♪.

TED: COMING UP NEXT ON "ARIZONA HORIZON," WE'LL HEAR ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST A BALLOT MEASURE THAT CALLS FOR A VARIETY OF ELECTION REGULATIONS.

>>> AND ALSO TONIGHT, AN IN-DEPTH LOOK AT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S FINALIZED PLAN TO REDUCE COLORADO RIVER WATER DELIVERIES.

THOSE STORIES AND MORE NEXT ON "ARIZONA HORIZON."

.

TED: GOOD EVENING, AND WELCOME TO "ARIZONA HORIZON."

I'M TED SIMONS.

WE BEGIN TONIGHT BY HEARING ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST PROPOSITION 144, WHICH WOULD ENSHRINE A NUMBER OF ELECTION REGULATIONS IN THE CONSTITUTE CONSTITUTION.

THOSE REGULATIONS INCLUDE NEW RESTRICTIONS ON EARLY AND MAIL-IN VOTING AND SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF PROP 144 IS ATTORNEY JAMES RODGERS AND SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO THE MEASURE OSCAR DE LOS SANTOS.

WHAT EXACTLY DOES PROP 144 CALL ARE?

>> IT ENSHRINES THE CONSTITUTION, THE PRINCIPLE THAT ONLY CITIZENS SHOULD BE ABLE TO REGISTER TO VOTE.

ALSO SAYS THAT ONLY CITIZENS CAN VOTE AND THAT THE ELECTIONS IN ARIZONA SHOULD BE DECIDED BY THE VOTES OF ELIGIBLE CITIZEN VOTERS.

THE NEXT BIG THING IT DOES IS SAYS THAT FOREIGN MONEY CAN'T BE USED TO INFLUENCE ARIZONA ELECTIONS.

IT ALSO REQUIRES THAT ALL COUNTIES HAVE TO ALLOW VOTERS TO TABULATE VOTES AT ELECTION SITES ON ELECTION DAY AND REQUIRES VOTER I.D.

FOR ALL FORMS OF VOTING IN THE STATE.

TED: GO THROUGH THESE ONE BY ONE, START WITH THE IDEA THAT ONLY CITIZENS CAN REGISTER AND VOTE IN ELECTIONS.

WHY NOT PUT THAT IN THE CONSTITUTION?

>> TED, IT ALREADY IS IN THE CONSTITUTION, AND PROP 1 44 IS A TROJAN HORSE THAT SOUNDS GOOD ARE AND POPULAR LIKE THE CITIZEN ONLY VOTING, LIKE THE PROHIBITION ON FOREIGN MONEY, THINGS THAT EVERYBODY AGREES WITH TO SNEAK IN A PROVISION THAT EFFECTIVELY ENDS OR MAKES IT REALLY, REALLY DIFFICULT TO VOTE BY MAIL.

VOTING BY MAIL IS ROUGHLY HOW 80% OF ARIZONANS CAST THEIR BALLOT.

PROP 144 INFRINGES ON THE FREEDOM OF PEOPLE TO DO THAT.

TED: THE FOREIGN -- WHAT DOES IT MEAN, FOREIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO NATIONAL ELECTIONS IN ARIZONA.

>> FOREIGNERS CANNOT SPEND MONEY TO INFLUENCE ELECTIONS IN THE STATE.

THAT IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION AND NOT IN ARIZONA LAW.

THERE IS A LAW THAT SAYS THAT BUT NEVER ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION.

THAT ENSURES THAT THE LEGISLATURE CAN'T EVER CHANGE THAT LAW.

>> JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE PROHIBITION ON FOREIGN MONEY IN U.S.

ELECTION SAYS FEDERAL LAW, WHAT YOU DIDN'T HEAR HIM CONTEST IS THE FACT THAT NO CITIZENS, NO NONCITIZENS IN ARIZONA VOTING.

IN 2020, ATTORNEY GENERAL MARK BRNOVICH, A VERY CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN UNDERTOOK AN INVESTIGATION OF VOTING IN ARIZONA BECAUSE THERE WERE A LOT OF CLAIMS FROM FAR-RIGHT EXTREMISTS WHO SAID THAT THERE WAS ALL KINDS OF FRAUD IN OUR ELECTIONS.

HE SPENT OVER 10,000 HOURS OF ATTORNEYS AND INVESTIGATORS LOOKING INTO THAT.

OVER $2.5 MILLION OF TAXPAYER MONEY WAS SPENT ON THE INVESTIGATION.

KNOW WHAT YOU HE FOUND?

TED, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

TED: NONCITIZENS VOTING AND REGISTERING HERE.

FIRST OF ALL, IS THAT AN ISSUE.

SECONDLY, IF IT'S STATE OR FEDERAL LAW, WHAT'S THE POINT OF PUTTING IT IN FRONT OF VOTERS AND GETTING IT IN THE CONSTITUTION WHERE IT STAYS.

>> TWO ISSUES ON THAT.

SINCE THAT TIME, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OPENED UP A DATABASE THAT DHS HAS THAT LET'S COUNTY RECORDERS CHECK VOTER ROLLS AGAINST FEDERAL DATABASES AND FOUND FOREIGNERS REGISTERED TO VOTE.

THE YAVAPAI COUNTY RECORDER LISTED A NUMBER SHE'S FOUND AND COUNTY RECORDER JUSTIN HEAP FOUND.

ON THE PROHIBITION ON FOREIGN FUNDING INFLUENCING OUR ELECTIONS, IT IS THROUGH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PREVENTS MONEY FROM FUNDING ELECTORAL CONTESTS FOR CANDIDATES.

THERE IS NO LEGISLATION THAT PROHIBITS FOREIGN DOLLARS FROM INFLUENCING BALLOT PROPOSITIONS, THIS BALLOT PROPOSITION, FOREIGNERS CAN INFLUENCE THAT, THERE IS NO LAW UNDER STATE OR LEGAL.

TED: RESPOND, PLEASE.

>> AGAIN, NOBODY IS CONTESTING THE PROPOSITIONS, NOBODY BELIEVES NONCITIZENS SHOULD BE VOTING IN OUR ELECTIONS.

NOBODY BELIEVES FOREIGN ACTORS SHOULD BE INFLUENCING OUR ELECTION.

THE PROBLEM WITH THIS IS THEY'RE USING THIS AS A TROJAN HORSE TO SNEAK IN A PROVISION THAT EFFECTIVELY ENDS VOTE BY MAIL IN ARIZONA.

THAT IS THE KEY PROBLEM WITH THE PROPOSITION.

>> THE PROPOSITION CALLS FOR GOVERNMENT ISSUED I.D.

NECESSARY TO CAST AN EARLY BALLOT TO VOTE BY MAIL, YOU NEED.

THIS HOW DOES THAT WORK?

>> WHAT THE PROPOSITION SAYS IS THE LEGISLATURE WILL WORK OUT EXACT RULES HOW THAT'S IMPLEMENTED.

AND IT'S NOT A TROJAN HORSE TO END EARLY VOTING.

OTHER STATES HAVE THE SAME REQUIREMENTS.

FLORIDA REQUIRES PROOF OF I.D.

TO VOTE AND USE MAIL-IN VOTING.

NEVADA VOTED ON A SIMILAR PROPOSITION IN 2024, AND IT PASS BY OVER 70%.

TED: REAL QUICKLY, STICK WITH FLORIDA SINCE THEY'RE ALREADY DOING THIS.

HOW DO THEY DO THAT?

SEND IN A SIGNATURE, DRIVER'S LICENSE?

WHAT DO YOU DO IF YOU ARE ONLY VOTING BY MAIL AND NEED TO SHOW I.D.

>> THIS WON'T COPY FLORIDA'S PROPOSITION.

IT WILL SAY THE LEGISLATURE WILL FIGURE OUT WHAT'S RIGHT FOR ARIZONA.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN, IS ONCE THE PROPOSITION PASSES IS THE STAKEHOLDERS GET TOGETHER, CITIZENS GIVE INPUT, THE LEGISLATOR THE DISCUSS IT AND OBVIOUSLY ARIZONANS LIKE TO VOTE BY MAIL AND NO ONE IS TRYING TO CONTEST THAT.

TED: WHAT DO YOU THINK?

>> IT IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS PRECEDENT TO SET.

WE DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE TO WRITE YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER ON BALLOT OR BALLOT ENVELOPE.

WE DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE TO SEND IN ACTUAL DRIVER'S LICENSE OR I.D.

OR MAILED BACK WEEKS LATER.

WHO OWNS A PHOTO COPY OF DRIVER'S LICENSE?

DOES IT HAVE TO BE COLOR?

WE DON'T KNOW.

NOTARIZED?

WE DON'T KNOW.

THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS THAT PROPONENTS OF PROP 144 CAN'T ANSWER.

THERE IS A NATIONAL STUDY THAT LOOKS AT OVER 10 MILLION BALLOTS CAST BY MAIL.

THEY FOUND FOUR INSTANCES OF FRAUDULENT VOTING.

IT'S A SOLUTION LOOKING FOR -- A SOLUTION LOOKING FOR A PROBLEM.

TED: WHY IS THIS NECESSARY?

WHY ARE WE PUTTING THIS IN FRONT OF VOTERS?

WHY DID IT PASS THE LEGISLATURE INSTEAD OF SENDING IT TO VOTE, WHY?

>> WHEN YOU LOOK AT OPINION POLLS, PEOPLE WANT SECURE ELECTIONS.

THIS GETS US SECURE ELECTIONS.

WHEN IT HAS BEEN PUT IN FRONT OF VOTERS, IN NEVADA, 70% OF VOTERS WANTED IT.

THIS IS NOT SOMETHING YOU PASS IT TO FIND OUT WHAT'S IN IT.

WHAT'S IN IT IS WHAT'S THERE AND HOW IT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IS DECIDED BY THE VOTERS THROUGH THE REPRESENTATIVES, AND SO THESE SCARE TACTICS OF TALKING ABOUT WRITING YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER.

NO ONE IS SAYING THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AND THAT'S NOT IN THE SXROIGZ WON'T BE REQUIRED.

TED: IF SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS NEEDED TO HELP WITH ERODING TRUST IN ELECTIONS, IS IT A BAD THING TO DO SOMETHING TO EASE THAT EROSION?

>> WE ALL WANT TRUST IN OUR ELECTIONS AND SHOULD HAVE TRUST IN OUR ELECTIONS.

RIGHT NOW OUR ELECTIONS SYSTEM IS SAFE, STRONG AND SECURE.

YOU NEED TO PROVE YOUR SXOID CITIZENSHIP WHEN YOU REG STORE VOTE.

WHEN YOU RETURN YOUR MAIL-IN BALLOT, THERE ARE SEVERAL LAYERS OF SECURITY AND SAFETY TO ENSURE THERE IS NO FRAUD.

YOU HAVE TO SIGN YOUR BALLOT ENVELOPE SENT TO THE COUNTY.

AT THE COUNTY, YOU HAVE TRAINED OFFICIALS WHO COMPARE IT TO PREVIOUS SAMPLES OF YOUR SIGNATURE.

IF THERE IS QUESTION ABOUT THE VERACITY OF YOUR SIGNATURE, IT GOES TO A TRAINED TEAM.

THE IDEA THERE IS A FLAW IN OUR ELECTION SYSTEM IS NOT TRUE.

WHAT WOULD BE BETTER TO INSTILL CONFIDENCE IN ELECTIONS IS IF RIGHT-WING EXTREMISTS STOP TRYING TO SOW DOUBT AND DISCORD.

TED: WHAT IS THE PROOF AND THE EVIDENCE, IF YOU WILL, THIS IS NEEDED BECAUSE ELECTIONS AREN'T SECURE?

HOW ARE ELECTIONS RIGHT NOW?

HOW ARE THEY NOT SECURE?

>> THE REPRESENTATIVE TALKED ABOUT A STUDY ONLY FOUR BALLOTS.

THAT'S NOT TRUE.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE RATE OF INVALTATIONS FOR SIGNATURES OF NO MATCHES FOR SIGNATURES, IT'S IN THE SINGLE DIGIT PERCENTAGES IN ARIZONA.

THAT GOES TO A BROADER POINT, THE ONLY WAY WE AUTHENTICATE THE IDENTITY OF AN EARLY VOTER, YOU HAVE TO SHOW I.D.

TO GET ON A PLANE, FOR A BANK ACCOUNT, TO BUY ALCOHOL.

CAN YOU IMAGINE IF YOU JUST HAD TO MATCH A SIGNATURE?

CERTAINLY FOR VOTING, ONE OF THE MOST SACRED THINGS WE DO IN OUR DEMOCRACY, REQUIRES NOR MAN A SIGNATURE.

TED: RESPOND, PLEASE.

>> WE MUST PROVE OUR CITIZENSHIP TO VOTE.

THIS ALREADY EXISTS, THE NEED TO BE A CITIZEN TO VOTE IN OUR ELECTIONS ALREADY EXISTS.

THERE IS A FEDERAL LAW THAT BANS FOREIGN ACTORS FROM INFLUENCING OUR ELECTIONS, SO AGAIN, THIS IS JUST A VERY BIG TROJAN HORSE TO END VOTE BY MAIL HERE IN ARIZONA.

>> THE IDEA THAT THERE IS ERODING TRUST AND REPRESENTATIVE DID MENTION THIS.

THERE'S A LOT OF CRITICISM OF THE ELECTION PROCESS AND THAT IN AND OF ITSELF CAN ERODE TRUST.

IF THERE'S NOT -- AND DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THERE HAS BEEN PROOF THAT THESE ELECTIONS ARE NOT SECURE, WHY WOULD THIS BE NECESSARY AND WHY WOULD THIS HELP THE SITUATION?

>> WELL, PART OF THE LEGITIMACY OF A DEMOCRACY IS TRUST PEOPLE HAVE THEIR ELECTIONS SECURITY.

THE MORE WE CAN DO TO INSTILL THAT TRUST, THE BETTER OUR DEMOCRACY FUNCTIONS.

THIS PROPOSITION DOES MORE THAN THE PROVISIONS THE REPRESENTATIVE TALKED ABOUT.

IT REQUIRES THE TABULATION OF ALL BALLOTS, THE OPTION AVAILABLE ON ELECTION DAY, IT GIVES US FASTER ELECTION RESULTS.

WHAT IT DOES IS GIVES US SOMETHING CLOSER TO A FLORIDA STYLE OF ELECTIONS, WE HAVE FAST RESULTS, SO THE SYSTEM WORKS SECURELY.

TED: EVERYONE TALKS ABOUT HOW LONG IT TAKES TO GET THE FINAL TALLY IN.

WHY NOT DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT.

>> WE WANT THREE THINGS WHEN IT COMES TO ELECTIONS, SAFETY AND SECURITY, FAST RESULTS AND ACCURATE RESULTS.

I'M TOTALLY IN FAVOR OF THE OPTION OF VOTERS TABULATING RESULTS ON-SITE.

THE PROBLEM IS THEY'RE USING IDEAS THAT COULD BE GOOD OR THAT ARE POPULAR IN ORDER TO SNEAK IN THIS DANGEROUS PROVISION THAT'S GOING TO END VOTE BY MAIL.

I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH THE PROPOSITIONS IN PROP 144, THEY'RE USING THEM TO DISGUISE THEIR TRUE INTENT WHICH IS TO ATTACK VOTE BY MAIL.

80% OF ARIZONANS CHOOSE TO VOTE BY MAIL.

THEY'RE GOING TO START VOTING ON ELECTION DAY.

THE LINES ARE GOING TO BE OUT OF CONTROL.

WE DON'T NEED THIS, AND HE CANNOT CITE ANY SINGLE INSTANCE OF VOTER FRAUD IN ARIZONA THAT IS SWINGING ELECTIONS.

>> JAMES, LAST WORD ON THIS?

>> FLORIDA AND NEVADA HAVE SIMILAR PROVISIONS THAT REQUIRE I.D.

TO VOTE.

THEY HAVE MAIL-IN VOTING.

WE CAN DO THE SAME THING HERE AND IT'S NOT GOING TO END THE WORLD.

BECAUSE 80% OF ARIZONANS VOTE BY MAIL, AND THE LEGISLATURE WILL ADOPT THE RULES THAT WILL IMPLEMENT HOW I.D.

IS REQUIRED FOR VOTING, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE SOME GREAT CHANGE THAT IS GOING TO DISENFRANCHISE THEM BECAUSE THE LEGISLATORS ARE GOING TO DO SOMETHING THAT GIVE 80% OF PEOPLE THE THING THEY LIKE.

TED: JAMES ROGERS AND JAMES DE LOS SANTOS, GOOD TO HAVE YOU BOTH HERE, THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

JO FEDERAL OFFICIALS LAST WEEK RELEASED A FINALIZED PLAN FOR COLORADO RIVER WATER ALLOCATIONS THROUGH 2028.

THE PLAN IS DESIGNED TO CONSERVE WATER STORED IN LAKES MEADE AND POWELL AND PROTECT CRITICAL WATER LEVELS IN HOOVER AND GLEN CANYON DAMS FOR TWO YEARS.

IT CALLS FOR DELIVERY CUTS FOR ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA WITH ARIZONA TAKING THE BIGGEST HIT.

THE STATE OF NEVADA FILED SUIT AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARGUING THE WATER CUTS COULD UNDERMINE THE STATE'S ECONOMY.

WITH US IS SARAH PORTER WITH ASU MORRISSON INSTITUTE.

BOY, I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS FOR.

>> YOU ALL RIGHT.

TED: THEY FINALIZED THIS PLAN ON FRIDAY FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS.

FINALIZED MEANS SOMETHING IN MY WORLD DOES, THAT MEAN THIS IS A DONE DEAL?

>> I'M SURE THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION HOPED IT WAS A DONE DEAL.

LAWSUIT FILED BY NEVADA SEEKS TO VACATE THIS PLAN, AND I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF ARIZONA AND MAYBE CALIFORNIA FILED SIMILAR LAWSUITS OR SOUGHT TO JOIN IN NEVADA'S LAWSUIT.

SO THERE WOULD BE A FIGHT IN THE COURTS, POSSIBLY MEANWHILE, THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF RECLAMATION WOULD IMPLEMENT THE PLAN AS OUTLINED.

TED: ALL RIGHT, I KNOW THIS IS WITHIN A TEN-YEAR FRAMEWORK, TWO YEARS HERE.

WHAT EXACTLY DOES THE PLAN CALL FOR?

>> SO THE OPERATING GUIDELINES LAY OUT HOW THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION WILL MANAGE THE COLORADO RIVER SYSTEM, THE BIG RESERVOIRS OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS.

SPECIFICALLY, THE LOWER BASIN HAS KIND OF GREED TO CUTS OF 1.25 MILLION ACRE FEET, SO A CUT OF 760,000 ACRE FEET TO ARIZONA, WHICH HAS AN APPORTIONMENT IF THERE'S NO SHORTAGE OF 2.8 MILLION ACRE FEET.

ABOUT 27% OF ARIZONA'S COLORADO RIVER APPORTIONMENT.

VERY NOTABLY, CALIFORNIA AGREED TO TAKE A CUT OF ABOUT 10% OF ITS WATER APPORTIONMENT, I'M TALKING ABOUT PER YEAR.

SO 440,000 ACRE FEET FOR CALIFORNIA, AND CALIFORNIA IS TAKING THAT CUT, HELPS ENSURE MORE WATER IN A WAY, FOR ARIZONA.

WE REMEMBER THAT CENTRAL ARIZONA WATER USERS, CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT WATER USERS HAVE JUNIOR PRIORITY.

TED: RIGHT.

>> SO CALIFORNIA IS TAKING A CUT OUT OF PRIORITY AND HAVING THE EFFECT OF HELPING ENSURE SOME WATER FOR C.A.P.

WATER USERS.

THAT IS VERY SIGNIFICANT.

TED: WHAT DOES THE AFFECT OF THE FINALIZED PLAN, NOT A DONE DEAL, WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS?

GROUND WATER STORAGE LESS?

AGRICULTURE?

WHAT?

>> WELL, WE'VE ALREADY, UNFORTUNATELY SEEN THE LOSS OF COLORADO RIVER WATER FOR AGRICULTURE IN CENTRAL ARIZONA.

SO THERE ARE TWO GROUPS OF COLORADO RIVER WATER USERS IN ARIZONA.

FARMS AND TRIBES AND COMMUNITIES ALONG THE COLORADO RIVER IN YUMA, LA PAZ COUNTY, MOHAVE COUNTY, AND THEN THERE ARE WATER USERS FROM PHOENIX TO TUCSON WHO GET WATER FROM THE C.A.P., IT'S THOSE USERS WHO WILL BE IMPACTED.

THOSE ARE THE WATER USERS THAT ABSORB THE CUTLESS AND MEAN LESS WATER AVAILABLE TO RECHARGE AQUIFERS AND IT WILL MEAN THAT TO A GREAT EXTENT, CITIES AREN'T USING ALL THEIR COLORADO RIVER WATER TO ABSORB SOME AMOUNT OF CUT WITHOUT HAVING IT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THEIR ABILITY TO MEET WATER DEMAND.

TED: AND ALL OF THIS WAS SIMILAR, IF NOT THE EXACT SAME PROPOSAL THAT THE LOWER-BASIN STATES OFFERED IN TERMS OF THE CONCESSIONS WITH -- OBVIOUSLY, THE IDEA THAT THE UPPER-BASIN STATES WOULD ALSO DO SOMETHING ON THEIR PART.

UPPER-BASIN STATES SCOT-FREE ON THIS RIGHT NOW, RIGHT?

>> IT'S RATHER COMPLICATED, BUT YEAH, THE UPPER BASIN HAS BEEN SPARED, LET'S SAY.

TED: YES.

>> IT'S MORE COMPLICATED, MORE DIFFICULT TO DO CUTS IN THE UPPER BASIN BECAUSE ALL OF THE LOWER-BASIN WATER USERS GET WATER FROM LAKE MEAD.

CUTTING DELIVERIES FROM LAKE MEAD IS A RELATIVELY SIMPLE THING COMPARED WITH CUTTING WATER USE BY WATER USERS WHO TAKE WATER DIRECTLY FROM THE RIVER OR FROM RESERVOIRS THAT THE FEDS DON'T CONTROL.

TED: YES.

>> THAT'S PART OF THE REASON THEY SPARED THEM, BUT YEAH, RIGHT NOW, THERE ARE NO CUTS BEING IMPOSED UPON THE UPPER BASIN.

TED: THE POWER GENERATED UP THERE AT THESE DAMS, IT SEEMS LIKE THAT WAS A MAJOR FOCUS FOR THE FEDS.

IT ALMOST SOUNDS LIKE LAKE MEAD -- CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, LAKE MEAD IS BEING SACRIFICED TO KEEP LAKE POWELL OPERATIONAL.

>> YOU MIGHT EVEN SAY LOWER-BASIN WATER USERS ARE TAKING THE HIT FOR WHAT'S GOING ON IN LAKE POWELL, UPSTREAM OF LAKE MEAD.

THIS IS REALLY AN INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUE.

THERE ARE -- WATER LEAVES LAKE POWELL THROUGH THE HYDRO POWER GENERATION TURBINES, AND IF THERE ISN'T ENOUGH WATER TO RELEASE THROUGH THOSE TURBINES, THEN THERE ARE OUTLET TUBES, THERE ARE TUBES THAT ARE SORT OF LIKE JUST IN CASE THE WATER LEVELS GET LOW ENOUGH AND THERE'S NOT ENOUGH HEAD ON THE WATER, YOU KNOW, AND THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF RECLAMATION CONCLUDED THAT THE OUTLET TUBES AREN'T RELIABLE.

THEY'RE VERY WORRIED THAT THEY'LL HAVE CAVATATION AND TERRIBLE PROBLEMS IF THEY'RE USED TO DELIVER WATER IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITIES.

SO THEY'VE SAID WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THE WATER LEVEL IN LAKE POWELL ABOVE MINIMUM HYDRO POWER POOL.

10 FEET ABOVE MINIMUM HYDRO POWER POOL TO CONTINUE TO RELEASE WATER FROM LAKE POWELL THROUGH THE HYDRO POWER INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT THAT MEANS POTENTIALLY A LOT LESS -- IT MEANS THAT KEEPING WATER LEVELS UP IN LAKE MEAD IS SACRIFICED, BECAUSE THEY WILL LIMIT HOW MUCH THEY RELEASE FROM LAKE POWELL IN ORDER TO KEEP THE ELEVATIONS UP.

TED: IT SOUNDS LIKE, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, THIS WASN'T SO BAD FOR -- PUT IT THIS WAY, COULD HAVE BEEN A WHOLE LOT WORSE.

>> YEAH.

NOT ONLY IT COULD HAVE BEEN, WHAT WAS OUTLINED IN THE DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK, WHICH IS PART AND PARCEL OF WHAT THE FEDERAL BUREAU HAS SORT OF NOW SAID IS GOING TO BE ITS WAY OF DOING THINGS.

THEY'VE CONTEMPLATED MUCH, MUCH DEEPER CUTS, AND THEY HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT THEY COULD DO THOSE CUTS IN MID-YEAR, IF IT'S CALLED FOR.

THAT'S WHY WE WASN'T SAY THIS LOWER-BASIN PLAN IS FOR CERTAIN OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS.

IF WE HAD ANOTHER BAD WINTER, THE BUREAU SAID WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE VERY DEEP CUTS.

TED: WHAT IF WE HAVE A GOOD WINTER?

WHAT IF WE HAVE A SUPER EL NINO?

>> IF WE HAVE A GOOD WINTER LIKE 2023, WE COULD HAVE A FEW YEARS OF CONTINUED NEGOTIATIONS AND WORK AND TRYING TO GET TO SOME SOLUTION BUT IT WOULDN'T BE ENOUGH TO SAVE THE SYSTEM.

WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE LIKE A ONCE IN 100 YEAR KIND OF WINTER TO HELP THE SYSTEM.

TED: SO WITH THAT IN MIND, WHAT DO PEOPLE -- DO WE EXPECT OUR WATER RATES TO GO UP?

OBVIOUSLY, THE WATER IS GOING TO KEEP COMING OUT OF THE TAPS HERE.

>> YEP.

TED: BUT RATES HAVE TO GO UP, DON'T THEY?

>> THEY ABSOLUTELY WILL.

WE NEED TO GET USED TO PAYING HIGHER RATES FOR WATER SO OUR WATER PROVIDERS CAN STAY WATER SECURE AND KEEP US WATER SECURE, AND I THINK WE'LL SEE MORE AND MORE MESSAGES AND PUSHES FOR PEOPLE TO REDUCE THEIR OUTSIDE WATER USE, AND TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE USING WATER EFFICIENTLY BECAUSE WHEN WE DO REDUCE OUR WATER USE PERMANENTLY, IT HELPS OUR WATER UTILITY HAVE ENOUGH WATER TO MEET DEMAND.

BUT WE HAVE TO GET OUR HEARTS INTO A DIFFERENT SPACE WHEN IT COMES TO WATER RATES.

>> WITH THAT IN MIND AND WITH WHAT HAPPENED FRIDAY IN MIND, WHAT DO WE EXPECT IN 2028?

>> WELL, 2028 WOULD BE A REPEAT OF THE EXACT SAME CUTS OUTLINED IN 2027 IF LAKE POWELL IS HIGH ENOUGH TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

IF WE HAVE A GOOD ENOUGH WINTER, WE HAVE JUST A REPEAT OF THE CUTS AND THE DELIVERIES THAT WE'VE EXPECTED, THAT WE'RE EXPECTING FOR 2027, BUT WE OPEN TO THE KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH THIS LAWSUIT THAT NEVADA HAS BROUGHT.

BY THAT TIME, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THE COURT COULD HAVE TAKEN A DECISION IN THAT LAWSUIT POTENTIALLY EVEN VACATING THE RECORD OF DECISION, THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND THE OPERATING GUIDELINES.

SO THEN WE'D BE BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD.

TED: GOOD, GOOD.

THAT'S GREAT.

REAL QUICKLY BEFORE YOU GO, WE'RE KIND OF RUNNING OUT OF TIME HERE.

ARIZONA DOES HAVE A CASE, DOES IT NOT?

THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DELIVER WATER TO US?

>> YOU COULD ALMOST CROSS OUT NEVADA AND WRITE IN ARIZONA IN THE NEVADA COMPLAINT, AND WE HAVE -- PEOPLE IN ARIZONA HAVE MANY OF THE SAME CLAIMS AS NEVADA, AND THIS IS REALLY PART OF THE -- IT'S AT THE HEART OF THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE UPPER AND THE LOWER BASIN.

TED: SARAH PORTER, ASU KYL CENTER FOR WATER POLICY AT THE MORRISSON INSTITUTE.

THANKS FOR BEING HERE, WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR INSIGHT.

>> THANK YOU.

TED: THAT IS IT FOR NOW.

I'M TED SIMONS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.