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
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

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.