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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 45-562 (2026)

Management goals for active management areas

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

A. The management goal of the Tucson, Phoenix and Prescott active management areas is safe-yield by January 1, 2025, or such earlier date as may be determined by the director.

B. The management goal of the Pinal active management area is to allow development of non-irrigation uses as provided in this chapter and to preserve existing agricultural economies in the active management area for as long as feasible, consistent with the necessity to preserve future water supplies for non-irrigation uses.

C. The management goal of the Santa Cruz active management area is to maintain a safe-yield condition in the active management area and to prevent local water tables from experiencing long-term declines.

D. Except as otherwise provided for the Santa Cruz active management area, all initial active management areas are subject to all provisions of this chapter.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1994–2004 · leading case: Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, 91 P.3d 990 (Ariz. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, 91 P.3d 990 (Ariz. 2004). · cites it 6× “A.R.S. § 45-562(A). 3 ¶ 5 The Groundwater Code required, as part of the first management plan for the Tucson, Phoenix, and Prescott AMAs, that the Director establish “[a] conservation program for all non-irrigation uses of groundwater.”
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, 73 P.3d 1267 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 45-562(A). Specifically, the plans were to include "a continuing mandatory conservation program for all persons withdrawing, distributing or receiving groundwater designed to achieve reductions in withdrawals of groundwater.”
Arizona Mun. Water Users Ass'n v. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, 888 P.2d 1323 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 45-562(A) (1994). To achieve this *138 management goal, the legislature required the Department to include in each AMA management plan a “continuing mandatory conservation program for all persons withdrawing, distributing or receiving groundwater designed to achieve…”
Az Water Co v. Az Dept of Water Resources (Ariz. 2004). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 45-562(A).3 ¶5 The Groundwater Code required, as part of the first management plan for the Tucson, Phoenix, and Prescott AMAs, that the Director establish “[a] conservation program for all non- 1 The four original AMAs were the Tucson, Phoenix, Prescott, and Pinal AMAs.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 45-562(A) — 4 cases
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, 91 P.3d 990 (Ariz. 2004). “A.R.S. § 45-562(A). 3 ¶ 5 The Groundwater Code required, as part of the first management plan for the Tucson, Phoenix, and Prescott AMAs, that the Director establish “[a] conservation program for all non-irrigation uses of groundwater.”
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, 73 P.3d 1267 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “A.R.S. § 45-562(A). Specifically, the plans were to include "a continuing mandatory conservation program for all persons withdrawing, distributing or receiving groundwater designed to achieve reductions in withdrawals of groundwater.”
Arizona Mun. Water Users Ass'n v. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, 888 P.2d 1323 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “A.R.S. § 45-562(A) (1994). To achieve this *138 management goal, the legislature required the Department to include in each AMA management plan a “continuing mandatory conservation program for all persons withdrawing, distributing or receiving groundwater designed to achieve…”
Az Water Co v. Az Dept of Water Resources (Ariz. 2004). “A.R.S. § 45-562(A).3 ¶5 The Groundwater Code required, as part of the first management plan for the Tucson, Phoenix, and Prescott AMAs, that the Director establish “[a] conservation program for all non- 1 The four original AMAs were the Tucson, Phoenix, Prescott, and Pinal AMAs.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 45-562(B) — 1 case
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, 91 P.3d 990 (Ariz. 2004). “A.R.S. § 45-562(A). 3 ¶ 5 The Groundwater Code required, as part of the first management plan for the Tucson, Phoenix, and Prescott AMAs, that the Director establish “[a] conservation program for all non-irrigation uses of groundwater.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 45-562(C) — 2 cases
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Water Resources, 91 P.3d 990 (Ariz. 2004). “A.R.S. § 45-562(A). 3 ¶ 5 The Groundwater Code required, as part of the first management plan for the Tucson, Phoenix, and Prescott AMAs, that the Director establish “[a] conservation program for all non-irrigation uses of groundwater.”
Az Water Co v. Az Dept of Water Resources (Ariz. 2004). “A.R.S. § 45-562(A).3 ¶5 The Groundwater Code required, as part of the first management plan for the Tucson, Phoenix, and Prescott AMAs, that the Director establish “[a] conservation program for all non- 1 The four original AMAs were the Tucson, Phoenix, Prescott, and Pinal AMAs.”
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.