Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 45-173 (2026)

Use of natural waterway to carry water of another or for other water projects; dispute over division of waters

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Although the waters which naturally flow in the natural channel of a stream have been previously appropriated and put to beneficial use by others, the channel may be used to carry water of another or used for the location of an underground storage facility pursuant to chapter 3.1 of this title, if such use can be made without diminishing the quantity of water which naturally flows therein the use of which has been appropriated.

B. When the parties interested cannot agree upon the division of the water turned into the natural channel from the water naturally flowing therein, or if it is difficult to ascertain the amount to which each party is entitled, the water superintendent of the district shall make the division.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2001–2009 · leading case: West Maricopa Combine, Inc. v. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, 26 P.3d 1171 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

West Maricopa Combine, Inc. v. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, 26 P.3d 1171 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 61× “Based on Arizona’s longstanding policy encouraging the full use of scarce water resources and the plain language of A.R.S. § 45-173, we reverse. We hold that the consent of streambed owners is not required before WMC may make beneficial use of an existing natural watercourse to…”

South West Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Cent. Arizona Water Conservation Dist., 212 P.3d 1 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 13× “We previously concluded that this argument did not comport with A.R.S. § 45-173, which “indicates a specific contemplation of the addition of water that is not ‘natural’ to the waterway,” or with Arizona’s policy of maximizing beneficial use of a scarce resource.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 45-173(A) — 2 cases

West Maricopa Combine, Inc. v. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, 26 P.3d 1171 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “Based on Arizona’s longstanding policy encouraging the full use of scarce water resources and the plain language of A.R.S. § 45-173, we reverse. We hold that the consent of streambed owners is not required before WMC may make beneficial use of an existing natural watercourse to…”

South West Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Cent. Arizona Water Conservation Dist., 212 P.3d 1 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “We previously concluded that this argument did not comport with A.R.S. § 45-173, which “indicates a specific contemplation of the addition of water that is not ‘natural’ to the waterway,” or with Arizona’s policy of maximizing beneficial use of a scarce resource.”

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.