ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥

In new filings in Maricopa County Superior Court, lawyers for Fondomonte ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ point out the state is alleging the company has created a “nuisance’’ with the amount it is pumping. Attorney General Kris Mayes’ claim is based on the legal theory that the amount being withdrawn fits the definition of nuisance by draining water that others who live in the area need.

Fondomonte’s lawyers are telling Judge Scott Minter that ignores a state law saying agricultural operations conducted with good practices “are presumed to be reasonable and do not constitute a nuisance unless the agricultural operation has a substantial adverse effect on the public health and safety.’’

Mayes, in her original lawsuit filed last year, alleged Fondomonte’s operation is affecting public health and safety.

That, by itself, may not be legally sufficient, however. Fondomonte’s attorneys then cite another section of the law that says agricultural operations that conform to federal, state and local regulations “are presumed to be good agricultural practice and not adversely affecting the public health and safety.’’

Attorneys for the farm have a list of other arguments they want the judge to consider, ranging from claims that others in the basin also are responsible for reducing the groundwater levels, to saying the state knew about Fondomonte’s actions and acquiesced to them.

This new filing is the latest in what has become a multi-year dispute over pumping in the area.

The state previously canceled land leases it had with Fondomonte, which grows alfalfa to feed dairy cattle in the Middle East. It operates in ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥, at least in part, because Saudi law forbids such water-intensive farming.

The company continues to farm on other private lands in ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥.

And the outcome of this case — and whether a judge accepts the nuisance theory — could affect whether the state files similar claims against Riverview Dairy, which bought more than 50,000 acres of land to farm near Willcox to grow alfalfa.

What’s behind the lawsuit is a gap in state water laws.

The 1980 Groundwater Code created specific “active management areas’’ where pumping is supposed to be limited. There also are some “irrigation non-expansion areas.’’

Everything else, though, is pretty much unregulated. In fact, state law says property owners can withdraw and use groundwater for “reasonable and beneficial use.’’

Mayes, in filing suit, is not contesting all that.

Instead, she is using the theory that something otherwise legal can be a nuisance. She contends that data compiled by hydrologists hired by her office proves the pumping by Fondomonte has dried up nearby wells and resulted in subsidence of the land around Vicksburg in La Paz County.

Mayes also contends the excessive pumping is threatening sediment buildup that reduces water quality and damages appliances, pumps and pipes.

“No company has the right to endanger an entire community’s health and safety for its own gain,’’ the attorney general said when filing suit.

However, there really is no legal precedent to Mayes’ claim that the nuisance law applies.

The closest was when the attorney general went to court in a separate case over 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.

Mayes got a preliminary injunction. But there never was a final ruling on whether the mine was a nuisance, or, more to the point, whether the nuisance law applies: The lawsuit went away after the company abandoned its plan when someone else bought the property.

Now Mayes hopes to get Minter to accept her legal arguments against Fondomonte, order the company to curtail its pumping and require it to establish a fund to deal with the damages.

To buttress her arguments that the nuisance laws apply, the attorney general contends the excessive pumping “is injurious to health’’ and “indecent’’ because it interferes with the “comfortable enjoyment of life or property’’ in a community or neighborhood. Fondomonte’s lawyers, in their response, deny that outright.

To the extent there are damages from pumping, the company has responses. For example, they say any damages were caused or contributed to by the state and its agents, or other companies or local governments “over which Fondomonte has no control or right of control.’’ What that means, the attorneys argue, is if a court finds there are damages to the state, the amount of any financial award it owes should be reduced — or even eliminated — because of those unspecified acts by others.

No date has been set for a hearing.