Key Points

• The Governor’s Regulatory Review Council says the Arizona State Land Department can ban powered paragliding on state trust land
• A local paraglider asked the council to review the ban and reverse it
• Some council members weren’t convinced that the powered paragliding ban is necessary

The Governor’s Regulatory Review Council says the Arizona State Land Department has the authority to prohibit powered paragliding on state trust land after a local paraglider complained to the council. 

Nate Smith asked GRRC in June to review the Land Department’s policies related to motorized vehicles on state trust land after being told by the department and law enforcement that he and his fellow paragliders could not fly their powered paragliders on the land. GRRC is responsible for reviewing state agency rules and policy statements to ensure they comply with state statutes. 

After several GRRC meetings and much debate, a majority of council members agreed it is within the Land Department’s statutory authority to prohibit powered paragliding. However, council members Frank Thorwald and Jenna Bentley were not entirely convinced that the rule is necessary.

“There is oversight authority here … but I’m not really sure this is satisfying any public health, safety and welfare requirement to strictly ban them,” said Bentley, who is also director of government affairs at the Goldwater Institute. 

Thorwald, a business and government relations consultant, said he hopes the Land Department will reconsider the prohibition on powered paragliding, but also agreed with the rest of the GRRC members that the department is not exceeding its statutory authority by banning the practice. 

The debate began in June when Smith filed a petition to the council asking it to review the Land Department’s practice of prohibiting powered paragliding. Anyone can petition GRRC to review an agency rule or policy statement to determine whether it was improperly adopted, unduly burdensome or unnecessary to “specifically fulfill a public health, safety or welfare concern.”

Bentley and Thorwald both voted that the Land Department’s rule is unduly burdensome and does not specifically fulfill a public health, safety or welfare concern. However, the rest of the members of the council voted to reject Smith’s petition entirely.

Smith argued that powered paragliders should not be regulated the same as other motorized vehicles on state trust land because they do not have the same impact as off-highway vehicles or motorcycles. He told council members during several meetings on the issue that powered paragliders do not disrupt the land around them during takeoff and landing, and even showed a video of himself and other paragliders to the council. 

The State Land Department disagreed. It oversees more than 9 million acres of state trust land — around 13% of the total land in Arizona — on behalf of 13 beneficiaries, including the state’s K-12 schools, universities and colleges, and some state buildings. 

The Land Department argued in its response that its duty is not to protect recreation on state land, but to safeguard state trust land and preserve its value for beneficiaries. 

Lawyers from the Attorney General’s Office who represented the Land Department said powered paragliders fit the statutory definition of a motorized vehicle, which is “any vehicle deriving motive power from any source other than muscle or wind.” 

Additionally, the Land Department noted that off-highway vehicles are specifically allowed in some regions of state trust land because the Legislature authorized them in 2008, whereas there is no specific authorization for powered paragliding. Those hoping to use powered paragliders on state trust land could apply for a special land use permit, but those permits are more expensive and issued at the discretion of the State Land commissioner. 

Bentley suggested that a legislative carve out similar to the one that allows off-highway vehicles on state trust land might be needed for powered paragliding. Smith, the paraglider, did not immediately respond to an interview request after GRRC’s Dec. 2 vote.