Why Arizona hasn't cut off a Saudi-owned company that uses our water to feed cows overseas

The Saudis are using our groundwater to feed their cows, so why don’t we just cut them off?

A popular question, but it presumes that doing so would 1) be simple and 2) change our water outlook.

The answer is far more nuanced.

Aren't the Saudis exporting our water?

Some folks argue that Saudi-owned Fondomonte is sending vast amounts of water overseas via the alfalfa they grow in-state.

But less than 10% of all alfalfa grown in Arizona is exported, according to a recent University of Arizona analysis.

And a greater share of that small silver goes to China, not to Saudi Arabia.

If we were to cut off Fondomonte’s exports, that wouldn't change the state’s water outlook.

Because the majority of alfalfa grown in Arizona — and, by extension, the water used to grow it — already stays in state, eventually producing the milk and cheese we buy in local supermarkets.

Why not just cut them off anyway?

I know. Some folks say that not a drop of our water should go to foreign interests, if simply out of principle.

But short of passing knee-jerk legislation that bars companies with foreign investors from owning or leasing farmland in Arizona, the state can’t simply boot them from land they own.

In Fondomonte’s case, that would be 10,000 acres it purchased a decade ago near Vicksburg.

The company also leases state trust land, which is where officials seem more eager to get involved.

But even then, there are important distinctions to make.

Where could the state step in?

As the Washington Post recently reported, the governor’s office has begun making plans not to renew Fondomonte’s leases for 3,500 acres in Butler Valley, which expire in February.

This has real consequences for cities — not because the Saudis are involved but because water is still being pumped there at all.

Butler Valley is one of three groundwater transportation basins set aside in state law decades ago to one day serve thirsty users in metro Phoenix.

But it’s different from the other two transportation basins in that it has few residents, no small towns or industry and, except for Fondomonte, no farming.

In the 1990s, when lawmakers created the transportation basins, the idea was to minimize water use in Butler Valley to save it for cities that wanted to bolster their designated water supplies.

Why cut ties in Butler Valley?

It’s not like Fondomonte is sucking out the basin’s groundwater faster than any other lessee would.

The company reported to the state that it used 16,415 acre-feet of water in Butler Valley last year, which works out to about 5.6 acre-feet per acre.

That’s on par and in some cases less than what other farmers use to grow alfalfa in Arizona.

Fondomonte also claims that it uses 25% less water than the previous farm that leased this land, thanks to the irrigation improvements it made on site.

Granted, the state could be on the hook to repay about $11 million in reimbursable infrastructure that Fondomonte added if it decides not to lease the land to another farmer.

The State Land Department should explain why it approved so many improvements, knowing that the basin was supposed to be a reserve for cities and that farming there would one day cease.

But it’s also hard to justify renewing these leases for another 10 years, considering that cities are likely to come calling for water well before then.

It may be best to break ties and walk away.

Why is it different in Vicksburg?

It’s a far more complicated story for the 3,000 acres Fondomonte leases from the state closer to Vicksburg, which is not part of a transportation basin.

The issue there isn’t to save water for thirsty cities, but rather how to handle water problems that are cropping up after decades of heavy pumping.

It’s hard to say to what extent Fondomonte is contributing to that drawdown, particularly when other farmers in the area aren’t required to report how much water they use.

The governor also hasn’t said what, if anything, she’ll do with the company’s leases in this basin.

She certainly could decide not to renew them when they expire in 2031, though if the state permanently took the land out of rotation, it also could be on the hook for millions more in reimbursable improvements.

And even still, that alone wouldn’t fix the area’s problems, which like many others lack any regulation on groundwater use and have the dry wells to prove it.

Maybe beating up on Fondomonte wins more political points, but we’d be far better off in this basin to set reasonable ground rules on water use for all users, rather than singling out one to demonize.

Reach Allhands at joanna.allhands@arizonarepublic.com. On Twitter: @joannaallhands.

If you love this content (or love to hate it – hey, I won't judge), why not subscribe to get more?

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Why Arizona hasn't cut off a Saudi company's water use