Follow us on social

Dry

When Saudi Arabia comes to town and buys all your water

Oil is not the only issue: the Kingdom is getting Arizona resources for a steal, and it's leaving citizens with little to nothing.

Analysis | Middle East

Over the past several years, Saudi Arabia has added eight new wells, increasing production to new heights and even leading to accusations of over-pumping. No, not at the Ghawar oil field, but in the groundwater of rural Arizona. 

Since 2014, the Saudi company Fondomonte has been pumping unlimited amounts of groundwater in the desert west of Phoenix to harvest thousands of acres of alfalfa crops. The alfalfa is then shipped back to Saudi Arabia to feed their cattle. 

But a recent investigation from Arizona Central has revealed that Fondomonte, a subsidiary of Riyadh-based Almarai, has the bargain of a lifetime: for only $25 per acre annually, it can pump as much water as it wants. Nearby farmers pay six times more than the Saudi company. 

This modern day watergate has become a campaign issue ahead of the contentious midterms but candidates across the ballot appear to agree that this is bad. Democratic candidate Katie Hobbs tweeted that “Our water should be for Arizonans, not for sweetheart deals to foreign corporations to grow crops to then send back to their country.” Republican candidate Kari Lake has even gone a step further, calling to terminate the Fondomonte lease and “examine all existing leases to ensure Arizona’s water and natural resources primarily benefit Arizonans, not overseas corporations.” 

Other companies are taking advantage of this fire sale on precious water resources in rural Arizona too, including alfalfa farms affiliated with the UAE and plenty of domestic companies. But Fondomonte is among the largest and most controversial — because it is actually depleting the groundwater of the Butler Valley, a valuable transfer basin that is seen as a potential water supply for Phoenix.  

Fondomonte’s Butler Valley property is part of a larger strategy of buying up land across the Southwest for alfalfa production. The Saudi company owns thousands of acres across Arizona and has expanded operations in Eastern California.

The Arizona State Land Department, which leased the land to Fondomonte, refuses to disclose how much water Fondomonte is pumping, or whether the state would consider charging more for agricultural leases. According to one estimate, the company could be pumping as much as 18,000 acre-feet per year — enough to supply 54,000 single-family homes — raising concerns that the groundwater will disappear faster than it can be replenished. Alfalfa is one of the most water-intensive crops there is, and the current breakneck pace of production is threatening to stop the flow of the Colorado River entirely. 

To Arizonans, the one-sided deal with the Saudi company has become a hot-button issue, particularly since Saudi Arabia dictates global oil prices. “We’re not getting oil for free, so why are we giving our water away for free?” asked La Paz County Board of Supervisors Chairman Holly Irwin, who represents Butler Valley. “Saudi Arabia has stated their intention to rob Airzonans at the gas pump, but they are already stealing our water,” said Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.). 

Ironically, lawmakers should look to none other than Saudi Arabia to learn from their mistakes. Saudi Arabia has almost completely exhausted its own groundwater through unrestricted pumping. A 2004 investigation found that the kingdom’s water sources were nearly depleted because “wealthy farmers had been allowed to drain the aquifers unchecked for three decades.” As the wells dried up, Saudi Arabia has been forced to take conservation much more seriously, even outlawing the production of alfalfa in 2016. Today, around 50 percent of water consumed in Saudi Arabia comes from desalination plants, a costly, high-energy process. 

Having depleted their own water resources back home, Saudi Arabia knows the dangerous consequences of unsustainable agricultural practices. Why should they — or any other company for that matter — be allowed to do the same in the American Southwest? 


design 36/shutterstock
Analysis | Middle East
Could Trump's Congo-Rwanda mineral deals actually save lives?
Top photo credit: Foreign Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo Thérèse Kayikwamba Wagner, left, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, center, and Foreign Minister of Rwanda Olivier Nduhungirehe, right, during ceremony to sign a Declaration of Principles between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, at the State Department, in Washington, D.C., on Friday, April 25, 2025. (Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA)

Could Trump's Congo-Rwanda mineral deals actually save lives?

Africa

There may be a light at the end of the tunnel as representatives from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda are hoping to end the violence between them by signing a peace deal in a joint signing ceremony in Washington today.

This comes after the United States and Qatar have been working for months to mediate an end to the conflict roiling the eastern DRC for years.

keep readingShow less
Trump steve Bannon
Top photo credit: President Donald Trump (White House/Flickr) and Steve Bannon (Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

Don't read the funeral rites for MAGA restraint yet

Washington Politics

On the same night President Donald Trump ordered U.S. airstrikes against Iran, POLITICO reported, “MAGA largely falls in line on Trump’s Iran strikes.”

The report cited “Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist and critic of GOP war hawks,” who posted on X, “Iran gave President Trump no choice.” It noted that former Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz, a longtime Trump supporter, “said on X that the president’s strike didn’t necessarily portend a larger conflict.” Gaetz said. “Trump the Peacemaker!”

keep readingShow less
Antonio Guterres and Ursula von der Leyen
Top image credit: Alexandros Michailidis / Shutterstock.com

UN Charter turns 80: Why do Europeans mock it so?

Europe

Eighty years ago, on June 26, 1945, the United Nations Charter was signed in San Francisco. But you wouldn’t know it if you listened to European governments today.

After two devastating global military conflicts, the Charter explicitly aimed to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” And it did so by famously outlawing the use of force in Article 2(4). The only exceptions were to be actions taken in self-defense against an actual or imminent attack and missions authorized by the U.N. Security Council to restore collective security.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.