Residents Fight Back as Water Bills Nearly Double in Arizona Retirement Community

Residents of an Arizona retirement community are facing water and sewer bills nearly twice as high as before, and now the state’s attorney general is challenging the increases in court.

At Robson Ranch, a retirement community near Eloy, the estimated combined monthly bill for a typical residential customer rose from $72.01 to $143.59 after the Arizona Corporation Commission approved new rates in March.

Attorney General Kris Mayes is now challenging that decision, arguing that regulators approved the increases without examining important details about the utilities’ recent sale.

Residents Challenge Rising Utility Bills

Embedded media follows. Please allow a moment for it to load.

The dispute centers on Picacho Water and Picacho Sewer, the two utilities serving Robson Ranch. Both were previously owned by The Robson Companies, the developer behind the retirement community, which had gone more than 26 years without requesting rate increases.

In November 2024, JW Water Holdings purchased Picacho Water and Picacho Sewer, along with six other utilities owned by The Robson Companies. Just four months later, the new owner applied for substantial rate increases.

Two Picacho Utilities customers, Raul Salmon and Scott McBeth, intervened in the proceedings and sought documents detailing the purchase, including the price paid. According to the state’s appellate brief, an administrative law judge ruled that the purchase information was irrelevant and barred questions about it during the hearing.

The commission ultimately approved the increases in a 3-2 vote.

The changes were especially steep for sewer service. The estimated monthly water bill rose from $30.01 to $36.86, while sewer charges jumped from $42 to $106.73.

Attorney General Wants Another Review

In an Oct. 6 announcement, Mayes argued that regulators should have examined the complete purchase transaction before approving the increases.

Her office raises the possibility that residents could be paying twice for infrastructure originally funded by the developer: once through home purchases and again through utility rates. That concern remains an argument requiring further examination, not an established finding.

After the rate decision, Commission Chairman Nick Myers subpoenaed records related to the utilities’ sale. He subsequently confirmed that the purchase price exceeded the utilities’ assessed rate bases and had not been included in the approved rates. Mayes argues that examining the purchase price alone was insufficient to assess the fairness of the increases.

In its March announcement, the Arizona Corporation Commission defended the increases as necessary to cover the cost of providing reliable water and sewer service. Regulators noted that the previous owners had never requested a rate increase since the utilities were established in the late 1990s.

Mayes is asking the Arizona Court of Appeals to return the case to the commission for further proceedings examining the full transaction and determining whether the rates should be adjusted.

For now, the approved increases remain the subject of the legal challenge.