RE:RE:Water rightsMy take on this: Companies are not looking for lithium per se. Companies are looking for profit. In this case profit derived from elevated demand of lithium. Remember the words of Highsmith? ..or we build this project, or we`ll get paid not to ...
But we can all make a nice profit without even ever producing 1 g of Li. (with a buyout for example)
The other thing is, they do not know exactly whether they can get water rights or not. If you read the Ruling of the State Engeneer you will see how they try to get water rights.
For example: 20,000 afa of water can be safely used in clayton valley (perennial yield). Now there are almost 24,000 afa existing water rights already, so it is already over-appropriation. The Applicant try to argue that the use of some of these water is only temporary (as for mining) so they should not be considered in the perennial yield. Or that actual pumping is less than the max. water rights existing (some have rights to use a specific amont of water but they are using less of it).
But as far all these arguments were not accepted by the state engeneer.
I think PE needs lobbying and good lawyes or persons who are good at dealing with this kind of problems if they really want to have water rights.
Albemarle has no monopoly but holds existing water rights since 1968. (Current senior water right user). So a new permit would conflict with existing water rights, and in this case the state engeneer has to reject the application.
Oliver