Although not Federally listed as threatened or endangered, the roundtail chub, also a sportfish in Arizona, is nearly extirpated from sections of the Verde and Salt river drainages. The purpose of this investigation, from March 1998 through March 2000, was to describe ecological requirements and population dynamics of roundtail chub. The objectives were to describe species composition, distribution and abundance, quantify habitat selection by different life stages, estimate population size, quantify movement and age and growth, and describe the reproductive capacity of roundtail chub.

Apache trout is a federally threatened salmonid native to headwaters of the Little Colorado, Black, and White rivers in east-central Arizona. Decline of Apache trout to threatened status was attributed to over-fishing, habitat degradation and negative interactions (predation, competition and hybridization) with introduced nonnative salmonids. Although over-fishing is no longer considered a threat, habitat degradation and negative interactions with nonnative salmonids continue to threaten Apache trout, and it is towards these threats that recovery actions are directed. While barrier construction began in 1979 and livestock exclusion began in the mid-1980s, the efficacy of these recovery actions at increasing Apache trout abundance and improving habitat condition had not been evaluated. We therefore initiated a study to evaluate the efficacy of riparian fencing and barriers.

The goal of our study was to develop information to help manage aquatic plants in Arizona’s reservoirs to benefit sport fish management activities and angler access. To attain this goal we surveyed aquatic plants in reservoirs throughout Arizona and evaluated if the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s aquatic weed harvesting program was benefiting the fisheries program. Aquatic plant harvesting is probably a worthwhile endeavor to improve angler access and keep our angling customers satisfied. However, we strongly recommend that more effective decontamination procedures be implemented to limit the spread of invasive species

Co-chairman Bill Post and other members of the Citizens’ Finance Review Commission have identified Arizona’s management of its federal funds as an issue for consideration. To assist the Commission with its deliberations, the co-chairman asked Arizona State University to develop a very brief “think piece” on this matter. As requested, this document intentionally provides only the most basic information on this complex subject. Its primary purpose is to frame the issue for discussion by the Commission and to list alternative ways the state could better manage its substantial grant activity with the federal government each year.

State trust lands are among the greatest public assets in Arizona’s portfolio. Set aside at statehood, the Arizona State Land Department manages more than 9 million acres of trust lands on behalf of 14 beneficiaries. The largest of which by far is Arizona Public Education K through 12.The mission of the Land Department is to maximize revenues from these trust lands. In FY 2005, state trust lands generated $115 million for all beneficiaries, of which $101 million was designated to support public K-12 schools.These amounts are increasing rapidly as more state trust land becomes attractive for development in Arizona’s urban areas.

The parcel discussed in this report, “Superstition Vistas,” stands out as the jewel among Arizona’s trust lands. Not only is it situated in the path of metro Phoenix growth, but it also borders thousands of acres of public land managed by the Tonto National Forest and U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Estimates of its total value run well into the billions of dollars.

"The Treasure of the Superstitions" sets the stage for a continuing dialogue about the potential for Superstition Vistas, and indeed, all of Arizona’s trust lands. We look forward to listening to and working with our beneficiaries, citizens, counties, municipalities, real estate businesses, and other interested parties to make the most of Arizona’s “treasure.”

Since statehood in 1912, Arizona has been among the nation’s leaders in using the initiative process to either adopt a statute or amend the state constitution by placing a measure on the ballot. But such efforts are anything but easy. In fact, organizers have found it to be an expensive, time-consuming and exhausting process – and one that is unlikely to end successfully.

The author writes about Arizona's longstanding belief in direct democracy via referendum, initiative and recall. The Legislature continues to grapple with election reform and strike a balance of how much binding authority should remain in the hands of voters in terms of initiative, referendum and recall, but Arizona’s penchant for people power has been demonstrated since before statehood. In the midst of his campaign for Congress in 1911, for example, Arizona’s Carl Hayden noted that everywhere he went he found voters eager to take control. "The people want their own kind of government,” Hayden told reporters. “They want to be the dictators.”

Dark money. The name itself carries ominous undertones, undertones that critics of this relatively new campaign-finance phenomenon claim reflect a genuine threat to democracy. Its defenders, on the other hand, argue that the dark money approach to funding political campaigns is merely an extension of Americans’ basic right to free speech. In other words, the issues at hand could hardly be more profound.

Report takes a look at the pros and cons of three propositions that will be on the November 2014 ballot.
* Prop 122: a constitutional amendment to allow the Legislature to ignore any federal law or action they think is unconstitutional.
* Prop 304: would increase legislator's salaries to $35,000/year.
* Prop 303: would permit a manufacturer to give or sell investigational drugs, biological products, and medical devices to terminally ill patients even though the FDA has not cleared them for general use.

Arizona is emerging from one of the worst state budget crises in the nation. Entering 2003, its projected deficit, measured as a percentage of the general fund, was the fifth largest in the country.1 The state had slashed spending in 2002 in the face of a $900 million deficit, but still faced a $400 million shortfall for fiscal year 2003 and an estimated $1 billion deficit in fiscal 2004. Although improved revenues have reduced the anticipated gap, fundamental underlying problems remain concerning the ability of lawmakers to control the budget. Some observers consider this a revenue problem, others a spending problem. Our concern in this paper is whether state lawmakers have enough control over either revenue or spending.