♪ Music Playing ♪ >> Coming up next on "Arizona Horizon", the latest on efforts by Arizona and other western states to share and preserve dwindling supplies of Colorado river water.

Also tonight, state senate minority lead a Priya Sundareshan reacts to Republican calls for attorney general Kris Mayes to step down and we'll try to learn why consumer confidence in the U.S.

is at a 10-year low, those stories and more next on "Arizona Horizon.

>> "Arizona Horizon" is months possible by members of Arizona PBS, members of your public television station.

>> Welcome to "Arizona Horizon" I am Ted Simons a recent meeting of western governors on hey to how Colorado river water practice he deuced no agreements.

Though you governor Hobbs says progress was mailed.

This as fed officials want a consensus for a water plan by February 14th.

Joining us now is Tom Buschatzke direct are to have the State department of water resources and the point guy for all of these negotiations.

Sir, thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us, because I got a lot to ask you here.

This recent meeting with the governors, the governor said there is maybe a path forward.

Path forward is nice what, does it mean?

And what does it mean as far as details are concerned.

>> We saw in that meeting a willingness by the other governors, especially the governs of the four states Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah.

To move forward and to get involved in more serious negotiations and to put something on the table.

That is meaningful and something that matches or is equitable to relation to what Arizona, California and, Nevada have already put on the table.

>> Sharing Colorado river water the feds want to sea a consensus by February 14th.

Gotta get something more concrete here by midsummer sometime.

Either one of those things going to happen.

>> So by July, early July, mid July, there has to be a decision made.

Because the operations of the river and the dams has to kick in on October 1 of 2026.

That's going to happen one way or the other.

If there is no deal.

The feds are going to impose something upon all of us.

As far as the February 14th deadline goes, I am hopefully that we can find some path forward.

I don't know that we have to have every document lawyered up and dotted "I"s and crossed "T"s if we have something in concept we'll have more time to flesh it out.

>> Give us a general view of what the conflict is, the difference between upper and lower basin states, and why it seems at least from a distance all of a sudden the upper basin states are really playing hardball here.

>> So in the lower basin states, we have put a significant volume of water on the table toll reduce our use.

It's the only tool we have in terms of managing our demand.

That volume equates to 27% of Arizona's Colorado river water N4 upper basin states, they have put no reductions of use on the table.

They have talked about voluntary in 44 states collectively that's 3 to 5% of their demand in reduction, you compare that to 27% in Arizona.

I am not sure it's equitable.

That's one of the sticking points.

>> I was going say, have the upper basin states, I realize the conflict has already been there, the disagreements have always been there.

But for the upper basin states to say, we are good.

You guys handle it.

Did that surprise new.

>> It did not surprise me at all.

The last time we put together an operational plan was in 2019, we did the heavy lifting there, then.

The upper basin again, agreed to do some voluntary things.

One year, 2023, some action had to be taken.

They moved some water out you have some reservoirs above Lake Powell into Lake Powell because of dry hydrology.

>> You mentioned 27%, give or take a few here, it's about a third of Arizona getting hit here.

Is that an option that Arizona can live with as far as negotiations are concerned?

If the upper basin states do something more than nothing?

>> So it is an option.

Because Nevada and California are also kicking in and we expect Mexico to kick in.

We are doing the heavy lifting and there is a lot of political and legal reasons why that would be appropriate.

But we need a lot more action in the upper basin, the other issue of contention, is these reservoirs above Lake Powell have substantial volumes of water in them.

We expect that water to be moved in to Lake Powell under some set of conditions.

And our friends in those four upper basin states, claim that that water is for their use, not to move in to Lake Powell.

And eventually into Lake Mead under the law of the river.

One of those laws is a 1956 act that authorized the building of those reservoirs and expressly says that water is in those reservoirs to meet their obligation to us in the lower basin.

>> So, again, 1956, an obligation to us was recognized.

>> Correct.

>> All right.

Let's go back to 1922 and the compact back then, which sounds like it favors Arizona in the sense that you could use this compact as a nuclear option and the 1956 deal, which they say we have an obligation, you can say, in 1922, yeah, you do have an obligation.

>> So it is one of our strongest pieces of information or action items that we have is the compact and our ability to potentially enforce that contact and its obligations which is essentially 82.5 million-acre feed of deliveries from Lake Powell to Lake Mead on a 10-year rolling average.

So the downside of that is that we have to go to court, likely the United States Supreme Court.

There are risks to going to court.

We believe we have a very strong case.

But anyone that tells me that you are going to win 100 percent in any courtroom, I have a skepticism built into statements like that.

>> But just to clarify now, again, in 1922, the upper basin states, there was an obligation to the lower basin states.

In 1956, they recognized that obligation for their own reservoirs.

Now are they saying now they have no obligation?

>> They are kind of saying that And we don't have enough time to go through the nuances of that.

>> Sure.

>> But, yes, they are saying that their obligation isn't what we ever thought it was.

And they are saying that basically mother nature or climate change has reduced the flow of the river so their obligation to us would not be abrogated by them but by month never nature.

That's one of their arguments.

>> So what does this mean for Arizona?

If, let's say, it does go to court, let's say -- it sounds like the Arizona house just passed a $1 million litigation fund here.

So the money is -- people are expecting some sort of court action.

If the Court action does not go Arizona's way, what does that mean for us?

>> So we still prefer a collaborative outcome.

We still prefer to not be with a courtroom because of risks I described earlier.

If we lose, it depends on issues we lose on and how much we lose.

So we don't want to be there.

And I couldn't speculate on how much water we mate lose beyond the 27%.

It could be a lot more than that.

I don't think it would be situation where we could win enough in court to avoid the 27%.

>> What does that mean for residents?

>> For most of our water providers the 27%, coming out of the central Arizona project, essentially most.

Them can deal with that we have the Arizona water banking authority with water stored underground we can supply that water to those people.

They will not see draconian measures we won't ask them to the no take showers being you might see upgraded restrictions on watering lawns and things like that.

But there are some places cave creek told us and said publically some of their indoor use taps in homes could be at risk with that I go about of a cut we are trying to figure out how to mitigate the impacts on that particular town but they are not alone.

>> To keep that from happening, is there a way to -- I know the idea is to make a 20 year compact and get this thing done.

Is there a way to phase things in, go three, five years at a time sounds terrible for you because you have to keep arguing and fussing and fighting.

But is that an avenue?

>> The current deal and agreements run out in a 20-year time frame.

Maybe 20 years we can do again, but the phased in first five years and second 15 years, might set aside some of the issues between us and the upper and lower basin.

It also gives you more opportunity to adjust because I can't predict the future.

We have not been good at predicting what the river is going to produce in subsequent years, there are a lot of reasons why a shorter-term deal could avoid the courtroom outcome.

>> Last question, just in general, overall, are you optimistic?

>> I am optimistic that at the end of the day, Arizona is going to be protected.

Whether that is through negotiation with all of the states, with negotiation with California, Nevada, and Mexico, or whether in a courtroom, I am optimistic at the end of day welcome out in a pretty good place, we'll have the resources we need for our people, for our economy, for our industry, and for the lifestyle that people in that state came here to enjoy.

>> Tom Buschatzke, Arizona department of water resources.

Good to see you again, thank you so much for joining us.

>> Thank you.

>> Broadcasting from the campus of Arizona state university, this is KAET Phoenix.

Champion 8.

Your public television station.

>> You are watching Arizona PBS ♪ Music Playing ♪ >> You are watching Arizona PBS and your Arizona connection starts right here.

>> A lot of the plants are still here, the saguaro is one that is really prominent to the people, to the community.

We have a lot of respect for the saguaro itself.

It also provides us with the fruit and also provides us with the materials for our houses.

In the summertime when the fruit is ready to be harvested.

It's what we all our new year.

It's to reflect on everything over the past year but also to look forward to the coming year to what's coming up.

At the time, they will do a ceremony.

Whether in different committees or families, they will sing traditional songs to bring the rain.

Because we live on the desert we need the water to survive.

♪ Music Playing ♪ >> Republican law makers are formally calling for attorney general Kris Mayes to resign due to remarks regarding the State's stand your ground laws that critics say put ice officers in danger.

The Republican-led house today move to censure the attorney general after the GOP led senate last we're passed a resolution calling for the AG's resignation we heard from Republicans early there are week, tonight for the Democratic perspective, welcome senate minority leader Priya Sundareshan, goo city you again, thank you for joining us.

Thanks for having me.

>> Let's talk about the senate obviously where you are from.

Resolution was last week wants the AG to retract, clarify and then resign.

Your thoughts?

>> I think that they were confidently wrong about this issue we stand with attorney general Kris Mayes what they did was twisted her words.

They are, you know, true I go to claim that she put ice agents in danger when what attorney general Kris Mayes was actually doing is pointing out that there is a dangerous situation should the federal agents come to Arizona there are stand your ground laws on the books, she wanted to make it clear there could be danger and she wanted to make sure folks knew it could happen.

>> Did she make it clear?

Republicans are saying she misstated the law, misled people.

It was dangerous and misleading And they are saying she did anything but clarify.

>> I think, unfortunately, this is a case of politics.

Republicans can purposely were twisting her words in order to make it sound lake a confusing and therefore dangerous situation.

That she was putting people in more danger, but I think it's also important to point out senate president Warren Peterson is running himself for attorney general, I think there is a little element of trying to revive his campaign through this.

>> When Republicans say she confused sections of the stand your grand how with the castle doctrine and idea that if they are poorly identified as opposed to not identified the ice agents coming at you, et cetera, et cetera, could that be -- even the governor said tone this down a little bit.

>> Yeah.

They can say that.

>> The senate Republicans saying it, the governor can say it.

From the Democrats perspective we stand with attorney general Kris Mayes who has been pointing out the overreach that federal agents have been engaging in.

Especially in Minnesota, where peach are dying do you to the aggressive enforcement tactics these federal agents are taking by the way when they are masks they do not identify themselves as law enforcement it creates a dangerous situation.

>> We had a Republican law make never studio this week saying both of those shootings in Minnesota were justifiable as far as the ice agents were concerned and saying that Democrats by voting against this resolution en masse you chose loyalty over public safety.

How do you respond to that?

>> Absolutely not.

We are standing for public safety by standing with attorney general Kris Mayes who is the top law enforcement opener visual in the state.

She takes that responsibility seriously, it's unconscionable for Republicans to spin those as justified killings when we have all seen the footage.

One say woman in her car after dropping off her kids at school the other a nurse who was already disarmed before he was murdered.

These are not instances where it was justified at all.

>> And as we edges inned the house today censured and senate previously called for resignation, I want to get your response to that.

We had a spirited conversation with the Republican lawmaker earlier in the week who said that she is dangerously misleading people.

>> Unfortunately.

I think what web cans are doing here is spinning those words out of context and they are the ones misleading the public.

>> Something that happened in the senate the finance committee today advanced ledge slice regarding putting Arizona in line with the federal government regarding taxes.

Tax conformity, is the shorthanded way of saying this.

Governor vetoed the first attempt.

This is the second attempt.

What do you make of all of that >> So I was here a couple of weeks ago talking about their first attempt at tax conformity.

This second attempt is very similar to the first in fact, though, it actually continues includes even more tax cuts for the wealthy in this attempt.

And unfortunately, you know, that's who the Arizona voters need right now.

We have an affordability cries, cost of living is on the rise, with need to put forward a tax proposal that provides certain any but also is the no, you know, benefiting the wealthiest and corporations.

>> The department of revenue is saying go ahead and filed don't worry about this.

And yet there is not conformity there.

And so there is confusion, there need to be clarification.

They are saying the confusion is coming from the executive office and it's I think coming from Democrats.

>> I disagree, you might expect of course the governor and the department of revenue are saying go ahead and filed your taxes.

The fashion forms incorporate the vast majority of the federal, you know, tax cuts that were already passed.

We can deal with conformity at the state level no matter what we decide the vast majority of tax smilers will not see any change, any amended returns might see a small change that will only be due, you know, the amendment might only be due in 2027.

So it is an issue of certain has been created, those forms exist, go ahead and file your taxes, the vast majority of us will take that standard deduction.

>> Might be as many as a million returns here and the process is $20 million something along those lines, that's significant.

>> It's hard to know how many of those amended returns might be.

In the interest of certainty, I would hope that Republicans can put forward a tax conformity package that actually works with Democrats, we have put forward a middle class tax cut package that the governor supports that limits those tax cuts to those that help the middle class not the ones that will help the wealthiest.

The package is out there, Republicans could take it up and we could end this right now.

>> So when Republicans emphasize what they are sending up, what advanced today in committee matches the federal -- the department of revenue forms, the tax forms out there they are saying it matches, there would be no need.

You are saying that's nice, but it's not the cuts we want to see.

>> It's nice, it's not the tax cuts we want it to see and our package matches those forms almost entirely as well.

And those -- any amendments that would have to come in would be later on and I think would be easily smoothed over.

>> Last question on this particular thing here.

Where do we go from here?

What's next?

>> I hope the Republicans will talk to us, because we have put forward a tax cut package that the governor is ready and willing to sign.

>> Before you go, do I understand that the primary date has been changed?

>> Yes, that's the big news, all we did today in the senate we voted on a near unanimous basis a quick and simple elections fix that moves the primary date up two weeks.

It's important to recognize this shows that we can work together on a bipartisan basis to fix any elections issues that we have especially at a time when we are hearing from the federal government that there might be a desire to reach in and nationalize elections there is no need we have our elections well in hand.

>> Why was it important to move this up.

>> There is an issue, a question of whether with recounts, potentially need to go occur if those margins are tight, we need additional time, we need to move the primary up to ensure that those recounts can occur in time to get ballots out to overseas voters.

>> And all sides said sounds good to me?

>> Sounds fine.

>> All right.

Senator Priya Sundareshan, senate minority leader good to have you here thanks for joining us.

>> Thanks for having me.

>> At PBS we know even though kids night be out of school their education say top priority.

PBS learning media is a free platform that end helps educator deliver and family access to learning, with PBS resources aligned to standards and created by the country's top educators, it helps keep students engaged in learning wherever education takes place PBS learning media is here to help.

♪ Music Playing ♪ >> U.S.

consumer confidence declined sharply in January, dropping to its lowest level since 2014, with consumers' perceptions of the labor market and high prices among the major factors for the decline in confidence.

Icon mist Dale Rodgers is from ASU's W.P.

Carey school of business and joins us now.

Dale a pleasure good to see you Thanks for joining us.

What's going on out here?

Why are consumers so pessimistic about the economy?

>> Well, it's what you said, but I think it's also the incredibly fast rate of change we have seen in the last year.

So prices haven't gone down.

We continue to see prices go up No matter what anybody says about it.

We saw them go up during the Biden administration, they tried to say, no, everything is fine.

And certainly during this new administration, that's happened.

But I think it's also -- and if you look at the strength of our economy, going back 20 years, it's really 25 years, it's really been the consumers.

You know, when we were in the first trump administration, then Biden.

Some of the upstream parts of the supply chain were kind of weak, but downstream at the consumer they felt good about things.

And it's really interesting, I think it's partly that folks are sort of feeling whiplash from the dramatic amount of change they are seeing.

And they are really uncertain.

It's not just prices are higher, but man, what's going on in the -- in the U.S.

And I just gotta tell you a quick story, when you guys asked me last week to come down and do this, I've got a brand-new graduate class and W.P.

Carey at ASU, I said, hey, do you want to help me with my homework?

And most of the students almost all of them are international and I kind of -- I mean, I could think of stuff to tell you on my own, but I kind of wanted to see if they were any good.

And I got some perspectives that I didn't think about myself.

And one of them was a couple of students from a different country, most of them are international, and they said, you know, Dr.

Rogers, that one of the reasons we came to the U.S.

is that we thought that the government told the truth and that there were rules and stuff was stable because where we come from, back home, you can't believe anything the government says.

You just don't believe it.

And I am not just saying that it's the administration, I think it's confusing all of the sides that are talking.

And I hadn't thought of that as being something that would undermine consumer confidence.

But I think it has.

>> We have talked about tariffs undermining business confidence and corporation confidence.

>> That's right.

>> You are saying the same thing could be happening as far as consumers are concerned.

>> Yeah, some of it is Inning flames you can't say it's all inflation, it's just what are the rules even, just regular.

What we saw in Minneapolis a week or two ago weekend, two weeks ago is startling.

So consumers which have been the unmovable rock of the U.S.

economy are not clear on where we are.

>> Let's try clear this up.

The relationship between consumer confidence and consumer spending, is there a relationship there.

Is there a hard line where you can watch it in.

>> Yes.

And particularly on the -- particularly the lower end of the economy those people are seeing their Judge et cetera stretched incredibly thin, you know, can't blame all of this on the current administration.

Real estate prices just living.

It's so hard right now.

Consumer con if you defense fell in higher income households as well.

>> It did.

>> It seems like higher income spending is underpinned the economy for a while here.

Is that true?

>> Well, it was broad, it really broad across the economy.

You did he had more money out of higher end, sure.

I think we have seen people feel comfortable with spending money everybody if they couldn't afford to.

Up until just the last few months.

>> As far as those -- the K-shaped spending with the upper income folks, does that make sense to you?

>> Yeah, so the idea of the K-shape is that it's going up on the high end.

Like we were just talking.

>> Right.

>> And then going down on the low end.

>> I see.

>> So you get on an airplane and the seats in the back report as full as they used to be.

Now the airlines are good at yield management these days.

But all of the seats in the front are totally full.

So it's -- it's high heaven spending is still in much better shape than the low end and we were seeing a lot of companies suffer.

I mean, WalMart had a record quarter, but they are adjusting the number of employees, and changing some things because they are seeing some stuff hit them on the lower end.

>> Lowest level since 2014.

Dale Rogers, ASU W.P.

Carey school of business, your go-to guy for supply chain issues.

And this issue as well.

>> Reporter: Good to have you here.

>> Nice to be here.

>> You bet.

And that is it for now.

I am Ted same your Honor, thank you so much for joining us.

You have a great evening.

♪ Music Playing ♪ ♪ Music Playing ♪ Support into Arizona PBS comes from viewers like you.