It’s been a while since I’ve written in the Water, Water, Water thread because of the political situation, but Arizona potentially poses an interesting political question. First, let’s set the table:
As the Colorado River shrinks and a Southwest “megadrought” drags on, water is top-of-mind in this sun-seared state. Cities are bracing for cutbacks. Farmers are letting fields go fallow. Neighborhoods are revolting against data center projects they say will hog resources.
And politicians are talking about water like never before. The traditionally wonky topic has become a major issue in midterm races, showcasing just how concerned the public is about the Southwest’s water future.
Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) and her allies are spending millions on ads saying she will “fight to ensure Arizona’s water is for Arizonans.” Her challenger, Rep. Andy Biggs (R), has blasted Hobbs’s handling of Colorado River negotiations and discussed the merits of “desal” — short for desalination — from the debate stage. Mayes, the attorney general, has mentioned water in almost all of her ads this election cycle and plans to focus on it in her closing spot this week. [WaPo]
So let’s say the worst case scenario occurs, the drought continues, corporate America is successful in plundering the water under the surface for its data center or other ventures, farms fail and food transport becomes more and more expensive.
And the heat of climate change becomes unbearable.
People stream out of the State until it becomes depopulated.
So … at what stage does a State transition back to territory? Would it be merged into a neighboring State? Abandoned, which may be a hoary old American tradition?
Or would the political positions, two Senators and a mandatory single Representative, become valuable targets of the Parties? Would the Parties pay Arizona citizens to stay so they can vote on these valuable prizes, an income stream for the eternally heat-stroked?
Preparation will be all-important.
