Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: Colorado River

Morning Scoop: A Coalition for Protecting Arizona’s Lifeline

Arizona’s Colorado River water supply is at risk, with current proposals potentially impacting the state more than any other. Despite using less water today than in the 1950s, ongoing drought and increasing demand continue to strain the system.

Millions of Arizonans rely on this vital resource, and leaders across the state are focused on strengthening long-term water security and economic resilience.

Join Steve Goldstein for a discussion on the challenges facing the Colorado River — and what it will take to protect Arizona’s future.

Arizona business and political leaders need to work together on Colorado River messaging, advocates say

Key Points:
  • Colorado River negotiations remain deadlocked
  • Business leaders are working with city officials to explore water solutions
  • Leaders are trying to strike a balance between pragmatism and urgency

Arizona’s business community and local leaders are attempting to balance pragmatic water solutions with urgent messaging to the public and the federal government as the state’s Colorado River position remains precarious.

In a conversation for the Arizona Capitol Times’ Morning Scoop, Greater Phoenix Leadership President Neil Giuliano, Intel Senior Technologist Kelly Osborne and Central Arizona Project Board President Terry Goddard discussed the state’s “critical” water situation and the role corporations and cities can play in advocating for a stable water future. 

Negotiations between the seven Colorado River states over a renewed sharing agreement are deadlocked, while the U.S. Department of the Interior considers alternatives that Arizona’s negotiators say are unworkable. The state has retained the high-powered law firm Sullivan & Cromwell to represent its position in a potential court battle, but more needs to be done at the local and business levels to conserve water, find alternative supplies and communicate Arizona’s position.

Giuliano and Osborne highlighted the commitment Arizona’s business community has already made to water conservation efforts as the federal government considers reducing the state’s allocation of Colorado River water to 15% of the CAP’s current capacity, or about 232,000 acre feet. Giuliano said the state’s business leaders are no strangers to the need to conserve water and create innovative solutions to do so.

“We’re desert dwellers,” Giuliano said. “We have been used to this for a very long time, and I think that’s why we’re very good at it, because we have to be.”

That’s why GPL joined the Coalition for Protecting Arizona’s Lifeline, an advocacy project originally formed by a bipartisan group of mayors in the fall of 2025. The coalition has now expanded to include business organizations, local water companies and tribal nations. 

Many of the state’s biggest industries rely on Colorado River water, which is why Gov. Katie Hobbs has urged federal leaders to consider the national security and economic risks of reducing the state’s allocation. Semiconductor manufacturers like Intel need water to maintain a competitive edge over other states and other nations, but Osborne said the company is also doing what it can to conserve amid water shortages. 

She said the company has decreased its freshwater withdrawal by 30% since 2020 while bringing two new semiconductor factories online by investing in water treatment and reclamation facilities.

“Not only do we reduce and reuse water, but we also restore (more) water than we consume,” Osborne said. “Intel has a net positive goal for water, so water that we actually lose to evaporation, we work with nonprofits within our watersheds to go then restore water to the river.” 

Goddard noted that partnerships between public and private entities are crucial for both conserving water and advocating for Arizona’s Colorado River allocation. But he said the state’s leaders need to do more to educate the business community and the public at large about the situation, highlighting a recent conversation he had with a business leader.

“He said, ‘Well, when does it become critical? When does this issue on the Colorado River become critical?’ And I wanted to say, well, about five years ago …” Goddard said. “I said, ‘Well, clearly today it is critical …’ if it was ever critical, it’s critical right now.”

Leaders like Giuliano hope to help the state’s elected officials spread that message by providing data and information they can use to make the case for Arizona’s water.

“If the business community can help our elected officials ignore the political noise and just work on your long-term obligation, I think we’d be helping if we can do that,” Giuliano said. 

He also said the private sector needs to help government officials spread the word about potential Colorado River cutbacks without spooking investors or average citizens. Osborne said Intel has focused on working alongside city leaders in Chandler to do just that as the company’s footprint in the East Valley grows. 

In the meantime, Goddard emphasized the importance of striking a balance between awareness and fearmongering.

“I feel like I’m Paul Revere, not Chicken Little,” Goddard said. “The sky is not falling, but we need to make an accommodation for a different kind of more water-short future. We can do it and our cities are pioneers.”

Arizona lawyers up for potential Colorado River court battle

Key Points:
  • The Arizona Department of Water Resources has retained the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell
  • The announcement comes as negotiations over Colorado River sharing remain stalled
  • Despite pleas from Gov. Katie Hobbs, the federal government has not intervened

Arizona is retaining legal counsel in preparation for a potential court battle over the Colorado River, according to Gov. Katie Hobbs’ office.

The Arizona Department of Water Resources has hired the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell to represent the state’s position as negotiations remain at a standstill and federal intervention on behalf of the Lower Basin seems unlikely. 

The Upper Basin states of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico and the Lower Basin states of Arizona, California and Nevada have entered a third year of negotiating guidelines for sharing the river after 2026. The announcement comes after negotiators missed two federally-imposed deadlines to reach a deal, one in November and the other in February. 

No consequences appeared to come from missing the deadlines, but in January the Bureau of Reclamation issued a draft environmental impact statement with five alternatives to the river’s current operating guidelines. Arizona’s leaders oppose all five alternatives and have asked the bureau to revoke the draft EIS.

Hobbs has repeatedly called on leaders at the Department of the Interior to step in and serve as mediators in the stalled negotiations, but to no avail. She made one such plea on March 17 during a U.S. Chamber of Commerce summit in Washington, D.C., imploring President Donald Trump and his administration to recognize the threat to Arizona’s Colorado River allocation as a national security issue. 

“Let me be very clear, this administration’s goals rely on Arizona receiving our fair share of Colorado River water,” Hobbs said. “It relies on Arizona-made missiles, Arizona-made semiconductors, and Arizona grown-agriculture … This administration must step in, show leadership and help the seven states come to a reasonable and fair agreement to ensure Arizona has the ability to defend our nation, feed our nation and build the high tech economy of our nation’s future.”

Hobbs’ office says it is currently unclear on what shape the litigation will take as the seven states await action from the federal government. A decision from the Department of the Interior on the draft EIS is likely to come around June, which will help the state better understand its legal position. 

Depending on the department’s decision, Arizona may sue the federal government or the Upper Basin states. Officials in Hobbs’ office say they believe Arizona has a very strong case based on delivery obligations outlined in the 1922 Colorado River Compact, which requires the Upper Basin to deliver 7.5 million acre feet of water to the Lower Basin annually.  

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser told lawmakers in his state in January that his office has built up a team ready for litigation, while California and Nevada have obtained counsel for a Supreme Court showdown, according to Hobbs’ office. Arizona allocated $3 million to a Colorado River Litigation Fund in 2025, and state lawmakers are hoping to add even more money to the fund during this year’s budget process. 

Hobbs has long said that a negotiated agreement is still the preferred outcome, but that possibility is seeming less and less likely. Arizona’s chief water negotiator, ADWR Director Tom Buschatzke, is still engaged in weekly negotiation meetings though, according to Hobbs’ office. 

The seven Colorado River states are currently operating under a temporary deal brokered in 2023, intended as a bridge to negotiate a 20-year agreement set to take effect in 2027. As part of those negotiations, Arizona has agreed to reduce its Colorado River usage by 1.5 million acre feet, which amounts to 27% of the state’s allocation. 

Hobbs has said the state is willing to cut more, but only if the Upper Basin states agree to reductions in their supply. The Upper Basin states have argued they should not be forced to make cuts because they historically have not used their entire Colorado River allocation, while California and Arizona have regularly used more than their allotted share. 

The stakes have only been raised by a dismal winter on the Colorado River watershed, which brought a snow drought and record-high temperatures. The Department of Interior hopes to finalize new operating guidelines for the river by Oct. 1. 

A crack in Arizona’s Colorado River front

Key Points:
  • Arizona leaders are anxious amid stalled Colorado River negotiations
  • Some Republicans are splitting hairs with Gov. Katie Hobbs over what to do next
  • One lawmaker is accusing his rural colleagues of organizing to sell out cities

Arizona leaders are getting antsy as the state’s water future hangs in limbo without a negotiated deal on Colorado River sharing guidelines and without federal intervention. 

A federally imposed deadline for an agreement on splitting the river’s water between the seven basin states came and went in February with no movement. And despite leaders from the Department of Interior pledging to step in and broker a deal, no progress has been made so far this year.

Arizona leaders at every level and from every party are opposed to the Interior Department’s draft environmental impact statement on post-2026 Colorado River operations, which they say fails to consider the meaningful cuts the state has already made to its water usage. The public comment period on the draft environmental impact statement ended on March 2 and the Department of Interior and Bureau of Reclamation have yet to communicate a path forward. 

In the meantime, with competitive elections hanging over the heads of nearly all the state’s elected officials, cracks are beginning to form in Arizona’s united front as leaders contemplate how best to make a case to the federal government. 

“People are pretty united about the state’s position, and I think it’s because the state’s position is we’re not going to take a deal that leaves us worse off than no deal,” said Sarah Porter, director for Arizona State University’s Kyl Center for Water Policy. “… I don’t expect to have perfect unanimity in terms of ‘what do we do next.’”

Arizona’s position

In January, the Bureau of Reclamation published a draft environmental impact statement, offering five alternatives to the current operating guidelines. All of those alternatives suffer from “serious legal and analytical defects,” according to Arizona’s chief water negotiator and director of the Department of Water Resources, Tom Buschatzke. 

In a letter, Buschatzke notes that the alternatives do not adhere to the 1922 Colorado River Compact, which requires the Upper Basin states of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico to deliver certain quantities of water to the Lower Basin states of Arizona, California and Nevada. 

Gov. Katie Hobbs has said Arizona is not willing to cut more than the around 5 million acre feet in water usage it has already conserved unless the Upper Basin states also agree to meaningful reductions in their own usage.

At a U.S. Chamber of Commerce summit in Washington, D.C. on March 17, Hobbs said the environmental impact statement signals that the federal government plans on balancing the Colorado River water shortage “completely on Arizona’s back.”

“Since the 1950s, we’ve added over 6 million people to our state and have an economy roughly 100 times bigger, yet we’re still using roughly the same amount of water,” Hobbs said. “And we’re willing to do more, but recent plans from the Department of Interior are putting our water supply in jeopardy.”

Making the case

Hobbs went on offense over the fall of 2025 to promote the state’s position, blasting the Upper Basin states for their “extreme negotiating position” and urging the Department of Interior to intervene ahead of a Nov. 11 deadline to reach a deal. 

During the annual Colorado River Water Users Association in December, some states’ water stakeholders complained to Arizona’s representatives that Hobbs was “getting so engaged” in an area where governors typically rely on their state’s Colorado River negotiators to communicate their position. 

Hobbs “called for and secured the unprecedented meeting” between the Colorado River governors and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum in February, according to her office. The governor told reporters the meeting left her feeling “cautiously optimistic” about a negotiated deal, though nothing further emerged from it. 

All of that isn’t stopping Arizona Republicans in the Legislature and in Congress from accusing Hobbs of not doing enough to sway the conversation in the state’s favor or to court the approval of President Donald Trump’s administration. U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., told reporters on March 13 that he met with House and Senate Republicans at the state Capitol to strategize on the Colorado River.

“We’re working with the Bureau of Reclamation and trying to make our case and we really haven’t seen much help from the Governor’s Office,” he said. 

Biggs, who is seeking the Republican nomination to run against Hobbs in November, said the governor hasn’t collaborated enough with Arizona’s congressional delegation on the Colorado River. 

“She should have been working with us for the last couple of years to work with this administration,” Biggs said. “Whether we like it or not, Washington, D.C. deals in politics and parties, and that’s why I’m glad Senator (Mark) Kelly is working on this and pushing from his side, and we’re pushing from our side, and I think that that’s where she should have been all along.”

Biggs and Kelly sent a letter calling on the Bureau of Reclamation to rescind the draft environmental impact statement, given that none of its outlined options are favorable to Arizona. Some Republicans in the Legislature, like Rep. Alex Kolodin of Scottsdale, are echoing Biggs’ concerns at the state level. 

“I am concerned that the Hobbs administration is simply not qualified or capable of negotiating a resolution that is going to be anything but devastating to the people of Arizona,” Kolodin said. “They have been way too hesitant to seriously prepare for litigation and I believe this weakness is being sensed by all participants.”

Hobbs and Republican lawmakers earmarked $3 million for potential Colorado River litigation in the state’s budget last year, but Rep. Gail Griffin, R-Hereford, said in an early February press release that Arizona is late to the party.

“Arizona does not get to wish its way out of a water fight,” Griffin said in a statement. “Other states have been positioning themselves for court long before this fund was created.”

While a court battle is still largely viewed as a last resort by Arizona leaders, lawmakers in the House unanimously approved a funding measure in February to add another $1 million to the state’s litigation fund, signalling bipartisan appetite for a lawsuit. 

In a statement, Hobbs’ communications director Christian Slater slammed Republican lawmakers for staying silent on Colorado River issues for the last three years.

“Their failure to stand up and fight for Arizona’s fair share of Colorado River water is a stunning failure of leadership from politicians more interested in launching partisan attacks than getting the job done,” Slater said. “Their criticisms are nothing more than a desperate, election-year stunt to attack Governor Hobbs and cover for their complete and utter lack of engagement on the issue.”

Water is for fighting

Rifts are also starting to form within the Legislature’s Republican caucus over the river. Kolodin told a meeting of the Legislative District 3 Republicans on March 9 that he believes rural lawmakers are forming a negotiating party to advocate for their districts in the event of drastic cuts imposed by the federal government.

“If we’re in a situation where Arizona’s Colorado River allotment gets cut back severely, every lawmaker is going to be trying to protect their districts, that’s their job,” Kolodin told the Arizona Capitol Times. “Because water is a zero sum game, everybody’s going to be trying to get the best deal for their districts at the expense of others.” 

Hobbs’ office says Arizona has been a leader on water conservation over the past few decades, but only because leaders have been able to set their differences aside.

“That success has been made possible by bipartisan leaders who know water isn’t a Democratic or a Republican issue, it’s an Arizona issue,” Slater said in a statement. 

Porter, of the ASU Kyl Center for Water Policy, also cautioned against discord among state officials, saying a lack of unity from local leaders at all levels could spell trouble. 

“There are different politics, and if we get to a very deep shortage, what will be daylighted is the dysfunctionality more than anything else,” Porter said. 

Shift happens: When Colorado River cuts hit home

Rusty Childress

This is no longer someone else’s problem.

If Arizona loses a significant share of its Colorado River supply, you won’t feel it standing on the shore of Lake Mead. You’ll feel it in your water bill, in the cost of keeping a lawn alive, and eventually in what your home is worth. That’s the shift, from abstract resource crisis to something unmistakably personal.

For years, the conversation has circled around structural deficits, aridification trends, and post-2026 operating guidelines. Eyes glaze over. But when shortage conditions led to Rio Verde Foothills losing its hauled water access, none of that technical language was necessary. Real estate listings stalled. Buyers hesitated. And agents started hearing a question they hadn’t heard before: Does Arizona actually have enough water?

That question travels faster than any policy memo.

It’s not only Arizona’s question, either. Seven states, tribal nations, and Mexico all draw from the same river — a single connected system of reservoirs, turbines, and canals that doesn’t recognize “Upper Basin” or “Lower Basin” as meaningful distinctions. When inflows decline, pressure builds everywhere. Framing the problem as three states against four has produced predictable gridlock. Framing it as seven states tied to one shrinking supply clarifies what’s actually at stake.

When buyers grow uneasy, markets respond. When markets respond, politicians pay attention. Water insecurity isn’t just an environmental concern — it’s an economic signal.

Consider what a serious priority-based reduction would actually look like on the ground in central Arizona. Water rates in higher-use tiers would rise sharply. Outdoor irrigation would become genuinely expensive. Nonfunctional turf would disappear from new developments, and HOA rules demanding lush green aesthetics would become difficult to defend in court and in conversation alike. Subdivision approvals would require proof of actual, deliverable water rather than paper allocations. Agricultural districts would face compensated fallowing, crop shifts, or permanent water transfers. Industrial users, including data centers, would be required to disclose and reduce their consumption.

None of that resembles turning off kitchen sinks. It resembles reshaping growth and lifestyle expectations — which is uncomfortable, but it’s a different kind of problem.

Fairness, though, cannot be an afterthought. If homeowners are fined for overwatering while large agricultural operations continue flood-irrigating low-value crops, resentment builds fast. If builders keep breaking ground while existing neighborhoods are told to conserve, trust erodes. If industrial users receive quiet carve-outs while residents face scrutiny, the politics turn volatile. Scarcity that demands sacrifice from some but not others isn’t just inequitable — it’s combustible.

Rio Verde was not a large story in acre-feet. Perceptually, it was enormous, because it showed how quickly long-held assumptions about water can unravel and how rapidly markets internalize risk when confidence falters.

Backyard pools are more than amenities — they’re part of the lifestyle Arizona has always sold and that families expect to keep: sunlight, open patios, grandkids swimming in January. If scarcity deepens, even those expectations may face new limits or rising costs. Not overnight, but gradually, through pricing signals, restrictions, and shifting cultural norms about what’s reasonable to expect in a desert.

Structural shortages, in the end, require structural responses. Turf removal at meaningful scale saves tens of thousands of acre-feet; agricultural transitions save hundreds of thousands. Slowing new development until supply is demonstrably reliable prevents deficits from compounding. Advanced municipal reuse increases reliability within existing urban systems. None of these are glamorous, but they save real water.

The uncomfortable reality is that people don’t respond to acre-feet. They respond to invoices and aesthetics. When a water bill rises 25 percent, behavior changes. When lawns vanish from new subdivisions, conversations follow. When buyers hesitate because long-term supply feels uncertain, developers take notice.

Change accelerates when cost aligns with scarcity.

As long as water feels cheap and abstract, deadlock holds. When it becomes personal and visible, adjustment follows. The river itself doesn’t negotiate — it reflects supply and demand, and post-2000 flows are measurably lower than the 20th-century assumptions that built the modern Southwest. Seven states depend on one declining inflow, and no single state can stabilize the system alone.

Ignoring reservoir charts is easy. Ignoring mortgage values and monthly bills is not.

The sooner price, growth, and policy align with hydrologic reality, the more orderly the transition can be. The shift is coming either way. The question is whether it shows up gradually in policy — or suddenly in property values.

Rusty Childress is an Arizona native and nature photographer.

Tom Buschatzke: Keeping Arizona’s faucets functioning

Editor’s Note: This Q&A originally published in the Nov. 22, 2024, print edition of the Arizona Capitol Times. It is republished here in light of Tom Buschatzke’s role in the ongoing Colorado River negotiations. 

Tom Buschatzke is Arizona’s chief negotiator for the Colorado River negotiations and has been the arbiter of the state’s water supply for over 10 years as director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources. In a career spanning decades and beginning with an internship at the very department he now leads, Buschatzke said there’s never been a dull day.

The questions and answers have been edited lightly for style and clarity.

What initially got you interested in water and water policy?

When I was an undergraduate student, I decided to become a geology major because I liked the opportunity to potentially work outdoors, especially when you’re younger in that field. I went to undergraduate school in upstate New York, where there were lots of rivers, streams, etc. So the three pathways with that degree were probably mining, oil or water. And I just got more interested in water, but more from a technical standpoint. I had aspired to work for the United States Geological Survey, and actually had a job offer from them, a job that would have started on October 1, the first day of the federal fiscal year. Shortly before that job started, their funding got cut. My job was no longer there, so I didn’t pursue that pathway … Then I decided to come here to go to graduate school. And in school, I saw … an internship advertisement on a billboard at ASU and said, “I kind of need some money, so I’ll go take this internship.” And once I got here, I started thinking, “Well, this is kind of interesting.”

What is it like to be the director of a department you were once an intern at?

If in 1982 someone said, “Tom, someday you’re going to be the head of this department,” I’d have told them they were out of their minds. There are a lot of really positive benefits that flow from it. First, having kind of worked my way up the chain, I recognize what it’s like to be at that level, at the intern level first, and then at the entry level and understand the challenges. I understand, because I’ve done it. But I also understand, having been an intern and worked my way up, how we viewed leadership at the time and how we would have loved to have had more of an opportunity to get input into leadership in a meaningful way. When I’m in the room with my staff, if they don’t tell me, I call on them and say, “What do you think?” They don’t get away with just sitting there because I value what they have to say. I know when I was younger, I had stuff to say probably that could have been valuable that I had a lot less opportunity to say. In that regard, the work world has changed. There is more value assigned to less-experienced employees in general in the work world than there was back when I was younger. I think that’s a very positive step forward.

What has kept you involved in water policy for the past few decades?

I think there’s several factors there. One, the policy side is really very interesting. It is hugely challenging, but it has so many different pieces that most days, I come into my job — and it’s been this way for a long time — I learn something new. After 42 years plus, you wouldn’t think that would be the case, but it definitely is. And I just think that for the future of Arizona, what I do is really important, and probably that drives me as much as anything, and has always driven me. When I was in Phoenix, it was for the future of Phoenix, but also in the context of the state and the region. Now, it’s the state and the region as well. So, I actually, crazily maybe, enjoy the interaction at the federal government level with the Department of Interior, other agencies that I’ve interacted with over the years, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, EPA, etc. I think those are also really interesting connections to doing water policy, just the breadth of it is sometimes daunting, but also what keeps you motivated, because there’s rarely a dull day. I always say part of what’s motivating me now is my two grandchildren who live here and who probably will live here for a very long time, if not their entire lives … I’m doing this for the future, the future good for the state.

What do you wish people knew more about when it comes to water in Arizona?

So, I think maybe the single biggest issue is people don’t understand that the community they live in matters in terms of the reliability of their water supply. There are communities that are very reliable, and there are communities that are less so, and when the Rio Verde Foothills thing blew up, I doubt those people knew the risk that they were under before it blew up. I have a younger daughter who was a club soccer player. [The parents] would say, “What do you do, Tom?” and I tell them, and they’re like, “Well, how’s my water situation?” And I’d say, “Where do you live?” And they’d be like, “Well, why does that matter?” I’m like, it does because [of] the way water rights and supplies have developed over the years, this whole first come, first serve, prior appropriation and other things. I would really be a lot happier if people were more aware. I don’t want this to sound negative, because I think this is a two-sided coin. What I have helped do, what I’ve helped create, is a level of reliability for people that perhaps is taken for granted. There is no one who goes like this with their faucet and nothing comes out, right? That’s because of stuff that I and many, many, many people have done over many decades. And I think that is somewhat of a unique situation in the world. The number of people, or the number of areas, that have refined water, 24/7, that’s clean and healthy is a very small percentage of the population of the world. I think it would be good if people recognize how good they have it. The last thing, and this gets into really difficult issues, people want their services to be as low cost as possible, yet to address what we’ve already created and to address what we need to do in the future is going to take more money. When Flint, Michigan, had their issue with their water quality, it was about a couple of million dollars they didn’t want to spend because their constituents were saying, “We don’t want to have to pay those rates.” I think that’s something that people have to start thinking about. If they want to continue that reliability, the cost is going to go up, probably higher than the cost of inflation. 

What do you recommend for people who want to learn more about their water?

We live in an information overload world, but through your individual water provider, whether that’s a city or a water company, the universities, this department, there is so much information that’s at your fingertips on the internet. It just takes a lot of time to slog through it, and it’s very down in the weeds, if you really want to understand it. One of the most difficult things for me, certainly, is when I get interviewed on television, and they want to be able to tell the story in 20 seconds. You can’t tell the complete story in 20 seconds. You can’t tell enough of the story on X. We live in a sound bite world, and these issues are pretty hard to describe in a sound bite world. So that’s a challenge for us, and it’s a challenge for people who are trying to get information, to make the commitment to really get down into the weeds so they can really understand the benefits and the risks that are facing them and us. 

You’ve been at ADWR for nearly 10 years, do you plan on sticking around?

I have no plans to leave anytime soon. I do think when I leave, when I finally decide to retire – which I’m way past eligible – I think it’s going to be retirement. Lots of people do consulting or try to keep their hand in it. One of the things my water policy adviser mentor always told me is, “Tom, when you do the water policy, if you’re not down in the weeds and at every level, all day, every day, it’s not something you do part time.” Because you lose the connections, and you lose your ability to be effective. When he retired, he was like,, “Tom, I’m going to disappear.” And since he retired 22 years ago, I think I’ve seen him four or five times. He doesn’t follow the water stuff anymore. The couple times I’ve seen him, [one] was when I accepted being the director, and he called me like, “Let’s go to lunch, explain to me why you did this.” So I think I’m gonna probably go down that same path.

What legacy do you hope to leave on ADWR and the state of Arizona?

That I left the state in a place where there’s a road map to addressing the water challenges that are facing us. I don’t expect to solve them all, but I want to make sure that there’s a pathway to doing it so that the next whomevers, director, staff, etc, have a solid foothold on solving those issues. Also, I am a huge proponent, as you can imagine, of this department hiring interns. When I was an intern here, there were about a dozen or so interns, most of them went on to really impactful things in the world of water. One went to the EPA. One went to the New York State EPA equivalent. Two of them, one was as the head water person for SRP for years. The other was the second or third in command at SRP on the water side for many years. So I fully embrace and recognize the value of internships in terms of launching people’s careers, and the value that not only it gives to the state, but the value that it gives to the water community.

Is there anything else you think people should know?

I would just hope people understand that this department makes decisions in view of what’s good for the entire state of Arizona. That’s our charge. So, sometimes when you do that, individual groups are aggrieved. But I hope people understand that that’s what we have to do. The other thing I want them to understand, in relation to the Colorado River, is that this state was the first to really embrace meaningful roles for tribes. Now, there are other processes in other states, but we were really the ones who started bringing them into the fold, probably around 2016 or 2017. It goes to what I say publicly all the time, we need everyone to participate if we’re going to address the challenges of that river. One of the other big things we hear is like, “We want to be in the room.” Well, it’s hard to negotiate something with 100 people in a room. We’ve tried to create layers of participation, but that frustrates a lot of people [who say], “I have a stake, I should be in the room.” I think we have, relatively successfully, figured out a way, through having different layers, almost like an inverted pyramid, to get people to have the opportunity to really weigh in with us. Also, this department was devastated by the Great Recession. It went from 240 or 245 people to 90. When I became the director in 2015, we were probably about 122. We’re twice that now, and that occurred with the support of the stakeholders in this state. They wanted this department to grow back again, because even though they are aggrieved sometimes by some of the decisions, they understand. I think that is part and parcel of demonstrating they recognize the larger benefit that this department creates. I’m very thankful that we have that support.

The odds are sinking for groundwater legislation

Key Points:
  • Groundwater issues focus on rural needs
  • Rep. Gail Griffin is considered key opponent of reform
  • Attempting a ballot measure is believed to be too expensive

As crossover week at the Arizona Legislature concludes, it appears lawmakers will go yet another year without passing significant groundwater reform.

Gov. Katie Hobbs and rural stakeholders have been seeking reform for years, and one Democrat who has been involved in recent negotiations said he believes a deal could soon be struck at the Legislature — depending on which way the Governor’s Office swings after the 2026 general election in November. 

“There is a deal there to be had,” said Rep. Chris Mathis, D-Tucson. “I think there’s a compromise there. There’s no question in my mind about that.”

If a Republican is elected to the Ninth Floor, it would be much more difficult for legislative Democrats to get a deal done if they remain the minority party. 

Democrats did get close in 2024. A groundwater bill failed late in that session, but Mathis said lawmakers continued to negotiate over the summer before the 2024 election. At the time, there were some predictions that one of the legislative chambers could flip to Democrats, but when Republicans instead expanded their majorities, negotiations stalled. 

“The impetus, for at least some on the Republican side, to come up with a workable deal just lessened,” Mathis said. “After that happened last year, we tried to go back to the negotiating table and just basically didn’t get anywhere.”

Rep. Gail Griffin, R-Hereford, looks to the gallery from the floor of the House of Representatives at the Capitol on the opening day of the legislative session in Phoenix, Jan. 13, 2020. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)

One of the main players in any water policy at the Legislature is Rep. Gail Griffin, R-Hereford. Griffin did not respond to an interview request, but lobbyists and rural stakeholders have blamed her for years for blocking any rural groundwater policy from advancing in the Legislature. 

“As long as she is chairing the committee through which any of these bills would have to go through, I don’t think it’s possible,” said Sandy Bahr, director of the Sierra Club’s Arizona chapter. 

Griffin, the chairwoman of the House Natural Resources, Energy and Water Committee, will be termed out of the House in 2026, but she is running for the state Senate in the conservative-leaning Legislative District 19.

“She’s a loyal vote to the speaker or the president if she happens to be in the Senate,” said HighGround Consulting CEO Chuck Coughlin. “I just don’t think it’s possible. You can’t get around her.”

Republicans in rural areas have also grown frustrated with Griffin. Mohave County Supervisor Travis Lingenfelter has been one of Griffin’s most outspoken critics. Last week, he and other Republican supervisors Holly Irwin, Patrice Hortsman and Nikki Check from La Paz, Coconino and Yavapai counties wrote an opinion article published by The Arizona Republic accusing Griffin of leaving rural Arizona “out to dry” with House Bill 2758. That measure would allow “eligible entities” to withdraw groundwater from the McMullen Valley Active Management Area that’s mostly located in La Paz County.

Active management areas are a tool that has predominantly been used by the Hobbs administration to impose restrictions on water pumping to aggressively manage the state’s groundwater resources. There are currently eight AMAs in the state, with the most recent one being deployed in January for the Ranegras Plain Groundwater Basin in La Paz and Yuma counties to slow annual withdrawal levels that are outpacing natural recharge by nearly 900%, according to the Department of Water Resources.

“They need to be called out on their assertions that they’re looking out for rural Arizona because they are doing anything but,” Bahr said of bills like HB2758. 

Griffin has previously said the Groundwater Management Act of 1980 and its companion laws are sufficient in giving Arizona the tools it needs to manage groundwater. She’s called on residents to petition the water department to form active management areas or petition their county supervisors for local management options. 

In a 2025 opinion column submitted to the Arizona Capitol Times, Griffin said the Legislature’s focus should be to improve existing groundwater management tools. 

If a groundwater deal is not reached at the Legislature, Coughlin said another path that voters could take would be to get a measure on the ballot in the form of a citizen’s initiative. 

But a citizen’s initiative is expensive, and Coughlin said he’s not sure who would be willing to fund a signature gathering campaign that could exceed $5 million and the subsequent campaign for the election. 

“Voter initiatives take a long time and a lot of money and they tend to fail,” Mathis said. “That would be fine by me. I’m sort of all of the above on this stuff whether it’s pursuing the governor’s authority under the groundwater management act, whether it’s a negotiated deal, whether it’s a voter initiative. It’s really just about producing an outcome where we’re able to protect these basins that are at risk.”

Arizona is building a future the Colorado River cannot supply

Rusty Childress

The potential collapse of the Colorado River system is not a distant theory or an abstract climate warning. It is a direct threat to the water supply of roughly 40 million people across seven U.S. states and Mexico. Yet growth across the basin continues as if risk itself were imaginary. More homes are approved. More long-term water obligations are created. More faith is placed in future solutions that do not yet exist.

This behavior mirrors another crisis unfolding in plain sight. In artificial intelligence, leading researchers and industry executives now acknowledge that credible estimates place the risk of catastrophic failure at up to 25%, with some warning that loss of control could pose an existential threat to humanity. Despite this, AI development continues at full speed because no company or nation wants to slow down first. This is not optimism. It is a dismissive response to known risk, driven by competition and short-term incentives.

The same logic now governs Western water policy.

The Colorado River is already over-allocated. This is not opinion. It is math. Average flows are declining. Variability is increasing. Aridification has permanently shifted the basin into a hotter and drier regime. Engineers and hydrologists have repeatedly stated that Lake Powell and Lake Mead are unlikely to ever return to full pool under modern conditions. These reservoirs were designed for a climate that no longer exists.

Yet demand continues to grow.

What makes the situation more dangerous is that artificial intelligence and water scarcity are not separate challenges. They are now directly linked. Modern AI systems require enormous amounts of electricity, and electricity generation requires water. Power plants need cooling. Data centers consume water directly and indirectly through energy production. In arid regions, this means AI expansion increases pressure on the same limited water supplies already stretched to the breaking point. What appears to be a digital problem quickly becomes a physical one.

This creates a compounding risk. AI accelerates energy demand. Energy demand accelerates water demand. Water scarcity then feeds back into economic and political instability. Treating these pressures as separate allows each to worsen the other without meaningful oversight. Together, they push the system faster toward failure.

New subdivisions, industrial facilities, and speculative development are still being approved as if water were guaranteed simply because pipes and contracts exist. Conservation is discussed, but limits are deferred. The result is a system that looks adaptive while quietly becoming more fragile.

This pattern is not new. In Collapse, Jared Diamond showed that societies rarely fail because they lack knowledge or warning. They fail because they understand the risks and continue anyway. Leaders acknowledge limits, then choose short-term stability and growth over long-term survival. Decline becomes normalized, responsibility is deferred, and action is delayed until real choices are gone.

Experts are now warning that under plausible conditions, Lake Mead or Lake Powell could approach dead pool status or lose power generation as early as this year. If that were to occur, the consequences would be immediate and severe. Water deliveries would be curtailed. Hydropower generation would cease. Major infrastructure such as the Central Arizona Project could lose its primary supply entirely. This would not be a temporary disruption. It would trigger cascading impacts across agriculture, housing and financial markets, energy systems, and public trust. Continuing business as usual under deep uncertainty is irrational.

What makes this moment so dangerous is not ignorance. We know the risks. We have known them for years. The danger lies in a dismissive response to that knowledge, one that acknowledges limits in words while continuing business as usual because saying no is politically and economically inconvenient.

That is why a moratorium on new growth tied to Colorado River water is not extreme. It is responsible. Just as many now argue that AI development should pause until risks are better understood and controlled, water policy must adopt the same precautionary principle. No new long-term water commitments should be approved unless there is a verifiable and physically reliable supply to support them. If that supply never materializes, then growth must permanently adjust to reality.

This is not an argument against progress. It is an argument for survival. The river does not negotiate. Physics does not compromise. Optimism does not create water. Everything is not under control, but we still have the ability to stop pretending that it is.

Rusty Childress is an Arizona native and nature photographer.

Arizona won’t cut Colorado River withdrawals without enforceable conservation promises

Key Points:
  • Arizona is embroiled in an interstate dispute over access to the Colorado River
  • Gov. Katie Hobbs refuses to agree to any deal unless upper basin states offer firm water conservation plans
  • Arizona has set aside $3 million for potential litigation over water rights

On Feb. 2, Gov. Katie Hobbs made her position on the Colorado River clear. Either the “upper basin” states offer up a firm commitment for water conservation, or she won’t agree to any new cuts for Arizona.

But the decision to refuse a deal over the embattled water source would not be without consequence. In fact, it would lead to federal intervention by way of Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, who would impose his own solution on the seven states that draw water from the river.

The caveat? Burgum has so far refused to do more than convene the governors of the affected states. And Terry Goddard, president of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District, which oversees the state’s Colorado River supply, said the options put forward by the Interior Department “are not palatable to Arizona or California,” one of the two other “lower basin” states.

“All Burgum’s done is set us up for litigation,” he told Capitol Media Services. “And I think that’s sad.”

In November, Hobbs asked Burgum to get involved and develop a plan to protect Arizona water users, specifically by requiring conservation in the upper basin states of Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming and Utah. But on Monday, she did not dispute that — even during Friday’s meeting — all Burgum has done is encourage states to work together.

Still, the governor said she thinks the negotiations don’t necessarily have to wind up in court, even though Arizona has already set aside $3 million for litigation.

“While we didn’t leave with a lot of specifics — the details are to be worked out through negotiation — I think that we came away with hearing that nobody wants to end up in litigation,” Hobbs said. “We want to find a way to get to a deal.”

But Hobbs said that means recognizing that Arizona, which already has agreed to give up 27% of the water it has been getting from the Colorado River, won’t give up a drop more unless there are firm and enforceable promises that the upper basin states will share in the burden.

That theme was echoed by Tom Buschatzke, director of the state Department of Water Resources.

“We need certainty that there are reductions in upper basin usage because that is one of two tools that we have,” he said, drawing attention to historic drought conditions that have meant less water flow.

“You can’t make it snow or rain,” Buschatzke said. “But you can reduce your demand. So that has to be a tool that’s in play at some level.”

At the heart of it is the need to reduce Colorado River use, with some estimates showing that water consumption needs to be cut by up to 3.2 million acre-feet a year. That’s enough to serve more than 9 million homes.

The lower basin states of California, Nevada and Arizona have agreed to trim usage by 1.5 million acre feet, enough to serve about 4.5 million homes a year. And Arizona, which, contractually and legally, has the lowest-priority claims to river water, has to cut its own withdrawals by 27%.

Upper basin states have said they’re willing to voluntarily conserve water, which would mean more water would flow downstream to the lower basin states. But Hobbs noted that it has not yet been put into a formal commitment.

“I shared this with Secretary Burgum and the other basin states,” the governor said. “For a successful negotiated outcome, Arizona and the lower basin cannot and will not be balancing the Colorado River on our own.”

She said the lower basin states are willing to do more only “if our partners in the upper basin states come to the table with reductions of their own.”

That, in turn, leads to the prospect of having all this decided in court.

“The stonewalling from the upper basin has made it very hard to see a non-litigation course in the future,” Goddard said. “If the upper basin continues to say ‘In a time of shortage, we’re not going to save and contribute to the shortage one drop of water,’ I don’t see how we can have a settlement.”

How much Arizona can demand could depend, at least in part, on the other lower basin states all working together.

Cooperation has not always been the rule, with California at times exercising its senior water rights. And even now, the amount of water that Arizona has offered up — about 760,000 acre feet — is on a per capita basis more than California.

But Hobbs believes that despite California’s senior right to the water, the state’s western neighbor won’t sell Arizona down the river, so to speak, to protect its own water interests. She said all three lower basin states have been united since they reached an agreement among themselves in 2023.

“So I feel very confident that we are continuing on a united path to get where we need to be on the Colorado River,” the governor said.

“I think we always have to be cautious,” said Goddard, a former state attorney general, acknowledging that, compared to California, “Arizona has a slightly lower pecking order.”

And he acknowledged the history between the two states.

“Keep your friends close,” Goddard said.

“But we’ve had some very good discussions with the major water users in California,” he continued. “They have a joint interest with us. We’re all part of a growing economy in the West that gets its water from the Colorado River.”

That hasn’t stopped Hobbs from making what she says is the case for why Arizona, despite its lower priority on taking Colorado River water, should have its needs met — and why the Trump administration should pay special attention.

“The most important computer chip manufacturing facilities in the western hemisphere are here in Arizona critical to winning our struggle against China in the AI arms race and at the center of the president’s recent trade deal in Taiwan,” Hobbs said.

And then there’s the fact that the majority of the nation’s winter crops are grown in Arizona.

Arizona seeks fair share of Colorado River water in negotiations with upper basin states

Key points:
  • Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs in Washington to make case for Colorado River cuts
  • Seven states missed November deadline for new agreement on river’s water allocation
  • Arizona has conserved nearly 9 million acre-feet of water over 15 years

Gov. Katie Hobbs and the state’s chief water official head to Washington to make their case to a top official in the Trump administration and other governors that Arizona already has taken major cuts in its Colorado River supply even while Upper Basin states like Colorado have taken none.

The meetings with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum come as the seven states that use the river have blown past a November deadline set by the Interior Department to reach a new agreement on how to split the river’s flow, which is a lifeline for all of them. The river supports 40 million residents and farms that grow the bulk of the nation’s winter produce, much of that in Arizona.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has set a new date of Feb. 14 for the states to reach a deal on how to operate lakes Mead and Powell after this year or it will step in. Both Arizona and Colorado are gearing up for litigation if necessary.  

Hobbs, in an extensive statement to Capitol Media Services, said the meetings come “at a pivotal moment” for the Colorado River, that “the status quo is not sustainable” and “the stakes couldn’t be higher.”

“I am going to Washington because I believe a path forward is still possible,” Hobbs said.

“I appreciate Secretary Burgum convening Basin state governors for this conversation after my calls for stronger federal engagement,” the governor continued. “That level of leadership is necessary, overdue, and essential if we are going to break the logjam and reach a durable agreement.”

The big sticking point is the four Upper Basin states’ refusal to take any cuts in their supply, despite Arizona, California and Nevada taking cuts in recent years as the river’s flow diminished, Department of Water Resources Director Tom Buschatzke said this week. He said the Lower Basin states are sticking together. 

“The Upper Basin wants us in the Lower Basin to take 2.1 million acre feet of cuts before they put anything real on the table, and then they want the ratio to be two units of Lower Basin cuts to 1 (unit) of Upper Basin cuts,” Buschatzke told the House Committee on Natural Resources, Water and Energy. Lower Basin states want a 1:1 ratio.

Upper Basin states are arguing that they’ve never taken their full allocation, that Lower Basin states should be on the hook for evaporation losses, and that they should count Arizona tributary rivers as part of their allocation, he said. That’s despite a 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision that said evaporation and Arizona tributaries do not count under the 1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act, which created what is now the Hoover Dam.

Buschatzke expects the Arizona delegation headed to Washington — backed by both Republicans and Democrats in the Legislature — to stick to their guns and argue that Arizona has already taken more than its fair share of cuts. He’s going along with Hobbs.

Hobbs took a similar tack.

“Arizona is a leader in common sense water conservation policies and we are at the table and ready to compromise, but every state that relies on the Colorado River must share in its protection, not the Lower Basin alone,” she said. “I will not accept a deal that endangers the advanced manufacturing and agricultural economy that is vital to our country’s national security or shortchanges Arizona farmers, businesses, and families.”

The state is currently losing more than 500,000 acre-feet of water per year from its 2.8 million acre-feet allocation. Most of those cuts are coming out of Central Arizona agriculture and underground storage programs. An acre-foot is generally enough water to supply three households.

The original 1922 deal between the states, known as the Colorado River Compact, allocated 7.5 million acre-feet each to the upper and lower basin states and 1.5 million acre-feet to Mexico.

Drought has cut the river’s flow, and Arizona and the other Lower Basin states have conserved nearly 9 million acre-feet of water over the past decade and a half to keep Lake Mead’s water levels from dropping so low that no water flows past the Hoover Dam. Nearly 3 million acre feet of that has come in the past three years alone.

“We would be in a tremendous crisis situation right now if we had not done all of this conservation,” Butchatzke told the panel. 

Nearly half of the water that Lower Basin states have given up to prop up Lake Mead since 2014 has come from Arizona, even though Arizona is entitled to less than 17% of the 16.5 million acre-feet the current compact allocates among the seven states and Mexico. 

“So we have’ done the heavy lifting,” Buschatzke said. “We’ve done the heavy lifting for the last decade plus.”

Arizona must take cuts first because it has the lowest priority under the 1968 deal that authorized the Central Arizona Project, which brings Colorado River water to Phoenix and Tucson.

Buschatzke said the demands from the Upper Basin states of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Wyoming that they be held harmless while Lower Basin states take all the cuts are what’s holding up a new deal. 

And he points to reservoirs in those states that are at relatively high levels compared with lakes Powell and Mead, and argues that water should be allowed to flow downstream to the Lower Basin states.

“I believe it’s a pretty tough thing for the state of Arizona to ask our people to take cuts based on the elevations in the volume of water in Lake Powell alone,” he said. “One of our big points of negotiation is that a substantial amount of water from these reservoirs above Lake Powell has to move to Lake Powell and then move down to Lake Mead so that we can access it. 

“There are legal arguments that both sides are making about the purposes of these reservoirs when they were authorized in 1956 in a federal Colorado River Storage Project Act,” he said. “We believe not only is that water designated for movement down into Lake Mead, into the Lower Basin, but that the federal government has an affirmative obligation under that law to do so.”

Upper Basin states – amplified in recent comments by Colorado’s attorney general — say Lower Basin states are overusing their water, Butchatzke said. They point to the evaporation and Arizona rivers that don’t count towards the state’s Colorado River allocation.

That’s not Buschatzke’s view.

In 2014, Lower Basin states received about their full allocation, 7.5 million acre-feet, he said. In 2024, they got 6 million acre-feet, and just 5 million the year before.

“Remember, we get to use seven and a half million acre feet of consumptive use,” he said of the Lower Basin states. 

Hobbs pointed to Arizona’s leadership in the data center technology sector, its massive new microchip plants, and its major role in feeding the nation leafy greens in the winter.

“By striking a deal that protects Arizona’s fair share of Colorado River water, we can continue to onshore critical supply chains and ensure our country’s strength for the next 100 years,” she said. “I look forward to making these points to Secretary Burgum and my fellow governors, and highlighting what is at stake in Colorado River negotiations for the people of Arizona and our country.”

Lab meat debate ignores Arizona’s water challenges

Peter Clark

Lab meat has become a contentious topic within the Arizona Legislature over the past few years. Lawmakers have proposed laws regulating these products, from labeling requirements to outright bans. The race to regulate emerging meat substitutes is gaining momentum in 2026.

However, Rep. Lupe Diaz has taken a more aggressive approach with HB2791. This bill bans the sale of cultured meat with a penalty of up to 18 months in state prison.

Diaz, a Republican, raises several valid concerns regarding artificial meat and its potential future health effects, as well as its impact on Arizona’s cattle industry. But banning this emerging technology overlooks Arizona’s water crisis.

Agriculture is the biggest consumer of water in the state, and the faltering Colorado River negotiations and growing scrutiny of groundwater usage are putting additional pressure on Arizona’s water supply.

Selling test tube beef will not replace your traditional porterhouse, nor will it be the end of the cattle industry. Both products can co-exist in the meat aisle. Policymakers should tread lightly because Arizona doesn’t have the luxury of restricting potential water conservation tools, as water is one of our most scarce resources.

According to the Arizona Department of Water Resources, irrigated agriculture accounts for 72% of water consumption statewide, compared to the meager 22% used by municipal and residential consumers. Alfalfa is one of the most water-intensive crops grown in the state, produced to feed cattle. 

Lab-grown meat will not catastrophically disrupt the cattle industry. But expanding alternatives to animal protein options could reduce pressure from water-intensive agriculture over time. Given the growing restrictions on water supply, policymakers shouldn’t rule out water conservation options, even if they offer modest returns. 

We need to consider the reality of Arizona’s current water supply. Prohibiting innovations in food production might satisfy specific constituencies, but it doesn’t address the water scarcity plaguing a landlocked state. 

Most of the opposition to cultured meat stems from the misconception that it will replace traditional beef. Arizona’s cattle industry can rest easy. Lab meat remains a niche, pricey product, with prices averaging $17 to $29 per pound. 

Consumer surveys confirm that meat is here to stay. Purdue University found that roughly 60% of the respondents would try lab meat. A separate study, however, found that only 6% of people surveyed wanted to purchase it regularly. Nevertheless, nearly 90% of Americans consume conventional meat. For most shoppers, lab meat is an option, not a replacement.

Lab meat isn’t likely to displace ranchers, nor will it disrupt traditional beef consumption. Both can co-exist at the local grocery store without threatening an industry central to Arizona’s economy. Lawmakers shouldn’t rush to prohibit emerging technology without evidence – they risk limiting consumer choice.

Arizona is currently facing enormous pressure on its water supply. The Legislature should be welcoming any innovations that could help reduce agricultural water use. Since the Colorado River is currently operating under a Tier 1 shortage, Arizona is currently facing an 18% cut in its water allocation this year. If the Basin states cannot agree, the federal government may press Arizona even more. The Lower Basin could face “shortages up to 1.48 million acre-feet.”

The stakes for Arizona are high. Even if lab meat only offers modest relief, Arizona is in no position to close the door to new methods of water conservation. The initiatives to ban cultured animal products fail to consider the reality of the water shortages – symbolic political gestures are not going to secure our water supply.

Instead of banning lab meat, lawmakers could find a middle ground for regulating this new form of food production. Rep. Quang Nguyen has proposed HB2672, which establishes labeling requirements. It protects consumer choice and promotes transparency, hence helping shoppers make informed decisions, while it’s a balanced approach to regulating cultivated meat. 

Banning lab meat would be a disservice to Arizonans and may discourage future innovation in food production that could help save water. The current state of water insecurity in the Southwest requires us to find new ways to conserve our water supply. Lab meat might be worth a shot.

Peter Clark is an Arizona-based writer.

Gov. Katie Hobbs: Affordability, education and water in 2026

Gov. Katie Hobbs is entering her fourth and final legislative session of her first term — and an election year that could decide whether she gets another term — with a focus on affordability, education and the Colorado River. The governor sat down with the Arizona Capitol Times ahead of the session’s Jan. 12 opening day to discuss her priorities.

Questions and answers have been lightly edited for style and clarity. 

What issues absolutely need to be addressed this session?

So Proposition 123 renewal, that’s a priority for me. I know there’s a lot of education folks in the community who consider it a priority, and it seems to be emerging as a priority for the Republicans as well, especially given our challenging budget situation. It’s a way to just give more dollars to our public schools that need it without costing taxpayers anything. What I hear from Arizonans, and thankfully, it sounds like Republicans have gotten the message too, is that we need to do what we can to lower costs. So you’ll hear more about proposals for that in my agenda, and hopefully, there’s a lot of room to work with Republicans on those things. And then, potentially (we) will need legislative approval of a deal that gets done … on the Colorado River post-2026.

Where do negotiations stand on Prop. 123?

I haven’t been directly involved yet, so I don’t have specifics on that. Given our budget situation, I can’t imagine wanting to leave money on the table that’s going to help fund public schools, especially given that (Republicans) haven’t been willing to make any reforms to the now-billion dollar (Empowerment Scholarship Accounts) entitlement program.

Will you, once again, propose guardrails for the ESA program?

Absolutely, and I hope this is the year that Republicans decide it’s time to take action to bring some accountability there. We’ve seen through multiple different reports that it is a program that is ripe with abuse and fraud, and so far from the original intent of helping kids with disabilities and failing schools that I don’t know how they keep defending it. 

Affordability is top of mind for all lawmakers this year. What is your office proposing to address it?

The first thing, and I hope it’s the first bill that the Legislature sends me, is middle-class tax cuts, the pieces of conformity with the federal tax cuts that will benefit most Arizonans right now as they’re beginning to file their taxes. So the greater standard deduction, the tax exemption on overtime and tips, a senior tax credit. Those are the things I included in my executive order, and I think they will provide immediate relief to Arizonans. I know the Republicans very likely want to do full conformity. I think both these tax cuts and the full conformity come with a big price tag, and we need to negotiate how that’s going to be paid for in the budget, the piece for corporations and the wealthy.

Republicans have proposed a special session on tax conformity. Have there been any more conversations on that?

If it makes sense to do a special session, sure, but there’s no reason we can’t just do it in regular session with an emergency clause, so that it goes into effect right away.

This year will be a difficult budget year. How are you planning to address the shortfalls caused by federal spending and tax cuts?

It was challenging to craft this year’s budget, given the cuts we know are coming and those that have already been put in place. I’m actually really proud of the budget, which we’re going to present that is balanced, that continues to invest in important areas for Arizonans and addresses some of the affordability challenges we know Arizonans are facing. You’ll hear more details on Monday, and see them next Friday. But we’ve proposed specifically the Arizona Affordability Fund and a housing acceleration fund to build more affordable housing. So those are two of the things I think will really help Arizonans with their energy bills, and then getting more housing built for sure.

What are you hoping to accomplish on groundwater conservation this year?

One of the things that we’re proposing is a water usage fee on data centers, and that will create a fund to really supercharge some of the conservation efforts that will need to happen. We’re looking at the possibility of another (active management area) in La Paz County. So more to come on that. And I think the Colorado River is really going to dominate the water conversation this year, but I know that we’re going to continue to see rural leaders pushing for more rural groundwater reform.

You’re also looking at ending tax incentives for data centers. Can you talk more about that?

I think we just have to find the right balance. We, as a state, made a strategic decision to incentivize data centers. We’ve done that really well. We’re the top two markets in the world for data centers. And there are concerns about water use, concerns about energy usage, and concerns in communities. You saw a very contentious vote in Chandler and a previously contentious vote in Tucson. So we need to strike the right balance. And I think ending the tax incentive is the right way to do that. We’re not telling cities what they can or can’t do. And I think you see bipartisan support for doing that.

You have eight agency nominees awaiting confirmation. Are you confident they will be confirmed this session?

Our staff has continued to reach out to Sen. (Jake) Hoffman, and had some good conversations. That could be meaningless. I’ve nominated qualified people who are willing to put themselves out there as public servants to run these state agencies that provide important services to Arizonans, and I will continue to fight for them. We are working with them to prepare for contentious hearings. And (Department of Environmental Quality) Director (Karen) Peters went through (the committee) last year, hopefully they’ll get her through Senate confirmation early on.

Republicans will try, and have already tried, to make this session about your reelection campaign. How will you stay focused?

There’s always going to be political distractions, whether it’s an election year or not, and I’ve always tried to just stay focused on what I think is the right thing for Arizonans. Going back to where I started, everyone’s getting the message that affordability is an issue, and so I think there’s a lot of opportunity to find common ground there. And it’s not just an issue in Arizona, it’s an issue nationally, and I am laser-focused on ways that we can do that at the state level.

You don't have credit card details available. You will be redirected to update payment method page. Click OK to continue.