By Sam Atlas.
The secret is out: the desert is dry, and it continues to get drier. As the value of Arizona’s water continues to increase, conflicts over water continue to arise. And while Colorado River disputes tend to sit atop the headlines, a homegrown battle that began in December 2024 has recently made the headlines. As decisions loom, the fight over alfalfa has serious implications for the scope of Arizona’s public nuisance law, as well as the balance between Arizona’s judiciary and the Arizona Department of Water Resources (“ADWR”).
What is the Fight over Alfalfa?
Almarai, a Saudi Arabian dairy company, relies on alfalfa grown by its subsidiary, Fondomonte Arizona, to feed its cattle. To support its agricultural endeavors in Arizona, Fondomonte began pumping groundwater in La Paz county in 2014. Pumping its water from what had—until recently—been an unregulated region of the Ranegras Plain River Basin, Fondomonte’s pumping efforts were extensive. In 2023, its groundwater consumption accounted for 81% of the total groundwater pumped from the basin. Citing depleting groundwater resources and sinking land, the State filed a public nuisance suit against Fondomonte in December 2024 in which it sought to enjoin the farm’s excessive pumping. In response, Fondomonte argued for dismissal on the grounds that groundwater regulation is exclusively under the ADWR’s jurisdiction.
The ongoing litigation reached a new potential pivot point in January 2026 when the ADWR issued a “Findings, Decision, and Order” declaring the Ranegras Plain Basin an Active Management Area (“AMA”). This declaration tasked the ADWR with “assessing current groundwater use, exempting existing users, blocking new irrigation, and implementing water reporting and management plans.”
Responses to ADWR’s Decision
The order from ADWR provided Fondomonte with extra fodder to fuel their original argument. The company again urged the court to defer to the ADWR as the exclusive authority on state groundwater regulation. Arguing that the ADWR would undertake the same investigative process as that which would be accomplished through litigation, Fondomonte asked the court to suspend the case. However, the State has countered that point and made clear that it intends to continue the suit.
Highlighting the importance of groundwater resources in rural Arizona, the State viewed the announcement of a newly implemented AMA as a step in the right direction rather than a victory. In a supplemental brief, the State emphasized that the AMA provides only a generalized program to conserve water over time and therefore fails to address the imminent harms caused to the community. Notably, the brief asserted that the ADWR lacks the “authority to impose ‘liability’ on Fondomonte for harming the community” and cannot “grant the relief that the State seeks to ameliorate the alleged harm.”
Additionally, in moving forward with the case, the State argued that a decision on the merits of the public nuisance claim is essential to key decisions that come with implementing an AMA. Specifically, A.R.S. § 45-462 provides groundwater users the right to apply for a “grandfathered right” to continue groundwater consumption at volumes similar to those used before AMA designation. However, that same legislation requires that the pre-AMA withdrawals were made legally. Because withdrawals violating public nuisance law would be deemed illegal, the State has argued that the ongoing litigation is necessary to accurately determine if Fondomonte is entitled to any grandfathered rights.
Ultimately, the heart of the State’s proposal is that AMAs and public nuisance law must act complementary to one another to ensure the most effective groundwater management in the state. Contrary to Fondomonte’s argument—that the ADWR should have exclusive jurisdiction over such matters—the State urges that the two can exercise concurrent jurisdiction to address the overall problem from two different angles. While the superior court gears up to make its decision, it must do so knowing the precedent that it will set going forward.
Impact: Precedent for Future Decisions
As the desert gets drier, groundwater disputes can only be expected to rise. In fact, another contention involving excessive use of groundwater between the State and Riverview Dairy just reached a settlement in January 2026. These suits are likely to become the new normal, and the outcome of the fight over alfalfa has key implications governing the role that both the Attorney General and ADWR will play moving forward. Should the court decide to delay or dismiss the litigation in light of the newly announced AMA, it will establish that the ADWR is the sole method of policing groundwater use going forward. However, if the court sides with the State, there is potential for more consistent litigation centered on groundwater use under public nuisance law. Regardless, the outcome has the potential to change the nature of groundwater conflict throughout Arizona.
Sam Atlas is a 2L at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. He attended the University of Arizona where he majored in mechanical engineering and minored in computer science. Prior to law school, Sam spent three years in Madison, Wisconsin working for Epic, a healthcare software company. Now back in Arizona, Sam enjoys golfing, trying new coffee shops, and cheering on his Arizona Wildcats.