ÃÛÌÒÓ°ÏñAV

The lawsuit filed Wednesday claims that Fondomonte LLC, the Arizona subsidiary of the company, has created a “public nuisance� by pumping so much water it has dried up nearby wells and resulted in subsidence of the land around Vicksburg in La Paz County. It also says the damage is threatening sediment buildup that reduces water quality and damages appliances, pumps and pipes.

None of that pumping violates state water laws, Mayes acknowledged.

Portions of the state are within “active management areas’’ where pumping of groundwater is regulated. Pumping pretty much everywhere else — including where Fondomonte operates — is ungoverned.

Discussions at the state Capitol about imposing new rules on these areas have broken down. Mayes blames the problem here on “legislative failure to address a water crisis with catastrophic effects on the groundwater level in the Ranegras Basin’’ of La Paz County.

She said that’s the reason Fondomonte came here to grow alfalfa to feed dairy cattle in Saudi Arabia, where such farming is banned.

“Fondomonte is taking advantage of Arizona’s failure to protect its precious groundwater resources,’’ Mayes said.

Mayes wants a Maricopa County judge to rule that Fondomonte’s pumping violates the “public nuisance’’ provision of the state criminal code.

“Dangerous precedent,� company says

Fondomonte is gearing up to fight the use of the nuisance law to curb what it says are its legal operations.

“We believe the attorney general is setting a dangerous precedent attempting to penalize farming and the wider agricultural industry within the state of Arizona,’’ said company spokesman Barrett Marson. “The company complies with all state and local regulations.’’

Mayes isn’t disputing that. Her claim is that Fondomonte’s operations are harming its neighbors and, under Arizona law, creating a nuisance.

“Arizona law is clear on this point: No company has the right to endanger an entire community’s health and safety for its own gain,’’ Mayes said.

Marson, however, said the allegations are “totally unfounded’’ and the company will fight the litigation.

Arizona’s nuisance law has two methods of enforcement.

One makes it a Class 2 felony to maintain a public nuisance. In this case, since the defendant is a limited liability company, jail time is off the table. That would leave a fine of $750, which would make no difference in a case like this.

The other method, though, allows the Attorney General’s Office to ask a court to enjoin the activity. That is the order Mayes seeks, as well as a requirement for Fondomonte to set up an “abatement fund’’ to reimburse others who have been affected.

It will be up to a judge to decide whether the nuisance law fits what is happening here.

There really is no precedent.

The only known use of the law in a situation like this came earlier in Mayes’ tenure, when she used it to go after a company’s plan to mine rock and gravel on a 25-acre parcel it owned in a neighborhood in a rural area near Chino Valley. The site was within 100 feet of homes.

State Mine Inspector Paul Marsh said at the time he had no choice under existing law but to approve the mining plan. So Mayes, claiming nuisance, got a court to issue a preliminary injunction.

But there never was a final ruling on whether the mine was a nuisance, or whether the nuisance law applies: The lawsuit went away after the company abandoned its plan after someone else bought it.

Land sinking

In this case, Mayes said there is clear evidence of the effects of Fondomonte’s operations.

Operating in the Ranegras Basin since 2014, the company has multiple wells, each capable of pumping up to 4,000 gallons of water per minute. She said in 2023 alone, Fondomonte used about 31,196 acre-feet of groundwater within the basin. That is considered enough to serve about 93,000 single-family homes.

But the attorney general said there are more immediate and visible consequences.

Mayes said a well less than a mile from Fondomonte’s properties went dry about five years ago. And in late 2017, the same happened to a well for the Friendship Baptist Church about 1.8 miles away.

“The land is literally sinking in La Paz County with as much as 9.8 inches of subsidence documented in the immediate vicinity of Fondomonte’s farms,’’ she said.

Mayes said she is not arguing that the growing of alfalfa itself is a nuisance, acknowledging it is grown throughout the state by others — and that much of it is shipped overseas, including to China. She said the future of growing the water-intensive crop here “is a question for the Legislature.’’

But she said there is no excuse for lawmakers. “They have been completely AWOL when it comes to addressing rural Arizona’s water needs and these situations where people are being harmed,’’ she said.

The attorney general isn’t the only one. La Paz County Supervisor Holly Irwin decried the lack action by state lawmakers to place any restrictions on water use in her area.

“That is why we are seeing foreign companies come over to these areas, purchase land and pump water out so that they can supplement their alfalfa and send it back home,’’ said Holly.

“Attorney General Kris Mayes is the first one who has stepped up and done anything about it,’’ the Republican supervisor said of the Democratic prosecutor. “I know my constituents will be thrilled that somebody’s actually paying attention to the real problems here, which are wells that are going dry, the land subsidence that we’ve seen, and the concern that we have for the future of our basin.’’

Agricultural wins at Legislature

Efforts to address the problem have been stalled at the Capitol amid a dispute over not just whether regulation is needed but who should determine any restrictions.

Irwin and other rural supervisors want both monitoring and conservation of groundwater, pointing out that farms don’t even have to report how much they are pumping. But that has bumped up against agricultural interests who argue that, in many cases, they were here first and, even with the current targets being out-of-state and foreign firms, they fear any potential state interference on their own operations.

So far, the agricultural interests have won out. In fact, lawmakers have carved out special protections.

For example, there is a state statute that says agricultural operations that were around before surrounding residential development “are presumed to be reasonable and do not constitute a nuisance.’’

Mayes, however, said that doesn’t apply, and not only because residents were there long before Fondomonte started farming alfalfa and pumping groundwater in 2014.

She also pointed out that same law does not apply if “the agricultural operation has a substantial adverse effect on public health and safety.’’ Mayes, in her lawsuit, spoke to the exception, calling the excessive pumping “injurious to health’’ and even “indecent’’ because it interferes with the ability of people to enjoy their property.

Republican lawmakers, anticipating what Mayes was going to do, tried to undermine her ability to sue. Sen. Sine Kerr, R-Buckeye, added a provision to HB 2124 last year dealing with agricultural water use, to strip the attorney general of the right to bring any sort of nuisance action, regardless of the reason.

That bill was vetoed by Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs. She said lawmakers need to address water issues “in a holistic manner’’ rather than tinkering with water laws on a piece-meal basis.

If Mayes’ new lawsuit succeeds, she already has her next target in mind: Riverview Dairy’s pumping in the Willcox Basin of Cochise County.