statistically significant definition by presenting a “median” user, someone for whom 50% of city water users pay (or use) more, and 50% pay (or use) less.
I hope there will be good conversations on these subjects at the city council meetings on November 17th, for introduction of the utility rate adjustments and December 1st, for the public meeting on utility rates.
David Winstanley is a retired Director of Engineering at Honeywell Aerospace, former Chair of LD15 Republicans, and a conservative activist for local issues in the East Valley.
