Some Yuma residents may have believed the trucks transporting biosolids into Yuma would have been gone by now. But if you drive past those fields today, you’ll see it is business as usual for the ongoing operations of AgTech LLC.
After more than 50 years of biosolids use in Yuma, the future of AgTech’s operation on state trust land is now deeply uncertain.
On Sept. 10, In a move that signaled a major turning point, the Arizona State Land Department acted to terminate five state-land leases held by AgTech. That’s more than 6,300 acres of land.
- Lease No. 001-114732, Acreage: 827.41 acres
- Lease No. 001-87978, Acreage: 1,603.86 acres
- Lease No. 001-106967, Acreage: 480 acres
- Lease No. 001-107369, Acreage: 319.45 acres
- Lease No. 001-105150, Acreage: 3,079.95 acres
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, had previously launched an investigation into AgTech, and now says this would address people’s concerns.
Attorney General, Kris Mayes:
Dumping biosolids that originate in California in Arizona in a way that was obviously deeply impacting people in Yuma was unacceptable and I’m glad that the State Land Department put an end to it. It was long past time for those leases to end.
ASLD cites multiple lease violations, unauthorized commercial activity, and a failure to meet the state's fiduciary duty to maximize trust land value.
The clock is ticking. The state says these leases will expire on Dec. 11 of this year. After that, AgTech has 90 days to remove its physical property. But, as in any high-stakes legal battle, this is far from settled.
Stuart Kimball, an attorney representing AgTech, calls the state's decision unlawful.
Attorney Stuart Kimball:
I think that their decisions are unlawful, prohibited by law, no longer timely, in essence they shouldn’t have made the decision that they did. Not only the determinations of non compliance, the determinations of not in the best interest of the state, as well as the determination about the rights of renewal. All 3 of those there’s no actual support or authority under the law. And therefore those decisions should not be valid or enforceable and that is what we’ll be seeking under the noticeable deal.
Kimball argues the action may be politically motivated, a claim state officials flatly reject. They characterize this as a straightforward enforcement action, required by the state’s duty to manage trust land for the benefit of Arizona’s schools. AgTech has filed an initial appeal, and a separate appeal regarding their renewal rights is expected to follow.
In the meantime, we reached out to Attorney General Kris Mayes but her office is not providing comments on their appeal, citing the ongoing litigation.
Crucially, the state's action against AgTech is an administrative dispute over who is allowed to use what land. It does not constitute a state-wide ban on biosolids, nor does the State Land Department have the authority to regulate what happens on private property.
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, or ADEQ, has been monitoring the situation. Their key finding? They have found no evidence that AgTech’s specific operations have contaminated local groundwater or surface water.
Routine monitoring since 2022, including testing conducted this past spring, did find elevated nitrates and some pesticides. But ADEQ emphasizes those findings are consistent with the region’s long history of intensive agriculture. Cambridge defines intensive agriculture as farming that uses a lot of machinery, labour, chemicals, etc.
However, it is vital to understand the limitation of that statement. ADEQ’s findings address water quality. They do not, by themselves, answer the questions raised by residents regarding odors, flies, airborne exposure, soil composition, or potential health effects.
Meanwhile, the dispute is spreading far beyond the fields. The City of Yuma is now actively looking for alternative ways to manage its wastewater solids.
Options like removing excess water could reduce the volume and make transportation or disposal elsewhere more feasible, but those changes carry significant costs.
Where does this leave the community? At the center of it all is the newly formed SB 1336 Biosolids Study Committee.
This group is now tasked with examining broader policies. For residents, the debate has evolved. It began with complaints about flies and odors, but it has expanded into a complex fight over leases, legal authority, and the future cost of essential wastewater management.
For Yuma, the question is no longer just where the waste will go. It is now about who will regulate it, who will pay for the alternatives, and, ultimately, what kind of evidence will be enough to restore public trust.
