Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 36
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-601 (2026)

Public nuisances dangerous to public health

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. The following conditions are specifically declared public nuisances dangerous to the public health:

1. Any condition or place in populous areas that constitutes a breeding place for flies, rodents, mosquitoes and other insects that are capable of carrying and transmitting disease-causing organisms to any person or persons or any condition or place that constitutes a feral colony of honeybees that is not currently maintained by a beekeeper and that poses a health or safety hazard to the public.

2. Any spoiled or contaminated food or drink intended for human consumption.

3. Any restaurant, food market, bakery or other place of business or any vehicle where food is prepared, packed, processed, stored, transported, sold or served to the public that is not constantly maintained in a sanitary condition.

4. Any place, condition or building that is controlled or operated by any governmental agency and that is not maintained in a sanitary condition.

5. All sewage, human excreta, wastewater, garbage or other organic wastes deposited, stored, discharged or exposed so as to be a potential instrument or medium in the transmission of disease to or between any person or persons.

6. Any vehicle or container that is used in the transportation of garbage, human excreta or other organic material and that is defective and allows leakage or spillage of contents.

7. The presence of ectoparasites such as bedbugs, lice, mites and others in any place where sleeping accommodations are offered to the public.

8. The maintenance of any overflowing septic tank or cesspool, the contents of which may be accessible to flies.

9. The pollution or contamination of any domestic waters.

10. The use of the so-called common drinking cup used for drinking purposes by more than one person.  This paragraph does not apply to receptacles properly washed and sanitized after each service.

11. The presence of common towels for use of the public in any public or semipublic place unless properly washed and sanitized following each use.

12. Buildings or any parts of buildings that are in a filthy condition and that may endanger the health of persons living in the vicinity.

13. Spitting or urinating on sidewalks, or floors or walls of a public building or buildings used for public assemblage, or a building used for manufacturing or industrial purposes, or on the floors or platforms or any part of a railroad or other public conveyance.

14. The use of the contents of privies, cesspools or septic tanks or the use of sewage or sewage plant effluents for fertilizing or irrigation purposes for crops or gardens except by specific approval of the department of health services or the department of environmental quality.

15. The maintenance of public assemblage or places of assemblage without providing adequate sanitary facilities.  Open surface privies are adequate sanitary facilities if they are outside populous areas and meet reasonable health requirements.

16. Hotels, tourist courts and other lodging establishments that are not kept in a clean and sanitary condition or for which suitable and adequate toilet facilities are not provided.

17. The storage, collection, transportation, disposal and reclamation of garbage, trash, rubbish, manure and other objectionable wastes other than as provided and authorized by law.

18. Water, other than that used by irrigation, industrial or similar systems for nonpotable purposes, that is sold to the public, distributed to the public or used in production, processing, storing, handling, servicing or transportation of food and drink and that is unwholesome, poisonous or contains deleterious or foreign substances or filth or disease causing substances or organisms.

19. The emission of mercaptan in a concentration level that causes endangerment to the health or safety of any considerable number of persons of a neighborhood or community.

20. The operation of an environmental laboratory in violation of chapter 4.3, article 1 of this title.

B. If the director has reasonable cause to believe from information furnished to the director or from investigation made by the director that any person is maintaining a nuisance or engaging in any practice contrary to the health laws of this state, the director shall promptly serve on that person by certified mail a cease and desist order requiring the person, on receipt of the order, promptly to cease and desist from that act. Within fifteen days after receipt of the order, the person to whom it is directed may request the director to hold a hearing. The director, as soon as practicable, shall hold a hearing, and if the director determines the order is reasonable and just and that the practice engaged in is contrary to the health laws of this state, the director shall order the person to comply with the cease and desist order.

C. If a person fails or refuses to comply with the order of the director, or if a person to whom the order is directed does not request a hearing and fails or refuses to comply with the cease and desist order served by mail under subsection B, the director may file an action in the superior court in the county in which a violation occurred, restraining and enjoining the person from engaging in further acts. The court shall proceed as in other actions for injunctions.

D. Notwithstanding subsection A, paragraph 19, the emission of mercaptan as a by-product of a pesticide is not a nuisance if applied according to state and federal restrictions.

E. Notwithstanding subsection A, paragraph 3, a restaurant that uses sawdust on the floors of its dining areas is not in violation of this section or local health department sanitary rules if the restaurant replaces the sawdust each day with clean sawdust and complies with applicable standards for fire safety.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Dandoy v. City of Phoenix, 651 P.2d 862 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Dandoy v. City of Phoenix, 651 P.2d 862 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 23× “The City further recognizes that the conditions specified to be public nuisances under A.R.S. § 36-601(A) may be abated by the Department through the issuance of cease-and-desist orders, and that such a cease-and-desist order may ultimately be enforced by superior court…”
City of Tucson v. Grezaffi, 23 P.3d 675 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “, A.R.S. §§ 36-601 (declaration of various “public nuisances dangerous to the public health”); 36-601.”
In Re Mh2015-003266, 382 P.3d 72 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “¶ 9 Regarding the second requirement, until mid-2012, the statute required that both physicians conduct a complete in-person physical examination assessing the patient’s overall medical health, See A.R.S. § 36-601(14) (2012); Pinal Cnty. Mental Health No.”
Spur Indus., Inc. v. Del E. Webb Dev. Co., 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972). · cites it 2× “§ 36-601, subsec. A reads as follows: “§ 36-601.”
Arizona Water Co. v. City of Bisbee, 836 P.2d 389 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “Effluent cannot be used for fertilization or irrigation without the specific approval of the department of health services or the department of environmental quality; without that approval, it constitutes a public and environmental nuisance.”
Spur Feeding Co. v. Superior Court of Maricopa Cty., 505 P.2d 1377 (Ariz. 1973). · cites it 2× “The public health code § 36-601 et seq., provides that local health units should abate nuisances which are a source of filth or a cause of sickness.”
Allison Bradford; Michael Carlson & Adrian Wurr v. City of Tucson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 3× “” A.R.S. § 36-601(A)(4). Additionally, “[a]ll sewage, human excreta, wastewater, [and] garbage .”
Arizona Recovery Hous. Ass'n v. Arizona Dep't of Health Servs. (D. Ariz. 2020). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 36-601(B). Under the statute, 19 then, when DHS serves a cease and desist order, that action merely triggers the beginning 20 of a process that allows the party to make their case as to why it should not be fined, a 21 process that culminates in the Director…”
Brown v. Phoenix (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “” See A.R.S. § 36-601(A)(1), (2), (5), (9); see also A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-601(14) — 1 case
In Re Mh2015-003266, 382 P.3d 72 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “¶ 9 Regarding the second requirement, until mid-2012, the statute required that both physicians conduct a complete in-person physical examination assessing the patient’s overall medical health, See A.R.S. § 36-601(14) (2012); Pinal Cnty. Mental Health No.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-601(A) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Dandoy v. City of Phoenix, 651 P.2d 862 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). “The City further recognizes that the conditions specified to be public nuisances under A.R.S. § 36-601(A) may be abated by the Department through the issuance of cease-and-desist orders, and that such a cease-and-desist order may ultimately be enforced by superior court…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-601(A)(1) — 1 case
Brown v. Phoenix (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). “” See A.R.S. § 36-601(A)(1), (2), (5), (9); see also A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-601(A)(14) — 1 case
Arizona Water Co. v. City of Bisbee, 836 P.2d 389 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “Effluent cannot be used for fertilization or irrigation without the specific approval of the department of health services or the department of environmental quality; without that approval, it constitutes a public and environmental nuisance.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-601(A)(17) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Dandoy v. City of Phoenix, 651 P.2d 862 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). “The City further recognizes that the conditions specified to be public nuisances under A.R.S. § 36-601(A) may be abated by the Department through the issuance of cease-and-desist orders, and that such a cease-and-desist order may ultimately be enforced by superior court…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-601(A)(4) — 2 cases
State Ex Rel. Dandoy v. City of Phoenix, 651 P.2d 862 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). “The City further recognizes that the conditions specified to be public nuisances under A.R.S. § 36-601(A) may be abated by the Department through the issuance of cease-and-desist orders, and that such a cease-and-desist order may ultimately be enforced by superior court…”
Allison Bradford; Michael Carlson & Adrian Wurr v. City of Tucson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). “” A.R.S. § 36-601(A)(4). Additionally, “[a]ll sewage, human excreta, wastewater, [and] garbage .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-601(A)(5) — 1 case
Allison Bradford; Michael Carlson & Adrian Wurr v. City of Tucson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). “” A.R.S. § 36-601(A)(4). Additionally, “[a]ll sewage, human excreta, wastewater, [and] garbage .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-601(B) — 2 cases
State Ex Rel. Dandoy v. City of Phoenix, 651 P.2d 862 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). “The City further recognizes that the conditions specified to be public nuisances under A.R.S. § 36-601(A) may be abated by the Department through the issuance of cease-and-desist orders, and that such a cease-and-desist order may ultimately be enforced by superior court…”
Arizona Recovery Hous. Ass'n v. Arizona Dep't of Health Servs. (D. Ariz. 2020). “” A.R.S. § 36-601(B). Under the statute, 19 then, when DHS serves a cease and desist order, that action merely triggers the beginning 20 of a process that allows the party to make their case as to why it should not be fined, a 21 process that culminates in the Director…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-601(C) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Dandoy v. City of Phoenix, 651 P.2d 862 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). “The City further recognizes that the conditions specified to be public nuisances under A.R.S. § 36-601(A) may be abated by the Department through the issuance of cease-and-desist orders, and that such a cease-and-desist order may ultimately be enforced by superior court…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.