Local activist organizations, Living Rivers and Uranium Watch, recently filed a protest with the State Engineer opposing the transfer of water rights from the San Juan County Water Conservation District to a proposed nuclear power plant. The groups are arguing that the transfer should be denied on the grounds that the application is incomplete, is not economically feasible, and would harm fish and ecosystems of the Green River.

The Grand County Council voted last month to also protest the San Juan district’s transfer of 24,000 acre feet of water per year to a power plant in Green River because, county council members said, Grand does not want a nuclear neighbor.

The San Juan County Water Conservation District stands to gain $800,000 per year for as long as 70 years once a power plant begins operations – if the water transfer is allowed by the State Engineer, who helps the Utah Division of Water Rights administer the appropriation and distribution of the state’s water resources.

“So why would we not be interested?” said Norman Johnson who serves as both manager of the conservation district and San Juan County Clerk. The payments for the water lease would start out at $80,000 per year as soon as the point of diversion is transferred from the San Juan to the Green River. Those payments would jump to 10 times that when a power plant became operational, he said.

Those funds could be used to retire the debt incurred by the district to build two dams constructed to bolster local water supplies. That action could lower taxes for all county residents, Johnson said.

Blue Castle Holdings has already leased 29,600 acre feet of water per year from the Kane County Water Conservancy District and hopes for the transfer of San Juan water to fulfill its need for 53,600 acre feet so that it can develop property in an Emery County owned industrial park near the town of Green River, according to the company’s website.

The website states that BCH owns the property, a claim disputed by Living Rivers and Uranium Watch in an Oct. 23 press release.

“One can only wonder why BCH feels that they must lie to the press, the public, and their investors about the ownership of the property for the proposed reactor,” Sarah Fields, Uranium Watch program director said.

Required information is lacking in the BCH application and there are questions about economic feasibility and whether or not BCH has the financial resources to complete the proposed reactor, the press release states.

Feasibility matters to the State Engineer when he decides to reallocate water because the the engineer is responsible to ensure that water rights are not transferred for speculation purposes.

“Utah’s laws have been designed to encourage full responsible development of water supplies and to discourage efforts to speculate in or monopolize the resource. As a result of this approach, it has been believed necessary to assure that those who acquire rights to the use of Utah’s water actually place it to beneficial use,” the Division’s website states.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others have voiced concerns that reducing water quantity in the Green River will diminish habitat for endangered species and cause three threatened species to become listed as endangered.

The groups also note that the seven states of the Colorado River Basin and the Bureau of Reclamation will soon begin a program called the Colorado River Basin Study.

“The State Engineer should wait for the completion of this study in order to help protect applicants and existing water right holders from future economic burdens based on future water supply uncertainties,” said John Weisheit, conservation director of Living Rivers.