CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL v. HOBBS

── CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL v. HOBBS ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY INC, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. KATHLEEN M. HOBBS, et al., Defendants/Appellees. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0386 FILED 04-24-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2024-016330 The Honorable Scott A. Blaney, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Hofmeyr Law PLLC, Tucson By Adriane J. Hofmeyr Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants Coppersmith Brockelman PLC, Phoenix By Sambo Dul, Austin C. Yost Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Kathleen M. Hobbs Arizona Department of Water Resources, Phoenix By Nicole D. Klobas, Emily Petrick, Jennifer Heim Counsel for Defendants/Appellees Arizona Department of Water Resources and Thomas Buschatzke  CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL v. HOBBS, et al. Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Andrew J. Becke joined. C A T T A N I, Judge: ¶1 The Center for Biological Diversity, the San Pedro Alliance, and Robin Silver (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) appeal from a judgment dismissing with prejudice their claims against the Arizona Department of Water Resources, Thomas Buschatzke in his capacity as Director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources (collectively, the “Department”), and Kathleen M. Hobbs in her capacity as Governor of Arizona. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 In 1980, the Arizona Legislature adopted the “Groundwater Code.” A.R.S. §§ 45-401 to -704. Finding that the people of Arizona are dependent on groundwater basins (that is, areas “designated so as to enclose a relatively hydrologically distinct body or related bodies of groundwater,” A.R.S. § 45-402(13)) for their water supply, the Legislature declared that it was Arizona’s policy to conserve, protect, and allocate groundwater resources, as well as to provide a framework for groundwater management and regulation. A.R.S. § 45-401. ¶3 To effectuate that policy, the Legislature established the Department and gave it “general control and supervision of surface water, its appropriation and distribution, and of groundwater to the extent provided by this title.” A.R.S. §§ 45-102(A), -103(B). It further required the Governor to appoint a director, who serves at the Governor’s pleasure, to be responsible for the direction, operation, and control of the Department. A.R.S. § 45-102(B)–(C). ¶4 The Legislature initially established four geographic “active management areas,” A.R.S. § 45-411(A), and later added a fifth, A.R.S. § 45- 411.03(A). Groundwater rights and uses in these areas are more strictly prescribed than in areas not subject to active management. Compare A.R.S. § 45-451, with A.R.S. § 45-453. The Legislature allowed the Department to designate additional areas for active management if it determined (1) “[a]ctive management practices are necessary to preserve the existing 2  CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL v. HOBBS, et al. Decision of the Court supply of groundwater for future needs”; (2) “[l]and subsidence or fissuring is endangering property or potential groundwater storage capacity”; or (3) “[u]se of groundwater is resulting in actual or threatened water quality degradation.” A.R.S. § 45-412(A). The Legislature also directed that “[t]he director