Realizing the need for drought preparedness in Arizona, a Governor’s Drought Task Force was created in 2003 and the Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan developed. The plan was adopted in 2004 and its continued implementation ordered in 2007. It established a framework to monitor drought, improve understanding of drought impacts, and determine mechanisms for limiting future vulnerability. The Arizona Department of Water Resources coordinates these activities and prepares the Arizona Drought Preparedness Annual Report each year.

The Arizona Department of Water Resources manages the state’s water supply. Water management includes a wide variety of activities that are intended to protect and preserve the water supply. Examples of these activities include licensing well drillers, assuring the safety of dams, and developing mandatory conservation requirements for all water use sectors in Active Management Areas, protecting the state’s Colorado River allocation and facilitating Indian water rights negotiations among tribal representatives, local interests, federal and state officials and members of Congress.

In March 2004, Governor Janet Napolitano issued Executive Order 2004-07 to create a plan to prepare the state for the significant changes that will occur with the increase in the state’s aging population during the next 15 years. The attached plan is the initial step towards ensuring that Arizona communities are good places for people of all ages to live with independence, purpose, and dignity. The approaches set forth provide a comprehensive set of strategies that state agencies propose to implement in the coming decade to address the changing demographics and ensure that Arizona is indeed ready for significant growth in its aging population.

In 2001, ADWR undertook a review of the Upper San Pedro Basin to determine if it met the statutory requirements for designation as an AMA. This report reviews the water supply and demand of the USP Basin in the context of the statutory criteria and includes a discussion of whether any of the criteria have been met. Previously, ADWR conducted a study of the USP Basin and issued a report in 1988 in which ADWR determined that the Basin did not meet the statutory criteria for AMA designation. ADWR indicated in the report that it would reassess conditions in the Basin in ten to fifteen years. The study described in this report is an evaluation of whether the conditions of the USP Basin satisfy the statutory criteria. This report contains a description of the current and projected water resources and water demand in the Basin, incorporating new information since the previous review. The report examines historic water use trends, evaluates the groundwater resources of the Basin, and projects impacts of future water use on Basin groundwater supplies. The report includes an evaluation of the incidence of subsidence or fissuring, and of the potential for groundwater quality degradation due to groundwater use. The report further describes and evaluates the impact that AMA practices would have on water use, and includes a summary of findings, the director’s determination of whether the Basin should be designated and recommendations.

Between May and July of 1996, members of the council were asked to participate in a series of interviews. The primary purpose of the interviews was to elicit council members' views of and expectations for Arizona's STW initiative. A second reason was to clarify the mission of the council itself. This paper highlights salient points from the interviews. Quotes are used verbatim.

In the spring of 1998, the Office of Workforce Development Policy (OWDP) of the Arizona Department of Commerce commissioned a statewide opinion poll to assess public attitudes toward the state’s plan for economic development as implemented through GSPED — the Governor’s Strategic Partnership for Economic Development. The poll was designed to assess both the public’s understanding of GSPED and their reactions to using the concept of industry clusters as a tool for organizing both economic and workforce development efforts.

One question posed by members of the Governors’ Council on Workforce Development Policy pertained
to whether polling results vary by urban versus rural residency. Specifically, the question was raised as to whether the responses of rural residents differ from those who live in urban areas. Therefore, at the request of the Council, results of the polling were analyzed in order to answer the question: Does urban versus rural residency affect respondents' answers? The answer to this question is, in short, No.