Laserfiche WebLink
<br /><:::> <br />--:J <br /><:::> <br />w <br /> <br />Thus, under state water law, the availability of water for EET's--is a function <br /> <br />of the yie~d which may be expected from the water rights they now own or might <br /> <br />acquire in the future. <br /> <br />For purposes of this assessment, however, no 'effort has been made to <br /> <br />estimate the yield of the water rights (either the conditional rights or those <br /> <br />purchased from irrigated agriculture) presently owned by oil shale companies. 1 <br /> <br />Rather, the conclusion as to the availability of water for a 1.5 million barrel <br /> <br />per day 'synfuel industry simply assumeS that the water rights held by EET'~s <br /> <br />would be junior to the water rights held by all other projected consumptive users. <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />However, since water can be purchased from willing sellers of agricultural rights, <br /> <br />it can be said, from a purely legal point of view, that there is essentially no <br /> <br />constraint on the amount of water which could be obtained by EET developments. <br /> <br />1. This assessment is unaware of any water rights presently owned by coal gasification <br />companies. The only two companies known to be, or to have been, actively considering <br />coal gasification developments would obtain water from Navajo Reservoir in New <br />Mexico under contract with the u.s. Bureau of Reclamation. <br /> <br />2. Likewise, it was assumed throughout the analyses of this assessment that EET <br />water rights were junior to the rights of all other projected consumptive users. <br /> <br />cviii <br />