To that end, they recently filed formal protests with the State Engineer's Office aimed at stopping the Kane County Water Conservancy District from preserving its right to 29,600 acre-feet of water already under lease by the reactor's developers.

Utah law puts the public's needs first, giving communities extra flexibility to ensure any future needs of their residents.

"We don't see that [nuclear reactor] as a legitimate public use that benefits Utah," said Christopher Thomas, of the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, one of the organizations trying to derail the plant. "We could be using our land and water in better ways."

Aaron Tilton, chief executive officer of Transition Power Development LLC, the company behind the 1,500-megawatt nuclear station, is paying the water district $100,000 a year to lease the water right. His company also has promised $500,000 a year after five years, and $1 million a year once the plant comes online.

"We haven't even paid much attention to it," Tilton said, noting that he hasn't seen the protests.

Mike Noel, the water district's administrator, isn't worried either.

"I believe the protests do not have any merit," he said, noting that such challenges are common with water rights.

Tilton and Noel are both Republican state lawmakers who have advocated for legislation that would make it easier for nuclear plants to be built in Utah.

Noel said no new reactors have been built in the United States since the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania almost 30 years ago because of environmentalist objections. He said he expects "extreme environmental groups" to fight this one every step of the way, too.

"Their agenda is to stop any construction and growth in Utah," Noel said. "It's not an environmental agenda. It's a no-growth agenda."

Meanwhile, those behind the two water-rights protests say the water should be protected for public use, not a nuclear reactor that will benefit private developers determined to sell the power to outsiders. The groups include HEAL, the Green Party of Moab, Red Rock Forests and Uranium Watch, along with Green River resident Bill Adams.

Sarah Fields, of Moab-based Uranium Watch, said there are still many questions about the reactor proposal that have yet to be answered, including what the impacts might be on the recreation and agriculture that are important to southeastern Utah's economy.

"We have limited water resources in all of Utah," she said.

The State Engineer's Office must determine whether the groups filing the protests have the legal standing for their objections.

If so, the agency could set a hearing to discuss the arguments, said Boyd Clayton, deputy state engineer.

But, he added, for public agencies like the water district, "it's likely they are in their rights" to preserve the water rights ultimately intended for the nuclear plant.

Transition Power submitted notice to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission last spring that it intends to apply for a license within two years. The company has also secured 24,000 acre-feet of water from San Juan County.

Southeastern Utah's Emery County and the state School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration are close to finalizing a deal for an industrial park near Green River in which Transition has an option for 1,700 acres that could house the plant. But Tilton said other locations remain under consideration.

fahys@sltrib.com

Quenching a nuclear thirst

* Pro: Developers of a planned nuclear power plant have secured more than 50,000 acre-feet of water for the project. They say nuclear power is a sensible part of Utah and the nation's energy future.

* Con: Critics have filed protests with the state against water rights leased by the plant developers. They claim the project is an illegitimate use of public water.

* Translation: 50,000 acre-feet would be enough water to supply the needs of between 50,000 and 100,000 Utah households.