What’s law got to do with it?

Water policy has emerged as a front-and-center issue in Arizona’s attorney general race, which sees incumbent Democrat Kris Mayes attempting to fend off a challenge from GOP Senate President Warren Petersen.

Mayes has touted her legal action against a Saudi-owned alfalfa farm depleting groundwater levels in La Paz County — the subject of a new ad — and led a prodigious press campaign about data centers and water use, appearing in the Washington Post, Politico and elsewhere.

Petersen, on the other hand, has attacked Mayes as an alarmist who wants to use a manufactured crisis to pick winners and losers in the marketplace.

As the Senate president, he’s also sued the state Department of Water Resources over its assured water supply program and criticized Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs’ development moratorium.

But Arizona’s attorney general is not actually its top water attorney, even as megadrought and legal conflict drive the ever-growing water lawyer job market.

The AG’s office is not, for example, directing the state’s current litigation against the federal government over Colorado River cuts. A spokesperson for the state Department of Water Resources noted that ADWR has the statutory authority to lead Colorado River litigation and hire both inside and outside counsel to do so, but added that the department has “been consulting with our colleagues at the Attorney General’s Office on the litigation and (we) appreciate their expertise and insight.”

The Attorney General’s Office, rather, is primarily a law enforcement office.

But an attorney general can still enforce state law in ways that protect water. Whether that’s appropriate — and legal — is the real water question in this race.

So, ahead of next week’s election, we thought we’d highlight what the two candidates have said about the state’s water woes.

“You can be a tech hub and not build data centers. Anybody who lives in Arizona — and this is why this issue polls the way it polls — knows that we don’t have the water for it.”

— Mayes, who has called for a “pause” on new data centers, speaking on Politico’s energy podcast earlier this week.

“If you like your tech and your phone and your computer and the stuff you can use that for, you probably think data centers are important … Data centers need to generate their own power. And there’s a water concern. And data centers again need to be responsible for their water, whether that means recycling it, or making sure that they have brought their own water supplies.”

— Petersen speaking during a debate in September.

“We have way, way too much grass in Arizona. We probably, frankly, and I’m sure the golf industry isn’t going to like it when I say this, we probably have too many golf courses in Arizona right now.”

— Mayes speaking to Politico this week.

“Kris Mayes thinks Arizona has too many golf courses. I think Arizona has too many radical politicians who believe government should dictate which industries get to thrive.”

— Petersen speaking to Fox News about Mayes’ comments.

“To send a message to the country that we are out of water was irresponsible.”

— Petersen speaking to Capitol scribe Howie Fischer about Hobbs’ development moratorium in 2023. At the time, Petersen, a real estate broker, also derided the state’s 100-year assured water supply program as “arbitrary.”

“It’s a wake-up call for all of us, not just in Maricopa County, but all throughout the state of Arizona … Does it mean no future growth for the state? Probably not. But it sure is a wake-up call, and it means we’ve got to get serious about conservation.”

— Mayes speaking about the moratorium to AZFamily’s Morgan Loew in 2023.

“If I need to sue the Trump administration over water ... I will absolutely be prepared to do something like that.”

— Petersen during a September debate between the candidates.

“We’re headed to a lawsuit. The Upper Basin states — frankly backed by the Trump administration — have said they’re basically going to decimate our water supplies down here.”

— Mayes speaking to Politico.

The governing board in charge of the massive canal that brings Colorado River water to central Arizona is joining a lawsuit against the federal government over planned cuts to Arizona’s water supply.

The Central Arizona Water Conservation District manages the Central Arizona Project canal. And on Tuesday, it moved to join Arizona and Nevada in suing the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation over its plan for the Colorado River for the next 10 years. Under the worst hydrologic scenarios, the federal government could issue cuts to Arizona’s share of Colorado River water that would essentially drive the CAP into the dirt.

CAP makes a largely similar case to Nevada and the state of Arizona — that the federal government’s cuts violate the collective body of law determining river allocations and sidestep administrative procedure rules.

Like Arizona (but unlike Nevada), CAP is asking a federal judge to retain the first two years of the new river plan and throw out the rest. Those first two years, the Lower Basin states hope, will be dictated by a shortage-sharing agreement between Arizona, California and Nevada that would bring less severe cuts. That deal has yet to be finalized.

The skin suit situation: While Turning Point-backed candidates have fared well in Arizona’s Republican primaries, the conservative group’s influence hasn’t translated into much general election success, the New Times’ Dante Dallago reports. Former Arizona GOP chair and outspoken Turning Point critic Gina Swoboda said Republican lawmakers wouldn’t donate to her failed secretary of state primary campaign against MAGA purist Alex Kolodin for fear of Turning Point retaliation. And she accused the group of caring more about controlling Republican candidates than winning elections.

Poll patrol: The Justice Department is sending federal election monitors to Arizona on Election Day, the Republic’s Stephanie Murray reports. At least two monitors are headed to Navajo County, and, as our sister newsletter, the Tucson Agenda, reported earlier this week, the feds are also sending monitors to Pima, Maricopa and Apache counties — the same three counties where DOJ monitors were stationed for the primaries.

Many devils in the details: Lawmakers are asking voters to designate drug cartels as terrorist organizations through Prop 317, but they also cut the budget of the Arizona Department of Homeland Security, which the measure would direct to do “everything within its authority” to address cartel threats, the Republic’s Helen Rummel reports. Most major drug cartels already have that designation under federal law, which Arizona follows. Another legislatively referred ballot measure, Prop 144, would require voters to show government-issued photo ID, but leaves it to lawmakers to figure out how that would work for mail-in ballots. If they do nothing, Arizonans could lose the ability to vote by mail altogether, Capitol scribe Howie Fischer reports.

Judged by the internet: A Maricopa County judge overseeing the Preston Lord murder case is the target of an online campaign to oust him in the judicial retention election, 12News’ Sean Rice reports. Judge Samuel Myers has strong performance reviews but has drawn criticism for refusing to revoke a defendant’s bond. Judge Jeffrey Rueter also has solid reviews, but faces online backlash over his sentencing of Laura Owens in a pregnancy fraud case involving former “Bachelor” star Clayton Echard.

The Agenda, on air: The Agenda team is hitting the airwaves ahead of Election Day. Hank went on KJZZ’s “The Show” to discuss his reporting on the major GOP donors who aren’t opening their wallets for Republican gubernatorial contender Andy Biggs’ campaign. The story also got a mention in Politico. TJ joined Fox10’s Trenton Hooker to break down the biggest races, spending and polling and, of course, to reminisce about Chickengate. And Joe from the Tucson Agenda will be on AZPM’s “The Press Room” today to talk about the midterms.

We’ve been so wrapped up in the political horrors of Tuesday’s approaching election that we nearly forgot Halloween is tomorrow.

Some state troopers, meanwhile, got an early Halloween surprise when they pulled over a driver who tried to sneak into the HOV lane by putting a “creepy mask over his passenger seat headrest,” the Highway Patrol wrote on Facebook.

The driver got a ticket, and troopers reminded motorists that “Halloween masks and creepy dolls (even if they’re haunted) do not count towards your car’s occupancy.”

It reminds us of some poorly aged advice from Republican Sen. Wendy Rogers, who suggested during a legislative debate about traffic fines this year that “you could buy a mannequin for less than $400” to avoid an HOV ticket.

Whether the concept of creepy masks or Rogers’ car mannequin scares you more, we hope you have a happy Halloween!