water | Arizona Capitol Times

Arizona Groundwater – a guide for decision making

Groundwater issues have come into sharp focus in Arizona. Shortage on the Colorado River increases the importance of protecting groundwater as the backup supply for cities in central Arizona, and new limitations on groundwater-reliant growth have sparked proposals for changes to groundwater management principles that have stood for 30 years. In some rural areas, communities are discussing how to protect groundwater for the long term.

What it is:

Groundwater is water that exists in sand, gravel and rock beneath the land surface. It fills the pores and fractures in these materials much the same way that water fills a sponge.

Why it matters:

Groundwater makes up 41% of Arizona’s water supply – more than surface water or Colorado River water.

Why it is finite:

In Arizona, most of the groundwater has been in place for tens of thousands of years. It is not replenished by rain and snow at any significant rate – certainly nowhere near the rate that we are capable of withdrawing it – and is often referred to as “fossil” groundwater.

Why management is essential:

Like a savings account, continued withdrawal of groundwater will lead to its permanent depletion.
If ‘fossil’ groundwater is pumped out faster than it is replaced naturally or through artificial recharge, pores in the alluvium once held open by water pressure will collapse, potentially causing land to subside and earth fissures to appear. In most cases, aquifer compaction is irreversible and the ability to store water is lost.

Groundwater does not respect property boundaries. Without management, it is an ‘open access’ resource, meaning that any landowner can drill a well and deplete groundwater beneath his own land and also his neighbors’ land. Landowners with the deepest wells and the biggest pumps capture groundwater often to the detriment of others in the community.
With one exception, the only aquifers in Arizona in which groundwater levels are increasing are within Active Management Areas, where groundwater use is regulated and recharged supplies are protected.
Colorado River water is the predominant supply used to recharge and replenish aquifers. A shortage means less water will be available for this vital activity now and in the foreseeable future.
Arizona’s economy depends on the state’s ability to provide reliable water supplies for homes and businesses now and into the future.

Why some oppose management:

It is cheaper and easier to deplete groundwater than to manage it as a long-term sustainable supply, and political and economic pressures to make groundwater available for near-term gains persist.

Questions lawmakers should ask about proposed changes to groundwater laws:

Is the proposed change likely to increase the amount of groundwater pumping over the long-term?
Is the proposed change “net-zero” to the aquifer, meaning, is any proposed increase in groundwater pumping offset by recharge or replenishment in the same area as the groundwater pumping?
To the extent the proposed change allows an entity to pump more groundwater now with the promise of replenishing it in the future, what is the likelihood that this “loan” from the aquifer can be repaid?
Does the proposed change push costs away from special interests and onto everyone else?
Does the proposed change signal uncertainty? Does it signal that Arizona is easing up on the assured water supply program, which provides consumer protection that water will not run out?
Does the proposed change decrease the opportunity for future generations to thrive in Arizona?

Utility-authored securitization bill is horrible deal for ratepayers and state

Despite record-breaking profits, Arizona’s monopoly utilities — led by APS — are pushing to offload even more costs onto ratepayers with less oversight through a sweeping new bill, HB2679.

Amanda Ormond is a former Director of the Arizona Energy Office.

If passed, HB2679 would allow utilities to use a financial tool known as “securitization” that trades high-interest loans for low-interest bonds that can be paid off over time. While this tool has benefited ratepayers in some states, lawmakers must understand that HB2679 creates an entirely new way for utilities to charge ratepayers without needing their regulators’ approval. That means this bill would allow utilities to pass any unwanted debt to their ratepayers without regulatory oversight on the number of bonds they issue and how much debt they can include. This bill also severely limits courts’ actions to protect ratepayers.

Allowing bonding without limits would be the most significant change ever enacted for financing billions of dollars of utility plants, transmission lines and other equipment. Yet, this bill was drafted and introduced without input or review from state government organizations that oversee utilities, public interest groups or any customer groups. Still worse, the bill is being fast tracked. It has only had one committee hearing and is expected to be voted out of the House of Representatives in less than 30 days from the date the bill was made public.

The Arizona Chamber of Commerce’s Jan. 30 op-ed supported this complicated and not well-understood utility financing mechanism. To understand what the bill actually does, and its myriad consequences, one must dig into its 40 pages. So let’s look at its key provisions and the approval process.

HB2679 would allow every electric utility in Arizona to create bonds for the debt they have incurred and obligate customers to pay the bonds back with no exceptions. Unlike the current process where utility regulators approve debt amounts and types at the Arizona Corporation Commission, the commission could not restrict, prohibit or influence how much or what types of debt are being passed to ratepayers. Due to that provision and others, commission staff believe the bill is unconstitutional.

In addition, if customers don’t or can’t pay the bonds, they can be sued. Bond payments can be added to a ratepayer’s electric bill with a requirement that bonds are paid first and electricity costs second. This increases the likelihood of electricity shut-offs as thousands of customers who struggle to pay monthly electricity bills will have their limited funds going to bonds instead of ensuring they can continue to have electric service.

Historically, securitization bonds have been used to eliminate power plant debt. However, HB2679 has such broad language it allows utilities to send debt to customers for costs incurred from heat events, storms, floods, “weather, wildfire or other significant events or … loss of life, injury to person or property, human suffering or financial loss.” Additionally, natural gas fuel price spikes and past natural gas debt could be passed to consumers. In fact, it’s difficult to identify any costs that can’t be passed on to customers.

Also, the bill provides no caps on the amount that can be charged to customers nor the number of bonds that can be issued. As an example of the magnitude of the bonds that could be passed to ratepayers, Arizona Public Service cites the 2021 storm Uri, which sent $3 billion to Texas customers through bonds with Oklahoma customers having to pay more than $4 per month for the next 16 years for that one storm.

Finally, as everyone knows, it can be dangerous for the elderly and sick to live in Arizona without electricity, especially in the summertime. As written by APS and other utilities, this bill could obligate customers to pay a victim’s family for a heat-related death (loss of life) rather than the electric company that caused the death.

As the Chamber pointed out, the state needs reliable and affordable electricity. What the state does not need is to give total authority to monopoly utilities to pass any debt they don’t want to its ratepayers. This bill is being rushed through the process without opportunity for study, dialogue or major amendment because it is a raw deal for customers and the state.

Legislators and staff should look closely at this bill. There is no urgency or need to pass this proposal this year. It does not deserve an affirmative vote. There are too many unknowns and unintended consequences for it to become law.

Amanda Ormond is the Principal of the Ormond Group LLC and is a former Director of the Arizona Energy Office.

A new era for rural Arizona’s water future

In Arizona, water is the lifeblood of our rural economies, where agriculture, industry, small businesses and families all depend on reliable water supplies. Right now, Arizona stands at a critical crossroads in managing our water resources. Now, we have an opportunity to change that. It’s why we, leaders from across the state, are proud to stand together — Republicans and Democrats alike — to forge a modern, collaborative path to addressing Arizona’s water challenges. The Rural Groundwater Management Act represents a long-overdue step toward securing Arizona’s water future. This initiative creates certainty, opportunity and security for everyone who calls rural Arizona home.

Water is not a partisan issue — it is a fundamental resource that sustains our communities, our economy and our way of life. Last time we checked, there wasn’t Democratic water and Republican water. There’s only Arizona water, and it’s important that our communities have the opportunity to control our growth and our future. Rural Arizona, in particular, faces unique challenges. Communities are grappling with dwindling groundwater supplies, water security risks and a lack of viable management options. Without action, these challenges threaten the livelihoods, property rights and economic prospects of thousands of Arizonans.

Local Choice, Local Solutions

Rural communities are best positioned to understand their own water needs. One-size-fits-all mandates do not work for Arizona’s diverse landscape. The policy we are advancing — built on the foundation of the bipartisan Governor’s Water Policy Council — prioritizes local control. It provides the tools and flexibility necessary for rural Arizonans to guide their own water futures while respecting the character of each community.

As mayors, we understand this firsthand.

This initiative finally offers rural Arizona what our urban counterparts have benefited from for decades: a framework for sustainable water management that does not impose rigid, bureaucratic restrictions. Instead, it empowers communities to make decisions tailored to their unique challenges and opportunities.

Modernizing Water Management for Arizona

By creating an alternative management framework, we are equipping rural Arizona with forward-looking strategies that balance economic vitality and resource protection. The city of Prescott has been a leader in water conservation, but the Prescott Active Management Area safe yield goals are impacted by other municipalities and county-exempt well users who don’t adopt the same efforts. We can’t conserve our way to safe yield. We need a broad policy statement that protects the balance of interests between business development, agriculture and rural communities.

This is about working together, not imposing solutions from the top down.

Protecting Water and Property Rights, Safeguarding the future

Water policy in Arizona must uphold our deeply held values of property rights and individual responsibility. Any solution must strike a balance between protecting personal ownership and ensuring long-term sustainability. This bipartisan proposal does just that. As local leaders, we have long sounded the alarm about out-of-state and international interests over-extracting Arizona’s groundwater in a rapidly damaging manner.

Creating Prosperity for Rural Arizona

Economic prosperity and responsible water stewardship are not mutually exclusive. We can and must achieve both. By securing our water future, we are paving the way for growth that is sustainable, responsible and beneficial for all.

The time for action is now. We waited long enough for a fair and effective water management option. We have the opportunity to make 2025 the year that the Legislature finally delivers the tools and flexibility our communities need. Future generations should not have to choose between economic opportunity and environmental responsibility. With this approach, they won’t have to.

Phil Goode is the mayor of Prescott and Greg Hancock is the mayor of Willcox.

Water bill focuses on converting ag land to housing

Correction: A previous version of this story left a digit off of the number of acres of irrigated farmland in the Phoenix, Pinal and Pima Active Management Areas that could use the ag-to-urban program. It has been corrected to 425,232 acres.

Sen. T.J. Shope, R-Coolidge, is preparing to reintroduce a bill that would give farmers an option to sell agricultural land to developers in hopes of increasing the state’s housing supply, improving home affordability and preserving groundwater.

Shope’s “ag-to-urban” legislation is designed to address the lack of housing in communities where there’s also shortage of groundwater, especially in areas where restrictions have been placed on new home construction, because single family homes use less water than agricultural land.

Shope, Senate, attendance — Sen. T.J. Shope, R-Coolidge

The Legislature passed a similar version of the bill last year, but Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed the legislation. In her veto letter, Hobbs said she supported the concept of the bill but the data among the state’s initial Active Management Areas in Phoenix, Tucson, Prescott and Pinal County didn’t support universal adoption of the program.

If this version of the bill is passed, Shope said the program could serve as a boon to the state’s housing supply.

According to numbers shared by Republican Senate staff, there are 425,232 acres of irrigated farmland in the Phoenix, Pinal and Pima Active Management Areas that could use the ag-to-urban program. If half of the farmland is converted for development, more than a million homes could be built since new developments average five homes per acre.

Shope said he has begun holding stakeholder meetings and will look to work with the Democratic caucus, Governor’s Office, the Arizona Department of Water Resources, the Gila River Indian Community, private water companies, and officials from cities, counties and towns across the state.

Some water policy experts say the program could be a good idea depending on how it protects water in the aquifers and what kind of provisions are made for the future.

“The biggest source of depletion is agriculture. So shifting water use from agriculture to a lower water use … is a good thing for water supply,” said Sarah Porter, director of the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy. “But there are formulations of the ag-to urban transfer that don’t, over the long term, protect the aquifer. So it will be important to come up with a formulation that actually benefits the aquifers.”

The Kyl Center for Water Policy released a report examining the connection between areas with restrictions on new home development due to long-term water supply concerns and its effect on home prices.

According to the report, housing affordability can depend on a number of factors such as zoning and development codes, local, state and federal government policies, and how individual municipalities choose to plan for more affordable housing.

“A lot of the housing affordability is not about buying a single family home,” Porter said.

Shope points to science as proof that this type of program could help serve as a remedy for the housing shortage and water issues across Maricopa, Pinal and Pima counties.

“Because of the advancements in agriculture science over the decades, you don’t need to farm as much of that land in order to have the yield that you get,” he said.

Those advancements have led to the state using approximately the same amount of water as it did in the 1950s despite the fact that there were only about 1 million people living in the state at the time compared to more than 7 million people today.

Shope highlighted the transformation of agricultural land to home subdivisions in Chandler, Gilbert and areas of the West Valley as an example of how the program could work.

“We’ve seen those lands be transformed into housing development, mainly single family homes,” he said. “And we have seen water use, as a result of that, go down tremendously.”

Porter said that while it’s true homes use less water than agriculture, the benefit could be negated depending on how much water developments are allowed to pump.

“If it goes on forever, it might wind up using more water than the agriculture that it replaced. So that’s another important consideration,” she said.

Shope said this bill could be one of the most important water bills to hit the governor’s desk if the Legislature passes it.

“I do think it’s going to be the most consequential water bill that has a chance of passing,” Shope said. “I don’t know that some of the other proposals that are out there for different things, whether it’s rural groundwater or other water issues, reach the level of importance and the possibility to have as much of an impact like this bill and also have a chance to be signed.”

Addressing Arizona’s water supply challenges requires common sense, fairness

In the middle of a critical housing crisis, Gov. Katie Hobbs halted the construction of homes in large swaths of Arizona. She did so without legal authority, and based on a deeply inaccurate and flawed claim that Arizona is running out of groundwater. In a state where home affordability ranks among the worst in the country, her action is already having devastating consequences for Arizonans that will only get worse.

Before a subdivision can be approved, the state must issue a certificate showing proof of a 100-year water supply. Since 1980, home builders have proudly adhered to this longstanding policy that for generations has allowed our state’s population to grow while preserving our precious natural resources at the same time. That’s how our state manages to use the same amount of water with 7.5 million residents today as it did 70 years ago when we had fewer than 1.5 million residents.

Citing what the state has called an “unmet demand,” the Hobbs administration now refuses to issue permits for home construction in areas that rely on groundwater for their main water supply. The administration took this drastic action outside of the normal regulatory process in violation of state law, placing an undue burden on both the home building industry and hard-working Arizonans desperate for more affordable housing. It’s one of the most significant bureaucratic overreaches in the history of our state, and it’s why the Goldwater Institute sued the Hobbs administration on behalf of the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona, to protect our state’s ability to conserve its precious natural resources and grow economically for the future.

The Hobbs administration’s Phoenix Active Management Area (AMA) Groundwater Model attempts to show where future development can and cannot occur. Importantly, it shuts down home building in the fastest growing, most affordable areas within the Phoenix market. The lawsuit we’ve filed challenges the lack of a rulemaking process behind the Hobbs administration’s water model, which was completed without following any of the legally required rulemaking procedures that exist to give citizens and regulated businesses the opportunity to comment on proposed rules. This robbed the people of Arizona of any opportunity to evaluate and publicly comment on the assumptions which form the basis for the model.

Moreover, the Arizona Department of Water Resources’ concept of “unmet demand” is a term created by the agency that appears nowhere in statute or regulation. It moves the goalposts that previously required applicants to demonstrate “sufficient groundwater for the proposed subdivision.” Without legal authority, the Hobbs administration upended the statutorily mandated process, creating rules that hurt hard-working Arizonans’ ability to buy a home and leaving billions of dollars of stranded investment.

Arizona law makes clear that these sorts of decisions cannot be made by a bureaucrat with the stroke of a pen. Instead, our elected state lawmakers should properly determine Arizona’s water policy.

In Arizona, water use regulations are not evenly applied across residential and commercial development. There is a fundamental difference between groundwater used for residential developments and groundwater used by commercial, industrial, or rental buildings.

For nearly 30 years, home builders have been protecting our groundwater tables by replenishing pumped groundwater. No other industry has put water back into our aquifers to replace the water that is pumped out to the extent of home builders. This sustainable practice ensures a steady supply of affordable homes for Arizona’s hard-working families and protects our groundwater aquifers. The application of the “unmet demand” rule results in home builders being unfairly targeted while other industries are able to mine groundwater without restriction or without having to offset their pumping.

An illegal halting of the construction of all homes in large swaths of the state is not the answer. Arizona was recently ranked as the ninth-least-affordable state to buy a house in the United States. Buckeye and Queen Creek are two large developments that represent the only affordable communities for many in the greater Phoenix area. Over the last year, median home prices in Queen Creek have risen more than twice as fast as Phoenix, and in Buckeye, they have grown more than three times as fast. Without appropriate action, our housing market will become untenable, reaching a breaking point where a working-class family’s dream of buying a home is no longer attainable.

The governor and her state agency have acted unlawfully to prevent affordable housing from being built in Arizona. We have an obligation to ensure our water supply is protected, but also a desire to make Arizona the best state to live, work, and raise a family. Governor Hobbs should immediately rescind the unlawful rules that have led to this predicament and ensure that Arizona continues to be a leader on this critical issue.

Jon Riches is vice president for litigation at the Goldwater Institute. .

Jackson Moll is CEO of the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona.

John Boelts: Striving to keep food abundant, affordable

For John Boelts, one of the keys to a prosperous country lies in its ability to produce a plentiful and accessible food supply.

However, Boelts knows that in order to be successful, lawmakers, farmers and other stakeholders must collaborate to responsibly manage natural resources and expand employment opportunities for those interested in working in the farming industry.

Boelts, who owns Desert Premium Farms in Yuma, took the helm late last year as president of the Arizona Farm Bureau and will have the opportunity to work with legislators and policymakers to directly address those issues. He stepped into the position after former president Stefanie Smallhouse resigned and will finish Smallhouse’s two-year term with the option of running for election in November 2025.

Boelts recently discussed his ideas for navigating the state’s current water challenges and shortage of farmworkers, and what he hopes to accomplish during the 2025 legislative session.

What motivated you to want to step into the role as president of the Arizona Farm Bureau?

It’s a wonderful strength of our country that we have an abundant and affordable food supply. We have the ability to grow many, or most, of the crops and basic necessities that we all need on a daily basis right here in our own country. Most countries around the world don’t enjoy that, but we do. But there are a number of things that keep us from being able to grow as much as we can, a number of policy choices that we have been making and continue to make that are … maybe not the best for keeping that food abundant on our store shelves and affordable and produced here in the country. So I’m passionate about that, passionate about sharing what we do in agriculture with the public and with public policymakers.

What are some of those policy choices that you feel may not have been for the best benefit of farmers and the public?

One of the key ones that we’re dealing with this legislative session again, and we’ll continue to work on until we find some positive solutions that work well for agriculture and for consumers of agricultural products … and that would be water. Generations ago … when this country was settled and agriculture enterprises were undertaken in every state in our country as areas were settled, one thing that has kept food so affordable in our country is that we have abundant water resources, fresh water resources. And I say wet water because in Arizona there’s a lot of discussion and contemplation of water rights. Many of those are paper water rights, not always actual water.

So the abundant availability of water for agricultural operators, farmers and ranchers has been key to keeping food affordable in our country and publicly available. Maintaining available water for farmers and ranchers is key for every man, woman and child in this country. It’s been good public policy for many generations, but we are facing some challenges in that area where, just like in the 1980s, there are some folks that want to restrict water availability for agricultural producers and it’s ironic that it comes at a time when we’re seeing inflationary pressures on just about everything people purchase, including food, and most of it doesn’t have to do with the natural cost of production. It has to do with some of the input costs that are being artificially driven up, whether it be labor or input costs, a wide variety of things. But water is one key thing; we’re not going to make or grow anything in this country, especially not going to grow anything in agriculture, whether it be livestock or crops or feed for livestock without water. And we need secure water rights for farmers long term (and) groundwater rights for long term. It’s the same with surface water rights, whether it be the Colorado River or Gila River, and the number of watersheds that farmers rely on.

What was your reaction to the Arizona Department of Water Resources announcement that the Willcox groundwater basin met the criteria for an Active Management Area?

I’m not completely surprised, but still disappointed that one was declared. As I mentioned before, AMA’s really were designed in the … late ’70s and ’80s, when they’re put into law to work in basins that have access to both groundwater and surface water. They don’t function well in a basin like Willcox, so I was disappointed to see that one was declared, especially since there was a lot of good common ground found on Senate Bill 1221 last session.

We’re hoping to get something across the finish line, and pretty confident that the Governor’s Office and ADWR are going to have some other options before the AMA fully goes into effect. Declaring that an area meets criteria moving forward doesn’t solidify an AMA. It’s not a done deal, if you will, for roughly two years. So we’re hoping this legislative session to give them a better tool that fits better for a basin like Willcox and, more importantly, for all the producers, agricultural producers and homeowners living there.

What makes the Willcox basin different to where an AMA might be the best decision for that area?

It can’t just be something that comes from the state, from the top down. There’s a need to have options. And actually, an AMA, in many regards, isn’t necessarily the best option. There may be needed requirements down the road to change how much pumping happens on an annual basis and the folks down there need to have those options. AMAs also, because they were designed to have recharge going on with them, really don’t have the flexibility necessary, and they definitely don’t have the local control aspect. Once an AMA is declared and then is codified a year or two later, it really sets things in stone, and then things are static going forward. It may not work for a basin that doesn’t have recharge. So we need to have another legal mechanism for folks to work with. And then there needs to also be an understanding that the Willcox basin is different (from) a lot of other basins in the state.

What are some other tools that you think that you believe can help address some of these issues regarding water usage?

Some of them are already ongoing. One is the land grant university in Arizona, that would be the University of Arizona, plays a key role with their experiment station efforts. They look at a lot of different things relative to food and fiber production in our state, for our state. They’re somewhat mostly taxpayer funded from (the) federal and state government. There are some public/private partnerships that help multiply some of those dollars, but mostly the reason they’re doing that research is for public benefit, to keep food abundantly available and affordable for consumers. That being said, there’s lots of research opportunities across our state, and that’s why the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension has a presence and a research presence in just about every county in the state. So we’d be advocating for adequate funding for those folks.

The other would be incentive programs where there’s (a) cost share for water resource savings. In Arizona, we already have some tax credit opportunities for purchasing agriculture irrigation equipment that is water efficient. So we already have that, and we’d advocate for continuing that. Also, there’s a cost share program that was started just a couple of years ago.

All three of these things (are) key to advancing technology to improve crop per drop production. So how much do we produce with every drop of water? All of those things offer opportunities. Humanity very rarely makes progress without embracing technology in some way or another, whether it be through crop breeding, whether it be through irrigation methods, whether it be through projects to store and deliver surface water, recharge groundwater. All these different things are all how we got to the great situation we enjoyed today and they are also the new ways that we can improve on those will be the ways that we … continue to progress and get better and more efficient for future generations.

What are some of your organization’s other big priorities for this upcoming legislative session?

We don’t have enough folks to work in agriculture. So there’s a lot of opportunities (for) folks who would like to immigrate into this country, legal immigration, worker programs, things like that, so we’ll be looking at a number of things…at the federal and state level, to try to improve those opportunities for agricultural producers and employers alike, and employees that work on farms and want to come work on farms. Everything from high tech education and making sure that’s adequately funded at our three major colleges and at our community colleges around the state that are teaching tech-related, agriculture-related topics, and all the way to guest workers coming in for a seasonal harvest of fresh vegetables and melons, or folks coming in to work and meat packing plants. We’re near full employment in the United States, and there aren’t enough hard working hands to fill all those jobs, but there are economic opportunities.

So there’s lots of things, whether it be educational programs for people working at the state and local level to make sure that there’s adequate zoning opportunities to build the housing that’s necessary for guests and temporary workers. So just a wide variety of topics on the labor front are key for our organization and for our members and for consumers, too. Things don’t harvest themselves.

Tom Buschatzke: Keeping Arizona’s faucets functioning

For nearly 10 years, Tom Buschatzke has been the arbiter of Arizona’s water supply as director of the Department of Water Resources. In a career spanning decades and beginning with an internship at the very department he now heads, 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 … So then I decided to come here to go to graduate school and in school, I saw an advertisement for the newly created, at that time, because it was 1982, this department was created in 1980, 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 to it 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. But I characterize that as not just my own [grandchildren], but everyone else’s. Again, 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 are 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 media 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.

Being an agency director sounds like a stressful job. What do you do to keep yourself grounded?

The first thing about the stress level is it’s very stressful, but my stress is reduced by the people I have around me who work with me and who provide that support. Then some of it is my home life. I’ve been married for 40 years. I have three daughters, two who live here, so I still see them. I see my grandkids. I used to be very physically active. I worked out a lot of my stress in the gym. I always went to the gym several times a week, played golf when we were younger, played other sports that you can’t play when you’re older. But I still play golf on occasion, I don’t expect to play golf and shoot some fabulous score. It’s my social event with my friends. I have season tickets to ASU football games, so during football season, we go to six or seven games, depending on the year. We go to one game out of town, one away game a year. Those are the ways I deal with that pressure. I think it works out well most of the time, but sometimes it can be tough to deal with. But like I said, having my friends network, my family network is a good outlet.

Are you reading or watching anything interesting?

My reading outside of work is pretty minimal these days, which is very different than when I was younger. I don’t watch a lot of TV, when I do it’s sports. I like to watch the Turner Classic Movie channel, and then I like to watch documentary-type stuff. I just watched on Netflix, something about the Cold War nuclear weapons, and now I’m watching a World War II in color documentary on Netflix. I like history, which, interestingly enough, one of the really important parts of our policy is the history of how everything evolved. I almost decided to be a history major in college, but I figured I’d never get a job.

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 was 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 that I want them to understand, in relation to the Colorado River, this state was the first one 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.

Arizona needs forward-thinking legislators on land and water use

Laws that govern the use of land and water in Arizona have not kept up with changing times. And some of the new proposals that have surfaced in our state’s legislature are ill-conceived and short-sighted.

Rising water and energy costs will force the decline of traditional agriculture in the desert Southwest. But transferring groundwater rights from farmlands to real estate developers is not a sustainable option. Desert living requires desert thinking.

Sharing farmland with solar energy production has proven practical and profitable in Europe, Asia, and Australia––variously named agrisolar, agrivoltaics, and solar sharing. Shade from solar panels reduces evaporative water loss from plants and soil. On hot days, shaded ground also helps to pull heat away from solar panels, producing energy more efficiently. During summer storms, a solar canopy can shelter crops from heavy wind and hail. Farm workers and livestock, too, can benefit from shaded fields. And if a crop fails, farmers can still sell solar energy for a profit.

Japan, where land is at a premium, has already installed nearly 2,000 agrisolar systems. The United States has moved slowly on this front. But several universities and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory are now studying the benefits of agrivoltaics in different climates and places. In deserts, for example, some crops do much better than others under solar canopies. University of Arizona biologists found that jalapeno pepper plants produce the same amount of fruit under the panels as those grown out in the open. Yield from tomatoes grown in canopy shade actually doubled, and water use efficiency increased.

Drought-tolerant crops will also spread in popularity. Dryland plants are packed with chemicals that protect them from intense sun and dry air. Some contain compounds useful in industry and medicine. Plant scientists are focusing on crops that can be sold at high prices, even when the harvest is small. Allergen-free natural rubber (latex), for example, can be extracted from guayule (wy-oo-lee) shrubs, and the demand for it is increasing. By-products from resins in this plant include natural adhesives and insect repellents. Woody left-overs could be converted to biofuel or particle board.

Irrigation systems are becoming more efficient, and some food crops thrive with little or no irrigation, in soils less favorable for traditional agriculture. Tepary beans, for example, are superbly heat and drought tolerant. This crop has been grown by local indigenous communities for millennia, and these beans are both nutritious and delicious! Another Sonoran Desert native, Palmer saltgrass, also known as nipa (nee-pah), offers great promise as a food crop. It grows wild in coastal wetlands where soils are salty and produces a nutritious grain similar to wheat. Biologists breeding nipa have said that this grass could become the Sonoran Desert’s greatest gift to the world.

Being well adapted to dry climates, cacti, agaves, and other succulents will assuredly be part of Arizona’s agri-future. The long, strong fibers of Hesperaloe (a floral favorite of hummingbirds) are perfect for making paper. Prickly-pear fruit (“tunas” or “cactus pears”) and the plants’ succulent stems provide foods for both people and livestock. The edible pads (“nopalitos” or “cactus tenders”) can be stir-fried, roasted, or pickled. Cactus tenders are growing in popularity, especially among Mexican Americans. Other cactus products include soaps, shampoos, and lipstick. Some farm economists predict that cacti––recognized by the United Nations as a sustainability superhero––will become a new cash crop in the Southwest. And planting thickets of native prickly-pear on “retired” farmland is a quick and inexpensive way to control erosion and restore wildlife habitat.

Developers and their political allies who continue to push the “growth-is-good”

agenda in Arizona need a reality check. And I commend Gov. Katie Hobbs for vetoing bills that would jeopardize Arizona’s sustainable water supplies.

Approximately 86% of Arizona’s population lives within the Sonoran Desert region, so thoughtful planning is vital for Arizona’s future. Take, for example, the Gila River Indian Community’s newly completed solar-over-canals pilot project funded by the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act. Covering aqueducts with solar panels reduces evaporative water loss and the growth of aquatic weeds. Solar energy production benefits too—proximity to canal water helps to cool the panels. A double win––Bravo!

Thomas Wiewandt is a field ecologist and educational media producer who graduated with a MS in Zoology from the University of Arizona and a PhD in Ecology & Evolutionary Biology from Cornell.

Feds outline ‘necessary steps’ for Colorado River agreement by 2026 but no recommendation yet

Federal water officials made public on Wednesday what they called “necessary steps” for seven states and multiple tribes that use Colorado River water and hydropower to meet an August 2026 deadline for deciding how to manage the waterway in the future.

“Today we show our collective work,” Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Camille Calimlim Touton said as she outlined four proposals for action and one “no action” alternative that she and Biden’s government will leave for the incoming Trump Administration — with formal environmental assessments still to come and just 20 months to act.

The announcement offered no recommendation or decision about how to divvy up water from the river, which provides electricity to millions of homes and businesses, irrigates vast stretches of desert farmland and reaches kitchen faucets in cities including Denver, Salt Lake City, Albuquerque, Las Vegas, Phoenix and Los Angeles.

Instead it provided a bullet-point sample of elements from competing proposals submitted last March by three key river stakeholders: Upper Basin states Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming, where most of the water originates; Lower Basin states California, Arizona and Nevada, which rely most on water captured by dams at lakes Powell and Mead; and more than two dozen Native American tribes with rights to river water.

“They’re not going to take the any of the proposals,” said Sarah Porter, director of the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University. “The federal government put the components together in a different way … and modeled them to provide near-maximum flexibility for negotiations to continue.”

One alternative would have the government act to “protect critical infrastructure” including dams and oversee how much river water is delivered, relying on existing agreements during periods when demand outstrips supply. “But there would be no new delivery and storage mechanisms,” the announcement said.

A second option would add delivery and storage for Lake Powell and Lake Mead, along with “federal and non-federal storage” to boost system sustainability and flexibility “through a new approach to distributing” water during shortages.

The third, dubbed “cooperative conservation,” cited a proposal from advocates aimed at managing and gauging water releases from Lake Powell amid “shared contributions to sustain system integrity.”

And a fourth, hybrid proposal includes parts of Upper and Lower Basin and Tribal Nations plans, the announcement said. It would add delivery and storage for Powell and Mead, encourage conservation and agreements for water use among customers and “afford the Tribal and non-Tribal entities the same ability to use these mechanisms.”

The “no action” option does not meet the purpose of study but was included because it is required under the National Environmental Policy Act, the announcement said.

In 2026, legal agreements that apportion the river will expire. That means that amid the effects of climate change and more than 20 years of drought, river stakeholders and the federal government have just months to agree what to do.

“We still have a pretty wide gap between us,” Tom Buschatzke, Arizona’s main negotiator on the Colorado River, said in a conference call with reporters. He referred to positions of Upper Basin and Lower Basin states. Tribes including the Gila River Indian Community in Arizona have also been flexing their long-held water rights.

Buschatzke said he saw “some really positive elements” in the alternatives but needed time to review them in detail. “I think anything that could be done to move things forward on a faster track is a good thing,” he said.

Democratic U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper of Colorado said in a statement the alternatives “underscore how serious a situation we’re facing on the Colorado River.”

“The only path forward is a collaborative, seven-state plan to solve the Colorado River crisis without taking this to court,” he said. “Otherwise, we’ll watch the river run dry while we sue each other.”

Wednesday’s announcement came two weeks after Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris lost the election to Republican former President Donald Trump, and two weeks ahead of a key meeting of the involved parties at Colorado River Water Users Association meetings in Las Vegas.

Kyle Roerink, executive director of the Great Basin Water Network advocacy group, said “snapshots” offered in the announcement “underscore the uncertainty that is swirling around future river management as a new administration prepares to take office.”

“The river needs basin-wide curtailments, agreements to make tribes whole, a moratorium on new dams and diversions, commitments for endangered species and new thinking about outdated infrastructure,” he said.

Buschatzke declined to speculate about whether Trump administration officials will pick up where Biden’s leaves off. But Porter, at the Kyl Center, said the announcement “shows an expectation of continuity.”

“The leadership is going to change, but there are a lot of people who have been working on this for a long time who will still be involved in the negotiations and modeling,” she said.

___

Associated Press writer Amy Taxin in Santa Ana, California, contributed.

Arizona nears approval for advanced water purification

It’s been discussed and debated for decades.

But Arizona is finally at the point where cities and utilities will soon be able to get permits to deliver drinking water to faucets that just days earlier had been flushed down the toilet.

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality on Monday took the required legal steps to publish the draft rules for what it’s calling “advanced water purification.” Randall Matas, the agency’s deputy director, said final approval could come by the end of the year, paving the way for water suppliers to construct the facilities.

Matas said the technology is good enough to actually produce water that is purer than the treated groundwater or surface water that is now being delivered. He said it even removes chemicals that are not prohibited by the Safe Water Drinking Act.

But the question remains of whether Arizonans will accept it.

Put simply, there is a bit of an “ick factor” that, regardless of what people may understand about the chemistry and the process, may still seem to some as “toilet to tap.”

DEQ and even the state Department of Water Resources has worked for years to tamp down that phrase.

Still, it has been a process.

For some time, it was being promoted by the more sanitized name of “direct potable reuse.”

Matas said that rebranding it as advanced water purification was based, at least in part, on testing what is acceptable to consumers. But that, he said, is just a small part of the story.

“The main reason for the change is it just more accurately reflects what this purified water is,” Matas explained. He said that words like “re-use” and “recycling” have “meanings that don’t provide an insight into what’s happening.”

“We felt that ‘advanced water purification’ was a better description of what this is, that there’s an advanced treatment stream that purifies this water and provides that safe and healthy drinking water,” Matas said.

Yet, even with all that, there is not universal acceptance.

“ADEQ did two studies statewide to assess people’s thoughts on advanced water purification, water security and other issues,” he said. The result, said Matas, is 77% of those who answered the surveys were “not opposed to the technology or were in favor of the technology.”

Still, when asked whether they would be likely to drink AWP water, the feelings were divided.

A third said very likely. But 42% said “somewhat likely,” with 15% falling into the “somewhat unlikely” category and 10% saying there were unlikely to drink it at all.

Among those who fall into the unlikely category, 38% said they were skeptical about safety.

Matas said he believes some of that that can be addressed by showing how the the standards that are being adopted can remove, in his words, 99.9999999999% of contaminants. He said that includes things ranging from viruses and opiates to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Troy Hayes, water services director for the city of Phoenix, said it’s a question of education and socialization.

He said his city is revamping its Cave Creek treatment facility to meet the new standards. Once that happens, Hayes said, he envisions giving people tours to see what happens, show them it can treat water beyond what is now being delivered to homes from the Salt and Verde river systems – and taste the results.

Scottsdale already is doing that, with a plant that is treating sewage to drinking water standards. And while that’s not yet being put into the pipes going to people’s homes – the city still needs a DEQ permit to do that – Scottsdale is showing off what can be produced by working with local breweries to produce beer.

And there’s something else: Educating consumers to understand they already are drinking recycled water.

“There isn’t new water on the planet,” Hayes said, saying it’s the same water that was around at the time of the dinosaurs.

The difference is that sewage is being put into the ground and then being filtered, as it were, through layers of rock and soil, only to be pumped out at some future point. This just replaces that natural process with technology and filters.

But even if people understand that intellectually, that doesn’t overcome opposition: Nearly one in five of those who told DEQ they were unlikely to drink AWP water cited what the survey said was the “yuck factor.”

There is another concern: Cost of all this technology that eventually will have to be passed on to consumers. And none of this extra level of processing sewage is likely to come cheap.

“It will depend a lot on the specific utility,” Matas said.

“There is an economy-of-scale factor that is at play,” he said. “The more water you can get treated, the more efficient the process is.”

There’s also the fact that DEQ is not telling utilities exactly what they need to build. Instead, the agency simply has detailed what has to come out at the other end to be used for drinking.

“We have written the rules in a way that it applies standards,” Matas said.

“It allows innovation in the actual treatment equipment utilized,” he continued. And as certain technologies become more popular, Matas expects the cost to come down.

Hayes said that, whatever the additional cost, it has to be seen through a different lens: There aren’t a lot of other options. And it starts with water from the Colorado River being “unreliable.”

“It’s completely over allocated, meaning that there is more legal demand on the system than there is physically coming down the river,” Hayes said, leaving desert cities like his with the threat of having to replace 40% of its drinking water. And while costs will go up “it may be difficult to put a value on not having water, versus having these resources.”

Yet AWP could prove more efficient in the end that an alternative that had been pushed by former Gov. Doug Ducey: desalinating water from the Sea of Cortez.

Tom Buschatzke, director of the Department of Water Resources, had pegged construction costs at about $3 billion. And the cost of delivering water would approach $2,500 an acre-foot, the amount of water that, depending on usage, is needed to serve from two to four single-family homes.

That could make the cost of purified sewage a lot less than a possible $1,200 water bill per house for treated seawater.

Limited growth and increased spending needs pose tough choices for Hobbs

Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs won’t have much room for new spending on education, water or just about anything else in the remaining two years of her initial term as Arizona’s chief executive.

That’s based on new projections from the Legislature’s budget analysts.

The good news is that the $2 billion deficit Hobbs faced in the current budget year isn’t reappearing. The bad news is that the across-the-board cuts to state agency budgets, delays to already-funded road and other infrastructure projects and special fund raids that helped lawmakers and the governor close that deficit are unlikely to be restored.

And there is also a looming fiscal cliff on education with next year’s expiration of Proposition 123, a measure passed by voters under previous Gov. Doug Ducey that funnels nearly $300 million a year to K-12 schools. Backfilling that funding and other “formula” increases to state spending for schools and Arizona’s Medicaid health insurance plan will use up much of the extra cash available in the next three years, according to a presentation by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee staff this past week.

And that doesn’t include what has been labeled as “one-time” spending, notably state employee health care costs and the school repair fund. In reality, those really are ongoing expenses that will have to be included in future spending plans.

All in all, Arizona’s current-year revenues are running $425 million above those projected in the budget enacted in June.

But that money isn’t the windfall it appears to be because that’s not how budgets are built, the JLBC’s Richard Stavneak said at last Wednesday’s meeting of the Finance Advisory Committee. That group includes the JLBC staff and outside economists who provide analysis of the state and federal and how their performance will affect state finances.

Instead, budgets are built looking at anticipated revenues over the coming three years.

Using that metric, Hobbs and the Legislature will have only $159 million in ongoing new revenue to parcel out — either all at once or at $53 million per year in new ongoing spending, Stavneak said.

The small pot of available money comes despite the economists who spoke saying that the national and Arizona economy actually is doing very well, with job creation strong and inflation decreases prompting interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve. Still, the consensus was that the economy will only grow slowly in the coming year, just nearing 2% a year.

Asked at a press conference last week, after the economists met, about the tiny amount of money she will have to get anything new done, Hobbs declined to get into specifics.

The governor has made it clear she’s hoping to flip the Legislature to Democratic control next month, giving her plans a friendlier reception. But doing that won’t help her get rid of the Ducey-era tax cuts that helped create a budget crunch – it would take a politically impossible two-thirds vote of the House and Senate – or to ensure her ability to restore spending cuts and budget for her priorities.

“My goal for this budget is to again have a bipartisan budget that addresses the needs of Arizonans, that continues to invest in critical services, that invests in public education, that supports small businesses, our veterans and is a balanced budget,” she said.

“We’ve done that the last two years,” Hobbs said. “We did that last year in the face of a nearly $2 billion budget deficit. And I have confidence that we’ll be able to do that this year.”

But Sen. John Kavanagh who leads his chamber’s appropriations committee, likened the cash available to “fine tuning money.”

And that means that those cuts the Legislature and Hobbs made earlier this year to plug that $2 billion deficit are mainly locked in.

“‘Baked in’ may be too strong a word,” Kavanagh said Friday.

“Delayed might be a better term,” he continued. “It’s unfortunate that the economy is so sluggish.”

But the Fountain Hills Republican also put a bit of a partisan spin on it.

“Not to get overly political, but I think if President Trump wins in November, those numbers will be a lot higher,” he said

However, the deficit and the now-ongoing crimp to state revenues can be directly tied to political acts taken by other Republicans: Ducey and the GOP-controlled Legislature.

They OK-ed a $2 billion state income tax cut in 2021 that fully hit last year.

On top of that, the state is on track to spend $912 million next year for the new universal school voucher program approved in 2022, Ducey’s last year in office. Only a small part of that spending is offset by lower public K-12 school costs from children leaving for private schools, since most students getting new vouchers were already private school students, with their parents picking up the tab.

Kavanagh, like most Republican lawmakers, still thinks the tax cuts were worth it.

He argues that $2 billion in income tax cuts don’t equal the same amount in revenue loss. That’s based on the argument that a better tax environment lures new residents to the state and grows the economy, with the attendant growing tax revenue.

Democrats, however, loudly decry the cuts as mainly going to the wealthy and hurting Arizona’s ability to fund important state functions like schools and healthcare.

“I also don’t regret giving ordinary people more money in their pockets, and employers having more money to invest in new jobs,” Kavanagh said.

Still, having to cut spending hurts, and state agencies are lining up for much more than is available for Hobbs to dole out next year.

The state’s three public universities, for instance, are pushing for a huge boost in state support, seeking more than $700 million a year in new funding on top of their current take of about $970 million a year. They argue that last year’s cuts added to years of waning state support and they need the money to sustain programs like the Arizona Teachers Academy, which pays tuition for students who vow to teach in the state’s public schools.

The budget analysts estimate 90,000 students will get vouchers next year, bringing spending to $912 million. About 1.1 million students attend district or charger public schools, and this year’s state budget allocates $7.6 billion for them, nearly have of overall spending.

The state’s Medicaid plan says it needs an additional $251 million. The Department of Child Safety is seeking $64 million, mostly to deal with growing group home costs and a new computer system. And the Arizona Commerce Authority, which doles out tax breaks and other support to businesses expanding in the state, wants $88 million. That’s just a taste of the budget requests filed by the dozens of state agencies and boards.

Not renewing Proposition 123 is expected in the budget projections.

It was approved by voters in 2016 after Ducey reached a deal to end a long-running lawsuit that alleged the state vastly underfunded schools. It boosted land trust withdrawals to fund about $3.5 billion in additional K-12 general fund spending funding over a decade.

Last January, Republican lawmakers and Hobbs proposed competing plans to put an extension on this November’s ballot.

Hobbs wanted to split the money between general K-12 funding, teacher and support staff pay, and school safety, while GOP lawmakers wanted all the money to go to teacher pay. That plan, however, would have cut underlying school funding.

And both plans would keep pulling extra cash from the land trust, a pool of more than 9 million acres given to Arizona by the federal government at statehood, with revenues from leases or sales mainly dedicated to K-12 schools. Proposition 123 increased the yearly revenue spent rather than reinvested to keep the fund stable.

Neither went anywhere, meaning the 2025 Legislative session is the last chance for a fix that keeps the school funding going. A special election would be needed to pass any deal Hobbs and lawmakers are able to hammer out.

Confronting cognitive dissonance – why Arizona leaders must bridge the disconnect between voter priorities and policy outcomes

There’s a disconnect in Arizona’s political landscape – one that goes beyond the partisanship and division that dominate headlines. Despite what it may seem, Arizonans across the political spectrum have a surprising amount of common ground on our state’s most important issues. The problem? This consensus is at odds with the policies and political discourse that shape our everyday lives. The disconnect, or what we might call “cognitive dissonance,” is felt by Arizonans every day, leading to frustration and a lack of trust in our institutions.

The Arizona Voters’ Agenda, developed by Center for the Future of Arizona (CFA), reveals this disconnect clearly. Our data show that voters share strong agreement on critical priorities, yet these often get overshadowed by the noise of political bickering and gridlock. This cognitive dissonance, where what voters want doesn’t match what they see happening, contributes to a growing divide between the electorate and those in office.

Closing the gap isn’t just about good governance – it’s about restoring trust and making Arizonans feel truly represented.

Understanding Where Voters Agree Provides a Strategic Advantage

The 2024 Arizona Voters’ Agenda shows that over 85% of likely voters agree on increasing postsecondary enrollment to secure Arizona’s future, and 93% want stronger protections for our water resources. On issues like education, water, elections, housing, and immigration, voters across the political spectrum have identified clear priorities. Nearly 90% of voters support comprehensive immigration reform to ensure a functional border that facilitates commerce and immigration – an issue that often leads to gridlock.

These aren’t insignificant issues – they’re priorities that cut across party lines and reflect the practical, solutions-focused mindset of Arizonans. Our political climate makes turning them into reality difficult. When partisanship and divisiveness are more prevalent than cooperation and progress on solutions, this misalignment creates a sense of frustration and disillusionment among voters.

Understanding where voters agree offers leaders a strategic advantage to support policies that reflect what Arizonans care about. Leaders who recognize and leverage these areas of agreement are more likely to achieve tangible outcomes and distinguish themselves as credible, solution-oriented advocates at a time when the public is tired of rhetoric and hungry for positive action.

Aligning with the Majority Isn’t Compromise – It’s Smart Governance

Most voters are not entrenched in extremes. According to the Arizona Voters’ Agenda, 91% are deeply concerned about divisiveness in politics, and nearly 60% believe that political parties have become too ideologically extreme.

This cognitive dissonance – where the polarizing political narrative is at odds with what we know and is affirmed by our data showing vast agreement areas with our fellow Arizonans – creates a damaging cycle. However, leaders who choose to align with what the vast majority of Arizonans want can break this cycle by championing the issues that truly matter to people.

This doesn’t mean giving up on political identity or principles. It’s about taking action on issues that have strong voter support.

Leaders who champion widely supported issues show they can rise above the noise and take the side of the voter. It doesn’t have to be a winner-takes-all compromise – it’s about finding common ground and negotiating solutions that reflect what matters most to Arizonans. And that’s what Arizonans want. While partisanship may drive headlines, the data show that nearly two-thirds of voters seek leaders who prioritize working across the aisle over rigid ideology.

Seizing the Opportunity to Lead on What Unites Us

For those in public office, there’s a unique opportunity to lead by addressing the disconnect between voter priorities and policy outcomes. The Arizona Voters’ Agenda presents a clear blueprint for how to do this. Using these data, leaders can address the big questions on voters’ minds and connect with them through the issues that truly matter. For example:

Water: What policies will you implement to protect Arizona’s water supplies and secure the state’s future growth?
Education: How will you ensure that K-12 and higher education systems receive the resources to prepare students and support the state’s economic competitiveness?
Housing: What measures will you take to ensure housing is accessible and affordable for middle- and low-income Arizonans?

These are not easy questions, but they must be addressed to close the gap between what voters want and what they see happening in Arizona.

The Arizona Voters’ Agenda is much more than a snapshot of where voters stand – it’s a tool for effective governance. In a state as dynamic as Arizona, where voter support is crucial to any long-term success, aligning with voter priorities is the wisest move leaders can make. Let’s use this data to strengthen trust and take action on the issues shaping Arizona’s future.

Sybil Francis, Ph.D., is chair, president & CEO of Center for the Future of Arizona, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that brings Arizonans together to create a stronger and brighter future for our state.

Upcoming Event

Tag: water