Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: Colorado River

Lower Basin states brace for Colorado River cuts

Lawmakers and water officials in Arizona, California and Nevada pushed back against proposed reductions to withdrawal allowances from the drought-stricken Colorado River.

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s “adaptive decision framework” included in the recently released final environmental impact statement would reduce the three states’ share by up to 3 million acre-feet a year through 2036, roughly the same amount Nevada and Arizona receive combined. 

The Colorado River provides water to 40 million people in seven states, several tribes and Mexico. The allocation cuts would start next year, be revisited every two years, and be adjusted based on conditions throughout the basin.

Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, said this week she hopes the bureau implements the plan crafted by the Lower Basin states for the first two years, which includes cuts far less drastic through 2028.

“I’m not going to lie, the cuts will be painful, but certainly not as painful as what was proposed in the federal government’s draft,” Hobbs said.

Read more: The Legislature may need to call a special session after all

The framework is needed to manage the river’s water, which has been depleted by a decades-long drought, rising temperatures and decreasing snowpack. 

“The flow of the river now is 20% less than it was at the start of the century,” said Doug Kenney, director of the water policy program at the University of Colorado. “It’s just dropping quickly. … This is one of the best and clearest examples of what climate change looks like that you’ll find anywhere in the world.”

The framework is also needed to replace a previous framework implemented in 2007 that expires at the end of the year. The states have been trying to negotiate their own framework, but talks have stalled, requiring the federal government to step in.

A California water official underscored that the proposal is only a guideline and not the final word, while  Hobbs, Arizona Senate Republican leaders and Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo, a Republican, all issued statements in opposition.

The plan “could have devastating economic and environmental impacts on Nevada,” Lombardo said.

The water would be divided under the priority water-rights system, with Arizona having the lowest claim. Cuts are expected to come from those that get their water from the Central Arizona Project, a 336-mile canal system that delivers Colorado River water to Maricopa, Pinal and Pima counties, experts said. 

“This would place Arizona at risk of shouldering a disproportionate share of the cuts while requiring no reductions from the Upper Basin,” Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen and President Pro Tem T.J. Shope, both Republicans, said in a joint statement. 

Experts say it’s unlikely the river water allocation cuts will ultimately be the maximum level proposed, 3 million acre-feet annually.

“I don’t expect them to impose a cut that deep in the next two years,” said Sarah Porter, director of the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University.

The bureau also called for limiting releases from Lake Powell, which stores river water on the Arizona-Utah border, to as little as 5 million acre-feet. That is less than the 7.5 million acre-feet that Lower Basin states typically get. 

All the Lower Basin states urged the bureau to adopt a deal struck by the three states in May to cut 3.2 million acre-feet over two years, including 1.25 million acre-feet of binding reductions in both 2027 and 2028 and at least 700,000 acre-feet of additional conservation.

Experts say the bureau’s plan for the first two years will reflect the Lower Basin agreement.

“The cut that we expect is along the lines of the Lower Basin proposal,” Porter said.

Experts are also waiting to see what the specifics of the Bureau of Reclamation’s plan for the next two years and whether any states will sue. Lawsuits could take issue with the process, under the National Environmental Policy Act, and whether it violated the law in some way. 

States could also sue each other over broader river water use and the application of the 1922 Colorado River Compact and subsequent regulations used to make water policy. That lawsuit would go straight to the U.S. Supreme Court but take years to resolve. 

Celene Hawkins, director of the Nature Conservancy’s Colorado River program, agrees that a lawsuit is possible, but warned that a long, protracted legal fight could have negative impacts on the river.

“Lawsuits — particularly litigation about water at this scale — can take a lot of time, and litigation can’t actually create more water or solve problems in the short term for the basin,” Hawkins said. “The crisis is here, and yes, litigation is possible. But litigation can’t actually solve the problems that we’re facing today.”

Arizona facing deep Colorado River cuts under ‘unacceptable’ federal plan

Key Points
  • The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation released its long-awaited Colorado River operating guidelines
  • Arizona could see a 77% reduction in its Colorado River supply, rather than the 31% it proposed
  • Gov. Katie Hobbs and water leaders say the announcement is a framework, not a final decision

The federal government announced Friday that it will move forward with plans to drastically reduce Colorado River allocations to Lower Basin states, including Arizona, leaving Upper Basin states relatively unscathed.

The Bureau of Reclamation released its long-awaited final environmental impact statement on post-2026 Colorado River operating guidelines. The proposal calls for adjusting river operations every two years unless the seven states that share the river reach a long-term agreement.

In May, Arizona, California and Nevada outlined a Lower Basin proposal that would have reduced the states’ water usage by 1.25 million acre-feet per year, cutting Arizona’s supply by 31%. 

Instead, the federal government is proposing a Lower Basin reduction of 3 million acre-feet per year, potentially eliminating 77% of Arizona’s allocation. The state is legally entitled to a 2.8 million acre-feet yearly allocation from the river, but is currently reducing its usage by over 500,000 acre-feet. 

“Such reductions would devastate Arizona’s water users and its economy,” the Department of Water Resources said in a statement. 

In a statement, Gov. Katie Hobbs said there is still an opportunity for the federal government to adopt the Lower Basin proposal to prevent “draconian” cuts to Arizona’s water supply.

“Today, the federal government released a broad range of alternatives for how the Colorado River will be managed over the next ten years,” Hobbs said. “Within that range is the opportunity for the federal government to adopt the commonsense, compromise proposal put forward by Lower Basin States for 2027 and 2028.”

Republican leaders expressed frustration with the federal government in statements released Friday. House Speaker Steve Montenegro urged Arizona leaders to remain united in the state’s position, while Rep. Teresa Martinez, R-Casa Grande, lambasted the Bureau of Reclamation.

“Pinal County farmers already lost their Colorado River water. That happened years ago. They took the hit without a bailout, without fanfare, and without much sympathy from anybody,” Martinez said in a statement.  “So when Washington tells Arizona to cut more, I want straight answers. Who is being asked to cut?”

ADWR emphasized that the guidelines are not yet final and won’t be until the Bureau of Reclamation issues a Record of Decision following an expedited public comment period.

“We will continue to work with the federal government as well as with our tribal, agricultural and municipal partners in Arizona, and the other Colorado River Basin states, to make river operations work for the betterment of all,” ADWR said in its statement. 

According to ADWR, 36% of Arizona’s water supply comes from its Colorado River allocation. The rest comes from groundwater, in-state rivers and reclaimed water. 

Over 70% of the state’s water supply goes to agricultural users, with the remaining 28% shared by municipal and industrial users, according to the department.

Friday’s announcement wasn’t exactly unexpected. The Bureau of Reclamation’s February draft environmental impact statement proposed cutting Arizona’s Colorado River allocation by 77%.

That suggestion sparked immediate and intense backlash from Arizona’s elected officials, water experts, business leaders and tribal nations. 

Hobbs’ office even hired a high-powered law firm to prepare for potential litigation in the case the Bureau attempted to enact that proposal. The Legislature also set aside millions of dollars in the last two state budgets to fund any legal action needed to protect Arizona’s share of the river. 

With Friday’s announcement, litigation remains an option for Arizona to defend its water rights. The concept of a negotiated sharing agreement between the seven Colorado River states remains far-fetched.

The states remain at a negotiating standstill over how to share the river in the coming decades. Its dwindling flows can no longer support the allocations outlined in the current sharing agreement, which is set to expire this year. 

Arizona and its Lower Basin neighbors have already made significant cuts to their Colorado River usage in recent years, and those negotiators argue the Upper Basin states are not willing to bear meaningful cuts to their allocations. 

Negotiators from Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico argue that the Lower Basin states should bear the brunt of any cuts because the Upper Basin states have historically received less than their full share of the river’s flows. 

“For many months it has been clear that the direction of Colorado River negotiations has been an exercise in lowering expectations, particularly for a long-term, seven-state agreement on operating this vital river system,” ADWR said in a statement. 

The Colorado River situation could also have implications for Arizona’s governor’s race. Hobbs and her Republican challenger, Congressman Andy Biggs, have traded barbs over who is better poised to advocate for the state’s best interests in negotiations with the Upper Basin and talks with the federal government.

Additionally, polling suggests that 92% of Arizonans believe state officials should prioritize the state’s water security. 

Water experts are careful to warn that Arizona is not running out of water. But the cost for water services could increase when cuts go into effect, and there is less of it to go around.

Hobbs sees bipartisan budget, tax cuts as her election-year legacy

Key Points:
  • Gov. Katie Hobbs is already campaigning on $1.4 billion tax cut from bipartisan budget
  • She managed to secure a data center tax moratorium and avoid setting a new veto record
  • The governor will now set her sights on the Nov. 3 election in which she hopes to be reelected

For Gov. Katie Hobbs, the fourth and final legislative session of her first term in office serves as a model for how Arizona’s divided government forces state leaders to work across the aisle and compromise. 

“I think the election year politics were a little more challenging this year, but at the end of the day we got the right thing done,” Hobbs, a Democrat, told the Arizona Capitol Times while sitting in her office on the Ninth Floor of the Executive Tower on June 30.

She is hoping voters will grant her another term in that office on Nov. 3, a date she swears to reporters she is not thinking about even as Republicans in the Legislature did their best to prevent her from coming away from the session with wins she could tout to voters. 

“What’s going to happen in the general election? I’m not focused on that right now,” Hobbs said during a press conference on July 7. 

Nevertheless, Hobbs is already campaigning on the $18.3 billion budget she signed in June after it passed out of both chambers of the Legislature with bipartisan support. Her campaign hopes the successes of this session will bolster the governor’s image as a pragmatist who works alongside Republicans to craft moderate, common sense legislation and state budgets.

Hobbs said her proudest accomplishment of the session was the budget, which will cut taxes for Arizonans by $1.4 billion over four years. The tax package included elements of a proposal the Governor’s Office dubbed the “Middle Class Tax Cuts,” but which contained only cuts imposed federally by President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

In addition to provisions eliminating taxes on tips and overtime and increasing the standard deduction, the budget also featured a Republican proposal increasing the child tax credit and adding a credit for child care.

“This (budget) had the most support on both sides of the aisle and delivered a huge win for Arizonans with the tax cut,” Hobbs said. 

Republicans have lambasted the governor for taking credit for the tax cuts, which she did at a June 23 press conference featuring three signs celebrating “Hobbs’ $1.4 billion Middle Class Tax Cut.” They found it especially confounding considering Hobbs vetoed three similar tax conformity proposals before signing a budget that fully conformed the state’s tax code to the federal cuts — making Arizona the first state in the nation to do so. 

Hobbs does not see that as a contradiction. The governor and her staff were careful to note throughout the session that she would support full federal tax conformity if the Legislature could demonstrate a responsible way to pay for it during budget negotiations. 

And if you ask the governor, the bill moratorium she instituted in April — effectively grinding the Legislature’s work to a halt for a month — only helped bring the tax conformity plan to fruition by delaying negotiations until updated May revenue estimates demonstrated the state could afford it without shortchanging other spending areas like education.

“Ultimately, the last revenue report that came out right before we finalized the budget was really helpful in making sure that we could keep schools whole … and that was to me the biggest priority,” Hobbs said. 

But that brings the governor to what she sees as the biggest missed opportunity of the last four legislative sessions: the Legislature’s failure to renew the education funding mechanism known as Proposition 123. Originally passed in 2013, Prop. 123 allowed Arizona to make a 6.9% annual withdrawal from the state land trust to fund public education before it expired in 2025. 

“It is still a priority for me to fight for a Prop. 123 renewal,” Hobbs said on July 7. “I don’t  think that conversation is off the table.”

And while the governor may not have influenced the tax conformity plan, she did secure a data center tax moratorium that few thought could be possible and that Republicans have also attempted to take credit for. For the next three years, Arizona will not grant new tax incentives to data center developers, a move Hobbs’ office says will save the state $57 million while it evaluates the industry’s impact on water and energy supplies. 

Congressman Andy Biggs, the frontrunner in the Republican race to unseat Hobbs in November, attempted to attribute the data center tax moratorium to GOP leaders in the Legislature. However, the Republican majority largely opposed any adjustment to the incentives, which take $38.5 million in potential revenue away from the state’s coffers annually. 

The governor also signed 264 pieces of legislation into law this year, almost beating her 2025 record of 265 bills signed in one session. Hobbs has signed 993 bills in her four years as governor and vetoed 541.

Perhaps most importantly, Hobbs did not set a new veto record this session after previously setting two new records in 2023 and 2024. She vetoed 151 bills this year, surpassing her 2023 record of 143 bills, but falling short of her 2024 record of 174 bills.

That gives Republicans a bit less fodder to use against her in the upcoming election. She has previously accused GOP lawmakers of intentionally running up the score on her veto record by sending her bills she has already rejected.

An Arizona Capitol Times analysis shows 90 of the governor’s 541 vetoes came from bills that Hobbs rejected twice or even three times in the past four years. 

“I don’t know how many veto letters we issued that said, ‘when I vetoed this last year…’” Hobbs said. “It just shows there was no interest in working with us to get whatever they were doing to a place where it was workable or actually solved a problem. It was just people trying to make political statements.”

The governor also did not shy away from signing bills members of her own party protested, a habit she has kept throughout her tenure on the Ninth Floor. This session, Hobbs signed the controversial “Don Lemon” bill, which Democrats in the Legislature argue weakens free speech protections in order to crack down on religious discrimination.

With the legislative session behind her, Hobbs can begin to look toward her reelection bid and a potential second term. She didn’t give many hints about what her priorities could look like for the next four years, instead pledging to keep moving the needle on the issues most important to Arizonans. 

“The things I’m hearing from Arizonans haven’t largely changed, they’re still focused on higher costs, probably different reasons for it this time around than four years ago,” Hobbs said. “And we still have work to do on water, border security, continuing to create good paying jobs, and making sure Arizonans are equipped for those opportunities. So I will continue to focus on those issues and find ways to work with whoever is in the majority at the Legislature to get those done.”

In the meantime, Hobbs said she’s particularly proud of her administration’s work on water policy, touting the state’s advocacy for its position in Colorado River negotiations, the passage of 2025’s “Ag-to-Urban” groundwater bill and the creation of two new active management areas in rural Arizona. 

And until then, the governor plans to stay the course she charted after being sworn in as governor in 2023.

“I’m going to continue to focus on ways to work across the aisle and come to common sense solutions for some of the biggest challenges we’re facing,” Hobbs said.

Water woes continue as funding for statewide solutions dwindles

Key Points:
  • Western states that rely on Colorado River water fail to reach agreements
  • Governor says upper basin states won’t compromise
  • Federal intervention looms

Water advocates are worried about the future of supply following yet another financial withdrawal from a state authority once tasked with solving Arizona’s water shortage. 

Since lawmakers funded the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona with $1 billion to develop long-term water sources in 2022 under former Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, most of that money has been clawed back to help manage the state’s budget.

Lawmakers have already swept about two-thirds of the $1 billion funding in previous budgets, and this year’s budget takes another $20 million from WIFA’s water supply development to backfund new shortages in the state budget. 

The budget cut to WIFA follows a May letter to Gov. Katie Hobbs wherein a coalition of water users, municipalities and utility companies asked the governor to do more to protect WIFA’s funds. More than 30 groups signed onto the letter, including the Central Arizona Project, the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, the Homebuilders Association of Central Arizona and the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association. 

“We as a state need to show that we are seriously working to come up with new supplies to help offset reductions to the Colorado River,” said Warren Tenney, executive director of the Arizona Water Municipal Users Association. “We’re definitely behind. We’re not as far along as we should be.”

Most of WIFA’s cuts in recent years have come from its long-term water augmentation fund, which financially supports projects intended to bring reliable and sustainable water solutions to the state. This year’s $20 million cut doesn’t touch that fund, a choice which Tenney said water users appreciate.

Hobbs indicated on June 25 that negotiations among the seven Colorado River basin states haven’t left much compromise between the upper basin states and the lower basin states, which includes Arizona. 

“The upper basin has consistently refused to come to the table with real solutions. They refuse to conserve any water in a southern state deal. That is not acceptable to Arizona,” Hobbs said. “We will end up taking the largest shortages, no matter what happens.”

And whatever cutback Arizona does get from the Colorado River may impact rural areas of the state that don’t get any Colorado River resources, said Ron Doba, executive director of the Northern Arizona Municipal Water Users Association. 

“We definitely hate to see metropolitan areas impacted because they have to get their water from somewhere,” Doba said. “Rural Arizona, more and more as time goes on, is concerned about protecting the rural water supplies that we need for growth.”

The state budget does include a $6 million appropriation into a litigation fund for Colorado River negotiations. Hobbs said there’s nothing to litigate right now, but a decision from the U.S. Department of Interior that state officials are expecting soon may spring legal action. 

WIFA’s board of directors last week reaffirmed its leadership and re-elected Chairman Jonathan Lines, Vice Chairman Peter Kim, and Treasurer Tim Thomure to another term, doubling down on the agency’s leadership. WIFA is close to getting cost estimates on four long-term water importation projects the board approved for a study phase last fall, including importing desalinated water and groundwater from California.

Lines told the Arizona Capitol Times WIFA should have cost estimates for those projects in August and project partners are currently working on finalizing their proposals to present to the board. 

“We’ve got some serious work to do and we’re approaching a point where it becomes more critical to have more water,” Lines said. 

Many water users are also looking for the state to expand funding for finding new water solutions. Tenney said he believes it’s important for the state to show a funding commitment along with stopping future cuts to WIFA. 

Last year, Texas voters approved Proposition 4, which will dedicate about $20 billion of sales tax revenue over 20 years to finding new water supplies. Tenney said while there’s no similar funding proposal in Arizona being considered, lawmakers and Ducey approved WIFA’s 2022 $1 billion investment with the intention of that being a starting point for funding. 

“Everyone knew that more money was going to be needed,” Tenney said. 

Arizona Capitol Times Executive Branch Reporter Reagan Priest contributed reporting to this story.

Local water issue deserves attention

Dave Roberts

There has been a significant amount of media attention regarding the challenges facing the Colorado River. Rightfully so, given the importance of this water supply to Arizona’s cities and Tribal Nations. 

But while the state’s water leaders have tried earnestly to reach an agreement with the Upper Basin states on allocating the limited supply, solutions remain elusive. Hydrology is challenging, and so it appears we are headed to litigation. That is unfortunate, because through litigation there are typically just winners and losers. I know too well from my 35-plus years of working to resolve water conflicts for the Salt River Project that when it comes to allocating water, winners and losers is not the pathway to follow. Resolving such conflicts through agreement provides a win-win opportunity and creates the pathway for long-term investment and growth of the economy in the region. 

While the Colorado River issues are playing out, there is another similar water issue surfacing in the Phoenix area. This one involves the Buckeye Water Conservation and Drainage District (BWCDD) that I consult with as well as many of the Phoenix area cities and the federal government. This conflict revolves around plans to expand the storage of water on the Verde River and plans by Phoenix to treat the wastewater produced at the 91st Avenue treatment plant as a drinking water supply. 

Unfortunately, both projects, if completed, would take away the water supply currently used by BWCDD customers. Those customers are mostly farmers today, but in the future will be homeowners and residents of the city of Buckeye. For the past several years, BWCDD has reached out to the Phoenix area cities and offered solutions on how these supplies could be allocated between BWCDD and the Phoenix area cities. But, just like Arizona and the Lower Basin States have found with the Upper Basin states on the Colorado River, BWCDD has found reaching an agreement with the Phoenix area cities difficult. Not so much because of what BWCDD is asking for in an agreement — far less than what their landowners’ decreed rights allow — but because the Phoenix area cities, except the city of Phoenix, don’t aren’t interested in coming to the table. Like with the Colorado River, that is unfortunate because the pathway we are headed for is litigation. And, as I stated before, the outcome of litigation is a win-lose situation. BWCDD’s water rights are far senior to the supplies contemplated in these projects. 

This issue deserves the attention from the Phoenix area cities to reach a fair agreement, just as these same cities want from the upper Colorado River Basin states. 

Dave Roberts is a former water resource executive for the Salt River Project, and now a water strategy consultant. 

Courts are no substitute for water-pumping markets

Peter Clark

A Maricopa County court recently denied Fondomonte’s request to delay Attorney General Kris Mayes’ groundwater lawsuit, reigniting statewide debate over rural water extraction.

The case focuses on whether Arizona’s public nuisance law can impose limits on groundwater pumping. Arizona’s current groundwater framework struggles to address groundwater depletion outside of Active Management Areas.

However, the Fondomonte litigation has exposed a deep structural problem in water management. Arizona lacks a mechanism for allocating groundwater based on the water supply in rural basins. In contrast, we settle water disputes through ad hoc litigation, political battles and piecemeal regulation.

The parameters laid out in Arizona’s Groundwater Management Act don’t fully address overpumping in non-AMA districts. 

The reasonable use doctrine primarily governs water users, but it doesn’t impose quantitative pumping limits or a uniform statutory standard for measuring harm to other users. As a result, litigation often addresses groundwater disputes in rural districts. However, the courts provide after-the-fact remedies rather than effectively allocate water.

Civil proceedings in these disputes are often slow and complex, taking years to resolve. For example, the multi-decade San Pedro River groundwater conflicts have faced continuous pressure from environmental groups and periodic review by the ADWR.

The courts rely on stare decisis, and groundwater cases are fact-specific, leading to inconsistent outcomes even in similar cases and creating uncertainty for water users. Mayes’ high-profile lawsuit against alfalfa producer Fondomonte applies a public nuisance theory to address the dwindling aquifers in La Paz County.

This approach is novel for addressing Arizona groundwater, but it is unknown whether it can yield clear constraints on extraction. Instead of depending on the courts to navigate evolving Tort doctrines, policymakers should pursue mechanisms that allocate pumping rights based on scarcity.

The current regulations for non-AMA water extraction don’t define clear and quantifiable pumping limits tied to aquifer conditions. The ADWR’s lack of authority to impose basin-wide pumping caps in many rural regions of the state compounds the issue — leaving Arizona without a means to allocate groundwater based on scarcity.Lawmakers have attempted to bridge enforcement gaps with various proposals, such as SB1425, which repeatedly stalled before reaching the governor’s desk. 

Arizona lacks one of the strongest safeguards against overpumping, a pricing system that reflects groundwater scarcity. 

One solution for directly tying pumping rights to the water supply would be to implement a system of tradable ground-pumping rights in non-AMA basins. In contrast to having the courts hand down rulings after the aquifer has already been exhausted.

Arizona can use a market-based framework to allocate defined extraction entitlements for trading among water users. Establishing a trading system for rural pumping rights would help to fill this void.

If groundwater prices were allowed to fluctuate with supply and hydrological conditions, water demand would adjust dramatically over time. Because as the water supply decreases, it becomes more expensive to extract water.

Rising extraction costs would make excessive pumping less profitable and create incentives for users to sell extra entitlements, shifting extraction rights towards more efficient water users.

This concept isn’t theoretical — Australia has been doing it since the 1980s with its Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) water market. During Australia’s Millennium Drought, the MDB water market saw peak trading prices in 2007 and a 69% decrease in irrigation water use compared to the early 2000s. Demonstrating that market prices can operate as an effective bulwark against overconsumption when water is scarce.

Mayes’ lawsuit might help clarify the limits of Arizona’s public nuisance doctrine and serve as another tool for preserving groundwater in rural water districts.

However, it has also uncovered a blind spot in the state’s groundwater management approach.

At its core, the state’s challenges are an allocation problem. As groundwater supplies shrink in non-AMA areas, policymakers will need solutions that adapt to water use and aquifer conditions rather than retroactive court proceedings and fragmented regulation.

A groundwater entitlements market would offer a longer-term solution, rather than a Band-Aid response to Arizona’s groundwater difficulties. 

Peter Clark is an Arizona-based writer.

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.

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