Environmental Law 2023 Comparisons

Arizona administers a variety of federal and state laws designed to protect the environment. Regarding federal laws, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has delegated authority to Arizona to administer the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act framework(A.R.S. Title 49). Arizona is required to meet minimum federal requirements but has implemented more stringent state standards. For example, in 2023, Arizona implemented a state Surface Water Protection Program (SWPP) to protect surface waters not covered by the federal “Waters of the United States” definition (A.R.S. Title 49, Chapter 2, Article 2).  

At the state level, Arizona regulates state surface water appropriation and groundwater use to protect water availability and quality (A.R.S. Title 45). Arizona also manages the Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF) to clean up soil and groundwater contaminated with hazardous substances (A.R.S. Title 49, Chapter 2, Article 5). Lastly, in 2006, Arizona adopted the Renewable Energy Standard and Tarriff (REST), which requires regulated electric utilities to generate 15% of their energy from renewable resources by 2025.

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) manages and provides enforcement for three key environmental programmes:

• air quality;
• water quality; and
• waste.

In addition, the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) manages and enforces water use and permitting. Regarding renewable energy, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) regulates electric utilities and enforces some aspects of energy policy. Finally, the Arizona State Land Department and the Arizona Game and Fish Department play an important role in protecting state-owned lands, natural resources and wildlife, and may bring civil enforcement actions through the State Attorney General’s Office Environmental Enforcement section.

ADEQ conducts periodic inspections to educate regulated parties and help prevent instances of environmental non-compliance. If an inspection reveals non-compliance or ADEQ receives complaints of alleged deficiencies, the agency will typically resolve these issues with informal tools such as a Notice of Opportunity to Correct Deficiencies (NOC) or a Notice of Violation (NOV). For special districts with limited resources, ADEQ provides additional help through its Small Communities Environmental Compliance Assistance Program. 

Parties may also voluntarily co-operate with environmental protection efforts in several ways. For example, property owners and other parties may participate in the Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP) to clean up contaminated sites and avoid ADEQ enforcement (A.R.S. Title 49, Chapter 1, Article 5). Arizona businesses and organisations may also join ADEQ’s tiered Voluntary Environmental Stewardship Program to achieve environmental compliance above state requirements in exchange for certain benefits (A.R.S. Title 49, Chapter 5, Article 7).

Arizona has established a variety of statutes, regulations and agencies to protect its diverse landscapes and rich natural habitats. In addition to key air, wate, and waste laws, the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) is responsible for conserving and preserving natural resources, wildlife habitats and wilderness areas within public lands (A.R.S. Title 37, Chapter 5, Article 1). To manage agricultural lands and protect soil health, Arizona established 41 Natural Resource Conservation Districts (A.R.S. Title 37, Chapter 6). Furthermore, the Arizona Game and Fish Department develops and implements policies related to conservation management of over 800 native wildlife species throughout the state (A.R.S. Title 17).  

If a party breaches a federal environmental law administered by the state, EPA Region 9 shares enforcement authority with Arizona. At the state level, ADEQ has authority to issue NOCs, NOVs, consent orders, compliance orders, abatement orders and stop-use orders. ADEQ, the Arizona State Land Department, the Arizona Game and Fish Department and other state agencies administering environmental laws may also pursue civil and criminal enforcement through the Attorney General’s Office (AGO). Penalties vary but may include monetary damages for restoration or for unlawfully gained economic advantages. 

In general, Arizona agencies have broad authority to perform investigations if required procedures are followed (A.R.S. Title 41, Chapter 6, Article 1). For example, ADEQ is authorised to perform regular announced and unannounced inspections of regulated parties. Furthermore, if ADEQ receives a complaint identifying potential violations of environmental laws, regulations or permit conditions, ADEQ may perform an inspection or refer the complaint to a more appropriate agency.  

Arizona requires environmental permits for a variety of activities. Some important activities that must be permitted include the following.

• Aquifer discharges: any party discharging pollutants that migrate into groundwater must obtain an Aquifer Protection Permit (APP) from ADEQ (A.R.S. Title 49, Chapter 2, Article 3). 
• Surface water discharges: any party discharging pollutants into surface waters must obtain a permit from ADEQ (A.R.S. Title 49, Chapter 2, Article 3.). Depending on the type of industry, the discharging entity may require an AZPDES General or Individual Permit.  
• Surface water use: any party intending to obtain the right to use surface water must apply for a permit from the ADWR (A.R.S. Title 45, Chapter 1, Article 5).  
• Groundwater use: inside a state designated Active Management Area, any party intending to pump groundwater must obtain a groundwater withdrawal permit, unless the party is pumping from an exempt well (A.R.S. Title 45, Chapter 2, Article 7). 
• Air pollutant emissions: industrial facilities that will emit pollutants exceeding the permitting threshold must obtain an air permit from ADEQ before construction and operation (A.R.S. Title 49, Chapter 3, Article 2).  
• Hazardous waste disposal: facilities that treat, store or dispose of hazardous waste must obtain a permit from ADEQ (A.R.S. Title 49, Chapter 5, Article 2).  

ADEQ administers general permits for some common activities with relatively low potential for environmental impact. To obtain a general permit, a facility usually must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and agree to conform its conduct to pre-established limits.  

ADEQ also administers individual permits for complex activities with a relatively high potential for environmental impact. To obtain an individual permit, an applicant should first meet with ADEQ to explain its plans for the facility, determine which permits are required and ask any questions. Next, an applicant will submit an application for the relevant activities. Once ADEQ receives the application, the agency will perform a substantive review of the information provided, draft a permit, and issue a preliminary decision. ADEQ will then provide notice of the draft permit and preliminary decision to allow the public at least 30 days to comment. After receiving public input, ADEQ will issue a final permit or deny the permit.  

If ADEQ denies a permit application, the applicant may appeal the decision through Arizona’s established administrative hearing procedures (A.R.S. Title 41, Chapter 6, Article 10). 

ADEQ established and follows a substantive compliance and enforcement policy. In general, ADEQ prefers to resolve compliance issues with informal tools that help regulated entities return to compliance quickly. However, if a party poses a significant threat to public health or repeatedly violates environmental laws, regulations or permit conditions, ADEQ may require formal enforcement tools. Furthermore, if a party intentionally violates a law or attempts to deceive the agency, ADEQ is authorised to refer cases for criminal prosecution. To learn more about ADEQ’s enforcement policies and procedures, visit the ADEQ Compliance Handbook.

In general, environmental permits may not be transferred from one location to another or from one source to another. However, with approval from the ADEQ, environmental permits may be transferred from one person to another. To obtain approval, the permittee must notify ADEQ in writing and in accordance with requirements established by ADEQ. ADEQ will then determine whether the transferee can operate the facility in compliance with the existing permit as well as state laws and regulations. Denials of permit transfers are appealable under A.R.S. Title 41, Chapter 6, Article 10.

If a regulated party breaches its environmental permit, ADEQ will generally perform an on-site investigation, determine the severity of the breach and choose an appropriate enforcement mechanism. If a permit violation causes substantial and imminent harm to publish health, ADEQ may seek a Temporary Restraining Order. For minor alleged deficiencies with relatively low environmental risk, however, ADEQ will use informal enforcement tools. Violations of permit conditions are considered minor by default. 

Operators, polluters or landowners who violate environmental laws or cause environmental damage may face administrative, civil or criminal liability. If an owner or operator intentionally misrepresents information, intentionally acts unlawfully, causes harm to human health, or repeatedly violates environmental laws, regulations or permit conditions, ADEQ is authorised to issue penalties up to the statutory maximum (typically USD25,000 per day per violation). As part of a settlement, ADEQ may also require owners and operators who commit violations to complete a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) to further restoration efforts. When a violation persists or presents a substantial threat to public health or the environment, ADEQ may refer the matter to the AGO for civil enforcement, which may result in a variety of remedies. ADEQ may also refer the matter to the AGO for criminal enforcement when the violation constitutes a crime. 

Regarding hazardous substances, landowners are not responsible for performing or paying for clean-up for hazardous sites. However, landowners may be liable when their actions have caused the release or threatened release of a hazardous substance (A.R.S. Title 49, Chapter 2, Article 5). Landowners, owners and operators, who fail to notify ADEQ of hazardous releases may be subject to civil penalties of up to USD10,000.  

Arizona may require or encourage disclosure of environmental issues in a variety of situations, including the following.  

• Hazardous substance release: if a facility releases a listed extremely hazardous substance, the owner or operator must immediately orally notify the community emergency co-ordinator for the local emergency planning committee for any area likely to be affected by the reportable release. Within 30 days of the release, the facility must provide a written report disclosing response actions (A.R.S. Title 49, Article 128).  
• Water pollution: if a facility exceeds its permitted discharge limitations but discloses the upset to ADEQ within 24 hours, the permittee may have an affirmative defence to any administrative, civil or criminal enforcement action (A.R.S. Title 49, Chapter 2, Article 3.1).  
• Air pollution: if a facility exceeds its permitted emissions limitations, the facility must report the excess to ADEQ. Prompt disclosure may provide an affirmative defence to any administrative, civil or criminal enforcement action (Arizona Administrative Code § 18-2-310.01).  
• Underground storage tank release: if an owner or operator of an underground storage tank identifies a release or a suspected release from the tank, the owner or operator must disclose the release orally or in writing to ADEQ within 24 hours. The initial disclosure must be followed by a written report within 14 days (A.R.S. Title 49, Chapter 6, Article 1).  
• Property transactions: property owners that have been subject to soil remediation efforts must provide written notice to the purchaser, unless the remediation attains standards for residential uses (A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 4, Article 3).  
• Compliance audits: in general, facilities that conduct environmental audit reports can assert privilege, such that the report is not admissible as evidence or subject to discovery. However, under certain circumstances, a court or administrative judge may require disclosure of a portion of the report. Furthermore, the privilege does not apply to information required to be reported by any regulatory agency or environmental law (A.R.S. Title 49, Chapter 10, Article 1405).  

The Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) also known as Superfund, places responsibility of the clean-up of contaminated properties squarely on the current owner or operator (EPA). Liability is tethered to current ownership, reflecting a commitment to ensuring environmental remediation. Individuals who owned or operated a facility during the occurrence of an environmental incident bear this responsibility. Moreover, liability extends to those who owned or possessed hazardous substances and organised their disposal or transport. Certain exemptions exist for property owners if they were not engaged in hazardous substance activities, did not permit such activities, and were unaware of substances at time of acquisition. Property owners cannot be liable if hazardous substances migrated from neighbouring properties. (A.R.S. 49-283). 

ADEQ requires that business report their environmental emissions and waste generation. The reporting requirements include standard federal and state reports such as Teir II, Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), annual air emissions inventory, Title V Annual Compliance Certification and Semiannual Monitoring Reports, and incident and other site-specific reports.  

• Air: sources subject to permit requirements need to complete and submit an inventory questionnaire annually to the director of ADEQ:
1. sources requiring a Class I permit under A.A.C. R18-2-302(B) need to complete the questionnaire no later than 1 June of each year; and 
2. sources requiring a Class II permit under R18-2-302(B) need to complete the questionnaire no later than 1 June every three years.  
• Water:
1. the Industrial Stormwater Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) requires that data be reported to ADEQ; and
2. the Aquifer Protection Permit (APP) requires that permitees submit a notice of violation to ADEQ within five days of becoming aware of the incident and follow up with a written report within 30 days.  

In Arizona, liability for environmental damages can arise in the form of administrative, civil and criminal liability. Defences will depend on specific circumstances, but some common defences include the following. 

• Lack of knowledge: if the defendant was unaware of the environmental harm. 
• Lack of intent: if the defendant did not intend to cause environmental harm to avoid liability. 
• Act of God: if the environmental damage was caused by an unforeseeable natural event, such as a hurricane or earthquake. 
• Statute of limitations: if the plaintiff waits too long to file a lawsuit, the defendant may be able to avoid liability. 

In Arizona, a corporation is generally treated as a separate legal entity unless sufficient evidence exists to disregard the corporate form (Dietel v Day, 492 P.2d 455, 457-58 (Arizona Court of Appeals 1972). 

Arizona does not impose a specific environmental tax. However, the state does impose various other fees and specific taxes. For example, Arizona imposes an excise tax on underground storage tanks. The tax is levied at one cent per gallon of regulated substances placed in a tank. Exemptions exist for government-operated tanks and specific substances. Refunds are available for eligible purchasers of taxed fuels stored in non-taxable tanks, and refund claims can be assigned (A.R.S. 49-1031). Also, owners and operators of Class 1 Title V source permit are subject to an annual administrative fee and an emissions-based fee to ADEQ.

ADEQ has established a voluntary environmental stewardship programme which recognises and awards incentives to Arizona businesses and other organisations that have a good history of environmental compliance and strive to go beyond what is legally required to protect public health and the environment.

Arizona generally follows traditional corporate standards for piercing the corporate veil. But, shareholders of closely held corporations can be liable for environmental damage under CERCLA.  

As of today, Arizona has no ESG requirements. In 2023, Governor Katie Hobbes vetoed Senate Bill 1500, an anti-ESG measure, which if enacted would have required the state treasurer to list all state investments by name on a public site so that all investments might be made in “the sole interest of the beneficiary taxpayer.” It is likely that Arizona will see many more anti-ESG measures.  

Arizona does not have a state law that requires companies to undergo environmental audits. However, Arizona has enacted laws which stipulate elements of audit privilege in the context of encouraging environmental management systems (A.R.S. 49-113). 

It is possible for directors and other officers to be personally liable for environmental damage or breaches of environmental law committed by the company if the corporate veil has been pierced, it has been found that an officer has breached their fiduciary duties or acted negligently, or an officer personally exercised substantial control and supervision over the project in question. (A.R.S. Title 49). Also, some federal statutes, including the Clean Air Act, specifically state that an “operator” or “responsible corporate officer” may be liable for routine environmental violations.  

Directors and officers may obtain D&O insurance in Arizona. D&O insurance is designed to protect directors and officers from personal liability arising from their actions on behalf of the company. This insurance can cover legal fees, settlements and judgments that arise from lawsuits against directors and officers.  

Although not compulsory, environmental insurance (or commercial general liability insurance policies) is available in Arizona. Also, according to A.R.S. 49-183, insurance cannot be refused to an insured solely because the insured is participating in the voluntary clean-up programme outlined in Chapter 2, Article 5 of Title 49. Voluntary remediation programmes are available to property owners who commit to work with ADEQ to clean up a contaminated site in an expedited manner.  

Lenders who hold a “security interest” in property are generally exempt from liability for environmental contamination on a property as long as they do not participate in the management of the facility and do not add to or make the contamination worse. (A.R.S. 49-283). CERCLA has also established a carve-out for lenders where the lender holds indications of ownership to protect a security interest, without participating in management of the secured asset. 

As a lender looking to avoid liability risk, it is important to follow best practices as outlined in Title 49. Some examples include the following.

• Maintain an indicia of ownership for security interest only: 
1. ensure that your ownership interest in the property is solely for the purpose of protecting a security interest; and
2. do not participate in the management of the facility ‒ clearly define and limit your role to securing your financial interest. 
• Avoid intentional misconduct or gross negligence:  
1. exercise due diligence and adhere to ethical standards to avoid intentional misconduct or gross negligence: and
2. implement robust risk management practices and policies to prevent any actions that could contribute to environmental issues.  
• Disclosure of hazardous substance presence: 
1. if you are aware of the presence of hazardous substances, disclose this information to the facility’s purchaser during the sale or divestiture of the property or security interest. 
• Environmental assessment:
1. conduct a Phase 1 environmental assessment of the facility in accordance with standards adopted by a rule pursuant to subsection K of A.R.S. 49-283; and
2. ensure that the assessment is completed at the time of or a reasonable time before foreclosure, particularly for non-residential properties.  
• Co-operate with regulatory authorities:
1. provide reasonable access to the regulatory authorities for necessary remedial actions. 
2. undertake reasonable steps to control access to areas with known presence of hazardous substances to protect public health, welfare, and the environment. 
• Diligent sale or divestment: 
1. act diligently to sell or otherwise divest property within two years of the lender’s possession or ownership, whichever is earliest. 
• Fiduciary appointments:
1. if acting as a fiduciary, ensure that your appointment is not for the sole purpose of avoiding liability under the article; and
2. avoid intentional misconduct or gross negligence that contributes to the release or threatened release of hazardous substances. 
• Avoid conflict of interests:
1. if you are a fiduciary, avoid being both a fiduciary and a grantor of the same fiduciary estate. 

There are some circumstances in which civil claims for compensation or other remedies can be brought. Depending on the issue, environmental lawsuits may be brought in federal or state court. State or federal environmental statutes could be at issue, or lawsuits could be against state or federal government agencies or private entities (like corporations). The major requirement that must be met to bring an environmental lawsuit is legal standing. “Legal standing” basically means the party has the right to challenge an action in court. The US Supreme Court established the constitutional test for legal standing in environmental cases in Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife (1992). In this case, the Court established three elements for standing:

• the plaintiff must experience an actual, concrete injury-in-fact;
• there must be causation between the plaintiff’s injury and the defendant’s conduct; and
• the plaintiff’s injury must be one that the Court can redress.

This test is fairly strict and is the primary test for determining whether claims for compensation or other remedies can be brought.  

Exemplary or punitive damages may be awarded in a lawsuit in situations where a defendant’s acts were malicious, violent, oppressive, fraudulent, wanton or grossly reckless. Punitive damages may be awarded in environmental cases, although not often. One example is that punitive damages may be sought when Superfund money has been spent as a result of non-compliance with an administrative order. The US Supreme Court has held that there may be situations in which punitive damages are so excessive that the US Constitution is violated. The Court established a test to determine this in BMW of North America, Inc. v Gore (1996). The first element is “the degree of reprehensibility” of the conduct, determining how offensive or undesirable the conduct was. The next element is the ratio between the punitive damages and the compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiff. The third and final factor is the amount of civil or criminal penalties that could be imposed on a party for similar misconduct. Arizona law makes it very difficult to sue for punitive damages in most cases. The current standard in Arizona to decide whether a plaintiff may receive punitive damages is determining whether the person responsible was acting with an “evil mind,” which amounts to a malicious intent.  

An environmental class-action lawsuit allows a larger group of individuals who have all separately suffered the same or similar harm from the same or similar cause to sue those parties responsible. For example, a community that has experienced health issues from air pollution may file suit together against the polluter in a single legal action.  

There is no applicable information in this jurisdiction.

Indemnities and other contractual agreements can be used to transfer or apportion liability for incidental damage or breaches of law. An indemnification clause is required in all state contracts so that the responsibility for claims that may arise out of the course and scope of the contract shall be transferred to the contractor. Indemnity and insurance provisions may apply to certain cooperative parties when a statewide contract is used.  

More information can be found in the Insurance and Indemnification Guidelines for State of Arizona Contracts.

There are multiple firms offering environmental insurance in Arizona. Environmental insurance (also known as pollution insurance or pollution coverage) provides coverage for loss or damages resulting from unexpected releases of pollutants typically excluded in general liability and property insurance policies. The losses or damages covered by environmental insurance usually arise in the form of claims against insureds for bodily injury, property damage, clean-up costs and business interruption. Standard general liability and property insurance policies exclude most losses connected to pollution with very few exceptions. Environmental insurance can be particularly helpful if a company faces long-term risks, such as historic contamination that resulted from business operations in the past but can cause damage now. Many environmental insurance policies also cover the costs of defending claims, whether they result in a damages award.  

“Contamination” is a negative impact on any person, object or area, caused by a hazardous substance, hazardous waste or petroleum products. ADEQ is the main agency managing various state and federal programmes related to air quality, water quality, solid waste and hazardous waste. ADEQ is responsible for administering state environmental laws and shares regulatory responsibility for certain federal programmes delegated to the state from the US EPA. The management of hazardous waste is governed by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Federal and state hazardous waste management regulations apply to most businesses that generate hazardous waste.  

ADEQ is responsible for investigating and oversees the clean-up of contaminated soil and groundwater through the Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF) programme. Several sections and units within the Waste Programs Division of ADEQ are also involved in co-ordinating and overseeing contaminated soil and groundwater investigations and clean-ups.  

In cases where more than one party has contributed to the contamination, liability is determined by EPA and ADEQ policy and statutes. The EPA and ADEQ maintain a policy of not requiring residential homeowners to perform or pay for clean-up actions at state or federal Superfund sites. However, homeowners may be held liable for the clean-up where their own actions have led to a release or threatened release of hazardous substances requiring a clean-up of their property, or where the property is used for non-residential purposes (A.R.S. § 49-283). Liability which applies to an owner of property does not apply to any other person who is not an owner of the property simply because they hold some right, title or interest in the property. Under Arizona law, a person is not responsible for hazardous substances located on or beneath their property if the substance is present solely because it migrated from property that is not owned or occupied by that person (A.R.S. § 49-283(E)).  

There are no Arizona-specific locus standi requirements for bringing proceedings against polluters/landowners/occupiers of those affected by contamination.  

ADEQ is tasked with preparing and keeping current a statewide solid waste management plan which establishes standards for solid waste facilities in co-operation with facility owners or operators, local governments, and management agencies. (A.R.S. § 49-721). A facility owner or operator shall not treat, store, dispose of, transport or offer for transportation, hazardous waste without having received an EPA identification number from ADEQ (Arizona Administrative Code § 18-8-264). 

A Phase I environmental audit is the first step in analysing property to determine if any contamination exists. This is a preliminary examination to discover if contamination is present. Next, a recognised evaluator performs a Phase II audit to identify the type and extent of the contamination. Finally, the Phase III Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) represents the remedial phase of the process. 

TADHS) developed the 2017 Arizona Climate and Health Adaptation Plan as a participating agency in the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Climate Ready States and Cities Initiative. The plan includes strategies to guide adaptation with the intention to support public health preparedness related to climate-sensitive hazards in Arizona. The plan is organised around ten essential public health services that serve as the framework for the National Public Health Performance Standards (CDC 2014). Another study related to climate change in Arizona is the Extreme Weather, Climate and Health Profile Report which aims to address and plan for Arizona’s climate-related health impacts (specifically the impact of air pollution and rising temperatures). City of Phoenix will be providing a Climate Action Plan Progress Report that will detail actions and progress since the 2021 Climate Action Plan was approved by city council.  

Arizona has joined the U.S. Climate Alliance, a bipartisan coalition of 25 governors committed to securing America’s net-zero future by advancing state-led, high-impact climate action. One of the key collective commitments is reducing collective net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at least 26-28% by 2025 and 50-52% by 2030, both below 2005 levels, and collectively achieving overall net-zero GHG emissions as soon as practicable, and no later than 2050.  

Asbestos is a non-combustible, naturally occurring mineral that was used in a wide variety of commercial products from the early 1900s to the late 1970s before it was linked to severe health problems caused from differing amounts of exposure. Arizona has asbestos regulations in place, along with those established by the federal government. The Asbestos National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Program is meant to protect public health from exposure to regulated asbestos-containing material (RACM). NESHAP facility renovation/demolition activities, asbestos removal, transport, and disposal are closely monitored for proper notification and asbestos emissions control. The Clean Air Act gave the US EPA the responsibility for enforcing asbestos regulations and allows the US EPA the authority to delegate responsibility to a state or local agency. The US EPA Region 9 Asbestos NESHAP co-ordinator has sole jurisdiction over all 25 tribal lands in Arizona. ADEQ’s Asbestos NESHAP Program does not have any additional requirements apart from the federal standard. In Arizona, Maricopa County, Pima County, and Pinal County have delegated authority from the US EPA to enforce the Asbestos NESHAP within their respective jurisdictional boundaries, including tribal lands.  

In Arizona, waste is regulated by the Waste Programs Division of ADEQ. The Waste Programs Division regulates facilities and generators of solid and hazardous waste, issues permits, conducts inspections and oversees remediation of contaminated sites. Some programmes managed by the Waste Programs Division to reduce the risk associated with waste management, contaminated sites and regulated substances include:

• the Brownfields Program;
• the Solid and Hazardous Waste Inspections and Compliance, Pollution Prevention (P2), Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP),
• Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF), Federal Superfund Sites, Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program; and
• the Recycling Program.  

Parties may be held responsible even when the waste is outside of their care, custody or control. Parties are responsible for their hazardous waste from the moment it is generated to the moment it is properly disposed of. Merely transporting the waste off-site does not rescind liability. The RCRA of 1976 gives the EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from cradle to grave. This includes generation, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste. The RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes.   

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a policy approach that assigns producers greater responsibility for the end-of-life management of the products they introduce to the market and encourages innovations in product design. EPR helps to shift financial responsibility from municipalities and taxpayers and addresses environmental impacts of waste disposal. While there are no current EPR regulations in Arizona, different cities have discussed that promoting these policies would be beneficial and remain open to passing policies related to EPR in the future.  

See 5.2 Disclosure.

ADEQ provides Arizona-specific environmental information through an online portal called My Community. For additional information, the public may also request a public record from “any person elected or appointed to hold any elective or appointive office of any public body and any chief administrative officer, head, director, superintendent or chairman of any public body.” A.R.S. Title 39, Chapter 1, Article 2. The request may be made in person, over the phone, or through the online portal, at any point during office hours. The agency may deny a public records request under certain circumstances, including when the information has been made confidential or privileged by statute or court order. However, if the request is denied, the requesting party may appeal the decision in the Arizona Superior Court.  

The Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) does not require any disclosure of environmental information in corporation’s annual reports. Publicly traded entities must disclose environmental information in accordance with the rules established by the federal Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 

Arizona does not have a state-led “green financing” programme, but the state does provide a state tax credit of 25% of the total system cost, up to USD1,000 for every resident who installs solar panels in their residence. This credit is applicable towards state income taxes. To claim this credit, homeowners who installed solar panels on their homes during 2021 may qualify. 

Environmental due diligence is typically conducted on M&A, finance and property transactions in Arizona. This usually includes the following.  

• Phase I ESA: this is a standard practice where a qualified environmental professional assesses the property’s history, current use and potential environmental risks. 
• Phase II ESA: if issues are identified in Phase I, a Phase II assessment will then involve more detailed testing and analysis to determine the extent of contamination. 

Most real estate transactions in Arizona will include a Seller’s Property Disclosure Statement (SPDS), which states that sellers can voluntarily disclose information about the condition of the property. Arizona law requires that sellers disclose material facts about property. This includes any known environmental issues with drainage, soil, fissures and dampness/moisture. 

Arizona does not impose any specific green taxes. 

In Arizona, regulatory agencies typically aim to resolve environmental disputes with informal tools such as an inspection, an NOC, or, if necessary, an NOV. When informal tools are unable to achieve resolution, especially for an affected party, regulatory agencies may work toward a negotiated settlement. If a settlement cannot be reached, environmental disputes may be brought to the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings or referred to the Arizona AGO to pursue civil or criminal suits.  

There is no applicable information in this jurisdiction.