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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 45-401 (2026)

Declaration of policy

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

A. The legislature finds that the people of Arizona are dependent in whole or in part upon groundwater basins for their water supply and that in many basins and sub-basins withdrawal of groundwater is greatly in excess of the safe annual yield and that this is threatening to destroy the economy of certain areas of this state and is threatening to do substantial injury to the general economy and welfare of this state and its citizens. The legislature further finds that it is in the best interest of the general economy and welfare of this state and its citizens that the legislature evoke its police power to prescribe which uses of groundwater are most beneficial and economically effective.

B. It is therefore declared to be the public policy of this state that in the interest of protecting and stabilizing the general economy and welfare of this state and its citizens it is necessary to conserve, protect and allocate the use of groundwater resources of the state and to provide a framework for the comprehensive management and regulation of the withdrawal, transportation, use, conservation and conveyance of rights to use the groundwater in this state.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, 73 P.3d 1267 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, 73 P.3d 1267 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 22× “") §§ 45-401 to 45-724 (2003). According to appellants, the Department and its Director, the plan did not need to include conservation measures specifically applicable to "end users" of groundwater, a term that the parties use to describe the customers of municipal and private…”
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, 91 P.3d 990 (Ariz. 2004). · cites it 5× “”) §§ 45-401 to -704 (2003 & Supp. 2003), was originally enacted as part of the Groundwater Management Act of 1980, 1980 Ariz.”
United States v. Super. Ct. in & for Maricopa Cty., 697 P.2d 658 (Ariz. 1985). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 45-401 to 45-637. Since the amount of surface water available is insufficient to satisfy all needs, and since Arizona follows the doctrine of prior appropriation (Bristor v.”
Town of Chino Valley v. City of Prescott, 638 P.2d 1324 (Ariz. 1981). · cites it 2× “2 of the 1980 Act, A.R.S. § 45-401, declared: “A. The legislature finds that the people of Arizona are dependent in whole or in part upon groundwater basins for their water supply and that in many basins and sub-basins withdrawal of groundwater is greatly in excess of the safe…”
City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley, 790 P.2d 263 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “PREEMPTION Prescott contends that Chino Valley’s tax upon the operation of a water pipeline is preempted by the Groundwater Management Act, A.R.S. § 45-401 et seq. More specifically, Prescott contends that those provisions of the Groundwater Management Act that expressly…”
Strawberry Water Co. v. Paulsen, 207 P.3d 654 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “A landowner may withdraw groundwater sub-jacent to his land subject to restrictions imposed by the GMA and the Groundwater Code, A.R.S. §§ 45-401 to -704. Strawberry's service area falls outside of any Active Management Area, and thus the only restrictions applicable to its use…”
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Scottsdale, 930 P.2d 993 (Ariz. 1997). · cites it 2× “Because Scottsdale has a contract to receive surface water from the Central Arizona Project (CAP), it is statutorily deemed to have an assured water supply; however, by the year 2001 the city must demonstrate to the state director of water resources that in fact it has…”
Davis v. Agua Sierra Resources, L.L.C., 203 P.3d 506 (Ariz. 2009). · cites it 3× “) (codified as amended at A.R.S. §§ 45-401 to -704 (2003 & Supp.2008)).”
In Re the Gen. Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River Sys. & Source, 9 P.3d 1069 (Ariz. 2000). · cites it 2× “Second, as discussed above, the trial court did not change existing law concerning sub-flow or otherwise improperly encroach on the state’s Groundwater Code, A.R.S. §§ 45-401 through 45-704. Rather, the court merely applied the criteria set forth in Gila River II to the evidence…”
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Scottsdale, 875 P.2d 1310 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “See A.R.S. §§ 45-401 to 704 (1987 & Supp. 1992).”
Cherry v. Steiner, 543 F. Supp. 1270 (D. Ariz. 1982). · cites it 3× “A.R.S. § 45-401. (All subsequent references to A.”
Arizona Mun. Water Users Ass'n v. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, 888 P.2d 1323 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “”) § 45-401(A) (1994). In the interest of protecting and stabilizing the general economy and welfare, the legislature enacted the Groundwater Code to “conserve, protect and allocate the use of groundwater resources of the state and to provide a framework for the comprehensive…”
Show all 25 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 45-401(A) — 5 cases
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, 91 P.3d 990 (Ariz. 2004). “”) §§ 45-401 to -704 (2003 & Supp. 2003), was originally enacted as part of the Groundwater Management Act of 1980, 1980 Ariz.”
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, 73 P.3d 1267 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “") §§ 45-401 to 45-724 (2003). According to appellants, the Department and its Director, the plan did not need to include conservation measures specifically applicable to "end users" of groundwater, a term that the parties use to describe the customers of municipal and private…”
Arizona Mun. Water Users Ass'n v. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, 888 P.2d 1323 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “”) § 45-401(A) (1994). In the interest of protecting and stabilizing the general economy and welfare, the legislature enacted the Groundwater Code to “conserve, protect and allocate the use of groundwater resources of the state and to provide a framework for the comprehensive…”
Aikins v. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, 743 P.2d 946 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
Aikins v. Ariz. Dept. of Water Resources, 743 P.2d 946 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 45-401(B) — 7 cases
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, 73 P.3d 1267 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “") §§ 45-401 to 45-724 (2003). According to appellants, the Department and its Director, the plan did not need to include conservation measures specifically applicable to "end users" of groundwater, a term that the parties use to describe the customers of municipal and private…”
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, 91 P.3d 990 (Ariz. 2004). “”) §§ 45-401 to -704 (2003 & Supp. 2003), was originally enacted as part of the Groundwater Management Act of 1980, 1980 Ariz.”
City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley, 790 P.2d 263 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). “PREEMPTION Prescott contends that Chino Valley’s tax upon the operation of a water pipeline is preempted by the Groundwater Management Act, A.R.S. § 45-401 et seq. More specifically, Prescott contends that those provisions of the Groundwater Management Act that expressly…”
Arizona Mun. Water Users Ass'n v. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, 888 P.2d 1323 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “”) § 45-401(A) (1994). In the interest of protecting and stabilizing the general economy and welfare, the legislature enacted the Groundwater Code to “conserve, protect and allocate the use of groundwater resources of the state and to provide a framework for the comprehensive…”
Robin Silver v. Pueblo Del Sol Water Co, 423 P.3d 348 (Ariz. 2018).
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.