A. One or more water users on a river system and source, the water rights of which have not been previously adjudicated under this article and administered by the director of water resources, or this state on the request of any state agency other than the department of water resources may file a petition to have determined in a general adjudication the nature, extent and relative priority of the water rights of all persons in the river system and source.
B. The attorney general shall represent this state in connection with all water claims asserted by this state. The director shall be represented by legal counsel retained in accordance with section 45-104, subsection F.
C. The general adjudication shall be brought and maintained in the superior court in the county in which the largest number of potential claimants resides. The clerk of the court in which the petition is filed shall notify the supreme court, and the supreme court shall assign the general adjudication to a superior court judge and appoint a master and shall consolidate the general adjudication with other pending general adjudications, if appropriate.
D. The supreme court may appoint additional paralegals and law clerks for the general adjudication. Notwithstanding section 12-128, the superior court judge, master, paralegal and law clerk positions prescribed in this subsection and subsection C of this section shall be fully funded by this state.
E. The petition for a general adjudication shall be captioned: "In re the general adjudication of all rights to use water in the ____________ river system and source" and shall request that the court determine the nature, extent and relative priority of the water rights of all persons in the river system and source.
Notes of Decisions
Gabel v. Tatum, 707 P.2d 325 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 9× “Two issues presented on appeal are: (1) whether the Gila County Superior Court has jurisdiction of a case in equity and at law to resolve a controversy among owners of real property in Gila County involving water and ditch rights in consideration of A.R.S. § 45-252, which…”
Pugh v. Cook, 735 P.2d 856 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “1985), we held that a pending action to adjudicate water rights under A.R.S. § 45-252 precluded another court from determination of those rights.”
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Bolton, 977 P.2d 790 (Ariz. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Judge Bolton has acknowledged that ex parte communications took place, but has expressed the view that she is “permitted to consult with the DWR on technical issues and that such consultation can be ex parte.”
Silver v. Pueblo Del Sol Water Co., 384 P.3d 814 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“Section 45-252(A) reads: One or more water users upon a river system and source, the water rights of which have not been previously adjudicated under this article and administered by the director of water resources, or the state of Arizona upon the request of any state agency…”
United States v. Verde Ditch (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 12× “; A.R.S. § 45-252. The Gila Adjudication includes the Salt, Gila, San Pedro, and Verde River watersheds, which include most of southeastern and central Arizona.”
Havasupai Tribe v. Anasazi Water Co., 321 F.R.D. 351 (D. Ariz. 2017).
· cites it 2× “The Availability of an Alternate Forum The fourth factor also weighs in favor of dismissal because there appears to be an alternative forum for the Havasupai to bring this claim, although it is not the Tribe’s preferred forum. Arizona permits water users to “file a petition to…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 45-252(A) — 8 cases
Gabel v. Tatum, 707 P.2d 325 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“Two issues presented on appeal are: (1) whether the Gila County Superior Court has jurisdiction of a case in equity and at law to resolve a controversy among owners of real property in Gila County involving water and ditch rights in consideration of A.R.S. § 45-252, which…”
Silver v. Pueblo Del Sol Water Co., 384 P.3d 814 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“Section 45-252(A) reads: One or more water users upon a river system and source, the water rights of which have not been previously adjudicated under this article and administered by the director of water resources, or the state of Arizona upon the request of any state agency…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 45-252(B) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 45-252(C) — 3 cases
Gabel v. Tatum, 707 P.2d 325 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“Two issues presented on appeal are: (1) whether the Gila County Superior Court has jurisdiction of a case in equity and at law to resolve a controversy among owners of real property in Gila County involving water and ditch rights in consideration of A.R.S. § 45-252, which…”
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Bolton, 977 P.2d 790 (Ariz. 1999).
“Judge Bolton has acknowledged that ex parte communications took place, but has expressed the view that she is “permitted to consult with the DWR on technical issues and that such consultation can be ex parte.”
United States v. Verde Ditch (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
“; A.R.S. § 45-252. The Gila Adjudication includes the Salt, Gila, San Pedro, and Verde River watersheds, which include most of southeastern and central Arizona.”
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.