Flood Control District of Maricopa County Permit Bonds and Insurance

The District's Board of Directors adopted Resolution FCD 2018R013, Permit to Work in Flood Control District of Maricopa County Real Property, on October 24, 2018. It requires a permit for construction, repair, maintenance and similar work on District real property, including pavement, drainage, pipelines, utilities, fencing, temporary yards and temporary ingress and egress. Only a permitted contractor, a utility, a governmental agency or a resident owner may perform that work.

The resolution calls for a performance bond or a security in lieu of performance bond in an amount determined by the District, not to exceed $500,000, and the Director may waive it. The surety must be authorized to do business in Arizona, the bond is released after the work is completed and accepted, and the resolution states that the surety may not cancel, change or amend any bond without 30 days' prior written notice.

The District's Performance Bond form, revised July 24, 2002, makes the bond payable to the District and keeps it in force during the original permit term, any extension and the life of any guaranty required under the permit, and it awards attorney's fees to the prevailing party. A surety reading that language may treat the obligation as running past completion when a permit carries a guaranty.

• Amount: set by the District, capped at $500,000, waivable by the Director
• Surety: authorized in Arizona, 30 days' notice before any cancellation or change
• Term: permit term, any extension and the life of any permit guaranty
• Release: after completion and acceptance of the work

A permittee that does not want a surety bond can use the District's Security in Lieu of Performance Bond form. Instead of a cash payment to the District, the permittee assigns to the District an FDIC-insured deposit account at a financial institution. The bank signs a notarized endorsement and waives its right of set-off, and the form states that the assignment is given as security for completion of the work identified in the permit.

For a utility contractor with several open District permits, assigned accounts can tie up working capital that a bond line would otherwise leave free. A surety bond, by contrast, rests on the contractor's indemnity to the surety and on underwriting of its financial statements. Which instrument fits depends on the size of the permit security, the firm's bonding capacity and how long the permit and any guaranty run.

The resolution requires the permittee to defend, indemnify and hold the District harmless, including claims alleging the joint negligence of the District and the permittee. That reaches further than an indemnity limited to the permittee's own negligence, so the contractor's contractual liability coverage and the additional insured endorsement it gives the District deserve a close read before the permit is signed.

For insurance, the resolution does not print limits. It requires commercial general liability per the current established minimum limits set by Maricopa County Risk Management, stated as a general aggregate, a products and completed operations aggregate and an each-occurrence limit. The certificate must provide 30 days' written notice of cancellation and show the permit number. Government agencies and public service corporations with a net worth over $2,000,000 are exempt from showing insurance, but their contractors are not named in that exemption.

The District may also require part-time or full-time qualified independent inspection at the permittee's cost. On a long pipeline crossing or a channel modification, that inspection cost belongs in the bid and in the schedule.

The District posts a sample Certificate of Insurance form for the Right-of-Way Use Permit. It is the District's sample certificate, not the resolution, and the resolution still points to the current Risk Management minimums, so the limits on the sample are best confirmed with the District for each permit before coverage is bound.

The sample names the Flood Control District of Maricopa County and Maricopa County as additional insureds on every line except workers' compensation and professional liability, states that insurance available to the named insured is primary and provides 30 days' notice of cancellation. It also lists lines for explosion, collapse and underground (XCU), independent contractors, owner's and contractor's protective liability and builders' risk, which signals that a permit involving excavation near District structures may draw questions about those coverages.

• General liability: $2,000,000 each occurrence, $4,000,000 general aggregate, $2,000,000 products and completed operations aggregate
• Auto: $2,000,000 combined single limit, any auto, owned and non-owned
• Employer's liability at $1,000,000 for each accident, for disease per employee and for the disease policy limit, alongside statutory workers' compensation
• Additional insureds: the District and the County on all lines except workers' compensation and professional liability

Exhibit A to the resolution sets the right-of-way permit fees. The Floodplain Use Permit page lists separate charges for appeals and variances. Applicants also pay all costs of an expedited U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 408 review under the District's 214 memorandum of agreement.

• Filing: $250 per application
• Temporary use: $325 plus a land use fee
• Permanent installation review: $650 for the first submittal, $325 for each later submittal
• Inspection: $70, $80 or $90 per inspection, depending on distance from the Durango Complex
• Land use fee or easement: $600 minimum or market value
• After-the-fact permit: $1,500
• Floodplain appeals or interpretations: $250; variance: $2,600

The Floodplain Regulations for Maricopa County, version dated January 2, 2018, and adopted January 17, 2018, govern the other permit. Section 401 requires a Floodplain Use Permit before development in a delineated floodplain. Section 404.A.2 lets the District require the applicant to post performance bonds, assurances or other security to guarantee performance of the conditions and restrictions imposed, and Section 403.B says sand and gravel closure plans may require financial assurances. Sand and gravel permits and CLOMR or LOMR submittals need additional documents.

The District's Adopted Regulations page marks this posted PDF as archived in November 2025, and this page could not confirm whether a newer version has replaced it. A developer or aggregate operator should confirm the current floodplain regulations with the District before relying on these section numbers or planning the security for a floodplain permit.