Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 37-281 (2026)

Lease of state lands for certain purposes without advertising; terms and conditions

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

A. All state lands are subject to lease as provided in this article for a term of not more than ten years for agricultural, commercial and homesite purposes, without advertising. The leases shall be granted according to the constitution, the law and the rules of the state land department.

B. No lease shall be granted as provided by this section without application. All applications for leases shall be made upon forms prepared and furnished by the department, shall be signed and sworn to by the applicant or his authorized agent or attorney and shall be filed with the department. In lieu of signing and swearing to the application before a notary public or other person authorized to take acknowledgments, the applicant may affix his signature to the application, accompanied by a certification, under penalty of perjury, that the information and statements made in the application are to the best of his knowledge and belief true, correct and complete, and the application shall be accepted as duly executed.

C. Any material false statement or concealment of facts made by an applicant, his authorized agent or his attorney in the application to lease, which, if known to the department, would have prevented issuance of the lease in the form or to the person issued, shall be grounds for cancellation of a lease issued upon such application.

D. No lessee shall use lands leased to him except for the purpose for which the lands are leased.

E. No lessee shall sublease lands leased to him without written permission of the state land department.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1963–2013 · leading case: Guardians v. Wells, 34 P.3d 364 (Ariz. 2001).
Guardians v. Wells, 34 P.3d 364 (Ariz. 2001). · cites it 7× “X, §§ 1-11; A.R.S. §§ 37-281, 37-281.01. Insofar as constitutional principle is involved, we decide this case solely by application of the state constitution, which, we believe, may establish even more stringent fiduciary requirements than those demanded by the minimum…”
Havasu Heights Ranch & Dev. Corp. v. Desert Valley Wood Prods., Inc., 807 P.2d 1119 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4× “Section 28 of the Enabling Act, 3 Article 10, § 3 of the Arizona Constitution 4 , and A.R.S. § 37-281(A) 5 prohibit an agreement to lease beyond ten years, with exceptions not applicable here.”
Forest Guardians v. Wells, 4 P.3d 1054 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 6× “A.R.S. § 37-281(D). Pursuant to A.A.C. R12-5-502: All state lands .”
Havasu Heights Ranch & Dev. Corp. v. State Land Dep't, 764 P.2d 37 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “It further asserts that the “use” referred to in A.R.S. §§ 37-281 et seq. means actual physical use of the land.”
Cracchiolo v. State, 706 P.2d 1219 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “The provisions of A.R.S. § 37-281(D) restrict ..the permissible uses of state leased land to those uses for which it was leased, i.”
State v. Jones, 385 P.2d 213 (Ariz. 1963). · cites it 2× “) Appellant contends the “preferred right” granted by this section is the same right granted by A.R.S. § 37-281 et seq., providing for the leasing of state land for agricultural, grazing and other purposes.”
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa Cnty., 244 P.3d 592 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “03(A) (2003) requires written authorization from the SLD before a lessee may remove any improvement.”
Columbia Inv. Co. v. M. M. Sundt Constr. Co., 400 P.2d 132 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1965). · cites it 8× “The trial court further determined that a lessee under a commercial lease issued by the State Land Department in pursuance of A.R.S. § 37-281 et seq., as to the same land as leased by the mineral lease had the exclusive right as opposed to the mineral lessee to construct…”
Arizona Bd. of Regents v. Main Street Mesa Assocs., 891 P.2d 889 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “following issues: I) whether the trial court erred in finding MSMA’s bid contained material deviations from the terms in the legal notice, and II) whether ABOR is estopped to deny a bid that meets the minimum terms in the legal notice.”
Wildearth Guardians, Inc. v. Hickman, 308 P.3d 1201 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “10, §§ 1-11; AR.S. §§ 37-281, - 281.01). Additionally, the Enabling Act provides specifically that “[njothing herein contained shall prevent: (1) the leasing of any of the lands referred to in this section, in such manner as the legislature of the state of Arizona may prescribe,…”
State Land Dep't v. Painted Desert Park, Inc., 416 P.2d 989 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1966). · cites it 2× “, empowers the State Land Department to lease public lands for agricultural, grazing, commercial and homesite purposes for limited periods and subject to the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona and the rules and regulations of the State Land Department (A.R.S. §…”
Smith v. Lassen, 424 P.2d 856 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967). · cites it 2× “Lassen, State Land Commissioner, in a motion for rehearing, has called our attention to A.R.S. § 37-281, subsec. C, adopted by Chapter 89, Laws of 1941, which the Commissioner contends changes the rule of State ex rel.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 37-281(A) — 1 case
Havasu Heights Ranch & Dev. Corp. v. Desert Valley Wood Prods., Inc., 807 P.2d 1119 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). “Section 28 of the Enabling Act, 3 Article 10, § 3 of the Arizona Constitution 4 , and A.R.S. § 37-281(A) 5 prohibit an agreement to lease beyond ten years, with exceptions not applicable here.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 37-281(D) — 4 cases
Forest Guardians v. Wells, 4 P.3d 1054 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). “A.R.S. § 37-281(D). Pursuant to A.A.C. R12-5-502: All state lands .”
Guardians v. Wells, 34 P.3d 364 (Ariz. 2001). “X, §§ 1-11; A.R.S. §§ 37-281, 37-281.01. Insofar as constitutional principle is involved, we decide this case solely by application of the state constitution, which, we believe, may establish even more stringent fiduciary requirements than those demanded by the minimum…”
Cracchiolo v. State, 706 P.2d 1219 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). “The provisions of A.R.S. § 37-281(D) restrict ..the permissible uses of state leased land to those uses for which it was leased, i.”
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa Cnty., 244 P.3d 592 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “03(A) (2003) requires written authorization from the SLD before a lessee may remove any improvement.”
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.