Environment; constitutional amendment
SCR 1017 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would add a new section to Article II of the Arizona Constitution establishing a right to a clean and healthy environment. The measure states that each person, including future generations, has a right to pure water, clean air, healthy ecosystems, a stable climate, and the preservation of natural, cultural, scenic, and healthful environmental qualities.
The resolution also declares Arizona’s public natural resources — including water, air, flora, fauna, and climate — to be the common property of all people, present and future, and requires the state and its political subdivisions to act as trustees of those resources. Under the proposal, the state must conserve, protect, and maintain these resources for the benefit of all people. The amendment would be self-executing and would prohibit the state from infringing on the rights it creates, if approved by voters and proclaimed by the governor.
If adopted, SCR 1017 would directly amend the Arizona Constitution and create an enforceable, self-executing environmental rights provision. It would expand the constitutional framework governing state and local actions affecting water, air, ecosystems, and climate, and could influence future legislation, agency decisions, permitting, and litigation involving environmental protection and natural resource management. The measure would also impose trustee-style duties on the state and its political subdivisions to conserve and protect public natural resources for current and future generations.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee discussion or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be framed as a broad pro-environment constitutional protection proposal rather than a narrowly technical change. Its sponsors suggest support for recognizing environmental quality as a fundamental right, but no recorded vote history or transcript is available here to show broader legislative sentiment. The available context therefore indicates a proposal likely supported by environmental advocates and framed around long-term stewardship, with no documented opposition in the supplied record.
The main points of contention likely concern the breadth and legal effect of creating a constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment. Potential critics may question how terms such as “stable climate,” “healthy ecosystems,” and “preservation of natural, cultural, scenic and healthful qualities” would be interpreted, and whether the amendment could expand litigation or constrain state and local regulatory discretion. Supporters would likely emphasize intergenerational rights, public trust principles, and stronger environmental protections. No specific objections or debate were included in the provided committee materials.