Skip to content
  • Home
  • Sales
    • 1st Quarter Sales
    • 2nd Quarter Sales
    • 3rd Quarter Sales
    • 4th Quarter Sales
  • Leases
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Login
  • Home
  • Sales
    • 1st Quarter Sales
    • 2nd Quarter Sales
    • 3rd Quarter Sales
    • 4th Quarter Sales
  • Leases
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Login

Judge rejects Tucson’s attempt to move water rate dispute behind closed doors

  • Home
  • News
  • Judge rejects Tucson’s attempt to move water rate dispute behind closed doors
News
/
April 12, 2022
/
Real Estate Daily News Service
image_pdfimage_print

PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA – A Maricopa County Superior Court Judge on Friday rejected the city of Tucson’s attempt to move to arbitration the County’s lawsuit opposing the city’s arbitrary water rate increase for unincorporated county residents. The suit will proceed before Judge Randall Warner.

The City Council imposed a 10 percent rate increase that went into effect Dec. 1 for about 70,000 Tucson Water customers in the unincorporated county. The rate increase also affects the County, which purchases water from the city for numerous facilities in the unincorporated county.

The Board of Supervisors in November authorized suing the City over the rate increase and filed suit Dec. 17. The suit alleges the City’s action:

  • violates state law requiring water rates be “just and reasonable;”
  • is discriminatory by not treating similarly situated customers equally;
  • violates the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 13 of the Arizona Constitution, providing for equal protection under the law and protection against race-based discrimination; and
  • violates Article IV, Part 2, Section 19 of the Arizona Constitution prohibiting governments from enacting “special laws.”

The City of Tucson filed a motion to compel arbitration and move the proceedings behind closed doors in an attempt to keep the significant issues out of the courtroom and the public eye. The City cited previous water and sewer service agreements between the City and County, stating those agreements required arbitration. Judge Warner denied the motion, saying the dispute before the court is not about the previous agreements but about matters of “…constitutional, statutory, and common law duties allegedly owed to ratepayers.”

Share Now!

Recent Posts

  • Small Deal, Big Fix: JTED Land Buy Unlocks Safer Parking at Camino Seco Campus
  • Tucson’s Phantom Space Acquires Vector Launch Assets and Intellectual Property, Accelerating Daytona Launch Vehicle Development
  • Costco incentive advances as Sam’s Club lines up second Tucson location
  • Tucson Council Maps Public Power Options as TEP Franchise Talks Near
  • Wespac Launches Charity Arm to Deepen Its Commitment to Community Impact

Archives

Copyright © 2026 Real Estate Daily News
Website by: Heart and Soul Web Design

Scroll to Top