Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Foreign Land Ownership topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Arizona senators advance measures to limit land ownership by foreign ‘hostile’ entities amid questions on grandfathering and leases
Summary
Two measures discussed in the Senate caucus would bar conveyance or new ownership of state real property by foreign entities identified as hostile by U.S. intelligence; members raised questions about leases, state trust lands and a grandfathering clause that appears to allow existing holders to remain.
Senate staff briefed senators on two related measures that would limit real-estate interests held by foreign entities designated as hostile to the United States, prompting questions about the bills' scope and a provision that appears to grandfather current owners.
The measures under discussion were Senate Bill 10 66, which would prohibit conveyance or sale of Arizona land to a foreign entity identified as hostile, and Senate Bill 11 09, reported as prohibiting “foreign principals” from holding real property in Arizona. Staff told the caucus the bills rely on U.S. intelligence community threat assessments to identify which countries qualify as “hostile.”
Why it matters: The bills touch state control over trust and school lands, national-security considerations flagged by members, and property rights for owners already holding title. Senators and representatives pressed staff on whether leases, existing owners and university or school trust lands would be covered.
Staff explained that the bills adopt the U.S. Director of National Intelligence’s recent threat assessments as the mechanism for identifying “countries that pose a risk to national security,” citing the bills' draft language and a cross-reference to the National Security Act’s annual threat assessment requirement. Representative Diaz noted language in the summary that appears to allow a foreign entity that “holds real property in Arizona by the effective date of this legislation may continue to own or hold such real property,” which some members called a grandfathering clause that could limit immediate effects of the prohibition.
Some members asked whether the bills prohibit leases as well as purchases and whether state trust, school or university lands already under lease would be included; staff said they would follow up with the sponsor for precise drafting intent. Representative King asked for clarification on which countries would be affected; staff cited China, Russia, Iran and North Korea as examples from the DNI assessments mentioned in the bill summary.
During the caucus Representative Blush described a local mining episode he said involved a Chinese-owned firm and contamination concerns in the Bradshaw Mountains and Gila watershed, offering an example proponents used to justify the legislation. “We used every tool in the toolbox. We used the state mine inspector. We used ADEQ. We could not stop them,” he said in remarks recorded in the transcript.
The measures were placed on the third-read consent calendar; staff indicated some sponsors and members expect further floor or rules-stage amendment work to clarify scope, leasing, and grandfathering. No final floor votes or enacted outcomes were recorded in the caucus transcript.
Looking ahead: Members asked staff and sponsors to be available offline to resolve questions about constitutionality, the treatment of existing owners and leases, and whether particular categories of state lands are covered. The sponsors and staff were expected to provide further drafting clarifications before any floor action.
