The Show for June 8, 2026: AZ Congressmen who stood up to Nixon, Phoenix vs. Tucson food and more

Two Arizona Congressional Republicans were part of the delegation that told President Richard Nixon he’d be impeached and convicted after Watergate. One observer looks at the differences between then and now. Plus, what's the better food town: Phoenix or Tucson?

Transcript

UNDERWRITER: KJZZ’s original production, The Show, is supported by Banner Health, Arizona’s largest nonprofit healthcare system. Last year, Banner reinvested more than $1.1 billion in community health and charity care. Banner Health, nonprofit for Arizona. bannerhealth.com/nonprofitforaz.

LAUREN GILGER: Hi, I’m Lauren Gilger, co-host of The Show, an original production from KJZZ. Every weekday, we bring you the latest news and culture from across the state. You can find much more at theshow.kjzz.org. Here’s today’s episode.

LAUREN GILGER: Good morning, and welcome to The Show here on KJZZ 91.5 in Phoenix. I’m Lauren Gilger.

MARK BRODIE: And I’m Mark Brodie. Coming up, what if the state could buy back water rights from farmers and others? Would it make a dent in Arizona’s water shortage?

LAUREN GILGER: And what’s happening now that New World screwworm has been found in the US?

MARK BRODIE: But first, state lawmakers are facing a few deadlines as they come back to the Capitol this week. June 30 is of course the end of the fiscal year, so they need to have a new budget in place before then. More on that in a moment. Before that, though, on June 24 is the deadline for Arizona voters to submit arguments for and against ballot measures. But the Legislature hasn’t yet figured out exactly which of the more than 20 proposed referenda still alive at the Capitol will ultimately go before voters in November. With me now to help sort all this out, as he is every Monday during the legislative session, is Howie Fischer of Capital Media Services. Good morning, Howie.

HOWARD FISCHER: Good morning. You say every Monday during the legislative session like it’s never going to end.

MARK BRODIE: Well, we’ll get to that, I promise. [LAUGHS] But, Howie, let’s let’s remind listeners there are a few ballot measures already going to voters from the Legislature that they approved last year. But that that mostly will not be the end of it.

HOWARD FISCHER: Oh, definitely not. As you pointed out, there’s probably two dozen measures that are floating around there. I think some are bound to fall off the table, mainly because Republican lawmakers don’t want to send two dozen ballot measures, figuring that if people are confused, they’ll just vote no on everything.

But there are some things that they haven’t been able to get by the governor. For example, the issue of which children gets to use which bathroom based on their gender. Issues of biological boys playing in girls’ sports. These are some of the, you know, the whole social war issues. Then there’s, of course, some issues on voting in terms of ID, whether you need ID, how quickly you’d have to turn in your early ballot. Would it have to be the Friday before so we don’t have a what’s currently a California type situation going on in Arizona?

And then, of course, issues about who gets taxed. Can can somebody can a city keep their photo radar? Do they have to take it to local voters? So, there’s a whole smorgasbord of stuff that folks are interested in.

MARK BRODIE: Howie, do you have a sense of what those conversations are like right now at the Capitol in terms of which of those move forward and which of them don’t?

HOWARD FISCHER: Well, I think first step, and we’ll talk about this, is getting a budget adopted. I think that that’s the recognition that while it’s only June 8, they recognize anything that can go wrong with a budget will go wrong. And while they’re set to meet beginning tomorrow morning and through Friday, you know, what can go wrong — again, you know, there’s millions and millions of ways that.

I think there are some high-profile things that they’d like to put on the ballot to contrast themselves with the governor. Some of those social issues like the issue of of boys in girls’ sports. This is taken on national proportions. And I believe the Republicans think it will drive some of their own voters to to the ballot. The the technical stuff is is a little trickier. In other words, do we want 90 House districts versus 60? And do we want them districts re-divided? There’s all sorts of reasons to suggest you’d get more representative government that way in terms of a House member, but is it too technical for for folks?

There’s a bill to raise legislative salaries. You know, this hasn’t been raised since I guess 1996, and it has to go to the voters. So they’re trying to put something on the ballot to say, "OK, we get increases annually if this is approved, according to the cost of living." Not pointing out that that increase is retroactive to 1996, which would double their $24,000 salary to $48,000. I think there’s a a lot of sentiment in both parties that probably $24,000 doesn’t cut it, but is this the measure they want to put on a ballot? Hard to know. ...

And then there’s a firing squad issue, where right in Arizona, pretty much you have the you you’re put to to death by lethal injection. Some people who have been on death row a long time have the option of gas. And a couple of lawmakers say, well, why not a firing squad? I don’t know, why not?

MARK BRODIE: Well, Howie, is it possible that that these obviously, you know, this is one of the last issues other than the budget to get dealt with for this year. Can these sort of be used as carrots or maybe, in some cases, sticks to get lawmakers on the budget if they are maybe concerned about voting for certain provisions of it?

HOWARD FISCHER: Oh, there’s always bargaining that goes on at the end. Whether it’s a bill that’s stuck somewhere, you know, we talked, you know, the newscast this morning talked about the question of pets in HOAs. That could become a bargaining chip. You want my vote on the budget? OK, make sure that this bill comes to the floor. You want my vote on the budget? I definitely want to see some new requirements for voter ID on the ballot.

So they all become bargaining chips, and that’s what complicates matters in terms of, you know, you and I could sit and say, "OK, this measure, this measure, this measure make the most sense to put to the voters." But again, has nothing to do with the reality of the bargaining, what leadership thinks will bring out people, what leadership thinks will deter people.

MARK BRODIE: So, Howie, we’ve been talking about the budget. What are you hearing about what it might actually look like? There are some pretty strong lines in the sand between the governor and legislative Republicans.

HOWARD FISCHER: Well, the strongest indication I have is from some legislative leaders who say, "Look, we’ve got the tax cuts, we’re not giving up the tax cuts. They’ll take a slightly different form in in future years, but we’re still going to have the things that everyone wants." In other words, the the higher standard deduction, the no tax on tips, the no tax on overtime.

They are probably going to jettison one thing that’s in there now, which is, for example, the deduction for state and local taxes, because we don’t really have a lot of that, and perhaps substitute out something else in terms of of daycare or something.

There’s a thing in the federal budget that talks about deductions for Social Security, but Arizona doesn’t tax Social Security. So I think that’ll be substituted out for something else. I don’t see any real backing down on that. Now, that’s going to be interesting. You know, they worked all weekend. I know one legislative leader told me that his brain was mush after these all-day sessions. The question becomes, how do you make the numbers work?

Now, short term, I think the numbers can work because there appear to be enough revenues, both cash carried forward from this fiscal year and revenues for next year, to keep these tax cuts going. It’s the longer term, because they’re trying to plan for a three-year budget, that they say, how are we going to make this happen unless we believe that somehow the revenues are going to magically appear from the sky, you know, like manna from heaven?

MARK BRODIE: All right. We’ll see we’ll see if anything falls from the sky in the next little bit. That is Howie Fischer of Capital Media Services. Howie, thanks as always.

HOWARD FISCHER: Have a great morning.

LAUREN GILGER: Among many bills introduced by Democrats at the State Legislature this session that never got a hearing, one would have established a groundwater rights buyback program. And we’re looking at dwindling groundwater in many basins across the state. And as that happens, and a drier future in general is on the horizon, the idea here would be to allow the state to buy groundwater rights from holders and retire them for good, saving water. Last year, our neighbors to the north in Nevada did just that. Their State Assembly unanimously passed a measure creating a similar program dubbed the Nevada Voluntary Water Rights Retirement Program. They made the move after trying out a pretty successful pilot program. Laurel Saito is the Nevada water strategy director for the Nature Conservancy, and I spoke with her more about it, beginning with how the buyback program works there.

LAUREL SAITO: The intention of this program is to incentivize people to retire their groundwater rights. In this — in Nevada, the way the legislation works is it’s going to be permanent retirement, so those water rights cannot be used again, to help address some specific purposes. So in our legislation, we specify that the purposes of retiring the groundwater rights would be to protect the natural resources of the state, address declining levels of groundwater, or address conflicts with existing rights. And the idea is that it’s voluntary, so no one is mandated to retire their groundwater rights.

LAUREN GILGER: Right. And in Nevada, it was it was pretty bad, right? Like, there were more rights that had been given out to groundwater than there was actual groundwater, right?

LAUREL SAITO: In some places, that’s the case. And we know that because we know that there are declining groundwater levels in many parts of the state. The Nature Conservancy did do a stressor and threat assessment of groundwater-dependent ecosystems in 2022. We analyzed over 6,000 wells across Nevada and found that almost 40% of them had significantly declining groundwater levels over the last several decades.

And we know that people are having to drill their wells deeper for domestic use, as well as for other types of groundwater use. So those are all indications that in some places, the groundwater is being used unsustainably.

LAUREN GILGER: Right, which is happening all over the West, I think, as we, you know.

LAUREL SAITO: It’s not just a Nevada problem.

LAUREN GILGER: So tell us a little about the the legislative process to get this program passed in Nevada. I mean, I understand it was not easy. It took a couple of tries and a long pilot program.

LAUREL SAITO: Yeah. So we did try this first in 2023, but it didn’t make it through the Legislature that time. But there was a group of us stakeholders that were really in agreement that this was something that we thought could be a useful tool. So between 2023 and 2025, which was our next session, we built the case for groundwater rights retirement, and one of those things was this pilot program that ran with American Rescue Plan Act funds that were available. We retired over 20,000 acre-feet of groundwater rights, and we had more demand for that program than we had funds available. So —

LAUREN GILGER: Wow, OK.

LAUREL SAITO: We could use that to demonstrate to the Legislature that there is interest in this, we can successfully retire groundwater rights, and you know, this could be a useful tool going forward.

LAUREN GILGER: So you did get it through the Legislature eventually with some, you know, adjustments. How effective has it been so far? How effective do you think it could be in conserving groundwater?

LAUREL SAITO: So one of the things that we had to do or that we did in 2025 was that we did not ask for any funds for the program. And that’s partly because in 2023, that’s where the bill got held up. So we established the program, but we had no funding for it.

So what we’re working on now is trying to find funding for the program and also to kind of set the guidelines to make sure that the program will, when enacted, will actually retire actual water use. You know, water rights that are being used.

LAUREN GILGER: How do you value water rights? Like, some are not used at all, right? You’d call them like paper rights. But some are are so-called wet water rights, right? And and are more applicable. But how do you decide how much they’re worth?

LAUREL SAITO: That’s a great question, and one that we get asked a lot. And it’s a little bit challenging, because we want to be doing something that’s fair and equitable, but the problem is that there haven’t been a whole lot of these kinds of transactions that have occurred. And so there’s not a lot of data available on what is a fair market value and things like that.

And it’s going to be very dependent on your location and the kind of situation you’re in. So, like, I don’t think there is just one value for groundwater rights across all of Nevada. It is going to depend on where you are and what the situation is.

LAUREN GILGER: Sure. I know some folks are concerned about, you know, I guess the same kind of concerns you would have if you’re, for example, fallowing fields or something like that, which we pay farmers to do sometimes as well to conserve water. Land becoming dusty, weedy, you know, things like that. Are you worried about or have you seen from the pilot program any effects like that?

LAUREL SAITO: Yeah, so that is another question that comes up a lot when we talk about this program. And the pilot program gave those who retired groundwater rights an extra $50 per acre-foot for them to implement some sort of land management to try to avoid this problem of dust and weeds and pests.

And then they have done a little bit of post-evaluation to kind of go out and see if people have been trying to do that, and it’s been a little bit of a mixed bag. I mean, some folks have actually been trying to put in a cover crop or, you know, do things to deal with that on the lands that they retired. Another thing that we thought about is in places where you have an agricultural community that would like to stay in agriculture, when we retire these groundwater rights, we are possibly going to lose a lot of land out of agriculture.

So we looked at agrivoltaics as a possible alternative in those areas to kind of keep the the community more of an agricultural community. And agrivoltaics is the integration of solar photovoltaic systems with agricultural production. So that’s an alternative that might be possible in some of these areas.

LAUREN GILGER: So let me ask you then, Laurel, lastly here, about the big-picture potential impact. I mean, as we’re looking at a drier future across the West, as we’re looking at the Colorado River being, you know, overused, everyone’s going to have to take cuts. We’re looking for lots of ways to conserve water, groundwater being one of them.

Do you think this is a really promising thing that other states do you think should look at in terms of trying to conserve water in the future?

LAUREL SAITO: Yeah, I think so. ... We like to say that we want to have a bunch of different tools in the toolbox. When it comes to water, it’s very complicated. And most of the time, in fact, I don’t think I’ve ever seen when there’s just a single solution that’s going to solve the whole problem. ... So we’re looking for different options that that people can have for how to address these overused issues.

We like to say this is a tool that provides a little bit softer landing to like running out of groundwater completely. Which, you know, people have built their livelihoods on using this water, and when the groundwater runs out or the well runs dry, that’s it.

And with groundwater rights retirement, this this type of a program, it might give people an opportunity to be a little more proactive about stopping the groundwater use and getting compensated for it so that you can transition to doing something else. ... So we like to say it’s a it’s a less abrupt than just running out of water.

LAUREN GILGER: Less abrupt, for sure. All right. Well, I appreciate your insight. That is Laurel Saito, Nevada water strategy director for the Nature Conservancy, joining us. Laurel, thank you so much for coming on. I appreciate this.

LAUREL SAITO: Thank you.

MARK BRODIE: Good morning. It’s The Show here on KJZZ 91.5. I’m Mark Brodie.

LAUREN GILGER: And I’m Lauren Gilger. Coming up, which city is a better food town? Phoenix or Tucson? An Arizona chef weighs in.

MARK BRODIE: But first, federal officials have confirmed New World screwworm has been found in cattle in the US. Up until now, it had been confined to cows south of the border. This is not the first time the flesh-eating insect has been detected in this country. In the 1950s, the US started a multi-decade effort to eradicate it. That effort was largely successful until fairly recently. With me now to talk about the current situation is KJZZ’s Nina Kravinsky from our Hermosillo bureau. Nina, good morning.

NINA KRAVINSKY: Good morning.

MARK BRODIE: So, what is the situation right now?

NINA KRAVINSKY: Yeah. So so far, the USDA has confirmed four cases of the New World screwworm in the US. Um, two of them just this morning. You know, three of those four cases have been in calves in South Texas, not too far from the Mexico border. But one of the cases that they announced this morning was a dog much further west, not far from the New Mexico border, but still in Texas. And all of these animals have cases, like you said, of the New World screwworm. So this is a flesh-eating parasite that can burrow into the flesh of warm-blooded animals and and can be deadly. And and like you said earlier, just just a few bloody just a few seconds ago, the US officially eradicated that parasite in the 1960s, but now it’s back. And that has a lot of people on high alert. You know, the governor of Texas issued a statewide disaster declaration to free up resources to to fight the New World screwworm in Texas. And the USDA has also been on the ground there to try to stop the spread of the parasite and identify these cases as they come in.

MARK BRODIE: Yeah, this has been pretty much what folks in this country did not want to have happen, right? Like, there had been cases in in Central America and Mexico, and they were trying desperately to avoid it getting into the US. But now that it is here, what does that mean?

NINA KRAVINSKY: Yeah. So, the parasite spreads when flies travel from animal to animal to lay their eggs, and then those eggs turn into larvae, which is the New World screwworm. So, unless you or your pets spend a lot of time around cattle and like have an open wound, you can pretty much count yourself safe. The beef that you buy at the grocery store is also okay. The screwworm doesn’t infest meat, so the USDA says that the US the US’s food supply is safe. But the way that this is more likely going to show up for listeners and and for most people is that beef prices may go up. You know, beef prices have already been pretty high. The US cattle herd is already at like these record lows, and that’s creating this supply and demand issue. And the screwworm threatens to diminish that even further, diminish that US cattle supply. So that can drive up prices for, you know, steaks and hamburger meat at the grocery store.

MARK BRODIE: So, Nina, how exactly did we get here?

NINA KRAVINSKY: Yeah, so, you know, Mark, I kind of feel like I’ve been watching the dominoes like fall in this story in in slow motion. In late November 2024, we saw the first case of a cow with screwworm in Mexico. It was right near the Guatemala border in the very south of Mexico, you know, far from the US-Mexico border. But it meant that this parasite had breached containment in Central America and was now in Mexico. And since then, US and Mexican authorities have been working to try to stop the spread of the New World screwworm. But even so, you know, cases have been creeping up through Mexico over the past year and a half. Um, that’s include confirmed cases in Mexican states that border the US. Although it’s important to note that there have been no reports of the screwworm here in Sonora, which is where I live in Mexico, south of Arizona.

MARK BRODIE: Right. Well, so how have authorities been trying to contain this? Like, we’ve talked about how they’ve really not wanted it to first get to Mexico, which it did, then get to the US, which it now has. So what are what are folks doing to try to prevent it from spreading further?

NINA KRAVINSKY: Yeah, totally. So over the past year and a half, there have been a couple of different methods that they’ve used to try to stop the spread. One way is by closing the entire US-Mexico border to cattle. In normal years, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of live cattle cross from where I am in Sonora into Arizona. And cattle ranching is a big industry. You know, it’s it’s been designed in northern Mexico a for a lot of ranchers for this export market. Um, but much of last year and for all of this year, that trade has been halted to protect US herds against the New World screwworm. And authorities have also been ramping up this method of sterile fly production. That’s what scientists have told me is the most effective way to contain the spread and eventually eradicate this parasite. And so sterile fly production basically means that they’re releasing large amounts of sterile flies that they breed in these big like factory-like laboratories. They release them into the environment, and then those sterile flies mate with regular screwworm flies, and eventually that kind of dwindles the population. That’s actually one of the ways that the USDA has been combating the parasite now in Texas, and they’ve been using this this method in Mexico and Central America for a while. But, you know, Mark, all of that takes time. And so, the parasite has had time to spread into Texas despite those efforts.

MARK BRODIE: So, Nina, you mentioned that, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of cattle in a typical year cross from Sonora into Arizona. So, how are ranchers doing where you are?

NINA KRAVINSKY: Yeah, so, you know, um, this export market is kind of the bread and butter of a lot of ranchers in Sonora. Um, last fall I visited a rancher in his 70s, a few hours south of the Arizona-Sonora border, and his family has been in this industry for a few generations. And he’s historically bred his cattle to sell to feedlots in Texas, so they start their lives in Mexico and Sonora and then they go to be fattened in the feedlot in Texas. And and when I visited him, the border closure meant that he hadn’t been able to do that in months, export his his live cattle over the border. And he was at that point already working on selling his cattle domestically in Mexico for a much lower price. You know, that was months ago, and the border hasn’t reopened even though there haven’t been any cases, like I said, of the screwworm here in Sonora. So northern Mexican states have been working on kind of building out their own infrastructure to make the border closure less costly for these ranchers. But being locked out of higher-paying markets in the US has been tough for ranchers in Sonora, es- especially these smaller operations where the margins are already really tight.

MARK BRODIE: Yeah, sounds like things probably won’t be changing that much anytime soon, either. All right. That is KJZZ’s Nina Kravinsky from the Hermosillo bureau. Nina, thanks as always.

NINA KRAVINSKY: Yeah, thanks, Mark.

MARK BRODIE: Good morning. It’s The Show on KJZZ 91.5. I’m Mark Brodie.

LAUREN GILGER: And I’m Lauren Gilger. Coming up, the actions of the Trump administration have led a lot of people to make a lot of comparisons to other presidencies or periods of history. My next guest’s thoughts go back a little more than 50 years to the resignation of Richard Nixon and the actions of members of his party that helped lead to it.

In his Substack, long-time Arizona government and political observer Bob Robb wonders about the behavior of both congressional Republicans and Democrats in the early 1970s and why it seems to be so different from today. Robb joins me to talk more about this. And, Bob, was there something specific that got you thinking about this comparison?

ROBERT ROBB: No, there is just such a stark difference among congressional Republicans in their sense of having an institutional loyalty to the Congress that they serve, and the constitutional role the founders gave them as members of Congress with respect to the various challenges being posed to that role by the Trump administration, and particularly the president himself, and that of congressional Republicans, when Nixon was clearly engaged in an attempt to cover up Republican operatives breaking into the Democratic headquarters in Washington, D.C.

It was actually Republicans in Congress, that decided Nixon’s fate. And both parties behaved differently. The Democrats didn’t rush the case against Nixon. Um, they provided the political space and room for Republicans to reach a consensus that this was unacceptable behavior by a president of the United States. And it was the leaders of Republicans in Congress, who ultimately went to Richard Nixon and delivered the message that there were sufficient GOP votes in the House to impeach him, and in the Senate to convict him.

MARK BRODIE: How much of this do you think comes down to a sense of self-preservation among members of Congress and not crossing the current president, as opposed to any of the other factors that might be contributing to the the different behaviors?

ROBERT ROBB: There is a big difference in the political environment in which we currently live compared to what existed in the 1970s. Richard Nixon didn’t have the personal loyalty among a broad segment of primary election Republicans that Donald Trump clearly has. Um, so there’s zero question that asserting constitutional prerogatives on behalf of Congress vis-à-vis the presidency carries a substantially greater political risk today than it did in the 1970s. There were virtually no consequences for Republicans ultimately making the decision that Richard Nixon had to go.

However, I believe there’s two other factors that also are important and more disheartening to me. The first is that there isn’t a sense of a institutional loyalty to the body that they serve, Congress. I think that’s largely missing among congressional Republicans today. And I also think there was a higher value put on personal integrity, um, that there were simply some things, um, that were worth losing in politics.

MARK BRODIE: Well, so I’m curious what you make of the fact that there’s been so much attention paid in, you know, recent days and weeks to those Republicans in Congress who are speaking out a little bit. They’re they’re not doing anything, I don’t think anyone would argue, anywhere near to the to the level of going to the White house and telling the president, "Look, it’s over. You’ve got to step down or we’re going to impeach you."

But, you know, even saying, "You know, I don’t think this policy idea is a great thing," or "I don’t like this thing he said on social media." And there’s been so much attention just to that.

ROBERT ROBB: Well, because it’s such unusual behavior during the Trump era. By and large, congressional Republicans have been prostate irrespective of what the president does, and particularly when the president usurps what are supposed to be roles assigned by the Constitution to Congress. You simply haven’t had it.

MARK BRODIE: I wonder if in some ways we might be comparing apples to oranges in these two situations, because as you point out in your piece, when the Republicans went to Nixon and said, "Look, there are the votes to impeach and and convict," Republicans were in the minority, which is obviously not been the case in the at least the first two years of Trump’s second term.

I wonder if that in some way affects the behavior, because obviously, in neither the House nor the Senate would there right now be the votes to impeach or convict, and one wonders if Republicans were in control of the House and Senate in the early ’70s if there would have been the votes for those things then, either.

ROBERT ROBB: It’s a very good point, Mark, and yes, it is a little bit of apples and oranges. But the numbers of respective control in terms of getting to the two-thirds votes for a conviction aren’t dramatically different.

But again, it was while the Republicans were in the minority that they ultimately made the decision that what Nixon had done was unacceptable for an occupant of the Oval Office. If anything, you would think if a party is in the majority, having a sense of responsibility and personal integrity with respect to the role the Constitution gives Congress, both in deciding a wide range of policy matters that uh Trump is usurping, um, but also to police unethical conduct, in the Oval Office.

I believe that this slush fund settlement and the immunity from tax audits is every bit as offensive to the constitutional order um, as was Nixon’s attempt to cover up and limit the damage uh to the botched attempt to burglar the Democratic headquarters in during the 1972 election.

MARK BRODIE: So what do you are the implications of all this? Not so much necessarily to the individuals involved, but you talked earlier about sort of the institution of the Congress. What do you think are the implications of what you're seeing right now to that body?

ROBERT ROBB: People have called our Congress the "Dumont Congress," that it really isn't playing the separate role that the Constitution contemplates and the founders intended. If anything, in fact, dramatically, Congress was supposed to be the policy-making body. The president was to execute faithfully what Congress decides.

And getting outside the self-dealing and the ethical activities that are going on time and time again, Trump is trying to in essence legislate from the executive branch completely usurping the role of Congress.

MARK BRODIE: All right. We’ll have to leave it there. That is Bob Robb, longtime observer of Arizona government and politics. He also writes a Substack. Bob, good as always to talk to talk to you. Thank you.

ROBERT ROBB: Thanks for having me.

MARK BRODIE: Is there a gender divide when it comes to caring about the planet? Research suggests there is. That girls tend to care more about environmental issues than do boys. So, there’s an effort to try to figure out how to close that gap.

Caroline Preston is managing editor of The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit newsroom covering education. She also writes a newsletter about climate and education news. She’s written about this and joins me to talk more about it.

MARK BRODIE: Caroline, what exactly is the issue we’re dealing with here?

CAROLINE PRESTON: Yeah, so there’s actually quite a bit of research on this idea suggesting that girls tend to care more about nature, care more about climate change, be more anxious and worried about climate change than boys are. And it seems like there are a few reasons for that.

And I talked with Joseph Henderson. He’s a lecturer at [University of] Vermont who’s studying some of these issues, looked at the research, and is among the people kind of trying to do something about that and get boys in on climate action.

But part of the reason may be that girls and boys are socialized somewhat differently. And it’s kind of seen as more feminine to care about other people and and by extension, care about nature and animals. And so girls must may be just kind of more drawn to caring about the environment, and also more comfortable doing so.

Whereas some men — obviously not all and not all boys — but people who may feel uncomfortable about their gender maybe a little bit threatened by it, they may be more drawn to behavior that is is kind of less coded as feminine. So sort of more stereotypically masculine and not about helping the environment.

MARK BRODIE: How does this manifest itself?

CAROLINE PRESTON: So I mean, Henderson, the professor who I talked to from the University of Vermont, had actually seen this in his classes. So boys and men, and these are university classes, being more engaged in class. And in some cases, he’d even run across men, young men, who were sort of drawn to almost even like, you know, eco-fascist ideas.

That’s, that’s maybe stronger than what he saw, but that is a limited phenomenon of sort of men who maybe feel threatened and so see protecting see the planet and environmental issues from a sort of scarcity standpoint and we need to protect nature from sort of other people, maybe people who don’t look like us, taking those resources.

But I’ve heard this from other teachers, too, an art teacher, for example, who I remember said that girls just tended to be more interested and engaged on climate issues. So, anecdotally, teachers are seeing this, and then the research is out there, to suggest that this is the case.

MARK BRODIE: So does Professor Henderson, for example, see like boys might be less willing to recycle things or maybe more likely to buy, you know, a gas-powered car as opposed to an electric vehicle or something like that? Or is it maybe is it more like on the engagement, like they just don’t care quite as much as as some girls do?

CAROLINE PRESTON: I think in his class, my sense was it was more the latter. It was more about sort of engagement in class, or people talking about what their activities were and what they were drawn to.

But I do think that there is research showing that women and girls are more likely to sort of take more pro-climate behavior, and that would include things like supporting policies to limit carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to climate change, for example, and even like you said, recycling behaviors and things like that.

MARK BRODIE: Does the research suggest how much of an issue this is, like how big of a disparity there might be between boys and girls in terms of caring about the climate, caring about the planet and taking action on it?

CAROLINE PRESTON: Yeah, I think that research consistently finds it, but I don't think it's massive. You know, I think the gender divide exists, but it's not a chasm. And certainly there are a lot of men and boys who are leaders on climate action. So I think it's something that definitely can be addressed.

And one of the things that Henderson and some of his research colleagues are trying to do right now is studying both in the U.S. and also in Scandinavian countries that really take a different approach to nature and to nature education and see about some of the things that work to engage people and young people and boys in particular.

MARK BRODIE: What are the implications of having a a gender divide on on caring about the environment, caring about the planet?

CAROLINE PRESTON: Yeah, I think if you’re somebody who feels like it’s important to take steps on climate change and it’s an important environmental and social issue, then having half of the population potentially less drawn to these issues and less willing to take action would be concerning.

But I think that there are a lot of opportunities to Dr. Henderson would say, get men involved. I mean, I think there’s been a lot written in recent years about boys and men kind of falling behind girls in some ways, in terms of graduation rates, in terms of college-going rates, and some of the good jobs that have been available and more, more masculine-dominated have are eroded in recent years.

And I think that there are ways to sort of combine getting boys and men involved in some of these career-advancing ways and also climate action. For example, skills-based and career education that’s geared around some of these green jobs, so to speak. I’ve talked to school districts that have clean energy programs coming up in their career and technical education space.

And that kind of really hands-on and sort of skill-based education, both girls and boys can benefit from that and like it, but it tends to be particularly engaging for boys.

MARK BRODIE: You kind of alluded to this, but I want to ask you more specifically if there’s a sense that this divide on caring about the environment and the planet and everything, does that sort of fall into some of the other stuff we’ve been hearing about recently in terms of masculinity and boys especially feeling like they’re losing their masculinity or need to do things that, you know, sort of fall into a particular vision of what masculinity is?

CAROLINE PRESTON: Yeah, I mean, one of the concepts that Dr. Henderson talks about is this idea of threatened masculinity and men feeling like they’re falling behind as as women advance. And so this is part of why this sort of idea of men who may be gender insecure trying to sort of justify themselves and their value through more coded masculine behavior comes up, and environmentalism and caring for animals, caring for the planet is not one of those behaviors. And so I think that that kind of really can exacerbate the divide in some ways. And to your question, yeah, it’s all very connected, I believe.

MARK BRODIE: So does he think that this is the kind of thing that, you know, if you were to start with kids when they’re, you know, young, when they’re maybe in kindergarten or even before that, perhaps, that that might reduce some of the divide between the between the sexes?

CAROLINE PRESTON: Yes. I think so. I mean, he and many others think that climate education, environmental education can begin very young, in preschool. There are age-appropriate ways to talk about these issues and talk about behaviors that are good for the planet without kind of freaking kids out in an inappropriate way about climate issues. And outdoor education is also seen as a big positive possible solution, possible possible way of getting people engaged.

MARK BRODIE: All right. Well, we’ll have to leave it there. That is Caroline Preston, managing editor of The Hechinger Report. Caroline, thank you. I appreciate it.

CAROLINE PRESTON: Thanks so much.

MARK BRODIE: Good morning. It’s The Show on KJZZ 91.5. I’m Mark Brodie.

LAUREN GILGER: And I’m Lauren Gilger. It is a perennial debate. Which is the better food town? Arizona’s biggest metro area and capital, Phoenix, or Tucson, our neighbor to the south?

Metro Phoenix, including some of our upscale neighbors, has some of the chic, trendiest spots, the high-end steakhouses, the places where you might spot a Kardashian, as well as some truly outstanding chefs doing great work and winning James Beard awards for it.

But Tucson has the roots. In 2015, the Old Pueblo became the first American city to earn UNESCO’s title of a City of Gastronomy, a nod to its deep food heritage and commitment to its own food culture.

Well, one Arizona-born and bred chef is doing it both here and in Tucson. Don Guerra, he is a James Beard Award-winning baker and owner of Barrio Bread in Tucson, as well as co-founder of Barrio Bagel and Slice up here in Gilbert. I spoke with him more about these two food towns and which one tops his list.

DON GUERRA: I think the Tucson food culture is deeply connected to the place. I mean, you can really taste the desert here. You have chefs and food makers really wanting to use and incorporate heritage foods into their menus as a way to highlight the region. And I think really that has to do with the UNESCO having a spotlight on our city.

But it’s really based on some of the Indigenous food knowledge that helped shape how we grow, harvest, conserve water, and even cook in this environment. I’m thinking foods like tepary beans, chiltepin, mesquite, ... squash, corn. In my case, the white Sonoran wheat.

So the ingredients tell a story of the place, and I think that’s really what we’re focused on here.

LAUREN GILGER: Yeah. So, I mean, it’s about this connection to heritage, right? And I think connection to the region, right? Like, this proximity that Tucson has to the border and its kind of identity as this cross-border intercultural place, I think probably plays a big role in that. Does it to you?

DON GUERRA: Yeah, definitely. You know, it’s, I think Tucson’s food culture comes from generations of Mexican, Indigenous and borderlands traditions, and that’s really well represented here, as well as a lot of other influences, like with the the Chinese and some of the spices that we have, the the chilies, of course, and you see this fusion with Chinese and Mexican food.

And so really this is really about this culinary traditions that have been happening for years because of the different populations of people that have been blended. And a lot of people, just it has to do with pride. Tucsonans are very proud of where they come from. And when community sees people doing good in the community, they want to support those people.

So it’s a very special place, but it really has to do with that borderlands cuisine and all the people that have been living on this land for for centuries.

LAUREN GILGER: That’s such an interesting thing you said there, right, about Tucsonans’ pride in their place and where they’re from. Because I think that’s so different than Phoenix. And I and I have been here for a long time, so I think I can say that.

But I mean, Phoenix is this kind of place that’s so different. It’s much bigger, but it’s also, you know, everyone here is from somewhere else, is kind of the perpetual narrative in this town.

What do you think that says or does to this idea of food culture or food heritage? Do we have that?

DON GUERRA: You know, it’s developing more and more. I have seen this change in the way chefs really view their culinary world in Phoenix. And I mean, Phoenix has a plethora, so many amazing chefs and and offerings, and it’s so exciting to be there because every time I’m there, I learn about a new person, I get to develop my network of chef friends and foodies.

But I think this is happening more and more in, in Arizona, and I would say in Phoenix, as well. I think we’re seeing the shift from competitive to more collaborative work. This shows up just recently, the support for some of the influencers. There was someone that was ill, hospitalized, a food influencer, and all of these chefs rallying together to create this special meal to have this kind of support for a fundraising campaign to pay for some of the medical bills.

But I am so surprised and really it feels so good to be part of that Phoenix community. And I think it’s becoming more aligned with Tucson that we’re starting to see there’s no real division between these cities. And I’m even going to say Flagstaff, because that’s where home of my first bakery.

But now working on a statewide initiative to really promote collaboration over competition. Definitely from my perspective, but a lot of the chefs I hang out with in the Valley, too, is that we really want to support Arizona. We really want to showcase what we can put on our menus that are Indigenous foods, heritage foods, and make people aware and even proud of where they come from.

LAUREN GILGER: So, it’s not Tucson versus Phoenix to you, it’s it’s the whole state kind of and chefs throughout it kind of creating a statewide food culture. Even though that that varies throughout the regions, that’s really interesting.

You mentioned, Don, food influencers, and the role they have played, I think, has gone up so much and become so much more important in food today, not just here but around the country, around the world, I’m sure.

But I have to ask you about this as well, because you’ll see some place that is new and it’ll have lines around the block because they’ve paid a bunch of influencers to come and promote them.

I mean, is there more of that in Phoenix, you think? Do you think that that there are more authentic food influencers who have also done good in that, as well?

DON GUERRA: I think there’s a lot more in Phoenix, to tell you the truth. I think Tucson is a little bit slower. I think we’re innovative, but we’re kind of sticking to more traditional innovative ways. But I definitely think the influencers are doing a lot for the community, as well as sometimes it can be detrimental.

We don’t see the traditional food critics anymore, where they’re sort of trained in how to evaluate restaurants. I think now it’s more overt with personalities and celebrity influencers. They they can come into a restaurant and get fed and go through the menu.

So I think it works super well. And I’ve been fortunate to have a lot of positive reviews. But I think it can be positive and negative sometimes. But overall, I think this is just where we are at as a society. This is where we’re at as a culture, especially around food.

There’s a lot of food influencers around, and there’s a lot to be said and a lot to be seen, especially in Phoenix when there’s new businesses and new food establishments coming up all the time. Every day you see something new.

LAUREN GILGER: All the time. Yeah, it’s massive. It just seems like it’s always growing. Something’s always changing, something’s always opening or closing.

Let me ask you about Gilbert, in particular, where you opened your new bakery, Barrio Bagel & Slice. I mean, Gilbert’s an interesting spot because it’s come up quite a bit as a food scene, and I think with a lot of like local, I guess chain restaurants, for lack of a better term, right? Like local restaurants that have begun to open new locations in places like Gilbert.

What do you think of the ecosystem there and how it’s kind of been designed?

DON GUERRA: I think a lot of it’s designed around delicious food. I really do. I think it’s a little bit different than say Tucson, who we’re looking at as local food systems, developing local food systems. I think these these chain restaurants or even like within the Valley, you see one restaurant doing super well and having different locations.

I think the difference is we are seeing some top-notch restaurants, some very talented chefs, and then I think the hospitality has become very important for Phoenix, something that they’ve always had. I think Tucson is a little bit more laid back. I think we’re thinking more about um sometimes the the the land and the ingredients in the story of them.

LAUREN GILGER: OK. So let me ask you, before I let you go, Don. It sounds like you don’t have a favorite here. You’ve got lots of good things about either city, and you can have, you know, great food experiences in both towns. Is there a winner to you?

DON GUERRA: I think they’re both winners, tell you the truth. And I enjoy the experience so much when I’m in Phoenix. I’m around my family, who lives there. I enjoy a little bit more fast-paced lifestyle. I enjoy seeking out little places that are so unique. There’s so much opportunity there.

But I think the way I see it, both are celebrated equally. There’s a lot to be seen in both places.

A little bit more rustic in Tucson. You know, the city of Phoenix, it’s very diverse. So from city to city inside the Valley, you’re going to see a lot of different things, which makes it a lot of fun. And you can get around much quicker than the surface streets of Tucson.

LAUREN GILGER: Yeah, fair enough, all right. Well, that is Don Guerra, founder of Barrio Bread, Barrio Grains and co-founder of Barrio Bagel & Slice in Gilbert, joining us. Don, thank you so much for coming on. I really appreciate it.

DON GUERRA: Thank you for having me. It’s a true honor.

LAUREN GILGER: Thanks for listening to The Show’s podcast. The Show is produced by Sativa Peterson, Nick Sanchez, Amber Victoria Singer, Athena Ankrah, and Ayana Hamilton. The Show was created by John Hoban, and our executive producer is Amy Silverman. You can find more of The Show and sign up for our newsletter at theshow.kjzz.org. You can also find us on Instagram @kjzztheshow.