Cited by

¶33 “In circumstances like these, in which the [people have] not spoken definitively to the issue at hand, ‘considerable weight should be accorded to an executive department’s construction of a statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer.’” Ariz. Water Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Water Res., ¶ 30 (2004) (quoting Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat.

STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶9 We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo, Ariz. Water Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Water Res., ¶ 16 (2004), but will defer to an agency’s factual findings unless they are “arbitrary, capricious, or .

See Ariz. Water Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Water Res., ¶ 30, (“[When] the legislature has not spoken definitively to the issue at hand, ‘considerable weight should be accorded to an executive department’s construction of a statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer.’” (quoting Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res.

Although this court determines whether DHS has properly interpreted the relevant law, DHS’ interpretation of applicable statutes and regulations “‘is *66 entitled to great weight.’ ” , 8 ¶ 27, (citation omitted); accord Ariz. Water Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t Water Resources, , 154 ¶ 30, (noting, where Legislature “has not spoken” on issue, “ ‘considerable weight should be accorded to an executive department’s construction of a statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer.’ In such cases, ‘a court may

authority on critical questions of statutory construction.” cf. Marco Crane & Rigging v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, (judicial deference to ACC interpretation of rate schedules appropriate “where the decision is based upon reasonable interpretation”); ¶ 30 (2004) (“‘[A] court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency.’”) (citing Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat.

When the statutory language is admittedly not dispositive, “the Director’s expert interpretation deserves considerable deference by the judiciary” and ADWR is “precisely the type of agency to which deference should presumptively be afforded.” Ariz. Water Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Water Res., -55, ¶¶ 30-33, -98 (2004) (internal quotations and citations omitted) (holding the ADWR director, as the “water czar,” has the authority to promulgate a water management plan that did not impose conservation mea

In addition, when “the legislature has not spoken definitively to the issue at hand, ‘considerable weight should be accorded to an executive department’s construction of a statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer.’ ” ¶ 30 , (citing Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat.

“In circumstances like these, in which the legislature has not spoken definitively to the issue at hand, ‘considerable weight should be accorded to an executive department’s construction of a statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer.’” Ariz. Water Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Water Res., ¶ 30, (quoting Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res.

by no later than 2025.” Ariz. Water Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Water Resources

Ariz. Water Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Water Res., ¶ 30

DISCUSSION ¶ 15 The purpose of the Groundwater Management Act (the GMA) is to “protect the state’s economy and welfare, and to ‘provide a framework for the comprehensive management and regulation of the withdrawal, transportation, use, conservation and conveyance of rights to use the groundwater in this state.’” Ariz. Water Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Water Res., ¶ 3 , (quoting AR.S.

152 n. 10, ¶ 18, , 995 n. 10 (2004) (an appellate court may affirm a trial court’s judgment on any basis supported by the record).

to an executive department’s construction of a statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer.’ ” Ariz. Water Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Water Res., , quoting Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res.

Ariz. Water Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Water Res., ¶ 29 , aff'd in part, vacated in part on other grounds

Co., , see also Ariz. Water Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Water Res., , Padilla v. Indus.

See Ariz. Water Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Water Res., ¶ 30 , (“considerable weight should be accorded to an executive department’s construction of a statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer”) (quoting Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res.

Cf. Ariz. Water Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Water Res., ¶ 30 , (when legislature has not spoken definitively to issue at hand, considerable weight should be afforded to agency’s construction of statutory scheme it administers).

2 ¶ 17 In reaching a contrary conclusion, we are cognizant of the Arizona Supreme Court’s admonition that in circumstances “in which the legislature has not spoken definitively to the issue at hand, ‘considerable weight should be accorded to an executive department’s construction of a statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer.’ ” Ariz. Water Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Water Resources, ¶ 30 , (quoting Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res.

Ariz. Water Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Water Res., ¶ 30, (citing Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res.

In cases in which the ADWR has consistently interpreted a statute related to water rights, we will afford that interpretation “great weight in the absence of clear statutory guidance to the contrary.” Arizona Water Co. v. *153 Arizona Dep’t of Water Res., ¶ 30

Ariz. Water Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Water Resources, -55, ¶ 30 , -98 (2004).

See Ariz. Water Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Water Res., , ¶ 18 n. 10, , ¶ 18 n. 10 (2004) (stating appellate courts “will consider any legal theory within the issues and supported by the evidence which tends to support and sustain the judgment of the trial court”) ( , ); Coronado Co. Inc.