Can rural Arizona homeowners form a Domestic Water Improvement District that uses water haulers and standpipes instead of a pipe network?

Plain-English summary

This opinion answered three questions Maricopa County Attorney Allister Adel posed about Domestic Water Improvement Districts (DWIDs). The trigger was a proposal in the Rio Verde Foothills area east of Scottsdale: roughly 700 homes had been hauling their own water for years and wanted to form a DWID to operate standpipes and arrange truck delivery, rather than build a pipeline to every house.

Attorney General Mark Brnovich said:

1. "Noncontiguous areas" in A.R.S. § 48-902(G) means areas whose boundaries are not contiguous to each other. A DWID can have internally noncontiguous boundaries, covering two or more disjoint pieces of land. Both the dictionary definition of "noncontiguous" and the 1997 legislative history confirmed this.

2. "Domestic water delivery system" requires (a) waterworks (wells, pumping machinery, pipelines, or "all equipment necessary" for delivering domestic water) and (b) a system to deliver that water to property owners. The system can be very basic. A standpipe + pump + well + water haulers + delivery trucks plausibly qualifies as a "system." Tucking water haulers into the definition is consistent with the statute's text and history.

3. There is no statutory requirement that a DWID build infrastructure to deliver water "directly to" each property owner. That was a phrase from the question, not from the statute. § 48-1011(3) and the surrounding statutes simply do not require pipes to every home.

The opinion also flagged an alternative path: forming a county improvement district first, acquiring or constructing the standpipe and well, then converting to a DWID under § 48-1018(A). That conversion path uses different language ("water system that provides domestic water to residents") and avoids the "delivery system" question altogether.

The opinion was a green light for rural Arizona communities, places like Rio Verde Foothills: to organize a DWID without committing to a full pipe network.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2020. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical context: what the opinion meant in 2020

For Rio Verde Foothills and similar rural Arizona communities

The opinion validated the residents' plan. They could petition the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to form a DWID built around standpipes and hauler delivery. This mattered because Scottsdale had been their main water source and was preparing to cut off non-resident water sales. A DWID gave the homeowners a state-recognized vehicle to negotiate a wholesale contract, eligibility for state water-infrastructure financing (§ 48-909.01, § 49-1201(13)), and the constitutional immunities of a special taxing district (Ariz. Const. art. XIII, § 7).

For county boards of supervisors

The opinion supplied a clear legal framework but reserved the discretionary call. The board still had to find that "the public convenience, necessity or welfare will be promoted by the establishment of the district" (§ 48-906(A)). That's a policy judgment the AG would not second-guess.

For municipal finance lawyers

The opinion deliberately stayed narrow: it did not opine on tax exemption for water trucks (cross-referencing § 42-5301 only as context), bond financing, condemnation, fee setting, or the proprietary/governmental distinction. Those were left for future opinions or litigation.

For state legislators

The opinion exposes a drafting hole. The legislature defined "municipal water delivery system" in § 42-5301 by reference to "an entity that distributes or sells potable water primarily through a pipeline delivery system." It did not similarly limit "domestic water delivery system" in the DWID statute. The AG read that asymmetry as intentional. If the legislature wanted DWIDs to require pipelines, it knew how to say so.

Common questions

Q: What is a DWID, exactly?
A: A Domestic Water Improvement District. It's a type of county improvement district set up specifically for water service. Defined in A.R.S. § 48-1011(3). Unlike most county improvement districts, a DWID can be governed by a separately elected board (§ 48-1012(A)).

Q: Can a DWID be formed where there are no existing pipes to homes?
A: Yes. The opinion concludes that no statute requires pipe-to-home infrastructure. A DWID can be built around standpipes and water-hauler delivery.

Q: What does "noncontiguous areas" mean in this context?
A: It means a single DWID can cover two or more separate areas of land that don't touch each other. So if there are two clusters of homes a few miles apart, one DWID can include both.

Q: Why is the Rio Verde Foothills area within six miles of Scottsdale relevant?
A: § 48-902(G) requires consent from a city or town if a noncontiguous DWID is proposed within six miles of that city's boundaries. The AG flagged but did not resolve whether "noncontiguous" in this context could refer to non-contiguity with the city itself, or only to internal non-contiguity within the district. The opinion described that issue as "doubtful" but beyond its scope.

Q: What's the alternative to forming a DWID directly?
A: Form a county improvement district first (§ 48-902 et seq.), let it acquire or build a "water system that provides domestic water to residents," then convert it to a DWID under § 48-1018(A). This alternative path uses different statutory language that doesn't require analyzing whether a "delivery system" exists.

Q: Who can declare a DWID's authority revoked?
A: The county board of supervisors retains the power, regardless of the DWID's population, to revoke the authority of an elected board "at any time … in order to protect the residents of the district" (A.R.S. § 48-1016).

Q: Does forming a DWID make water trucks tax-exempt?
A: The opinion expressly does not address that. The mere formation of a DWID does not automatically confer tax-exempt status on equipment. That is a separate question left to other opinions or rulings.

Background and statutory framework

DWIDs are part of a layered statutory scheme that traces back to 1945 (district improvement act). The relevant chronology:

• 1945: county improvement districts created (1945 Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 43).
• 1947: amendments authorizing waterworks for domestic water delivery (1947 Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 20).
• 1977: DWIDs created as a subtype of county improvement district, governed by separately elected board (1977 Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 104).
• 1990: amendments allowing conversion of existing improvement districts to DWIDs (1990 Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 295).
• 1997: amendments allowing noncontiguous boundaries and out-of-district water sources (1997 Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 237).

Article XIII, § 7 of the Arizona Constitution (added in 1940) gives DWIDs significant immunities. They are political subdivisions vested with the rights of municipalities. They are exempt from the Gift Clause and Local Debt Limits. Their property may qualify for property tax exemption (superseding State v. Yuma Irrigation District, 55 Ariz. 178 (1940)). They may have the power to condemn private land for governmental purposes, including for well-drilling (Pinetop Lakes Ass'n v. Ponderosa Domestic Water Imp. Dist.).

The petition / hearing / formation process under §§ 48-902 to -907 requires a petition signed by either a majority of property owners or owners of 51% or more of the real property (§ 48-903(A)), with content requirements (§ 48-903(C)) and a public hearing (§ 48-905). The board of supervisors then makes the call (§ 48-906(A)) and the determination is subject to judicial review (§ 48-907).

The two contested terms in this opinion:

• "Noncontiguous areas" comes from § 48-902(G) and means simply that the boundaries within a single district need not all touch each other. The AG cited Glazer v. State and State ex rel. Brnovich v. Maricopa Cty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. Bd. for the rule of consistent meaning across a title.

• "Domestic water delivery system" is undefined in the statutes. The AG read it back to § 48-909(A)(6) ("waterworks … for the delivery of water for domestic purposes"), where "waterworks" is defined in § 48-901(21) to include "wells, pumping machinery, power plants, pipelines and all equipment necessary for those purposes." The phrase "all equipment necessary" is broad enough to cover water haulers, in the AG's reading.

Citations and references

Constitutional provisions:
- Ariz. Const. art. XIII, § 7 (special taxing district immunities)

Statutes:
- A.R.S. § 48-901 et seq. (county improvement districts)
- A.R.S. § 48-902(A), (G) (formation rules and noncontiguous-area allowance)
- A.R.S. § 48-909(A)(6) (waterworks for domestic water delivery)
- A.R.S. § 48-1011(3) (DWID definition)
- A.R.S. § 48-1012, § 48-1014, § 48-1018 (governance, expansion, conversion)
- A.R.S. § 42-5301 (separate "municipal water delivery system" definition)

Cases:
- DBT Yuma, L.L.C. v. Yuma Cty. Airport Auth., 238 Ariz. 394 (2015), undefined terms get ordinary meaning
- Glazer v. State, 244 Ariz. 612 (2018), words read in context, statute as a whole
- City of Phoenix v. Orbitz Worldwide Inc., 247 Ariz. 234 (2019), give meaning to every word and provision
- David C. v. Alexis S., 240 Ariz. 53 (2016), statutes in pari materia read together
- Pinetop Lakes Ass'n v. Ponderosa Domestic Water Imp. Dist. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010), DWID condemnation power for well-drilling

Source

• Landing page: https://www.azag.gov/opinions/i20-011-r19-017
• Original PDF: https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/I20-011.pdf

Original opinion text

The full text of this opinion is preserved in the AG's published version. Key passages are quoted in the analysis above. See the linked PDF for the complete text, including footnotes 1-8 on legislative history, related amendments to wastewater treatment authority, and statutory cross-references.

To:

Allister Adel

Maricopa County Attorney

Questions Presented

As it relates to a county board of supervisors establishing a Domestic Water Improvement District ("DWID") upon petition by property owners in the proposed district pursuant to A.R.S. Title 48, Chapter 6, Articles 1 and 4:

What is the meaning of "noncontiguous areas" as used in A.R.S. § 48-902(G)?

What is the meaning of a "domestic water delivery system"?

May the board of supervisors establish a DWID that does not plan to "build or maintain any infrastructure to deliver water directly to" the property owners in the district?

Summary Answer

"Noncontiguous areas" as used in A.R.S. § 48-902(G) means areas whose boundaries are not contiguous to each other.

In the context of a board of supervisors forming a DWID, a "domestic water delivery system" must 1) include "waterworks … for the delivery of water for domestic purposes," see A.R.S. § 48-909(A)(6), and 2) function as a "system" to deliver domestic water to property owners in the district. In addition, there are alternative statutory mechanisms that permit converting an existing county improvement district to a DWID, or an existing DWID expanding to a new area, that do not require a "domestic water delivery system." See A.R.S. § 48-1018(A), § 48-1014(B).

The pertinent statutory requirements for the establishment of a DWID are described in response to Question 2, and there is no additional textual requirement in Title 48, Chapter 6, Articles 1 and 4 of "infrastructure to deliver water directly to" the property owners in the district.

Background

Constitutional and Statutory Background of the Powers, Purposes, and Requirements of DWIDs

A DWID is a type of county improvement district, which in turn is a type of special taxing district, meaning it has certain constitutional powers and privileges resulting from a 1940 constitutional amendment. See Ariz. Const. art. XIII, § 7. This provision also exempts these districts from the Gift Clause and Local Debt Limits Clause. See Ariz. Const. art. IX, §§ 7-8. By conferring the "exemptions granted municipalities," it also qualifies a district's property for possible exemption from property taxes under Article IX, § 2(1), superseding State v. Yuma Irrigation District, 55 Ariz. 178 (1940). These districts may also have constitutional power to condemn private land for governmental purposes, including for well-drilling. See Pinetop Lakes Ass'n v. Ponderosa Domestic Water Imp. Dist., No. 1 CA-CV 09-0395, 2010 WL 2146415, at *3, ¶15 & n.3 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 27, 2010). In sum, significant constitutional consequences result from establishing such a district.

County improvement districts, now codified in Title 48, Chapter 6 (A.R.S. § 48-901 et seq.), date back to the district improvement Act of 1945. As originally enacted, "[a]n improvement district may be established in any unincorporated town or settlement by the [county] board of supervisors … for the purpose of making street, sewer and other local improvements by special assessments in such districts, issuing bonds for such improvements and levying taxes to operate and maintain said improvements and the streets within such districts."

As amended two years later, the powers of the board of directors included ordering "the construction, reconstruction or repair of waterworks for the delivery of water for domestic purposes." "[W]aterworks" means works for the storage or development of water for domestic uses, and includes wells, pumping machinery, power plants, pipelines and all equipment necessary for the purpose. These powers and definitions have not materially changed for purposes of this opinion. See A.R.S. § 48-909(A)(6); id. § 48-901(21); id. § 48-901(22).

Thirty years later, the legislature created DWIDs as a subtype of county improvement district, with a key distinction that it could be governed by a separately elected board. See 1977 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 104, § 12. This subtype was defined as "a county improvement district formed for the purpose of purchasing an existing domestic water delivery system within the district" (now codified as amended at A.R.S. § 48-1011(3)). The Legislature did not define "domestic water delivery system." The purpose was broadened to include "if necessary, making improvements to the system," and later to also permit converting an existing county improvement district that "has acquired, has constructed or owns a water system that provides domestic water to residents of that district" to a DWID. A.R.S. § 48-1018(A).

Importantly for purposes of the present opinion, in 1997 the Legislature amended the statutes 1) to permit noncontiguous county improvement districts; 2) to permit purchasing or acquiring domestic water delivery systems outside the district; and 3) to permit establishing a DWID to construct a domestic water delivery system, rather than just acquire one. The Legislature amended § 48-902(A) to state, "[a]n improvement district may be established in any unincorporated area, whether or not contiguous," and added § 48-902(G) to provide: "A domestic water improvement district may be formed or expanded in noncontiguous areas. If the proposed boundaries of a noncontiguous district are located within six miles of an incorporated city or town, the district shall obtain the consent of the governing body of the city or town prior to the formation or expansion of the district."

Facts Relating to the Establishment of the Particular DWID Prompting the Opinion Request

The request for Attorney General opinion sets forth the following facts. Two groups of citizens have approached Maricopa County regarding their respective plans to propose to the Board of Supervisors the creation of a DWID. Generally, each of the citizen groups is intending to utilize a water hauler to deliver water to the DWID members. Each group has stated it may install a standpipe. The DWIDs plan to have a water hauler deliver water to the members of the DWID from that standpipe or other, currently unidentified water source by either: (1) contracting with a water hauler or (2) each of its individual members contracting with the water hauler.

Based on citizen comments received by the Attorney General's Office related to the opinion request, it appears that the proposed DWID relates to approximately 700 homes in the Rio Verde Foothills, which lies directly east of the incorporated City of Scottsdale and west of Rio Verde Proper, which is unincorporated. The citizen comment states that residents have hauled their own water from a standpipe for over 20 years, and they intend to seek approval for a DWID that owns, operates, and maintains a set of standpipes for both commercial and private water haulers.

Therefore, this opinion assumes that the proposed DWID's purpose is to provide water for drinking and other household purposes to residents in an unincorporated area within six miles of an incorporated city or town; that the proposal would include delivery trucks hauling water from a source to residents; and that it would include a standpipe, a pump, and a well or connection to another water source, but it may not include any other planned improvements.

Analysis

Meaning of "Noncontiguous Areas" as Used in A.R.S. § 48-902(G)

"Noncontiguous areas" as used in A.R.S. § 48-902(G) means areas whose boundaries are not contiguous to each other. This means that a DWID may have internally noncontiguous boundaries by covering two or more different areas that are not contiguous to each other.

Absent a specific statutory definition, courts give words their common, ordinary meaning. "Contiguous" means "[t]ouching at a point or along a boundary," while "noncontiguous" means "not adjoining along a boundary." Both definitions focus on whether the boundaries of the parcels meet.

The most significant context is the 1997 statutory amendments, which added both the terms "contiguous" and "noncontiguous" to § 48-902(A), (G). The final Senate Fact sheet provided that the bill "[a]llows county improvement districts to include noncontiguous land, and be formed regardless of whether the land is contiguous." This legislative history confirms the interpretation that "noncontiguous areas" means two or more different areas of a district that are not contiguous to each other.

For all of these reasons, "noncontiguous areas" in A.R.S. § 48-902(G) means areas whose boundaries are not contiguous to each other, and a DWID may properly form with internally noncontiguous boundaries.

Meaning of "Domestic Water Delivery System"

In the context of a county board of supervisors forming a DWID, a "domestic water delivery system" must 1) include "waterworks … for the delivery of water for domestic purposes," see A.R.S. § 48-909(A)(6), and 2) function as a "system" to deliver domestic water to property owners in the district. As noted below, however, there are alternative statutory mechanisms that permit converting an existing county improvement district to a DWID, or an existing DWID expanding to a new area, that do not require a "domestic water delivery system." See A.R.S. § 48-1018(A), § 48-1014(B).

Although not completely clear due to the lack of statutory definition, the best interpretation of "domestic water delivery system" is as a reference to the powers of a county improvement district under § 48-909(A)(6) based on the statutory changes creating DWIDs in 1977 and the similarity in language. Through the similar, albeit not identical language, it is clear that the statutory development of establishing DWIDs was closely tied to the pre-existing powers of a county improvement district in § 48-909(A)(6).

Therefore, the best interpretation of "domestic water delivery" is in reference to "waterworks … for the delivery of water for domestic purposes." A.R.S. § 48-909(A)(6). "'Waterworks' means works for the storage or development of water for domestic uses, including drinking water treatment facilities, wells, pumping machinery, power plants, pipelines and all equipment necessary for those purposes." A.R.S. § 48-901(21).

The remaining interpretive question is what is required by the word "system" in "domestic water delivery system." The best interpretation, although not free from doubt, is that there must be a "system," including the waterworks described in the previous paragraph, to deliver domestic water to property owners in the district.

Applying the common definition to the facts here, waterworks, such as one or more standpipes, pumps, and wells or connections to other water sources, combined with water haulers delivering the water from the standpipe to the property owners in the district for domestic uses would likely qualify as a "system" for purposes of "domestic water delivery system" and therefore meet the statutory definition in § 48-1011(3). While it might be considered a very basic "system," compared to water delivery systems in large municipalities, there is no indication that the text of § 48-1011(3) requires more.

In any event, there is a statutory alternative that appears to avoid the legal issue of whether the improvements under consideration here are enough to constitute a "domestic water delivery system": establishing the district as a county improvement district and then converting it to a DWID under § 48-1018(A) after the county improvement district has acquired, constructed, or owns the standpipe, pump, and well or other connection, as well as arranging for the water haulers.

Whether the Board of Supervisors May Establish a DWID That Does Not Plan to "Build or Maintain Any Infrastructure to Deliver Water Directly to" the Property Owners in the District

In sum, these are the relevant statutory requirements for the establishment of a DWID, and there is no additional textual requirement in Title 48, Chapter 6, Articles 1 and 4 of "infrastructure to deliver water directly to" the property owners in the district. Moreover, the legislature knows how to require more when it wants to. See, e.g., A.R.S. § 42-5301 (defining "municipal water delivery system" as "an entity that distributes or sells potable water primarily through a pipeline delivery system"). It did not do so here.

Conclusion

The relevant statutory terms have the meanings described in this opinion in the context of a county board of supervisors establishing a DWID upon petition by property owners in the proposed district pursuant to A.R.S. Title 48, Chapter 6, Articles 1 and 4.

Mark Brnovich

Attorney General