AgTech challenges Arizona’s handling of five Yuma County land leases

Company attorney argues the State Land Department failed to follow required procedures and wants the agency to clarify its September 10 actions.

AgTech is pushing back against Arizona’s handling of five state land leases in Yuma County, arguing that the State Land Department failed to follow required procedures before taking action against the company.

In a seven-page letter dated September 24, 2026, attorney Stuart S. Kimball challenged the department’s September 10 actions and asked State Land Commissioner Robyn Sahid to publicly clarify that no lease cancellation decisions had been made or authorized.

The letter, titled “Notice of Exercise of Right to Cure,” was published by KYMA. It lays out AgTech’s objections and says a separate administrative appeal is forthcoming.

But there is an important distinction in what the state actually announced.

Of the five leases involved, the department described one as being in default. The other four, it said, would not be renewed.

Those are two different actions, and the distinction could matter considerably when determining what protections the company is entitled to under Arizona law.

A dispute over the right to fix alleged violations

Kimball argues that the department moved ahead without following the required procedures for notifying a leaseholder of alleged violations and allowing time to correct them.

He cites Arizona Revised Statutes § 37-289, which governs lease cancellations for default, along with provisions of AgTech’s lease agreements.

The attorney also disputes several of the alleged defaults and points to an apparent problem with the timing of the department’s notices.

According to Kimball, the department issued a notice of default and right to cure for one lease on September 17, a week after sending its September 10 letters.

That sequence is central to AgTech’s argument. If the company was entitled to an opportunity to correct a default before cancellation, the timing and legal effect of those notices would matter.

But Arizona law also treats cancellation and nonrenewal separately.

Section 37-289 addresses cancellations for default, including notice and opportunities to correct violations. Section 37-291 addresses lease renewals.

Whether the same procedural protections apply to all five leases remains unresolved. The September 24 letter presents AgTech’s legal position, but it does not establish that the department violated the law.

The underlying lease agreements, official notices and related agency correspondence have not been independently reviewed.

What happens next?

Kimball’s letter makes clear that AgTech intends to contest the department’s actions. What it does not establish is whether the company has obtained any relief.

The copy published by KYMA does not confirm that the department received the letter or responded to it. Nor does it establish that the separate administrative appeal mentioned by Kimball had been filed.

As of September 29, the public records reviewed showed no acknowledgment from the State Land Department, no hearing, and no order staying or reversing its actions.

That does not mean the department rejected AgTech’s arguments. It means the available record does not establish what, if anything, the agency did in response.

For now, the dispute comes down to two questions: What legal action did Arizona actually take against each lease, and did the department follow the procedures required for that action?

AgTech has presented its side. The records reviewed through September 29 do not yet provide a definitive answer.