Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 45
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 45-189 (2026)

Reversion of rights due to nonuse; notice; hearing; order; exception

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

A. When it appears to the director that a person entitled to the use of water has not beneficially used all or a portion of the water right for a period of five or more consecutive years, and it appears that the right has or may have reverted to the state because of such nonuse, as provided by section 45-141 and section 45-188, subsection A, the director shall notify such person to show cause at an administrative hearing why the right or portion of the right should not be declared relinquished.

B. The notice shall contain:

1. The time and place of the hearing.

2. A description of the water right, including the approximate location of the point of diversion, the general description of the lands or places where such waters were used, the water source, the amount involved, the purpose of use, the apparent authority on which the right is based and the factual basis for the notice to show cause.

3. A statement that unless sufficient cause is shown the water right will be declared relinquished.

C. The notice shall be served at least thirty days before the hearing.

D. The director shall make an order determining whether such water right has been relinquished and give notice to each party of the order by serving such persons at their last known addresses.

E. For the purposes of this section, section 45-141, subsection C and section 45-188, subsection A, the following reasons shall be sufficient cause for nonuse:

1. Drought, or other unavailability of water.

2. Active service in the armed forces of the United States during military crisis.

3. Nonvoluntary service in the armed forces of the United States.

4. The operation of legal proceedings.

5. Federal, state or local laws imposing land or water use restrictions, or acreage limitations, or production quotas.

6. Compliance with an applicable conservation requirement established by the director pursuant to chapter 2, article 9 of this title.

7. Conservation of water pursuant to a water conservation plan notice filed with the director as prescribed by section 45-189.01.

8. With respect to a water right appropriated for an irrigation use, either of the following:

(a) Pendency of a proceeding before a court or the director to change the permitted use from irrigation to municipal or other uses pursuant to a court decree or section 45-156 or to sever the right from the land to which it is appurtenant and transfer it for municipal use pursuant to section 45-172.

(b) After a change in the permitted use from irrigation to municipal pursuant to a court decree or section 45-156 or 45-172, insufficient demand for the water by the municipal users.

9. Any other reason that a court of competent jurisdiction deems would warrant nonuse.

F. Section 45-114, subsections A and B govern administrative proceedings, rehearing or review and judicial review of final decisions of the director under this section.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2023 · leading case: San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court, 972 P.2d 179 (Ariz. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court, 972 P.2d 179 (Ariz. 1999). · cites it 4× “Section 45-189, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: U5-189.”
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, 118 P.3d 1110 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 45-189(A). Failure to use a permitted instream flow right during the statutory period may result in a finding of abandonment or forfeiture as it would any other water right in Arizona.”
Gila River Indian Cmty. v. 99 Ranch LLC (D. Ariz. 2023). · cites it 21× “22 As noted, the parties do not dispute they have “fail[ed] to use the water for five 23 successive years,” § 45-141(C), and they agree the Defendants are not at fault for the 24 conditions that led to their parcels being unsuitable for cultivation.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 45-189(A) — 1 case
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, 118 P.3d 1110 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “” A.R.S. § 45-189(A). Failure to use a permitted instream flow right during the statutory period may result in a finding of abandonment or forfeiture as it would any other water right in Arizona.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 45-189(E) — 2 cases
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court, 972 P.2d 179 (Ariz. 1999). “Section 45-189, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: U5-189.”
Gila River Indian Cmty. v. 99 Ranch LLC (D. Ariz. 2023). “22 As noted, the parties do not dispute they have “fail[ed] to use the water for five 23 successive years,” § 45-141(C), and they agree the Defendants are not at fault for the 24 conditions that led to their parcels being unsuitable for cultivation.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 45-189(E)(2) — 1 case
Gila River Indian Cmty. v. 99 Ranch LLC (D. Ariz. 2023). “22 As noted, the parties do not dispute they have “fail[ed] to use the water for five 23 successive years,” § 45-141(C), and they agree the Defendants are not at fault for the 24 conditions that led to their parcels being unsuitable for cultivation.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 45-189(E)(8) — 2 cases
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court, 972 P.2d 179 (Ariz. 1999). “Section 45-189, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: U5-189.”
Gila River Indian Cmty. v. 99 Ranch LLC (D. Ariz. 2023). “22 As noted, the parties do not dispute they have “fail[ed] to use the water for five 23 successive years,” § 45-141(C), and they agree the Defendants are not at fault for the 24 conditions that led to their parcels being unsuitable for cultivation.”
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.