Are fish supposed to be in the canals around Phoenix? Yes, they're actually working
One thing that might surprise people who don't live here is that there is running water all around in metro Phoenix. The Salt River Project, or SRP, manages more than 130 miles of water canals that run throughout the Valley, ensuring residents have water to use in their day-to-day lives.
Not only does this water help people live in the desert, but it also employs a very important contributor to the community: the white amur fish. Now, you might not immediately think of fish as being important to living in the desert, but this specific kind of grass carp plays a key role in ensuring the water flows smoothly throughout the canals.
Since the canals are surrounded by a major metropolitan area, they tend to end up with some blown-in debris and garbage from city life. This led one of our listeners to ask if it's safe for the fish to be in the canals, and who takes care of the trash that finds its way into them.
This week on Valley 101, a podcast by The Arizona Republic and azcentral.com, we hear from a senior environmental scientist from SRP who explains the important job the white amur fish does for metro Phoenix.
Click here for the map of the canal dry-up schedule.
Listen to Valley 101 on your favorite podcast app or stream the full episode below.
Submit your questions to us about metro Phoenix and Arizona for a chance to be chosen for the podcast.
Note: Valley 101 is intended to be heard, but we offer an AI transcript of the episode script. There may be slight deviations from the podcast audio.
Subscribe to Valley 101 : Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Stitcher
Follow Valley 101 and all azcentral podcasts on X, formerly Twitter, and on Instagram.
Reach the reporter Amanda Luberto at aluberto@gannett.com. Follow her on X, formerly Twitter: @amandaluberto.
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Carp fish help keep the canals in Phoenix running smoothly
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Why are some shoppers boycotting Walmart this week?
Another weeklong Walmart boycott is set to start Tuesday and will continue through Memorial Day. The company has been facing backlash since rolling back DEI programs in the past year but grassroots advocacy group The People's Union USA, which is led by John Schwarz and organized the first Walmart blackout in early April as well as this second one, told The Arizona Republic the actions of The People's Union USA are not directly tied to companies' DEI stances. "The mission of The People's Union USA is to hold corporations and corrupt systems accountable, not with violence or empty promises, but with the one thing that actually affects them, the money we spend," Schwarz said to The Arizona Republic via email. Here's what New York shoppers should know. The weeklong Walmart boycott begins Tuesday, May 20, and runs through Monday, May 26. While specific details haven't been released about this boycott, April's boycott included the chain's stores, online platforms, and Sam's Club, Walmart's membership-only warehouse. There are 82 Walmart Supercenters in the Empire State, according to the chain's website, as well as 16 discount stores and one neighborhood market. 100 Elmridge Center Drive in Greece 3800 Dewey Ave. in Greece 1490 Hudson Ave. in Rochester 2150 Chili Ave. in Gates 1200 Marketplace Drive in Henrietta 441 Commerce Drive in Victor 1990 Brandt Point Drive in Webster There are 12 Sam's Club warehouses across New York, according to Walmart's website. What to know: Why are some shoppers boycotting Walmart this week? The People's Union USA has more consumer boycotts through July. Here's the schedule: Target: June 3-9 McDonald's: June 24-30 Independence Day boycott: July 4 Contributing: The Arizona Republic reporter Reia Li Emily Barnes on consumer-related issues for the USA TODAY Network's New York Connect Team, focusing on scam and recall-related topics. Follow her on X and Instagram @byemilybarnes. Get in touch at ebarnes@ This article originally appeared on Rochester Democrat and Chronicle: Walmart boycott: What shoppers should know
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Yahoo
The First Amendment's 5 freedoms to be focus of Arizona Republic reporter's work
The first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights, written at the dawn of our republic to guard against government overreach. Two famous presidents put them into perspective in letters to each other. "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth," Thomas Jefferson said in 1787, in correspondence with James Madison. "Among the advocates for the Constitution, there are some who wish for further guards to public liberty and individual rights," Madison wrote back in 1788. First Amendment issues are in the national spotlight now, and The Arizona Republic and are going to shine a spotlight on all five of its freedoms, each of which protects the individual. Taylor Seely, who has covered Phoenix and several other local cities with skill and passion in her almost eight years with The Republic, is now our First Amendment reporter. She will work to highlight and explain issues related to the First Amendment and examine the impact on Arizonans and their daily lives, countering disinformation with facts, and producing compelling journalism on what can seem like abstract concepts. She'll reach out to the community, too, helping to foster First Amendment conversations. "First Amendment rights affect your daily life, whether you realize it or not. It's my job to show you how. Ultimately, I want to help people be more attuned and sensitive to their rights — to make them more aware of what the First Amendment guarantees to everyone in this country and when those rights are being infringed," Seely said. She joins four other First Amendment reporters in the USA TODAY Network, at The Indianapolis Star, The Tallahassee Democrat, The Tennessean in Nashville and USA TODAY. These positions are made possible by support from the Freedom Forum's Local Press Initiative and Journalism Funding Partners, a nonprofit that works to increase the depth, diversity and sustainability of local journalism. The First Amendment protects freedom of religious belief, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and freedom to petition the government to set right what you consider its wrongs. The founders' concerns sound very modern almost 240 years later. They wanted to ensure checks and balances on the power of each branch of government. Madison worried about the tyranny of the majority and how to protect the rights of those with different views. "I need people to be my eyes and ears on the ground. I need you to keep me up to date with what you're noticing and questioning," Seely said. "What's keeping you up at night? Email, call or text me, and help me defend the public's right to know. I'll be sure to sound the alarm if your freedoms are being threatened." Look for Seely's work on First Amendment issues beginning June 2 on in the print Arizona Republic and on our social platforms, including Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, X and Threads. You, too, can play a vital role in supporting local journalism that you and your community can trust. News alerts in your inbox: Don't miss the important news of the day. Sign up for azcentral newsletter alerts to be in the know. Over the course of a year, The Republic staff covers the big news events in depth but also reports on compelling topics rarely covered by other journalists. We provide essential information for our readers to live their best lives, with information on dining and entertainment, travel and sports. Please consider signing up for an subscription. If you have a subscription, please consider renewing it. Kathy Tulumello is the news director of The Arizona Republic. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Arizona Republic reporter Taylor Seely to focus on First Amendment
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Yahoo
Fountain Hills Town Council members retaliate against local newspaper for its reporting
Fountain Hills Town Councilman Rick Watts felt insulted. He'd spent three hours at a public meeting discussing the town's budget and fire department needs in painstaking detail. Then, he read a news article the next day and saw a headline that, in his view, overly simplified the meeting. "Fountain Hills Town Council defers fire department budget plan," the headline read. It wasn't inaccurate. The town's fire chief had wanted more money to promote a few people. Those promotions would support a regional "automatic aid" program the town was applying for. If approved, Fountain Hills would be part of a regional network so that when a customer called, the nearest municipal fire department responds, regardless of town boundaries. The council approved the funding but delayed its start to January to reduce the cost in the current fiscal year. The problem with the headline, Watts said in an interview with The Arizona Republic, was it could "sound more egregious than it is." He didn't offer up an alternative, he just said it should have better represented the complexity of the discussion. Beyond the headline, the article from the Fountain Hill Times Independent did have an error: it reported that the promotions were required for the application. But they weren't. The error frustrated Watts. It also irritated Vice Mayor Hannah Larrabee, who had a growing list of grievances with the paper since she took office two and a half years earlier. So they decided to do something about it. As Larrabee put it, in an interview with The Republic, they decided to "send a message." That message has since raised eyebrows among First Amendment experts and advocates, who said the retaliation was "improper" and "disrespectful" to free speech and free press freedoms. Watts and Larrabee fired off emails to town staff in mid-April. They requested staff remove the desk at the back of the meeting room designated for reporters. They didn't dance around their motive. "Frankly, I am fed up with the Times partisan reporting and think it is time to remove the corner 'reporters' table," Watts wrote in an email to Town Manager Rachael Goodwin. "I do not wish to further encourage unbalanced reporting, and believe it is best if the Times Independent sits with the audience to allow for more chairs in that corner, making more room for the public," Larrabee wrote. In their letters, they elaborated on their frustration of "melodramatic" headlines, one-sided stories and being misquoted. They did not request to ban reporters. Having journalists sit among the audience wasn't a novel concept; most City Hall reporters in the Valley are not accommodated with designated tables. But the request upended a tradition that was in place for decades. Some town staff couldn't remember a time when there wasn't a press table. But by the end of the month, it was gone. Not all councilmembers were clued into the change — there was no vote on it. When Councilmember Brenda Kalivianakis found out, she was furious. Watts and Larrabee were frustrated with the paper's error because they said it left readers with the impression that by deferring fire department funding, the council was willing to jeopardize the application for the program and, by extension, the community's safety. They were bombarded with accusations that the council didn't care about the fire department, they said. Watts said people should have been informed of the lengthy back and forth and deep consideration the council gave the issue. Yes, the council deferred funding. But in doing so, they had also approved new funding that didn't previously exist. The councilmembers' grievance was largely an issue of framing — the concept referring to how a reporter writes a story and which information is emphasized. Despite their frustration, neither Watts nor Larrabee requested corrections. They said they believed it would fall on deaf ears, though both acknowledged they had never been explicitly denied a correction from the paper. Watts, who took office in January, said he had never requested a correction. He was skeptical of reaching out because "the sentiment in town right now is that it's a very liberal paper, since it has new ownership. That, I have no basis for, other than hearsay." The Fountain Hills Times was purchased by Independent Newsmedia, Inc. USA in 2023 and became the Fountain Hills Times Independent. Through the changeover, all newsroom leadership and advertising staff remained, Managing Editor Ryan Winslett told The Republic. Watts also didn't like how the paper covered his campaign. There weren't inaccuracies, he said, "but not everything was included." Larrabee had made one correction request in the past. The paper said she worked for Turning Point USA, but actually she worked for the affiliated political action committee, Turning Point Action. The paper promptly corrected the article, which Larrabee acknowledged. But she had also requested a phone call to discuss opinion columns that mentioned her and which she wanted to respond to. She never got that call, she said. "That's what makes it a little bit difficult to talk about, because it's like, 'OK. He said you work for TPUSA and you work for TP Action. Who cares, right?' But it's like, I have 100 different little tiny instances," Larrabee said. The removal hasn't changed much for the paper, whose reporter still attends and covers meetings. "It's easier to take notes and manage documents during a busy meeting with a table, but its removal will have no real impact," Winslett said. The paper strives to be "accurate, thorough and down the middle in all of our reporting," he said. Fountain Hills Times Independent also follows a policy to "promptly correct all factual errors" upon notification, and offers a "right to reply" to anyone whom the paper writes about. "That fact is stated in every print edition of our paper," Winslett said. To Larrabee's claim of an unreturned call, Winslett said he didn't recall the request, "but I have always made myself available for such things." "But whether we're talking about two years ago or more recently, I can't address a perceived grievance if I'm not notified about it in the first place," he said. Kalivianakis asked about the table's removal at a meeting in early May. Goodwin informed her of the request from the councilmembers as well as Mayor Gerry Friedel. She was stunned, and asked why the change was made without a council vote. Goodwin did not explain, and neither she nor the town's communications manager responded to that specific question from The Republic. The mayor also did not respond to The Republic's repeated requests for comment. Kalivianakis was outraged. The local paper was a staple in the community and its reporter, she said, ate, shopped, worked and worshipped among them. This wasn't some agenda-driven outsider, she said. She wrote a column in the Fountain Hills Times Independent on May 28 blasting the decision. "This incident highlights disregard for transparency by our local officials. Punitive measures are meant to control, influence and silence news coverage and criticism by concerned private citizens," she wrote. She argued the table removal was retaliation. "Retaliation inherently has a chilling effect, making journalists and citizens hesitant to investigate controversial topics or criticize those in power. If journalists are reluctant to report on sensitive topics, the people regrettably pay the price," Kalvianakis wrote. Free press advocates and First Amendment experts likewise expressed concern. "Local governments don't have to roll out the red carpet for reporters. A physically designated space also isn't required for Arizona local journalists to do their jobs," said Chris Kline, President and CEO of the Arizona Media Association and Arizona Local News Foundation. "But small actions like this can send a big message, and when that message is frustration with coverage, it risks eroding openness in government.' Marc Randazza, the attorney who successfully represented the right-wing Gateway Pundit website in its lawsuit against Maricopa County after officials barred a writer from the outlet from attending an on-site election news conference, said, "When government acts this way, it obviously has something to hide. And even if all it has to hide is a lack of respect for the First Amendment, it needs to be called out." Gregg Leslie, executive director of Arizona State University's First Amendment Clinic, called the move "improper." "The government should not retaliate against people based on their viewpoint, their speech," Leslie said. "That is one of the grounds to sue for a civil rights violation." The table removal was not necessarily a violation of free press rights though, Leslie acknowledged. The town is under no legal obligation to provide a table for reporters. Watts and Larrabee both stressed this point, saying they had no intention to ever ban the press and, in fact, hoped for more reporters to provide the public a variety of perspectives. "I'm talking to you, aren't I?" Larrabee responded when The Republic asked about concerns of a chilling effect. The Republic asked these questions as part of a nationwide effort to put a spotlight on First Amendment issues. That three-year project, which includes reporters at The Republic, the Indianapolis Star, the Tallahassee Press Democrat, The Tennessean in Nashville and USA TODAY, is funded by the Freedom Forum's Local Press Initiative and Journalism Funding Partners, a nonprofit that works to increase the depth, diversity and sustainability of local journalism. Larrabee and Watts didn't shy away from the fact they hoped the decision would alter the paper's coverage. "It was simply to send a message of, 'Hey, if you start reporting honestly, then maybe we'll have a different situation," Larrabee said. "I don't care if they have a liberal lens. I really don't. But at least report it honestly." Leslie said more elected officials have wanted to clamp down on the press since the proliferation of online blogs that don't strive for objective reporting. "It leads to people saying, 'Well, I shouldn't have to put up with that,'" Leslie said. But the sentiment is wrong, he said. "I think we need to educate elected officials that yes, you should put up with a lot of criticism, even if you feel it's improper. Because people have a right to their opinions," Leslie told The Republic. Fountain Hills' fire chief did ultimately request a correction on the fire budget article. Winslett said they reviewed the request and made the change immediately. An editor's note was added to the bottom of the article, notifying readers. The paper doesn't plan to respond to the removal of the press table, which Winslett said its reporter had used for 20 years. "We will simply continue to cover the community's news, just as we have for more than 50 years," Winslett said. Taylor Seely is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at The Arizona Republic / Do you have a story about the government infringing on your First Amendment rights? Reach her at tseely@ or by phone at 480-476-6116. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Fountain Hills Town Council retaliates against newspaper over coverage
