Three Arizona House Republicans have requested weekly, in-person briefings from Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) Director Thomas Buschatzke on Colorado River negotiations, seeking the same information provided to Gov. Katie Hobbs.
In a September 4 letter, Reps. Gail Griffin (R-LD19), Neal Carter (R-LD15), and Chris Lopez (R-LD16) asked Buschatzke to meet with them and relevant agency staff and legal counsel at least once a week. The lawmakers proposed Tuesdays at 2 p.m., while offering to arrange another mutually agreeable time.
The request follows the federal government’s decision on Colorado River operations for 2027 and 2028, which drew mixed reactions from Arizona officials. Arizona would absorb approximately 61% of the total reductions across the three Lower Basin states, with a 760,000-acre-foot reduction compared with California’s 440,000 and Nevada’s 50,000.
Griffin chairs the House Natural Resources, Energy & Water Committee, where Lopez serves as its vice chair, and Carter is speaker pro tempore of the Arizona House of Representatives.
In the letter, the lawmakers cited the Legislature’s authority under A.R.S. § 45-106, which requires legislative approval by concurrent resolution before an agreement between the water resources director and the United States, another state, or a government involving Arizona’s sovereign rights or claims can take effect.
💧 Did you know?
Arizona’s water future depends on more than one source.
Colorado River water remains critical, but Arizona also relies on groundwater, reclaimed water, conservation, water storage, and new supply projects to support communities and future growth.
“Given our unique legislative role under A.R.S. § 45-106, we believe we are entitled to receive the same briefing you would deliver to the Governor’s office or the Governor herself, free from any filters or withholding of information,” the lawmakers wrote.
The requested meetings would allow members to receive updates, ask questions, and examine the factual, policy, and legal rationale for prospective offers, terms, or decisions. The lawmakers also asked to be informed of developments as they occur.
The letter also references two pieces of correspondence from August. They said Buschatzke confirmed on August 25 that implementing a Lower Basin Agreement would require legislative approval and committed to keeping House and Senate members informed of information relevant to their decision.
— Arizona Department of Water Resources (@azwater) September 4, 2026
The lawmakers also said Hobbs affirmed her commitment to providing relevant updates in an August 26 letter and directed Buschatzke to “continually update” them as requested.
Hobbs plans to call a special legislative session for lawmakers to vote on a water-sharing agreement between Arizona, Nevada, and California.
Hobbs highlighted her administration’s Colorado River negotiations in a June interview with 12 News. After the federal government released its proposed operating guidelines, she urged federal officials to adopt the Lower Basin states’ proposal and distribute water reductions equitably.
In August, the federal government came to an agreement with Arizona and the other Lower Basin states on Colorado River water usage. Under the deal, Arizona will lose about 61%: the most out of the Lower Basin states. The news was met with mixed reactions. Hobbs said the decision protected Arizona from deeper cuts. U.S. Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ-06) said his initial review indicated the plan avoided the most drastic options previously announced, while U.S. Rep. Greg Stanton (D-AZ-04) described the two-year reprieve as another short-term fix and called for durable agreements.
Scot Mussi, president of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, called the deal “a total failure of leadership” in a statement posted to X. He stated that the deal “will place most of the cuts on new single family homes while data centers and apartments get unlimited water.” He added, “Conveniently, those big water users happen to be some of your biggest campaign contributors.”
This deal is a total failure of leadership. On top of that, this deal will place most of the cuts on new single family homes while data centers and apartments get unlimited water. Conveniently, those big water users happen to be some of your biggest campaign contributors. https://t.co/pLaenPuDCc
The Trump administration has finally come to an agreement with Arizona and the other Lower Basin states on Colorado River water usage.
The news was met with a mixed reaction.
Gov. Katie Hobbs described the agreed-upon deal in an announcement on Friday as adequately protecting the state from the “disastrous and unacceptable forced federal water cuts” that were floated by the federal government earlier this month.
I'm glad the federal government has chosen to implement the Lower Basin's water allocation plan. We've protected Arizona from disastrous and unacceptable forced federal water cuts.
Together, we’ve proven that the Lower Basin will work in meaningful ways to protect the Colorado…
Under the federal government’s proposal, Arizona would have seen cuts up to 77%.
Under this deal, Arizona will lose about 61%: the most out of the Lower Basin states.
While Arizona will give up 760,000 acre-feet between 2027 and 2028, California and Nevada will collectively lose 490,000 acre-feet. Overall, the cuts represent a reduction of approximately 25%.
The Upper Basin states will not see cuts under this plan.
Brenda Burman, Central Arizona Project (CAP) general manager, said the Upper Basin states needed to pull their weight.
“Lake Mead should not be sacrificed to protect Lake Powell or other Upper Basin reservoirs, and every state that relies on the river should be part of the solution,” CAP General Manager Brenda Burman said in a statement. “The Colorado River needs to be treated as the system it is.”
Some of Arizona’s elected leaders issued stand-in statements in which they disclosed that they were still reviewing the plan.
Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ-06), co-chair of the congressional Colorado River Caucus, said that upon initial review the current plan avoids the “most drastic options” previously announced by the Trump administration. However, Ciscomani intimated that long-term solutions were still lacking in this latest plan.
“The goal is clear: long-term water certainty and security for Arizona,” said Ciscomani. “I will continue working with the Administration and bipartisan leaders at every level of government to protect this critical resource for our farmers, ranchers, businesses, tribes, and every Arizona family that relies on the Colorado River.”
Rep. Greg Stanton (D-AZ-04) said that the deal provided two years of “welcome” stability, but that it was only “another short-term fix” and not a lasting solution.
“[A] two-year reprieve is not a solution. The agreements holding this decision together must be durable, and a record-breaking drought won’t suddenly resolve itself,” said Stanton. “Every two years, this same threat of ‘CAP to zero’ will hang over Arizona’s head. That’s no way to run a system millions of people depend on for water, power and food.”
Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ-03) didn’t issue a statement on the plan, but did post on social media calling water “the lifeblood of Arizona,” promising “bold action to confront the climate crisis,” and including a link to the city of Phoenix’s water quality page.
Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ-07) issued a statement blending elements from colleagues Stanton and Ansari, calling for a more permanent solution among both the Upper and Lower Basin states while also urging action on climate change as the purported root causes of the prolonged drought.
Democrat Senators Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego issued a joint statement simply expressing gratitude for the two years the plan afforded Arizona, and presented a lighter look forward at the road ahead for a more “lasting” plan of action. The senators also indirectly called on the Upper Basin states to take on some of the water-cuts burden as well.
“This decision provides much-needed certainty for Arizona and the Colorado River over the next two years,” Kelly and Gallego said. “The 2027 and 2028 guidelines protect Arizona from even deeper near-term cuts while giving the seven Basin states more time to reach a long-term agreement.”
Danny Seiden, Arizona Chamber President and CEO, said that the deal was “workable,” not perfect. Seiden credited state leaders for working in a bipartisan manner to accomplish the deal, specifically Hobbs, Senate President Warren Petersen (R-LD14), and House Speaker Steve Montenegro (R-LD29).
“We are still working through the details, but today’s decision appears to provide a workable path forward over the next two years and avoids some of the most damaging scenarios our state was facing,” said Seiden. “Arizona has already put real conservation and real cuts on the table, and the work now continues toward a long-term agreement that requires every Basin state to share in the responsibility. Arizona’s business community will continue to support our leaders as they fight for a fair, durable solution that protects our water and our economic future.”
Others weren’t so optimistic.
Scot Mussi, president of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, called the deal “a total failure of leadership.” Mussi criticized the deal, saying it imposes water cuts on single family homes but not data centers and apartments.
This deal is a total failure of leadership. On top of that, this deal will place most of the cuts on new single family homes while data centers and apartments get unlimited water. Conveniently, those big water users happen to be some of your biggest campaign contributors. https://t.co/pLaenPuDCc
Lisa Everett, a Dysart Unified School District Governing Board candidate who describes herself as a Republican activist, has recently drawn attention for criticizing conservative candidates, including Arizona Corporation Commission nominee Ralph Heap, and the conservative groups that supported his campaign.
Everett has filed two campaign-finance complaints against Heap, one with the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission and one with the Secretary of State’s Office while publicly defending his primary rivals, Kevin Thompson and Nick Myers. She has also repeatedly called on Heap to withdraw from the race, even after he advanced to the general election over Myers.
Everett’s public support for the two Republican incumbents Heap challenged predates the complaints. In her June 1 “Patriotnheels” newsletter, Everett published a section titled “Truth vs. Lies: The Record of Arizona Corporation Commissioners Kevin Thompson and Nick Myers.” The newsletter summarized Thompson and Myers’ defenses of their records on renewable-energy mandates, President Donald Trump’s energy agenda, utility rate mechanisms, and grid reliability.
Heap challenged Thompson and Myers for one of two Republican nominations to the Corporation Commission. In the July 21 primary, Thompson finished first with 35.8% of the vote, Heap finished second with 33%, and Myers finished third with 31.2%. Thompson and Heap advanced to the November general election.
After the primary, Everett escalated her public opposition to Heap. She announced her Secretary of State complaint, publicly thanked Clean Elections when commissioners denied Heap’s request to leave the public-financing program, and subsequently urged Republicans to call for Heap’s withdrawal. She has continued publishing updates about the campaign-finance proceedings through her Patriotnheels account.
Heap entered the Corporation Commission race with support from the Arizona Free Enterprise Club and Turning Point Action. Everett has previously criticized Turning Point’s influence in Arizona Republican primaries. In May, she told the Arizona Capitol Times that Turning Point “puts their money behind people, and that machine rolls, but it turns off the independent voters.”
Everett has also directly criticized the Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s involvement in Corporation Commission races. In a post to X on August 4 she wrote, “Some have asked me why I am pursuing this. – Accountability. Some are concerned a Democrat could get elected. My prayer is Heap removes himself from the ballot and the Party appoints a great candidate. If we lose this seat the blame lays at the feet of Arizona Free Enterprise Club and their partners. They ran candidates against two great incumbents simply because the incumbents could not be controlled. The blame also lies at the feet of Heap for violating campaign finance laws. This is truly a case of don’t blame the messenger.”
Some have asked me why I am pursuing this. – Accountability. Some are concerned a Democrat could get elected. My prayer is Heap removes himself from the ballot and the Party appoints a great candidate. If we lose this seat the blame lays at the feet of Arizona Free Enterprise… pic.twitter.com/VbzS6qRbhH
In an August 7 reply on X, she added, “Arizona Free Enterprise Club continues to recruit candidates that know nothing about utilities. They do this because they want a puppet at the ACC. Nick and Kevin follow statutes and understand the issues.”
Everett describes herself as a conservative Republican. Her Patriotnheels website identifies her as a longtime Republican organizer and describes the outlet as a West Valley platform that promotes conservative viewpoints and candidates. The same site also features an essay written by Everett titled, “The Republican Party Is Still A Big Tent — Let’s Start Acting Like It.” In that piece, she criticized Republican “purists” and “RINO” labeling and argued against isolating “McCain Republicans” and “moderate Republicans.” She also urged Republicans to engage with political opponents rather than limit their political activity to people who already agree with them.
Everett has applied that argument to disputes over Republican political figures as well. During an August 7 discussion on X over whether former Mesa Mayor John Giles (now the running mate for Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs) should be described as a leftist, Everett wrote, “The far right does not understand that concept. If you fail their purity test – you are a leftist.”
The far right does not understand that concept. If you fail their purity test – you are a leftist.
Everett drew attention for that approach in 2025 while serving as chair of the Legislative District 29 Republican Committee. In April of that year, Everett organized Republican counter-protests against Northwest Valley Indivisible demonstrations targeting President Donald Trump and Rep. Abe Hamadeh (R-AZ-08). Everett told AZ Free News at the time that she organized supporters after seeing the anti-Hamadeh demonstrations and said the Republican participants supported the Trump administration’s agenda.
Four months later, Everett joined Brent Peak, co-chair of Northwest Valley Indivisible, in advocating for Peoria-area restaurant owner Lai Kuen “Kelly” Yu after Yu was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. AZ Free News reported in August 2025 that Everett and Peak were working on Yu’s behalf even as Democratic Senators Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly, along with Rep. Greg Stanton (D-AZ-04), also supported Yu. Everett told The Center Square that Yu came to the United States while pregnant, sought asylum, and became active in the Peoria community. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said Yu had entered the country illegally in 2004 and had exhausted her legal avenues to remain. Court records cited by AZ Free News showed the Ninth Circuit denied Yu’s asylum appeal in 2016.
The Maricopa County Republican Committee subsequently censured Everett by a 23-6 vote over her advocacy for Yu and her work with Peak. It also called for her resignation from her district leadership position. Everett defended her actions and later wrote on X that the county party was increasingly controlled by people she considered extremists, describing them as “so far right they are turning left.”
MCRC Censures LD29 Chairwoman Lisa Everett
Last night, the Maricopa County Republican Committee voted to censure me, Lisa Everett, Chairwoman of LD29. With that vote, my name is now listed alongside an ever-growing roster of Republicans who have been censured by MCRC: County… pic.twitter.com/5hvdhA5iTZ
Everett is now campaigning for the Dysart Unified School District Governing Board, where her campaign lists protecting the district’s A rating, supporting teachers and staff, and maintaining facilities among her priorities.
Heap and Thompson will appear on the Nov. 3 Corporation Commission ballot alongside Democrats Clara Pratte and Jonathon Hill and Green Party candidate Mike Cease.
The Protect Education Act is projected to fall more than 10,000 valid signatures short of the number required to qualify for Arizona’s November ballot after a court challenge removed thousands of petition signatures and county recorders completed their validity reviews.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) announced Monday that applying the trial court’s rulings and county signature-validity rates leaves the initiative with approximately 245,000 valid signatures. Arizona law required the campaign to produce 255,949 valid signatures.
The calculation follows an expedited ruling Thursday from Maricopa County Superior Court Judge David McDowell in Clark v. Fontes, the lawsuit challenging the petitions submitted by Protect Education, Accountability Now, the political committee behind the initiative.
At the time of McDowell’s ruling, the final outcome remained unresolved because Maricopa and Apache counties had not yet completed their reviews. The Arizona Capitol Timesreported that the Secretary of State’s initial review had reduced the campaign’s submitted total to 389,376 signatures before the court considered challenges to individual circulators, petition sheets, and duplicate signatures.
🚨 BREAKING: “PROTECT EDUCATION ACT” FALLS SHORT
Based on the trial court’s ruling in Clark (@ClarkRimsza) v Fontes and county signature validity rates, the union-backed anti-ESA initiative does not have enough valid signatures to qualify for the November ballot.
McDowell’s ruling left 348,269 signatures presumptively valid before application of the counties’ random-sample validity rates. The court also addressed 24,369 duplicate signatures and challenges involving more than 110 petition circulators.
“The court agrees that it is conceivable that a double count could occur, but the court cannot make a decision based upon a hypothetical double counting of duplicate signatures,” McDowell wrote.
The initiative’s supporters submitted 421,451 signatures on July 2. Save Our Schools Arizona and the Arizona Education Association were among the organizations backing the campaign.
The Goldwater Institute filed its challenge July 20, alleging that tens of thousands of the submitted signatures should be rejected because of duplicate entries, defects in circulator registrations, and petitions collected by people who were legally ineligible to circulate them.
The amended complaint raised more than 73,300 objections. Those included allegations involving unregistered paid circulators, signatures collected before circulator registration, inaccurate addresses or contact information, identification problems, and circulators whose felony convictions or other legal circumstances allegedly made them ineligible.
McDowell ultimately invalidated signatures collected by several circulators. Four circulators were disqualified because of criminal histories. The judge also invalidated several thousand signatures collected by circulator Tyrone Crispell after finding his denial that he misrepresented the initiative to prospective signers was not credible.
AFEC said Monday that nearly 70,000 signatures were disqualified through the challenge, including duplicates and signatures gathered by legally ineligible circulators.
“This is a major victory for Arizona parents, students, and the integrity of our elections,” AFEC President Scot Mussi said. “This anti-school choice initiative and its union backers spent more than $7 million dollars trying to dismantle school choice in our state, but they still could not collect enough lawful, valid signatures to qualify for the ballot.”
Campaign-finance figures compiled by Transparency USA from Arizona disclosure records show the Protect Education, Accountability Now committee had reported more than $7.5 million in total expenditures through July 30. The National Education Association accounted for approximately $6.57 million in cash and in-kind contributions, while the Arizona Education Association contributed another $810,000.
The Protect Education Act, designated Proposition 212 during the ballot-review process, would make several changes to Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program. The measure would generally limit eligibility to families earning $150,000 or less, with exceptions including students with disabilities, certain military families, and students assigned to poorly performing public schools.
The proposal would also establish additional requirements for participating private schools and tutors, restrict certain ESA expenditures, and generally require unused annual ESA funds to be returned to the state.
The signature dispute is separate from litigation over how Proposition 212 would be described to voters. Last week, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Julie Ann Mata ordered Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to rewrite portions of the proposition’s descriptive title and “yes” and “no” statements after finding that the existing language omitted significant provisions of the measure. Judge Daniel Martin separately ordered revisions to the Arizona Legislative Council’s publicity-pamphlet analysis.
A Maricopa County Superior Court judge ordered Arizona election officials Tuesday to rewrite the descriptive title and “yes” and “no” statements for Proposition 212. The judge found that the current version omits substantial changes to enforcement and government oversight and misleadingly describes Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program as a “school voucher program.”
Judge Julie Ann Mata enjoined Secretary of State Adrian Fontes from using the current language on the official ballot or in the publicity pamphlet. She also issued a writ directing Fontes and Attorney General Kris Mayes to revise the language in accordance with state law and her ruling.
The court left the exact wording to Fontes and Mayes under their statutory drafting and approval authority. Mata declined to order the state to adopt replacement language proposed by the plaintiffs and denied their request for attorneys’ fees and costs.
Daryl Groves and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) filed the case against Mayes and Fontes on July 28. Protect Education, Accountability Now, the political committee sponsoring Proposition 212, participated as a friend of the court in support of the challenged language. The defendants argued that the wording fairly summarized the measure and complied with A.R.S. § 19-125(D).
AFEC called the order a “major victory for Arizona school choice” and said, “Arizona voters deserve the truth.”
BREAKING NEWS: MAJOR VICTORY FOR ARIZONA SCHOOL CHOICE
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club has won at the trial court in our lawsuit challenging the misleading ballot language drafted for Proposition 212: the union-backed initiative targeting Arizona’s ESA program.
Mata wrote that the court’s review addressed the accuracy of the ballot language and left the policy merits of Proposition 212 to voters.
The version posted by the Secretary of State before the ruling states that Proposition 212 would limit ESA eligibility to families earning $150,000 or less per year, with specified exceptions; prohibit spending on noneducational and luxury items; impose qualifications on tutors; require accreditation or testing for participating schools; and generally return unspent annual ESA allocations to the state.
The full initiative also gives the sponsoring committee or its designee standing to initiate or intervene in litigation to enforce or defend the measure. Mata found that authority to be a substantial change that the ballot title or description must disclose. She found that the existing phrase “other rules and restrictions” failed to adequately inform voters about it.
Mata also found that the “yes” statement omitted a substantial change to two existing statutory limits on government control or supervision of nonpublic schools and homeschools. Proposition 212 would amend those provisions to permit control or supervision provided elsewhere in the ESA chapter for schools and homeschools receiving ESA funds. The court did not rule on the constitutionality of that proposed change.
The judge separately found the phrase “school voucher program” misleading. She cited Arizona decisions that invalidated two voucher programs and later upheld the ESA program under a different legal structure. Mata wrote that using the phrase could lead voters to treat the legally distinct programs as equivalent.
The court rejected one of AFEC’s arguments. The group argued that describing the $150,000 income limit as “adjusted for inflation” could mislead voters because the initiative caps the annual adjustment at the lower of 2% or the change in the gross domestic product price deflator. Mata found the existing wording provided appropriate information and held that omitting the precise formula was not misleading.
In a separate decision, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Daniel Martin also ordered changes Tuesday to a separate piece of voter information concerning Proposition 212. The judge directed the Arizona Legislative Council to revise its analysis for the publicity pamphlet by Aug. 21.
Martin found the Council’s statement that the initiative committee would have “the power to sue the families and private schools that participate in the program for any violations of the proposition” sufficiently partisan to violate state law. He ordered the Council to strike or revise the language by Aug. 21. The Council’s adopted three-page analysis is governed by a separate law requiring an impartial explanation for the publicity pamphlet.
Mata’s case concerned the shorter ballot title and “yes” and “no” statements prepared by the Secretary of State and approved by the Attorney General.
Proposition 212’s ballot qualification remains the subject of separate litigation over petition circulators and signatures. That case, Clark v. Fontes, is a Goldwater Institute and AFEC-backed challenge to the initiative’s petition circulators and signatures. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge David McDowell is expected to rule on the matter by the end of the week. The amended complaint seeks to prevent the initiative from appearing on the November ballot.
