- State high court upholds long-term water agreement.
- Ruling restores part of Chandler’s 100-year water supply.
- Dispute centered on halted deliveries after 2016.
- Decision addresses limits on legal time bars for public entities.
Friday, May 1, 2026 — A major water dispute in Arizona reached a turning point on April 29, 2026, when the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in favor of the City of Chandler. The court confirmed that a long-standing agreement between Chandler and the Roosevelt Water Conservation District remains valid and enforceable through 2086.
The agreement, first signed in 2002, was designed to help Chandler transition water use as farmland in the area gave way to growing neighborhoods. Under the deal, surface water historically used for irrigation could be converted into treated drinking water for city residents.
What the Agreement Was Meant to Do.
As cities expand, farmland often shrinks. In Chandler’s case, that shift required a new way to use existing water rights.
The 2002 Domestic Water Service Agreement allowed Chandler to purchase water tied to the Roosevelt Water Conservation District. The water came from allocations managed through the Salt River Project, a key supplier in central Arizona.
Between 2002 and 2015, Chandler purchased more than 40,000 acre-feet of water under a formula based on those yearly allocations. An acre-foot is enough water to supply roughly two to three households for a year.
When the Water Stopped Flowing.
Around 2016, the arrangement broke down. The Roosevelt Water Conservation District stopped honoring the agreement and later argued that the contract had ended.
At the same time, Chandler residents continued paying about $1.7 million each year in property taxes tied to the district. City officials argued that households were paying for water services they were no longer receiving.
The dispute eventually moved into the courts, where the central question became whether the agreement was still legally enforceable.
The Court’s Decision.
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the agreement remains in force. The decision also addressed a broader legal issue involving time limits on lawsuits.
In its press release
, the court explained that “the one-year limitations statute does not apply to claims brought by public entities,” meaning that government bodies like cities are not always restricted by the same deadlines that apply to private parties.
That finding played a key role in allowing Chandler’s claims to move forward, even though several years had passed since the dispute began.
Why the Ruling Matters.
For Chandler, the decision restores access to a portion of its long-term water planning. Arizona law requires cities to show they have a 100-year assured water supply before approving new development. Agreements like this one help cities meet that requirement.
City officials described the ruling as a step toward fairness for residents who had continued paying into the system.
“Water is a critical public resource, and this ruling restores a key component of Chandler’s 100-year assured water supply,” said Mayor Kevin Hartke in a statement released April 29, 2026.
The court’s decision may also carry weight beyond Chandler. By clarifying how legal time limits apply to public entities, it could influence how other water disputes are handled across the state.
What Comes Next.
The ruling does not end the need for cooperation. Chandler officials stated they remain open to working with the Roosevelt Water Conservation District to carry out the agreement in a way that is transparent and fair.
Residents within the district are encouraged to stay involved, especially through board meetings and local elections that shape how water and tax policies are managed.
In a region where water is both limited and essential, the case highlights how legal agreements, public policy, and local participation all play a role in securing supply for the future.
