Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 48-3615 (2026)

Violation; classification; civil penalties; strict liability

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. It is unlawful for a person to engage in any development or to divert, retard or obstruct the flow of waters in a watercourse if it creates a hazard to life or property without securing the written authorization required by section 48-3613. Where the watercourse is a delineated floodplain it is unlawful to engage in any development affecting the flow of waters without securing written authorization required by section 48-3613.

B. A person who violates subsection A of this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

C. A person who violates this chapter or rules adopted pursuant to this chapter may be assessed a civil penalty not to exceed the fine chargeable for a class 2 misdemeanor or, by agreement with the person in violation, a nonmonetary penalty that serves the purposes of the district. Each day the violation continues constitutes a separate violation.

D. A person who without written authorization from the board of directors damages or interferes with a facility that is owned, operated or otherwise under the jurisdiction of the district is strictly liable for both of the following:

1. Any actual damages to persons or property that is caused by the damage or interference.

2. Payment of costs to the district for remediating the damage or interference.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2014–2024 · leading case: ABC Sand & Rock Co. Inc. v. Maricopa, Cnty. of (D. Ariz. 2024).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

ABC Sand & Rock Co. Inc. v. Maricopa, Cnty. of (D. Ariz. 2024). · cites it 2× “7 See A.R.S. § 48-3615(A)-(C); ABC Sand & Rock Co.”

Flood Control v. Abc Sand (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “3 The notice explained the District was willing to work with ABC by issuing a short-term permit while it completed the renewal requirements, but warned if ABC continued to operate in violation of floodplain regulations it could be fined up to $10,000 per day pursuant to A.R.S. §…”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 48-3615(A) — 1 case

ABC Sand & Rock Co. Inc. v. Maricopa, Cnty. of (D. Ariz. 2024). “7 See A.R.S. § 48-3615(A)-(C); ABC Sand & Rock Co.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 48-3615(C) — 1 case

Flood Control v. Abc Sand (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “3 The notice explained the District was willing to work with ABC by issuing a short-term permit while it completed the renewal requirements, but warned if ABC continued to operate in violation of floodplain regulations it could be fined up to $10,000 per day pursuant to A.R.S. §…”

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.