Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 49-241 (2026)

Permit required to discharge

✓ current as of May 2026

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

A. Unless otherwise provided by this article, any person who discharges or who owns or operates a facility that discharges shall obtain an aquifer protection permit from the director.

B. Unless exempted under section 49-250, or unless the director determines that the facility will be designed, constructed and operated so that there will be no migration of pollutants directly to the aquifer or to the vadose zone, the following are considered to be discharging facilities and shall be operated pursuant to either an individual permit or a general permit, including agricultural general permits, under this article:

1. Surface impoundments, including holding, storage settling, treatment or disposal pits, ponds and lagoons.

2. Solid waste disposal facilities except for mining overburden and wall rock that has not been and will not be subject to mine leaching operations.

3. Injection wells.

4. Land treatment facilities.

5. Facilities that add a pollutant to a salt dome formation, salt bed formation, dry well or underground cave or mine.

6. Mine tailings piles and ponds.

7. Mine leaching operations.

8. Underground water storage facilities.

9. Sewage treatment facilities, including on-site wastewater treatment facilities.

10. Wetlands designed and constructed to treat municipal and domestic wastewater for underground storage.

C. The director shall provide public notice and an opportunity for public comment on any request for a determination from the director under subsection B of this section that there will be no migration of pollutants from a facility. A public hearing may be held at the discretion of the director if sufficient public comment warrants a hearing. The director may inspect and may require reasonable conditions and appropriate monitoring and reporting requirements for a facility managing pollutants that are determined not to migrate under subsection B of this section. The director may identify types of facilities, available technologies and technical criteria for facilities that will qualify for a determination. The director's determination may be revoked on evidence that pollutants have migrated from the facility. The director may impose a review fee for a determination under subsection B of this section. Any issuance, denial or revocation of a determination may be appealed pursuant to section 49-323.

D. The director shall annually make the fee schedule for aquifer protection permit applications available to the public on request and on the department's website, and a list of the names and locations of the facilities that have filed applications for aquifer protection permits, with a description of the status of each application, is available to the public on request.

E. The director shall prescribe the procedures for aquifer protection permit applications and fee collection under this section. The director shall deposit, pursuant to sections 35-146 and 35-147, all monies collected under this section in the water quality fee fund established by section 49-210 and may authorize expenditures from the fund, subject to legislative appropriation, to pay reasonable and necessary costs of processing and issuing permits and administering the registration program.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2022 · leading case: City of Sierra Vista v. Dir., Arizona Dep't of Env't Quality, 988 P.2d 162 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

City of Sierra Vista v. Dir., Arizona Dep't of Env't Quality, 988 P.2d 162 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “¶ 3 In 1986, the Arizona legislature enacted the aquifer protection permit program, A.R.S. §§ 49-241 through 49-252, to be administered by the newly established ADEQ.”

Flagstaff v. Desert Mountain (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 31× “) The court concluded that under ADEQ regulations, the potential for well “stimulation” required Desert Mountain to obtain an APP under A.R.S. § 49-241. See A.R.S. § 49-241(A) (requiring that “facilities that discharge[] shall obtain an [APP]”), (B)(3) (defining an “[i]njection…”

Arizona Water Co. v. City of Bisbee, 836 P.2d 389 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “Effluent cannot be used for fertilization or irrigation without the specific approval of the department of health services or the department of environmental quality; without that approval, it constitutes a public and environmental nuisance.”

Florence v. State (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “THE COURT PROPERLY ASSUMED THE TRUTH OF THE FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS. ¶20 Plaintiffs finally argue that the trial court erred by not assuming the truth of factual allegations in the complaint.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 49-241(A) — 1 case

Flagstaff v. Desert Mountain (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “) The court concluded that under ADEQ regulations, the potential for well “stimulation” required Desert Mountain to obtain an APP under A.R.S. § 49-241. See A.R.S. § 49-241(A) (requiring that “facilities that discharge[] shall obtain an [APP]”), (B)(3) (defining an “[i]njection…”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 49-241(B) — 1 case

City of Sierra Vista v. Dir., Arizona Dep't of Env't Quality, 988 P.2d 162 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). “¶ 3 In 1986, the Arizona legislature enacted the aquifer protection permit program, A.R.S. §§ 49-241 through 49-252, to be administered by the newly established ADEQ.”

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.