Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~~{t1 <br /> <br />l',) <br />00 <br />00 <br />C) <br /> <br />~;~:U~' <br /> <br />.it';,:", <br />\:;",~'+<' <br /> <br />authority to administer ground water and to monitor various water tables <br />throughout the State. If a supply is determined' to be inadequate, the <br />State Engineer is to distribute the supply to various claimants according <br />to the priority of each right. Permits issued for wells are proprietary <br />and may be sold. <br /> <br />In Wyoming, any individual wishing to acquire the right to appropriate <br />gorund water must file a claim with the State Engineer. Appropriation for <br />stock and domestic use has the preferred right over all other uses regard- <br />less of priority in time. The State Engineer identifies critical areas <br />and, after hearings are held, issues well permits if findings indicate <br />that there is unappropriated. water, that the well is not in conflict with <br />the State well spacing program, and that the use. is beneficial and not <br />detrimental to .the public interest. In making the determination on the <br />granting of a permit for a larger well, such as to supply energy develop- <br />ment, the State Engineer must consider the overall effects of large-scale <br />energy uses on water availability and the beneficial versus detrimental <br />effects on the community. <br /> <br />Present Ownership of Water Ri~hts by Emer~in~ Energy Technolo~y <br />Companies. In order. to determine the extent to which water. rights are <br />presently held by those who may be involved in future oil shale develop- <br />. ments, a survey was made of the 14 companies. having interests in oil shale <br />properties'in northwestern Colorado and northeastern Utah.l It is apparent <br />from the companies' responses that their present water rights holdings have <br />been acquired in two ways--through original appropriations and by purchase <br />of existinl1; right~.~_.__,.:.,.,,_,-:. ._ .__' <br /> <br />The original appropriations, being held in the form of conditional <br />decrees, are for both storage and direct flow rights. The most senior of <br />these has a 1949 appropriation date, with the'balance of the rights being <br />spread out in the 1950s, '60s, and '70s.3 Rights have been appropriated in <br />both the White River and Colorado Main Stem basins, with. an. emphasis upon <br />storage rights. These contional rights reflect a variety.of reservoir sites, <br />pumping stations, pipeline locations, and diversion points~ <br /> <br />1. Only those companies with an interest in oil shale., developments were <br />surveyed since the only two companies known to be actively considering coal <br />gasification developments in the Upper Basin intend to obtain water from <br />Navajo Reservoir under contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. <br /> <br />2. The balance of this discussion applies only to Colorado water rights <br />since the White River Shale Project in Utah reports that it holds but a <br />single Utah-approved water right application. <br /> <br />3. While the .subject conditional decrees are relatively junior when compared <br />with the many final decrees which predate them, they are not junior to all <br />other water rights (final or conditional). To the contrary, the conditional <br />decrees which date back to the 1950s are senior to many of the conditional <br />decrees held by others. The rights acquired in the late 1960s and 1970s <br />are, however, quite junior. Nonetheless, this does not mean that they.could <br />not be perfected into viable water supplies for oil shale developments. This <br />depends upon how many of the conditional decrees Which are senior to those <br />owned by the oil shale companies are actually put to ~se in the future. <br /> <br />xxxix <br />