Yes, it's bad even if Americans do it, but it's definitely worse if it goes to Saud.
Would you object to "Rockefeller company draws unlimited etc"? What if they also literally owned a country?
Maybe you misunderstood my point. I'm not giving the Saudis a pass. I would object to anyone doing this whether it is the Saudis, the Rockefellers, or some middle class farmer. The problem here is a poorly constructed regulatory environment which created a tragedy of the commons situation. We made it profitable to do something that is bad for the local environment and inherently stupid. People shouldn't grow water intensive plans in the desert.
The problem here is "company draws unlimited Arizona ground water amid drought". There doesn't need to be an adjective before "company".
>"We cannot afford to give our water away frankly to anyone, let alone the Saudis, for free," said Mayes.
This person is saying that giving the water away to the Saudis is worse than just giving it away. It isn't simply the action of taking the water that is troubling them. It is that it is going to a scary other. This is classic xenophobia.
It is not xenophobia to acknowledge it's worse to do something dumb which enriches your ideological and material enemies than to just do something dumb.