HB2135 amends Arizona’s unlawful camping statute to prohibit camping within one-fourth mile of a natural water hole or man-made watering facility when the camping would block wildlife or domestic stock from accessing the only reasonably available water. The bill is focused on protecting access to scarce water sources in rural and range areas, where camping near watering points can interfere with livestock and wildlife use.
The measure does not create a new regulatory program; instead, it narrows and clarifies existing criminal law in A.R.S. § 17-308. By specifying the distance and the condition that access to the only reasonably available water must be denied, it gives law enforcement and land users a clearer standard for when camping near water sources is unlawful. The bill primarily affects campers, ranchers, wildlife managers, and others using public or private lands where water access is limited.
The overall sentiment appears generally supportive, as reflected by favorable committee votes and a successful third reading in the House. The House Land, Agriculture & Rural Affairs Committee advanced the bill 6-1, the Rules Committee approved it unanimously, and the House passed it 34-24, indicating majority support but not unanimity.
The main point of contention is the balance between restricting camping and preserving access to public lands versus protecting livestock and wildlife from being cut off from essential water. Supporters likely view the bill as a practical range-management and water-access protection measure, while opponents may be concerned about criminalizing camping in remote areas or about how broadly the access restriction could be applied in practice.
Impact
HB2135 amends A.R.S. § 17-308, Arizona’s unlawful camping statute, by adding a specific prohibition tied to proximity to water sources and interference with access by wildlife or domestic stock. The bill affects enforcement of camping restrictions on lands near natural water holes and watering facilities, and it may be used to support ranching, wildlife conservation, and land-management interests where water is scarce.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have received generally favorable treatment in the legislative process, with clear committee support and passage on the House floor. The vote pattern suggests broad agreement on the underlying goal of protecting access to water for livestock and wildlife, though the narrower House floor margin indicates some reservations among members.
Contention
The central disagreement is between those prioritizing protection of scarce water access for wildlife and domestic stock and those concerned about limiting camping access on public or rural lands. Critics may worry about enforcement, the scope of the one-fourth-mile restriction, and whether the statute could be applied too broadly, while supporters emphasize preventing campers from blocking the only reasonably available water at critical watering sites.