This report details geothermal resource exploration done for Arizona Public Service and the U.S. Department of Energy in 2005 to evaluate the geothermal resources of the Clifton Hot Springs area in Greenlee County, eastern Arizona for electric power production. The intent of the evaluation was to determine the local geologic controls of the geothermal system and, using publicly available data and original mapping performed for this project, to recommend locations for Controlled Source Audiomagnetotelluric (CSAMT) cross sections. The results of the geophysics were then combined with the geologic mapping to site three gradient holes, two of which were drilled to depths of 635 feet and 1,000 feet, respectively.

For a century, Arizona has pursued prosperity through outward expansion of its urban areas. In metropolitan Phoenix and elsewhere, “growth” has meant developing raw land with new houses, new shopping centers, and new industrial parks--and the metropolitan “frontier” has moved farther outward from downtown every year. This has not been uniformly true, of course. Some cities--Phoenix, Tempe, and Scottsdale especially--have been grappling with the question of revitalizing older urban neighborhoods for many years. But the “outside game” has been the predominant development pattern in the Valley of Sun for many decades. And the Phoenix region has played this game better than one might think, creating many high-quality master-planned communities, protecting lots of open space, using impact fees to build good infrastructure. In other words, Phoenix has used the “outside game” to create a region so attractive it continues to be one of the fastest-growing metropolises in America. But in order for cities to play a good inside game, Arizona must get serious about urban revitalization. And that will require big changes.

In the early 1990s, the criminal justice debate in America was dominated by phrases like “three strikes and you’re out,” “juveniles who commit adult crime should serve adult time,” and “lock ’em up and throw away the key.” In the latter half of the 1990s, however, the dialogue has shifted. Recognizing the enormous social and capital costs associated with locking people up and “throwing away the key,” many – including some of the strongest get-tough-on-crime advocates just a few years ago – have turned to a different concept: prevention.

Many of the influential voices in Greater Phoenix have come to believe in the power of prevention. In late 1996, a diverse coalition of local leadership from the business community, law enforcement, city and county government, academia, and the court system came together to create the Phoenix Violence Prevention Initiative.

It is an oversimplification to describe the new economy as a technology revolution, something that is mostly driven by and affects business. Clearly, new technologies and business practices are central to the concept of a new economy. However, that’s the easy part to understand. The bigger challenge is to grasp—and then develop strategies to take advantage of—how public policies in the new economy can most positively affect people and places. This report is meant to help Arizonans do just that.

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.

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 spring 1998, 1,057 10th-grade students were surveyed as one component of a statewide evaluation of Arizona's school-to-work system designed by the Morrison Institute for Public Policy. This second survey measured attitudes toward and participation in career activities. Results were compared to baseline data collected from over 2,000 10th-grade students in 1997. Data indicated that, in both years, nearly all students had at least an idea of their career area of interest; gender differences were observed in students' selections of career interests. Student participation in activities increased. Statistically significant differences in participation by sex were evident: more girls reported learning about careers in class and participating in volunteer activities; and more boys participated in internships with pay, worked for pay in a job unrelated to their careers, and had business mentors. The share of students who had selected a career interest increased as participation rose. All 14 activities were at least "somewhat" helpful to students in making career selections. In both years, students ranked family, teachers, and friends most highly as influencing career interests. One-fourth of students in 1998 compared to one-third of students in 1997 indicated they never received career guidance at school. Less than one-half of students were aware of courses related to career interests; even fewer actually took a course related to their interests.

One component of a multi-faceted evaluation of the state's STW initiative involves surveying tenth grade students. Thus, the survey was designed to assess the extent to which Arizona tenth grade students have selected career majors, planned a course of study for high school and beyond, and received adult guidance related to careers. As part of the evaluation, the intent was to look at the extent to which career preparation and work experiences truly are system-wide and impact students. In contrast, the purpose was not to evaluate whether STW program participants are receiving school-based learning components.