“What about the water?” was one of the questions Morrison Institute for Public Policy asked in its 2008 study, "Megapolitan: Arizona’s Sun Corridor". That report looked at the potential growth of the Sun Corridor as Tucson and Phoenix merge into one continuous area for economic and demographic purposes.

With its brief review of the water situation in urban Arizona, "Megapolitan" left a number of questions unanswered. This report will consider questions like these in more detail in order to examine the Sun Corridor’s water future. This topic has received less sophisticated public discussion than might be expected in a desert state. Arizona’s professional water managers feel they are relatively well prepared for the future and would like to be left alone to do their job. Elected officials and economic-development professionals have sometimes avoided discussing water for fear of reinforcing a negative view of Arizona. This report seeks to contribute to this understanding, and to a more open and informed conversation about the relationship of water and future growth.

Severe and widespread budget cuts in behavioral health and substance abuse services for lower-income Arizonans who don’t qualify for AHCCCS have already taken effect across the state. Even before these cuts were implemented, it was clear that the publicly-supported behavioral health system in our state was not adequately serving many Arizonans who needed mental health or substance use disorder treatment. This paper represents an effort by Arizona State University’s Centers for Applied Behavioral Health Policy and the Morrison Institute for Public Policy to promote and enrich Arizona’s public dialogue about these problems and potential solutions.

Arizona’s public behavioral health care system, which serves some 150,000 mentally ill and vulnerable state residents, is wrestling with a number of urgent challenges. In addition to budget cuts resulting from the current economic crisis, and the demands of a 28-year-old class-action lawsuit, the system has been repeatedly criticized in several areas, including for inadequate staff, data, housing support, and crisis services. On July 22, a panel of professionals who play key roles in the system discussed these and other issues before some 300 behavioral health providers, supervisors, and policymakers at the annual Summer Institute hosted by Arizona State University’s Center for Applied Behavioral Health Policy. This paper provides an abbreviated report of that discussion, which was partially designed and moderated by ASU’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy.

The Phoenix metropolitan area is known worldwide for the rapid and continuous expansion of its population, economy, and development of desert land. Even during recessionary periods, it has continued to grow. Leaders in other metropolitan areas envy this achievement and the many benefits it has created for Valley residents. But some members of our region, both leaders and lay people alike, consider the Valley’s phenomenal growth to be a mixed blessing. Indeed, they would say we are plagued by success. The purpose of this brief paper is to create a framework for discussion of how our region’s future growth can embody quality. It is not intended to be a comprehensive Morrison Institute for Public Policy treatment of the myriad issues of urban growth. Because of this paper’s brevity, some important details about growth are not included. Fortunately, detailed studies of the Valley’s growth have been done before (e.g., by Gruen Associates/Maricopa Association of Governments in 1975 and the Morrison Institute in 1988). Instead, this paper identifies key concepts and suggests questions to be used as a point of departure for steering a future course.

Believing that voters might support transit if they felt like an integral part of the transit proposal decision-making process, the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce's Valleywide Transit Task Force set out in early 1995 to initiate a bottom-up process which would enable people to say, "here's what we want." The Task Force agreed that the first step in the process was to initiate a new dialogue. the Morrison Institute for Public Policy was asked to write a briefing paper, which would re-invigorate the transit debate. The resulting report, "Transit in the Valley: Where Do We Go From Here?" painted a bleak picture of the Valley's existing transit system and challenged many long-held conventional wisdoms. The dialogue had begun. The report was then presented to the citizens of 17 Valley cities and towns for their consideration in 16 public meetings sponsored by cities and their local Chambers of Commerce. In community forums conducted between October 1996 and February 1997, more than 500 Valley residents discussed the Valley's transit future. This document summarizes the questionnaire responses by 501 people who attended the forums.

In the Valley, developing viable long-term transit from where we are currently will be very difficult if key
components continue to remain unaligned. Thus, before getting to the primary purpose of this report, it is important to first establish the players and basic considerations relevant to the effectiveness of a transit system.

Few would dispute that the Phoenix metropolitan area is severely lacking in terms of mass-transit compared to other similarly sized and configured cities. The Valley’s fleet of roughly 400 buses is about one-third of the service found in San Diego, Atlanta, and Seattle. In addition, most of Phoenix’ peer regions either already have, or are planning rail systems. Of the 30 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S., only six -- Phoenix included -- do not currently have or are not planning to add rail to their transit system.