Background
The Arizona Department of Water Resources adopted the First Management Plan for the Douglas Active Management Area on November 27, 2024, after receiving public comments, including comments from Christian Sawyer. State law required ADWR to publish notice of its final order for two consecutive weeks; the final publication occurred on December 11, 2024, completing service of the order.
Sawyer filed a notice of appeal in superior court on February 5, 2025, 56 days after service. He argued that the 30-day period to seek an ADWR rehearing or review had to expire before the 35-day period for judicial review began. The superior court rejected that interpretation and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the 30-day period to seek administrative rehearing or review under A.R.S. § 45-114(C) and the 35-day deadline for a judicial appeal under A.R.S. § 12-904(A) run concurrently, not consecutively.
A timely request for ADWR rehearing or review would delay finality for judicial-review purposes and toll the judicial appeal period until the director ruled on that request. But no party sought such review here. The order was therefore final when service was completed on December 11, 2024, and Sawyer had 35 days—until January 15, 2025—to appeal. His February 5 filing was untimely, leaving the superior court without jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways
- The 35-day deadline for judicial review of an ADWR decision begins upon service unless a party timely seeks agency rehearing or review.
- The 30-day agency-review period does not add 30 days to the judicial appeal deadline.
- Compliance with A.R.S. § 12-904(A)’s filing deadline is jurisdictional in an administrative appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that parties challenging ADWR orders cannot wait for the full administrative-review window to lapse before calculating their judicial appeal deadline. Absent a timely request for rehearing or review, they must file in superior court within 35 days of service.
For practitioners, the case underscores the need to calendar both agency-review and judicial-review deadlines from the date of service and to recognize that they ordinarily run at the same time.