The Show for July 31, 2026: Friday NewsCap, a road trip that led home and more

Republican Andy Biggs has selected the first-ever lieutenant governor candidate, former State Sen. Sine Kerr. Our Friday NewsCap panelists analyze that and the rest of the week’s top stories. Plus, our SOAPBOX essay series continues with a spontaneous road trip that didn’t go very far.

Transcript

ANNOUNCER: 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.

MARK BRODIE: Hi, I’m Mark Brodie, 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.

MARK BRODIE: Good morning. It’s The Show on KJZZ 91.5 in Phoenix. I’m Mark Brodie. Coming up, the Interior Department has started the process of releasing new rules for the allocation of Colorado River water, and how the Trump administration is trying to change the rules around grazing on public lands. But first, it’s time for the Friday Newscap and some voices from the news this week.

MARISOL GARCIA: The court deemed it was unconstitutional. It was an attack on workers, Arizona workers who work together to make sure they have safe working conditions, to make sure that they have adequate pay, healthcare and benefits.

SAM NEWTON: Arizona is the swing state in 2024 that Trump won by the most. Republicans start with a very significant voter registration advantage, and the race in 2022 was one of the closest ones in the entire country.

ANDY BIGGS: She had an uncontested primary, but she spent what, seven, $7.5 million, somewhere in that neighborhood? It didn’t seem to move the needle for —

ADRIAN FONTES: This close, less than 100 days from the election, this is a federal takeover of a constitutional duty that the states have, not the White House.

SINE KERR: I could not be more honored to stand with Andy Biggs. He’s a fighter who protects Arizona’s families, and together, we’ll make Arizona affordable again.

ROBBIE SHERWOOD: So if you wanted to feel like a celebrity for a moment, like a somebody, just walk into a Costco with Harry Mitchell someday. You’d be there for half the day, forget what you came for, just because he was just stopping and talking to people.

MARK BRODIE: Joining me to talk about a flurry of court rulings on ballot measures, updates to the governor’s race and more are Matthew Benson of the firm Veritas. Matthew, good morning.

MATTHEW BENSON: Good morning.

MARK BRODIE: And former State House Minority Leader Reginald Bolding. Reginald, good morning to you.

REGINALD BOLDING: Good morning.

MARK BRODIE: So Matt, let’s start with the big news from this morning. Andy Biggs, the Republican nominee for governor, has selected the first-ever lieutenant governor candidate, former State Sen. Sine Kerr. A good pick for him?

MATTHEW BENSON: Yeah, absolutely. Sine, West Valley dairy farmer, deep roots in agriculture, former legislator, as you mentioned, former member of the Trump administration under the USDA. Well liked, well respected around the State Capitol. I think this pick is getting a lot of good reception so far.

MARK BRODIE: Does it move the needle? Could any pick move the needle for this office?

MATTHEW BENSON: Solid pick. Does it change the race in a fundamental way? I don’t think so, and I’m not sure that any lieutenant governor pick could do that. That’s an awfully high bar. But it is a strong pick, and a strong ticket going forward.

MARK BRODIE: So Reginald, you worked with Sen. Kerr when you were both in the Legislature. What are your thoughts on this pick?

REGINALD BOLDING: Yeah, I mean, I think that Andy Biggs selected someone who’s very well respected down at the Capitol, well respected throughout the state. My time serving with her, she was well respected down there. I mean, I think that’s sort of like the cliché. There’s not too many things that people could say about her. I do believe that when you spend time in the Legislature, there are going to be votes that you’ve taken, there’s bills that you sponsored that I’m sure that the Hobbs campaign, they will attach to her, as they will with Biggs. But ultimately, Andy Biggs is running for governor, and I believe that what you’ll see is messaging targeted toward him. I do think that she helps him at least probably shore up some folks who may consider not voting for him.

MARK BRODIE: Really? How so?

REGINALD BOLDING: I think that you may have some Republicans who are looking to see what decisions a Biggs administration would make. I mean, this is actually the first decision that he made was selecting someone who would be considered more — somewhat moderate. I think still very conservative. There’s some bills around abortion that she sponsored that I think some women may not be accustomed to supporting her because of that, but I do think that he could have made other selections that could have been much more controversial. So I think he played it kind of safe.

MARK BRODIE: Matt, you said it’s a solid pick. Would you agree that it’s also kind of a safe pick?

MATTHEW BENSON: Yeah, I think it is the pick that people expected. And there were a few names that were out there under consideration, each of whom was a female. I think it was important that he balanced the ticket, soften the optics a bit running against Katie Hobbs. Some of the attacks that people expect are going to be coming Andy Biggs’ way, this helps in that regard. But to Reginald’s point, people are voting for the governor. Regardless of who Katie Hobbs picks, I don’t think that selection is going to matter all that much either. It may make a difference on the margins, and if this ends up being a 1-point race, then maybe it has an impact.

MARK BRODIE: OK. So guys, let's talk about some of the things that Arizonans may or may not be voting on in November. A number of court rulings on initiatives. Let's start with the so-called "poison pill" measure. This is the proposal that would protect vouchers for military families that also included a provision that said, if you pass this, voters, any other voucher initiative, including one that supporters of curbing vouchers hope to get on the ballot, will be null and void. Reginald, a judge this week said no, this violates the single-subject rule. This will be appealed, but what do you take from this initial ruling?

REGINALD BOLDING: Well, I think it's important for viewers to understand the single-subject ruling. In its essence, it's that if you're asking voters to weigh in on a particular issue, they should have the ability to weigh in on that particular issue without including something that may be unrelated. And what you saw with this ballot initiative was putting two different issues — one that people may be in support of and one that they may not — into one resolution. And that's just something that you can't do. So I think the court got it right. I don't think that this resolution should have even been part of this cycle. It clearly was retaliatory because you had a number of parents and teachers and community folks who said the school voucher system is draining our state budgets, and this was clearly retaliation.

MARK BRODIE: So Matt, with the stipulation that none of the three of us in this room are lawyers, and people have lost a lot of money trying to predict what courts will do — as I mentioned, this will be appealed — are both Republicans and Democrats at this moment sort of thinking back to the proposed deals, both at the end of the legislative session and the one that was floated as maybe a special session, now that we're starting to see some of the rulings and the outcomes on some of these issues?

MATTHEW BENSON: Well, this is exactly the reason that there were a lot of Republicans and conservatives and ESA supporters who wanted to strike a deal, that would have removed both of these ballot measures, the referendum and the initiative sought by the teachers union that is much more punishing toward the ESA program. That deal would have basically had everybody put down their arms, take those measures off the ballot and move forward with some modest guide rails for the ESA program in place. But the deal fell apart, in large part due to opposition from Sen. Jake Hoffman, Freedom Caucus folks, and then ultimately some far-left progressives also scuttled the deal. So it fell apart. So if you're a Republican or an ESA supporter, you now have the worst of all worlds. Looks like this ballot measure is going to be off the ballot, and the only thing on the ballot is going to be the teachers union measure, which is the one that ESA folks are really concerned about.

MARK BRODIE: Well, that, of course, supposes that the challenges to signatures are unsuccessful and it stays on the ballot, and that this one doesn't win on appeal. Do you — again, none of us are lawyers — but there's been so much discussion about what actually constitutes a single subject. You know, the supporters were making the argument, "Look, these are both dealing with vouchers. Why are we having a problem here?"

MATTHEW BENSON: Yeah. Look, we have this single-subject debate every year with ballot measures and what constitutes more than a single subject, and round and round we go. Frankly, I'm no attorney. I don't know how the judges kind of slice and dice this, but this is the determination that they've made, that this violates single subject. And it's also the reason that some other ballot measure got removed from the ballot.

MARK BRODIE: Yeah, let's talk about that one. Reginald, this was a measure that was intended to go after teachers unions, but public safety, other public unions said, "Hey, this also probably implicates us as well" and really trying to curb what they can do and where they can do it, that kind of thing. A judge has also basically kicked that off the ballot, although as with the voucher one, there's an appeal planned. Thoughts on this one?

REGINALD BOLDING: I mean, this has to probably be one of the biggest failures of House and Senate leadership at the state Legislature in an effort to move retaliation. Wrote a piece of legislation that folks let them know that if you're writing language in which you're naming public sector unions, you actually really need to spell out who you're talking about, otherwise you're looping in fire and police. They were told that countless times, and what you saw was Sen. Warren Petersen stand up and say, "No, we got it right." And I think this was a significant failure on their part. With that being said, I think that no matter if you support unions or not, we shouldn't be targeting unions from a retaliation standpoint, and also this absolutely violated the single subject.

MARK BRODIE: Matt, there had been some talk of maybe trying to come back into special session to clarify that some of the public employee unions, the police and fire, were not involved in this. Would you assume that that offer is now off the table?

MATTHEW BENSON: I presume it's off the table at this point. And it was a — it was political malpractice to have allowed this referendum to go forward in this manner. Look, the police and fire unions just went bananas after this went up, and highly critical of Republicans. I mean, there was talk of endorsements being pulled from Republican candidates and that sort of thing. And why? I mean, it just a complete unforced error, and then of course now a court has stricken the whole thing, which honestly as a Republican is probably the best that this — this is the best result we could have had, because hopefully it's off the ballot. Let us not speak of this again. I think it is interesting that there's been no talk of appealing this decision. Republicans at this point I believe are happy to just let this go away.

MARK BRODIE: When you say let's not speak of this again, does this become a campaign issue for Warren Petersen, Senate president who's running for attorney general?

MATTHEW BENSON: I'm confident that Democrats will try to make it a campaign issue for him and others. The question is whether it's still a salient point 90-some days from now.

MARK BRODIE: And if it's not on the ballot.

MATTHEW BENSON: And if it's not on the ballot, it may be moot at that point.

MARK BRODIE: Reginald, let me start with you. Gov. Hobbs says that she will not be debating Andy Biggs. We were talking about the governor's race before the break. She says she will not debate Andy Biggs before the November election and says she'll travel around the state and do events like that. I guess to some extent maybe this isn't a huge shock. She did not, of course, debate four years ago either in the primary or the general. Do you think this is the right move on her part?

REGINALD BOLDING: Well, you know, when you look historically, you've had candidate debates everywhere from city council races to state Leg to governor's office. So the public has become accustomed to seeing individuals who are running against each other in the same room, speaking to the same issues so you can compare and contrast. I think now with social media, with the fact that these candidates have the ability to get their message out to voters almost immediately, you know where they stand on these different issues. So I think the need for a debate is not what it was 10, maybe 20 years ago. Whether or not the governor should have debated, I think really is a call on her team and whether or not she believed that there would be some type of political stunt that could potentially make or call into question things that may not be true. I mean, what we've seen in presidential debates is you can almost say anything and it may not be fact-checked, and it's very hard to clean up a story after it's already been told. So I think it's the right call.

MARK BRODIE: Optically though, does this maybe become something that the Biggs campaign hits her for? I mean, obviously Kari Lake talked about it, "Why would you vote for — she's not willing to answer questions and be on a stage with me." Does optically maybe this become a problem for her?

REGINALD BOLDING: I mean, I think it goes back to the saying, "If it's not broke, don't fix it," right? I mean, that was the exact same argument that they made with Kari Lake, and it didn't affect the outcome. So I mean, I think for her, she's leading in the polls. I mean, you can look around the country. Candidates who are leading in the polls, they are very reluctant to debate. That's just not a Katie Hobbs issue. That's folks across the political spectrum. They're not taking that risk and that chance if they don't need to.

MARK BRODIE: Matt, is this a good call for the Hobbs campaign to not have her be on that stage?

MATTHEW BENSON: Well, that's to be determined. I mean, I think it speaks to the confidence that they have at this point. They're clearly looking at internal numbers that suggest that the risks outweigh the benefits of getting on a stage with him. Here's what surprises me, is this is still a state where there are 320,000 more registered Republicans than Democrats. This race is very much going to be competitive. This is a race that she won by 10,000 votes four years ago. And in a lot of ways, Andy Biggs is a stronger candidate, less baggage than Kari Lake. So I think it's interesting in that sense. I think it's interesting that they've made this announcement now, when potentially depending on how this race trends as we get closer, they may decide at some point they need to get on a debate stage with him, and what does that look like? So I'm not sure why they felt the need to announce it now. Just as a voter, taking off my political hat, I think it's too bad. I think that there is something valuable to be gained from these debates. Yes, we know issue-wise where the candidates stand on these things, but there is still value in seeing them think on their feet, challenge one another. There are always unscripted moments that happen in these debates that can make a difference in these races and go viral. And we're not going to have that, and I think that's too bad.

REGINALD BOLDING: And one thing I will say, I do think that in American politics, too much has been placed on debates. Who makes decisions in a 5-second soundbite? That's just not how the world works, right? I don’t want a leader who I have to — who’s going to have to answer a question in 5 seconds, and I’m going to take whatever you say over that next 5 seconds and that’s going to be applied to state public policy. That’s just unrealistic. I would prefer candidates having detailed plans on what they’re going to do regarding specific issues that they’ve vetted, that they’ve talked to experts on, that they have had opinions on, and quite frankly, I don’t know if a 15-second soundbite tells me what I need to know on public policy.

MARK BRODIE: You're clearly not making voting decisions based on what you see on TikTok, then.

REGINALD BOLDING: No.

MARK BRODIE: Reginald, let me quickly ask you before we move on. The Democratic Governors Association says that it's going to spend $10 million as an initial investment, they said, in the Hobbs campaign. They, and the DGA is acknowledging, this is — to Matt's point — there are many more Republican voters here than Democratic. It was a very, very close race four years ago. How much might — I mean, any amount of money helps. $10 million is a pretty good amount of money.

REGINALD BOLDING: No, it's significant, and I think Matt hit the nail on the head. This is going to still be a tight race, and I think that the sign that — they said this is their initial investment, which is leading and indicating that there may be additional resources to come. The Hobbs campaign is already raising significant dollars. They didn't have to spend any really in the primary. So I mean, it's going to come down to the wire, and Arizona is really cementing itself as that battleground state. It's going to be extremely important.

MARK BRODIE: Matt, the Biggs campaign is saying basically this is an acknowledgment by the Democratic Governors Association that Hobbs needs a lot of help, that she must be down or trailing in polls or having some issues, and they need to spend all this money. Do you buy that argument?

MATTHEW BENSON: I mean, they have to say that, but the fact is the RGA came in with a $10 million-plus investment in Doug Ducey when he was the incumbent. So both national parties are going to have to get behind each of these candidates in a significant way. And the thing to watch here is, what does the RGA do?

MARK BRODIE: The Republican Governors Association.

MATTHEW BENSON: How much does the Republican Governors Association invest in Andy Biggs? Do they come out and say, "We'll match that 10, we'll go 15," or do they come out and kind of, "$2 million, $3 million. Here's something, and we'll see how it goes," because they've got a lot of competitive races in other states where they likely did not expect them, Iowa and elsewhere, and they're going to have to get behind Andy Biggs significantly. He is not a big fundraiser. So if the RGA doesn't kick in with at least $10 million, he's going to have to find money elsewhere. Turning Point or elsewhere.

MARK BRODIE: Would you consider that a signal from the RGA if they don't match or come close to what the Democrats gave to Hobbs?

MATTHEW BENSON: Yeah, absolutely. It would be a signal that they are supportive in this race, but not all in.

MARK BRODIE: OK. Reginald, I want to ask you about the 1st Congressional District. This is Scottsdale, Fountain Hills, the seat that David Schweikert holds now that he left, of course, to run for governor. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee this week added Amish Shah to its Red to Blue program. That was the program that they had in the primary put Marlene Galán-Woods in, but Shah of course won that primary. How awkward must that phone conversation have been between the DCCC and Shah saying, "Hey, we'd love to put you in this program. What do you think?"

REGINALD BOLDING: I mean, so I know Amish pretty well, and I can be assured that he was probably gloating and smiling from ear to ear in that conversation. I mean, I think that he's a hard worker. He earned the respect of voters in that district, not only this cycle, but prior cycles before. I think that matters. I think he's in the best leveraged position right now as much as any other candidate in the Red to Blue program, which, you know, party leadership, they absolutely need him to win his race, and they were not with him from the beginning. So I think he has the ability to get a little bit more resources, a little bit more support, because they'll be trying to not only ensure that he wins, but also shore up his vote in the event that the Democrats take the U.S. House.

MARK BRODIE: So you think maybe he would get more resources from the DCCC now than he would had he been endorsed in the primary?

REGINALD BOLDING: I mean, look, CD1 is one of the most competitive races in the country, so resources were going to already come. But I absolutely believe he's going to get much more resources now that there was a campaign against him, and I think it also sets himself up in the event that he wins this race to get pretty good committee assignments.

MARK BRODIE: Matt, I feel like I've been asking you to weigh into internal Democratic politics for most of the show. I apologize for that. But like, does this affect his campaign in any way, the fact that he was not the favorite of the party? I guess that could go either way for him, right?

MATTHEW BENSON: Yeah, it is interesting because multi-million dollars worth of ads have been run — that is my congressional district, and so all we've been seeing are ads for the last couple months saying that Amish Shah is a closet Republican, he's conservative and all this stuff. So it is interesting. Some of the talk among Republicans is whether that now kind of helps with his conservative credentials in a district —

MARK BRODIE: In a swing district.

MATTHEW BENSON: In a swing district that does lean Republican, whether that now helps him, to be determined. But 100% agree that the DCCC now has to go in doubly for him to mend those fences. But I will mention the other candidate in this race, and it's Jay Feely, a Republican, probably the strongest Republican that the party could have put up coming out of that primary. Well-funded, good name recognition, former Arizona Cardinal, etc., etc., and he will have all the resources he needs to be very competitive in that and keep that seat in Republican hands.

MARK BRODIE: Does this become a talking point? Is that something that someone like Jay Feely or his supporters would talk about to voters, the fact that Shah is somebody who the party folks didn't want, or maybe to your point earlier, that is something they'd avoid talking about because it makes Shah look better?

MATTHEW BENSON: Well, it's highly ironic because after the whole Democrat primary where they called Shah a closet Republican, now Republicans are calling Shah a Democratic socialist. So you've got to pick one here, right? Well, apparently not. Apparently he can be both.

MARK BRODIE: Reginald, would you expect this race, like resources not to be an issue for either candidate in this race?

REGINALD BOLDING: No, I mean, you're going to see outsized resources. The candidates are going to both raise good money, so it's going to come down to the margins, and I think it's going to be another tight one.

MARK BRODIE: Kind of like what we were talking about with the governor's race. It could be — would you expect it to be like within a couple points, Matt, the final tally?

MATTHEW BENSON: Oh, absolutely.

MARK BRODIE: Would you agree with that, Reginald?

REGINALD BOLDING: Yeah, absolutely. Definitely.

MARK BRODIE: All right. Well, as Matt says, to be determined, right? We'll find out in early November. Matthew Benson, Reginald Bolding, thanks to you both for the conversation. I really appreciate it.

MATTHEW BENSON: Thank you.

REGINALD BOLDING: Thank you.

MARK BRODIE: Good morning. It’s The Show on KJZZ 91.5. I’m Mark Brodie. Coming up, in the next installment of our Summer Soapbox series, a short road trip provides a much-needed escape. But first, the Trump administration is looking to make changes to the federal rules overseeing grazing on public lands. The comment period for the new rules ended earlier this month, and my next guest says the Bureau of Land Management got many thousands of comments. The agency is expected to respond to those comments at some point, and a lawsuit challenging them is possible.

Mark Olalde, environment reporter at ProPublica, has written about this and joins me to talk more about it. And Mark, there’s a lot in these new rules, so what stands out to you as some of the most impactful changes that could be coming?

MARK OLALDE: Absolutely. Like you said, lots of things in the regs, but really two things stand out, I think, above everything else. The first is a move to really cut down on the instances and the types of ways in which the public can comment, can litigate, can really be involved in the approval process for grazing on public lands. So really just cutting the public in many ways out of overseeing livestock grazing.

And the other is ensuring that the maximum number of cattle, sheep, other livestock are on public lands at all times. Whether that’s putting more out there, incentivizing them more, or just making it more difficult for government rangeland managers to mandate a smaller number of animals on the land.

MARK BRODIE: What is bringing on these changes? Like, why do folks think they’re needed?

MARK OLALDE: Like everything these days, it’s political, of course. And, you know, Republicans have been trying to redo the BLM grazing regulations for several decades. The regs haven’t been fully rewritten since 1995. There was an attempt under the Bush administration that the courts threw out.

And there’s kind of this perceived victimization from the ranching industry that the 1995 regulations that are still in place kind of came out of a time of aggressive environmentalism of the late ’80s and early ’90s. And so they kind of see these regulations as being stacked against them and have been pushing for many, many years to kind of, I guess, in their view, restore balance.

MARK BRODIE: What about the current rules, or soon-to-be-done-away-with rules, do ranchers think are unfair?

MARK OLALDE: Of everything in the fight over public lands ranching, perhaps the biggest is the litigious fights between ranchers and a few select green groups over the ways that the Bureau of Land Management permits or renews or doesn’t renew grazing permits. And so a lot of this seems to be focused on cutting out green groups and their litigation, to kind of really get rid of what ranchers see as a nuisance there.

And I would say the other thing that’s happening here is we’re seeing the Trump administration really take aim at the idea of using grazing as a way of large-scale conservation. And so there is a change in these regulations that redefines grazing as needing to be quote, “production-oriented.” And depending on where you sit on this issue, you kind of see that as a major red flag that really, really tips the scale towards, you know, kind of who we would think of as a traditional rancher as opposed to conservation groups doing ranching, or tribes, Native American tribes doing ranching.

MARK BRODIE: Yeah, what do these new rules potentially mean for Native American tribes?

MARK OLALDE: One allowable use of public lands for grazing is bison, which can happen for a number of reasons. But there are a number of Native American tribes that graze bison on public lands for local ecological restoration, for food for the tribes, to protect and preserve cultural practices that go back many, many, many, many years.

And it might be difficult to define some of these as this quote “production-oriented” metric. And so tribes have a lot of concern about potentially being caught in the Trump administration’s kind of war on green groups, and potentially losing their permits, which then becomes really a sovereignty issue.

MARK BRODIE: Is there a concern among some of those environmental groups that all of this will lead, in addition to them having maybe less say in what happens, that it will lead to more overgrazing?

MARK OLALDE: I think that’s kind of always their concern when you pull back regulations on public lands. You know, if you look at the Bureau of Land Management stats, I mean, they do acknowledge that at least 38 million acres of land in the West has been degraded due to livestock grazing, and that’s with tens of millions of other acres that haven’t been studied recently. So the numbers are almost certainly higher.

So, you know, they have some footing to make that argument. And, you know, in Arizona specifically, my team in reporting on this over the past few years with ProPublica and High Country News, you know, we’ve toured grazing allotments in Arizona in desert ecosystems. And the riparian areas right down in the creeks and streambeds where so much of the biodiversity in Arizona is centered, those often have cattle in them, and those areas just really can’t support that many animals of that size.

So in certain ecosystems in particular, the argument that this could lead to more overgrazing and that could lead to more biodiversity harm, certainly carries some water.

MARK BRODIE: What is the Trump administration saying about all this?

MARK OLALDE: You know, the Trump administration didn’t answer our questions for this story as we sought comment on what certain definitions mean and those sorts of things. But, you know, they do talk about onerous regulations. They do talk about environmentally focused regulations from a different era.

And one of the things that both the administration as well as trade groups talk about is the need to allow more flexibility for positive reasons, right? The need to allow more grazing flexibility so management of the rangeland and the relationship between BLM range managers and ranchers can just be more fluid, can be more efficient, and can better protect the land.

So a lot of their argument also centers on kind of this idea of flexibility in ranching practices to be better stewards of the land.

MARK BRODIE: I mean, on the surface, it would seem like that would be kind of a tough thing to argue with, right? Like to have some amount of flexibility so if conditions change or if ranching situations change or the situation on the ground changes, that you have some flexibility to adjust to that.

MARK OLALDE: Absolutely. There certainly are pieces of regulation that have kind of locked certain things in place and have made it difficult to adapt and to change, especially in a time and place where climate change is very much changing the reality on the ground.

And I spoke to several BLM folks in reporting this article, and they pointed to — I asked them, "Hey, what are the good pieces of this?" And they pointed to the flexibility as certainly one of the good pieces.

Now, the question is, the BLM doesn’t have enough staff to oversee all the land that they have to. We have lots of proof of political interference on all sorts of individual kind of cases where the BLM has tried to enforce something and members of Congress have come in and said, "Hey, not this time."

So flexibility is great if it happens in good faith. Flexibility with political intervention, that just means less transparency for the public, is not so good. So, you know, we kind of need to see how it’s going to play out on the ground.

MARK BRODIE: Sure. Are ranchers generally happy with this? Like, does this address the concerns they’ve had for a few decades?

MARK OLALDE: Ranchers are absolutely happy. The Public Lands Council, one of their larger kind of industry groups, called this quote “a massive step forward.” So they’re very happy to see the Trump administration’s actions, at least specifically on these regulations.

MARK BRODIE: All right, that is Mark Olalde, environment reporter with ProPublica. Mark, thanks so much. I appreciate it.

MARK OLALDE: Of course, thanks for your interest.

MARK BRODIE: Good morning. It’s The Show on KJZZ 91.5. I’m Mark Brodie. The federal government has announced its new plans for governing the Colorado River. The Interior Department has released the final environmental impact statement, which sets the stage for cuts to water allocations. The exact size of those cutbacks is expected to be announced soon. Joining us now to talk through what all this means is KJZZ’s Alex Hager. Alex, good morning.

ALEX HAGER: Thanks for having me. Good morning.

MARK BRODIE: So, what does this mean? What do we know so far?

ALEX HAGER: Well, what we know is the outline of a plan, and what it says is that there is going to be a 10-year strategy for cutting back on water use between now and 2036, and it will require the seven states that share the Colorado River to put their heads together every two years and tweak the amount of water that is actually getting cut back in response to river conditions. It sets what they’re calling sideboards, these kind of loose minimum and maximum, or it’s a hard minimum and maximum, but they’re rather extreme for how much water could be cut back. And we don’t expect them to actually cut all the way to the maximum, we expect them to agree on something less than that within that range. But they set the range and they set the table for more news to come soon.

MARK BRODIE: Is it problematic in any way for this process to have to happen every two years, and we've seen how well the states are able to come up with agreements over the past few years?

ALEX HAGER: I've talked to a lot of smart people about this, and they say there's some pros and cons. The obvious cons, like you mentioned, are that the states have not done a very good job of negotiating their water use in the past, and forcing them to come to the table frequently might not end very well if they had years to come to a decision here and didn't, it might not go so well to make them do that again. But the pro here is that, you know, with climate change and some of the worst drought we've ever seen in recorded history on the Colorado River, maybe having two-year flexibility instead of locking yourself in for 10 years gives you the ability to be a little more nimble if you're a water manager in response to changing river conditions.

MARK BRODIE: Interesting. All right, so as I mentioned, this is the final environmental impact statement. What does this actually signify?

ALEX HAGER: I think one of the big things that it signifies is that we now officially know that there has been total failure of negotiations between the seven states that share the river. They have been under pressure for years now to come up with an agreement, a consensus plan for managing the river, and they could not do that. They split into their separate camps and have been really opposed to one another's ideas for quite a long time now. And the fact that the federal government had to step in and release its own rules, that's something they said for a long time they did not want to do, and would only do in the absence of an agreement from the seven states.

MARK BRODIE: And the states weren't all that thrilled at certain points about this happening either, right?

ALEX HAGER: That's correct. They generally have tried to push for their own interpretation of how the river should be managed, and the federal agreement doesn't necessarily make any one party particularly happy. And it's not an agreement, it's a federal plan that goes on, you know, kind of without consensus.

MARK BRODIE: Right. But the states will have to sort of manage to sort of live within this, right? Like whether or not they agree with it, they still have to — they still have to abide by this.

ALEX HAGER: That's correct. We do expect some changes that will make it easier for them to abide by this within the next few months, but, you know, the idea is that this becomes the law of the land to some extent in October, and there is going to be less water coming out of some of the major reservoirs that supply cities and farms across the Southwest.

MARK BRODIE: So Alex, what is still to come from the Feds? What do we not quite know yet?

ALEX HAGER: So like I mentioned, this is going to be a 10-year plan with the impetus to check in every two years. So what we're expecting is the plans for the first two years, for 2027 and 2028. And we expect that to be announced in the coming days, potentially as soon as Monday or early next week. And what will likely be in there will be significant cutbacks for the lower basin states of Arizona, California and Nevada. We understand that although this was not a seven-state agreement, those three states have been working pretty hard in conjunction with the federal government to come up with something that is more tolerable. There was an earlier federal proposal that was incredibly draconian and would have placed big cuts, cuts that local leaders here have called devastating to central Arizona. And so the lower basin states worked on a counterproposal with the federal government to make those a little more tolerable for the central Arizona area.

MARK BRODIE: Does it seem as though that will be part of what we get early next week?

ALEX HAGER: That is what we expect. I've seen a few statements come out so far from Arizona's top water officials, from Gov. Katie Hobbs, saying that if we implemented the maximum amount of cuts that is possible under this 10-year plan we saw today, that would be devastating for Phoenix and many of the cities in the Phoenix metro. But they said we hope and to some extent expect that that will not be the case because it seems like they're optimistic that the federal government will adopt some parts of that counterproposal that Arizona worked on.

MARK BRODIE: Within those two-year plans that in the 10-year that the hope is that the states will work together, is there an expectation that if, as has been the case, the states continue not to be able to work together, the Feds will just continue to implement their own plan?

ALEX HAGER: That remains to be seen. The Feds are very clear that they are leaving the door open for the states to agree down the road. They still want them to. They still say it would be better than a federal plan being imposed upon them. But it will require a level of agreement that we just have not seen for years now that seems hard to come by. But, you know, maybe this sets the table, these first two years of cuts change the playing field in a way that makes it more possible, who knows?

MARK BRODIE: OK, so you mentioned that there's sort of an expectation of what the cuts might look like. What might they actually look like specifically for Arizona?

ALEX HAGER: Yeah, we are expecting the most significant impact of federal cuts to fall on the Central Arizona Project. That's the 336-mile-long canal system that carries water from the Colorado River to the Phoenix and Tucson areas. And most cities in those areas, most of the places where you listening right now probably live, depend on water from the Central Arizona Project. So the good news is that — well, the bad news is that there will be less water flowing through that canal system to the cities that depend on it.

The good news is that they have spent a long time preparing for this. City utility leaders have seen this day coming for years, and they have made contingency plans to account for that. So when there is less water coming down that Colorado River canal, they will be able to lean harder on groundwater supplies that they've been storing for a dry day, or water from the Salt River, which is managed separately from the Colorado River. So there will be significant cuts — we expect that there will be significant cuts to the Colorado River supply for central Arizona, but we expect that cities will be able to tolerate them.

MARK BRODIE: Is the hope then that residents maybe won't notice it, or won't be super apparent to those of us living here?

ALEX HAGER: You know, in the short term, it probably will not make a big difference. Some cities may suggest, or potentially even mandate, rules about something like outdoor watering, and try to tighten the screws a little bit on how much water you can use to water your lawn or garden. But realistically, I would say the most likely way that this shows up is in the long term, and that's in rate increases on your water bill. The strategies that cities are using to make these cuts tolerable are expensive. They are going out and buying new water supplies. They are building huge, sometimes multibillion-dollar infrastructure projects that will make it easier for them to tolerate water cuts in the long term, and they're going to have to spread the costs out, you know, on people who pay for that water.

MARK BRODIE: Interesting. All right, lots more to come on this. That is KJZZ’s Alex Hager. Alex, thank you as always.

ALEX HAGER: Thanks for having me.

MARK BRODIE: For most, a road trip is about the destination, or at least the things you encounter along the way. But for The Show’s Amber Victoria Singer, one memorable trek in her early 20s was as much about what she was leaving as where she was headed.

AMBER VICTORIA SINGER: I am on month three of the worst three months of my life. I’m in a never-ending fight with my roommate, and I’ve cut all contact with my best friend. I feel suffocated by my own loneliness. I need to be anywhere but this house that has never quite felt like home. I want to look at real stars instead of the plastic ones strung across my room.

I throw all the things I might need for the next 15 hours or so in the trunk of my car: the sleeping bag I used to take to Girl Scout camp, the water bottle I never leave home without, my journal, a pen, my wallet, the book I’m reading, my toothbrush and toothpaste, and the stuffed cat I’ve slept next to every night for as long as I can remember.

I’m not exactly the wilderness survival type.

I start driving north, toward coordinates that a janky website claims to be a free campsite. As I get farther from home, the road darkens and narrows. I’m not able to think of much other than what’s immediately in front of me. It’s refreshing. The road becomes uneven and rocky, and I worry that my old Subaru won’t make it wherever my directions are leading me. I don’t see any signs indicating that I’m allowed to be here. But I don’t see any signs saying I’m trespassing, either.

I come to a little clearing surrounded by bushes and park my car. I get out to survey my surroundings. A ripped tire, broken glass and bottle caps are scattered on the dusty ground. Something rustles in the bushes. I clamor on top of my car to take a look at the stars, but it’s cloudy and the moon is too bright to see anything so I just stare at the milky fog above me. At least it’s bright enough to read and write without a flashlight.

Eventually I slide off the roof of my car and climb in the trunk. When the seats are down there’s enough room for me to stretch out comfortably. I fall asleep with my fight-or-flight instinct on standby.

The sun wakes me up too early. I have a whole hour before I can make my way to the spot I have chosen as the final destination of my short pilgrimage. I lie awake with my eyes closed for a while, then get up and brush my teeth, spitting toothpaste onto the ground next to my car. It’s time to make my way to the best pie in Arizona.

I sit at the counter at Rock Springs Cafe in Black Canyon City and order a cup of coffee and a slice of mixed berry pie. I talk to the man next to me about “Fahrenheit 451,” which I’m reading for the first time. I eavesdrop on conversations as people come in, eat, then leave; basking in my anonymity.

As the woman behind the counter pours my third cup of coffee, I realize I don’t feel so alone anymore. I’m ready to go home.

MARK BRODIE: That was Amber Victoria Singer, producer for The Show. You can hear her story again and find more Soapbox essays at kjzz.org.

MARK BRODIE: Thanks for listening to The Show podcast. The Show is produced by Sativa Peterson, Nick Sanchez, Amber Victoria Singer, Athena Ankrah, and Ayana Hamilton. The Show was created by Jon Hoban. 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.

KJZZ's The Show transcripts are created for audience accessibility. Transcripts are created on deadline with the assistance of AI tools and then edited, and may not be in their final form. The authoritative record of KJZZ's programming is the audio segment.