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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 45-204 (2026)

Prohibition on canal owner to contract to carry water in excess of capacity of canal

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

A person owning or controlling a canal, flume or other means for carrying water from a stream or water supply to lands for irrigation of the lands, shall not contract to carry more water than the canal, flume or other means is estimated to carry at any one time, whether the contract is made for measured time or acreage quantity. Such person shall keep the canal, flume or other means in good repair and condition so that it will carry the full amount of water contracted to be carried or delivered.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1974–1978 · leading case: Ramada Inns, Inc. v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n, 523 P.2d 496 (Ariz. 1974).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ramada Inns, Inc. v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n, 523 P.2d 496 (Ariz. 1974). · cites it 2× “§ 45-101), nor do we imply that the Water Users are relieved from the duty to maintain and repair the canal (A.R.S. §§ 45-204 and 45-205). Ramada urges that irrespective of the nature of the canal public policy suggests that a loss, when neither side is at fault, should be…”
Markiewicz v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n, 576 P.2d 517 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “The Association argues that Ramada Inns, supra, established that the Arizona Canal is not a flood control facility, and that the Association’s duty of care in the operation of the canal is limited to that imposed by A.R.S. §§ 45-204 and 45-205 (relating to the duty of…”
Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Giglio, 549 P.2d 162 (Ariz. 1976). · cites it 5× “A.R.S. §§ 45-204 and 45-205 articulate the duty of the Association to maintain and repair the canal.”
Markiewicz v. Salt River Valley, Etc., 576 P.2d 517 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “The Association argues that Ramada Inns, supra, established that the Arizona Canal is not a flood control facility, and that the Association's duty of care in the operation of the canal is limited to that imposed by A.R.S. §§ 45-204 and 45-205 (relating to the duty of…”
Salt River Valley Water Users'ass'n v. Giglio, 549 P.2d 162 (Ariz. 1976). · cites it 5× “A.R.S. §§ 45-204 and 45-205 articulate the duty of the Association to maintain and repair the canal.”
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.