Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 37
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 37-1101 (2026)

Definitions

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

In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:

1. "Arizona navigable stream adjudication commission" or "commission" means the Arizona navigable stream adjudication commission established by section 37-1121.

2. "Bed" means the land lying between the ordinary high watermarks of a watercourse.

3. "Highway for commerce" means a corridor or conduit within which the exchange of goods, commodities or property or the transportation of persons may be conducted.

4. "Man-made water conveyance system" means:

(a) An irrigation or drainage canal, lateral canal, ditch or flume.

(b) A municipal, industrial, domestic, irrigation or drainage water system, including dams, reservoirs and diversion facilities.

(c) A channel or dike that is designed, dedicated and constructed solely for flood control purposes.

(d) A hydropower inlet and discharge facility.

(e) A canal, lateral canal, ditch or channel for transporting central Arizona project water.

5. "Navigable" or "navigable watercourse" means a watercourse that was in existence on February 14, 1912, and at that time was used or was susceptible to being used, in its ordinary and natural condition, as a highway for commerce, over which trade and travel were or could have been conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water.

6.  "Ordinary high watermark" means the line on the banks of a watercourse established by fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics, such as a clear natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation or the presence of litter and debris, or by other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. Ordinary high watermark does not mean the line reached by unusual floods.

7. "Public entity" means the United States and its agents, this state, a county, city or town, a county flood control district or any other entity established under title 48.

8. "Public trust land" means the portion of the bed of a watercourse that is located in this state and that is determined to have been a navigable watercourse as of February 14, 1912. Public trust land does not include land held by this state pursuant to any other trust.

9. "Public trust purposes" or "public trust values" means commerce, navigation and fishing.

10. "Riparian area" means a geographically delineated area with distinct resource values, that is characterized by deep-rooted plant species that depend on having roots in the water table or its capillary zone and that occurs within or adjacent to a natural perennial or intermittent stream channel or within or adjacent to a lake, pond or marsh bed maintained primarily by natural water sources. Riparian area does not include areas in or adjacent to ephemeral stream channels, artificially created stockponds, man-made storage reservoirs constructed primarily for conservation or regulatory storage, municipal and industrial ponds or man-made water or effluent transportation, distribution, off-stream storage and collection systems.

11. "Watercourse" means the main body or a portion or reach of any lake, river, creek, stream, wash, arroyo, channel or other body of water. Watercourse does not include a man-made water conveyance system described in paragraph 4 of this section, except to the extent that the system encompasses lands that were part of a natural watercourse as of February 14, 1912.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2023 · leading case: State v. Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Comm'n, 229 P.3d 242 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Comm'n, 229 P.3d 242 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 10× “This court found that, although then-subsection (6) of A.R.S. § 37-1101 correctly paraphrased the Daniel Ball test, the additional requirements that the statutes imposed were invalid.”
Defenders of Wildlife v. Hull, 18 P.3d 722 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “A.R.S. § 37-1101(2), (7). In contrast, The Submerged Lands Act of 1953, 43 U.”
Arizona Ctr. for Law in the Pub. Interest v. Hassell, 837 P.2d 158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “2017) (codified at Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 37-1101 to 37-1108, 12-510, and 12-529 (Supp.”
Calmat of Arizona v. STATE EX REL., MILLER, 836 P.2d 1010 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “2017) (codified at A.R.S. §§ 37-1101 to 37-1108, 12-510, and 12-529 (Supp.”
Tucson Unified Sch. Dist. v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 849 P.2d 790 (Ariz. 1993). “Section 12-529 states: *338 Any action brought by this state or any person claiming through this state for lands, or for the rents or profits from lands, based on a claim of navigability of any watercourse, as defined in §37-1101, except the Colorado river, is subject to all…”
Dow v. Az Nsac (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 37-1101(3) (emphasis added). Arizona cannot enlarge the federal navigability-for-title test by using noncommercial travel to establish navigability because doing 14 DOW, et al.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 37-1101(2) — 1 case
Defenders of Wildlife v. Hull, 18 P.3d 722 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “A.R.S. § 37-1101(2), (7). In contrast, The Submerged Lands Act of 1953, 43 U.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 37-1101(3) — 1 case
Dow v. Az Nsac (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “” A.R.S. § 37-1101(3) (emphasis added). Arizona cannot enlarge the federal navigability-for-title test by using noncommercial travel to establish navigability because doing 14 DOW, et al.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 37-1101(5) — 1 case
State v. Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Comm'n, 229 P.3d 242 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “This court found that, although then-subsection (6) of A.R.S. § 37-1101 correctly paraphrased the Daniel Ball test, the additional requirements that the statutes imposed were invalid.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 37-1101(6) — 2 cases
State v. Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Comm'n, 229 P.3d 242 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “This court found that, although then-subsection (6) of A.R.S. § 37-1101 correctly paraphrased the Daniel Ball test, the additional requirements that the statutes imposed were invalid.”
Defenders of Wildlife v. Hull, 18 P.3d 722 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “A.R.S. § 37-1101(2), (7). In contrast, The Submerged Lands Act of 1953, 43 U.”
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.