Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br />~ <br />~ <br />C) Up to this' point in the discussion, no recognition has been given to <br />the fact that the water laws of the Upper Basin States permit one to <br />appropriate a water right, referred to as a conditional decree or permit <br />(depending upon the state), prior'to the time that water is actually <br />diverted and put to a consumptive use. When a conditional right is even- <br />tually perfected into a final right, the priority of the right relates <br />not to the date the first diversion is' made, but rather ~ack to the date <br />upon which steps' were first taken to appropriate water or an application <br />was filed with the State Engineer (again, depending upon the State). <br /> <br />Pursuant to the water rights systems of the Upper Basin States, oil <br />shale companies have already appropriated numerous conditional surface <br />rights for future diversion and consumption (and could appropriate <br />more). The most senior rights date back to 1949 on the Colorado Main <br />Stem River (in Colorado). <br /> <br />The water rights owned ~y existing irrigated agricultural users <br />(or any other user for that matter) can be purchased by and transferred <br />to EET users. However, the transfer' process can ~e cumbersome and costly. <br /> <br />At the present time, oil shale companies in Colorado do own some <br />irrigation rights, although the water involved is ~till being used for <br />agricultural purposes. No effort has been made in this assessment to <br />evaluate the yield from' these rights, which, with one exception, are <br />found on Roan, Parachute, and Piceance creeks. Even if one assumed that <br />every irrigation right on these three creeks was owned ~y oil shale <br />companies, it is' estimated that this would not amount to more than about <br />10,000 to 20,000 acre-,feet per year of historic consumption. By way of <br />comparison, this is about 1 percent of the water presently consumed by <br />irrigated agriculture on an average annual ~asis on Colorado's Western <br />Slope. Thus, under state water law, the availa~ility of water for EETs <br />is a function of the yield that may ~e expected from the water rights <br />they now own or might acquire in the future. <br /> <br />No effort was made in this assessment to estimate the yield of the <br />water rights (either the conditional rights or rights purchased from <br />irrigated agriculture) presently owned by oil shale companies.lRather, <br /> <br />1. This study is unaware of any water rights presently owned by coal <br />gasification companies. The only two companies known to be, or to have <br />been, actively considering coal gasification developments would obtain <br />water from Navajo Reservoir in New Mexico under contract with the <br />Federal Government. One of these companies, WESCO, has already executed <br />a contract with the United States for water from Navajo Reservoir. <br /> <br />~5 <br />