Legal Alert: Chandler v. RWCD: Why the One‑Year Clock Doesn’t Run Between Public Entities.
On April 28, 2026, the Arizona Supreme Court issued Chandler v. Roosevelt Water Conservation District, CV-24-0267-PR—a 6-1 decision that quietly preserved an old common-law doctrine while delivering a 27,000-household water deal back to the City of Chandler. For attorneys who handle municipal contracts, developers who rely on city-managed water portfolios, and planners who track long-horizon supply commitments, the decision is worth a few minutes.
What the case was about:
In 2002, Chandler and the Roosevelt Water Conservation District (“RWCD”) signed a Domestic Water Service Agreement designed to last through 2086. The deal converted RWCD’s surface water—historically used to irrigate farmland—into treated drinking water for the new neighborhoods replacing those farms. Between 2002 and 2015, Chandler bought more than 40,000 acre-feet of water under a formula tied to Salt River Project allocations. Around 2016, RWCD stopped delivering. In 2018, the District told Chandler the agreement was over. Chandler kept asking for water; the District kept refusing. Meanwhile, roughly 27,000 Chandler households inside RWCD’s boundaries kept paying about $1.7 million a year in district property taxes—for a water benefit they were no longer receiving. Chandler sued in 2022.
The legal fight: one-year statute or old common-law doctrine?
The trial court sided with Chandler. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that A.R.S. § 12-821—Arizona’s one-year limitations period for tort and contract claims against public entities—barred the suit. That set up the question for the Supreme Court: does § 12-821 apply when one public entity sues another?
The majority held it does not. Under the common-law doctrine of nullum tempus occurrit regi (Latin for “no time runs against the king”) statutes of limitations do not run against the sovereign when it acts as plaintiff. Arizona courts long ago extended that protection to municipalities suing in their public capacity. The Court held § 12-821 does not expressly abrogate nullum tempus in suits between public entities, so the one-year clock did not apply to Chandler’s claims. The 2002 agreement is enforceable through 2086.
Why this matters beyond Chandler:
A few takeaways stand out.
First, the decision keeps long-horizon municipal contracts enforceable when a counterparty walks away and waits. Water deals, irrigation district agreements, and intergovernmental supply arrangements often run for decades. Chandler makes clear that § 12-821 is not the trump card a defending public entity might have hoped for in those disputes.
Second, the opinion sharpens the public-purpose distinction. Nullum tempus aids sovereigns acting in their sovereign capacity. Cities suing to protect purely commercial interests will not clear this bar, but cities’ interests often comingle business with public service. Future cases will test precisely where the line falls.
Third, for those tracking the Assured Water Supply framework: this is a useful reminder that a city’s 100-year-assured water portfolio rests on a stack of contracts, leases, and entitlements. Whether those agreements legally hold up isn’t just plumbing—it’s a designation issue.
The ruling does not end the dispute on the ground. Chandler and RWCD still must implement the agreement. But the doctrine survives, the contract survives, and a 27,000-household tax-versus-benefit mismatch finally has a path forward.
This post offers general commentary on a public Arizona Supreme Court decision. It is not legal advice and does not address any specific matter or client.
At Gammage & Burnham, our Water Law attorneys bring a distinguished depth of experience and insight to one of Arizona’s most complex and consequential issues. Positioned at the forefront of this evolving area, our team is committed to guiding both businesses and residential developers through the legal and regulatory landscape shaping the future of water rights in Arizona.
Learn more about our Water Law Practice Group by clicking the link below: https://www.gblaw.com/practice-areas/water-law/
Learn more about our Water Law Attorneys by clicking the links below:
Grady Gammage Jr. https://www.gblaw.com/professional/grady-gammage-jr/
Michael J. Pearce https://www.gblaw.com/professional/michael-j-pearce/
Alexandra M. Arboleda https://www.gblaw.com/professional/alexandra-m-arboleda/
Kyle R. Stenseth https://www.gblaw.com/professional/kyle-r-stenseth/
Sean F. Krieg https://www.gblaw.com/professional/sean-f-krieg/
