Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: Colorado River

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.

Water Infrastructure Finance Authority OKs 2 projects to increase AZ water supply

Key Points:
  • WIFA approves at least two desalination plants in California or Mexico
  • Other proposals include treating wastewater and capturing storm water
  • New water would not be available until early to mid-2030s

Arizona will provide taxpayer money to help private companies develop plans for at least two and possibly three desalination plants in California or Mexico under proposals approved by a state agency’s board on Nov. 19.

The Water Infrastructure Finance Authority board also approved initial development of several other projects from the two applicants that proposed new Arizona water supplies and had passed a lengthy review process. Those proposals would rely on treating wastewater, capturing storm water and storing it underground or making agricultural irrigation more efficient, with the projects located in California, Colorado, Utah or Mexico.

Both the desalination plants and the remaining projects envision trading that new water for Colorado River allocations currently used by those states or Mexico. 

The amount of money the state will pay the companies involved to develop their proposals further isn’t known. Instead, the state agency will issue “task orders” in the coming months and determine how much it will pay for each project to be fleshed out.

And the water won’t come quickly: The earliest a proposal could supply any new water is in 2028, but most aim for the early to mid-2030s to begin deliveries.

No cost estimates for the projects were immediately released, but previous desalination proposals were expected to cost between $5 billion and $10 billion each to develop. 

All told, Arizona’s water supplies could be boosted by between 427,000 acre feet and 1.6 million acre feet a year if all the projects were implemented. An acre foot is about 326,000 gallons – enough water to cover an acre of land one foot deep and typically enough to supply three homes for a year.

The moves by the agency known as WIFA come as the state faces additional cutbacks in its Colorado River supplies, and as its existing groundwater sources are stressed to the limit. The unanimous vote by the 9-member board and the release of the proposals mark the first time the public has seen any details of the projects proposed to WIFA over the summer and reviewed in secret by agency staff and by a WIFA committee last week.

Chelsea McGuire, WIFA’s executive director, told reporters after the meeting that, three years after the Legislature expanded the agency’s mission to include finding new water, she was excited to reach the point where the agency is acting to secure new supplies.

“These are real projects, this is no longer a hypothetical,” McGuire said. “This is no longer something that someone is dreaming of in a room somewhere.”

Not considered by the board at the latest meeting was a proposal by water provider EPCOR to import water from a controversial project in the southeastern California desert under development for decades by a company called Cadiz Inc.

Cadiz owns a large swath of remote desert land about 60 miles west of Parker, Arizona. The company has worked for more than three decades to tap a large and ancient underground aquifer as a water source for thirsty California cities but has faced fervent opposition from conservation groups and state political leaders.

Environmental groups turned out in force at the Nov. 19 meeting to urge the WIFA board not to approve the Cadiz project, only to learn that a board committee that reviewed the projects in secret last week had recommended against approval.

“That one’s over, we’re not doing that,” board member David Becham said.

What remained were three other projects proposed by EPCOR, which provides water in multiple areas of the state, including San Tan Valley, Sun City and Paradise Valley, and four by a group led by a Spanish company.

EPCOR is proposing a desalination plant in Baja California that would produce between 167,000 and 500,000 acre feet of water per year by 2034.

The water would be delivered by pipeline to the Colorado River at the U.S.-Mexico border and allowed to flow into Mexico. In return, Arizona would get to take that amount of water out of the river farther north and send it to the Phoenix and Tucson areas through the Central Arizona Project canal.

The other desalination proposals approved for funding on Nov. 19 are from the ACCIONA-Fengate Water Augmentation Alliance.

Acciona develops plants worldwide, and Fengate Capital specializes in infrastructure investment. Acciona won a contract last December to design and build a desalination plant in Dana Point, Calif.

The partnership actually made two desalination plant proposals, according to one-page project outlines provided by WIFA 

Under the first, it would build a new plant in Baja California that would supply 150,000 acre feet of water a year by 2034. The water would be delivered through existing Colorado River water delivery systems or directly exchanged with Mexico for its river allocations.

The second desalination proposal is more general, with the Acciona alliance proposing to use “new or existing” plants in California or Mexico to deliver between 50,000 and 200,000 acre feet of water per year by 2031. That water would be swapped for part of Mexico’s Colorado River supply.

Both EPCOR and the Acciona group applied for state money to create new supplies in other ways.

EPCOR wants to invest in and develop projects in California.

It envisions capturing excess runoff in California’s Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and other sources and storing it underground for later use. In exchange for that 10,000 to 100,000 acre feet of water per year, Arizona would get part of that state’s Colorado River supply. 

It also proposes adding a new plant to further treat wastewater from an existing sewage treatment plant near San Diego to drinking water quality in exchange for part of that region’s Colorado River supply. It hopes to net between 14,000 and 95,000 acre feet of new water. 

The Acciona group has a similar “toilet to tap” proposal, hoping to treat wastewater in Mexico and Colorado to high quality, freeing up between 20,000 and 130,000 acre feet of Colorado River water those areas would normally use.

Acciona also wants to invest in improving the efficiency of irrigation operations in Mexico, California and Utah in hopes of obtaining between 16,000 and 466,000 acre feet of water from those areas between 2028 and 2037. 

Ted Cooke, a board member who led the WIFA’s board committee that evaluated the projects, said finding and developing new water supplies for Arizona required a private public partnership the board is now embarking upon.

“We need private equity to get this done,” he said.

“We need private expertise to get this done,” Cooke said while explaining one of his votes. “WIFA cannot operate a plant, WIFA cannot build a plant, WIFA cannot finance this on our own.”

State leaders issue bipartisan call to action on Colorado River negotiations

Key Points:
  • The seven Colorado River states did not reach a deal before a federally-imposed Nov. 11 deadline
  • The U.S. Department of the Interior has pledged to intervene
  • Gov. Katie Hobbs joined Republican legislative leaders in a letter calling on Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to end the stalemate

A federally-imposed deadline for reaching an agreement on Colorado River allocations has come and gone with no solution, spurring a bipartisan call to action from Arizona leaders to the U.S. Department of the Interior. 

The Interior Department gave the seven Colorado River states until Nov. 11 to reach a deal on how to share the river’s water between the four Upper Basin states and the three Lower Basin states. However, a deal was nowhere in sight in the weeks and days leading up to the deadline and was not reached by the end of the day, according to a joint statement from the seven states, the Department of Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation. 

“While more work needs to be done, collective progress has been made that warrants continued efforts to define and approve details for a finalized agreement,” the statement said. “Through continued cooperation and coordinated action, there is a shared commitment to ensuring the long-term sustainability and resilience of the Colorado River system.”

Despite assembling for an eleventh-hour meeting in Arizona on the day of the deadline, negotiators were unable to reach a compromise that could ensure each of the seven states receives its fair share of water amid declining river levels. What happens next is still up in the air, but Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum indicated that federal intervention would occur if the states could not come to their own agreement.

Arizona is a Lower Basin state, alongside California and Nevada, and its water negotiators have long maintained that the state has already made and agreed to additional water usage cuts. The Lower Basin negotiators have argued that the Upper Basin states — Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico — are unwilling to make any meaningful cuts to their water usage and instead expect the drier Lower Basin states to bear the brunt of the river’s declining flows. 

“The Lower Basin states have come to the table with offer after offer, with real sacrifices in our water — Arizona taking the brunt of that sacrifice — and the Upper Basin, being led by Colorado, really has refused to budge at all and has refused to take any cuts,” Gov. Katie Hobbs told reporters on Nov. 11.

Hobbs, joined by Senate President Warren Petersen, House Speaker Steve Montenegro, Senate Minority Leader Priya Sundareshan and House Minority Leader Oscar De Los Santos, urged Burgum in a letter to end the negotiating stalemate and honor the framework of the original Colorado River compact, which will expire at the end of 2026. 

“We write to stress to you that Arizona’s Colorado River allocation is important to not only Arizona and its citizens, but also to the nation’s economic growth and independence,” state leaders wrote. “Colorado River reliability in Arizona is a matter of national security. However, based on the trajectory of Post-2026 negotiations over the last two years, it seems that these foundations of growth are at risk due to the refusal of the Upper Basin States to offer meaningful, verifiable conservation commitments.” 

Hobbs told reporters on the day of the federally imposed deadline that she was still unsure about what federal intervention would look like, though she said she imagines it will involve more negotiating. In a press release, Hobbs’ office said the governor is expected to meet with Burgum next week. 

The state is also prepared to go to court to protect its share of Colorado River water after Hobbs and lawmakers earlier this year doled out $1.5 million to the Arizona Department of Water Resources for potential litigation arising from a deal imposed by the federal government. 

The U.S. Department of the Interior has set an Oct. 1, 2026, deadline for new Colorado River guidelines to take effect, and several other administrative hurdles must be cleared in order to meet that deadline. 

Bruce Babbitt: The ‘Godfather’ of Arizona water

Former Arizona Governor and U.S. Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt has devoted nearly all of his public service career to tackling water and environmental issues in Arizona and throughout the country.

As a Democratic governor, Babbitt worked with Republican lawmakers and other officials to craft the influential Groundwater Management Act of 1980, which continues to serve as the state’s only groundwater management regulatory framework.

Babbitt has also helped shape policies for the Colorado River and continues to serve as an influential voice during negotiations between the Upper Basin and Lower Basin states. 

He also lobbied the state Legislature to pass the Ag-to-Urban legislation last session. 

Sen. Lela Alston, D-Phoenix, referred to Babbitt as the “godfather watching over water in Arizona” during floor testimony for the measure in June.

Babbitt reflected on some of his notable policies and provided his input on the Colorado River negotiations during an interview with the Arizona Capitol Times.

Answers have been lightly edited for clarity. 

Why have you remained so involved with water issues?

When I left Arizona to become secretary of the interior, that made me the water master. That’s an actual phrase, water master of the lower Colorado River. And that meant that I was directly involved in all this stuff for almost all of my public life. And you just get so deeply involved. When I left the (Department of the Interior), people continued to seek my advice, and I continued my interest, and I began speaking and writing and advocating.

Most recently, Gov. (Katie) Hobbs asked me during the debate over Ag-to-Urban last year … she asked me to help lobby the Legislature. So all of a sudden, I am back talking to legislators. A question many people ask (is) ‘Bruce, who’s your client? You’re a lawyer, or do you represent somebody in some corporation or some faction?’ My only client is Bruce Babbitt. I don’t represent anybody. I’m in this because I care and I believe I have something to offer, and I like doing it. I’ve got a lot of friends all over Arizona, Colorado. I’ve worked in all seven states during my time at the Interior. And it’s so interesting, and I like it so much, I think I have something to offer. 

How did the groundwater management act pave the way for groundwater policy in Arizona and across the country?

Back in 1980, there was a real crisis in Arizona from groundwater overdrafting and we decided to enact an entirely new approach. What made that possible was that I was the governor, and we had good leadership in the Arizona Legislature. The president of the Senate and the speaker of the House were both Republicans. The three of us got along very well, and we simply went behind closed doors and negotiated for six months in detail about a comprehensive statute which has governed groundwater until this day.

How were you and other lawmakers able to come to a compromise?

We listened carefully to each other. We invited representatives from agriculture, the mining industry and the cities to join in the negotiations, and it was a very positive atmosphere because we all listened carefully to each other and were willing to make compromises.

Do you feel there’s anything that could have been done differently in crafting the Groundwater Management Act?

Well, that was 45 years ago, and in that time, we have seen the need for some changes. The most important one, I think, is to have a program for the rural areas of Arizona. In 1980, the Groundwater Management Act applied mostly to Maricopa, Pinal and Pima counties, with some exceptions, but it was and is basically an urban water management act for central Arizona. It’s now time to reach out and attempt to compromise, and enact a statute for the rest of the state. 

At the time, why was the Groundwater Management Act mostly focused on urban areas? 

That’s because of the huge demand from the urban populations, and it’s where most of the agriculture was. So it was the immediate problem.

How has everything changed for rural areas in the past 45 years in regards to water usage? 

I would say that the biggest change has been the presence of out-of-state companies coming in and establishing huge farms based on groundwater. You can see that most dramatically in Mohave County, the Kingman area and in the Willcox basin in southern Arizona.

What advice would you offer to lawmakers who are trying to pass another act tailored toward rural areas?

There are a number of different bills that have been introduced and debated. To some degree, there are strong points in all of the bills. They differ to some degree in the amount of mandatory conservation, and to some degree in the composition of the local management councils. What we need in the upcoming session is a spirit of compromise. It’s a kind of compromise that we had in the last Legislature when they passed the Ag-to-Urban bill. And my hope and expectation is that with a little more effort and careful attention to differing points of view, it should be possible to find a compromise.

What was your impression of the groundwater management proposals that were introduced last session?

Well, there are a number of different ones. They all have some strong points. I would say that one of the major differences has been how much conservation on what timeline, how much is it necessary to mandate the reduction of groundwater use (and) in what quantity there are differences that I think are susceptible to compromise.

What do you think are the biggest obstacles that lawmakers face in trying to get another groundwater management act passed?

I think the main differences relate to the composition of the local management councils and the authority that they would have to adopt management tools and management plans with the participation of the Department of Water Resources. There are differing provisions in the bills. The second major difference, as I see it, is conservation. How stringent should the water reduction proposal amount and deadlines be laid out? Those are, I think, the major differences.

What has been the biggest hindrance with coming to an agreement with the Colorado River negotiations?

The problem is the impasse between the Upper Basin states of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming and the Lower Basin states, which is Arizona, California, Nevada. The Lower Basin states, led by Arizona, have put forward a plan for how to handle drought, which means reducing the amounts of water that are allocated to the water users in the Lower Basin. Under the leadership of Arizona, the Lower Basin states have put forward a very clear, detailed plan that makes substantial concessions in how much water use must be reduced. The basic issue in all of this is there’s not enough water to go around. Big cuts are going to have to be made across the entire basin. The issue is how do you share those reductions? Now, the Upper Basin, particularly Colorado, have responded by saying, “It’s not our intention to offer reductions,” and there’s been no serious offer made by the Upper Basin in response to Arizona in the Lower Basin saying, “Here’s a proposal for reducing usage by the Lower Basin states.”

What will it take for the Upper Basin states and Lower Basin states to actually reach an agreement?

The deadline for agreement is coming up fast. That is, it’s next year. Now the states … have been unable to agree, and there’s not much indication so far that they’re going to make any more progress. That means that the Bureau of Reclamation, that is the Interior Department, now must step in and conduct the negotiations towards conclusion. The first step in that process is going to occur in November. In November, the Department of Interior is going to issue a number of alternative proposals. That’s part of the environmental process that must take place over the next year before the existing regulations expire. The existing regulations expire at this time next year so there has to be an agreement, and it looks like the states are unable. They’ve been talking for years now. That means that the Interior Department must now step in and begin to lead the process. The opening of that process is going to be in November when the department is going to lay out alternative ways of coming to a conclusion. It’s going to be controversial, obviously. But the important thing is that the federal government, in the form of the Interior Department, must now take a strong leadership role.

Colorado River negotiations remain bogged down

Key Points:
  • Arizona’s Colorado River negotiators say they are no closer to a deal 
  • A newly proposed plan failed to gain traction with the Upper Basin states
  • If a deal isn’t made, the federal government could intervene

As a federally-imposed deadline looms for a deal in Colorado River negotiations, Arizona water officials say conversations are still not progressing.

The seven states that use Colorado River water are currently deadlocked in negotiations over how to share the river in the coming decades as its supply dwindles. New guidelines for sharing the river must be in place by Oct. 1, 2026, but the Department of the Interior has imposed a Nov. 11 deadline for the states to come to an agreement without federal intervention.

Arizona’s negotiators, along with those from its fellow Lower Basin states — California and Nevada — maintain that the Lower Basin has made deep cuts to its current allocation of Colorado River water and continue to urge the Upper Basin states of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico to do the same. And despite reports of progress in late summer, members of Arizona’s team say the conversations are not exactly moving forward.

“The Lower Basin, for more than a decade, has been providing substantial support for the Colorado River system and has proposed solutions which would continue to support the river system,” said Clint Chandler, deputy director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources. “The Upper Basin states of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico, have not answered the challenges relating to conservation to date or proposed meaningful solutions for the post-2026 guidelines.”

Or, in the words of Central Arizona Project Board President Terry Goddard: “We’re up the creek without a paddle.”

Yet while negotiations are at a standstill, both Goddard and Chandler said the seven states are still meeting regularly. Most recently, conversations centered around a plan based on the “natural flow” of the river, which would allocate water supplies based on the actual amount of water in the river rather than the historical amounts states were promised in past agreements. 

Goddard said that despite initial interest in the natural flow concept from the Upper Basin states, that plan did not bring about any compromises that could have led to a deal.

“I don’t think (the Upper Basin states) intended to change their position from ‘hell no we won’t go,’” Goddard said. 

Chandler said the Upper Basin states are still stuck on their ability to build water storage, which would not be possible under a natural flow plan. The Lower Basin states have long argued that the Colorado River’s current water supply cannot sustain increased water storage, despite what may have been promised to the Upper Basin in the past.

“We submitted something that, with just a few adjustments, could become operational, and the Upper Basin answered with a proposal and alternative that would have continued to build storage in the Upper Basin reservoirs, even at high elevations, while reducing deliveries to the Lower Basin,” Chandler said. 

And though Arizona’s negotiators haven’t had much luck with their Upper Basin counterparts, both Goddard and Chandler said the leadership at the Department of the Interior has been instrumental in keeping conversations alive. Both praised Scott Cameron, the acting head of the Bureau of Reclamation and a senior adviser to the secretary of the interior, for his work on the negotiations.

“The only thing I can say that’s kept the ball in the air is Scott Cameron,” Goddard said. “He has continued the meetings … and has kept it from stopping, otherwise it would have just stopped cold.”

However, Cameron only became the acting commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation after his predecessor, Ted Cooke, was forced out in September, as Upper Basin negotiators worried that he would favor Arizona in his role. Cooke previously served as the general manager of the Central Arizona Project, the 336-mile canal system that delivers Colorado River water throughout the state.

“From his experience, he understands the river better than most people, but he would not have favored Arizona over the Upper Basin,” Goddard said. “He would have been straight down the middle and they pulled all the stops out to get (his nomination) killed.” 

As the federal deadline for a deal looms, Arizona’s negotiators see only a few options for a path forward. Chandler said the federal government has adjusted deadlines in the past, which could allow for more time to iron out details if the states can come to a consensus.

But if not, the other option that the state has been preparing for is litigation. The Department of the Interior has signaled its willingness to create Colorado River guidelines on behalf of the seven states, which is likely to result in lawsuits from both sides. 

Arizona’s Legislature and Gov. Katie Hobbs already set aside $500,000 in this year’s budget for potential litigation, a possibility that many in Arizona see as nearly inevitable at this point.

“Hope for the best and brace for the worst is the best advice I can think of,” Goddard said. 

Building water resilience through innovation and partnerships

Arizona stands at a pivotal moment. The Colorado River – long central to our state’s growth and prosperity – is shrinking under the strain of drought and rising demand. The challenges are real, but so are the opportunities. For decades, Arizona has led the nation in confronting water scarcity with foresight and resolve, from pioneering conservation strategies to forging multi-state agreements. That tradition of leadership matters now more than ever.

As we prepare for a future with less water, the path forward must be built on smart solutions, strategic partnerships and regional collaboration. At EPCOR, we’re committed to that work. Serving diverse regions and drawing from multiple sources gives us a clear view of Arizona’s water challenges and the responsibility to act. Our lowest hanging fruit is addressing aging infrastructure and making investments that conserve water, support growth and create greater efficiencies across our water and wastewater systems. Now, as pressures mount, innovation plays a critical role in shaping our next chapter. 

One area that innovation is making a measurable difference is leak detection. Through smart meters, we’re helping customers identify leaks early – saving water and reducing costs. And, through our partnership with FIDO Tech, we’re using AI and acoustic sensors to detect underground leaks. In fast-growing communities like San Tan, this technology has helped us rapidly find and repair over 115 million gallons of leaks annually that might have gone unnoticed for years.

We’re also advancing solutions through strategic partnerships. EPCOR recently collaborated with several startups through the Arizona Commerce Authority and Plug and Play’s sustainability cohort. One promising pilot effort is through OXbyEL, a local company developing a low-cost method to remove PFAS. Their system doesn’t just trap the contaminant – it breaks it down at the molecular level. Though early-stage, this kind of forward-thinking work shows how utilities can accelerate technology to protect public health. 

Looking ahead, we’re also exploring predictive maintenance and advanced decision-support systems that help us make faster, smarter decisions and keep our systems more resilient. Across Arizona, our industry is advancing supply and efficiency, from expanded reuse to regional water development projects. While EPCOR isn’t involved in every initiative, we’re proud to be part of the broader movement – from our innovative facilities where we reuse or recharge 96% of the wastewater we treat to our expansive conveyance systems that move water from where it’s abundant to where it’s needed. 

Arizona has always led in water supply planning and management. The next chapter of Arizona’s water story is being written by all of us – utilities, industry and communities working together to secure our water future. Through smart planning, bold solutions and a united approach, Arizona will continue to lead as other states follow.

Shawn Bradford is senior vice president of EPCOR USA. 

Efficiency from all 7 basin states is the path forward

The Colorado River Basin was inhabited by indigenous people for thousands of years, using its water resources for farming and to support their communities. The river serves many more people today, thanks to modern engineering and water supply projects in all seven Basin States from Wyoming to California.

Today, Colorado River supplies are running short, and a solution seems elusive because some water users are fighting for control over someone else’s share of the river instead of seeking local solutions to their own water needs.

Colorado resident Jason Shulman wrote a recent piece for the Arizona Capitol Times in which he implied solving the Colorado River crisis could be achieved by maximizing efficiency on farms in California’s Imperial Valley, over 750 miles from his home.

Farmland across the West is already on the decline — lost due to water shortages and swallowed up by urban sprawl. Efforts to take even more water from California farms to meet the demands in other states only makes matters worse. The Imperial Valley relies exclusively on water from the Colorado River to meet its needs. There are no alternatives.

Arizona and Southern California are seeing more and more farmland lost to urbanization every year, with Maricopa County leading the nation in farmland loss, according to the American Farmland Trust.

In the Imperial Valley, efforts have been underway for over 30 years to conserve Colorado River water. The Imperial Irrigation District has been administering a variety of effective water conservation programs as a result of collaborative intrastate partnerships.

While we appreciate Mr. Shulman’s recognition of IID’s conservation successes, his focus is more appropriately aimed at his home state of Colorado and other Upper Basin States, including Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico. They have yet to step up in the effort to help craft a basin-wide solution, while California, Arizona, and Nevada have offered 1.25 million acre-feet per year in annual reductions.

Real progress is achievable if local water users look toward regional self-sufficiency instead of clamoring for water supplies that are needed to meet economic and social needs in other states.

A newly released report in the Journal of the American Water Resources Association examined the value of conservation investments throughout the Colorado River Basin. The report explains that conservation programs are usually less expensive than building new water supply infrastructure. Included was the cost per ace-foot for conservation in each of the seven Basin States.

Table 13 of the report shows that the lowest cost for conservation is in Colorado, at $285.90 per acre-foot. California spends $695.58 for the same acre-foot of conserved water, while Nevada is a whopping $3,860.84.

By the end of 2026, IID and other farm and urban water suppliers in California will have saved more than 1.7 million acre-feet of water to add at least 27 feet of elevation to Lake Mead. This is all part of the Lower Basin’s plan that is anticipated to conserve 3.7 million acre-feet by the end of next year. California has already reduced its demand on the Colorado River by 20% per year over the last several years. Since 2003, IID alone has conserved more than 9 million acre-feet of Colorado River water.

Imperial Valley farmers use water to grow a variety of crops, including winter vegetables, citrus, and alfalfa, a foundational crop. The big beef other states have is that many Imperial Valley farmers use their share of the Colorado River to grow alfalfa, but so do growers in these same Basin States.

Critics should instead focus on the kinds of things that are made possible by growing alfalfa. Mr. Shulman says people often “frame the problem as food vs. alfalfa,” but alfalfa is a big part of the food chain that brings us high-protein milk, cheese, yogurt, and other dairy and beef products many people enjoy.

The water that farmers use doesn’t stay on the farm — it returns in the food we buy at the grocery store. That food feeds not just millions of people in the Southwest but tens of millions more across the country. Urban conservation is critical. So is ensuring that farms have the water they need to grow food for the rest of us. Failing to prioritize food production is a recipe for disaster.

Our hope is that the future of the river will not depend on finger-pointing, but on practical, measurable solutions that protect both farmers and families. Efficiency from all seven Basin States is the path forward.

Mike Wade is executive director of the California Farm Water Coalition.

Arizona’s water future – ‘Ag to Urban’ is a good start

Bruce Babbitt

As the drought extends its grip across Arizona, we are flooded with stories of the impending crisis — Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tucson and other cities are running short of water for future growth and development.

Arizona now faces a hydrologic zero-sum calculation. More water for home building and industry will mean less water use in other sectors. The other sector most affected will be agriculture, for one reason: agriculture uses fully 72% of Arizona’s annual water supply. 

 Arizona has at last begun to deal with this zero-sum reality. In July, the Legislature passed, and Governor Katie Hobbs signed, an unprecedented law to authorize the transfer of groundwater rights from agricultural to urban use within Maricopa, Pinal and Pima counties.

This framework legislation – called “Ag to Urban” – enables farmers in these three counties to sell and transfer their groundwater rights to the home building industry. The law, passed with broad support from the agricultural community, is entirely voluntary. Individual farmers can choose whether to sell, when to sell and at what price.

To gain the necessary majority for passage, Ag to Urban contains a significant limitation: the credits made available to home builders can be used only within a one-mile radius of the farmland being retired from production, thereby ensuring that local communities will retain a continuing share in ongoing regional development.

 Ag to Urban is a good pioneering start. It will provide water to support urban growth without further depleting groundwater levels. However, it does not provide sustainable surface water so desperately needed to offset upcoming reductions in Colorado River supplies. To make up for those reductions, Arizona must expand Ag to Urban to include irrigated agriculture along the Colorado River.

Ag to Urban transfers along the Colorado River are not a new idea. Just look across the river to the Palo Verde Irrigation District in California. In 2005, Palo Verde entered into a 35-year lease to transfer up to 100,000 acre feet of water each year to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California which supplies Los Angeles. 

 In the Palo Verde program, member farmers may volunteer to participate by fallowing a portion of their farmland. More than 90% participate in the program. Annual transfers are capped at 28% of total district acreage to assure the continued economic viability of the District. 

This Palo Verde transfer model should be adapted for use in Arizona. The place to begin is In Yuma County where three large federal reclamation districts along the Colorado River use more than 850,000 acre feet each year to irrigate about 150,000 acres. Under outdated laws that govern priorities in times of drought, these Yuma County irrigators are largely exempt from the drastic cuts faced by urban water users served by the Central Arizona Project. 

The time has arrived for the Arizona Legislature to establish a Palo Verde-style statutory framework authorizing voluntary fallowing of up to 20% of combined district acreages in Yuma County. A 20% cap would yield approximately 170,000 acre feet per year for transfer to urban users in Central Arizona. 

 A voluntary transfer program of this size need not impact the important winter vegetable economy in Yuma County. Winter vegetables use about half of the irrigation water in the county, the rest being primarily devoted to alfalfa and other varieties of hay. There’s plenty of space for a transfer program that will not affect the lettuce economy.

 The Legislature should build off Ag to Urban’s promising start by adopting a comparable program for Yuma County farmers in the upcoming legislative session. The year 2026 is the time for a decision when the seven Colorado River states must reach an agreement on new rules for managing dwindling water supplies. Arizona should lead the way.

Bruce Babbitt is a former governor of Arizona, and former U.S. secretary of the interior under President Bill Clinton. 

Efficiency, not water wars, can save the Colorado River

Jason Shulman

I write as a resident of Colorado, where every drop of the river matters to our farms, families, and future. I have no fiduciary interest in water. I don’t own land around it, nor any water rights attached to it. But, simply put, I like to drink water to survive so its supply in the very dry American West has always interested me. Particularly the Colorado River and the millions of us who depend on it.  

The Colorado River is the lifeline of the American West, but it is dangerously over‑appropriated. Agriculture consumes the majority of its flow, and nowhere is this more concentrated than in the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) in California and Yuma. These regions supply most of America’s winter vegetables — but they also devote massive acreage to alfalfa hay, much of it exported overseas, using about six acre‑feet of water per acre each year.

That fact often leads people to frame the problem as “food vs. alfalfa.” But I believe we can solve this without starving our nation of food. The answer is targeted efficiency — rewarding real, measured conservation and shifting crop mixes where it makes sense.

Shifting even 10% to 25% of IID’s alfalfa acreage into lettuce and wheat rotations could free up 65,000 to 160,000 acre‑feet annually while strengthening the winter vegetable supply. Paying growers to idle feed crops during the hottest summer months could save another 150,000 to 200,000 acre‑feet. Together, these steps would conserve roughly 300,000 acre‑feet per year — water that could help stabilize Lake Mead — without undermining the winter lettuce and greens on which Americans depend from November to March.

These programs are not hypothetical. IID’s Deficit Irrigation Program allows landowners to voluntarily forgo irrigation for 45 to 60 days, with gates physically locked, paying participants based on historical usage baselines. In 2024, DIP alone conserved over 172,000 acre feet in Lake Mead. IID’s broader On‑Farm Efficiency Conservation Program (OFECP) also produces field‑level conservation credits; in 2024, more than 70,000 acre feet of its conserved water was set aside as “System Conservation Water” to remain in Lake Mead. The federal government’s Lower Basin System Conservation Program is currently offering $300 to $400/acre feet in verified incentives for conservation. To verify savings, we can leverage satellite evapotranspiration tools like the OpenET platform, which enables measurement of actual crop water use across fields.

Other countries have already shown the way. In the Netherlands, advanced greenhouses can produce tomatoes with as little as 4 liters of water per kg in closed systems, compared to 60 liters in open‑field drip systems. Israel reuses nearly 90% of its wastewater, sending much of it to agriculture after treatment, dramatically reducing freshwater demand. These are not distant models — they are blueprints we can adapt to the Colorado Basin, tailored to our crops and climate.

The Colorado River does not have to be a story of litigation or interstate war. It can be a story of smart contracts with farmers, science‑based verification, and pragmatic crop shifts. Paying fairly for real water savings is likely far less expensive and faster than building new dams, pipelines, or large‑scale desalination plants.

My hope is that the future of the river will not depend on finger‑pointing but on practical, measurable solutions that protect both farmers and families. Efficiency — not water wars — is the path forward.

Am I crazy to think we can fix this? Maybe. But I’d rather be crazy for proposing solutions than complacent while the river runs dry.

Jason Shulman is a Colorado resident and owner of Colorado CareAssist, a home health agency. 

Morning Scoop: Coalition for protecting Arizona’s lifeline

Join us for a timely panel — sponsored by Central Arizona Project — on the importance of the Colorado River and CAP to communities across our state. Millions of Arizonans depend on the Colorado River and this supply is threatened due to drought, overallocation and the unwillingness of some to help protect its future. Hear from local mayors about how they are fostering a culture of responsible and smart water use, and how they have come together to protect and defend Arizona’s lifeline through the Coalition to Protect Arizona’s Lifeline.

Water authority entertains six proposals for new water sources in Arizona

Key Points:
  • Three proposals involve creating desalination plants using ocean water
  • State law will keep proposals confidential until contracts are announced
  • The proposals come amid years of cuts to the Colorado River water supply

Three years after an obscure Arizona agency was tasked with finding new water supplies for the state, it has received six proposals from groups hoping to tap more than $375 million in state money to develop new water sources.

The proposals include three to create desalination plants using ocean water — likely from the Sea of Cortez in Mexico. 

But exactly what is being proposed — and how much it will cost — remains confidential. And the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority says state law will keep it that way until its board members award one or more contracts to move ahead with more detailed plans.

The board of the agency known as WIFA heard only the names of the companies or teams of companies making the proposals at their meeting last week. Ted Cooke, a board member who chairs the agency’s Long Term Water Augmentation committee, said he and other board members won’t learn more until they prepare to award contracts, which could happen as soon as October.

Instead, agency staff will review each submission confidentially to determine if they meet the requirements laid out by the board in its solicitation.

“Even the board members will not be involved in that evaluation,” Cooke told the board.

The three teams that made proposals either declined to provide details of what they want to build or did not respond to requests for comment.

The developments come while Arizona, which lost part of its Colorado River water supply in recent years, navigates more possible cuts as river flows continue to remain low. In addition, demand for groundwater in metro Phoenix prompted state water officials to halt many new housing developments as groundwater depletion remains an issue statewide.

“WIFA is the next stop for new water supplies as the existing water supplies that we have as a state are impaired, reduced or more, go away in some other, some other means,” Cooke said. “And that’s why this is so important.” 

Cooke is a former general manager of the Central Arizona Project, which runs the canal bringing Colorado River water into Phoenix and then south to Tucson. He’s been nominated by President Donald Trump to run the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which has the ultimate authority over Colorado River supplies, but will remain on the WIFA board until the Senate confirms him.

The initial contracts will not actually produce any water. Instead, they will task the companies with further developing their plans using some of the money the Legislature has given WIFA since 2022. And once they are awarded, all six proposals will become public.

The expanded role of obtaining new water supplies was originally to be funded with $1 billion over three years. However after the initial $333 million deposit in the augmentation fund in 2022, state budget woes and political decisions limited additional investments. 

That means WIFA will need to use some creative financing or other means to help support the huge private investments water suppliers will need to make to build massive new plants and pipelines to move the water into central Arizona. 

WIFA solicitation documents show the state needs to obtain from 100,000 to 500,000 acre feet of new water in the next 5-15 years and could need as much as 1.5 million acre feet of new supplies by 2060. An acre foot equals about 325,000 gallons, enough water for three families for a year, according to the Arizona Department of Water Resources.

For now, WIFA wants up to 500,000 acre feet of new water to be available within 10 years. The 2022 law envisions at least 75% of that water to come from out of state. 

Four of the six proposals come from a Canadian company, EPCOR, a firm that currently supplies many Arizona municipalities with water and wastewater treatment. 

It proposes a desalination plant and aims to develop three other sources. EPCOR contemplates treating wastewater, tapping surface water and using a third, unidentified source to provide new supplies. The board’s public announcement contains no information about that source.

The company has a broad reach but no experience building desalination plants.

Its sole shareholder is the city of Edmonton in the province of Alberta. EPCOR builds, owns and operates electrical and natural gas networks, water transmission and distribution networks and treatment facilities, and sewer and floodwater systems in Canada and the United States.

Another desalination proposal comes from a company called ZARETAW, LLC, led by an Israeli attorney. That lawyer, Erez Hoter-Ishay, pushed WIFA to approve an unsolicited desalination proposal for a plant on the Sea of Cortez to be built by an Israeli company, IDE Technologies, in 2022.

That proposal came shortly after the then-Gov. Doug Ducey and the Legislature approved the 2022 law expanding the mission of the once-obscure state agency to include finding new supplies to import into Arizona.

The unsolicited proposal was never acted on after it prompted questions from some lawmakers about backroom dealings.

Ducey had visited Israel numerous times during his eight years as governor with an eye on new water technologies. He called for Arizona to build a desalination plant in his 2022 state of the state address, his last as the state’s chief executive. 

The cost of the proposed new plant would have been more than $5 billion and be privately financed, Hoter-Ishay told the WIFA board at the time. However, the development group needed Arizona to commit to buying all the water produced — whether or not the state needed it.

Hoter-Ishay was at the time working for IDE, an Israeli firm that has developed desalination plants since the 1960s in Israel, China, the U.S. and other countries. It runs plants in several countries. 

In November 2023, ZARETAW and IDE responded to a request from WIFA with another proposal for a desalination plant in Mexico, along with a pipeline to bring the water to the Phoenix area. 

WIFA spokesman Ben Alteneder said he could not say if IDE was involved in the current proposal, and Hoter-Ishay didn’t respond to an email seeking more information.

That proposal contemplated delivering at least 300,000 and as many as 1 million acre feet of water from Mexico to metro Phoenix through a 200-mile pipeline. The initial plant and pipeline construction would cost about $5.5 billion, with the state committing to buy the water for 100 years at a price that wasn’t outlined in the plan. 

The third desalination proposal is from a partnership called the ACCIONA-Fengate Water Augmentation Alliance. There’s no other description of the group, but Acciona is a Spanish firm that develops those plants across the world. 

Acciona and a construction firm won a contract last December to design and build a desalination plant in Carlsbad, CA. It already runs plants in Saudi Arabia, Australia and Florida, among others. Fengate Capitol is a private equity firm that specializes in infrastructure investment. 

Once the board picks one or more of the proposals and awards the contracts to further develop their plans, it will wait for more detailed proposals and eventually could pick one or more of the projects to fund. 

Board member Peter Kim said he’s going to ask tough questions along the way, even though last week’s meeting was not the time to do so.

“Throughout this process, we’ve got an important decision to make, and I’m just going to state that I’m always going to ask the same questions,” he said. “So I might as well ask them now, just to start the pattern: How much water is each of these projects and where does it go? How much does it cost, and when do we get it?”

Those answers wouldn’t come immediately, but they will come, WIFA Director Chelsea McGuire, said.

“So this is as much public information as we are allowed, essentially, to provide,” McGuire told the board.

“But the questions you have obviously are valid, and that is the kind of information that the long term augmentation committee and then ultimately, the board will have before it makes decisions on these proposals,” she said. “You’re not going to be asked to make any decisions without seeing the information you need to make those decisions. It’s just not public information at this point.”

Board chair Jonathan Lines then asked McGuire to lay out the legal rules that bar the public release of more information now.

“I think it might be appropriate to explain why this is necessary,” Lines said.

“Because there’s, let’s be honest, everybody always expects that … there’s some backroom deal going on,” he continued. “And I know that’s not what’s happening here, but the controlled rollout of the information might appear to some (to imply that), so let’s just take the opportunity to say why we’re doing it this way and why it’s a good thing.”

McGuire then cited provisions of Arizona law and its administrative code that keep the procurement process confidential.

Cooke, for his part, said he was excited to be at this point just a year after the board approved the process for soliciting proposals. He said as the board moves toward evaluating and then approving actual projects, he can actually envision water coming out of a pipe in metro Phoenix.

“I’m very excited, if you can’t tell, and I never would have predicted this,” he said. “I’d hoped for this outcome, but I never would have predicted it.”

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