>> Ted: Coming up on Arizona.

BS, on Arizona horizon, details on a more than one billion dollars water augmentation found signed into law.

On Cronkite news, backyard gardens to help food shortages.

>> Strome vice president make Pence endorsed Taylor robson.

Ducey appeared on CNN yesterday to reiterate support and further criticize Taylor-robson's opponent, Kari lake.

>> Her opponent, on the other hand, bears no resemblance to her personal interactions with me to anything she's done over the past 30 years and this is all an act.

She's been putting on a show for some time now and we'll see if the voters of Arizona buy it.

>> Ted: Lake today responded by saying Ducey and Pence were weak leaders and Rino's and if the former.

>> I think we will have options in the 2024 primary race.

I am hopeful we will have options and I want somebody who can win that general election because I believe with success in 2022, the general election is the republican party's for the taking.

>> Ted: Fauci plans to step done by the end of President Biden's current term and says the decision was his and his alone.

>> Obviously, you can't go on forever.

I want to pursue other aspects of my career and I'm not exactly sure when, but I don't see myself where I can't do anything else after that and that's the reason and nothing to do with pressures nothing to do with all of the other nonsense you hear about and that has no influence on me.

me.

>> Ted: FaArizona recently set aside more than one billion dollarsbilliondollars for a water augmentation fund and is designed to find ways to make water available to the state and Arizona and other states using Colorado river water will be facing those cutbacks we're joined by the Kyle center for water policy and Morrison institute and thanks for joining campus us.

1.2 billion over three years and what are your thoughts?

>> This was a remarkable, bipartisan effort and it is an achievement and Arizona is as an irrid state and we're an inflection point in terms of water challenges and so having the legislature and governor come together to fund these different pots of money to help make sure the communities have sufficient water and opportunities do do conser conservation, this is important.

>> Is the money guaranteed and can the next legislature monkey around with it.

>> It's my understanding, we will need future legislatures to fund the big pot of money to get up to a million dollars and a third was funded in this last session.

>> Ted: The focus is to find ways to make more water available, correct?

>> Yes, well, part of this bill also included $200 million in grant funding to fund conservation efforts and the bulk of the funding is for bringing in new water or developing new water supplies.

>> Ted: So things like off-shore, desalination, is that realistic?

>> Ocean desalination is realistic when we have the need for that water.

It's very expensive and so, it wouldn't be the first place that a water manager would go to find new water supplies.

>> Ted: What about new reservoirs?

>> Again, there could be -- I people, reservoirs are great and you need water and that's a bit of a challenge.

There's a concept for enlarge be one of the reservoirs on the Verder river, Bartlet dam and there's a sedimentation problem and the retiring horseshoe could be some additional water in the system.

>> Ted: Interesting.

We've heard about the concept of a pipeline, a water pipeline from the Mississippi all the way out to Arizona and, again, is that realistic?

>> I would say that there is no idea that is not realistic.

Every idea could happen.

Engineering is amazing, but when we look at any of these augmentation concepts, you have to start with the cost of the infrastructure.

Water is heavy and needs big serious infrastructure, so it would take a huge pipeline and then there's energy and it takes a lot of energy to move water and that pipeline would require a great deal of energy and the particular concept that you're talking about is for intermittent floodwaters.

We night not be ready to build a huge amount of infrastructure, but all of these concepts -- engineering is good for augmentation and the hard part is thinking through, OK, who will pay for that infrastructure and who will use that water.

>> Ted: It sounds like each idea, reservoirs and pipelined, it sounds like more than one billion dollars by itself.

>> Any one of these projects will be more than a billion dollars and there are less grand grandiose concepts that would cost less and rounding up the funding is what's important.

That's where the grants are helpful.

Within the larger cities, the larger municipal and private water provider, we tend to have very efficient, good working plumbing and pipes, but in the rural areas, it's harder for the systems to invest in keeping the systems up.

If they're losing that through leaking pipes, they'll fix that infrastructure first and worry about augmentation down the road.

>> Ted: How low is the fruit from conservation?

Is that enough for rainwater reuse and all of the ideas we hear about which sounds applicable now.

>> Conservation is usually the easy evident, quickest thing and then, it's a matter of striking a balance between how low do we want to go and how much do we want to invest in bringing more water into the system.

>> Ted: Before you go, what is the state of system?

Stick with the Colorado because it's a concern.

Lake Meade and Powell, what are they looking at and what are we looking at as far as cutbacks?

>> TheyThey're at all an all-time low and it flows from the -- it's been so hot and dry and we're getting average snow pack and very low in-flows because the snow is evaporating away and not making it to the systems and last month, the bureau of reclamation told those seven states that share that water that we have to find an additional two to four-million acre feed, the water that the system delivers to cut so we are at a very serious point on the Colorado river system.

>> Ted: Is Arizona going to tornado --will they be nice considering what the state has supplied?

>> I would say there's an understanding that Arizona has taken a big lead in conserving water.

Arizona has left 800 and that's a third of the allocation and recognition across the basin and this new cut is so unprecedented and we prioritize health and safety first and keeping cities functional.

The the manner in which the cuts will be made will be different from a pure priority system.

>> Ted: If we don't figure something out, the feds will, right?

>> That's what they told the senate committee in a recent hearing.

>> Ted: Always a pleasure, thank you.

Up next, encouraging news about a new screening for ovarian cancer.

>> Ovarian cancer is known as the sigh length killer because while early detection is key, there are few, if any, symptoms.

Scientists are developing a screening tool to aid in early detection and to learn more, we welcome the director of the U of A's bio five institute and good to have you here and thank you for joining us and this sound like it's encouraging news and is it?

>> That's right.

Beer tryingWe're trying to come up with a way that women have ovarian cancer prior to the symptoms because by the time we have it, it's advanced and difficult to cure.

>> Ted: Ovarian cancer, how common is it and how much are things like genomics genetics involved?

>> It's the biggest killer because it's caught late and so deadly, so genetics such as mutations in the braca gene can be responsible for risk factors and the majority of women have no known genetic risk.

>> Ted: How is ovarian cancer detected?

>> It's just done by the onset of symptoms and at that point in time, generally, it's very advanced.

If a woman knows she's at risk, she can go in for something like an ultrasound exam and also just the annual pelvic exam can help and these have not been found to detect cancer early.

>> Ted: Early detection is important in every cancer and how important in ovarian cancer?

>> It's been determined to usually start in the Fallopian tubes and stays there at some point for reasons we don't understand.

It can break off and go to the ovary and elsewhere and metastasize and we want to find it in the Fallopian tubes.

>> Ted: With that, we come to the research and new screening, the falopascope.

>> There are ways we look at the cervix and we can look at the Fallopian tubes and look for signs of ovarian cancer and it's a challenge and the Fallopian tubes are one millimeter in diameter and a few human hairs.

>> Ted: How is this done?

I would imagine engineering and video and advanced to the point this is possible?

>> That's right.

This is something we coneven havecouldn'thave even thought about ten years ago and laser systems and better and better cameras, we can now build an endoscope that's .8-millimeters in diameter and that's tiny and contains the information we need to transmit light into the body and to take images back.

And so, when we put that into the Fallopian tubes, we can look around.

Cancershave different signature and that's what we're looking for.

>> Ted: That sounds encouraging and there's a pilot study for this?

>> We have nonsignificant risk, which means that we could go ahead and test out our device and some volunteers and these are women goes in and that's the first group.

Next up is the study where we'll look at women who are at high risk for ovarian cancer and looking for signs in their Fallopian tubes.

>> Ted: The original group you were talking about, even if they don't have ovarian cancer and maybe not at high risk, just to see what normal look like and that's a part of the study?

>> That's right.

People vary a lot from person-to-person and that's one of the hard parts about building a new medical device.

You have to understand what's normal, understand the optical signature of the tissue and you know anything that doesn't fall within that realm of normal and teadeserves a better look.

>> Ted: Has it started yet?

>> Nine wonderful volunteers and great success and have learned a lot of things about what you need to make a medical device to be successful and do this rapidly.

This is something do in a doctor's office in less than 30 minutes.

We've learned a lot about that and we are continuing and we'll test a total of 20 patients in the first study.

>> Ted: Give us a time table and an idea of when something like this might be available to the general public.

>> The first study will be complete within the next year and then we'll go onto the study of patients who are at high risk for ovarian cancer so that we can determine and ensure that we can see the signs of ar and more abnormality.

>> Ted: I understand you have been working on this for 15 years.

Is that true?

>> It's been a long time and what we had to wait for, for the understanding of the biology of ovarian cancer.

Everybody thought it started in the ovaries and we had to wait for technology to build a device to go so the Fallopian tubes.

It's been a long road but we're getting there.

>> Ted: Very uplifting for you.

>> So exciting and I give a huge thanks to the volunteers who helped us along the way.

>> Ted: Jennifer barton, best of luck.

Thank you.

>> Thank you very much.

>> Ted: The pulitzer prize and official accounts from U.S.-lead airstrikes in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan and joining us is journalist and professor after Arizona school of politics and global studies and good to have you and thank you for joining us.

Your reaction to the reward.

>> Thank you.

It was incredibly exciting.

The years of reporting recognized with the highest honor of journalism and also, I know that it meant a great deal to the survivors, to family members and people who have lost loved ones, to see their stories heard and recognized.

When it's hard to break through and hear those accounts amidst all we've been told about precision warfare.

>> Ted: What started this?

Maybe these civil accounts withinwantthey seemed?

>> Shift towards airstrikes and this was during the escalation of the war against ISIS, when we were seeing these tens of thousands of American airstrikes in Iraq and Syria and that we've killed 25,000 ISIS fighters and at the same time one though, know, I've been following what they've been saying about the casualties and a little more than two dozen and those numbers did not add up.

They would be impossible and, yet, they were going unchecked.

What can I do?

Can I get on the ground to look at these and do a sample in Iraq or in Syria and see how many strikes are killing civilians?

The first time I thought to do that, it took me 18 months, where I went door to door for this investigation and I found that one in five U.S. airstrikes was resulting in civilian death, a rate that was 31 times higher, 31 times higher than what our military was claiming.

I dug into those deeply.

>> Ted: Were they saying faulty targeting or maybe that the intelligence was wrong and how are they responding saying two plus two is not equaling four here?

>> You know, originally, they have characterized them as unique, as uncommon and tragic errors and what we were finding is a pattern of impunity of these claims of accountable and case after case of flawed intelligence and imprecise targeting and confirmation biased and seeing something ordinary and perceiving this as threaten.

Maybe the best known example is what we saw with the Kabul strike.

Aid workers and brought water into his car and believed to be a terrorist and moving weapon's explosives when it was water, canisters of water.

I saw that again and again in documents, where men riding on motorcycles, in the formation of an ISIS terrorist cell turned out to be guys on motor bikes and that intelligence errors.

You know, when I brought those finds to the military to say what you characterized as a system of accountability, we see this as a system of impunity and they tried to push back and I obtained more than 5,400 pages through a lawsuit.

And to get its own records, I think this is difficult to come back from that and, you toe, know, I've been visiting as many sites on the ground and I went through one hundred incidents in Iraq and Syria and presented those findings.

The spokesperson for the department of defense came forward to say this was important reporting and they congratulated us for our reporting that one the Pulitzer and there were hard lessons learned and important ones.

>> Ted: Did you know what those hard lessons might be or are you keeping those quiet.

>> I talked to officials that this is creating a means for recognizing that they did not apply lessons learned.

In these documents that were publically told, we have the most advanced system of accountability and trying to learn from our miss tables.

mistakes.

I heard that again and again and you would find patterns of errors and you know, this systematic failures with very few lessons learned and to study them and to take away from them.

The U.S. military has -- the secretary of defense started a center for excellence to study this and a casualty policy to be created that's been years in the making.

But I don't know, we would have to see the results of what is put into place.

I've seen similar claims before in the past when I previously reported on this and it really requires, you know, commitment by the press and many others who really, think, for years has been, you know, exposing the gap between what we're being told and the reality on the ground.

>> And last question here, and we thank you for your time and relatively quickly, how did all of this affect you personally?

>> You know, it means a lot to be able to talk to people who have experienced -- who have had their families torn apart.

You think this creates a respect for the world.

>> It sounds like you care and congratulations on the Pulitzer prize there and changes it's bringing about.

Thank you.

We appreciate it.

>> Thank you.

Bet.

>> Ted: Thank you so much for joining us and you have a great evening.

Coming up in the next half hour on Arizona PBS, how the acrobatic involved in equestrian vaulting is bringing people together.