����Ӱ��AV

Judge John Blanchard rejected arguments by the Arizona Farm and Ranch Group Coalition that what he decided about whether Fondomonte LLC is violating state nuisance laws with its pumping of groundwater ultimately affect them. Instead, the judge said this is a fight about one company and the effects of its pumping on a single area of the state.

The ruling is a setback for the would-be intervenors who say that they are in the identical situation as Fondomonte: operating in rural areas of Arizona which are not governed by state laws limiting their use of groundwater.

They contend that if Blanchard buys Mayes’ legal theories, she could be coming after them next. And they point to the fact that Mayes herself has said that the lawsuit against Fondomonte could be just the first of others to come where she is hoping to use nuisance laws to curb pumping.

That didn’t convince the judge.

“This case concerns a single defendant’s alleged conduct in the Ranegras Plain Basin and its impact on the surrounding community,’’ he wrote. Blanchard said coalition members “do not operate in the Ranegrs basin and have not shown that the outcome of this case will have a direct legal effect on their rights.’’

There was no immediate response from lawyers for the coalition.

The new ruling paves the way for Mayes to try to use a unique — and untested in Arizona — legal theory that water users can be forced to curtail their pumping even if what they are doing violates no other state laws.

And despite Blanchard’s refusal to allow coalition members to intervene, this case actually could set new legal precedent statewide if it ultimately goes to the Arizona Supreme Court.

The heart of the case is Mayes’ complaint that Fondomonte is pumping so much water for its alfalfa operation that it is having an effect on others, including drying up nearby wells and resulting in subsidence of the land. Attorneys for the company dispute it is responsible for any of that.

But the legal case is based on the contention that Fondomonte is taking advantage of the lack of state regulation of groundwater pumping in rural areas.

Generally speaking, landowners outside the state’s Active Management Areas can pump as much as they say they “for reasonable and beneficial use.’’ There is not even any requirement to monitor the amount pumped.

Mayes says that 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.

At a hearing earlier this week, coalition attorney Bradley Pew argued that Mayes is trying to make an end-run around the fact that existing water laws do not outlaw what Fondomonte is doing by using the novel claim that its activities constitute a nuisance. He said if she succeeds, that will affect not just the farmers, ranchers and cattle feeders he represents but also irrigation districts and cities like Holbook, Show Low and Winslow that pump — and rely on — groundwater.

Blanchard acknowledged the argument.

“The case has drawn attention because it is widely perceived as a ‘test case’ for broader groundwater regulation in Arizona,’’ he said, particularly the rural areas outside the Active Management Areas where there are strict state laws governing pumping. But he said that still doesn’t justify allowing coalition members the right to join the lawsuit to fight Mayes.

“Generalized concern about future litigation or policy implications is not a sufficient basis for intervention as a matter of right,’’ he said.

Anyway, the judge said the legal arguments Pew is raising on behalf of his clients — that Mayes is exceeding her authority — are pretty much the same that Fondomonte’s own lawyers already have raised. And Blanchard said there is no evidence that the legal representation of the company is inadequate.

Mayes has acknowledged she decided to use the nuisance statute to go after Fondomonte — and possible others in the future — because of what she said has been the failure of state lawmakers to enact meaningful regulation of groundwater pumping in rural areas. Anyway, she said, the law fits this situation.

“A public nuisance is anything that is injurious to health, indecent, offenses to the senses or an obstruction to the free use of property that interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property by an entire community or neighborhood or by a considerable number of persons,’’ Mayes is arguing.

Nor is she dissuaded by the fact that she has not identified any other water law or regulation that Fondomonte is breaking.

“A defendant can commit a public nuisance without violating any law or regulation,’’ Mayes said, saying nuisance laws can fill the gap “when regulatory and legislative processes are perceived to have failed to address a public health or welfare issue with catastrophic effect.’’

When the case eventually does go to trial, the issues will go beyond what is a nuisance.

Mayes is building her case on her claim that Fondomonte specifically bought and leased land in Arizona — including directly from the state — after its parent company, Saudi-owned Alamari, could no longer grow alfalfa in its home country.

That contention, however, is in dispute.

That country did approve a law in 2018 restricting the growing of “green fodder.’’ But Briana Campbell who represents Fondomonte, said any claims that her client came here to avoid that law are not true.

She provided figures to show that the United States has been exporting “hundreds of thousands to millions of kilograms of alfalfa seeds to Saudi Arabia on an annual basis both before and after the 2018 law. And she said that such growing operations continue to this day.

Campbell also pointed out that Fondomonte bought its Arizona property in 2014, four years before any Saudi law. And she said that it was her understanding that law “was not a complete ban on growing alfalfa in Saudi Arabia but a limitation that has not been fully enforced.’’

But Richie Taylor, a spokesman for Mayes, said none of that conflicts with the claim that alfalfa farming was banned in Saudi Arabia. And as far as the fact Fondomonte came to Arizona in 2014, he said that country was already talking about phasing out forage crops in 2013.

As to why Fondomonte would come to Arizona, Taylor said the AG’s office has asked Fondomonte to produce documents about why it selected the Ranegras Plain Basis for its operation “and we look forward to receiving those.’’

Campbell, however, said Fondomonte chose Arizona because its soil and climate provide “an extremely high crop yield.’’

And Andrew Turk, another attorney for the firm, said the lawsuit unfairly targets his client based on its exporting what it grows. He said it is clear that other crops grown in Arizona — and with Arizona water — like cotton and pecans also are largely exported yet Mayes has singled out Fondomonte.

No date has been set for a hearing on whether Mayes can use the nuisance arguments in this case.