Wyoming Water Development Commission/Select Water ...irrigation water shortages and the benefitting landowners are typically not organized into ... Water Development Account II Revenues

SUBJECT TO REVISION

Wyoming Water Development Commission/Select Water Committee

Joint Workshop/Meeting

Washakie Museum & Cultural Center

2200 Big Horn Ave, Worland, WY

August 19-21, 2015

August 19, 2015 1:30 p.m. Workshop Agenda:

1. Memo re: Exemption for Non-Public Entities for Level I Studies (A)

2. Charts for: 10 years of revenues (WDA I, II, III) (B)

10 years of project appropriations (WDA I, II, III)

3. Consultant selection questionnaire (C)

Draft standard questions

Conflict of Interest

Record on Time of performance

Statute 9-2-1031 - Requires timely performance

4. Investigation of Irrigation Assessments (D)

5. WWDC Survey Results (E)

6. Results from the Public Purpose Investment Evaluation by the LSO (F)

7. LSO Scoping Paper on the WWDC (G)

Management Audit Committee action: Proceed with full evaluation

8. Executive Session to consider confidential information

August 20, 2015 8:00 a.m. – Summer Tour (H)

Leavitt Reservoir

Alkali Creek Reservoir Site

Lunch @ Medicine Lodge State Park

Lower Nowood I&S District

South Circle Estates I&S District

Meadowlark Lake

Dinner in Ten Sleep

SUBJECT TO REVISION

Wyoming Water Development Commission/Select Water Committee

Joint Workshop/Meeting

Washakie Museum & Cultural Center

2200 Big Horn Ave, Worland, WY

August 19-21, 2015

August 21, 2015 8:30 a.m. Joint Meeting Agenda

1. Call to Order

2. Recognition of Members present to establish quorum

3. Approval of Agenda

4. Approval of Minutes (I)

June 4, 2015

June 3, 2015 Executive Session

5. Audience Introductions

6. Authorize public notice for comments for

Small Water Projects Program Operating Criteria (SWPP) (J)

Basin States Program (BSP) (K)

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) (L)

7. State Grazing Lease #3-7503 (High Savery Reservoir)

Mutual consent to terminate Jon’s Sublease (M)

Approval of Matt Myers Sublease (Mc)

8. Small Water Program Amendment

Hazen Draw Project, Amendment No. 2 (N)

9. Discussion

Financial Status of Funds (O)

2017-18 Biennium Budget Submittal (P)

Commission Project Assignments (hand out)

10. Future Meetings Schedule

Next 2015 meeting – November 4-6, 2015, Casper, WY

2016 WWDC/SWC Calendar (Q)

Date: August 5, 2015 To: Wyoming Water Development Commission From: Harry LaBonde Subject: Planning Studies for Non-Public Entities In light of recent discussions at commission meetings and the fact that the LSO will take up this topic in the upcoming program evaluation, I have prepared this memo regarding the practice of funding planning studies when the applicant/sponsor is not an organized public entity. In all of these situations, the WWDC retains the services of a consulting engineering firm to conduct the Level I study. The WWDC develops the scope of work and administers the contract during its completion. The sponsor does not receive any form of direct financial assistance in this process. Generally, the WWDC Operating Criteria requires that the sponsor be a public entity. However, within the Operating Criteria there are two situations when the WWDC may fund planning studies without the benefit of a public sponsor. They are as follows:

1. Operating Criteria, Applications - Page 8 – “The WWDC may waive the requirement that the project sponsor be a public entity for Level I studies. This will allow the applicant to know if there is a viable project prior to becoming a public entity. However, the applicant must be a public entity before applying for a Level II study. Under these circumstances, the Level I process will have a two-year duration with the study being completed the first year and the sponsor forming a public entity the second year. If the WWDC is to consider waiving this requirement, a representative of the applicant shall be required to appear before the WWDC to make a formal presentation on the project and to answer questions regarding the application.”

2. Operating Criteria, Dams and Reservoirs, Page 22 – “The WWDC may accept

applications related to the construction of dams and reservoirs from applicants that are not public entities. As the evaluations of the feasibility of new dams are complex, this will allow the applicant to know if the proposed reservoir is feasible prior to becoming a public entity. However, the applicant must be a public entity before applying for Level II, Phase III funding.”

Matthew H. Mead Governor

Commissioners Nick Bettas Sheridan Little Travis C. Brockie, I William Resor Karen Budd-Falen Jeanette Sekan Floyd Canfield Rodney Wagner David Evans Todd Werbelow

Harry C. LaBonde, Jr., P.E. Director

WYOMING WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

6920 Yellowtail Road, Cheyenne, WY 82002

Phone: (307) 777-7626 Fax: (307) 777-6819

http://wwdc.state.wy.us

As indicated in both of these Operating Criteria sections, the general intent is to provide information to the sponsor so they can determine if the project is “viable” or “feasible” before they incur the cost to form a district. In speaking with an attorney who specializes in special district formation in Wyoming, one can expect legal fees to run a minimum of $10,000 to form a simple Improvement and Service District and $30,000 to form a simple Water District. If multiple counties are involved or the proposal is complex, the fees go up. In the case of Level I water system master plans, the sponsor is always a public water system by EPA’s definition, i.e. 15 taps or serving more than 25 people on a daily basis. The system may be privately owned but it must comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) which is a federal law. Additionally, modifications or improvements to these systems must obtain a permit to construct from DEQ and comply with their regulations for potable water systems. In reviewing the state statutes regarding the formation of Water Districts, the following information is required as part of the petition to establish the district which is filed with the respective County Commission:

Source of the water to be used

Amount of water to used

A determination that the source of supply is adequate to meet the forecast demand

A description of the water service mains, pumps, and treatment facilities

If the proposed district is within two miles of a city or town, the proposed improvements will meet municipal standards

The boundaries and land area to be included in the district In the development of new reservoirs, the purpose and need for the facility is generally irrigation water shortages and the benefitting landowners are typically not organized into an irrigation district. As such, most landowners would like answers to such questions as what is the overall project cost, how much water will the project yield, what lands will benefit, what is the anticipated per acre assessment, etc. before they move forward with district formation. Level I studies capture all of the basic information listed above plus develop capital improvement plans and cost estimates. This information is critical when the residents of an area contemplate the formation of a district. For that reason, I believe past Commissions have created the two exemptions allowing for the WWDC to work with non-public entities in the early planning stages of a project, thereby increasing the success rate in bringing projects to fruition.

$-

$5,000,000.00

$10,000,000.00

$15,000,000.00

$20,000,000.00

$25,000,000.00

$30,000,000.00

$35,000,000.00

$40,000,000.00

$45,000,000.00

$50,000,000.00

2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

Water Development Account I

Revenues by Fiscal Year Appropriations by Session Law Year

$-

$2,000,000.00

$4,000,000.00

$6,000,000.00

$8,000,000.00

$10,000,000.00

$12,000,000.00

$14,000,000.00

$16,000,000.00

$18,000,000.00

$20,000,000.00

2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

Water Development Account II


-$20,000,000

-$10,000,000

$0

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

$70,000,000

2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

Water Development Account III



6920 YeLlowtail Road, Cheyenne, WY 82002

Phone: (307) 777-7626Fax: (307) 777-6819

http: / /wwdc.state.wy.us

Governot

Commissioners

Nick Bettas Sheridan Little

Travis C. Brockie, I William ResorKaren Budd-Falen Jeanette SekanFloyd Canfield Rodney WagnerDavid Evani' Todd Werbelow

Harry C. LaBonde, ?r., P.E.Director

Date: August s, 2015

To:

From:

-'?E3arry Lawrence, Planning Division Deputy Director

Harry LaBonde, WWDO Director

Subject: Standard Requirements and Information Requested during WWDCConsultant Selection Process

A brief summary of the standard requirements and information requested of consultantsduring the Wyoming Water Development Commission's consultant selection processfollows:

Qualifications

*

*

*

*

*

*

@

Must show firm's capability for performing the project.Must Iist project team members and identify the Project Manager.Must include a certification that the work conducted will be supervised by aprofessional engineer licensed in Wyoming as required by the provisions of WS33-29-114 through WS 33-29-139 and a professional geologist licensed inWyoming as required by the provisions of WS 33-41-101 through 33-41-121 .Must be registered with the State of Wyoming.Must state which offices will be peforming the project work.Must provide a resume for each key project member.Must Identify all proposed subconsultants, list the work to be performed by theproposed subconsultants, and provide statements of project specific qualificationsfor each subconsultant.

Other Requirements

*

*

@

*

Must provide listing of current clients whose interests may compete or conflict withthe project as described.Shall furnish all materials, equipment and labor necessary to complete the study.Shall be fully insured to include commercial general liability insurance, businessautomobile liability insurance, worker's compensation or employers' liabilityinsurance, and professional liability or errors and omissions liability insurance.Shall be familiar with all applicable state Iaws. The attention of prospectiveproposers is called to the requirements as to the conditions of employment to be

Page li2

*

observed and to all applicable laws affecting the work, particularly to theprocurement procedures required by Section 9-2-1016 and Section 9-2-1027through 9-2-1033, Wyoming Statutes.Shall not discriminate against any person who performs work thereunder becauseof age, race, religion, color, sex, national origin or ancestry.

Contractor Selection Procedures (from WWDC RFP):

The Commission will conduct the selection process in accordance with Sections9-2-1016 and 9-2-1027 through 9-2-1033, Wyoming Statutes.

For those firms requesting consideration, the Commission has evaluated currentstatements of qualifications and performance data on file with the Office togetherwith any applications submitted, and has selected not less than three (3) firms (ifavailable) considered qualified to perform the required professional services tosubmit proposals. Consideration in the selection process by the Commission isbased upon the ability of professional personnel, past performance, willingness tomeet time requirements, location, current and projected workloads, the volume ofwork previously awarded to the firm by the Commission, and the equitabledistribution of contracts among qualified firms.

The Commission will evaluate proposals submitted by the short listed firms and,based upon these proposals, select those firms that will be interviewed. Thequalifications, experience, and expertise of the project team and contents of thework proposal will be considered in selecting firms to be interviewed. Price will notbe considered in determining consultants invited to the interview process.

The Commission will interview not less than three (3) firms, if possible, selectedfrom those that have submitted proposals to do the work. The interview shall berecorded and include discussion of each firm's approaches to the project,projections of project costs, qualifications, ability to furnish required professionalservices, use of alternative methods for furnishing required professional services,and an estimated fee based on the Commission's description of the work. Theestimated fee and other information provided throughout this process may be usedas a basis for selection by the Commission of the most appropriate firm for contractnegotiations.

Page 2i2

9-2-1027. Short title.

This act is known and may be cited as the "Professional

Architectural, Engineering and Land Surveying Services

Procurement Act".

9-2-1028. Definitions.

(a) As used in this act:

(i) "Agency" means any state office, department,

board, commission, institution or other operating entity of the

state excluding the University of Wyoming, community college

districts, school districts, the Wyoming business council and

the Wyoming department of transportation;

(ii) "Department" means the state department of

administration and information;

(iii) "Firm" means an individual, corporation,

partnership, business trust, association, firm or any other

legal entity permitted by law to practice in a specified

profession;

(iv) "Principal representative" means the governing

board of a department, institution or agency or its designated

representative, or, if there is no governing board, the

executive head of a department, institution or agency;

(v) "Professional services" means:

(A) The practice of architecture pursuant to

W.S. 33-4-101 through 33-4-117;

(B) The practice of professional engineering or

professional land surveying pursuant to W.S. 33-29-201 through

33-29-801.

(vi) "This act" means W.S. 9-2-1027 through 9-2-1033.

9-2-1029. Duties of department.

(a) The department shall:

(i) Develop and maintain approved lists of qualified

architects, engineers and land surveyors for selection under

this act; and

(ii) Develop and administer notification procedures

for obtaining professional services under this act.

9-2-1030. Qualification procedures.

(a) Any firm desiring to provide professional services to

an agency, shall annually submit to the department and [or] the

agency a detailed statement of qualifications and performance

data, and any other information required by the department or

the agency. The department or the agency may request the firm to

update its statement before submission in order to reflect

changed conditions in the status of the firm.

(b) If professional services in an amount exceeding five

thousand dollars ($5,000.00) are required, the department or the

agency shall notify all qualified architects, engineers and land

surveyors of record who have submitted an annual statement of

qualifications and performance data. In addition, the agency or

the department shall give statewide notice in a newspaper of

statewide circulation at least once each week for four (4)

consecutive weeks prior to initiation of selection procedures in

accordance with W.S. 9-2-1031. Notification shall contain a

general description of the proposed project, and shall indicate

the procedures by which interested firms may apply for

consideration for a contract to provide professional services

for the proposed project.

9-2-1031. Selection procedures.

(a) For each proposed project, the principal

representative of the agency for which the project is proposed

shall evaluate current statements of qualifications and

performance data of firms on file with the department or the

agency, together with any applications submitted by other

qualified firms, and shall select not less than three (3) firms

considered qualified to perform the required professional

services. Consideration in each selection process by the

principal representative shall be based upon the ability of

professional personnel, past performance, willingness to meet

time requirements, location, residency, current and projected

work loads, the volume of work previously awarded to the firm by

the agency, and the equitable distribution of contracts among

qualified firms. The agency shall provide a complete description

of the work to the firms selected. These firms shall submit an

unpriced proposal to do the work. For purposes of this

subsection, residency does not require satisfaction of the

elements contained in W.S. 16-6-101(a)(i).

(b) In addition to the requirements of subsection (a) of

this section, for any professional services fee estimated by the

agency to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) or,

for any project the total cost of which is estimated to exceed

one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00), the principal

representative shall interview not less than three (3) firms

selected from those which have submitted proposals to do the

work. The interview shall be recorded and include discussion of

each firm's projections of project costs, qualifications,

approaches to the project, ability to furnish required

professional services, use of alternative methods for furnishing

required professional services and an estimated fee based on the

agency's description of the work. The estimated fee may be used

as a basis, along with the qualifications listed in subsection

(a) of this section, for selection by the principal

representative of the most qualified firm for contract

negotiations. If unsatisfied with the results of such

interviews, the principal representative may select not less

than three (3) additional firms for interviews as provided by

subsection (a) of this section.

(c) In addition to the requirements of subsection (a) of

this section, for any professional services fee estimated by the

agency to be twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) or less,

or for any project the total cost of which is estimated to be

one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) or less, the

principal representative shall select three (3) firms from which

a project specific submittal shall be requested. The information

provided by the firm shall include an estimated fee and

preliminary scope of services based on the agency's description

of the work. The estimated fee may be used as a basis along with

the qualifications listed in subsection (a) of this section, for

selection by the principal representative of the most qualified

firm for contract negotiations.

(d) Nothing in this section prohibits a principal

representative from determining that fewer than three (3) firms

with current statements on file or which have submitted

applications before selection are qualified to perform the

required professional services. If a principal representative

makes that determination, subsections (b) and (c) of this

section apply with respect to the firms the principal

representative considers qualified.

(e) The department, in conjunction with the agencies,

shall adopt rules and regulations necessary to implement the

selection process provided by this section.

9-2-1032. Contract procedure.

(a) After completing the selection process, the principal

representative shall negotiate a written contract with the

selected firm as determined by W.S. 9-2-1031 for the provision

of services. The principal representative shall consider the

estimated value, scope, complexity and professional nature of

the services to be rendered when determining a reasonable

compensation.

(b) If the principal representative is unable to negotiate

a satisfactory contract with the selected firm at a price he

determines fair and reasonable, negotiations with that firm

shall be terminated. The principal representative shall then

begin negotiations with the firm ranked second in order of

preference pursuant to W.S. 9-2-1031. If the principal

representative fails to negotiate a contract with the second

ranked firm, he shall terminate negotiations. The principal

representative shall then begin negotiations with the firm

ranked third in order of preference.

(c) If the principal representative is unable to negotiate

a satisfactory contract with any of the selected firms, he

shall:

(i) Select additional firms in order of their

competence and qualifications and continue negotiations in

accordance with this section and W.S. 9-2-1031, until a contract

is reached; or

(ii) Review the contract under negotiation to

determine the possible cause for failure to achieve a negotiated

contract.

(d) Each contract for professional services entered into

by the principal representative shall contain a prohibition

against gratuities, kickbacks and contingent fees. The

architect, registered land surveyor or professional engineer

shall certify under oath that he has not in any way been

involved in any gratuities, kickbacks, or contingent fees in

connection with his selection or ultimate performance of this

contract.

(e) Each contract for professional services entered into

by the principal representative shall contain a prohibition

against payment based upon a percentage of the construction

cost.

(f) This act shall not prohibit continuing contracts

between any person providing professional services and any

agency.

9-2-1033. Prohibited acts; civil penalty; initiation of

action.

(a) No person, including any agency official or employee,

shall:

(i) In any way be involved in any gratuities,

kickbacks, or contingent fees in connection with the selection

procedure set forth in this act;

(ii) If providing professional services, pay any fee,

commission, gift or other consideration contingent upon the

award of a contract for professional services pursuant to this

act.

(b) Any person violating subsection (a) of this section or

subsection (d) of W.S. 9-2-1032 is liable for a penalty not to

exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000.00). The penalty may be

recovered in a civil action and damages shall be assessed by the

court.

(c) Any action pursuant to this section shall be initiated

in Laramie county by the attorney general.

Investigation of Irrigation Assessments Using the State of Wyoming

2015 Irrigation System Survey Report INTRODUCTION The Water Resources Data System (WRDS) at the University of Wyoming on a regular basis compiles and publishes the Irrigation System Survey Report (ISSR) on behalf of the Wyoming Water Development Commission (WWDC). Various ditch or reservoir companies, irrigation districts, conservancy districts, associations, and water purveying organizations provide survey responses for items including source of water, diversion and conveyance capacity, presence of storage, amount of storage, acres irrigated, number of users, annual budget, basis and amount of assessment, number of employees, debt repayment, conservation measures, operational issues, and maintenance needs. The 2015 ISSR has 132 organizations listed with the most current survey responses shown for each, even if some responses were to an earlier survey. The ISSR is interesting and useful in its own right, however there is much data from many organizations for the reader to digest. Accompanying this narrative is the 2015 ISSR plus a spreadsheet with some additions and modifications. The additions are columns that might be considered derivative because they use survey responses to allow us to create comparative relationships between systems to add to our understanding. To facilitate visualization columns are color coded where within a given column the bigger numbers are red, the smaller numbers are green, and the medium numbers are progressively shades of yellow between red and green. The spreadsheet is sorted by the third column from the right (Column Q) with the heading in yellow titled “Budget/Irrigated Acre” with the largest $/acre value at the top; note the red to yellow color of the first pages and the more green colors on the last pages. Information regarding each column follows the Summary section. It should be noted that the survey responses provided have been used “as is”, with few changes by WWDC. In compiling the data it is our understanding that WRDS does communicate directly with some respondents in order to receive a higher response rate and better data. However, as with the proverbial square peg, these water purveying entities do not all perform their service uniformly. Some use natural drainages and therefore have essentially no conveyance to maintain, while others have miles of conveyance to maintain. For some entities the facilities to divert water to each irrigator are the irrigator’s expense and responsibility. In other organizations the irrigator is assessed such that the entity controls the facilities to the point of delivery to the irrigator. Another important difference is that it appears, for example, that the entities that have access to Bureau of Reclamation storage generally bill the stored water through the water assessment and apparently pay as a group. For private storage the purchase of stored water may not always be billed through the direct flow entity. In those cases the individual irrigator may pay the direct flow entity for direct flow water and the stored water entity for stored water, thus having two assessments. This leads to the appearance of lower water assessment rates and the irrigated acres being counted twice. In short there are many variations in how these organizations are operated and financed.

SUMMARY Based on the information provided, the following characteristics coincide with higher assessment rates:

a. Ability of irrigators to grow higher value crops. b. More miles of conveyance facilities. c. Organizational acceptance of responsibility for longer conveyance per irrigated acre. d. More water users. e. Smaller land parcels. f. More full time and seasonal full time employees. g. Debt. h. Singular assessment for both direct flow and stored water.

Lower assessment rates are related to:

i. Due to what could be a myriad of factors, irrigators limited to forage crops instead of higher value cash crops.

j. Use of natural channels for water delivery. k. Individual rather than organizational responsibility for a larger share of diversion,

conveyance and delivery cost and functionality. l. Fewer water users. m. Larger land parcels. n. Less labor expense accepted by the organization. o. Absence of debt. p. Individual irrigator payment of assessments to more than one organization for water.

Median values for numbers in columns:

q. 100 cfs, Conveyance capacity rev (“rev” designates revised responses resulting in numbers; see the Column Information section).

r. 1.9 cfs/70 acres, Conveyance capacity per 70 irrigated acres. s. 12 mi, Miles of conveyance rev. t. 0.6 mi/160 acres, Miles per 160 irrigated acres. u. 3,451 acres, Irrigated acres rev. v. 30 users, Number of individual operators or water users rev. w. 1.5 users/160 acres, Number of water users per 160 irrigated acres. x. $17,500/yr, Budget rev. y. $6.23/acre, Budget per irrigated acre. z. 0.5 employees, Full time employees plus seasonal full time employees.

There are 105 of the 132 survey respondents who answered all three of the three questions regarding Irrigated Acres, Number of Individual Operators or Water Users, and Budget. The median value of those respondents for the Budget per Irrigated Acre is $6.23/ac. If the entities with a value equal to or less than the median $6.23 are summed, they represent 50% of the entities, 37% of the Irrigated Acres and 18% of the Water Users. It is likely that some of the Irrigated Acres and Water Users are counted more than once due to separate stored water-direct flow water assessments.

COLUMN INFORMATION Budget/Irrigated Acre Column, $/acre, Column Q: This column heading is highlighted in yellow and is located three columns from the right side of the page. The entire survey is sorted such that the highest $/acre is at the top of the list and the organizations that submitted incomplete responses are at the bottom of the list. Further, this column is color coded with red being the largest value working through shades of orange, yellow, and light green to dark green being the smallest. Below the last shaded cell in Column Q the entries with inconclusive values are sorted first by the amount of the annual budget, then by the number of users, and finally alphabetically by entity name. We are interested in the amount per irrigated acre assessed by the organizations responding to the survey. The ISSR has information for Irrigated Acres and for the Annual Budget. Those columns are revised as described in the following paragraph and shown in the color-coded printout as Column L, Irrigated Acres rev and Column P, Annual Budget rev. The “rev” on these and other columns is a marker to show that the column is not the direct column from the survey, but is revised to make calculations. Our first derivative column is a calculation of dividing the Annual Budget by the Irrigated Acres to give us a $/acre amount. In order to make the calculation for the derivative column, the entry for the Annual Budget must be a number. The survey responses have been changed where necessary to result in a number. Ranges are modified to the maximum number and phrases are modified to a number if one is indicated. Not every response can be converted to a number, these are subsequently sorted to the bottom of the list. In those cases, the entity’s position in the sorted list should be ignored because the data was not available to calculate a meaningful position in the list. Like the Annual Budget, the entry for the Irrigated Acres must also be a number, which has been resolved as described for the Annual Budget (i.e. phrases to a number and ranges to the maximum number). Crop Restrictions Column, Column M, B=Sugar Beets, R=Row Crops, SG=Small Grains and Alfalfa, and P=Pasture, Grass, and Grass Hay, B or R indicate crop choice is not limited and SG or P indicate crop choices are limited, perhaps by water, elevation, soil, etc.: Another important dataset deals with Crop Restrictions. The survey respondents were asked to list up to four important crops grown by their users. For our use the least restrictive crop, or possibly the highest value crop, of the four potentially listed was used to represent the crop group for the entity. For the purposes of this derivative column it is assumed that if sugar beets (B=Sugar Beets) can be grown there are no restrictions on the crops that can be grown. Water supply is adequate, soil and climate are not restrictive, and a market exists for sugar beets. Likewise if sugar beets can be grown so can row crops, small grains, alfalfa, and irrigated pasture. The next least restrictive crop group is R=Row Crops. The row crop group has all the attributes of the sugar beet group except possibly the absence of a feasible sugar beet market. The most restrictive crop group is P=Pasture, Grass, and Grass Hay. Often the water supply is short or seasonal, the soils not conducive to farming, and high elevation may result in a climate with a short growing season. By process of elimination this leaves the SG=Small Grains and Alfalfa group of crops that might represent reduced water supply, shortened growing season, crops for forage rather than cash, and similar situations that aren’t as restrictive as the straight grass crop group but not as intensively farmed as indicated in the row crop or sugar beet crop groups. In some areas of Wyoming small grains and alfalfa-grass mix hay are grown as dryland crops. In those areas limited irrigation may serve to boost yields and quality to an incremental degree. These four groups are color coded by crop value into two groups, B and R crops are red and SG and P are green.

This column seems to most closely reflect the Budget $/Acre column. Fourteen of the top sixteen organizations grow sugar beets and row crops. One of the other two indicated pasture as a crop but may be more of a residential organization than one that delivers to primarily agricultural producers. The less expensive end of the scale is dominated by pasture and small grain crop limitations. The remaining color coded columns from left to right on the page are: Storage? Column, Yes or No, Column G: The survey has information related to Surface Source, Name of Reservoir with Account, Amount of Storage, and Type of Diversion. The responses for these columns indicate whether the entity has stored water and therefore whether to enter Yes or No in the Storage? Column. This column is color coded with Yes being red and No being green. Capacity of Conveyance rev Column, in cfs, Column H: The survey also has information related to Diversion Capacity, another column for Conveyance Capacity, and another column for a Range of Conveyance Capacity if given. For the purpose of Column H the number for Conveyance Capacity was used first, if unavailable the high number of the Range Of Conveyance Capacity was used, and if unavailable the Diversion Capacity was used. Column H is color coded red to green, high to low. It should be noted that entities that use a natural drainage to convey irrigation water may have a very large value. Use of the natural drainage also indicates reduced maintenance costs and therefore likely a relatively low water assessment rate. Several stored water purveyors in the survey fit this general description. Conveyance capacity per 70 Acres Irrigated Column, in cfs, Column I: This derivative column is intended to reflect the historic water supply, particularly for a short supply. A direct flow water right is allowed to divert 1 cfs per 70 acres irrigated. Administrative circumstances may allow 2 cfs per 70 acres irrigated. If a water supply is limited it is not unusual for the diversion and conveyance facilities to have a capacity of less than 1 cfs per 70 acres irrigated, usually due to the economics of constructing and maintaining facilities that are rarely fully utilized. A limited water supply may also limit the water assessment rate that can be supported. It should be noted that without storage, larger diversion and conveyance facilities might be used to divert spring high flow water to the maximum extent allowed even if for the full irrigation season the water supply is insufficient. This is especially true higher in drainages. These irrigation methods tend to be relatively low cost and involve lower value crop groups. As such this exception indicating a lower water assessment rate might have a relatively large capacity per 70 acres irrigated. To calculate these numbers the Capacity of Conveyance rev (Column H) value was divided by, the Irrigated Acres rev (Column L) divided by 70. Column I is color coded high to low, red to green.

Miles rev Column, in miles, Column J: The survey has a response for miles of conveyance facilities. Column J represents those values for calculation purposes. Respondents appear to show miles of natural drainage, main canal, laterals and various combinations of the same in response to this question. Column J is color coded red to green, high to low. The longer conveyances tend to be nearer the top of the list which is in the higher assessment rates. Miles per 160 irrigated acres Column, in miles/160 acres, Column K: This derivative column is intended to show how close together the irrigated acres are located. This number was determined by dividing the Miles of conveyance rev (Column J) by, the Irrigated Acres rev (Column L) divided by 160. Column K is color coded high to low, red to green. It is assumed that the less densely packed the irrigated acres are, the more infrastructure there is to construct and maintain, and therefore a larger water assessment rate is required. The column color coding indicates the stored water purveyors utilizing natural drainages (no conveyance canal) have the zero and low values regardless of where the irrigated acres are. Another way to evaluate this column is that the irrigated acres may not be a lot more densely located, but the organization’s responsibility for the conveyance may be shifted to the irrigator, thus giving the appearance of more density. Those organizations assuming more responsibility appear as having more conveyance per irrigated acre and tend to be higher on the list for assessment rate. Irrigated Acres rev Column, in acres, Column L: The ISSR has data for Total Acres and for Irrigated Acres. The latter and on occasion the former were entered in this revised column for calculation purposes. Column L is color coded red to green, high to low. Number of individual operators (water users) rev Column, Column N: The survey has data related to the number of individual operators and/or water users which was edited to numbers wherever possible. Column N is color coded red to green, high to low. It appears that generally the organizations serving more users have higher assessment rates. Water users per 160 irrigated acres Column, in number of water users, Column O: This column was created to see if assessment rate might be influenced by the size of land parcels served. It was calculated by dividing the Number of Individual Operators (Water Users) rev (Column N) by, the Irrigated Acres rev (Column L) divided by 160. A higher number indicates more users on a given 160 acre parcel. There are a few high number outliers that make the column difficult to evaluate, but the data indicates that there is less expense to serve larger parcels. Column O is color coded red to green, high to low. Annual Budget rev Column, in $, Column P: The ISSR information for the Annual Budget has been revised to use numbers where possible, again for calculation purposes. Column P is color coded red to green, high to low.

Full Time + Seasonal Employees rev Column, in estimated year-long FTE’s, Column R: The survey has information for Full Time Employees and for Seasonal Full Time Employees. The range for the latter was from zero to five. Rather than using another column on the printout, the Seasonal Employees were counted as 0.5 each and added to the Full Time Employees counted as 1.0 each, resulting in the column shown. Column R is color coded red to green, high to low. Generally it shows that the organizations with more employees tend to have higher assessment rates. Do You Have Any Existing Debt Column, Yes or No, Column S: This column is a Yes/No column color coded red/green. There are more “Yes” entries higher on the list and more “No” entries lower on the list. Additional statistics:

Yes No Not Determined

Storage? 74 37 21

Existing Debt? 38 82 12

Capacity of Conveyance, cfs

<70 35

70-150 35

>150 36

Agenda

Figure 1

Figure 2

Agenda

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 $45 $50 $55 $60

Nu

mb

er o

f En

titi

es

Budget/Irrigated Acres, $/acre.Average is $9.99/acre. Median is $6.23/acre.

Distribution of Cost of Water

$0.00

$10.00

$20.00

$30.00

$40.00

$50.00

$60.00

$70.00

1 6

11

16

21

26

31

36

41

46

52

57

62

67

72

77

82

87

92

97

10

2

10

7

Bu

dge

t/Ir

riga

ted

Acr

e, $

/ac

Each Entity

Range of Cost of Water

_______________________________________

STATE OF WYOMING

2015

IRRIGATION SYSTEM SURVEY REPORT

__________________________

Wyoming Water Development Commission 6920 Yellowtail Rd.

Cheyenne, WY 82002 307-777-7626


katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

WyomingWaterDevelopmentCommissionIrrigationSystemSurvey

The Wyoming Water Development Commission (WWDC) maintains a database of irrigation districts and companies in the State of Wyoming. A survey is conducted approximately every two years and the results are used to update the database. This survey provides valuable information to state agencies, irrigation districts and the public. It aids the Water Development Office in prioritizing Water Development Account funds available for feasibility studies and project construction. In addition, this information allows irrigation districts and companies to compare operational issues, financial data, and general information with others around the state. From the responses received, the WWDC divides the information into six sub-reports including a mailing list, conveyances, usage and storage, systems operations, and general information. This report also contains a list of entities that are in the database but have never responded to the survey or wish exclusion from the survey distribution. This survey can be accessed online or a copy can be requested from the WWDC.

REPORTOVERVIEW&KEYTOIRRIGATIONSYSTEMSSURVEYREPORTS

Report #1: Mailing Information: This report contains the status, division, contact person, mailing address, and date of last survey received for each entity. Entities that did not respond to the 2015 survey may have incorrect contact information. Report #2: Diversion/Conveyance: This data refers to the entity’s water supply, diversions, conveyances, and return flows. The individual fields are defined as follows:

Surface Source The surface source of an entity’s water supply.

Type of Diversion How the surface source is diverted.

Capacity of Diversion Capacity in cubic feet per second (cfs) for the diversion.

Type of Conveyance Primary conveyance system used by the entity.

Capacity of Conveyance Capacity of the conveyance system in cubic feet per second (cfs).

Length (miles) Length in miles of the primary conveyance system.

Conveyance Loss (%) Estimated percentage loss of the system.

Report #3: Usage and Storage: This report contains information pertaining to water usage, storage, and the size in acres of the irrigation company or district. The individual fields are defined as follows:

Total # of Acres Number of acres in the irrigation district or canal company.

# Acres Irrigated Number of acres irrigated in the district or company.

# of Users Number of individual irrigators in the irrigation district or canal company.

Others Indicates if users outside of the district/company are served by the entity.

Who/Amount Users served outside of the entity.

Storage Amount of storage owned by the entity.

Storage Reservoir Name of storage facility. Report #4: Operations: This report consists of the entity’s budget and other data relating to the system’s operation. The individual fields are defined as follows:

Assessment Unit How the water users are assessed for the entity’s services.

Budget Approximate value of the entity’s budget in dollars.

Other Income Indicates if the entity has another source of income.

Full Time Employees Indicates the number of full time employees.

Seasonal Employees Indicates the number of seasonal employees.

Debt Payment Amount the entity owes in existing debt.

Date Debt Retirement Date the debt will be retired if applicable.

Board of Directors Indicates if a Board of Directors governs the entity. Report #5: General Information: This report contains information pertaining to the entity’s participation in conservation and any problems the entity has encountered. The individual fields are defined as follows:

Habitat Benefits Yes, No, NA (not applicable), or no answer if the entity provides habitat or other beneficial factors to the wildlife in the immediate area.

Conservation Measures Yes, No, NA (not applicable), or no answer if the entity has water conservation measures in place.

Operational Issues Problems encountered by the entity.

Report #6: Entities that have not responded/requested removal from mailing list

This report contains the status, contact person, mailing address, and division for those entities who have never responded to this survey or that have requested exclusion from the survey distribution.

Irrigation System Survey General Statistics:

A total of 176 Irrigation Districts and Canal Companies are listed in the WWDC database. Entity contact information was updated with assistance from active survey entities, Conservation Districts, Conservancy Districts, the Water User Organization Roster (http://www.usbr.gov/gp/water_user_roster.pdf, 4/22/2014), and the State of Wyoming Business Division Database (https://wyobiz.wy.gov/Business/Database.aspx, 10/21/2014). After eliminating duplicate listings (due to name change or entity split), entities no longer in business, those requesting removal from the survey mailing, and those entities without contact information, the 2015 Irrigation Survey was distributed to 152 entities with a total of 75 (49%) entities responding. Of those 75 entities, an additional three (3) entities were either a duplication, out of business or wished to be removed from the mailing and were therefore excluded from the summary statistics seen in the tables below. In comparison, the 2012 survey distributed 127 surveys and had a return of 65 (51%); the 2010 survey distributed 134 surveys and received 67 (50%) responses; the 2008 survey had 60 (32%) responses out of 189 surveys distributed. The current survey was distributed by a variety of methods: ninety-five (95) entities were sent a hardcopy in the mail; forty-four (44) were sent emails to take the survey online, seven (7) requested the survey be sent by a combination of regular mail/online/email methods, four (4) surveys were completed by telephone, and two (2) were sent by email. In addition to the four (4) surveys completed by telephone, three (3) entities per telephone conversation required exclusion from summary statistics due to reasons previously mentioned, twenty-eight (28) surveys were returned by regular mail, thirty-seven (37) surveys were conducted online; and (3) three surveys were a combination of regular mail and the online survey. Combined with input from the 2008, 2010 and 2012 surveys, 108 out of 132 viable entities (82%) have responded to the survey within the past seven (7) years.

The tables below summarize of some of the data from this survey. Data from the surveys were filtered and unexplained outliers removed.

Total Amount of Reported Irrigated Acres and Irrigated Acres by Reported Crop Type (Only a portion of the entities reported crop type and related acreages)

Total Reported Irrigated Acres 670,602 Crop Type Total Acres

Alfalfa 25,945Beans 8,536Beets 11,040Corn 24,513

Ornamental Lawn 55Grains include: Barley 8,000

Grains, Small Grains 6,196Malt Barley 700Oats 150Sorghum 680Sunflowers 2,040

Native/Wild Hay* 181,565

Miscellaneous Combinations(Alfalfa Seed, Beans, Beets, Corn, Hay, Row Crops, Small Grains, Other)

61,300

Total Reported Crop Acreage 329,820*Includes: Brome Grass, Grass, Grass/Alfalfa Mix, Grass/Alfalfa Hay, Meadow, Native Hay, Native Improved

Pasture, Pasture, Irrigated Pasture, Pasture Alfalfa/Grass Mix, and Wild Hay. Total irrigated acreage from the 2007 Statewide Framework Water Plan was 1,947,100 acres.

Total Reported Budgets and Number of Employees Total Budgeted $12,796,772

Total Full Time Employees 101 Total Full Time Seasonal Employees

54

Averages for Reported Conveyance Losses and Capacities of Conveyances (cfs = cubic feet per second)

Average

Conveyance Losses 22.06%

Conveyance Capacity 463

Reservoir Storage Reported (af = acre feet) Total

Amount of Reservoir Storage 1,907,922.5

# of Entities with Storage 35

General Operation Responses

Yes No NA, No Answer,

Unknown Provide Habitat to Wildlife 54 13 5

Have Conservation Measures 48 9 15

Have Return Flow 23 46 3

Have a Board of Directors 62 8 2

Wyoming Water Development Commission2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report

Report#1: Mailing ListEntities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given.

Entity Status Division Contact Address City State ZipDate

ReceivedAlliance Ditch Company Company 2 John Araas PO Box 6288 Sheridan WY 82801 9/11/2003Alto Canal Sprinkler Company Company 4 Sherie Warren -

SecretaryPO Box 806 Thayne WY 83127 2/19/2015

Anita Ditch Company and Gapen Ditch Company 3 Martin Mercer 1926 Hwy 31 Hyattville WY 82428 3/6/2015, 4/23/2015

Austin Wall Irrigation District Canal Company (formerly known as Austin Canal Co, or Uinta NO 3 Canal Company)

Distict 4 Jud Redden 353 Eagle Lane Lyman WY 82937 2/21/2015

Baggs Ditch Company Corporation 1 Glynda Sheehan PO Box 60 Baggs WY 82321 8/5/2005Baldwin/Peralta Ditch Company (aka Peralta Ditch Company or as Popo Agie Ranch)

Ditch Group 2 Gordon Nebeker 11 Mary Ann Drive Lander WY 82520 4/8/2015

Bates Creek Reservoir Company Company 1 Andy Anderson 13930 State HWY 487 Casper WY 82604 1/4/2015Bear Canal Ditch Company Company 4 Brent Barker 15740 HWY 150 South Evanston WY 82930 5/7/2012Beckwith Quin Canal Company Company 4 James Willis PO Box 281 Cokeville WY 83114 11/26/2014Bench Canal Company Corporation 3 Sandi House PO Box 48 Emblem WY 82411 11/21/2014Big Cottonwood Ditch Co. Corporation 3 Michael Hornecker 4015 HWY 287 Lander WY 82520 2/13/2015

Big Goose and Beaver Ditch Company Company 2 Jim Ankney 532 Beaver Creek Rd. Sheridan WY 82801 8/3/2005Big Horn Canal Irrigation District District 3 Richard Russell PO Box 348 Basin WY 82432 1/13/2015Blacks Fork Canal Company Company 4 Vearl W. Bird 542 Co Rd 219 Ft. Bridger WY 82933 11/20/2014Blue Bell Canal Company Company 4 Douglas C. Jarvie (Bad Address) PO Box 2881 McKinnon WY 82938 1/9/2001Bluff Irrigation District Irrigation District 3 Sandy Richard,

Damon WeberPO Box 923 Worland WY 82401 3/3/2015

Boulder Irrigation District District 4 Kathy Sandmeier PO Box 73 Boulder WY 82923 2/27/2015Bridger Valley Water Conservancy District Conservancy District 4 Kenneth Fackrell,

MngrPO Box 177 Mountain View WY 82939 2/17/2015

Burbank Ditch District 1 Kayo Smith 3060 Monte Vista Torrington WY 82240 3/13/2012Burn Cleuch Ditch Co Company 2 Julie Gerlach

(Sec/Treas)2624 Heartland Drive Sheridan WY 82801 5/24/2012

Butte Ditch Association 3 Allen Hogg 13 Rd 5WT Meeteetse WY 82433 8/11/2005Canyon Canal, Inc. Private Non-Profit

Company4 Michele Hinderliter,

(Sec/Treas)PO Box 1139 Pinedale WY 82941 5/14/2012

Casper-Alcova Irrigation District District 1 Herman Strand PO Box 849 Mills WY 82644 3/9/2010Cemetery Ditch Company Company 3 Ivan Laird PO Box 778 Lander WY 82520 1/23/2015Chalmers Fogg Ditch Company 3 Unknown no info Lander WY 82520 4/30/2010Chapman Canal Company Private Company 4 James Sewell PO Box 250 Woodruff UT 84086 3/6/2008Cody Canal Irrigation District District 3 Mary Helen Reed PO Box 1418 Cody WY 82414 4/16/2012Cottonwood Irrigation District District 4 Kelly Johnson 76219 HWY 89 Smoot WY 83126 5/9/2012Crook County Irrigation District District 2 Vince Waters 643 McKean Road Moorcroft WY 82721 3/18/2008




ReceivedDavis & Company Ditch Company 4 Kendell Potter General Delivery Mountain View WY 82939 3/30/2010Deaver Irrigation District Irrigation District 3 Siina Swanson,

Jerry Dart13 1st Ave E; PO Box 205 Deaver WY 82421 2/16/2015

Deseret Land and Livestock Business NA James Sewell PO Box 250 Woodruff UT 84086 2/11/2010Eastside Irrigation District District 4 Lance Bateman PO Box 5042 Etna WY 83118 3/11/2008Eden Valley Irrigation & Drainage District District 4 Brandon Long PO Box 174 Farson WY 82932 3/7/2015Elk Water User's Association (formerly part of Elk-Lovell ID, aka Elk Lovell Canal)

Association 3 Fred Hopkin 217 Lane 10 1/2 Powell WY 82435 11/21/2014

Enterprise Irrigation and Power Company Company 3 Barbara Speyer PO Box 815 Lander WY 82520 12/2/2014Etna Irrigation District District 4 Kendall Jenkins PO Box 167 Freedom WY 83120 12/16/2014Fairview Irrigation District District 3 Garry M. Crook 2637 Bittercreek Rd Afton WY 83110 2/12/2015Farmers Protective (Globe Canal) Corporation 3 Jim Walker 1255 Road 8 1/2 Lovell WY 82431 3/23/2012First Mesa Ditch Company Company 1 Glynda Sheehan PO Box 60 Baggs WY 82321 8/17/2005Gooseberry Creek Irrigation District District 3 David Slover 4162 Gooseberry Rd Worland WY 82401 11/17/2014Goshen Hole Water Users Association Association 1 Earl Alps 4149 State Highway 161 Yoder WY 82244 6/6/2005Goshen Irrigation District Irrigation District 1 Rob Posten PO Box 717; 2912 West E St Torrington WY 82240 12/15/2014Goshen Mutual Reservoir and Ditch Co. Company 1 Joyce Kirchhefer 4686 Road 37 Yoder WY 82244 6/13/2005Green River Irrigation District District 4 John Andrikopoulos PO Box 1953 Pinedale WY 82941 2/27/2015

Greybull Valley Irrigation District Irrigation District 3 Tom Laidlaw, Manager

PO Box 44 Emblem WY 82422 2/10/2015

Gunbarrel Lateral Ditch Company Company 1 Terry R. Jones 254 Hightower Rd Wheatland WY 82201 4/26/2012Hamsfork Water Users Association Association 4 Steven Peternal,

Don Lamborn, Alice Sears

PO Box 843 Kemmerer WY 83101 11/26/2014

Hanover Irrigation District, Upper Hanover Irrigation District (aka Upper Hanover Canal)

Irrigation District 3 John Scheurman, Sandy Richard

PO Box 965 Worland WY 82401 1/14/2015

Heart Mountain Irrigation District District 3 Gary Kellogg 1206 Road 18 Powell WY 82435 2/20/2015Highland Hanover Irrigation District Irrigation District 3 Dan Madden, Sandy

RichardPO Box 982 Worland WY 82401 2/4/2015

Highland Irrigation District District 4 Jack Roberts, Latner Straley

PO Box 913/PO Box 1232 Pinedale WY 82941 12/3/2014, 2/17/2015

Hill Irrigation District District 1 Steve Feagler PO Box 50 Torrington WY 82240 9/11/2003Hilliard East Fork Canal Company Company 4 Dan Martin 12826 HWY 150 Evanston WY 82930 2/14/2015Hilliard West Side Ditch Company Company 4 Lynn Hutchinson 14372 HWY 150 South Evanston WY 82930 1/16/2015Hoops Lake Reservoir Company Company 4 Wade Stephens HC 67 Box 3 Lonetree WY 82936 4/13/2012Horse Creek Conservation District District 1 Diana Guest or

Gary KirchheferPO Box 68 Hawk Springs WY 82217 11/10/2014

Hunt Canal Irrigation District District 3 Elsie Martens PO Box 243 Lovell WY 82431 11/20/2014Interstate Irrigation & Reservoir Company Company 4 Bryon R. Thomas HCR 65 Box 777 McKinnon WY 82938 2/26/2015




ReceivedKidman and Wall Ditch Company Company 4 Stuart Hickman PO Box 66 Robertson WY 82944 12/2/2014Kirby Ditch Irrigation Distict (formerly Kirby Ditch Co.)

Irrigation District 3 Delbert Daniels 1167 Cowboy Mine Rd Thermopolis WY 82443 12/2/2014

Ladder Ditch Company Company 1 Sharon S. O'Toole PO Box 42 Savery WY 82332 9/15/2003Lake DeSmet Ditch Company (formerly listed as Lake DeSmet Reservoir Co.)

Corporation 2 Kathleen McPhee 11 N Main St Buffalo WY 82834 11/18/2014

Lakeview Irrigation District Irrigation District 3 J. Travis Smith PO Box 880 Cody WY 82414 3/16/2015Lamb Supply Canal Company Company 4 LeeAnn Barton PO Box 1034 Mountain View WY 82939 4/18/2015Lander Ditch Company Private Company 3 Cale Case 787 S. 4th St. Lander WY 82520 6/26/2008LaPrele Irrigation District District 1 Anna McClure PO Box 115 Douglas WY 82633 4/26/2012Laramie Valley Municipal Irrigation District Irrigation District 1 C.M. Aron 221 E. Ivinson St. Laramie WY 82070 3/15/2015LeClair Irrigation District District 3 Attn: Business

ManagerPO Box 568 Riverton WY 82501 4/30/2012

Lingle Water User's Association Association 1 Clay Peterson 3960 Buttermilk Rd Torrington WY 82240 12/3/2014Little Popo Agie Irrigation District District 3 Rick L. Sollars,

District's Attorney277 Lincoln St Lander WY 82520 11/24/2014

Little Snake River Conservation District District 1 Larry Hicks, Kelly Kudera

PO Box 355 Baggs WY 82321 3/2/2015

Lovell Irrigation District (formerly part of Elk-Lovell ID or aka Elk Lovell Canal)

District 3 Stan Asay 1148 Road 18 Lovell WY 82431 7/22/2005

Lower Clear Creek Irrigation District District 2 Steve Mitzel Box 167 Leiter WY 82837 12/15/2000Lower Hanover Canal 3 Lial Sinn PO Box 885 Worland WY 82401 9/26/2003Lucerne Pumping Plant Canal Company (formerly known as Lucerne Irrigation District)

District 1 Rose Watkins PO Box 241 Thermopolis WY 82443 3/1/2010

McDonald Ditch Company (Corporation)

3 Fred Barnett, Carolyn Walton

3236 Rd 34/889 US HWY 14 Greybull WY 82426 2/17/2015

Meade Creek Ditch Corporation 2 Bill Babione 3466 US Hwy 87 Sheridan WY 82801 10/9/2000Midvale Irrigation District Irrigation District 3 Jon Howell,

Manager; Pat Rorabaugh, Office Manager

PO Box 128; 305 3rd Street Pavillion WY 82523 11/3/2014

Milich Ditch Company Company 4 Mark Walker 2490 Hwy 414 Lyman WY 82937 8/8/2005Neff Ditch Irrigation Association Association 3 John Schulz PO Box 1135 Cody WY 82414 12/11/2014New Fork Irrigation District (formerly submitted as New Fork Lake Irrigation District)

District 4 Tina Nelson PO Box 91 Cora WY 82925 2/17/2015

New Grattan Ditch Company Company 1 Bryan Greenwald PO Box 84 Lingle WY 82223 5/9/2012New North Platte Irrigation & Ditch Co. Irrigation Company 1 Shawn Madden PO Box 670 Torrington WY 82240 5/1/2012Nez Perce Irrigation Association Association 3 Kevin Kincheloe 11 Nez Perce Dr Cody WY 82414 4/10/2012Nicol & Table Mountain Ditch Private Company 3 Ken Persson 7676 Hwy 789 Lander WY 82520 2/12/2015North Fork Irrigation District Irrigation District 2 Kathleen McPhee 145 Patch Road Buffalo WY 82834 11/11/2014




ReceivedNorth Fork Valley Ditch Company Company 3 Bill Landwer, Linda

Putney25 Bradford Drive/PO Box 108

Cody/Wapiti WY 82414/82450

2/18/2015

North Strawberry Canal Co. Private Company 4 Dean Merrit 1547 Thayne Bedford Rd Thayne WY 83127 3/19/2008Owl Creek Irrigation District (Dempsey Canal now incorporated into Owl Crk)

District 3 Rose Watkins PO Box 509 Thermopolis WY 82443 3/1/2010

Parker McBride Private Company 3 Ken Persson 7676 Hwy 789 Lander WY 82520 2/12/2015Peoples Canal Company Company NA Jim R. Wilson PO Box 627 Manila UT 84046 11/21/2014Pine Creek Ditch Association, Incorporated Association 4 Leslie Hagenstein PO Box E Pinedale WY 82941 2/28/2015Piney and Cruse Creek Ditch Company Company 2 Dave Clarendon 113 Fish Hatchery Rd Banner WY 82832 4/30/2012Pioneer Canal - Lake Hattie Irrigation District District 1 Greg Weisz - Pence

and MacMillan LLC

501 Garfield; PO Box 1285 Laramie WY 82073 5/15/2012

Porto Irrigation District District 4 Val Dee Pendleton 1620 Muddy String Road Thayne WY 83127 7/7/2003Powder River Irrigation District (formerly Sussex Irrigation Co.)

District 2 Ken Koch 1561 Sussex RD Kaycee WY 82639 3/10/2010

Pratte-Ferris Irrigation District District 1 Jay Middleswarth PO Box 998 Torrington WY 82240 6/24/2010Reservoir Ranch (formerly Sixty-Seven Reservoir Project)

Private Company 4 Jay Downs PO Box 516 Big Piney WY 83113 4/19/2010

Riverton Valley Irrigation District Irrigation District 3 Hannah Thoman-Bookkeeper, Mark J. White-Attorney, Wayne Neil-Manager

420 E. Washington Riverton WY 82501 11/4/2014

Rock Creek Water Users Association Association 1 Scott Sims 1991 Co Rd 1 Unit B McFadden WY 82083 2/12/2015Rock Ranch Ditch Company Company 1 Steve Schmick 7009 State Highway 156 Torrington WY 82240 7/7/2003Salt River Irrigation District District 4 Unknown no contact information Afton WY 83110 7/9/2003Sandstone Ditch Company Company 3 Lee E. Adams PO Box 622 Basin WY 82410 2/25/2015Savery Creek Ditch Company Company 1 Jack Cobb PO Box 68 Savery WY 82332 2/26/2015Savery-Little Snake River Water Conservancy District District 1 Glynda Sheehan PO Box 60 Baggs WY 82321 8/5/2005

Shell Canal Company Company 3 Ray Weese 284 US HWY 14 Greybull WY 82426 4/5/2010Shell Valley Watershed Improvement District District 3 John Ed Anderson 2745 Beaver Creek Rd Shell WY 82441 7/7/2003Shoshone Irrigation District District 3 Bryant Startin 337 East First St. Powell WY 82435 2/11/2015Sidon Irrigation District District 3 Marilyn Hennrich PO Box 133 Cowley WY 82420 12/12/2014Smiths Fork Irrigation District District 4 Stephanie Haderlie PO Box 101 Cokeville WY 83114 2/27/2015Snavely/Grant Young Ditch (2012 submitted survey as Killebrew Irrigation)

Ditch Group 3 David Killebrew PO Box 51 Lander WY 82520 4/8/2015

Spring Draw Ditch Company (formerly entered as Spring Draw Irrigation)

Company 2 Mike Winterholler 150 Upper Rd Sheridan WY 82801 12/2/2014




ReceivedStewart Creek Irrigation Company Non Profit 4 Jeff Cummings,

Paul MoynihanPO Box 13534 Jackson WY 83002 12/3/2014

Sulphur Creek Reservoir Company (and City of Evanston)

Company 4 James Crompton 2361 HWY 89 N Evanston WY 82930 2/23/2015

Taylor Ditch Company (formerly Dutch Flat/Taylor Ditch)

Company 3 Bill Hamilton 551 Lyons Valley Rd Lander WY 82520 7/2/2012

Tillard Canal Company 3 Frank Stulc Jr. PO Box 909 Basin WY 82410 3/12/2015Toltec Watershed Improvement District District 1 Donald Robbins 550 Garrett Rd. Garrett WY 82058 2/27/2015Torrington Irrigation District District 1 Linda Keeran-

Sec/Tres, Marty Yorges-Pres.

PO Box 179 Torrington WY 82240 3/2/2010

Trowel Ditch Company Company 1 Keith Lankister (Bad Address) PO Box 375 Baggs WY 82321 6/3/2005Twin Butte Land and Irrigation Co. Corporation 4 Jim Eyre 5984 State HWY 414 North Lyman WY 82937 2/16/2010Twin Creeks (formerly known as Twin Creek Ditch Company)

NA 4 Kenny Petersen PO Box 422 Cokeville WY 83114 2/3/2015

Victoria Ditch Co. Company 3 Gary Rice 2946 E. US HWY 16, Unit A Ten Sleep WY 82442 8/3/2005Wagonhound Land & Livestock (aka Cannon Land & Livestock)

Company 1 Dustin Ewing, General Manager

1061 Poison Lake Rd. Douglas WY 82633 5/9/2012

West Side Canal Company Company 1 Steve Adams PO Box 301 Baggs WY 82321 2/6/2015Whaley Ditch Company 3 Mike Whaley, Greg

Flitner3167 Beaver Creek Rd/PO Box 8

Greybull/Shell WY 82426/82441

2/26/2015

Wheatland Irrigation District District 1 Kay Jenkins, Office Manager

PO Box 727 Wheatland WY 82201 2/23/2015

Whitney Reservoir 4 Sam Lowham 279 Bates Canyon Rd. Erda Utah 84074 7/24/2003Willwood Irrigation District District 3 Tom Walker-

Manager, Marjorie White-Sec/Treas

1306 Road 9 Powell WY 82435 1/26/2015

Wise Ditch Company (aka Rodgers and Gregg (Wise Ditch))

Company 3 Ernie Phinney 9541 WY HWY 789 Riverton WY 82501 2/23/2015

Wright & Murphy Ditch Company Company 1 Harold or Shirley Thomas

9483 Road 3 Ft. Laramie WY 82212 9/9/2003

Wyoming Game and Fish Commission State agency 3 Steve Ronne 2820 Highway 120 Cody WY 82414 3/26/2008


Report#2: Diversion/ConveyanceEntities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given.

Entity Surface SourceType of

DiversionCapacity of

Diversion (cfs)Type of

ConveyanceCapacity of

Conveyance (cfs) Miles Conveyance Losses %Alliance Ditch Company NA Ditch variable Ditch variable >10 no answerAlto Canal Sprinkler Company Alto Canal Headgate Varies yearly;

depends on snowpack

Ditch Annually variable; dependant on snow & rainfall

3 Approx. 10%

Anita Ditch Company and Gapen Ditch Paint Rock and Medicine Lodge

Headgate (check in creek)

50 Anita Ditch, 30 Gapen Ditch

Ditch 60 7 Anita Ditch, 5 Gapen Ditch

25%


Blacks Fork River Headgate 90 Ditch 80 17 60%

Baggs Ditch Company Little Snake River canal system

Diversion structure and headgate

3 NA 3 1.5 NA

Baldwin/Peralta Ditch Company (aka Peralta Ditch Company or as Popo Agie Ranch)

Popo Agie River Headgate right out of Popo Agie River

34 Ditch goes to (3) laterals

26.4 3 15%

Bates Creek Reservoir Company Bates Creek Dam and headgate

~20 Creek Bates Creek to many headgates

4 miles of second-ary supply to reser-voir

10-50%

Bear Canal Ditch Company Bear River - Bear Canal Ditch

Headgate 165 Ditch 165 20 NA

Beckwith Quin Canal Company Beckwith Quin Dam Dam 350 Ditches, pumps

120 7 no answer

Bench Canal Company Bench Canal Co. Dams, headgates

600' Ditches 300' 65 15%

Big Cottonwood Ditch Co. Big Cottonwood Ditch Dam Unknown Ditch 70 cfs 5 UnknownBig Goose and Beaver Ditch Company East Fork of Big Goose Cement

structure100 Open ditch NA 12 25%

Big Horn Canal Irrigation District Big Horn River Headgate 700 Ditch 600 60 10%Blacks Fork Canal Company Blacks Fork River Dam with

headgate375 cfs Canal 375 cfs 12 miles 15%

Blue Bell Canal Company stream Gravity flow 12.16 Ditch 12.16 NA NA







Conveyance (cfs) Miles Conveyance Losses %Bluff Irrigation District Big Horn River -

through Hanover Irrigation District

Dam/headgates

150 cfs Ditch 100 - 150 cfs 17 miles NA

Boulder Irrigation District Boulder Canal off of Boulder Creek fed by the Boulder Lake Reservoir

Headgate 400 Ditch 360 standard 400 max capacity

estimate 25 miles

25%

Bridger Valley Water Conservancy District Blacks Fork River and Smiths Fork River

No diversion dam; only storage dams and reservoirs

NA Canals and ditches by private owners

NA We only operate storage dams and not conveyance systems

10%

Burbank Ditch North Platte River Pump 5.14 Ditch (dirt & concrete (pipe))

5.14 5 20-30%

Burn Cleuch Ditch Co Stream: Little Goose, Trib to Tongue River

Dam in Little Goose Creek

20 Ditch Varies 4.5 NA

Butte Ditch Greybull River Native stone diversion

70 Ditch 40 6 20%

Canyon Canal, Inc. Green River Headgates 120 Canal ditch 120 18.2 miles

35%

Casper-Alcova Irrigation District Seminoe Reservoir/ North Platte River

Headgate NA NA 600 150 20%

Cemetery Ditch Company Big or Middle Fork Popo Agie River, Tributary Little Wind River

Concrete head wall with headgate

25 Open ditch with some concrete lined, ads and pvc piped

25 6 20%

Chalmers Fogg Ditch Ditch Headgate NA NA NA NA NAChapman Canal Company Bear River Dam,

headgate250 Ditch 250 20 15%

Cody Canal Irrigation District Southfork Shoshone River

Headgate NA NA 250 72 20%







Conveyance (cfs) Miles Conveyance Losses %Cottonwood Irrigation District Cottonwood Creek Headgate 100 Pipeline 60 35 miles

of buried pip.

NA

Crook County Irrigation District Keyhole Reservoir Pump Varies Belle Fourche River

Varies 0 varies

Davis & Company Ditch Smiths Fork River Headgate 25.5 Ditch 25.5 5 5%Deaver Irrigation District Ditch, reservoir Dam,

headgateUnknown Ditch, pipe 400 cfs 300 As diverse as our

system is, some places have very low loss (2-10%) and some as high as 30%.

Deseret Land and Livestock Chapman Canal - out of Bear River

Dam & headgate

NA NA 300 cfs 15 30%

Eastside Irrigation District Strawberry Creek Headgate Unknown Ditch NA 18 20%Eden Valley Irrigation & Drainage District Big Sandy River Dam 600 Ditch 470 121 20%Elk Water User's Association (formerly part of Elk-Lovell ID, aka Elk Lovell Canal)

Shoshone River Dam 300 Ditch 500 12 20%

Enterprise Irrigation and Power Company Enterprise Ditch, Frye Lake

Headgate 24 Ditch 24 18 50%

Etna Irrigation District Stream dam 5600 Ditch 5600 10 ?Fairview Irrigation District Salt River Headgate 80 cfs Canal 80 to 10 cfs 8 1/2

milesVariable from 10% to 50%

Farmers Protective (Globe Canal) Shoshone River Headgate at river

150 (approx) Cement ditch, buried, dist ditch.

95 (approx) 10 (approx)

NA

First Mesa Ditch Company Little Snake River - First Mesa Ditch

no answer no answer Ditch no answer 11 no answer

Gooseberry Creek Irrigation District Gooseberry Creek Dam with headgate

NA Ditch NA NA 30%

Goshen Hole Water Users Association Horse Creek Old concrete 250 no answer no answer no answer

30%







Conveyance (cfs) Miles Conveyance Losses %Goshen Irrigation District North Platte River Dam 1530 Ditch 1530 Main

canal 85.3 miles, open Laterals 70+ miles, and Tilelines 380+ miles.

40%

Goshen Mutual Reservoir and Ditch Co. Horse Creek Gravity on creek channel diversion dam

50 Ditch 30 4 60%

Green River Irrigation District Green River/Cottonwood Creek

Headgates 100 +/- single cfs no answer 200 +/- cfs 55 miles Contact Eddie Bow @ SEO

Greybull Valley Irrigation District Greybull River, Wood River

Diversion dams

NA Canal 2,450 20 10%

Gunbarrel Lateral Ditch Company Wheatland Irrigation District

Headgate 35 Pipe, ditch (lined)

35 10 0%

Hamsfork Water Users Association Hamsfork River Headgates NA Hams Fork River

NA NA 10%


Boysen Reservoir, Big Horn River

Dam, headgate

NA NA 550 cfs 40 10% due seepage

Heart Mountain Irrigation District Reservoir Dam 900 Ditch, lined ditch

850 168 30%

Highland Hanover Irrigation District Big Horn River Dam, headgate

145 cfs Ditch 96.75 cfs (50-100 cfs)

24 15%

Highland Irrigation District Fremont Lake-Highland Canal

Dam and headgates

~ 180 cfs Open canal/ditch

~ 180 cfs about 25 miles

10%

Hill Irrigation District Glendo, Guernsey no answer no answer Lined ditch no answer 6-8 no answerHilliard East Fork Canal Company Stream and Reservoirs

(East Fork of Bear River; Sulphur Creek Reservoir, Whitney Reservoir)

Headgate 28 Ditch 28 15 NA







Conveyance (cfs) Miles Conveyance Losses %Hilliard West Side Ditch Company Bear River Cement

headgate80 Ditch 80 18 Unknown

Hoops Lake Reservoir Company Thompson Creek Dam 125 Ditch NA 6 NoHorse Creek Conservation District Hawk Springs Reservoir Dam 125-150 cfs Concrete, dirt,

pipeline150 cfs 40 miles 30%

Hunt Canal Irrigation District Shoshone River, Coffer Dam

Headgate 150 cfs Ditch 150 cfs 13 miles None

Interstate Irrigation & Reservoir Company Beaver Meadows Reservoir & Burntfork Creek (High Water Right) & Island Lake

Dam & headgate

70 cfs Ditch 100 cfs Approx. 20 miles, approx. 16 miles in Utah and approx. 4 in WY. 95% of water is used in WY.

35-45% Shrink

Kidman and Wall Ditch Company Smiths Fork River Headgate NA Ditch NA 2 NAKirby Ditch Irrigation Distict (formerly Kirby Ditch Co.)

Big Horn River Headgate 90 cfs Ditch 90 cfs 6 10%

Ladder Ditch Company Battle Creek Rock weir 9 Open ditch, pipe

9 no answer

no answer

Lake DeSmet Ditch Company (formerly listed as Lake DeSmet Reservoir Co.)

Rock Creek Headgate 70 Ditch Appropriated 70; usual 45

3 (esti-mate)

15%

Lakeview Irrigation District Shoshone River (south fork)

Dam headgate

270 +/- Ditch 100 - 500 28 +/- 70% +/-

Lamb Supply Canal Company Ditch Ditch 40 Ditch 35 4 no answerLander Ditch Company Popo Agie River, Middle

Fork, Dickenson Spring, Dickenson Creek

Dam, headgate

no answer Ditch Unknown 5 no answer

LaPrele Irrigation District Reservoir Dam , NA NA 100 cfs 32 miles 6%Laramie Valley Municipal Irrigation District Oasis Ditch, Laramie

RiverDam 128 cfs Ditch 150 cfs 20 miles

est20%

LeClair Irrigation District Ditch Headgate NA NA 300 cfs +/- 33 miles NA







Conveyance (cfs) Miles Conveyance Losses %Lingle Water User's Association North Platte River Dam

(Whalen)no answer Canal 1900 None-we

pay Path-finder Irriga-tion for mainten-ance.

17-19%

Little Popo Agie Irrigation District Christina Lake Dam and headgate

33.4 Ditch 33.40 roughly 30 miles or slightly more

25%

Little Snake River Conservation District no answer no answer no answer no answer no answer no answer

no answer

Lovell Irrigation District (formerly part of Elk-Lovell ID or aka Elk Lovell Canal)

Shoshone River Diversion dam across Shoshone River, no storage

350-400 Open ditch 350-400 45 no answer

Lower Clear Creek Irrigation District Lake Desmet Dam no answer Ditch 40 no answer

no answer

Lower Hanover Canal Boysen-Big Horn River Concrete metal screw gate

300 Earth 235 24 no answer

Lucerne Pumping Plant Canal Company (formerly known as Lucerne Irrigation District)

Big Horn River Dam 70 Ditch 70 36 25%

McDonald Ditch Shell Creek Headgate approx 30 cfs Ditch approx 125 cfs* approx. 8 miles, approx 35-37 miles w/shell canal

Not available

Meade Creek Ditch Piney Creek Drop gate 50 Ditch 37 9 no answerMidvale Irrigation District Bull Lake Reservoir,

Pilot Butte ReservoirDiversion dam

1,800 Concrete lined canals, ditches and pipelines.

1,800 1075+/- 25-39%







Conveyance (cfs) Miles Conveyance Losses %Milich Ditch Company East Fork, Smith fork Headgate on

river90 Ditch 90 13 20%

Neff Ditch Irrigation Association South Fork Shoshone River

Headgate 10.0 Ditch 10.0 cfs 7 miles no answer

New Fork Irrigation District (formerly submitted as New Fork Lake Irrigation District)

Stream Reservoir Dam NA Natural Channel

NA 15 miles Unknown

New Grattan Ditch Company North Platte River Dam 50 Ditch 20 5 50%New North Platte Irrigation & Ditch Co. surface water, North

Platte RiverDam, headgate

53 Ditch, pipe 55 12 30%

Nez Perce Irrigation Association Heart Mountain Irrigation District

NA NA NA NA 2 15%

Nicol & Table Mountain Ditch Popo Agie River Headgate 100 Open ditch 95 cfs 7 30%North Fork Irrigation District North Fork of Crazy

Woman Creek and Muddy Creek

Headgate 70 cfs for Res. No. 2; 10 cfs for Res. No. 1

Ditch 70 cfs for Res No. 2; 10 cfs for Res. No. 1

2 mile for Res. No. 2; 1/2 mile for Res. No. 1

10%

North Fork Valley Ditch Company River - North Fork of Shoshone

Headgate 100 CFS Ditch 50-100 4.75 miles

10%

North Strawberry Canal Co. Ditch Headgate, pump

no answer Ditch no answer 14 50%

Owl Creek Irrigation District (Dempsey Canal now incorporated into Owl Crk)

no answer Dam 350 & 70 Ditch Unknown 70 25%

Parker McBride Popo Agie River from Nicol Table Mountain Ditch

Headgate 75 Ditch & pipe Varies 5 25%

Peoples Canal Company Stream Dam 55 cfs Pipe 55 cfs 9 2%Pine Creek Ditch Association, Incorporated Headgate on Pine Creek

(Stream); Pine Creek Canal No 1, Extension of the Lee

Dam 7125 Ditch 125 6.5 Unknown

Piney and Cruse Creek Ditch Company North and South Piney Creek

Dam/ headgate

NA Earth ditch 20-25 cfs 8 miles+ 10%

Pioneer Canal - Lake Hattie Irrigation District Big Laramie River, Little Laramie River, Lake Hattie

Gravity headgate

NA NA 800 approx 75

30%

Porto Irrigation District Cedar Creek Concrete headgates and pond

35 Pipe 35 5 no answer







Conveyance (cfs) Miles Conveyance Losses %Powder River Irrigation District (formerly Sussex Irrigation Co.)

Powder River Dam 160-200 Ditch 160 26 20%

Pratte-Ferris Irrigation District n platte headgate 22 csf Ditch no answer 10 no answerReservoir Ranch (formerly Sixty-Seven Reservoir Project)

Spring Creek Dam no answer Ditch & Canal no answer 2 1%

Riverton Valley Irrigation District Stream and Reservoir Manual gates/ headgate

185 Ditch, lined canal, and pipe

185 28 0

Rock Creek Water Users Association Rock Creek Headgate 3,000 cfs Natural stream

3,000 cfs 4 miles Unknown

Rock Ranch Ditch Company Rock Ranch Irrigation Ditch

Divert from North Platte to Rock Ranch

100 Ditch 100 14.5 no answer

Salt River Irrigation District no answer Concrete headgate

120 Ditch 120 8 no answer

Sandstone Ditch Company Greybull River Headgate, Greybull River

120 Ditch 80 cfs 16 10%

Savery Creek Ditch Company Savery Creek Concrete, sheet piling diversion


Savery-Little Snake River Water Conservancy District no answer no answer no answer no answer no answer no answer

no answer

Shell Canal Company Shell Creek, Shell Reservoir, Adelaide Reservoir

Dam 70 Ditch, lined ditch, pipe

variable 38 Unknown

Shell Valley Watershed Improvement District Shell Creek Screw headgate & conduit

90 Creek 150 0 no

Shoshone Irrigation District Shoshone River Dam and headgate

900 Ditch 900 260 15%

Sidon Irrigation District Shoshone River & Bittercreek

Dam? 400 ? 1,000 39 25%

Smiths Fork Irrigation District May Canal, Covey Canal Headgate Unknown Ditch Unknown 8 miles - 20 miles

Unknown

Snavely/Grant Young Ditch (2012 submitted survey as Killebrew Irrigation)

Middle Fork, Northfork Popo Agie

Headgate on point of diversion on river.

20 Ditch 20 5 50%







Conveyance (cfs) Miles Conveyance Losses %Spring Draw Ditch Company (formerly entered as Spring Draw Irrigation)

Little Goose Headgate 9 cfs Pipe 120 cfs approx. 3.5

NA

Stewart Creek Irrigation Company Stewart Creek Headgate no answer Pipe no answer 3 mi. ? no answerSulphur Creek Reservoir Company (and City of Evanston)

Reservoir Dam with headgate

80 cfs Ditch to Bear River

50-100 0 10%


Taylor NA NA Ditch NA 5 Unknown

Tillard Canal Big Horn River Pump 21 Ditch 20 Approx 9

Unknown

Toltec Watershed Improvement District North Laramie River Reservoir headgate

NA River NA 0 Unknown

Torrington Irrigation District North Platte River, Rawhide creek

Dam NA NA 40 25 15-20%

Trowel Ditch Company Little Snake River Four culverts with watermain gates and dam with slide in boards


Twin Butte Land and Irrigation Co. Blacksfork River Ditch 50 Ditch 50 7.5 10%Twin Creeks (formerly known as Twin Creek Ditch Company)

Twin Creeks Headgate 100 cfs Ditch 100 cfs 4 miles 10%

Victoria Ditch Co. Ten Sleep Creek Headgate no answer Ditch, pipe through town

no answer 3 Unknown

Wagonhound Land & Livestock (aka Cannon Land & Livestock)

NA Pumps 25.2571 Pumps NA NA NA

West Side Canal Company Little Snake River Dam From river 180 cfs +/-

Ditch 180 cfs +/- 20 +/- 20% (just a guess) varies /weather/amt of water

Whaley Ditch Shell Creek Headgate Unknown Ditch Unknown Unknown

Unknown







Conveyance (cfs) Miles Conveyance Losses %Wheatland Irrigation District Sybille Crk, Laramie R,

Dutton Crk, Three Mile Crk, Seepage Crk, One Mile, Rock Crk, Canal#1, Deep Creek, Little Laramie R, Transbasin water from Rock Creek Drainage. (sent additional attached sheets )

Headgates 631 Ditch Upper #1 - 490 cfx, #3 Canal - 120 cfs

approximately 120 miles

25%

Whitney Reservoir West Fork Bear River Mechanical Front Gate

100 + Canal & River no answer River Use

no answer

Willwood Irrigation District Shoshone River, Buffalo Bill Reservoir

Dam 400 Canal & laterals

400 82 20%


Little Popo Agie River Headgate 44 Ditch 44 12 50-60%

Wright & Murphy Ditch Company Glendo, Platte River GID canal no answer Ditch 4 1 no answerWyoming Game and Fish Commission Shoshone River Headgate no answer Ditch 450 12 no answer


Report#3: Usage and StorageEntities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given.

Entity Total Acres Irrigated Acres

Number of Individual

Operators/Water Users

Provide Water to Others

Who/Amount (cfs)

Name of Reservoir with Account

Amount of Storage (af)

Alliance Ditch Company Unknown NA 25 Yes Alliance Lateral (occasional)

NA NA

Alto Canal Sprinkler Company 680.55 681 19 No NA Strawberry NoneAnita Ditch Company and Gapen Ditch NA NA 5 Anita Ditch, 2

Gapen DitchNo NA 0 0


Unknown 4,001 12 No NA Meeks Cabin Dam NA

Baggs Ditch Company 903 903 5 No NA NA NABaldwin/Peralta Ditch Company (aka Peralta Ditch Company or as Popo Agie Ranch)

924 924 30 (varies) No NA NA NA

Bates Creek Reservoir Company 7,000 + 4,000 + 7 NA NA Bates Creek Reservoir

3,112

Bear Canal Ditch Company 4,900 4,900 33 No NA Whitney 1,102.50Beckwith Quin Canal Company 10,000 All (10,000) 6 Users No no answer Woodruff Narrows

Reservoir5,600

Bench Canal Company 16,500 16,500 71 No 145, 000 Sunshine Upper and Lower-Roach Gulch

145,000

Big Cottonwood Ditch Co. Unknown 2,167 98 Yes Unknown Shoshone Lake 9,372Big Goose and Beaver Ditch Company NA 6,160 46 No NA 0 0Big Horn Canal Irrigation District 23,500 20,000 250 No NA Boysen 3,000Blacks Fork Canal Company Approx.

25,00020,020.124 60 No 286 cfs Meeks Cabin

ReservoirNA

Blue Bell Canal Company NA 852 3 No NA NA NABluff Irrigation District 3,762 3,762 47 No NA Boysen Reservoir NABoulder Irrigation District 10,567 less than 10,567,

very rough estimate would be 8500+ acres

66 No NA Boulder Lake 22,280







Who/Amount (cfs)



Bridger Valley Water Conservancy District 154,600 acres 79,500 approx 300 Yes. We provide water for municipal use for Bridger Valley Joint Powers Board

1,500 acre-feet per year

Meeks Cabin Dam and reservoir and Stateline Dam and reservoir

(Meeks Cabin Reservoir) 33,571 AF and (Stateline Reservoir) 14,000 AF

Burbank Ditch 400 391 1 No Self & all Glendo 200Burn Cleuch Ditch Co 898 898 69 NA NA NA NAButte Ditch Unknown 2,180 6 No NA Upper Flower

Sunshine, Roach Gulch

1,000

Canyon Canal, Inc. 6,300 6,300 217 No NA NA NACasper-Alcova Irrigation District 24,419 24,419 511 No NA Seminoe 1,200,000Cemetery Ditch Company 1,400 905 76 No NA NA NAChalmers Fogg Ditch NA NA NA NA NA NA NAChapman Canal Company NA 9,300 20 No NA NA 0Cody Canal Irrigation District 12,000 11,423 2,000 No NA Beck Lake Reservoir NA

Cottonwood Irrigation District 5,000 5,000 290 No NA NA 0Crook County Irrigation District 4287 2,160 NA No NA SAA 17,708Davis & Company Ditch 1,766 1,766 13 No NA NA NADeaver Irrigation District 90,000 15,545 194 NA NA Buffalo Bill

ReservoirUnknown

Deseret Land and Livestock 9,139 9,139 15 No private reservoir - Neponset

7,600

Eastside Irrigation District 1,645 1,300 15 No no answer NA 0Eden Valley Irrigation & Drainage District Unknown 16,849.82 127 No NA Big Sandy Reservoir 39,700

Elk Water User's Association (formerly part of Elk-Lovell ID, aka Elk Lovell Canal)

no answer 4,250 13 Yes Lovell Canal, 350 cfs

no answer no answer

Enterprise Irrigation and Power Company 2,450 2,200 85 No cfs Frye Lake 1,698acEtna Irrigation District 3,000 3,000 140 No ? no answer no answerFairview Irrigation District 23,000 acres 1,800 acres 105 No NA NA NA







Who/Amount (cfs)



Farmers Protective (Globe Canal) 5,000 (approx)

3,300 (approx) approx 50+ No NA NA NA

First Mesa Ditch Company 3,196 3,196 31 No no answer no answer no answerGooseberry Creek Irrigation District Unknown Unknown 11 No NA NA NAGoshen Hole Water Users Association no answer 2,516 5 No no answer Springer 2,515.90Goshen Irrigation District 52,484 49,353 421 Yes Gering Ft.

Laramie Irrigation District 51% or 765 cfs

Pathfinder Whatever is available

Goshen Mutual Reservoir and Ditch Co. 4,500 641 9 No no answer no answer 1,929Green River Irrigation District 6,900 +/- 6,900 +/- 47 +/- "6" main

plus subdivisionYes Contact

Sublette Co. Assessor's Office

NA NA

Greybull Valley Irrigation District 80,000 64,000 435 Yes Farmers Canal 325 cfs, Bench Canal 300 cfs.

Upper Sunshine, Lower Sunshine, Roach Gulch

146,000

Gunbarrel Lateral Ditch Company 2,601 2,601 16 No Varies NA NAHamsfork Water Users Association Unknown Unknown Approximately 30 Yes The Hamsfork

river system also provides water to the town of Kemmerer/Diamondville, golf course, cemetry, and industrial uses: Quantity unknown.

Viva Naughton Reservoir

NA







Who/Amount (cfs)




14,000 13,251.04 404 Yes Highland Hanover, Bluff and Upper Bluff Irrgation Districts - 255 cfs total

Boysen Reservoir 7,200 af

Heart Mountain Irrigation District 33,778 31,148 691 No NA Buffalo Bill Reservoir

320,000

Highland Hanover Irrigation District 7,074 6,992 125 No 41.42 acre-feet Boysen Reservoir 36,000 acre feetHighland Irrigation District 6,660.38

assessedUnknown 218 Yes Lee Ditch picks

up wastewater/ Lot sizes vary from 2 acre parcels to several hundred acres

Fremont Lake 3,851 ? Ac ft

Hill Irrigation District no answer 3,845 79 No no answer Glendo, Guernsey no answerHilliard East Fork Canal Company 2,644 2,644 14 No NA Sulphur Creek

Reservoir (in WY) & Whitney Reservoir (in UT).

Sulphur Creek---960 acre feet

Hilliard West Side Ditch Company 2,260 2,260 22 No no answer Whitney 508Hoops Lake Reservoir Company 4,500 4,500 8 No NA NA 4,000Horse Creek Conservation District 10,544.13

receiving water

10,544.13 62 No 10,544.13 Various individuals

Sinnard Reservoir, Hawk Springs Reservoir

14,957

Hunt Canal Irrigation District 8,398 4,030 50 No no answer no answer no answerInterstate Irrigation & Reservoir Company NA 2,035.52 25 Shareholders=

5,442 Total Shares

NA NA Beaver Meadows 2,461 ac-ft capacity

Kidman and Wall Ditch Company NA 1,858 8 No NA State Line Dam NAKirby Ditch Irrigation Distict (formerly Kirby Ditch Co.)

5,400 3,200 51 No NA Boysen 3,000 temporary contract

Ladder Ditch Company 180 180 1 No no answer no answer no answerLake DeSmet Ditch Company (formerly listed as Lake DeSmet Reservoir Co.)

5,929 5,500 (estimate) 24 NA NA Lake DeSmet 875







Who/Amount (cfs)



Lakeview Irrigation District 9,779 9,779 494 Yes Cooperate with Cody Canal for efficiency, 20 acre-feet +/-

NA NA

Lamb Supply Canal Company 2,233 2,234 24 No See list NA NALander Ditch Company 1,800 no answer 120 No no answer no answer no answerLaPrele Irrigation District 31,703 11,462 103 No NA LaPrele 21,000 AFLaramie Valley Municipal Irrigation District 9,321 9,321 13 No NA NA 0LeClair Irrigation District NA 13,500 1,500 Yes NA NA NALingle Water User's Association 11,288 11,288 100 No Most info on

file at WWDO.Pathfinder no answer

Little Popo Agie Irrigation District 2,342.23 2,487.47 24 No NA Christina Lake 1,200Little Snake River Conservation District no answer no answer no answer no answer no answer no answer no answerLovell Irrigation District (formerly part of Elk-Lovell ID or aka Elk Lovell Canal)

11,000 11,000 11,000 Yes Elk Water users

no answer no answer

Lower Clear Creek Irrigation District no answer no answer 16 No no answer Lake Desmet 11,800Lower Hanover Canal 13,516 12,500 75 No no answer no answer no answerLucerne Pumping Plant Canal Company (formerly known as Lucerne Irrigation District)

no answer 4,080 93 No no answer Boysen Reservoir 12,000

McDonald Ditch 1,865 1,865 30 + Shell Canal Check State Records, that info should be on file

Adelaide Info not available to me

Meade Creek Ditch 2,500 2,600 6 No no answer Carnegie Lake, Willow Park Res.

1985

Midvale Irrigation District 200,000+ 73,000 approximately 930 No NA Bull Lake & Pilot Reservoir

186,551 af

Milich Ditch Company no answer 4,400 13 No no answer State line no answerNeff Ditch Irrigation Association no answer 315 17 No 1 cfs/70 acres no answer no answerNew Fork Irrigation District (formerly submitted as New Fork Lake Irrigation District)

14,612.72 14,612 91 No 2 cfs/acre New Fork dam (New Fork Lake)

20,340 AF

New Grattan Ditch Company 1,323 930 6 No 2,000 af Guernsey Glendo 900New North Platte Irrigation & Ditch Co. 4,000 3,000 18 No NA NA 0Nez Perce Irrigation Association 120 100 22 No NA NA NA







Who/Amount (cfs)



Nicol & Table Mountain Ditch 4,000 3,340 63 Yes Parker-McBride and North Lateral Ditch Company (75 cfs total)

None NA

North Fork Irrigation District Estimate 10,000

Estimate 5,000 15 No NA Muddy Guard Reservoir No. 1 and Muddy Guard Reservoir No. 2

1,826 + 500 af owned by State of Wyoming

North Fork Valley Ditch Company 5,000 - North Fork Shoshone River Valley

1,065 90 No NA NA - Divert from river

1,000 AF

North Strawberry Canal Co. 1,200 no answer no answer no answer no answer NA no answerOwl Creek Irrigation District (Dempsey Canal now incorporated into Owl Crk)

13,000 13,000 153 No no answer Anchchor Dam, Boysen Reservoir

AD = 6,000; BD = 12,000

Parker McBride 1,800 1,300 12 Yes North Lateral, 36.2 cfs.

NA NA

Peoples Canal Company 3,000+ 2,290 ac 14 No ? NA NAPine Creek Ditch Association, Incorporated 3,002 acres

with attached rights

2,885 34 No NA Fremont Lake 3,237

Piney and Cruse Creek Ditch Company approx 4,500 NA 100+ No NA Kearney Reservoir approx. 150Pioneer Canal - Lake Hattie Irrigation District 17,920 17,920 49 Yes Wyoming

Game and Fish, 300 acre-feet for Twin Buttes Reservoir.

Sodagreen Lake, Lake Hattie

Sodagreen Lake-443 a.f.; Lake Hattie-65,265 a.f.

Porto Irrigation District 900.6 901 24 No no answer no answer no answerPowder River Irrigation District (formerly Sussex Irrigation Co.)

5,115 5,115 28 No no answer NA 0

Pratte-Ferris Irrigation District no answer 600 2 No no answer na no answerReservoir Ranch (formerly Sixty-Seven Reservoir Project)

no answer 1,600 2 Yes 800 af 67 Reservoir 5,200







Who/Amount (cfs)



Riverton Valley Irrigation District 13,000 8,311.62 acres 774 Yes Bureau of Indian Affairs; 172.75 acres of land. Unknown how much water.

Boysen Unknown

Rock Creek Water Users Association Unknown 21,860 18 No no answer (NA)

NA 0

Rock Ranch Ditch Company 3,561 3,561 22 No no answer Path Finder, Guernsey Glendo

Unknown

Salt River Irrigation District 2,500 2,300 50 No no answer none no answerSandstone Ditch Company 4,000 +- 2,656 19 No na Upper and Lower

Sunshine and Roach Gulch

4,244.49

Savery Creek Ditch Company 2,000 1,274 10 No no answer (NA)

no answer no answer

Savery-Little Snake River Water Conservancy District 12,000 12,000 no answer no answer no answer High Savery Dam 12,000

Shell Canal Company no answer 5,800 125 Yes McDonald Ditch; 30 cfs

Shell Reservoir, Adelaide Reservoir

Shell 375, Adelaide 30

Shell Valley Watershed Improvement District 15,000 10,500 250 No no answer Adelaide 4,550Shoshone Irrigation District 36,009 35,500 1,207 Yes Deaver

Irrigation District, 265 cfs

Buffalo Bill Reservoir

330,710 for the Shoshone Project

Sidon Irrigation District 13,600 13,181.16 580 No 70 No storage. Don't own storageSmiths Fork Irrigation District 4,980 4,980 27 No Unknown NA NASnavely/Grant Young Ditch (2012 submitted survey as Killebrew Irrigation)

1,200 1,200 25 Yes Varies NA NA


640 600 30 No no answer Big Horn, Park 1352 R

447

Stewart Creek Irrigation Company 400 no answer 190 No no answer NA NASulphur Creek Reservoir Company (and City of Evanston)

Unknown Unknown 55 Shareholders Yes City of Evanston. 7,110 af

Sulphur Reservoir (19,744)

7,110 Shareholders-Irrigators


NA 2,100 10 No Unknown none NA







Who/Amount (cfs)



Tillard Canal Approx 1,400 Approx 1,400 11 No NA NA NA

Toltec Watershed Improvement District not available 1,720 8 No % available: Brenner 40%; MJ Ranches 31.6%; Dunlap 11.4%; Garrett 5.8%; Sturgeon 4.5%; Benton 2.2%; Goodrich 2%; Twig Land Co.1.5%

Toltec Water Shed Improvement District

2450

Torrington Irrigation District no answer 2,400 Unknown No Glendo 1,000Trowel Ditch Company no answer no answer 3 No no answer no answer no answerTwin Butte Land and Irrigation Co. no answer no answer 12 No no answer Meeks cabin. Bureau

of Rec.owned by individual using water

Twin Creeks (formerly known as Twin Creek Ditch Company)

2,000 acres 1,200 acres 6 No NA NA NA

Victoria Ditch Co. 200 200 no answer No no answer no answer no answerWagonhound Land & Livestock (aka Cannon Land & Livestock)

7,000 1,760 1 No NA NA NA

West Side Canal Company MNG 2,000/10,000

5,000 +/- 28 No no answer High Savery Reservoir

12,000 + 2,008 Conveyance

Whaley Ditch 1,424 Unknown 18 Yes Howard Enlgmt

Adelaide Unknown







Who/Amount (cfs)



Wheatland Irrigation District 58,000 acres enough to use all of our supply most years

825 Not currently

Landowners 631 cfs

Reservoirs: Wheatland Nos# 1, 2,3; Dutton Creek, McFadden No#3, Seepage, Rainey, King, Rock Lake, Sand Lake. Canals/Ditches: Canon, Tunnel Canal Nos# 1&2, Wheatland Industrial Co., Enl Canals 1, 2 3, One Mile Crk, Three Mile Crk, Lower Dutton, Laramie R (see attached sheets).

Approximately 190,000 acre feet

Whitney Reservoir 16,000 no answer no answer No no answer Whitney Resevoir 4,300Willwood Irrigation District 11,623.90 11,623.90 178 No NA Buffalo Bill

Reservoir (Shoshone Project)

330,710 acre feet


993 993 19 No no answer Christina 2,452

Wright & Murphy Ditch Company 245 245 1 No no answer Glendo 300Wyoming Game and Fish Commission 600 600 2 Yes Tippetts Ranch no answer no answer


Report#4: OperationsEntities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given.

Entity How Are Users Assessed Budget

Other Source

of Income Amount

Full-Time Employees

Full-Time Seasonal

EmployeesDebt

Payment

Debt Retire-ment

Brd of Dir

Alliance Ditch Company Annual Assessment by Shares

$10,000.00 NA NA NA 1 NA NA Yes

Alto Canal Sprinkler Company Annual Assessment Per Acre (sprinkler/ditch)

$3,200.00 No NA 0 0 NA NA Presi-dent, elected mem-bers

Anita Ditch Company and Gapen Ditch /Acre NA No NA 0 0 NA NA NoAustin Wall Irrigation District Canal Company (formerly known as Austin Canal Co, or Uinta NO 3 Canal Company)

By Acre $8,000-$10,000 No NA 0 0 NA NA Yes

Baggs Ditch Company Annual Assessment by Shares

$2,500.00 No 0 0 0 $1,958.06 2030 Yes

Baldwin/Peralta Ditch Company (aka Peralta Ditch Company or as Popo Agie Ranch)

Annual Assessment by Acreage

none None NA 0 0 NA NA No

Bates Creek Reservoir Company NA $20,000.00 No No (NA) 0 0 NA NA YesBear Canal Ditch Company Annual Assessment by

SharesNA No 0 0 0 NA NA Yes

Beckwith Quin Canal Company Shares $10.00 No NA 0 0 NA NA NoBench Canal Company Annual Assessment by

Share/Acre$215,000.00 No no answer

(NA)2 1 $40,000.00 Jun 2016 Yes

Big Cottonwood Ditch Co. Annual Assessment $3,000.00 No No answer (NA)

0 1 0 (NA) NA Yes

Big Goose and Beaver Ditch Company Annual assessment by acres $7,000.00 No NA 0 1 None NA Yes

Big Horn Canal Irrigation District Annual Assessment Per Acre

$250,000.00 No NA 3 0 $400,000.00 Varies Yes

Blacks Fork Canal Company Annual Assessment by Shares

$25,000.00 No NA NA 1 NA NA Yes

Blue Bell Canal Company Annual Assessment by Shares

NA NA NA NA NA None NA Yes

Bluff Irrigation District Annual Assessment per Acre

$124,000.00 No NA 1 1 NA NA Yes

Boulder Irrigation District Individual assessment per landowner and per acre

$42,000.00 No NA 0 0 0 (NA) NA Yes




Other Source

of Income Amount

Full-Time Employees

Full-Time Seasonal

EmployeesDebt

Payment

Debt Retire-ment

Brd of Dir

Bridger Valley Water Conservancy District Water users are assessed per Acre-foot per year

approx. $195,000

We have a one Mil Adva-lorem Tax on District area

one mil - generates about $70,000 per year

one two $1,591,920.00 2037 Yes

Burbank Ditch None As needed Yes Variable 1 1 NA NA YesBurn Cleuch Ditch Co Annual Assessment Per

Share$8,600.00 No NA NA 1 NA NA Yes

Butte Ditch Annual Assessment Per Acre

$5,000.00 No 0 0 0 None NA No

Canyon Canal, Inc. Annual Assessment by Acre $25,000.00 No NA 0 2 NA NA Yes

Casper-Alcova Irrigation District Annual Assessment per acre $556,000.00 Yes 55,000 5 1 NA Yes

Cemetery Ditch Company Annually; per acre (2014) $13,800 No NA 0 3 NA NA YesChalmers Fogg Ditch NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAChapman Canal Company Direct Billing $0.00 No NA 0 0 NA NA NoCody Canal Irrigation District Unit $360,000.00 No NA 4 NA $275,970.00 2030 YesCottonwood Irrigation District Annual Assessment Per

Acre$60,000.00 No NA NA 2 $170,000.00 2024 Yes

Crook County Irrigation District Annual Assessment by Shares

$16,000.00 No NA 0 0 $84,024.00 2025 Yes

Davis & Company Ditch Annual Assessment Per Acre

$300.00 No NA 0 1 NA NA Yes

Deaver Irrigation District Annual Assessment per Acre

$460,000.00 Grants $200,000 6 no answer ~ $1,860,000.00

$1,000,578 - 2151; $820,280 - 2039

Yes

Deseret Land and Livestock NA NA no 0 0 NoEastside Irrigation District Annual Assessment Per

Acre$6,500.00 No 0 1 no answer no answer Yes

Eden Valley Irrigation & Drainage District Annual Assessment by the Acre

$248,000.00 Rent 18,000 2 1 $335,000.00 NA Yes




Other Source

of Income Amount

Full-Time Employees

Full-Time Seasonal

EmployeesDebt

Payment

Debt Retire-ment

Brd of Dir

Elk Water User's Association (formerly part of Elk-Lovell ID, aka Elk Lovell Canal)

Per Acre $14,000.00 No NA 0 0 NA NA Yes

Enterprise Irrigation and Power Company Annual Assessment by Shares

$28,000.00 No NA 0 1 NA NA Yes

Etna Irrigation District Per Acre $2,300.00 No NA no answer 1 NA NA YesFairview Irrigation District Assessed by Acres $4,500 per year No NA 0 0 NA NA Yes

Farmers Protective (Globe Canal) NA approx $20,000.00

No NA NA 1 NA NA Yes, 5 mem-bers

First Mesa Ditch Company Annual Assessments by shares

$17,000.00 No no answer no answer 1 $5,605.00 2030 Yes

Gooseberry Creek Irrigation District Percentage of project cost $30,000.00 No NA 0 0 NA 2042 YesGoshen Hole Water Users Association Annual Assessment Per

Acreno answer No no answer 0 1 no answer NA Yes

Goshen Irrigation District Annual Assessment + User Account fee

$2,200,000.00 No NA 17 NA NA NA Yes

Goshen Mutual Reservoir and Ditch Co. Annual Assessment Per Acre

$6,410.00 No no answer no answer 1 no answer no answer no answer

Green River Irrigation District Per Acre and Per Tract $9,500 +/- NA NA no answer contract "one"

$100,000 +/- WWDC

18 years Yes

Greybull Valley Irrigation District Assessed by Acre Foot of Storage

Annual O&M Budget $450,000

No NA 4 0 Roach Gulch Dam $7.2 million, Upper Sunshine Diversion $1.2 million, Lower Sunshine hydro feasibility study $124,000

Roach Gulch - 2050, Upper Sunshine

Yes

Gunbarrel Lateral Ditch Company Annual Assessment by Shares

$4,000.00 No NA NA 1 NA NA No




Other Source

of Income Amount

Full-Time Employees

Full-Time Seasonal

EmployeesDebt

Payment

Debt Retire-ment

Brd of Dir

Hamsfork Water Users Association All users have water rights. Most years there is no charge for water. An assessment has to be passed by the board for a particular water year.

Less than $100 No 0 (NA) 0 0 0 (NA) NA Yes


Annual Assessment Per Acre

$300,000.00 Oil royalty

$10,000.00 1 1 $259,058.00 2019 Yes

Heart Mountain Irrigation District Per Acre and per Landowner

1.8 million Yes 400,000 7 1 5,200,000 million

2065 Yes

Highland Hanover Irrigation District Annual Assessment Per Acre

$179,000.00 No NA 1 0 NA NA Yes

Highland Irrigation District Annual assessment by parcel plus per Acre

~$17,000.00 No NA 0 2 (1 ditchrider & 1 secretary/book-keeper)

NA Made last dam payment 2014

Yes

Hill Irrigation District Annual Assessment Per Acre

$61,000.00 No 0 1 no answer None no answer Yes

Hilliard East Fork Canal Company Annual Assessment by Shares

$11,550.00 No NA NA NA NA NA Yes

Hilliard West Side Ditch Company Annual Assessment by Shares

$5,000.00 No NA 0 0 NA NA Yes

Hoops Lake Reservoir Company Annual Assessment by Share

$2,000.00 No NA 0 0 $0.00 NA Yes

Horse Creek Conservation District Annual Assessment by Shares

$292,000.00 No NA 3 NA $2,050,419.00 2037 Yes

Hunt Canal Irrigation District Annual Assessment Per Acre

$36,000.00 No NA no answer 1 $178,333.00 2035 Yes

Interstate Irrigation & Reservoir Company Users are assessed both in the spring and fall.

$40,000.00 NA NA no answer 5 NA NA Yes

Kidman and Wall Ditch Company Annual assessment by Shares

$900.00 No NA no answer 1 NA NA Yes




Other Source

of Income Amount

Full-Time Employees

Full-Time Seasonal

EmployeesDebt

Payment

Debt Retire-ment

Brd of Dir

Kirby Ditch Irrigation Distict (formerly Kirby Ditch Co.)

Annual Assessment per Acre

$45,000.00 No NA no answer 1 $32,000.00 2020 No (have Comm-ission-ers)

Ladder Ditch Company Actual cost of O&M no answer no answer

no answer 1 1 no answer no answer no answer

Lake DeSmet Ditch Company (formerly listed as Lake DeSmet Reservoir Co.)

Per Acre $6,000.00 No NA 1 (part-time)

no answer NA NA Yes

Lakeview Irrigation District Per Acre $186,000.00 Yes-interest income

Minimal 2 1 NA NA Yes

Lamb Supply Canal Company General assessment be share owned

no answer No NA no answer 1 NA NA Yes

Lander Ditch Company Dues $1,000.00 Yes SCS Grants vary

0 0 no answer 0 Yes

LaPrele Irrigation District Annual assessment by shares

$172,915.99 no NA 1 1 $205,190.26 2014 & 2019

Yes

Laramie Valley Municipal Irrigation District Assessment by Irrigated Acre.

$18,000.00 No NA 0 0 $12,000.00 Jul 2016 Yes

LeClair Irrigation District NA NA NA NA 3 NA NA NA YesLingle Water User's Association Assessed by Shares Were a pass

thru-assessment s= billing

No 0 (NA) 0 0 0 (NA) 0 (NA) Yes

Little Popo Agie Irrigation District Per Irrigable Acre $500.00 No NA 0 0 NA NA YesLittle Snake River Conservation District no answer no answer no

answerno answer no answer no answer no answer no answer no

answerLovell Irrigation District (formerly part of Elk-Lovell ID or aka Elk Lovell Canal)

annual assessment by acres $100,000.00 No no answer no answer 2 $20,000.00 no answer Yes

Lower Clear Creek Irrigation District Annual Assessment by Shares

$50,000.00 No 0 0 0 $44,000.00 2015 Yes

Lower Hanover Canal Annual Assessment Per Acre

$80,000.00 Yes 500 no answer no answer no answer no answer Yes




Other Source

of Income Amount

Full-Time Employees

Full-Time Seasonal

EmployeesDebt

Payment

Debt Retire-ment

Brd of Dir



$44,220.00 No no answer 2 1 no answer no answer Yes

McDonald Ditch By Shares $18,000.00 No no answer (NA)

no answer 1 no answer (NA)

no answer (NA)

Yes

Meade Creek Ditch Annual Assessment by Shares

$5,400.00 No 0 1 0 no answer no answer Yes

Midvale Irrigation District First Acre Charge, then per remaining irrigable acres

1.8 mill No NA 16 2 2.6 mill 2021 Yes

Milich Ditch Company Annual Assessment by Shares

$3,500.00 No no answer no answer 1 None no answer Yes

Neff Ditch Irrigation Association Annually by the Acre no answer No NA no answer None NA NA YesNew Fork Irrigation District (formerly submitted as New Fork Lake Irrigation District)

Annual assessment per Acre $7,000.00 No NA 0 0 NA NA Yes

New Grattan Ditch Company Annual Assessment Per Acre

$8,000.00 No NA NA 1 NA NA Yes

New North Platte Irrigation & Ditch Co. Annual Assessment by Shares

$25,000 - $30,000

No NA NA 2 NA NA Yes

Nez Perce Irrigation Association Annual Assessment per Acre + excess by amount.

$2,500.00 No NA 0 NA NA NA Yes

Nicol & Table Mountain Ditch Annual Assessment by Shares

Normal budget without special projects 5,000-$8,000

Yes NRCS monies, varies and Popo Agie Conserva-tion District

0 1 NA NA Yes

North Fork Irrigation District Annual assessment by acre foot of storage capacity owned; O&M Assessment - $6 - $8;

$22,552 No NA 1 pt-time 2 pt-time $10,272 to Farm Loan Board to be paid off 12/1/2014; $47,088 to Crazy Woman Watershed Imp. District

Farm Loan Board: 12/1/2014; Crazy Woman Watershed Imp. District: 12/1 2034

Yes




Other Source

of Income Amount

Full-Time Employees

Full-Time Seasonal

EmployeesDebt

Payment

Debt Retire-ment

Brd of Dir

North Fork Valley Ditch Company Per Acre $12,000.00 Yes Member-ship Dues, $125 per year

0 0 NA NA Yes

North Strawberry Canal Co. Annual Assessment Per Acre

$1,200.00 No no answer 0 1 no answer no answer Yes

Owl Creek Irrigation District (Dempsey Canal now incorporated into Owl Crk)


$79,000.00 No no answer 3 2 $11,250.00 2032 Yes

Parker McBride Annual Assessment by Shares

$5,000-$10,000, varies by year

Yes NRCS, varies and Popo Agie Conserva-tion District

0 1 NA NA Yes

Peoples Canal Company Shares $4,000.00 No NA 1 1 NA NA YesPine Creek Ditch Association, Incorporated Association Dues $45.00 /

entity PLUS assessment per acre. 2014 ~ $5.00 / acre.

$25,000.00 No NA no answer Two NA NA Yes

Piney and Cruse Creek Ditch Company Annual Assessment by Shares

approx. 10,000 No NA NA 1 NA NA Yes

Pioneer Canal - Lake Hattie Irrigation District Annual assessment by Shares

$96,000-income $85,000-exspenses

Yes City of Laramie-$1166.66 per mon; Game & Fish Dept-$2448.00 per yr.

1 1 WWDC #1- $270,000 WWDC#2- $70,000

WWDC #1- 2044 WWDC #2- 2040 36.

Yes

Porto Irrigation District Annual Assessment Per Acre

$19,861.20 No no answer no answer no answer $18,690.89 no answer Yes

Powder River Irrigation District (formerly Sussex Irrigation Co.)


$28,137.00 No no answer 1 1 $355,177.00 2039 Yes

Pratte-Ferris Irrigation District no answer $16,000.00 no answer

no answer 0 0 no answer no answer yes

Reservoir Ranch (formerly Sixty-Seven Reservoir Project)

None no answer no answer

no answer 0 0 no answer no answer No




Other Source

of Income Amount

Full-Time Employees

Full-Time Seasonal

EmployeesDebt

Payment

Debt Retire-ment

Brd of Dir

Riverton Valley Irrigation District Per Acre $203,000.00 No, none.

0 (NA) 1 1-5, depends

$73,999.92 2012 Yes

Rock Creek Water Users Association Assessed per Acre as needed, not annually

$500.00 No NA 0 0 NA NA Yes

Rock Ranch Ditch Company Annual Assessment Per Acre

$33,000.00 no answer

no answer no answer 1 no answer no answer Yes

Salt River Irrigation District Annual Assessment Per Acre

$1,500.00 No 0 0 2 None no answer Yes

Sandstone Ditch Company Assessed Per Acre $16,560 varies per year

No na 0 1 na na Yes

Savery Creek Ditch Company Annual Assessment Per Acre

$100.00 No no answer (NA)

0 0 $3,900.00 2025 Yes

Savery-Little Snake River Water Conservancy District Annual assessments and mill levy

$12,400.00 Yes 1500 0 0 $31,400.00 2030 Yes

Shell Canal Company Annual Assessment Per Acre

$54,000.00 No no answer 1 0 None no answer Yes

Shell Valley Watershed Improvement District Water amount $35,000.00 No 0 0 0 no answer 2040 YesShoshone Irrigation District Annual Assessment Per

Acre$1,500,000.00 Yes $425,00.00 12 4 $1,682,717.00 2040 Yes

Sidon Irrigation District Annual Assessment Per Acre

$366,500.00 No NA 3 2 $9,645.00 6/21/15 Yes, 3 board mem-bers

Smiths Fork Irrigation District Per Acre $22,000.00 No NA 1 2 $87,000.00 2026 YesSnavely/Grant Young Ditch (2012 submitted survey as Killebrew Irrigation)

Per Acre, Water Volume $1,600.00 No NA NA NA NA NA No


Annual/Acre $5,000.00 No NA 0 1 $0.00 no answer Yes

Stewart Creek Irrigation Company Per Acre $20,000.00 No NA no answer 2 NA NA NASulphur Creek Reservoir Company (and City of Evanston)

No assessment at this time $600.00 No 0 (NA) 0 1 0 (NA) 0 (NA) Yes


Annual Assessment by Shares

NA No NA None NA NA NA Yes

Tillard Canal Per Acre $22,000.00 No NA 0 2 NA NA YesToltec Watershed Improvement District County Assessor. $18,000 0 (No) 0 (NA) 0 0 $185,782.00 2034 Yes




Other Source

of Income Amount

Full-Time Employees

Full-Time Seasonal

EmployeesDebt

Payment

Debt Retire-ment

Brd of Dir

Torrington Irrigation District Tax roll. small acres are assessed a rate different from large working acres

Approximately $30-35,000

no 1 0 Yes

Trowel Ditch Company Annual Assessment by Shares

no answer No 0 0 0 $8,253.00 no answer No

Twin Butte Land and Irrigation Co. Annual Assessment by Shares

$250.00 No 0 0 0 None no answer Yes


Not Assessed $0.00 No NA NA NA $0.00 (NA) NA No

Victoria Ditch Co. Percent of total acres Varies No no answer 0 0 no answer no answer NoWagonhound Land & Livestock (aka Cannon Land & Livestock)

NA NA NA NA 6 0 NA NA No

West Side Canal Company By Share $50,000.00 No NA 0 2 $88,766.26 33% Loans WWDC

Yes

Whaley Ditch Per Acre $8,000.00 No no answer (NA)

none 1 no answer (NA)

no answer (NA)

No

Wheatland Irrigation District Per Acre Normal budget is about 1 million dollars

No NA 11 no answer NA 2009 Yes

Whitney Reservoir Annual Assessment by Shares

no answer no answer

no answer no answer 2 no answer no answer Yes

Willwood Irrigation District 178 users $31.50 per Acre $367,000.00 Yes $3,000 6 2 600K WWDC-2016; JPB 2039

Yes


Assessment is per Acre $10,000.00 No NA 0 1 contract NA NA Yes

Wright & Murphy Ditch Company Direct Billing $300.00 No 0 0 0 None no answer NoWyoming Game and Fish Commission no answer no answer no

answerno answer 3 no answer no answer no answer No


Report#5: General InformationEntities in red font did not respond to the current survey, most recent data given.

Entity Habitat Conservation Problems Other ProblemsAlliance Ditch Company Yes Yes Irregular and unpredictable use by other

appropriators.NA

Alto Canal Sprinkler Company Yes Yes Cleaning out ditch: fix washed-out areas, constantly fixing ditch wall was needed.

Cleaning out beaver dams and fixing washed-out areas.

Anita Ditch Company and Gapen Ditch Yes Yes Old headgates and drop structures. Leakage. NAAustin Wall Irrigation District Canal Company (formerly known as Austin Canal Co, or Uinta NO 3 Canal Company)

Yes Yes Water losses through leaky canal; Low priority water right.

NA

Baggs Ditch Company Yes No NA NABaldwin/Peralta Ditch Company (aka Peralta Ditch Company or as Popo Agie Ranch)

Yes Yes No NA

Bates Creek Reservoir Company Yes No Fix and maintenance old dam. Relocate the dam to a better site.Bear Canal Ditch Company Yes Yes Needed improvements, inadequate water source,

state and federal requirements, unwritten easements, maintenance through subdivisions, legal problems, subdivided land, water rights, assessments.

NA

Beckwith Quin Canal Company Yes Yes In need of headgates on our ditches. NABench Canal Company Yes Yes Several major structures need replaced. Headgates

& drops need replaced-major seepage issues;System needs to be placed underground (pipe).

Big Cottonwood Ditch Co. No No Subdivided land; Being able to keep up with the sale of lots and the owners so we know who to contact for the assessments.

Big Goose and Beaver Ditch Company No No Loss of water due to terrain that has a lot of gravel on top of clay which causes sliding.

NA

Big Horn Canal Irrigation District No Yes Unwritten easements. NABlacks Fork Canal Company Yes Yes Our canal is well maintained and is in good shape.

We are able to manage and maintain our canal with the assesssment we receive.

NA

Blue Bell Canal Company No No None NABluff Irrigation District NA NA NA NABoulder Irrigation District NA No The Boulder Lake Dam needs some repairs to the

headgates. There are several places along the canal that have seepage issues.

NA

Bridger Valley Water Conservancy District Yes Yes The need for more storage as all water users are not served or inadequately served. We need all water users to be served to avoid project-nonproject issues.

We have to comply with many Federal requirements which have unintended consequences.

Burbank Ditch Yes Yes Inadequate water sources; dependable supply. NA



Entity Habitat Conservation Problems Other ProblemsBurn Cleuch Ditch Co Yes Yes Ditch maintenance-old concrete lined areas are in

disrepair. Subdivision maintenance & related liability.

Urban development sprawl.

Butte Ditch Yes Yes Shrinkage and constant up keep, late water rights when river flow is inadequate, low reservoir level.

NA

Canyon Canal, Inc. Yes No 1.Maintenance of personal ditches, 2.State Water Commissioners do not ticket abusers (those who steal water);

3. Ability of land owners to get along.

Casper-Alcova Irrigation District No Yes NA NACemetery Ditch Company Yes Yes Maintenance access through city, culverts under

the streets are too small to handle all the adjudicated water.

Urban sprawl.

Chalmers Fogg Ditch NA NA NA NAChapman Canal Company No No Needed improvement, Subdivided Land. Getting minority owners to pay fair shareCody Canal Irrigation District No No Aging structures, Subdivision of lands, Easement

encroachment.NA

Cottonwood Irrigation District No Yes Our system is close to 40 yrs old with about 1/2 of it in steel pipe-we are seeing more maintenance on the steel pipe now.

We are also in the final stages of a water storage study through the WWDC.

Crook County Irrigation District Yes Yes Needed improvements, Maintenance requirements; Need more storage.

Davis & Company Ditch No NA NA NADeaver Irrigation District Yes Yes Continual ongoing replacement of old structures,

loss of hydropower money;Conversion of open ditches into pipelines.

Deseret Land and Livestock Yes no none Cleaning on 15-20 year interval.Eastside Irrigation District No Yes Maintenance requirements. NAEden Valley Irrigation & Drainage District Yes Yes Water rights, some improvements NAElk Water User's Association (formerly part of Elk-Lovell ID, aka Elk Lovell Canal)

Yes Yes The canal is old and operates on a shoestring budget. We do maintenance as needed, but structures & headgates are old;

When direct flows are low in the Shoshone River, water can be tight; especially on the lower end, and rationing & conservation become common practice.

Enterprise Irrigation and Power Company Yes Yes Needed improvements, inadequate water source, state & federal requirements, unwritten easements, maintenance through subdivisions, legal problems, subdivided land, water rights, assessments ("All of the above");

Conveyance loss.



Entity Habitat Conservation Problems Other ProblemsEtna Irrigation District No Yes Needed improvements, inadequate water source,

state & federal requirements, unwritten easements, maintenance through subdivisions, legal problems, subdivided land, water rights, assessments ("All of the above");

Depends on the event which is more important.

Fairview Irrigation District Yes Yes 1.Willow and tree removal; 2.Water distribution to small subdivided landowners;

3.Conveyance water losses - diversions improvements; 4.Assessments not being paid causing insufficient operating funds

Farmers Protective (Globe Canal) Some Yes Desire to bury more of the canal. Replace some of the cement ditches that are cracking.

First Mesa Ditch Company Yes no answer no answer NAGooseberry Creek Irrigation District No NA Unknown UnknownGoshen Hole Water Users Association Yes No No improvements made for 40+ years, entire

system needs an upgrade.Interested in help, but debt is not an option

Goshen Irrigation District Yes Yes Canal was established in 1920's and is in need of several improvements. Seepage problems, Federal EDSA, subdivisions, deliveries to and transfers to other lands in our district.

Assessments are higher due to increasing costs of materials.

Goshen Mutual Reservoir and Ditch Co. Yes Yes drought, excessive water loss, state and federal requirements

NA

Green River Irrigation District Yes no answer Some of "needed improvements, state and federal requirements, unwritten easements, maintenance through subdivisions, legal problems, subdivided land, and water rights.

Constant maintenance in sandy/clay soils.

Greybull Valley Irrigation District Yes Yes NA NAGunbarrel Lateral Ditch Company No Yes Dirt & rubbish blows into open ditch. NAHamsfork Water Users Association Yes Yes A unique arrangement with the owner of Viva

Naughton Reservoir provides water for the Association. This arrangement has worked well for both parties. However additional storage of water would be very beneficial. Dam feasibility studies have been done in the past.

NA


Yes Yes Flumes and liners will eventually need repaired or replaced.

How to handle the situation when pivots cross the canal and water the canal road due to this becoming more of a problem.

Heart Mountain Irrigation District Yes Yes Deteriorating structures; unstable ground under canal liner at Rattle Snake Mtn;

Subdivision waste, waste management.

Highland Hanover Irrigation District Yes Yes Unknown NA



Entity Habitat Conservation Problems Other ProblemsHighland Irrigation District Yes No Unwritten easements, maintenance through

subdivisions, subdivided land. On drought years it is instream flows and aesthetics in Pine Creek; Lack of people willing to serve on the Board.

System was originally designed with 6 to 8 water users. It relies heavily on laterals which pick up and transfer water that have now been criss-crossed with hundreds of different lots. Those at the ends of these laterals are wanting a "direct" flow.

Hill Irrigation District Yes Yes none NAHilliard East Fork Canal Company No NA NA NAHilliard West Side Ditch Company Unknow

nUnknown Unwritten easements, subdivided lands, inadequate

water source.Maintenance and age of shareholders.

Hoops Lake Reservoir Company Yes No None NoneHorse Creek Conservation District Yes Yes Keeping the Horse Creek Basin Order in place to

allow Hawk Springs Reservoir to fill thus giving our shareholders an adequate water supply.

NA

Hunt Canal Irrigation District Yes no answer no answer NAInterstate Irrigation & Reservoir Company No Yes Many of our problems that we face with our

current system is the erosion to the canal and the amount of water loss due to the evaporation and/or losses through the ground.

NA

Kidman and Wall Ditch Company No NA NA NAKirby Ditch Irrigation Distict (formerly Kirby Ditch Co.)

Yes Yes Working with WWD on canal rehab. NA

Ladder Ditch Company Yes Yes no answer NALake DeSmet Ditch Company (formerly listed as Lake DeSmet Reservoir Co.)

Yes Yes Tree and brush removal; Falling rock into diversion.

Lakeview Irrigation District Yes Yes Repair & replacement of older structures per our Level II Study.

NA

Lamb Supply Canal Company Yes NA NA NALander Ditch Company Yes No Municipal area fragmented, voluntary

contributions, water quality, instream flow in river.NA

LaPrele Irrigation District Yes We place it on Repairs to Dams and Canals; Backhoe, shop, pipe.Laramie Valley Municipal Irrigation District Yes Yes Unpredictability of water source for lower priority

users; andExpenses of maintaining measuring devices

LeClair Irrigation District Yes NA NA NALingle Water User's Association UK No Subdivded Land - water right transfers. NALittle Popo Agie Irrigation District Yes Yes Ditch maintenance. NALittle Snake River Conservation District no

answerno answer no answer no answer



Entity Habitat Conservation Problems Other ProblemsLovell Irrigation District (formerly part of Elk-Lovell ID or aka Elk Lovell Canal)

Yes Yes water at the head varies sometimes inadequate, distribution, water loss.

NA

Lower Clear Creek Irrigation District Yes No Assessment Collection, Maintenance. NALower Hanover Canal Yes No Assessment collection, loss of easement or row,

federal.NA


Yes Yes Seepage along canal system NA

McDonald Ditch No Not aware of any

Moss control & its costs; seepage erosion; silt. NA

Meade Creek Ditch Yes No no answer NAMidvale Irrigation District Yes Yes Due to the age of our infrastructure, we have

prioritized rehabilitation efforts to make improvements.

NA

Milich Ditch Company No No no answer NANeff Ditch Irrigation Association Yes no answer Yearly maintenance. NANew Fork Irrigation District (formerly submitted as New Fork Lake Irrigation District)

Yes NA Headgates are old, in need of replacement. High cost of construction creates financial problems.

Water shortage in dry year. Difficult to find qualified Ditch Rider to measure water.

New Grattan Ditch Company NA No NA NANew North Platte Irrigation & Ditch Co. Yes Yes Needed improvements, Maintenance requirements. Diversion dam on river

Nez Perce Irrigation Association No Yes Expense from Heart Mountain Irrigation District. NA

Nicol & Table Mountain Ditch Yes Yes Improvements and maintenance. Storage and adequate water source.North Fork Irrigation District Yes Yes Maintenance of outlet weir on Res No. 1;

maintenance of headgate on Res. No. 1;maintenance of conveyance ditch on Res. No. 2; inadequate water source in dry years.

North Fork Valley Ditch Company Yes Yes Need more ditch lining. NANorth Strawberry Canal Co. No no answer Subdivided land. NAOwl Creek Irrigation District (Dempsey Canal now incorporated into Owl Crk)

Yes Yes Seepage from dam; seepage in canyon below Dam. NA

Parker McBride Yes Yes Inadequate water supply, annual maintenance, annual improvements.

Add second spillway at end of ditch.

Peoples Canal Company Yes Yes Being the last diversion off Henry's Fork, at times results in water shortages when up-stream users take more water than they are entitled to;

"Trash" washed into stream from storms plugs inlet "Trash" rack.



Entity Habitat Conservation Problems Other ProblemsPine Creek Ditch Association, Incorporated Yes No 1) Pine Creek Canal No 1, extension of the Lee

runs through the Town of Pinedale and the illegal taking of water from the canal especially through the Shelter Park section of town is a major problem for the association. 2) There is a desire to pipe the canal through the municipality however the association is a private entity and does not qualify for funds to construct such a pipeline.

3) Encroachment on the canal has increased yearly and maintaining the ditch easement is difficult with private land owners.

Piney and Cruse Creek Ditch Company NA NA Improvement at drop just after diversion in Story, WY.

Delivery to subdivided lands.

Pioneer Canal - Lake Hattie Irrigation District Yes Yes 1.Improvements at Lake Hattie outlet structure, 2.Major erosion control on supply canal from Big Laramie River,

3.Minimize ditch loss on the entire system.

Porto Irrigation District No Yes Pond fills with gravel and debris in pipeline. NAPowder River Irrigation District (formerly Sussex Irrigation Co.)

Yes Yes Russian olives along ditch & inadequate water sources

NA

Pratte-Ferris Irrigation District No No Improvements for conveyance loss NAReservoir Ranch (formerly Sixty-Seven Reservoir Project)

Yes No no answer NA

Riverton Valley Irrigation District No Yes To my knowledge, (Bookkeeper), we are currently repairing/replacing our main headgate. But other than this issue, and our usual continued maintenance, we have no major issues at this point in time.

NA

Rock Creek Water Users Association No No The purpose of our organization is to maintain one diversion structure where Rock Creek and Dry Creek divide. In the approximate 4 miles of stream above and below this structure it is important to remove beaver dams and trash so as to properly divide the water between the two streams. A major overhaul is needed to this structure and the stream just above it to safely and efficiently divide the streams to supply the appropriators downstream.

Permitting can be a problem and meeting the requirements of the permits. Funding is also a concern.

Rock Ranch Ditch Company Yes Yes The diversion in the North Platte. NASalt River Irrigation District No Yes Replacement of diversion headgates, inadequate

water sources, no storage.NA



Entity Habitat Conservation Problems Other ProblemsSandstone Ditch Company Yes Some Headgate at Albert Wardell reservior, diversion

structure with headgate and pipe on Dorsey Creek;Add another dam with headgate in same draw as Gould Reservoir.

Savery Creek Ditch Company Yes Yes Diversion dams installed in 1995 are completely ineffective, poor design.

NA

Savery-Little Snake River Water Conservancy District no answer

no answer no answer NA

Shell Canal Company Yes Yes 100 yr old concrete tunnel in need of repair/replacement; need for additional early season storage; erosion issues; continual annual maintenance.

NA

Shell Valley Watershed Improvement District Yes No Property sales and water rights NAShoshone Irrigation District Yes Yes Aging Infrastructure, urbanization, subdivisions,

easements.NA

Sidon Irrigation District Yes Yes Tunnel area-bottleneck-have to blast to widen; Rebuild emergency fund.Smiths Fork Irrigation District No Yes None NASnavely/Grant Young Ditch (2012 submitted survey as Killebrew Irrigation)

Yes Yes New headgate and spillway, lined or piped ditch, only have perpetual easements, recent subdivisions, future subdividing.

NA


Yes Yes Continuing maintenance, subdividing. NA

Stewart Creek Irrigation Company No no answer Pipe is outdated and being replaced. NASulphur Creek Reservoir Company (and City of Evanston)

Yes No None None


Yes NA More water storage NA

Tillard Canal Yes NA Needed improvements, mainly new pumps, the problem being the price of new pumps far exceeds what the land owners can afford. Will need outside funding somehow.

NA

Toltec Watershed Improvement District Yes No Inadequate water source on some years. NATorrington Irrigation District No NATrowel Ditch Company Yes Yes Seepage along steep bank. NATwin Butte Land and Irrigation Co. no

answerYes Maintenance through subdivisions. NA


Yes Yes No major problems at this time. NA

Victoria Ditch Co. No No no answer NAWagonhound Land & Livestock (aka Cannon Land & Livestock)

Yes Yes NA NA



Entity Habitat Conservation Problems Other ProblemsWest Side Canal Company Yes Yes No big problems. NAWhaley Ditch Yes Unknown Moss treatments ineffective; Upper end users take more water than they're

entitled to leaving lower end users who have earlier water permits chasing water for most of the summer.

Wheatland Irrigation District Yes Yes See WWDC/WID Master Plan. NAWhitney Reservoir Yes no answer High elevation, late melt off, spill way is not the

best.NA

Willwood Irrigation District No Yes Aging infrastructure, lack of accurate water monitoring and control.

Lack of additional revenue source.


Yes Yes Major problem is ditch seepage & loss to evaporation due to slow speed of ditch.

NA

Wright & Murphy Ditch Company Yes Yes no answer NAWyoming Game and Fish Commission Yes Yes no answer NA


Report#6: Entites that have not responded or that have requested exclusion from survey distribution

Entity Status ContactDivi-sion Address City State Zip

Agrarian Irrigation Corporation Unknown Unknown 3 PO Box 910 Newcastle WY Unknown

Angel Draw Irrigation District UnknownJoe Franks (deceased) Tried to contact Dennis Eisenbarth, left msg) 1 none Torrington WY Unknown

Bertrom Ditch Company Unknown Unknown 4 Unknown Boulder WY UnknownBridger Butte Unknown Jesse Overy 4 1281 Co Rd 217 Ft Bridger WY 82933

Castle Rock-Neff Ditch Irrigation Association) (Entity Split/Duplicate see Neff Ditch entry)

Entity split-no contact for Castle Rock Unknown 3 Unknown Cody WY Unknown

Central Bedford Sprinkler Co. Unknown Reed Stokes 4 Unknown Bedford WY UnknownClarks Fork Irrigation District District Bill Omara 3 106 Road 1ab Powell WY 82435Cook Canal Company Company Evan Pope 4 137 Snyder Springs Ln Cokeville WY 83114Crow Creek Canal Company Company Rick Hillstead 4 5996 Bitter Creek Co Rd Afton WY 83110Dana Ditch or Sprinkler Group Unknown c/o Crook Farms Inc. 4 103078 US Hwy 89 Freedom WY 83120Deeben & Heinz Ditch Company Company Spencer Eyre 4 90 Co Rd 238 Lyman WY 82937Dempsey Canal Company (Dissolved, now incorporated into Owl Creek)

No longer in business NA 3 none Thermopolis WY Unknown

Diversion Water Company (formerly known as Farmers and Bench Diversion) Company Sandi House 3 PO Box 48 Emblem WY 82411Douglas Water Users Unknown Baker 1 Unknown Douglas WY 82633

Dry Creek Irrigation District District Rollin Gardner 4Box 608/862 State HWY 236 Afton WY 83110

East Fork Canal CompanyNo longer in business Joel Bousman 4 1346 State Hwy 353 Boulder WY 82923

Fayette Canal Association Association Roy Wolaver 4 441 Fayette Pole Crk Rd Pinedale WY 82941Fremont Irrigation Company Company John Harbor 4 85 HWY 353 Boulder WY 82923Ft Bridger Canal Company Company Ron Micheli 4 PO Box 15 Ft Bridger WY 82933

Gaylor and WarnockNo longer in business Jack Nicholas 3 417 South 3rd St. Lander WY 82520

Gibson-Blair Ditch Company Company James Chant 1 Box 275 (bad address) Baggs WY 82321Grand Teton Canal Company Company Yvonne Nuttle 4 PO Box 1099 Driggs ID 83422Grant Young (aka Snavely/Grant Young Ditch, 2015 survey submitted as Killebrew Irrigation) Duplicate David Killebrew 3 PO Box 51 Lander WY 82520Gray Bluff Ditch Company Unknown Unknown 4 Unknown Ft. Bridger WY UnknownHighline Ditch Irrigation District District Greg Benzel 2 PO Box 153 Dayton WY 82836Last Chance Ditch Company Company Yonkee & Toner, LLP 2 PO Box 6288 Sheridan WY 82801Lucerne Irrigation District (aka Lucerne Pumping Plant Canal Company) Duplicate Rose Watkins 1 PO Box 241 Thermopolis WY 82443Medicine Bow Conservation District District Justin Garrison 1 510 Utah St.; PO Box 6 Medicine Bow WY 82324


Report#6: Entites that have not responded or that have requested exclusion from survey distribution

Entity Status ContactDivi-sion Address City State Zip

Nield String Sprinkler Company (Dissolved)No longer in business L. Dee Nield (deceased) 4 none Afton WY none

North Lateral Ditch Co. Company William W. Schneider 3 7735 State HWY 789 Lander WY 82520Paradise Canal Association Association Chris Sullivan 4 PO Box 55 Boulder WY 82923Park Reservoir Irrigation District Unknown Unknown 2 251 Upper Road Sheridan WY UnknownPine Hill Sprinkler Company Unknown Reed Stokes 4 Unknown Bedford WY UnknownPixley Canal Company Company Evan Pope 4 137 Snyder Springs Ln Cokeville WY 83114Porter Ditch Unknown Fred Barnett 3 3236 Rd 34 Greybull WY 82426Prairie Dog Water Supply Company Unknown Unknown 2 Unknown Sheridan WY 82801Silver Lake Irrigation District Unknown Frosty Hittle 4 Box 2 Boulder WY 82932Strawberry South Canal Company Unknown Unknown 4 (Bad Address) Bedford WY UnknownStrawberry Upper Canal Company Company Blair Ericson 4 1903 Turnerville Rd Bedford WY 83112Upper Hanover Canal (now named "Hanover Irrigation District, Upper Hanover" (aka Upper Hanover Canal) Duplicate NA 3 PO Box 965 Worland WY 82401West Cedar Creek Pipeline Company Company Jerry Humphreys 4 1595 Perkind Rd Thayne WY 83127Wilson McNalley Ditch Company Company Z Ranch c/o Bettie Johnson 3 PO Box 324 Meeteetse WY 82433

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

Entity Date Received Status Division City Major Basin Storage?

Capacity of

Conveyance rev, cfs

Conveyance

capacity per 70

acres irrigated,

cfs/70 ac

Miles rev,

miles

Miles/160

irrigated

acres, mi/160

irr ac.

Irrigated

acres rev,

ac

Crop Restrictions,

B,R=not limited.

SG,P=elevation,

water, soil limits.

Number of

individual

operators (water

users) rev

Water

users/160

irrigated

acres

Annual

Budget rev, $

Budget/

Irrigated Acre,

$/ac

Full Time +

Seasonal

Employees

rev

Do you have

any existing

debt

(col H ÷ (col L ÷ 70))

(col J ÷ (col L ÷

160))

(col N ÷ (col

L ÷ 160)) (col P ÷ col L)

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S

1 Heart Mountain Irrigation District 2/20/2015 District 3 Powell Wind-Bighorn Yes 850 1.91 168 0.9 31,148 B 691 3.55 $1,800,000 $57.79 7.5 Yes

2 Goshen Irrigation District 12/15/2014

Irrigation

District 1 Torrington Platte Yes 1530 2.17 155 0.5 49,353 R 421 1.36 $2,200,000 $44.58 17 No

3 Shoshone Irrigation District 2/11/2015 District 3 Powell Wind-Bighorn Yes 900 1.77 260 1.2 35,500 B 1,207 5.44 $1,500,000 $42.25 14 Yes

4 Bluff Irrigation District 3/3/2015

Irrigation

District 3 Worland Wind-Bighorn Yes 150 2.79 17 0.7 3,762 B 47 2.00 $124,000 $32.96 1.5 No

5 Willwood Irrigation District 1/26/2015 District 3 Powell Wind-Bighorn Yes 400 2.41 82 1.1 11,623.90 B 178 2.45 $367,000 $31.57 7 Yes

6 Cody Canal Irrigation District 4/16/2012 District 3 Cody Wind-Bighorn Yes 250 1.53 72 1.0 11,423 B 2,000 28.01 $360,000 $31.52 4 Yes

7 Deaver Irrigation District 2/16/2015

Irrigation

District 3 Deaver Wind-Bighorn Yes 400 1.80 300 3.1 15,545 B 194 2.00 $460,000 $29.59 6 Yes

8 Sidon Irrigation District 12/12/2014 District 3 Cowley Wind-Bighorn No 1,000 5.31 39 0.5 13,181.16 B 580 7.04 $366,500 $27.80 4 Yes

9 Horse Creek Conservation District 11/10/2014 District 1 Hawk Springs Platte Yes 150 1.00 40 0.6 10,544.13 R 62 0.94 $292,000 $27.69 3 Yes

10 Pratte-Ferris Irrigation District 6/24/2010 District 1 Torrington Platte No 22 2.57 10 2.7 600 R 2 0.53 $16,000 $26.67 0 unknown

11 Highland Hanover Irrigation District 2/4/2015

Irrigation

District 3 Worland Wind-Bighorn Yes 96.75 0.97 24 0.5 6,992 B 125 2.86 $179,000 $25.60 1 No

12 Nez Perce Irrigation Association 4/10/2012 Association 3 Cody Wind-Bighorn ?? NA #VALUE! 2 3.2 100 P 22 35.20 $2,500 $25.00 0 No

13 Midvale Irrigation District 11/3/2014

Irrigation

District 3 Pavillion Wind-Bighorn Yes 1,800 1.73 1,075 2.4 73,000 B 930 2.04 $1,800,000 $24.66 17 Yes

14 Riverton Valley Irrigation District 11/4/2014

Irrigation

District 3 Riverton Wind-Bighorn Yes 185 1.56 28 0.5 8,312 B 774 14.90 $203,000 $24.42 3.5 Yes

15 Casper-Alcova Irrigation District 3/9/2010 District 1 Mills Platte Yes 600 1.72 150 1.0 24,419 SG 511 3.35 $556,000 $22.77 5.5 No

16

Hanover Irrigation District, Upper Hanover

Irrigation District (aka Upper Hanover Canal) 1/14/2015

Irrigation

District 3 Worland Wind-Bighorn Yes 550 2.91 40 0.5 13,251.04 B 404 4.88 $300,000 $22.64 1.5 Yes

17 Porto Irrigation District 7/7/2003 District 4 Thayne Snake-Salt unknown 35 2.72 5 0.9 901 unknown 24 4.26 $19,861 $22.05 unknown Yes

18 Interstate Irrigation & Reservoir Company 2/26/2015 Company 4 McKinnon Green Yes 100 3.44 20 1.6 2,035.52 SG 25 1.97 $40,000 $19.65 2.5 NA

19 Stewart Creek Irrigation Company 12/3/2014 Non Profit 4 Jackson Snake-Salt No no answer #VALUE! 3 0.5 1,050 no answer 190 28.95 $20,000 $19.05 1 NA

20 Lakeview Irrigation District 3/16/2015

Irrigation

District 3 Cody Wind-Bighorn No 500 3.58 28 0.5 9,779 SG 494 8.08 $186,000 $19.02 2.5 No

21 Wheatland Irrigation District 2/23/2015 District 1 Wheatland Platte Yes 610 0.74 120 0.3 58,000 B 825 2.28 $1,000,000 $17.24 11 No

22 Hill Irrigation District 9/11/2003 District 1 Torrington Platte Yes unknown #VALUE! 8 0.3 3,845 unknown 79 3.29 $61,000 $15.87 1 No

23 Tillard Canal 3/12/2015 Company 3 Basin Wind-Bighorn No 20 1.00 9 1.0 1,400 R 11 1.26 $22,000 $15.71 1 No

24 Cemetery Ditch Company 1/23/2015 Company 3 Lander Wind-Bighorn No 25 1.93 6 1.1 905 P 76 13.44 $13,800 $15.25 1.5 No

25 LaPrele Irrigation District 4/26/2012 District 1 Douglas Platte Yes 100 0.61 32 0.4 11,462 SG 103 1.44 $172,916 $15.09 1.5 Yes

26 Gooseberry Creek Irrigation District 11/17/2014 District 3 Worland Wind-Bighorn No NA #VALUE! NA #VALUE! 2,000 SG 11 0.88 $30,000 $15.00 0 Yes

27 Eden Valley Irrigation & Drainage District 3/7/2015 District 4 Farson Green Yes 470 1.95 121 1.1 16,849.82 SG 127 1.21 $248,000 $14.72 2.5 Yes

28 Torrington Irrigation District 3/2/2010 District 1 Torrington Platte Yes 40 1.17 25 1.7 2,400 R Unknown #VALUE! $35,000 $14.58 1 No

29

Kirby Ditch Irrigation Distict (formerly Kirby

Ditch Co.) 12/2/2014

Irrigation

District 3 Thermopolis Wind-Bighorn Yes 90 1.97 6 0.3 3,200 R 51 2.55 $45,000 $14.06 0.5 Yes

Summary Table Using 2015 Irrigation System Survey Data

Page 1 of 5


Capacity of

Conveyance rev, cfs

Conveyance

capacity per 70

acres irrigated,

cfs/70 ac

Miles rev,

miles

Miles/160

irrigated

acres, mi/160

irr ac.

Irrigated

acres rev,

ac

Crop Restrictions,

B,R=not limited.

SG,P=elevation,

water, soil limits.

Number of

individual

operators (water

users) rev

Water

users/160

irrigated

acres

Annual

Budget rev, $

Budget/

Irrigated Acre,

$/ac

Full Time +

Seasonal

Employees

rev

Do you have

any existing

debt

(col H ÷ (col L ÷ 70))

(col J ÷ (col L ÷

160))

(col N ÷ (col

L ÷ 160)) (col P ÷ col L)



30 Bench Canal Company 11/21/2014 Corporation 3 Emblem Wind-Bighorn Yes 300 1.27 65 0.6 16,500 B 71 0.69 $215,000 $13.03 2.5 Yes

31 Enterprise Irrigation and Power Company 12/2/2014 Company 3 Lander Wind-Bighorn Yes 24 0.76 18 1.3 2,200 SG 85 6.18 $28,000 $12.73 0.5 No

32 Big Horn Canal Irrigation District 1/13/2015 District 3 Basin Wind-Bighorn Yes 600 2.10 60 0.5 20,000 B 250 2.00 $250,000 $12.50 3 Yes

33 Cottonwood Irrigation District 5/9/2012 District 4 Smoot Snake-Salt No 60 0.84 35 1.1 5,000 SG 290 9.28 $60,000 $12.00 1 Yes

34 North Fork Valley Ditch Company 2/18/2015 Company 3 Cody/Wapiti Wind-Bighorn ?? 100 6.57 5 0.7 1,065 SG 90 13.52 $12,000 $11.27 0 No

35 Lingle Water User's Association 12/3/2014 Association 1 Torrington Platte Yes 1900 11.78 0 0.0 11,288 no answer 100 1.42 $124,168 $11.00 0 No

36

Lucerene Pumping Plant Canal Company

(formerly known as Lucerne Irrigation District) 3/1/2010 District 1 Thermopolis Wind-Bighorn Yes 70 1.20 36 1.4 4,080 R 93 3.65 $44,220 $10.84 2.5 No

37 Toltec Watershed Improvement District 2/27/2015 District 1 Garrett Platte Yes NA #VALUE! 0 0.0 1,720 P 8 0.74 $18,000 $10.47 0 Yes

38 Wise Ditch Company 2/23/2015 Company 3 Riverton Wind-Bighorn Yes 44 3.10 12 1.9 993 P 19 3.06 $10,000 $10.07 0.5 No

39 Goshen Mutual Reservoir and Ditch Co. 6/13/2005 Company 1 Yoder Platte Yes 30 3.28 4 1.0 641 unknown 9 2.25 $6,410 $10.00 0.5 unknown

40 New North Platte Irrigation & Ditch Co. 5/1/2012

Irrigation

Company 1 Torrington Platte No 55 1.28 12 0.6 3,000 NA 18 0.96 $30,000 $10.00 1 No

41 West Side Canal Company 2/6/2015 Company 1 Baggs Green Yes 180 2.52 20 0.6 5,000 P 28 0.90 $50,000 $10.00 1 Yes

42 McDonald Ditch 2/17/2015

Company

(Corporation) 3 Greybull Wind-Bighorn Yes 125 4.69 8 0.7 1865.42 R 30 2.57 $18,000 $9.65 0.5 No

43 Burn Cleuch Ditch Co 5/24/2012 Company 2 Sheridan Powder-Tongue No 20 1.56 5 0.8 898 SG 69 12.29 $8,600 $9.58 0.5 No

44 Shell Canal Company 4/5/2010 Company 3 Greybull Wind-Bighorn Yes 70 0.84 38 1.0 5,800 R 125 3.45 $54,000 $9.31 1 No

45 Rock Ranch Ditch Company 7/7/2003 Company 1 Torrington Platte Yes 100 1.97 15 0.7 3,561 unknown 22 0.99 $33,000 $9.27 0.5 unknown

46

Lovell Irrigation District (formerly part of Elk-

Lovell ID or aka Elk Lovell Canal) 7/22/2005 District 3 Lovell Wind-Bighorn unknown 400 2.55 45 0.7 11,000 unknown 266 3.87 $100,000 $9.09 1 Yes

47 Hunt Canal Irrigation District 11/20/2014 District 3 Lovell Wind-Bighorn unknown 150 2.61 13 0.5 4,030 no answer 50 1.99 $36,000 $8.93 0.5 Yes

48 Pine Creek Ditch Association, Incorportated 2/28/2015 Association 4 Pinedale Green Yes 125 3.03 7 0.4 2,885 P 34 1.89 $25,000 $8.67 1 No

49 New Grattan Ditch Company 5/9/2012 Company 1 Lingle Platte Yes 20 1.51 5 0.9 930 R 6 1.03 $8,000 $8.60 0.5 No

50

Spring Draw Ditch Company (formerly entered

as Spring Draw Irrigation) 12/2/2014 Company 2 Sheridan Powder-Tongue Yes 10 1.17 4 0.9 600 SG 30 8.00 $5,000 $8.33 0.5 No

51 Parker McBride 2/12/2015

Private

Company 3 Lander Wind-Bighorn No 75 4.04 5 0.6 1,300 P 12 1.48 $10,000 $7.69 0.5 No

52 Crook County Irrigation District 3/18/2008 District 2 Moorcroft Northeast Yes Varies #VALUE! 0 0.0 2,160 NA NA #VALUE! $16,000 $7.41 0 Yes

53 Greybull Valley Irrigation District 2/10/2015

Irrigation

District 3 Emblem Wind-Bighorn Yes 2,450 2.68 20 0.1 64,000 B 435 1.09 $450,000 $7.03 4 Yes

54 Lower Hanover Canal 9/26/2003 unknown 3 Worland Wind-Bighorn unknown 235 1.32 24 0.3 12,500 unknown 75 0.96 $80,000 $6.40 unknown unknown

55 Sandstone Ditch Company 2/25/2015 Company 3 Basin Wind-Bighorn Yes 80 2.11 16 1.0 2656.22 B 19 1.14 $16,560 $6.23 0.5 No

56

Owl Creek Irrigation District (Dempsey Canal

now incorporated into Owl Crk) 3/1/2010 District 3 Thermopolis Wind-Bighorn Yes 420 2.26 70 0.9 13,000 R 153 1.88 $79,000 $6.08 4 Yes

57 Farmers Protective (Globe Canal) 3/23/2012 Corporation 3 Lovell Wind-Bighorn No 95 2.02 10 0.5 3,300 B 50 2.42 $20,000 $6.06 0.5 No

58 Whaley Ditch 2/26/2015 Company 3

Greybull,

WY/Shell, WY Wind-Bighorn Yes Unknown #VALUE! Unknown #VALUE! 1,424 R 18 2.02 $8,000 $5.62 0.5 No

Page 2 of 5


Capacity of

Conveyance rev, cfs

Conveyance

capacity per 70

acres irrigated,

cfs/70 ac

Miles rev,

miles

Miles/160

irrigated

acres, mi/160

irr ac.

Irrigated

acres rev,

ac

Crop Restrictions,

B,R=not limited.

SG,P=elevation,

water, soil limits.

Number of

individual

operators (water

users) rev

Water

users/160

irrigated

acres

Annual

Budget rev, $

Budget/

Irrigated Acre,

$/ac

Full Time +

Seasonal

Employees

rev

Do you have

any existing

debt

(col H ÷ (col L ÷ 70))

(col J ÷ (col L ÷

160))

(col N ÷ (col

L ÷ 160)) (col P ÷ col L)



59

Powder River Irrigation District (formerly

Sussex Irrigation Co.) 3/10/2010 District 2 Kaycee Powder-Tongue No 160 2.19 26 0.8 5,115 R 28 0.88 $28,137 $5.50 1.5 Yes

60 Pioneer Canal - Lake Hattie Irrigation District 5/15/2012 District 1 Laramie Platte Yes 800 3.13 75 0.7 17,920 P 49 0.44 $96,000 $5.36 1.5 Yes

61 First Mesa Ditch Company 8/17/2005 Company 1 Baggs Green unknown unknown #VALUE! 11 0.6 3,196 unknown 31 1.55 $17,000 $5.32 0.5 Yes

62 Eastside Irrigation District 3/11/2008 District 4 Etna Snake-Salt No NA #VALUE! 18 2.2 1,300 unknown 15 1.85 $6,500 $5.00 0.5 No

63 Bates Creek Reservoir Company 1/4/2015 Company 1 Casper Platte Yes

Bates Creek to

many headgates #VALUE! 4 0.2 4,000 SG 7 0.28 $20,000 $5.00 0 No

64 Boulder Irrigation District 2/27/2015 District 4 Boulder Green Yes 400 3.29 25 0.5 8,500 P 66 1.24 $42,000 $4.94 0 No

65 Alto Canal Sprinkler Company 2/19/2015 Company 4 Thayne Snake-Salt Yes

Annually variable;

dependant on snow

& rainfall #VALUE! 3 0.7 681 SG 19 4.47 $3,200 $4.70 0 No

66 North Fork Irrigation District 11/11/2014

Irrigation

District 2 Buffalo Powder-Tongue Yes 80 1.12 5 0.1 5,000 R 15 0.48 $22,552 $4.51 1.5 yes

67 Smiths Fork Irrigation District 2/27/2015 District 4 Cokeville Bear No Unknown #VALUE! 20 0.6 4,980 SG 27 0.87 $22,000 $4.42 2 Yes

68 Hilliard East Fork Canal Company 2/14/2015 Company 4 Evanston Bear Yes 28 0.74 15 0.9 2,644 P 14 0.85 $11,550 $4.37 NA No

69 Canyon Canal, Inc. 5/14/2012

Private Non-

Profit

Company 4 Pinedale Green No 120 1.33 18 0.5 6,300 P 217 5.51 $25,000 $3.97 1 No

70 Shell Valley Watershed Improvement District 7/7/2003 District 3 Shell Wind-Bighorn Yes 150 1.00 0 0.0 10,500 unknown 250 3.81 $35,000 $3.33 0 No

71

Elk Water User's Association (formerly part of

Elk-Lovell ID, aka Elk Lovell Canal) 11/21/2014 Association 3 Powell Wind-Bighorn unknown 500 8.24 12 0.5 4,250 B 13 0.49 $14,000 $3.29 0 No

72 Baggs Ditch Company 8/5/2005 Corporation 1 Baggs Green ?? 3 0.23 2 0.3 903 NA 5 0.89 $2,500 $2.77 0 Yes

73 Highland Irrigation District

12/3/2014,

2/17/2015 District 4 Pinedale Green Yes 180 1.90 25 0.6 6,630 P 218 5.26 $17,000 $2.56 1 No

74 Fairview Irrigation District 2/12/2015 District 3 Afton Snake-Salt No 80 3.11 9 0.8 1,800 SG 105 9.33 $4,500 $2.50 0 No

75

Austin Wall Irrigation District Canal Company

(formerly known as Austin Canal Co, or Uinta

NO 3 Canal Company) 2/21/2015 Distict 4 Lyman Green Yes 80 1.40 17 0.7 4,001 SG 12 0.48 $10,000 $2.50 0 No

76 Bridger Valley Water Conservancy District 2/17/2015

Conservancy

District 4 Mountain View Green Yes NA #VALUE! 0 0.0 79,500 SG 300 0.60 $195,000 $2.45 2 Yes

77 Nicol & Table Mountain Ditch 2/12/2015

Private

Company 3 Lander Wind-Bighorn No 95 1.99 7 0.3 3,340 SG 63 3.02 $8,000 $2.40 0.5 No

78 Butte Ditch 8/11/2005 Association 3 Meeteetse Wind-Bighorn Yes 40 1.28 6 0.4 2,180 NA 6 0.44 $5,000 $2.29 0 No

79 Piney and Cruse Creek Ditch Company 4/30/2012 Company 2 Banner Powder-Tongue Yes 25 0.39 8 0.3 4,500 SG 100 3.56 $10,000 $2.22 0.5 No

80 Hilliard West Side Ditch Company 1/16/2015 Company 4 Evanston Bear Yes 80 2.48 18 1.3 2,260 P 22 1.56 $5,000 $2.21 0 NA

81 Meade Creek Ditch 10/9/2000 Corporation 2 Sheridan Powder-Tongue Yes 37 1.00 9 0.6 2,600 unknown 6 0.37 $5,400 $2.08 1 No

82 Laramie Valley Municipal Irrigation District 3/15/2015

Irrigation

District 1 Laramie Platte No 150 1.13 20 0.3 9321 P 13 0.22 $18,000 $1.93 0 Yes

83 Peoples Canal Company 11/21/2014 Company unknown Manila out of state No 55 1.68 9 0.6 2,290 SG 14 0.98 $4,000 $1.75 1.5 No

84 Gunbarrel Lateral Ditch Company 4/26/2012 Company 1 Wheatland Platte ?? 35 0.94 10 0.6 2,601 R 16 0.98 $4,000 $1.54 0.5 No

85

Baldwin/Peralta Ditch Company (aka Peralta

Ditch Company or as Popo Agie Ranch) 4/8/2015 Ditch Group 2 Lander Wind-Bighorn No 26.4 2.00 3 0.5 924 P 30 5.19 $1,320 $1.43 0 No

Page 3 of 5


Capacity of

Conveyance rev, cfs

Conveyance

capacity per 70

acres irrigated,

cfs/70 ac

Miles rev,

miles

Miles/160

irrigated

acres, mi/160

irr ac.

Irrigated

acres rev,

ac

Crop Restrictions,

B,R=not limited.

SG,P=elevation,

water, soil limits.

Number of

individual

operators (water

users) rev

Water

users/160

irrigated

acres

Annual

Budget rev, $

Budget/

Irrigated Acre,

$/ac

Full Time +

Seasonal

Employees

rev

Do you have

any existing

debt

(col H ÷ (col L ÷ 70))

(col J ÷ (col L ÷

160))

(col N ÷ (col

L ÷ 160)) (col P ÷ col L)



86 Big Cottonwood Ditch Co. 2/13/2015 Corporation 3 Lander Wind-Bighorn Yes 70 2.26 5 0.4 2,167 P 98 7.24 $3,000 $1.38 0.5 No

87 Green River Irrigation District 2/27/2015 District 4 Pinedale Green No 200 2.03 55 1.3 6900 P 47 1.09 $9,500 $1.38 0.5 Yes

88

Snavely/Grant Young Ditch (2012 submitted

survey as Killebrew Irrigation) 4/8/2015 Ditch Group 3 Lander Wind-Bighorn No 20 1.17 5 0.7 1,200 P 25 3.33 $1,600 $1.33 NA No

89 Blacks Fork Canal Company 11/20/2014 Company 4 Ft. Bridger Green Yes 375 1.31 12 0.1 20,020.124 SG 60 0.48 $25,000 $1.25 0.5 No

90 Wright & Murphy Ditch Company 9/9/2003 Company 1 Ft. Laramie Platte Yes 4 1.14 1 0.7 245 unknown 1 0.65 $300 $1.22 0 No

91 Big Goose and Beaver Ditch Company 8/3/2005 Company 2 Sheridan Powder-Tongue No 100 1.14 12 0.3 6,160 NA 46 1.19 $7,000 $1.14 0.5 No

92

Lake DeSmet Ditch Company (formerly listed as

Lake DeSmet Reservoir Co.) 11/18/2014 Corporation 2 Buffalo Powder-Tongue Yes 70 0.89 3 0.1 5,500 SG 24 0.70 $6,000 $1.09 0.5 No

93

Savery-Little Snake River Water Conservancy

District 8/5/2005 District 1 Baggs Green Yes unknown #VALUE! unknown #VALUE! 12,000 unknown unknown #VALUE! $12,400 $1.03 0 Yes

94 North Strawberry Canal Co. 3/19/2008

Private

Company 4 Thayne Snake-Salt No unknown #VALUE! 14 1.9 1200 unknown unknown #VALUE! $1,200 $1.00 0.5 No

95

Anita Ditch Co. (formerly known as Anita Ditch

Company and Gapen Ditch)

3/6/2015,

4/23/2015 Company 3 Hyattville Wind-Bighorn No 60 1.68 12 0.8 2,500 NA 7 0.45 $2,000 $0.80 0 No

96 Milich Ditch Company 8/8/2005 Company 4 Lyman Green Yes 90 1.43 13 0.5 4,400 unknown 13 0.47 $3,500 $0.80 0.5 No

97 Etna Irrigation District 12/16/2014 District 4 Freedom Snake-Salt unknown 86 2.00 10 0.5 3,000 SG 140 7.47 $2,300 $0.77 0.5 No

98 Salt River Irrigation District 7/9/2003 District 4 Afton Snake-Salt No 120 3.65 8 0.6 2,300 unknown 50 3.48 $1,500 $0.65 1 No

99 Kidman and Wall Ditch Company 12/2/2014 Company 4 Robertson Green Yes NA #VALUE! 2 0.2 1,858 P 8 0.69 $900 $0.48 0.5 No

100

New Fork Irrigation District (formerly submitted

as New Fork Lake Irrigation District) 2/17/2015 District 4 Cora Green Yes NA #VALUE! 15 0.2 14,612 P 91 1.00 $7,000 $0.48 0 No

101 Hoops Lake Reservoir Company 4/13/2012 Company 4 Lonetree Green ?? 125 1.94 6 0.2 4,500 P 8 0.28 $2,000 $0.44 0 No

102 Little Popo Agie Irrigation District 11/24/2014 District 3 Lander Wind-Bighorn Yes 33.40 0.94 30 1.9 2,487.47 P 24 1.54 $500 $0.20 0 No

103 Davis & Company Ditch 3/30/2010 Company 4 Mountain View Green No 25.5 1.01 5 0.5 1,766 P 13 1.18 $300 $0.17 0.5 No

104

Sulphur Creek Reservoir Company (and City of

Evanston) 2/23/2015 Company 4 Evanston Bear Yes 100 1.40 0 0.0 5,000 P 55 1.76 $600 $0.12 0.5 No

105 Savery Creek Ditch Company 2/26/2015 Company 1 Savery Green unknown 15 0.82 4 0.5 1,274 no answer 10 1.26 $100 $0.08 0 Yes

106 Rock Creek Water Users Association 2/12/2015 Association 1 McFadden Platte No 3000 9.61 4 0.0 21,860 P 18 0.13 $500 $0.02 0 No

107 Beckwith Quin Canal Company 11/26/2014 Company 4 Cokeville Bear Yes 120 0.84 7 0.1 10,000 SG 6 0.10 $10 $0.00 0 No

108 Chapman Canal Company 3/6/2008

Private

Company 4 Woodruff out of state No 250 1.88 20 0.3 9,300 NA 20 0.34 $0 $0.00 0 No

109

Twin Creeks (formerly known as Twin Creek

Ditch Company) 2/3/2015 NA 4 Cokeville Bear No 100 5.83 4 0.5 1,200 SG 6 0.80 $0 $0.00 NA No

Page 4 of 5


Capacity of

Conveyance rev, cfs

Conveyance

capacity per 70

acres irrigated,

cfs/70 ac

Miles rev,

miles

Miles/160

irrigated

acres, mi/160

irr ac.

Irrigated

acres rev,

ac

Crop Restrictions,

B,R=not limited.

SG,P=elevation,

water, soil limits.

Number of

individual

operators (water

users) rev

Water

users/160

irrigated

acres

Annual

Budget rev, $

Budget/

Irrigated Acre,

$/ac

Full Time +

Seasonal

Employees

rev

Do you have

any existing

debt

(col H ÷ (col L ÷ 70))

(col J ÷ (col L ÷

160))

(col N ÷ (col

L ÷ 160)) (col P ÷ col L)



110 Lower Clear Creek Irrigation District 12/15/2000 District 2 Leiter Powder-Tongue Yes 40 #VALUE! unknown #VALUE! unknown unknown 16 #VALUE! $50,000 #VALUE! 0 Yes

111 Alliance Ditch Company 9/11/2003 Company 2 Sheridan Powder-Tongue No variable #VALUE! 10 #VALUE! NA NA 25 #VALUE! $10,000 #VALUE! 0.5 NA

112 Lander Ditch Company 6/26/2008

Private

Company 3 Lander Wind-Bighorn unknown Unknown #VALUE! 5 #VALUE! unknown unknown 120 #VALUE! $1,000 #VALUE! 0 No

113 Twin Butte Land and Irrigation Co. 2/16/2010 Corporation 4 Lyman Green Yes 50 #VALUE! 8 #VALUE! unknown unknown 12 #VALUE! $250 #VALUE! 0 No

114 Hamsfork Water Users Association 11/26/2014 Association 4 Kemmerer Green Yes NA #VALUE! NA #VALUE! Unknown SG 30 #VALUE! $100 #VALUE! 0 No

115 LeClair Irrigation District 4/30/2012 District 3 Riverton Wind-Bighorn No 300 1.56 33 0.4 13,500 R 1,500 17.78 NA #VALUE! 3 NA

116 Bear Canal Ditch Company 5/7/2012 Company 4 Evanston Bear Yes 165 2.36 20 0.7 4,900 NA 33 1.08 NA #VALUE! 0 No

117 Lamb Supply Canal Company 4/18/2015 Company 4 Mountain View Green unknown 35 1.10 4 0.3 2234 no answer 24 1.72 no answer #VALUE! 0.5 No

118 Neff Ditch Irrigation Association 12/11/2014 Association 3 Cody Wind-Bighorn unknown 10.0 2.22 7 3.6 315 P 17 8.63 no answer #VALUE! no answer No

119 Deseret Land and Livestock 2/11/2010 Business NA Woodruff out of state Yes 300 2.30 15 0.3 9,139 P 15 0.26 NA #VALUE! 0 No

120

Taylor Ditch Company (formerly Dutch

Flat/Taylor Ditch) 7/2/2012 Company 3 Lander Wind-Bighorn No NA #VALUE! 5 0.4 2,100 SG 10 0.76 NA #VALUE! 0 No

121 Goshen Hole Water Users Association 6/6/2005 Association 1 Yoder Platte Yes 250 6.96 unknown #VALUE! 2,516 unknown 5 0.32 unknown #VALUE! 0.5 No

122 Victoria Ditch Co. 8/3/2005 Company 3 Ten Sleep Wind-Bighorn ?? unknown #VALUE! 3 2.4 200 unknown 5 4.00 unknown #VALUE! 0 No

123 Blue Bell Canal Company 1/9/2001 Company 4 McKinnon Green No 12.16 1.00 NA #VALUE! 852 NA 3 0.56 NA #VALUE! NA No

124 Trowel Ditch Company 6/3/2005 Company 1 Baggs Green unknown 90 #VALUE! 6 #VALUE! unknown unknown 3 #VALUE! unknown #VALUE! 0 Yes

125

Reservoir Ranch (formerly Sixty-Seven

Reservoir Project) 4/19/2010

Private

Company 4 Big Piney Green Yes unknown #VALUE! 2 0.2 1,600 SG 2 0.20 unknown #VALUE! 0 No

126 Wyoming Game and Fish Commission 3/26/2008 State agency 3 Cody Wind-Bighorn unknown 450 52.50 12 3.2 600 unknown 2 0.53 unknown #VALUE! 3 No

127 Wagonhound Land & Livestock 5/9/2012 Company 1 Douglas Platte No 25.2571 1.00 NA #VALUE! 1,760 NA 1 0.09 NA #VALUE! 6 No

128 Burbank Ditch 3/13/2012 District 1 Torrington Platte Yes 5.14 0.92 5 2.0 391 R 1 0.41 As needed #VALUE! 1.5 No

129 Ladder Ditch Company 9/15/2003 Company 1 Savery Green unknown 9 3.50 unknown #VALUE! 180 unknown 1 0.89 unknown #VALUE! 1.5 No

130 Chalmers Fogg Ditch 4/30/2010 Company 3 Lander Wind-Bighorn No NA #VALUE! NA #VALUE! NA NA NA #VALUE! NA #VALUE! NA NA

131 Little Snake River Conservation District 3/2/2015 District 1 Baggs Green unknown no answer #VALUE! no answer #VALUE! no answer no answer no answer #VALUE! no answer #VALUE! no answer no answer

132 Whitney Reservoir 7/24/2003 unknown 4 Evanston out of state Yes unknown #VALUE! NA #VALUE! 16,000 0 unknown #VALUE! unknown #VALUE! 1 unknown

Page 5 of 5

2015 WWDC Sponsor Survey Yes No Strongly

Agree SA% Agree A% Disagree D% Strongly Disagree SD% NA NA% Response

Total 1 Have you had an opportunity to visit the WWDC's website? 34 20 0 54

2 The WWDC website is easy to use and contains useful information. 10 21% 24 50% 0 0% 0 0% 14 29% 48

3 At the November meeting of the WWDC, adequate time was allowed for the sponsors to provide information on their projects and answer questions 13 27% 18 38% 0 0% 0 0% 17 35% 48

4 Has your entity ever applied for and received approval for a Level I WWDC reconnaissance study? 35 14 0 49

5 Has your entity ever applied for and received approval for a Level II WWDC feasibility study? 28 21 0 49

6 The Level I and/or Level II project application is easy to complete. 9 20% 22 50% 1 2% 0 0% 12 27% 44

7 Your Level I/II Planning study analyzed your project adequately, provided appropriate alterna-tives, and viable conclusions. 11 25% 22 50% 0 0% 0 0% 11 25% 44

8 I found the WWDC staff working on my planning study to be knowledgeable, helpful and dedicat-ed to completing a comprehensive study. 20 45% 17 39% 0 0% 0 0% 7 16% 44

9 Did you make a request to the WWDC to advance your Planning project to Level III Construction? 21 23 0 44

10 Have you participated in the WWDC consultant selection process for new Level I or Level II stud-ies? 25 19 0 44

11 I am familiar with the River Basin Planning Program. 17 28 0 45

12 The annual Basin Advisory Group Meetings are useful and productive as they offer a forum for water users and agency personnel to discuss contemporary water issues. 3 8% 14 38% 0 0% 0 0% 20 54% 37

14 River Basin Planning is an inclusive process regarding the public, agencies, and other groups. 3 8% 14 38% 1 3% 0 0% 19 51% 37

15 Has your entity ever applied for and received a Level III WWDC construction grant and/or loan? 25 19 0 44

16 The WWDC Level III project application is easy to understand and complete. 10 24% 15 37% 1 2% 0 0% 15 37% 41

17 The review of the Level III Project Agreement with the WWDC construction staff is beneficial. 10 24% 14 34% 0 0% 0 0% 17 41% 41

18 The WWDC Level III pay request forms are easy to understand and complete. 8 20% 16 39% 0 0% 0 0% 17 41% 41

19 The Sponsor Acknowledgement Attachment outlining WWDC requirements at various phases in the construction process is beneficial. 7 18% 15 38% 1 3% 0 0% 16 41% 39

20 The WWDC staff has adequately explained the Dams and Reservoir planning process with its multiple Levels and Phases. 5 13% 11 28% 1 3% 0 0% 23 58% 40

21 During the multi-year Dams and Reservoir planning process, the WWDC staff have kept me up to date on project progress. 5 13% 10 25% 1 3% 0 0% 24 60% 40

22 The WWDC Dam and Reservoir planning process is collaborative with the local Community/Sponsor in developing reservoir alternatives. 3 8% 10 25% 1 3% 0 0% 26 65% 40

23 The WWDC is responsive to my questions or concerns about receipt of payments. 12 30% 16 40% 0 0% 0 0% 12 30% 40

24 Project payments for reimbursement of Level III construction expenditures are received within a reasonable time frame. 9 23% 15 38% 0 0% 0 0% 15 38% 39

25 Overall, I am satisfied with WWDC's stewardship of the Wyoming Water Development Program. 16 38% 23 55% 0 0% 0 0% 3 7% 42

26 The Wyoming Water Development Program is primarily funded with state severance taxes. This program includes planning, design, and construction of water infrastructure projects. In the case of your project, do you think this was a worthwhile investment of the State's resources?

43 0 0 43

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Num

ber o

f Res

pond

ents

Question Number

Number of respondents who answered each question

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Perc

ent o

f Res

pond

ents

Question Number

Percent of respondents who answered NA by each question

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Perc

ent o

f Res

pond

ents

Question Number

Percent of respondents who anwswered Strongly Agree, Agree, or NA(Questions 1, 4-5, 9-11, 15, and 26 were Yes/No)

Strongly Agree or Agree NA

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

Agenda

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

August 7, 2015%? I

Rl Mrs

('

l ,5e

lse

1

t

Si

!

?l

Prepared byl

@Mic:hael Swank, Pro<rruny Ewdualion AihmatycrLJ " (

.]o.v Hill, I)ro,2yram Evalualor(' I *{'II i a n is tbatnanlha I'vltlls, ,4ssociale Prosyram Lvtduty?or

I '=lKathv Misenet: Asso"iqtro Prrivram Evalualor

l I IJ

rl- /7 Mai1iiyeau, Assriririlri Pit.l izaDer}i mcyrcnyi l=sitxluatorl

lMarla Smith, Associate Pro2ratvi Evalualorl

IA /'Y i'7a

lAnthonv 5ara, lechmcal Assistance & (iraphics

J/.

l

Q

i

mmm mma* PmUln €

,jY[i tm[[j] a r'*La

l 4 im m m

I s 11 m n n

Ll[!a7

J q5!'.

ViLlnVes % m9ni

!; [1J!JarJC [J U l6 [1Jjfi m:,l il gl@ O[j J ] i][ 1

l miml m Mm m s i lmmm msss m i m l m mI l m i i ii ism m l mf !I 1 !l!l!ll

W mmm m s m f l 5 l m I l m{ ! v!2!J l !i M! !! E !l !iga (] v m(! l l ] n y i !a l 7 7% I v

l eegq l tsn sW l!!II!J J !mt m Pfs T r l l r f l rn w

n!8 !U!i ll

Il l w

d.?, l i4 ii nu(1] d Vg 5ffl

aigg affias !jevn4i& i l & mim i m m mm Wlm m mm l ff i j mm s s l !! m I

l(i[ !D l a ! 2i l !g !a n J m l !l l I lS l (E / !a

! ! !! !! Is!! W a m l m m l I m m i s i ffla5 m ll !ag I t l nS!2 !!!!1, !! lmmm r sim l msir m!! !!lWl !

i !! l !!l l fii!;!

m !aTh !! (i Z / / l ![6 7 !] Da !lM im ii s i hi !!! !!W :!i !!i !a !2 ! e!! m(W l l 2v !5 3 / / !Js im*s m a9mi si l mm smmmr m mm

f m ii m r r ffm?d/ !7W 2 ng i'l% ] (l!I fl7 ! i iJ

s i l ii i i r 11 i ll!

r m'a si, imii ii I I i.ms iiiis 5115 t sl! N(Al)j p, IC! J? ',

441l?

JW )M M U 1 l QW im ss i i m !! Wmvn1Iy% 2 2

Program Evaluation Staff

Michael Swank

Program Evaluation Manager

Joy HillProgram Evaluator

Samantha Mills

Associate Program Evaluator

Kathy MisenerAssociate Program Evaluator

Elizabeth Martineau


Marla Smith


Technical Assistance and Graphics:

Anthony SaraLegislative Information Officer

n-Al,

aWyoming Legislative Service Office

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Wyoming Public Purpose Investments

Program Evaluation Section August 7, 2015

r*w igssm tion Purposecvaiua

In December 2014, the Management Audit Committee (Committee) directed the Legislative ServiceOffice (LSO) to conduct a program evaluation of Wyoming public purpose investments (PPIs). TheCommittee's concerns focused on the efficient administration of these investments, possibleopportunity costs (including valuing public benefits), and the applicability and use of the UniforrnPrudent Investment Act (UPIA). PPIs were previously evaluated by LSO in 1997.

Background

In Chapters l and 2, the report providesbackground information on where PP?s fitinto the State's investment array as well asidentifies common themes in trying todistinctly define or group PPIs. Keyhighlights include that for most investmentsmade with State funds, the State Trcasurerand the State Loan and Investment Board

(SLIB) oversee the State's investmentportfolio. The entire portfolio, separatedinto ten separate funds, cutrently has amarket value of approximately $19.7 billion,with the Perrnanent Wyoming Mineral TrustFund (PWMTF) accounting for the largestsingle fund at $7.2 billion. Most PPIs aremade from the PWMTF.

However, PPIs are investments specificallychosen and made under the direct

authorization of the Legislature. Theseinvestments are typically not related to oneanother except for the use of public entities(political subdivisions) to or through whichthe investments are made and the desire to

achieve various public purposes or benefitsfor the State and its citizens; see Figure ES. lat right. The distinct nature of eachindividual PPI makes it challenging todefine, group, and evaluate them together.

For example, some PPIs are required to beexecuted while others are more

discretionary. Also, some have strictinterest rates while others' rates may floatbased on a statutory or rules-based formula.

Figure ES.l General Areas ImpactingHow PPIs May be Defined or Assessed

PWMTF Investment Portfolio p

I

1

I

i' Leg:slat'ivelyA:.:thoiized -?'i,l-L Investment ;

l'€'-' -Publi;?PWrp:;se'l'nv;s'trnents-'- ' )

:)?

I

&a4 State Entities, Political Subdivisions, Cities, Municipalities,Counties, Special Districts, JPB, and State Instrumentalities l

Y

IRecipient: PublicE.g. Municipali}y. Counky. oy loim

%wers tloard

l

Y

LRecipient : Private

E4. Individual lFatm Loaiis) otlndus(ry lUranium Mineil

7-ll Legislatively Required

Investment

I

Il

Anticipated Benefits

Investment Return

E.g. Monekaty rehim

"Public" BenefitE.g. lob tteasion/teienr:on

Note: The full graphic can be found on page 26.

Due to these challenges, LSO looked at PP?sunder the unifying theme that they areinvestments. LSO used professionalstandards like the State Master Investment

Policy (MIP) goals and objectives as well asthe UPIA on which to base its review.

Therefore, this report highlights when andhow PPIs diverge from these standards andprovide recommendations to both theLegislature and executive agencies. Thereport seeks to help the State better connectboth the financial return and public purposegoals, see Figure ES.2 at right, throughclearer statutes and more efficient and

transparent executive administration.

?

Figure ES.2 UnderstandingOpportunity Cost

m

lrDi-7ersific:oH'l' j Investmen't-?--syu?ell{ l

9bj?eclives ,'

1lll

Opportumty Costsll

l

rW

Note: The original graphic can be found on page 29.

Report, Finding and Recommendation Summary

could consider changing the funding sourcefor investments where private entities mayreceive funds and uncertain public benefitsappear to outweigh financial returns.

In Chapter 4, LSO found that the currentreporting on PPIs to the Legislature isincomplete, inconsistent, and fragmented.Since the Legislature designates PPIsoutside the regular portfolio investmentprocess, the consistency and thoroughness ofreporting to the Legislature can beimproved. Identifying and reporting onthese investments' use, lending, andrepayment trends as well as potential

This report advises the Legislature andexecutive branch administering agencies forPPIs on several issues. In Chapter 3, thereport notes that PPIs have generallyreturned less financial income to the

PWMTF than could be expected if the PPIfunds were invested in the regulardiversified portfolio (potential opportunitycost). Therefore, the Legislature couldconsider modifying how PPI interest ratesare set. LSO also found that as an

investment gets further away from market-based investing (focused on financial rate ofreturn) it is more difficult toinvestment risk. The

inability to properly assessrisk in turn also makes it

difficult to value both

financial returns and publicbenefits to reveal if the State

?S being reasonablycompensated; see FigureES.3, at right. Riskassessment is most importantwhen the ultimate recipientof invested State funds is a

private, rather than public,entity. The Legislature

assess

Figure ES.3State {iivestment of Public Funds Continuum

NConventional l

Focmed on finmdal l:

r€u€rtlS Da!Efil 011 rllarkel lraIes l

Mmrket Rate of Return11

11

% No Current PP?s lilil l

iPublic

Focused on pmvkling Focused mi p*Hepublicbemfilsand- l bentfibthmughdirectly l

finmcial returns fir Ihe l i v lending to jand indirectly

IState prIVate entItLeSl

1rI

Economic Development

ll

1l

l

Private

Puhlic Benents

JPALoans

Water Projectm

IDBs

Farni Loans l

J?

No(c: 'rlic origiiial graphic c;iii bc fi+tiiiil (111 piigc 36 ?if tlic rcpor{.

8m ji!'QQl i... .., . ils ! ms

delinquencies and defaults, can be reviewedand acted upon by the Legislature, asnecessary, in a timely manner.

In Chapter s, LSO found that the Office ofState Lands and Investments (OSLI) canupdate several of its administrativeresponsibilities to increase PPI programefficiencies and transparency. Finally, inChapter 6, LSO identified many PPIprograms that have gone unused, most since

the 1997 LSO evaluation. The reportrecommends possible statutory changes toeliminate unused or potentially unnecessaryprogram authorizations.

In total the report contains twelverecommendations. Five recommendations

are for the Legislature to consider and sevenare directed toward the PPI administeringagencies.

Agency Response

State Treasurer's Offlce (STO)

The STO believes all of the different approaches to PPIs are well-intentioned. TheSTO notes that occasionally PPI effectiveness varies and their prosecution isuneven. The STO believes its role, where given the responsibility and authority, isto bring the discipline embodied in the Uniforrn Prudent Investor Rule to PP?s,tempered by the proposed source of funding and the Legislature's intent.

The STO partially agrees that the Legislature consider establishing a consistent ordefault interest rate for all PPIs and that the Legislature consider removing thestatutory requirement for the WBC to formally recommend the interest rate for eachIDB application. The STO agrees that the Legislature consider a funding source,other than permanent funds, for the IDB program. The STO also agrees that PPIreporting could be improved and that it should coordinate and compile informationfor presentation to the Legislature. Finally, the STO suggests that the Legislaturereview funding needs before repealing the Local Government and School DistrictBond Guarantee programs. See page STO-l of the report for the full response.

Office of State Lands and Investment (OSLI)

The OSLI notes two general themes in the report. First, the agency believes thatmeasuring and delivering a public purpose through the Farm Loan program isachieved through the establishment of the program and the availability of funds.Second, the OSLI takes delinquencies and defaults seriously and resolution of thoseissues is dictated by not only SLIB rules, but also the terms of the mortgagecontracts.

The OSLI agrees that it should conduct a review of the Farrn Loan Program rulesand that it will report back to the Management Audit Committee in one year toreview the status and progress of the EnABLE data system. It also agrees to study,with the WWDO, the potential overlap in services and program administration ofsmall water development and hydro-power development projects.

The Agency partially agrees that it should coordinate with the WBC to providetraining and guidance to OSLI staff and prospective Beginning Agricultural

Producer borrowers regarding adequate and actionable business plans. The Agencyis neutral to the recommendations that it should provide a business plan template orrequire annual or biennial reporting from Beginning Agricultural Producerborrowers. The OSLI states Farm Loan program statutes appear intended to havethe SLIB and OSLI operate as a commercial lender where success of the program isjudged by repayments on the loaned funds. See page OSLI-l of the report for thefull response.

Wyoming Water Development Office (WWDO)

The WWDO states that overall, the report fairly describes the permanent fund loansit administers and agrees that it can work with the OSLI to study areas in whichboth agencies provide services and program administration related to small waterdevelopment and hydro-power development projects. However, the WWDO doesnot believe that there is any current duplication of effort between the agencies.

In addition, the WWDO is required to prepare a feasibility study for all hydropowerprojects, but it does not believe that statute requires consultation between theWWDO and the OSLI for hydropower projects. Finally, the WWDO reiterates thatthe Gillette-Madison project is still under construction and agrees that no interesthas accrued on loaned funds, but the pro3ect is still in compliance with financialconditions. See page WWDO-1 of the report for the full response.

Wyoming Business Council (WBC)

The WBC partially agrees that the Legislature consider establishing a consistent ordefault interest rate for all PPIs, but cautions that an interest rate set in statutewould be difficult to adjust and could decrease flexibility and responsiveness. TheWBC also partially agrees that the Legislature consider removing the statutoryrequirement for the WBC to recommend interest rates on IDBs. It states that thereis no need for the WBC to recommend a rate for IDBs. However, if the program isviewed as an economic development tool, then there is some merit to the WBCreviewing a range of potential rates based on business financial analyses andprojections. See page WBC-l of the report for the full WBC response.

Recommendation Locator

ChapterNumber

Recommendation

Number Recommendation Summary PageNumber

PartyAddressed

AgencyResponse

3 3.1The Legislature could consider setting a consistent or defaultinterest rate for all PPIs, which correlates with a multi-year 34rolling average of the PWMTF yield.

Legislature

STO: PaitiallyAgree

WBC: PartiallyAgree

3 3.2The Legislature could consider extending appropriated fundsor establishing a separate fund for IDBs rather than using the 40PWMTF.

LegislatureSTO: Agree

WBC: Agree

4 4.1The Legislature could consider amending W.S. 9-4-715(n) toprovide for more comprehensive, standardized, and direct 52reporting requirements for all PPI programs and projects.

Legislature STO: Agree

4

s

s

4.2

5.1

5.2

The STO should coordinate and compile information notedunder Recommendation 4. 1.

The OSLI and the SLIB should conduct a review of FarrnLoan program rules to address the timing of repayments.

The OSLI and the SLIB should provide a business plantemplate for prospective borrowers to follow when applyingfor a loan under the Beginning Agricultural Producer sub-program of the Farm Loan program.

53

62

63

State

Treasurer's

Office

Office of

State Lands

and

Investments

Office of

State Lands

and

Investments

STO: Agree

OSLI: Agree

OSLI: Neutral

s 5.3 The OSLI should coordinate with the WBC to providetraining and/or other guidance to both OSLI staff and 63 Office of

State LandsOSLI: Partially

Agree

ChapterNumber

RecommendationNumber Recommendation Summary

prospective Beginning Agricultural Producer borrowers onadequate and actionable business plans.

Page PartyNumber Addressed

and

Investments

AgencyResponse

WBC:

Agree

s 5.4The OSLI should require annual or biennial repotts fromBeginning Agricultural Producer borrowers on their progresstoward meeting business plan expectations and goals.

63

Office of

State Lands

and

Investments

OSLI: Neutral

s 5.5The OSLI should report back to the Management AuditCommittee in one year to review the status and progress ofthe EnABLE data system.

63

Office of

State Lands

and

Investments

OSLt: Agree

6 6.1

The WWDO and the OSLI should study the areas in whichboth agencies provide services and program administrationrelated to small water development and hydro-powerdevelopment projects.

70

Office of

State Lands

and

Investments

and the

WyomingWater

DevelopmentOffice

OSLI: Agree

WWDO: Agree

6 6.2

The Legis4ature could consider the following modifications toPPI program statutes as outlined in this chapter:

Revise relevant statutes under Chapter 34 (State Loan andInvestment Board), Title 11 (Agriculture, Livestock andOther Animals) to change references from "irrigationloans? to "water development projects" or ?small waterprojects,? as applicable, in confoimance with theterminology used for the loan program authorized underW.S. 11-34-301 and 302 and as presented by the OSLI

*

71 Legislature

STO: PartiallyAgree

WBC: Agree

ChapterNumber

RecommendationNumber Recommendation Summary Page

NumberParty

AddressedAgency

Responsewebsite.

*

*

Revise w.s. 11-34-306 to provide clarification onwhether the $10 million hydro-power funding level isintended to be the program-level funding limit, rather thanper-project funding limit.

Repeal the statutory authorizations for the followinginactive and/or unused programs:

Local Government Bond Guarantee program: W.S. 9-4-1002 and 9-4-715(h);

School District Bond Guarantee program: W.S. 9-4-1001 and w.s. 9-4-715(g);

Area Redevelopment program: W.S. 11-34-303;Deferred Property Tax program: w.s. 9-4-7 l 5(j);University of Wyoming Advance Payment Contractprogram: w.s. 21-16-501 through w.s. 21-16-505;Student Loan Stand-by program: W.S. 21-16-113(with conforming amendments to w.s. 21-16-714 forthe WHEAA); and

Lamb Processing Facility Loan program: w.s. ll-34-304 and w.s. 11-34-305.

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

6 6.3The Legislature could consider removing the requirement thatthe WBC formally recommend the interest rate for IDB 73 Legislatureapplications.

STO: PattiallyAgree

WBC: PartiallyAgree

4nolks%%,,

r?,A'??faa0a???'-'%alai+-?'?-.i: B

=.J?;I 2!ThQ1A?r- %

?-? E ( s l S L A T U 1< p?['-?

TM

jJ

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Wyoming Public Purpose Investments

Introduction, Scope, and Methodology..................................................................................................... 1

Chapter 1: The Legislature Directly Invests State Funds .................................................................... 7

Chapter 2: What is a "Public Purpose Investment?" ......................................................................... 21

Chapter 3: Investing in PPIs Diverges from the PWMTF Investment Goals and the PrudentInvestor Principles .................................................................................................................................. 27

Chapter 4: Most PPI Inforrnation Collected and Reported is not Conducive to MeaningfulLegislative Oversight of its Designated Investments ........................................................................... 41

Chapter s: Adjustments to the OSLI Practices Would Streamline Administration andContribute to Better PPI Reporting and Program Transparency ....................................................... 55

Chapter 6: Outmoded and Unclear Statutes could be Modified or Repealed for MoreEfficient PPI Administration.................................................................................................................. 65

Agency Responses ............................................................................................................................ 75

State Treasurer's Office .......................................................................................................STO-1

Office of State Lands and Investments ............................................................................. OSLI-1

Wyoming Water Development Office ..........................................................................WWDO-l

Wyoming Business Council ............................................................................................. WBC-l

Appendices

(A) Wyoming Constitution and Statutes (selected excerpts) ............................................... A-l

(B) Wyoming Master Investment Policy (selected excerpts) ................................................ B-l

(C) Summary of Wyoming Public Purpose Investment Programs and Projects................. C-1

(D) Other States' Use and Investment of Permanent Funds ................................................ D-1

(E) LSO Evaluation Opportunity Cost Methodology............................................................. E-l

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

LSO Scoping Letter CONFIDENTIAL Provided to WWDC at Meeting

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

Wyoming’s Water Development Program Scoping PaperAugust 7, 2015Management Audit CommitteeSenator Bruce Burns, ChairmanRepresentative David Miller, Vice Chairman

Senator Floyd A. EsquibelSenator Wayne JohnsonSenator David KinskeySenator Charles Scott

Representative Cathy ConnollyRepresentative Dan KirkbrideRepresentative Thomas LockhartRepresentative Michael K. Madden Representative Nathan Winters

Prepared by Michael Swank, Program Evaluation ManagerSamantha Mills, Associate Program Evaluator Kathy Misener, Associate Program Evaluator

Anthony Sara, Technical Assistance & Graphics

Notice on Auditing Standards: Scoping papers are not an auditing standards-based research

product. Scoping papers are intended to provide the Management Audit Committee with a summary

on a potential evaluation topic (including descriptions of basic agency, program, or procedural

functions) on which to decide if a full program evaluation is required. This scoping paper was

prepared with information obtained from the agency(ies) and staff listed. The information was not

independently verified according to governmental auditing and evaluation standards.

If this topic moves forward to a full evaluation, the evaluation will be conducted as much as

practicable according to generally accepted governmental auditing standards promulgated by the

Comptroller General of the United States, as required by W.S. 28-8-107(e). Information contained

in this paper, as well as all subsequent information gathered during the evaluation will be

independently verified and reported according to the auditing standards.

1

Introduction

Wyomingites see water as one of the State’s most valuable resources. In

the last five years, the State has appropriated almost $269 million toward

water development administration and projects, about half of which has

been expended to date. In January 2015, Governor Mead announced at his

State of the State address that he would be prioritizing water as the State’s

most precious resource and would release a water strategy (issued January

2015). That strategy, titled Leading the Charge, includes plans for water

management, development, conservation, and protection. Such focus on

this natural resource will continue to require that the Executive and

Legislative branches work cooperatively to efficiently fund and adequately

protect Wyoming’s water.

In December 2014, the Management Audit Committee (Committee)

directed Legislative Service Office (LSO) staff to conduct a scoping topic

review of contract processes, funding amounts, funding allocation,

commission membership, statute, policies, and procedures of the

Wyoming Water Development Commission (and Water Development

Office). LSO staff preliminarily reviewed the assigned areas to determine

if the Committee could benefit from a full evaluation.

Background Beginning of State Water Development Program Started in 1975

In 1975, the Legislature passed the Water Development Program Act. The

Act established a water development program to “foster, promote, and

encourage the optimum development of the State’s human, industrial,

mineral, agricultural, water and recreational resources.” Prior to passage

of the Act, the Legislature authorized water projects in separate bills,

which did not allow for public hearings or evaluation in the same way

projects are evaluated today.

In 1977, the Legislature provided for an excise tax of 1.5% on coal to fund

the New Development Program. Two years later (1979) the Legislature

reorganized the Water Planning Program of the State Engineers Office and

the Interdepartmental Water Conference (IDWC) into a single agency:

The Wyoming Water Development Commission (WWDC or

Commission). In 1982, Governor Herschler and the Legislature

established the Water Development Program to focus water development

funds on conducting river basin studies, designing and building new

storage facilities, and rehabilitation of older facilities. In addition, that law

also created the permanent Select Water Committee of the Legislature.

The Wyoming Water Development Office Established in 1991

During the statewide reorganization in 1991, the WWDC staff was formed

into a separate office known as the Wyoming Water Development Office

(WWDO). The WWDO currently consists of 26 employees with the

FY2015/2016 biennial budget of $8 million. This amount is appropriated

2

from the Water Development Account I (WDA I), as the agency does not

directly receive State General Funds or federal funds for program

administration.1

Currently two annual bills, one for planning and the other for construction,

consolidate proposed water development projects for the Legislature to

consider. The planning and construction bills are considered separately,

outside of the agency’s administrative budget requests and appropriations.

The Legislature must appropriate and approve any expenditure of funds

from the Water Development Accounts. Further, there are obligated and

unobligated funds within each legislative appropriation. For the purposes

of this scoping paper, obligated funds are those for which contracts have

been executed, while the remaining appropriated funds are unobligated

(not officially committed for expenditure).

While the WWDC is the primary body responsible for overseeing the

water development program, the WWDC and WWDO also regularly

interact with other related entities. These entities include the State

Engineer’s Office, the Department of Environmental Quality, the Office of

State Lands and Investments (OSLI), the Department of Agriculture,

Wildlife and Natural Resource Trust, and the Department of Game and

Fish. Each agency is also involved with environmental or agricultural

projects that require water use.

LSO Evaluated the Water Development Program in 1994

In 1994, LSO conducted an evaluation of the WWDO. At the time of the

evaluation, there were two primary components within the water

development program: project development, and water development

planning. The WWDC was also responsible for duties associated with

instream flow, groundwater grant research and water investments. In

2005, the Legislature established a third component for the construction

and rehabilitation of dams and reservoirs.

The 1994 report provided five findings. They were:

Finding one: Wyoming’s water development program is shifting its

funding emphasis to meet municipal needs.

Finding two: The WWDC was operated effectively within a broad

statutory framework.

Finding three: The Legislature is using WDA I for purposes not

directly related to water development projects.

Finding four: Weak subdivision laws allow land developers to shift the

cost of water systems to the WWDC.

1 The Legislature has appropriated State General Funds into Water Development Account I, which was used for

agency administration.

3

Finding five: Western states share similar concerns regarding future

water policy.

The evaluation report contained two recommendations. The first

recommendation suggested that the Legislature consider re-evaluating the

intent of the Water Development Program, providing policy

considerations as well as financing alternatives, such as bonding and using

the PWMTF as a source of loans for water projects. The second

recommendation suggested that the Legislature consider enacting stronger

subdivision laws to more proactively account for water systems with

subdivision and community development.

Water Development Program Governance and Project Approval

Commission Composition

The WWDC consists of ten people, appointed by the Governor, and under

the following statutory requirements:

Two commissioners from each water division of the State;

At least one with an adjudicated water right;

One commissioner representing the public at large; and

One commissioner who is an enrolled member of the Arapahoe or

Shoshone Indian tribes.

No more than five members may be from the same political party and

terms are limited to four years with no member serving more than two

consecutive terms. In addition to the voting members, the University, the

Wyoming Business Council, and the State Engineer are non-voting

members of the Commission.

Wyoming law requires that a commissioner publically disclose if he or she

has a personal or private interest in any matter proposed or pending before

the Commission. The commissioner cannot vote on any such matter

pursuant to W.S. 41-2-121. In addition, within 60 days following an

appointment, and annually before January 1st, each commissioner is

required to file written disclosures with the Secretary of State’s Office

relative to all interests held by the commissioner, or his or her spouse.

Disclosures must list any interest as part of a partnership or corporation.

Those declarations must include any water rights, permits or applications

held, and any interest in engineering or construction firms that will be

charged with implementing water projects.

According to the WWDO, each new commissioner is provided a copy of

the, Protocol and procedures – Wyoming Water Development

Commission. The manual specifically states, “Commission members also

must be mindful of conflicts of interest or the potential for bias. If a

Commission member feels he or she is faced with a conflict of interest, or

feels there may be bias in their decision-making ability, Commission

4

member should recuse him or herself.” While it is currently unclear if the

commissioners file their disclosures with the Secretary of State, ten

commissioners have recused themselves based on personal conflict within

the last five years.

Project Approval Process

Several entities are involved with the oversight of the Water Development

Program. Figure 1, below, illustrates the general approval process for

projects.

Figure 1

Water Development Program Approval Process

Source: Legislative Service Office analysis of Water Development Program documents.

The WWDO administers the Water Development Program under WWDC-

approved criteria titled The Operating Criteria of the Wyoming

Development Program. This manual provides the program philosophy,

statutorily based policy, and procedures for how water projects are

evaluated and funded. According to the criteria, “[t]he Water

Development program was founded on the philosophy of utilizing a

portion of the financial resources the state receives from the development

and use of it non-renewable resources, such as coal, oil, and gas to develop

a renewable resource, water.” The WWDO does not use score sheets or

rating systems when recommending projects to the WWDC. The WWDO

staff rely on professional expertise and judgement when recommending

WWDO

Receives applications and makes funding recommendations

-New project due 8/15

-Existing project due 10/1

WWDC & Select Water

November Joint Meeting- Project sponsors respond to WWDO recommendations

WWDC

Develops Preliminary Funding Recommendation

Public Hearings

Controversial Level I and Level II and all Level III

(see following sections for level descriptions)

Governor

Preliminary Funding Recommendation and financial report presented to the Governor for input

WWDO & LSO

Draft preliminary "Omnibus" Planning and Construction bills.

WWDC

December or January meeting to make final recommendations. Considers input from sponsors and public input

Select Water Committee

Prior to session, votes to sponsor, or not, the proposed "Omnibus" Planning and Construction bills

Legislature

During Session, authorizes the allocation of funds from the water develeopment accounts to projects.

5

projects for approval. Table 1, below, summarizes the projects that are

and are not considered within the Water Development Program.

Table 1

Water Development Program Projects

Projects Considered by the WWDC Projects Not considered by the WWDC

• Multipurpose;

• Storage projects;

• Irrigation and municipal water supply

projects;

• Irrigation and municipal water supply

systems;

• Rural domestic projects;

• Rural domestic projects with independent

water supplies;

• Hydropower projects;

• Purchase of existing storage; and,

• Municipal and rural domestic raw water

projects.

• Refinancing previously completed

improvements;

• Wastewater projects;

• Recreation;

• Environmental enhancement;

• Flood control;

• Rehabilitation of hydropower projects;

• Erosion control;

• Distribution systems;

• Water Treatment Facilities; and,

• Subdivisions.

Source: Legislative Service Office summary of Wyoming Water Development Commission operating criteria.

Statutes regarding the Water Development Program are broad in nature;

W.S. 41-2-112 states that the program:

“shall encourage development of water facilities for irrigation, for

reduction of flood damage, for abatement of pollution, for preservation

and development of fish and wildlife resources and for protection and

improvement of public lands and shall help make available the waters

of this state for all beneficial uses, including but not limited to

municipal, domestic, agricultural, industrial, instream flows,

hydroelectric power and recreational purposes, conservation of land

resources and protection of the health, safety and general welfare of

the people of the state of Wyoming.”

The WWDC’s promulgation of operating procedures and criteria for

recommending, prioritizing, and disqualifying projects are specifically

exempt from the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act (W.S. 16-3-114

and 16-3-115), including provisions for judicial review.

Level I (Reconnaissance) and Level II (Feasibility)

By statute, the WWDC/O classifies project proposals according to three

“levels:” Level I projects include planning studies and reconnaissance;

Level II projects cover feasibility studies; and Level III is the design and

construction phase for projects.

Any municipality, irrigation district, joint powers board, or other approved

assessment district can apply for funding from Water Development

Program. With few exceptions, all Level I and II applicants must be a

government entity with taxing and/or assessment authority except

6

applicants for dams and reservoirs. Once an application has been

approved, the applicants are known as project “sponsors.” Private

corporations and individuals are not eligible for assistance, but see the

summary at left for recent WWDC concerns.

For all three levels, each application requests information about the

purpose of the project, about the existing water supply system, financial

information, and information about the district or water systems

operations. The WWDC requests rural domestic water system applicants

to provide additional information on the entity status, including whether

the entity is an approved subdivision(s) or un-platted development and

whether a local government, such as a water district, exists.

Level III (Construction)

The program sponsors for Level III applications must be an entity of local

government with taxing and/or assessment authority. The requested

information in the Level III applications is separated into the following

three categories:

Financial Plan — Requested amount of funding;

Existing Water Supply System — Details about existing system; and,

Financial Information — Details about system capacity, water usage,

financing, and pre- and post-project financial conditions.

W.S. 41-2-114(a)(ii) requires public hearings for Level III projects.

According to WWDO staff, hearings are held after the Commission makes

its preliminary recommendation at their November meeting. The WWDO

advertises the hearings in the Casper Star Tribune newspaper and the local

newspaper within the project area at least three consecutive weeks prior to

the hearing. The intent is for the Commission and Select Water

Committee to provide an additional opportunity for public comment to

consider in the final decision-making process regarding design, permitting,

and construction funding.

Other Projects/Programs

In addition to the three levels listed above for the primary water

development program, statute also authorizes the Commission to provide

groundwater exploration grants and funding for small water projects.

Groundwater exploration grants are limited to $400,000 maximum per

project. The sponsor is required to provide 25% of the cost, as well as

anything that exceeds the $400,000 project cap.

The WWDC also has a role in the authorization of small water projects.

For the WWDC to consider a project under this program the total project

cost cannot exceed $135,000. Statute caps the Commission’s

contributions at $35,000. In order for projects to be prioritized under the

Small Water Project Program there must be a Water Development

Commission Watershed Study completed where proposed projects are

In the most recently

approved projects (2015

SEA69), the Legislature

approved a Level I

project for a master plan

with a private Property

Owners Association

(POA) in Lincoln

County. The POA

requested the study to

identify parts of the

existing water system

that are deficient and to

provide a schedule for

improvements. The

plan will also identify

the steps needed for the

POA to become a public

entity. The WWDC

selected consultants for

this project in May

2015, with several

commissioners voting

against selection given

that the applicant was

not a public entity.

7

located. In addition, the project must improve watershed condition and

function, provide multiple benefits, and meet program criteria.

Once the WWDC, the Select Water Committee, and the Legislature

approve a project, the WWDO utilizes a formal process for tracking

projects from start to finish. Once a project is complete, the WWDO

states that it does not experience problems in management and

maintenance of projects built through its agency. According to WWDO

staff, “[o]ur project agreements require the sponsor to maintain repair and

maintenance accounts and require the sponsor to provide for normal

maintenance for the life of the project. The project agreements also

stipulate that the sponsor is responsible for all operational costs associated

with the project.”

Program Funding

Water Development Accounts

Three separate distributions from the Severance Tax Distribution Account

fund the Water Development Program. Water Development Accounts

(WDA) I, II and III accounts, created under W.S. 41-2-124, receive the

distributions. This statute also requires some of that funding to go to the

State Drinking Water Revolving Loan Account established under W.S. 16-

1-302, which assists with state matching requirements for the program

administered through the OSLI.

Statute (W.S. 41-2-124) requires the State Treasurer to invest unexpended

WDA balances and credit any interest earned to each respective account.

The earned interest provides a large portion of revenue used in funding

additional projects. Statute also limits the size and capacity of dams built

with WDA III funds and prohibits the diversion of funds in this account

without legislative approval.

There are annual limitations on the deposits from severance taxes. The

annual limitations and account uses are listed in Table 2, below.

Table 2

Annual limitations on Severance Tax Distributions by Account

Fund Purpose Percent of Severance

Tax Collections Annual Cap

WDA I New Developments 12.45% $19,297,500

WDA II Rehabilitation 2.1% $3,255,000

WDA III Dam and Reservoir 0.5% $775,000

Source: Legislative Service Office summary.

The severance tax distribution appears to be the baseline operation funding

source for the Commission and WWDO. However, there are additional

revenue sources provided to each account. Past revenue sources have

included General Fund appropriations, Budget Reserve Account

appropriations, coal lease bonus revenue, and interest from previous loans.

8

The WWDO and Commission consider the additional revenue sources

when planning their request for funding. While the type of project (new,

rehabilitation or dam/reservoir) determines the funding source, each

project, from beginning to end, has the potential to go through every level

of project development (planning, feasibility, and construction).

WDA Revenues

As illustrated in Figure 2, below, revenues from the severance tax have

been consistent. WDA I receives continual revenue from severance taxes

and total funding per fiscal year ranges between $26 million for FY2014

and $33 million in FY2011. Over half the revenue for WDA I is provided

through the severance tax distribution each year.

Source: Legislative Service Office analysis of WWDC Legislative Reports.

Shown in Figure 3, below, interest earned on the WDA I provides

roughly 17% of the total revenue for the account for FY 14. The amount

of investment income varies from year-to-year and depends on the amount

of funds expended in any given year. According to the WWDO, WDA I is

adequately funded for both short and long-term anticipated needs for the

New Development Program.

FY14FY13FY12FY11FY10FY09

Revenue $26,205,360$32,378,825$27,759,976$33,092,206$31,720,640$30,021,792

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

Mil

lio

ns

Figure 2

WDA I Revenue by FY (FY2009-FY2014)

9



For WDA II, Figure 5, below, indicates severance taxes make up just over

half of the total revenue for the account. Interest dipped more in FY2014

than in other years, but revenue from loans and interest payments remains

fairly consistent. Total revenue for WDA II ranged between $6 million in

FY2014 and $8.6 million in FY2009 and FY2012.

74%

9%

17%

Taxes

Interest

Loans/Interest

FY14FY13FY12FY11FY10FY09

Revenue $6,174,124$7,168,103$8,650,432$7,823,385$7,414,935$8,658,644

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

$7

$8

$9

$10

Mil

lio

ns

Figure 4

WDA II Revenue by FY (FY2009-FY2014)

Figure 3

WDA I Revenues by Source FY 2014

10


According to the WWDO, the WDA II is not adequately funded for short

or long-term rehabilitation project needs. The WWDO is anticipating

large rehabilitation projects for FY2016 that, coupled with smaller

rehabilitation projects, will exceed available funding for projects funded

from this account. According to WWDO staff, without additional

revenue, future projects will be delayed due to insufficient funding.


53%

6%

41%

Figure 5

WDA II Revenue by Source FY 2014

Taxes

Interest

Loans/Interest

Other

11

WDA III receives $775,000 yearly from severance taxes. WDA III is

unique in that intrest earned from the account appears to be the primary

source of income, which may become a problem should an increase in

projects and spending occur. However, that issue could be offset by the

return of loan interest.


WDA Expenditures

As shown in Tables 3-5, below, expenditures out of each account vary

from year-to-year. Since FY2009, WDA I expenditures ranged from just

over $24 million to over $37 million. The uncommitted balance is the

amount available in each account after active appropriations and other

obligations are satisfied; a negative uncommitted balance may result in an

additional budget request. As noted earlier, that WDA I receives about

10% more of the severance tax distribution annually than WDA II.

Table 3

WDA I Historical Expenditures and Balances, FY2009-FY2014

Fiscal

Year

WDA I

Expenditures

Active

appropriations

WDA I Cash

Balance

Uncommitted

Balance

FY2009 $30,334,437 $133,349,706 $119,533,795 ($13,815,911)

FY2010 $37,491,677 $128,768,565 $110,762,758 ($18,005,807)

FY2011 $36,807,850 $116,518,061 $107,047,114 ($9,470,947)

FY2012 $30,717,201 $112,017,589 $104,089,889 ($7,927,700)

FY2013 $24,594,251 $112,913,515 $111,874,463 ($1,039,052)

FY2014 $36,491,351 $95,739,277 $107,438,227 $11,698,950 Source: Wyoming Water Development Commission Annual Legislative Reports.

20%

80%

Figure 7

WDA III Revenue by Source FY 2014

Taxes

Interest

12

Table 4

WDA II Historical Expenditures and Balances, FY2009-FY2014

Fiscal

Year

WDA II

Expenditures

Active

Appropriations

WDA II Cash

Balance

Uncommitted

Balance

FY2009 $7,576,780 $45,043,553 $44,265,824 ($777,729)

FY2010 $11,432,901 $39,355,081 $40,247,858 $892,777

FY2011 $11,505,034 $40,062,282 $36,566,209 ($3,496,073)

FY2012 $19,509,374 $28,188,027 $25,707,267 ($2,480,760)

FY2013 $8,653,694 $24,479,613 $24,221,675 ($257,938)

FY2014 $9,408,566 $23,094,670 $18,805,540 ($4,289,130) Source: Wyoming Water Development Commission Annual Legislative Reports.

Table 5

WDA III Historical Expenditures and Balance, FY2009-FY2014

Fiscal Year WDA III

Expenditures

Active

Appropriations

WDA III Cash

Balance

Uncommitted

Balance

FY2009 $825,514 $11,183,710 $131,374,903 $120,191,193

FY2010 $1,268,566 $27,362,380 $135,752,193 $108,389,813

FY2011 $2,950,723 $25,961,892 $143,064,945 $117,103,053

FY2012 $5,197,679 $22,187,893 $127,621,986 $105,434,093

FY2013 $2,018,217 $28,241,677 $150,279,730 $122,038,053

FY2014 $1,265,091 $26,201,291 $153,131,207 $126,929,916

Source: Wyoming Water Development Commission Annual Legislative Reports.

As noted previously, the rehabilitation project fund WDA II, has increased

funding needs. WDA II receives 2.1% of the severance tax distribution

and has a negative uncommitted balance.

Water Development Account III maintains consistent cash balances.

However, the cash balance is due to what WWDO staff say are the federal

requirements and timeframes that go hand-in-hand with dam and reservoir

projects. Should the federal government approve all permits for projects,

the State would see a significant decrease to the account balance.

Project Financing

Fiscal staff at the WWDO maintain an Excel spreadsheet to track

appropriations and expenditures for the water accounts and water projects

at a broad level. Fiscal staff link the Project Report spreadsheet to other

spreadsheets maintained and consistently updated by the respective project

manager. The Commission can fund Level I and II projects up to 100%.

The Commission typically funds Level III projects through a 67% grant,

and 33% loan option with an interest rate of 4% for up to 50 years.

Sometimes communities will pay for their 33% loan share through other

means (grant from another agency, sponsor reserves, or loan from another

agency). Even if approved by the Legislature, the WWDO cannot move

13

forward on a project until it secures the entire financial package. The

criteria for evaluating loan applications is the same as the project grants

with the additional review of the sponsor’s ability to cover debt service

costs.

Each project appropriation has a reversion date assigned, which is

typically July 1st of the fifth year after the appropriation date (not

construction date or project approval date). If the sponsor has not secured

its 33% cost share by that date, the funds revert and the WWDC cancels

the project. In some cases, the WWDO may ask the WWDC to revert

funds before the five-year period has elapsed due to insufficient progress

by the sponsor to secure the sponsor’s share. The WWDC may also

request the Legislature to extend reversion dates.

The WWDC has not cancelled any projects in the last five years due to the

sponsor not securing its share of project funding. However, according to

the WWDO, a few sponsors are still attempting to secure financing prior

to their projects moving forward. Those projects include:

2013 Cottonwood Lake Enlargement in Lincoln County -The local

share is in the form of a $1,221,000 WWDC loan. The sponsor has

not exercised the loan because they consider that amount of debt load

too much for their small district.

2013 Jeffery City Water System Improvements in Fremont County –

The sponsor pursued Mineral Royalty Grant financing thru OSLI. The

sponsor was declared ineligible for the MRG program because it failed

to maintain their property tax mill levy the previous year.

2013 Eden Valley Farson Lateral Rehabilitation in Sweetwater County

– The sponsor pursued its share of funding from the Basin Wide

Salinity Control Program. In 2013, these funds were retracted due to

federal budget sequestration.

Consultant Selection

The WWDC consultant selection process most recently occurred between

January and May 2015. The WWDC retains consultants for purposes of

conducting Level I and Level II studies. For Level III projects, the project

sponsors seeking to construct a facility secure their own contractor

through the selection and review process discussed below. The selection

process for the WWDC follows W.S 9-2-1030 and W.S 9-2-1031. These

statutes provide that “consideration in each selection process by the

principal representative shall be based upon the ability of professional

personnel, past performance, willingness to meet time requirements,

location, residency, current and projected workloads, the volume of work

previously awarded to the firm by the agency, and the equitable

distribution of contracts among qualified firms.” Figure 8, below,

provides a general illustration of the consultant selection and review

process.

14

Figure 8

Consultant Section Process

Source: Legislative Service Office analysis of WWDO documents and observation of selection process.

For Level III projects, the sponsor has three options in hiring a consulting

firm. First, with the approval of the Agency Director, the sponsor can hire

the consulting firm that completed the Level I/II study, provided they are a

Wyoming resident firm. Second, the sponsor can follow the State Project

consultant selection process. Or, third, the sponsor can submit a

consultant selection plan to the Governor’s Office.

Contract Amendments

The WWDO considers all contract amendments for consultants. When

determined by the WWDO to be appropriate, the director presents the

contract amendments to the Commission for approval at one of its

regularly scheduled meetings. According to WWDO staff, a common

reason for amendments occurs when unforeseeable project conditions

dictate a change in scope, which may also include an increase or decrease

in the contract amount. The length of reservoir projects also creates the

need for contract amendments. Since these projects can occur over many

years, additional tasks and budget are added as milestones are achieved

and the project advances. According to WWDO staff, the additional tasks

often warrant increased rates over time.

The WWDO releases a professional services

announcement calling for request for qualifications

Statements of Qualification (SOQ) and

Statement of Interest (SOI) are required by the

announcement

WWDC Project Managers review the

SOQ's and SOI's

Request for Proposals Applicants are ranked

and chosen for interview

Interviews by teams made up of WWDO,

WWDC and the Project Sponsor

Contracts awarded by WWDC

15

Recent Legislation and the State Water Strategy

During the most recent session, the Legislature cut the WWDC

supplemental budget request of $18.6 million in half, and provided

alternative funding from the Buffalo Bill Account. However, WWDO

staff explained that in effect, this supplemental request took funds eligible

for WDA I projects and moved them to WDA II. Additionally, seven

projects within the construction bill were contingent upon the

supplemental request. WWDO staff explained that with available

appropriations for ongoing and expected projects, WDA II is in a deficit of

$1.6 million dollars.

The WWDO professional and expert staff use their judgment to evaluate

projects before, during, and after Levels I and II. When determining if a

project is ‘ready’ to progress to the construction phase, the WWDO uses

the initial review and analysis of a project application. Contributing

questions and considerations include:

Is the feasibility study (Level II report) for the project complete?

Does the sponsor have adequate financial resources to fund their local

share?

If the sponsor plans to fund their local share with a loan, are they

prepared to increase rates to cover debt service costs?

If the WWDO determines that a project is not ready, then the Director

recommends against funding a project. To resolve the current issue with

the smaller supplemental budget, WWDO staff advised the Commission to

postpone one of three projects to satisfy that $1.6 million deficit.

However, commissioners expressed concern with how the Commission

will ensure future funding, as the WWDO director stated that, “WDA II is

in distress.” He also noted that the severance tax would not fund the level

of projects that the WWDC has planned. Commissioners and Select

Water Committee members discussed a possible need for prioritization of

applications. There was also discussion of a possible waitlist to keep

projects in the pipeline so that the Commission can maintain funding for

projects in the event that the Commission does not receive more funding.

One commissioner noted, “we need a plan.” Both the Commission and

Select Committee members agreed to further the discussion on project

prioritization at a later meeting.

Without additional funding, Governor Mead’s recently released water

strategy may further strain the water development accounts. While the

WWDC believes that statute grants the WWDC authority to implement the

Wyoming Water Strategy initiatives, the Legislature has not authorized

additional funding. One initiative recommends building ten reservoir

projects in the next ten years. Currently the WDA III, from which these

projects would be funded, only has enough funding to complete four or

five reservoirs.

16

Current Issues

Moving funds between projects

According to the WWDO, moving funding between projects is rare and

only occurs with Level I and II projects that have been previously

approved through the Omnibus Planning bill; the WWDO does not have

the authority to move funding between construction projects. The

WWDO moves funding between planning projects per the following

language in the yearly planning bill, and only with approval of the Select

Water Committee.

“Funds appropriated under this section for a particular project

which are in excess of the actual amount necessary to complete the

study may, subject to the review of the select water committee, be

expended by the commission to complete the reconnaissance/

feasibility study for any other project listed in this section.”

In addition, W.S. 41-2-123(e), permits the use of unobligated Level I

funds to begin a Level II project if specific requirements are met, and

again, only upon approval of the Select Water Committee.

Movement of funds between Water Development Accounts

The WWDO does not have the authority to move funding between WDA

I, II, and III. W.S. 41-2-124 requires approval of the Legislature for

appropriations from the water development accounts. The Operating

Criteria of the Wyoming Water Development Program manual also

reiterates this prohibition. However, the WWDC may move excess funds

to meet the obligations of the Fontenelle, Buffalo Bill, Palisades,

Miscellaneous, Keyhole Reservoir, and High Savery accounts to WDA I.

In addition, W.S. 99-99-1001(e) allows the WWDC to use funds in excess

of $500,000 or the amount necessary to meet the obligations of the

Buffalo Bill dam project, whichever is greater, to meet the obligations for

any of the accounts in W.S. 99-99-1001(a) (reservoir accounts noted

above). Moving funds from the Buffalo Bill dam account to another

account established by W.S. 99-99-1001 requires the use of the “B-11”

interim appropriation modification process.

Amending Consultant Contracts

When LSO observed the WWDC meetings, some commissioners

expressed concern regarding the rate increase for existing contracts.

However, WWDO staff explained that when the Commission hires a

consultant at the beginning of a project (Level I and II) there is a set

amount of work in their contract. Reservoir projects tend to have

numerous amendments because the WWDO tries to keep the same

consultant for the entire project. After four years, the hired consultant has

a wealth of information on a project, but as the WWDO adds additional

duties to the scope of a project, prices rise.

17

The WWDC cannot expend any funding until projects are approved by the

Select Water Committee and funds are appropriated by the Legislature

through the Omnibus bills. Therefore, it is unlikely that any increase to a

contract would exceed the approved project costs. In addition,

Commission members expressed that rates for consultants should be

consistent with the market and staff should ensure they review market pay

when bringing contract amendments before the Commission. At the May

2015 Commission meeting, one commissioner made a formal motion to

ensure that contract amendments are carefully considered and not

automatically approved. That motion passed unanimously.

WWDC-Governor-Legislature Relationship

When asked about the relationship between the WWDC and the Select

Water Committee, WWDO staff explained that while there may be

differences of opinion between individuals that serve on the Commission

and the Select Water Committee, those differences have not manifested in

formal commission actions objecting to Select Water Committee or the

Legislature’s actions. WWDO officials explained that while the WWDC

serves an advisory role to the Select Water Committee and ultimately, the

Legislature, they have requested in the past that the WWDO Director

arrange a meeting between the WWDC Chairperson and the Select Water

Committee Chairman to further communications related to issues on

which the two entities have not entirely agreed.

When asked about the relationship between the WWDC and the Governor,

WWDO staff stated that the Governor reviews the WWDO Director’s

project recommendations in the same period that the WWDC reviews the

projects. To date, the WWDO is not aware of any disagreements between

the WWDC and the Governor. Likewise, the WWDO is not aware of any

projects vetoed by the Governor.

The WWDC and the WWDO Loan Denials

Based on recent funding issues and some projects’ circumstances, the

WWDC has made an administrative choice to deny the loan portion for

some projects. The WWDO has directed municipalities to the OSLI and

State Loan and Investment Board for State Revolving Fund programs

(Drinking Water and Clean Water programs). The WWDO implemented

this practice to benefit the State and the OSLI in getting federal dollars

expended with the understanding that if unused, the federal government

may pull some funding from Wyoming’s programs.

Possible Evaluation Questions

Should the Management Audit Committee wish to move forward with a

full evaluation, possible research questions could include:

1. Are current revenue allocations to the three Water Development

Accounts adequate to meet current community/project demand? If

not, how could revenue allocations be altered to these accounts?

18

2. How does the WWDC determine the types of projects it will fund and

what may be the impact on the timing and amount of funding requests

to the Legislature?

a. Are projects approved prior to being fully ready to advance?

3. Is funding of Level I studies for private entities within the authority of

the Water Development Program?

4. How do WWDC and WWDO authorizing statutes contribute to or

hinder program administration and oversight?

5. How does the current governance structure (Governor-Commission-

Select Water Committee) function and is this structure conducive to

efficient and effective program oversight?

8:00 am Depart – Comfort Inn, 100 North Road 11, Worland, WY for Leavitt Reservoir

9:30 am Arrive – Leavitt Reservoir – Discussion by Shell Valley WID Chair, John Ed

Anderson and Victor Anderson, WENCK (Facilities will be available)

10:00 am Depart – Leavitt Reservoir to proposed Alkali Creek Reservoir site

11:45 am Arrive – Alkali Creek Reservoir site – Discussion by Nowood River WSID, John

Joyce and Mark Donner, Trihydro

12:30 pm Depart – Alkali Creek Reservoir to Medicine Lodge State Park for Lunch

12:50 pm Arrive Medicine Lodge State Park

LUNCH @ Medicine Lodge State Park – Facilities available

2:00 pm Depart – Medicine Lodge State Park to Lower Nowood I&S District area

2:45 pm Arrive – Lower Nowood area – Brief discussion by Bill Brewer; WWDO Project

Manager

3:15 pm Depart – Lower Nowood area to South Circle Estates I&S District area

3:45 pm Arrive – South Circle Estates – Discussion by Bill Brewer; WWDO Project

Manager

4:00 pm Depart – South Circle Estates to Ten Sleep for facility break

4:20 pm Depart for Meadowlark Lake (time permitting)

5:00 pm Arrive Meadowlark Lake – Discussion by Jason Mead, Dams & Reservoir,

WWDO

5:30 pm Depart Meadowlark Lake toward Ten Sleep for dinner

6:10 pm Arrive Ten Sleep Saloon for Dinner

DINNER 6:10 pm to 7:30 pm

7:30 pm Depart Ten Sleep toward Worland

8:00 pm Arrive – Comfort Inn, Worland, WY

Matthew H. Mead Governor

Commissioners Nick Bettas Sheridan Little Travis C. Brockie, I William Resor Karen Budd-Falen Jeanette Sekan Floyd Canfield Rodney Wagner David Evans Todd Werbelow

Harry C. LaBonde, Jr., P.E. Director


6920 Yellowtail Road, Cheyenne, WY 82002

Phone: (307) 777-7626 Fax: (307) 777-6819


Wyoming Water Development Commission Minutes June 4, 2015 Page 1

Wyoming Water Development Commission & Select Water Committee

Cheyenne, Wyoming

June 4, 2015

1. Chairman Floyd Canfield called the meeting to order at 8:32 a.m.

2. Secretary Nick Bettas called the roll of commissioners:

Commission Attendance:

Floyd Canfield, Chairman

Sheridan Little, Vice-Chairman

Nick Bettas, Secretary

Jeanette Sekan

Travis Brockie

Rodney Wagner

Todd Werbelow

David Evans

Bill Resor (via phone)

Karen Budd-Falen (via phone)

Advisors in Attendance:

Abigail Boudewyns, Attorney General’s Office

Greg Kerr, University of Wyoming, Office of Water Programs

Select Water Committee Attendance:

Senator Gerald Geis

Senator Stan Cooper

Senator Ogden Driskill

Senator John Hastert

Senator Curt Meier (via phone)

Representative Robert McKim

Representative Stan Blake

Representative John Eklund

Representative Hans Hunt

3. Approval of Agenda

Rod Wagner made a motion to approve the June 4, 2015 agenda. Sheridan Little

seconded the motion, the motion carried unanimously.


4. Approval of Minutes

Todd Werbelow made a motion to approve the May 8, 2015 minutes; seconded by

Jeanette Sekan. The motion carried unanimously.

Jeanette Sekan made a motion to approve the May 8, 2015 Executive Session

minutes; seconded by Sheridan Little. The motion carried unanimously.

5. Audience Introductions

6. Planning Amendments

Eden Valley (Farson) Master Plan, Level II Study, Amendment No. 1

An interim amendment to the engineering contract with JFC Engineers & Surveyors

was presented. The amendment serves to extend the Contract expiration date from

June 30, 2015 to December 31, 2015. The Contract amount is not changed by this

Amendment. An explanatory memo from the project manager was also provided

outlining the cause and need of a contract extension.

Karen Budd-Falen made a motion to approve the amendment, seconded by

Jeanette Sekan. The motion carried unanimously.

Interstate Canal and Reservoir, Level I, Final Amendment

A final amendment to the engineering contract with Hansen, Allen & Luce, Inc., was

presented. The amendment serves to document the WWDC acceptance of the final

report, to document the actual cost of each task, and to document the final Contract

amount of $157,177.03, a reduction of $5,991.74. Discussion followed.

Todd Werbelow made a motion to approve the final amendment, seconded by Rod

Wagner. The motion carried unanimously.

7. Discussion between the WWDC and SWC regarding SWC amendments to the

Omnibus Planning and Construction Bills

Director LaBonde presented and read the two special conditions in the 2015

Omnibus Water Bill – Construction pertaining to the Weather Modification project

and the Midvale Bull Lake Rehabilitation project. In order for the projects to proceed,

Director LaBonde presented the following two motions for Commission

consideration:

1. Weather Modification Project: I move the Water Development Commission

approve the “Weather Modification Big Horn, Laramie, Medicine Bow and Sierra

Madre Mountains – 2016” Project contract with the following enhancements:

a) Use of a radiometer in the Big Horn and Laramie Ranges for the

identification of supercooled liquid water over the target areas;


b) Determination of a climatology tailored for operational seeding in the

Medicine Bow and Sierra Madre Ranges; and

c) Completion of a model-based evaluation of the Wyoming Weather

Modification Pilot Program Randomized Statistical Experiment.

2. Midvale Bull Lake Rehabilitation: I move the Water Development Commission

approve the “Midvale Bull Lake Rehabilitation 2015” project contract with the

following enhancements:

a. The WWDO staff shall inform the Bureau of Reclamation of the pending

WWDC “Big Wind River Storage Study” and the possibility that the

WWDC may pursue an enlargement of Bull Lake dam in the near future;

and

b. The WWDO staff shall coordinate with the Bureau of Reclamation

regarding interim dam safety measures that may be required should the

spillway rehabilitation project be placed on hold while a reservoir

enlargement project is pursued.

Todd Werbelow made a motion to accept the proposed motions as read. Nick Bettas

seconded. Discussion followed, the motion carried unanimously.

8. New Planning Contracts

Bear River Watershed Study, Level I

An engineering contract with Sunrise Engineering, Inc., of Afton, Wyoming

was presented. The budget is $ 365,795.00.

Broken Wheel Ranch Master Plan, Level I

An engineering contract with Sunrise Engineering, Inc., of Afton, Wyoming

was presented. The budget is $97,400.00.

Byron Master Plan, Level I

An engineering contract with TREC, Inc., of Casper, Wyoming was presented.

The budget is $128,990.00

Centennial Well and Master Plan, Level I

An engineering contract with Camp Creek Engineering, Inc., of Laramie,

Wyoming was presented. The budget is $ 174,000.00

Clearmont Test Well Study, Level II

An engineering contract with Weston Engineering, Inc., of Upton, Wyoming

was presented. The budget is $ 567,400.00.


Cowley Master Plan, Level I

An engineering contract with Morrison-Maierle, Inc., of Cody, Wyoming was

presented. The budget is $133,000.00.

Deaver Irrigation District Master Plan Update, Level I

An engineering contract with Sage Civil Engineering of Cody, Wyoming was

presented. The budget is $155,000.00

Dry Creek Irrigation District Master Plan, Level II

An engineering contract with Forsgren Associates, Inc., of Evanston, Wyoming


Green River, Rock Spring, Sweetwater County Joint Powers Water Board

Pipeline Feasibility Study, Level II

An engineering contract with Hansen, Allen & Luce, Inc., of Midvale, Utah was


Greybull Valley Irrigation District Storage Enlargement, Level II

An engineering contract with AECOM Technical Services, Inc., of Denver,

Colorado was presented. The budget is $298,000.00

Heart Mountain Canal Rehabilitation, Level II

An engineering contract with Engineering Associates of Cody, Wyoming was


High Meadow Ranch, Level II

An engineering contract with Jorgensen Associates, P.C., of Jackson,

Wyoming was presented. The budget is $ 490,000.00.

Instream Flow Hydrologic Study, Big Horn Mountains, Level I

An engineering contract with Arrow Land and Water, LLC, of Big Piney,

Wyoming was presented. The budget is $73,950.00

LeClair Irrigation District Master Plan, Level I

An engineering contract with HDR Engineering, Inc., of Gillette, Wyoming was


Meeks Cabin Dam Enlargement, Level II

An engineering contract with Trihydro Corporation of Laramie, Wyoming was



Middle North Platte – Glendo Watershed Study, Level I

An engineering contract with RESPEC, Inc., of Cheyenne, Wyoming was


New Fork Lake Dam Enlargement, Level II

An engineering contract with RJH Consultants, Inc., of Englewood, Colorado


Newcastle Madison Well, Level II

An engineering contract with Wester-Wetstein and Associates, Inc., of

Laramie, Wyoming was presented. The budget is $1,175,790.00.

Opal Master Plan, Level I

An engineering contract with Forsgren Associates, Inc., of Evanston, Wyoming


Powder/Tongue & Northeast River Basin Plan Updates

An engineering contract with RESPEC Inc., of Rapid City, South Dakota was


Powder/Tongue & Northeast River Basin Plans Groundwater Update,

Interagency Agreement between WWDC and WSGS

An engineering contract with Wyoming State Geological Survey of Laramie,

Wyoming was presented. The budget is $275,000.00

Upper Laramie River Watershed Study, Level I

An engineering contract with Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc., of Fort

Collins, Colorado was presented. The budget is $347,000.00

Upper Snake River Watershed Study, Level I

An engineering contract with Olsson Associates of Lincoln, Nebraska was


Weather Modification – Big Horn Range, Siting & Design Study AND Medicine

Bow/Sierra Madre Ranges, Final Design & Permitting

An engineering contract with University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

(UCAR) of Boulder, Colorado was presented. The budget is $739,878.00

Weather Modification – Laramie Range – Siting & Design Study

An engineering contract with Desert Research Institute of Reno, Nevada was



Jeanette Sekan made a motion to approve all planning contracts with the exceptions of:

Broken Wheel Ranch Master Plan, Greybull Valley Irrigation District Storage Enlargement

and High Meadow Ranch. Rod Wagner seconded, the motion carried unanimously.

Nick Bettas made a motion to approve the Broken Wheel Ranch Master Plan planning

contract. Discussion followed. Todd Werbelow seconded the motion. The motion carried

with Nick Bettas and Jeanette Sekan opposed.

Rod Wagner made a motion to approve the Greybull Valley Irrigation District Storage

Enlargement planning contract. Jeanette Sekan seconded the motion. The motion carried

with Todd Werbelow recused.

Jeanette Sekan made a motion to approve the High Meadow Ranch planning contract.

Sheridan Little seconded the motion. The motion carried with Nick Bettas and David Evans

recused.

9. UW Water Research Program

Director LaBonde and Greg Kerr presented the 2016 RFP which was developed

directly in line with the Governor’s Water Strategy.

Todd Werbelow made a motion to approve the 2016 RFP. Sheridan Little seconded, the

motion carried unanimously.

10. Consideration and ranking of Colorado River Basin MOA applications

Director LaBonde presented the projects currently under consideration for the CRB

MOA funds as ranked by the WWDO staff.

Jeanette Sekan made a motion to approve the rankings in the following order: 1. Farson

Lateral Phase I, 2. Fontenelle Dam Riprap, 3. Wind River Range Operations, 4. CO River

basin Weather Mod Coordination. Bill Resor seconded the motion, the motion carried

unanimously.

11. Intended Use Plan (IUP) – Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) -

SWC

Wade Verplancke outlined the program and process to the Select Water Committee.

He indicated the priority rankings of the projects didn’t matter at this point in time as

the program was adequately funded to cover all project applications. Representative

John Eklund made a motion to approve the IUP, Representative Robert McKim

seconded the motion, the motion carried unanimously.


12. Small Water Project Operating Criteria – recommendation to seek public

comments

Director LaBonde outlined several proposed changes to the SWP Operating Criteria.

Todd Werbelow made a motion to send the criteria out for public comment. Floyd

Canfield seconded the motion. Discussion followed. Todd Werbelow rescinded his

motion. Jeanette Sekan made a motion to table the issue until the August 2015

meeting. Travis Brockie seconded the motion. The motion to table carried

unanimously.

13. Late Small Water Project Application from Saratoga-Encampment Rawlins

Conservation District

An application for the East Arkansas Pipeline Extensions & Point of Rocks project

was presented to the commission. Based on circumstances beyond the sponsor’s

control the application was late arriving.

Jeanette Sekan made a motion to accept the application given the unique circumstances.

Rod Wagner seconded the motion, the motion carried unanimously.

14. Operating Criteria of the WWDC

The WWDC Operating Criteria went out for public comment. No comments were

received.

Jeanette Sekan made a motion to approve the revised Operating Criteria. Seconded by

Todd Werbelow, the motion carried unanimously.

15. Water Investment Accounts

Director LaBonde discussed and outlined each account that was detailed in his

memo. Discussion followed.

16. Consulting Engineering Rate Schedules

Director LaBonde prepared a memo for the Commission and Select Water

Committee outlining standard fees and procedures for engineering firms. Item for

discussion only.

17. Any other new business

Liquidated Damages in future contracts

Jeanette Sekan suggested this for a workshop topic in August. Nick Bettas

supported the idea.

18. Discussion

Director LaBonde announced the retirement of Jon Wade after 35 years with the

State of Wyoming.


19. Future Meetings Schedule

The next meeting will include the Summer Tour in Worland, Wyoming, August 19-21,

2015

Director LaBonde also informed the group the Customer Satisfaction Survey was

issued electronically and responses are due July 10, 2015.

20. Adjournment – Todd Werbelow made a motion to adjourn 11:33 a.m., seconded by

Sheridan Little, the motion carried.

Nick Bettas, Secretary

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

Executive Session Minutes June 3, 2015 To be provided at meeting

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

Operating Criteria of the

Small Water Project Program of the

Wyoming Water Development Program

A. Introduction:

The purpose of the Small Water Project Program (SWPP) is to participate with land management

agencies and sponsoring entities in providing incentives for improving watershed condition and

function. Projects eligible for SWPP grant funding assistance include the construction or

rehabilitation of small reservoirs, wells, pipelines and conveyance facilities, springs, solar

platforms, irrigation works, windmills and wetland developments. Projects should improve

watershed condition and function and provide benefit for wildlife, livestock and the environment.

Projects may provide improved water quality, riparian habitat, habitat for fish and wildlife and

address environmental concerns by providing water supplies to support plant and animal species

or serve to improve natural resource conditions.

These criteria provide the Wyoming Water Development Commission (WWDC) and the

Wyoming Water Development Office (WWDO) with general standards for evaluating and

prioritizing applications for funding from the SWPP. In addition, the criteria serve as a tool to

coordinate with the public and other state and federal agencies.

B. Legal and Institutional Constraints:

1. Sponsoring Entity: Pursuant to W.S. 99-3-703(j)(i) 1903(k)(i)and W.S. 99-3-

704(g)(i)1904(m)(i)1, funding is available only to eligible public entities.

2. Eligible public entities are defined by state statute and include conservation districts,

watershed improvement districts, water conservancy districts, irrigation districts,

municipalities, the Joint Business Council of the Eastern Shoshone and Northern

Arapaho Indian Tribes, the Business Council of the Eastern Shoshone Indian tribe, the

Business Council of the Northern Arapaho Indian tribe, or other approved assessment

districts formed in accordance with Wyoming law.

3. Project Description: Pursuant to W.S. 99-3-703(j)(iii) 1903(k)(iii)and W.S. 99-3-

704(g)(iii),1904(m)(iii), the SWPP may provide for construction or rehabilitation and

replacement of small dams, windmills, spring development, pipelines, etc., to impound,

develop and convey water for livestock, wildlife, irrigation, environmental and

recreational purposes.

4. Project Funding: Pursuant to W.S. 99-3-703(j)(vii)1903(k)(vii) and 99-3-704(g)(vii),

1904(m)(vii), a small project is a project where estimated construction or rehabilitation

costs, permit procurement, construction engineering and project land procurement are

one hundred thirty-five thousand dollars ($100,000.00135,000.00) or less or and where

1 For reference and identification only special statute numbers [appearing in Title “99” of the Wyoming Statutes]

have been assigned to selected water projects by the legislative service office.

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

the maximum financial contribution from the commission is twentythirty-five

thousand dollars ($25,000.0035,000.00) or less.

C. Small Water Project Program Definitions:

1. Small Reservoir: A small reservoir is any water storage facility up to twenty feet (20’)

of dam height and twenty acre-feet (20 AF) of capacity.

2. Well: A well may be eligible for funding depending on the depth of the well and scope

of the project. Projects that propose to drill into unproven aquifers, as determined by

the WWDC, are not eligible for the SWPP but may be eligible through WWDC

conventional water development programs.

3. Solar Platforms: Construction of solar platforms may be eligible for funding through

the SWPP.

4. Pipelines and conveyance facilities: Rehabilitation of existing pipelines or conveyance

facilities or construction of new pipelines or conveyance facilities may be eligible for

funding through the SWPP.

5. Springs: Improving flows of existing springs and installation of collection facilities

associated with springs may be eligible for funding through the SWPP.

6. Wetland Development: Development of wetlands where multiple benefits accrue may

be eligible for funding through the SWPP.

7. Environmental: Projects that provide for stream bank stability, water quality

improvements, or erosion protection may be eligible for funding through the SWPP.

78. Irrigation: Irrigation projects may be eligible for funding through the SWPP.

89. Windmill: Rehabilitation of existing windmills or construction of new windmills may

be eligible for funding through the SWPP.

D. Application and Evaluation Process:

1. Planning for small water projects will be generated by a WWDC watershed study or

equivalent as determined by the WWDO. A watershed study will incorporate, at a

minimum, available technical information describing conditions and assessments of the

watershed including hydrology, geology, geomorphology, geography, soils,

vegetation, water conveyance infrastructure, and stream system data. A plan outlining

the site specific activities that may remediate existing impairments or address

opportunities beneficial to the watershed shall also be included. A watershed study

may identify one or more projects that may qualify for SWPP funding. A professional

engineer and/or geologist, as appropriate, shall certify any analysis submitted unless

generated by a federal agency.

2. Applications shall be received by January 1 of each calendar year. Applications

meeting criteria requirements will be considered during the regularly scheduled

WWDC meeting in March. Applications shall include a project application, sponsor

project referral, detailed project description, description of public benefit, outline of

financial and technical contributions, project location map, project cost estimates and

any letters of authorization or commitment of participation that may be available from

other funding sources.

3. Projects that improve watershed condition and function, provide multiple benefits, and

meet the funding criteria specified in W.S. 99-3-703(j)(vii)1903(k)(vii) or W.S. 99-3-

704(g)(vii),1904(m)(vii), as described in B.4 herein, are eligible for consideration.

4. The sponsoring entity will be required to address the WWDC and provide testimony

and other additional supporting evidence that justifies SWPP funding whenever the

public benefit documentation, as required in W.S. 99-3-1903(k)(viii)(c) and W.S. 99-

3-1904(m)(viii)(c), submitted with the application, is deemed to be insufficient by the

WWDO.

5. In order to establish priorities and to utilize available program funds effectively and

efficiently, it is necessary to develop priorities. A Pproject's prioritiesy will be assigned

based the projects primary purpose, secondary benefits may be considered at the

Commission’s discretion. Project priorities in order of preference, are defined as

follows.

(1.) Source Water Development

(2.) Storage

(3.) Pipelines, and Conveyance Facilities, Solar Platforms, and

Windmills

(4.) Irrigation

Wildlife and Habitat Improvement

(5.) Environmental Improvement

6. Projects that have completed the following requirements prior to application maywill

be classified as “Shovel Ready”, and may be considered ats a funding priority ofat the

Commission’s discretion.

Certified project design and specifications

Permit procurement

State and Federal Agency Notifications

Land procurement, Right of Way, or Easement Acquisition

Have finalized all other financial contributionsagreements

To establish completion of the above listed requirements, the project applicant may be

asked to submit additional documentation as determined by the Office Commission at

the time of application.

Formatted: Tab stops: 0.75", Left

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"

Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style:

1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at:

2" + Indent at: 2.25"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 2", Hanging: 0.38",

Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … +

Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 2" + Indent

at: 2.25", Tab stops: 2.38", Left

Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style:

1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at:

2" + Indent at: 2.25"

Formatted: Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 2.29" +

Indent at: 2.54"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"

7. Due to the limited funding for this program the WWDC may only fund a portion of the

applications submitted by any one applicant.

8. The Commission may take into consideration thean applicant’s existing back log of

previously funded projects that are not completed, when awarding grants for new

projects.

E. Project Development:

1. The sponsoring entity shall adhere to design standards for small water projects that are

provided by the NRCS, an appropriate land management agency or a registered

Professional Engineer and/or registered Professional Geologist.

2. Project water rights shall be in good standing with the State of Wyoming prior to

construction of the project.

3. If the sponsoring entity initiates the construction process without prior written

notification by the Commission, the sponsoring entity shall bear all costs resulting from

said action.

F. Program Expenditures:

1. Project Description: Projects that develop unused and/or unappropriated water will be

considered SWPP New Development Projects and will be funded from SWPP Account

I, which is funded by appropriations from Water Development Account I [W.S. 41-2-

124(a)(i)]. Projects that improve completed water projects, decrease operation and

maintenance costs, and/or improve efficiency of use of existing water supplies will be

considered SWPP Rehabilitation Projects and will be funded from SWPP Account II ,

which is funded by appropriations from Water Development Account II [W.S. 41-2-

124(a)(ii)].

2. Project Funding: W.S. 99-3-703(j)(vii)1903(k)(vii) and W.S. 99-3-704(g)(vii),

1904(m)(vii)as described in B.4 herein, establish the funding limitations for the SWPP.

3. Activities eligible for SWPP funding include design, permit procurement, project land

procurement, construction engineering (design and construction inspections), project

materials and invoiced contractor expenses. In-kind contributions are only eligible for

installation of project materials that were purchased specifically for the project as

documented by invoices.

4. Required permits and clearances shall be obtained prior to construction of the project.

Copies of the final permits and clearances must be submitted to the WWDO before the

WWDO will issue the notice to proceed for construction. WWDC funds may be used

as necessary to secure the technical assistance required to complete permitting activities

before construction commences.

5. The sponsoring entity shall provide the WWDO an operation and maintenance plan

for the estimated life of the project.

6. SWPP funds shall not be used to refinance projects that have already been completed.

SWPP funds shall not be used to augment the operating budget of a sponsor or any

other entity. Maintenance costs, as determined by the WWDO, are not eligible

expenditures under the SWPP. SWPP funding is limited to a one-time construction of

a new project or a single rehabilitation of an existing project.

7. A Project Agreement between the WWDC and the sponsoring entity, which documents

the roles and responsibilities of the project participants, must be finalized prior to

expenditure of SWPP funds. Changes, modifications, revisions or amendments to the

Project Agreement may be granted by the WWDC.

8. Construction contractors shall be selected using a competitive bid process.

9. Upon project completion, WWDC funds will be disbursed when a certified bill is

received from the sponsoring entity including statement of completion, before and after

photographs, project longitude/latitude coordinates and the affidavit of publication

documenting the required notices of final settlement were published pursuant to W.S.

16-6-116.

10. If the sponsoring entity submits a certified bill, WWDC funds can be disbursed for a

component of a project upon receipt of a certification by the project engineer that the

component provides a beneficial use and functions in the manner intended. Retainage

on the cost of the component may be held until conditions described in F.9 are met.

11. Upon receipt of WWDC funds, the sponsoring entity shall promptly pay outstanding

obligations.

12. Unexpended funds allocated under the Project Agreement will revert to SWPP Account

I or SWPP Account II, as appropriate, upon the expiration date of the Project

Agreement. Expiration dates may be extended in writing by the WWDC.


Basin States Program of the

Wyoming Water Development Program

A. Introduction:

The purpose of the Wyoming Basin States Program (BSP) is to work with the United States Bureau of

Reclamation (Reclamation) to meet the objectives of the Colorado River Basin Water Quality Standards.

The BSP will be seeking and funding cost effective projects in Wyoming to reduce salinity in the Colorado

River System. The types of eligible BSP Projects include:

reducing salinity from saline springs, leaking wells, irrigation sources, industrial sources, erosion of

public and private land, or other sources,

perform studies, planning, and administration of salinity control activities, and

replace incidental fish and wildlife values foregone (habitat replacement).

This criteria provides the Wyoming Water Development Commission (WWDC) and the Wyoming Water

Development Office (WWDO) with general standards for evaluating and prioritizing applications for

funding from the BSP. In addition, the criteria serve as a tool to coordinate with the public and other state

and federal agencies.

B. Colorado River:

The Colorado River flows from the Rocky Mountains in Colorado and Wyoming to its natural outlet in the

Gulf of California. The river has a large drainage basin that covers over 244,000 square miles; it is 1,440

miles long and passes through parts of seven states and Mexico.

The seven states comprised of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming,

are referred to as the Colorado River Basin states. The drainage basin comprises about one-twelfth of the

area of the continental United States. The Colorado River ranks sixth among the nation’s rivers in volume of

flow with an average annual flow in excess of 17.5 million acre-feet.

The river provides irrigation water to about 4.0 million acres of land. It also has more than 60 million acre-

feet of storage capacity, 4,000 megawatts of hydro-electric generating capacity, and provides more than 20

million annual visitor days of outdoor recreation. The Colorado River supplies domestic and industrial water

to approximately 27 million people. Through natural and man induced causes, the Colorado River picks up

dissolved solids from about 50 mg/L at its source to approximately 850 mg/L (current concentrations) as it

passes into Mexico. Natural causes represent approximately 62% of the salt load above Hoover Dam.

Studies estimate that the salinity in the Colorado River causes somewhere between $500 million and $750

million per year in damages to crops and municipal water systems. If salinity levels in the Colorado River

are not reduced, costs associated with crop and municipal water system damage will continue to escalate.

C. Legal and Institutional Constraints:

1. Recipient Applicant: Pursuant to the 1974 Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, Public Law

93-320 as amended by Public Law 110-246, provides funding available to eligible public and private

entities located in the Green River or Little Snake River drainages in Wyoming. Private entities are

eligible if they qualify for on-farm federal assistance through the Natural Resource Conservation

Service (NRCS).

2. Eligible public entities are defined by state statute and include conservation districts, watershed

improvement districts, water conservancy districts, irrigation districts, municipalities, the Joint

Business Council of the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribe, the Business Council of the

Eastern Shoshone Tribe, the Business Council of the Northern Arapaho Tribe, or other approved

assessment districts formed in accordance with Wyoming law.

3. Project Description and Funding: Pursuant to Public Law 93-320, as amended by Public Law 110-

246, Reclamation will provide funding to eligible Wyoming BSP projects. WWDC may use up to

10% of the funds received for WWDO administrative purposes. No less than 90% of the funds shall

be used for:

i. cost-effective measures and associated works to reduce salinity from saline springs, leaking

wells, irrigation sources, industrial sources, erosion of public and private land, or other

sources;

ii. studies and planning; and

iii. habitat replacement measures.

4. Program Budget: Pursuant to Public Law 93-320, as amended by Public Law 110-246, Reclamation

will provide WWDC an annual grant award as approved by Reclamation. 100% of the funding for

the Wyoming BSP will come from Reclamation.

a. There will be no State appropriation to the BSP program.

D. BSP Project Program Definitions:

1. Well: A water well with an identified salinity reduction component may be eligible for funding.

2. Pipelines and conveyance facilities: Rehabilitation of existing pipelines or conveyance facilities or

construction of new pipelines or conveyance facilities with an identified salinity reduction

component may be eligible for funding through the BSP.

3. Irrigation: Irrigation projects with an identified salinity reduction component (e.g. canal lining, canal

to pipe conversion, flood to sprinkler conversion, etc.) may be eligible for funding through the BSP.

4. Habitat: Replacing incidental fish and wildlife values foregone may be eligible for BSP funding.

5. Studies: Studies and planning projects of salinity reduction activities may be eligible for BSP

funding.

6. Work Plan: An annual report provided to Reclamation identifying rationale to select studies, salinity

control measures, habitat replacement measures, and identifies funds to be used on eligible projects.

E. Application Process:

1. Planning for BSP projects will be generated by a WWDC BSP study or equivalent as determined by

the WWDO. A BSP study will incorporate, at minimum, available technical information describing

conditions and assessments of the project including hydrology, geography, soils, water conveyance

infrastructure, project components and relevant project data. A plan outlining the site specific

activities that may remediate existing impairments or address opportunities beneficial to the drainage

shall be included. A Study may identify one or more projects that may qualify for BSP funding. A

Wyoming registered professional engineer and/or geologist, as appropriate, shall certify any analysis

submitted unless generated by a federal agency.

2. Applications shall be received by January 1 of each calendar year. Application materials and forms

will be provided and administered by the WWDO. Applications meeting criteria requirements will

be considered during the regularly scheduled WWDC meeting in March. Applications shall include a

project application, sponsor project referral, project location map, project cost estimates, a resolution

or document of support from the applicant’s board or other governing body, and any letters of

authorization or commitment of participation that may be available from other funding sources.

3. Projects that improve drainage condition and function, provide multiple benefits, and meet the

funding criteria specified in Public Law 93-320, as amended by Public Law 110-246, as described in

C.3 herein, are eligible for consideration.

4. The Applicant will be required to address the WWDC and provide testimony and other additional

supporting evidence that justifies BSP funding whenever the public benefit documentation,

submitted with the application, is deemed to be insufficient by the WWDO.

5. Projects that have successfully completed the NRCS competitive review process are eligible for BSP

funding. Applications submitted in the NRCS EQIP competitive selection process for on farm

measures and ranked, but not awarded agreements due to EQIP eligibility requirements or

insufficient EQIP funding may be awarded agreements executed and funded by WWDC.

6. Projects that have successfully completed the Basinwide Program FOA competitive process are

eligible for BSP funding. Applications submitted in a Basinwide Program FOA and ranked in the

competitive range, but not awarded agreements due to insufficient Basinwide Program funding, may

be awarded agreements executed and funded by WWDC.

F. Application Requirements:

1. WWDC shall use a competitive process open to the public and approved by Reclamation to solicit,

rank and select applicants with salinity reduction measures as identified in the Work Plan that:

a. Meet technical standards, specifications and cost schedules, approved by Reclamation, and,

b. Reduce salinity at a cost effectiveness of less than $150 per ton. The cost effectiveness shall be

determined using:

i. An annualized cost that shall be determined using the estimated life of the feature,

usually 25 or 50 years, and,

ii. The current year Federal Plan Formulation and Evaluation Interest Rate, and,

iii. Salt load reduction figures for salinity control measures shall be provided by

Reclamation.

2. The NRCS EQIP process fulfills the competitive process requirements. Applications submitted

through the NRCS EQIP process for on-farm measures and ranked, but not awarded agreements due

to EQIP eligibility requirements or insufficient EQIP funding may be awarded agreements to be

executed and funded by the WWDC provided that:

a. Salt load reduction figures provided by the NRCS to the applicants in the NRCS application

process are acceptable to Reclamation.

b. Award agreements to such applicants who demonstrate to reduce salinity at a cost effectiveness

of less than $150 per ton.

c. Such agreements shall follow the requirements of EQIP for the current year including:

i. Development of a plan or schedule of operations that specifies the applicable practice and

units to be installed as provided in the current EQIP payment schedule. Practices not

listed in the payment schedule are not eligible for payment.

ii. For irrigation practices, the land to be treated must have been irrigated or considered to

have been irrigated two of the last five years.

iii. Applicants agree not to use any associated water savings to bring new land under

irrigation production, other incidental land needed for efficient operations.

1. Incidental land is land that will be irrigated by the proposed system that does not

meet the 2 of 5 year irrigation history requirement. This land will be covered by

the proposed system as a result of field realignment or inclusion of miscellaneous

acres not irrigated by the current system. Incidental land will not exceed 5% of

the acres on which the new system is being proposed.

iv. All applicable state water laws shall apply.

v. A practice must be initiated within 12 months of enactment of the agreement.

vi. Historically, underserved producers may receive an increased incentive consistent with

the current EQIP policy.

vii. All practices must meet current NRCS standards and specifications and be operated and

maintained for the practice life in accordance with the local operation and maintenance

requirements.

viii. Producers cannot receive more than 100% of the cost of any installations. If other federal

fund sources are payable, the BSP payment will be reduced.

ix. The grantee must have clear and demonstrable control of the land to be treated in the

agreement for a period of time equal to or longer than the agreement period. Loss of

control of the land requires the financial interest and liability of the capitalized

improvements to be transferred to the succeeding part or the recoverable value of the

financial incentives is due to the BSP.

d. Such agreements may waive the following EQIP requirements:

i. Adjusted Gross Income Limits Cumulative payment cap.

ii. Producer eligibility.

3. The Basinwide Program FOA process fulfills the competitive process requirements. Applications

submitted in a Basinwide Program FOA and ranked in the competitive range, but not awarded

agreements due to insufficient Basinwide Program funding, may be awarded agreements executed

and funded by WWDC provided that:

a. Reclamation provides the applications to WWDC with approval from the applicants.

b. The applications have a cost effectiveness of less than $150 per ton and meet the requirements of

C.3 herein.

G. Project Development:

1. The applicant shall adhere to design standards for projects that are provided by the NRCS, an

appropriate land management agency or a registered Wyoming registered Professional Engineer

and/or registered Professional Geologist.

2. Project water rights shall be in good standing with the State of Wyoming prior to construction of the

project.

3. The applicant shall bear any project costs that are incurred without prior written notification by

WWDO from said action.

4. The BSP is a federal program administered by the WWDO in conjunction with Reclamation. Any

required federal project conditions will be adhered to by the Sponsor.

H. Program Expenditures:

1. Project Eligibility: WWDO shall establish eligibility criteria and administration procedures for

development of BSP projects. WWDO will accept and rank applications for BSP funding will all

recommendations for funding being submitted to Reclamation for final authority on all funding

decisions.

2. Project Funding: BSP awarded projects will receive funds from Reclamation administered through

the WWDO. BSP eligible projects could also receive funding from WWDC, Basinwide Program

FOA, USDA-RD, and other eligible funding sources.

3. With Reclamation approval, WWDC may award grants to applicants eligible for BSP activities

including planning, engineering (project design and construction management), permit procurement,

project land procurement, project materials and invoiced contractor expenses.

4. Required permits and clearances shall be obtained prior to construction of the project. Copies of the

final permits and clearances must be submitted to the WWDO before the WWDO will issue written

notification to initiate the bidding process. BSP funds may be used as necessary to secure the

technical assistance required to complete permitting activities before construction commences.

5. The applicant shall provide WWDO a plan for the estimated life of the project documenting the

salinity reduction at a cost effectiveness of less than $150 per ton.

6. BSP funds shall not be used to refinance projects that have already been completed. BSP funds shall

not be used to augment the operating budget of a sponsor or any other entity. Maintenance costs, as

determined by the WWDO, are not eligible expenditures under the BSP.

7. A Project Agreement between the WWDC and the applicant, which documents the roles and

responsibilities of the project participants, must be finalized prior to expenditure of BSP funds.

Changes, modifications, revisions or amendments to the Project Agreement may be granted by the

WWDC.

8. The engineer selection process will need to meet the provisions of W.S. 16-6-1001.b.

9. Construction contractors shall be selected using a competitive bid process.

10. When the applicant submits a pay application, BSP funds can be disbursed for a component of a

project upon receipt of a project pay request certified by the project engineer and approved by the

owner. Retainage on the cost of the component may be held until conditions described in H.11 are

met.

11. Upon project completion, BSP funds will be disbursed when a WWDO pay application is received

from the applicant including statement of completion, before and after photographs, project

longitude/latitude coordinates and the affidavit of publication documenting the required notices of

final settlement were published pursuant to W.S. 16-6-116.

12. Upon receipt of BSP funds, the applicant shall promptly pay outstanding obligations.

13. Unexpended funds allocated under the Project Agreement will revert to the BSP Account as

appropriate, upon the expiration date of the Project Agreement. Expiration dates may be extended in

writing by the WWDC.

14. The establishment of criteria and administrative procedures for the development of BSP projects

under this subsection and decisions of the commission relating to the recommendations,

prioritization or disqualification of BSP projects are specifically exempt from the provisions of the

Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act including judicial review under W.S. 16-3-114 and

16-3-115.

15. No new project shall be authorized under this subsection on or after July 1, 2025.

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

Agenda

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text


Upper Colorado River Basin Fund

Memorandum of Agreement

A. Introduction:

The passage of SF0051 in the 2015 Legislative Session authorizes the Wyoming Water Development

Commission to select projects for the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund Memorandum of Agreement

(MOA). The MOA was entered into on January 24, 2011 by the states of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and

Wyoming; the Colorado River Energy Distributors (CREDA); the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation);

the United States Department of the Interior; and the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA). The

MOA provides the framework for the expenditure of a percentage of collected hydropower revenues defined

under section 5(e) of the Colorado River Storage Project Act (CRSPA). MOA projects must be located in

the Colorado River Basin (Green River or Little Snake Rivers in Wyoming) and benefit CRSPA projects.

This criteria provides the Wyoming Water Development Commission (WWDC) and the Wyoming Water

Development Office (WWDO) with general guidelines for evaluating and prioritizing applications for MOA

program funding. In addition, the criteria serve as a tool to coordinate with the public and other state and

federal agencies.

B. Background:

The Colorado River Storage Project Act (CRSPA), enacted in 1956, provides for the “comprehensive

development of the water resources of the Upper Colorado River Basin.” A feature of CRSPA, in section

5(e), is the use of hydroelectric power revenues to aid in the development and repayment of certain

irrigation costs of participating projects within the Upper Colorado River basin (aid-to-irrigation) 43 U.S.C.

Sec. 620d(e). In 2011, CREDA and the Upper Division States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and

Wyoming entered into the MOA.

The MOA provides a methodology for collecting MOA Revenues for use by Reclamation within the Upper

Colorado River Basin for the benefit of the Upper Division States. Under the MOA, CRSP power revenues

collected in accordance with the MOA will be used by Reclamation to further the purposes of CRSPA

through application of those revenues to the costs of implementation of projects recommended by the Non-

Federal Parties.

C. Legal and Institutional Constraints:

1. 2015 Wyoming Session Laws SF0051.

a. SF0051 provides WWDC the authority to evaluate, prioritize and recommend projects to

Reclamation for MOA funding.

2. Colorado River Storage Project Act (CRSPA).

a. Public Law 485, approved by the President of the United States of April 11, 1956, codified at

43 U.S.C Sec. 620 et seq., as amended and supplemented identified as CRSPA. An Act to

authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct, operate, and maintain the Colorado River

storage project and participating projects, and for other purposes.

3. Memorandum of Agreement Concerning the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund.

a. The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) became effective January 24, 2011. The MOA

provides the framework for collecting MOA Revenues for use by Reclamation within the

Upper Colorado River Basin for the benefit of the Upper Division States. Under the MOA,

CRSP power revenues collected in accordance with the MOA will be used by Reclamation to

further the purposes of CRSPA through application of those revenues to the costs of

implementation of projects recommended by the Non-Federal Parties.

D. MOA Project Program Definitions:

1. MOA Revenues: Power revenues collected pursuant to the MOA and CRSPA, amended and

supplemented, that are utilized by Reclamation for the purposes described in Sec. B of the MOA.

2. Colorado River Storage Project: A Bureau project that includes four initial storage units: Glen

Canyon, Flaming Gorge, Navajo, and the Wayne N. Aspinall Storage Unit. Authorized along with,

but not part of the initial units listed above, are a number of participating projects whose irrigation

construction costs are repaid by power revenues. These participating projects are listed in the

authorization paragraphs of the Colorado River Storage Project Act and subsequent legislation,

identified as CRSP.

CRSP Initial Units: the four initial storage units.

3. Federal Parties: The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S.

Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration.

4. Non-Federal Parties: The States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming and CREDA.

5. Upper Colorado River Basin: Those areas within and from Wyoming which waters naturally drain

into the Colorado River system above Lee Ferry.

6. Upper Colorado River Basin Fund (Basin Fund): A separate fund in the United States Treasury

established pursuant to Section 5(a) of CRSPA 43 U.S.C. Sec. 620(d)(a).

7. Upper Colorado River Commission: An interstate water administrative agency composed of one

Commissioner representing each of the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming and

one Commissioner representing the United States as established pursuant to Article VIII of the

Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948, 63 Stat. 31.

8. Upper Division States: The States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming as defined in

Article II(c) of the Colorado River Compact and Article II(c) of the Upper Colorado River Basin

Compact.

E. Application Process:

1. Applications shall be received by April 1 of each calendar year. Application materials and forms will

be provided and administered by the WWDO. Applications meeting criteria requirements will be

considered during the regularly scheduled WWDC meeting in June. Applications shall include a

project application, project location map, project cost estimates, a resolution or document of support

from the applicant’s board or other governing body, and any letters of authorization or commitment

of participation that may be available from other funding sources.

2. WWDO will accept, review and present applications to the WWDC. The WWDC is responsible for

determining the priority of projects within Wyoming. WWDC will then provide a prioritized list of

recommended projects to Reclamation along with any comments. Reclamation will have final

authority on all funding decisions.

3. The Applicant may be required to address the WWDC and provide testimony and other additional

supporting evidence that justifies MOA funding whenever the public benefit documentation,

submitted with the application, is deemed to be insufficient by the WWDO.

F. Application Requirements:

1. Applicants will need to submit project application, project location map, project cost estimates, a

resolution or document of support from the applicant’s board or other governing body, and any

letters of authorization or commitment of participation that may be available from other funding

sources.

2. MOA, projects must be located in the Colorado River Basin (Green River or Little Snake Rivers in

Wyoming) and benefit CRSPA projects.

3. The MOA is a federal program administered by Reclamation. Any required federal project

conditions will be adhered to by the Applicant.

4. The following list of activities may be funded by MOA revenues. The list is not exhaustive and may

change to ensure consistency in the application of Basin Fund revenues.

a. Replacements, Additions and Extraordinary Maintenance

i. Activities for the continued operation and maintenance of the CRSP Initial Units and

participating projects (e.g., snowpack data collection; repair, refurnish and

rehabilitate existing facilities; and CRRS modeling).

b. Water Conservation Activities

i. Activities that improve the efficiency and operation of CRSP Initial Units and

participating projects (e.g., studies for water conservation projects; canal conversion

to lining or piping; conserve reservoir storage; flow gaging/water monitoring; and

water administration costs).

c. Environmental Compliance Activities

i. Costs of environmental compliance for CRSP Initial Units, including biological

opinions or programmatic biological opinions associated improvements that are

necessary to satisfy compliance for continuation of operation of facilities (e.g., canal

lining, diversion structure improvements, efficiency improvements, construction of

fish passage structures, or temperature control structures).

d. Stream Gaging

i. Installation and operation of gages necessary for the operation of CRSP Units.

e. Consumptive Use and Quality of Water

i. Activities that provide more efficient present and future operation of the CRSP

system (e.g., consumptive use and loss studies, water quality studies, CRSS model

development, modeling, reservoir water quality modeling, and basin studies).

f. Salinity – Upper Colorado River Basin

i. Activities that provide new, cost-effective opportunities to control salinity in the

basin.

g. Weather Modification

i. Activities that provide for nationwide data collection and monitoring activities;

relevant research; and activities to increase the efficiency of the use of water in the

United States.

H. Program Expenditures:

1. Project Application: WWDO shall establish application criteria and administration procedures for

development of MOA projects. WWDO will accept and review applications, WWDC will rank

applications for MOA funding, and ranked WWDC recommendations for MOA funding will be

submitted to Reclamation for final authority on all funding decisions.

2. Project Funding: MOA awarded projects will receive funds from Reclamation administered through

Reclamation.

3. Project Management: MOA awarded projects will be administered through Reclamation.

4. No new project shall be authorized under this subsection on or after July 1, 2025.

5. The MOA shall expire on September 30, 2025 unless modified or extended. Any MOA revenues

remaining on September 30, 2025 will continue to be available to fund projects identified by the

Non-Federal Parties until September 30, 2030.

,-a,-.1. p--- r,i-': P-'- ;l':l a'i'? "%wl' EIV' ?

.')=?:!- 2 9 201'=MacPHERSON, KELLY & THOMPSON, LLC

Attorneys at Law y'iY WAThFl DhVELC?COMM?SSIO.' -

?John A. MmePherqon, p.c.

Catherine MacPherson, p*c;Kurt Kelly, P.C.

e-mm ?mingJ?g?or [email protected]

www.wyomingattorneys.net

616 West Buffalop.o. Box 999

Rawltns, WY 82301Telephone (307) 324-4713Faesimile (30 7) 324-'1348

William K Mac'Pherson, P.C.Thomas A. Thompson, p.c.Phillip R. Wulf"Also adm}tted in Colorado

July 24, 2015

Harry LaBonde, P.E.Director

Wyoming Water Development Commission6920 Yellowtail Road

Cheyenne, WY 82002

Re: Revised Sublease Between Lee Jons and Donna Jons Revocable Trust and theWyoming Water Development Commission/State Lease #3-7503.

Dear Mr. LaBonde:

In regards to the above referenced subject, Donna Jons has given me permission to write thisletter on behalf of her and the Jons Trust. As you are aware, the Wyoming Water DevelopmentComrnission (WWDC) approved the assignment (repurchase) of a portion of State Lease #3-7503 to the Lee and Donna Jons Revocable Tmst (Jons Tmst) in November, 2014. However,since that time mnd upon subsequent conversations with your staff, there appears to be analternate, more suitable solution that could be more beneficial to all pmties. Donna very muchappreciates your mid the WWDC's consideration, as she would like to bring closure to thismaffer,

Background. A little background may be helpful for your consideration:

Lee and Donna Jons ranched in the Little Snake River Valley their entire ranching careers. TheJons Ranch consists of approximately 440 deeded acres located in the valley just south and westof Baggs. The cattle would winter on the deeded lands, and in the summer the cattle would go tothe high country on State Lease #3-7503 and a small BLM pasture [Mexican Meadows] to grazeso the deeded acres could be irrigated and hayed. That is how Lee and Donna operated for manydecades, and that is the only way the ranch worked as a viable cattle operation.

Harry LaBonde, P.E.July 24, 2015Page 2 of 3

Lee passed away in June, 2009. While Donna is sharp as a tack, she is the first to say that she ?iswearing out.? Donna is going to be 87 years old in October, 2015, but she continues to run theranch, with the assistance of Matt Myers. Matt Myers worked for and with Lee and Donna Jonsfor many years while Lee was still alive, having himself grown up in the Little Snake RiverValley.

In 2001, the Jons Trust assigned State Lease #3-7503 and the BLM Lease for the MexicanMeadows to the WWDC so the High Savery Dam and Reservoir could be constructed on aportion of that property. The WWDC paid some money for the assignment and then subleasedthe grazing rights to the Jons Tmst. The current agreement (Revised Sublease AgreementBetween Lee Jom and Donna Jons Revocable Trust and Wyoming Water DevelopmentCommission) was entered into in September, 2008, and is in effect until March 1, 2018, at whichtime the Jons Tmst has the option to renew the Sublease for an additional five year termcommencing March 1, 2018 and expiring on March 1, 2023. It covers 2,212.88 acres in what isdepicted as Pasture 1, on Exhibit B to the Revised Sublease [see attached?.

In 2013, Donna began to contemplate selling the ranch to Matt and Natasha Myers andultimately entered into an agreement for the sale of the Jons Ranch and holdings, with ascheduled closing in late August, 2014. However, the closing had to be held up as someresolution was sought relative to the state lease and how best to keep it as part of the ranchoperation. The ranch sales agreement had to be and has been modified, to allow Matt andNatasha Myers to opt not to purchase the Jons Ranch and its holdings, without penalt)y, if thestate lease couldn't somehow be made available for their use. As mentioned, the lease forPasture l is the heart of the operation and critical [absolutely necessary] to the operation. That ishow Lee and Donna operated successfully for many decades, and that is the only way the ranchworks as a viable cattle operation. In November, 2014, the WWDC approved the assignment ofa portion of State Lease #3-7503 to the Jons Tmst as a conceivable solution. Since that time andupon subsequent conversations wath Jason Mead, Deputy Director of the WWDC Dam andReservoir Division, there appears to be an alternate, more suitable solution that could be morebeneficial to all parties in terms of simplicity, time and money.

Request by Donna Jons, Trustee of the Lee Jons and Donna Jons Revocable Trust.

Should the following request be unacceptable to you m'id the WWDC, Donna is very willing toperform and make payment for assignment of that portion of State Lease #3-7503 to the JonsTmst which the WWDC approved in November, 2014. However, if you and the WWDC areagreeable, she would prefer to terminate the Jons Trust sublease to allow for a new subleasebetween the WWDC and the buyer of the Jons Ranch (Matt and Natasha Myers). Thisalternative would be a much simpler and timely process with the Wyoming Office of State Landsand hivestments, allow the WWDC to retain the lease assignment and its initial investment in thelease, provide WWDC more management flexibility with High Savery Reservoir, maintain thevalue of the Jons Ranch, as well as avoid the Jons Trust from having to procure funds for therepurchase.

Hariy LaBonde, P.E.July 24, 2015Page 3 of 3

As such, Donna is agreeable to an "earlier termination? of the Revised Sublease agreement,should the WWDC mutually consent, as provided for in Paragraph 8 F of the Revised Subleaseupon the EXPRESS CONDITIONS that:

A. The WWDC enter into a Sublease Agreement with the Jons Ranch buyer, Matt andNatasha Myers, husband and wife, of Baggs, Wyoming, for the grazing rights in Pasture 1,containing 2,212.88 acres.

B. That such Sublease Agreement be on terms and conditions which are acceptable toboth Matt and Natasha Myers and WWDC.

C. That all required approvals from the WWDC, Attorney General's Office, WyomingBoard of Land Commissioners, etc. be secured.

If said request is acceptable and express conditions are satisfied, the Jons Tmst will sign aformal termination and surrender of Revised Sublease Agreement, effective the date the newSublease Agreement with Matt and Natasha Myers becomes effective. If the request isconsidered unacceptable by you and the WWDC or the express conditions cannot be satisfied,then tbe WWDC action approved in November, 2014, should be completed. Donna would onlyask that the work which is necessary to complete that assignment be completely immediately ifthat is the route to be followed, as she is not getting any younger, and time is of the essence.

This matter has been pending for some time. Donna would like to have a few years of nothaving the responsibility of mnning the ranch. However, these subleased lands are the heart ofthe operation, and without it, the ranch operation won't work.

We thank you for your willingness to find a practical solution that will meet everyone's needs.Please feel free to contact me if you have miy questions.

Sincerely,

is-a.. (-U4?'? 77?,Catherine MacPherson, Of Counsel

Enclosure: l

CC: Donna Jons

N

+0 1000 2000 FeetM

l '!'!'!!!l

Lwrml'a'?l"---'0-

lV Subjed Property

/%/,Faiodinehdts*

V?- State of Wyomtng Lamd

l

r-?--' i

i ?

I '

l-..%l BLM Lamd

gLffl4 . i ':

ris.-:?i

Range 88 %estbj

Exbibit Bl msp Retween the State of Wyomin7 VVater DeveJopment

Commission and Peter Lee and Domaa Jons"?

r.

f

4

j

t

ll

r=-;

r

4

!,...

l?

f?

Wrl

(?

?l

T

J

+-

Q

l1

I.

r:l}l

lt

I

j-l

m

"-'!

JA'%I? '=l?r!?fi..- iJ214?l'a'!?

?r? ? ? --;?-'-y ?

lI

%--?

-==Mi"? (]

.-ar?[ 'j

f'!f

Aa-I

f'j/,=4%i

v

]

1k

r?

j

l

1l

1

r

?

J%1

11.dj

rl

gf.

W

r'%l

mi?P'

l

}

#

77r K I

? kl -l t"fi

l? FJr

7.4

n

"f:;t

l'!'T

k1

1kw4

r 1

l

!t

-d?

ioool[

*

t

J

I

i?

il11

%kl

m'MW")vi'l

17

f

s

r? If/

d? +

20

>

#i

I

ffi

P

?l

r

4

r

I

d?

F.

1

1

%1v

W.r

1?W?

r/

F

J t

?i

u waa

P

PjI'm .4

L lll'l Al

n fl r: 0ff

' ?.as4i'iT 1

Q8QI'M 1rl

ff ffiI

j '%il

l

?

kr-

Ilr40

}

li

P.?/j

r.j

21

F

:l

1.

bt

k

Z/

lI M!

m

4

E

j

/

7/

ffi/a:

AB'pa

W'ff?j?

%

l

%

r-

t

.!l

TERMINATION OF REVISED SUBLEASE BETWEEN LEE JONS AND DONNA JONS REVOCABLE TRUST AND THE WYOMING WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

1. Parties. This Termination Agreement [Agreement], dated _____________, 2015, is made between Donna L. Jons, living Trustee of the Lee Jons and Donna Jons Revocable Trust, P.O. Box 235, Baggs, Wyoming 82321 [Trust], and the Wyoming Water Development Commission whose address is 6920 Yellowtail Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 [Commission].

2. Purpose of Termination.

A. The Commission has the leasehold grazing rights per State of

Wyoming Board of Land Commissioners Grazing and Agricultural Lease No. 3-7503 (State Lease No. 3-7503), consisting of 2,880 acres. The Commission has a sublease contract for a portion of said State Lease No. 3-7503 with the Lee Jons and Donna Jons Revocable Trust (Revised Sublease Agreement Between Lee Jons and Donna Jons Revocable Trust and Wyoming Water Development Commission), which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A.

B. Pursuant to the termination clause in the Revised Sublease Agreement found in Exhibit A, the Trust and the Commission mutually consent to terminate the Revised Sublease Agreement Between Lee Jons and Donna Jons Revocable Trust and Wyoming Water Development Commission, effective upon signature by the Wyoming Water Development Commission. 3. Entirety of the Agreement. Entirety of Contract. This Agreement, consisting of two (2) pages and Exhibit A, consisting of seven (7) pages, represents the entire and integrated Contract between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and agreements, whether written or oral.

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE SHALL REMAIN BLANK

RN081115/F

SUBLEASE BETWEEN MATTHEW AND NATASHA MYERS AND THE WYOMING WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

Page 1 of 7

SUBLEASE BETWEEN MATTHEW AND NATASHA MYERS

AND THE WYOMING WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

1. Parties. This lease contract [Sublease] is made between Matthew and Natasha Myers, P.O. Box 62, Baggs, Wyoming 82321 [Sublessee], and the Wyoming Water Development Commission whose address is 6920 Yellowtail Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 [Commission]. In the event that the addresses listed above change, the party whose address has changed shall immediately notify the other party to the Sublease in writing.

2. Purpose of Sublease.

A. The Commission has the leasehold grazing rights for State of Wyoming Board of Land Commissioners Grazing and Agricultural Lease No. 3-7503 (State Lease No. 3-7503), consisting of 2880 acres located on the lands described in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. The Commission desires to sublease a portion of said State Lease No. 3-7503 to a suitable lessee and retain the right of ingress and egress to High Savery Dam via the existing access road, as described by State Easement No. 6420, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C.

B. The Sublessee desires to sublease a portion of the premises from the Commission for the purpose of grazing cattle.

C. The parties desire to enter a lease contract [Sublease] defining their rights, duties, and liabilities relating to the premises.

D. For consideration, the Commission leases to the Sublessee the Commission’s rights to graze cattle on Pasture 1 described in Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein, under the terms and conditions forth in Section 8 below.

3. Term of Sublease. EXPRESSLY CONTINGENT UPON THE WYOMING BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS’ RENEWAL OF THE COMMISSION’S STATE LAND LEASE NO. 3-7503, the Commission leases the Commission’s rights described in Section 8 below for a term of ten years beginning October 1, 2015 and terminating on March 1, 2025 to the Sublessee. Additionally, the Commission grants to the Sublessee an option to renew this Sublease for an additional five year term commencing March 1, 2025 and expiring on March 1, 2030.

4. Assignment of Lease. If, after December 31, 2020, the Commission determines that portions of the lands under State Lease No. 3-7503 are no longer needed by the Commission for dam, reservoir, mitigation or other related purposes, the Commission will cooperate with the Sublessee and the State of Wyoming Board of Land

RN081115/F


Page 2 of 7

Commissioners, and if approved by the State of Wyoming Board of Land Commissioners, shall assign those unneeded portions of State Lease No. 3-7503 to the Sublessee under mutually agreed upon terms and condition. Any such assignment will be contingent upon the statutes, rules, regulations and other laws in effect at that time.

5. Required Approvals. This Sublease is not valid and shall not become effective until it is signed by an authorized representative of the Commission and an authorized representative of the Sublessee, approved by the Wyoming Board of Land Commissioners, approved and signed by an authorized representative of the Department of Administration and Information, the Office of the Wyoming Attorney General, and, if required by Wyo. Stat. § 9-2-1016(b)(IV), by the Governor or his designee. The effective date of the Sublease shall be the last date of signature, and the Sublease shall commence on the last date of signature or on the date specified in the Term of Sublease provision, whichever is later.

6. Rent Payment. The rent to be paid by the Sublessee to the Commission shall be equal to the rent charged by the Board of Land Commissioners plus two dollars and no cents ($2.00) per AUM, to the Commission for the portion of State Lease No. 3-7503, corresponding to the total acreage of Pasture 1, consisting of 2,222.10 acres less 9.22 acres of land reserved for the access road that crosses Pasture 1, or 2,212.88 acres. All rent payments under this Sublease shall be paid to the Commission at the address specified above. Rent shall be paid in advance, on or before February 1st of each year of this Sublease.

7. Responsibilities of the Commission. The Commission shall pay all assessments or other governmental charges that may be imposed on or arise in connection with the premises during the term of this Sublease not otherwise assumed by the Sublessee by this agreement.

8. Responsibilities of the Sublessee.

A. Obey All Applicable Laws and Regulations. The Sublessee shall observe and follow all applicable state, local and federal laws and regulations.

B. Terms and Conditions of State Lease. The Sublessee shall be fully aware of and shall comply with all the terms and conditions of State Lease No. 3-7503 and State Easement No. 6420, except as explicitly provided in this agreement.

C. Grazing Management. The Commission has established two pastures to assist in development of the High Savery Dam and Reservoir Project and to allow grazing management. The approximate location of the pastures is shown on Exhibit B. Only Pasture 1, less the acreage of the access road may be grazed. The AUMs available for grazing has been reduced with the exclusion of Pasture 2, and the Sublessee’s rental price will be reflective of the AUM reduction for Pasture 1. At the date

RN081115/F


Page 3 of 7

of execution of this Sublease, the AUMs available for grazing on Pasture 1 is 615. Once wetland mitigation has been deemed successful by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Commission may choose to allow the Sublessee to graze Pasture 2, or portions of Pasture 2, as a vegetative management and objectives tool, rather than for livestock production. Grazing Pasture 2, or portions of Pasture 2 may only occur upon written approval of the Commission. The Commission will make the determination if Pasture 2 can be grazed in cooperation with the appropriate state and federal agencies.

D. Access to Premises. The Sublessee shall permit the Commission or its agents to enter the premises at any time to inspect the premises or for management purposes and as necessary for construction, operation and maintenance of the dam, associated facilities and mitigation sites.

E. Assignment, Mortgage, or Sublease. Neither the Sublessee nor its successors or assigns shall assign, mortgage, pledge, or encumber this Sublease or sublet the premises in whole or in part, or permit the premises to be used or occupied by others, nor shall this Sublease be assigned or transferred.

F. Surrender of Possession. The Sublessee shall, on the last day of the term, or on earlier termination and forfeiture of the Sublease, peaceably and quietly surrender and deliver the premises to the Commission in good condition and repair.

9. Special Provisions.

A. Alterations, Additions, and Improvements. The Sublessee shall not at any time during the Sublease term, make any alterations, additions or improvements on the premises without prior written consent of the Commission, the Wyoming Board of Land Commissioners and the United States Bureau of Land Management.

B. Easements, Contracts, or Encumbrances. The parties shall be bound by all existing easements, contracts, and encumbrances of record relating to the premises.

C. Insurance. During the term of the Sublease and for any further time that the Sublessee shall hold the premises, the Sublessee shall obtain and maintain at its own expense insurance on its personal property located on the premises.

D. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence in all provisions of this Sublease.

E. Unlawful or Dangerous Activity. The Sublessee shall neither use nor occupy the premises or any part thereof for any unlawful, disreputable, or ultra-hazardous purpose nor operate or conduct business in a manner constituting a nuisance of any kind. The Sublessee shall immediately, upon notification of any unlawful, disreputable,

RN081115/F


Page 4 of 7

or ultrahazardous use, or nuisance, take action to halt such activity. In the event the Sublessee fails to cease any such use or activity, after notice, the Commission may terminate this Sublease.

10. General Provisions

A. Applicable Law/Venue. The construction, interpretation and enforcement of this Sublease shall be governed by the laws of the State of Wyoming. The Courts of the State of Wyoming shall have jurisdiction over this Sublease and the parties, and the venue shall be the First Judicial District, Laramie County, Wyoming.

B. Entirety of Agreement. This Sublease, consisting of seven (7) pages, Exhibit A, consisting of one (1) page, Exhibit B, consisting of one (1) page, and Exhibit C, consisting of twelve (12) pages, represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, leases, or other contracts, either written or oral. This agreement cannot be changed except by a written instrument subsequently executed by the parties.

C. Indemnity. The Sublessee shall release, indemnify, and hold harmless the State, the Commission, and their officers, agents, employees, successors and assignees from any cause of action, or claims or demands arising out of this Sublease and its use of the premises, including specifically any use prohibited by Section 9E above.

D. Notice. All notices to be given with respect to this Sublease shall be in writing. Each notice shall be sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid and return receipt requested, to the party to be notified at the address set forth above.

Every notice shall be deemed to have been given at the time it shall be deposited in the United States mail in the manner prescribed herein. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to preclude personal service of any notice in the manner prescribed for personal service of a summons or other legal process.

E. Sovereign Immunity. The State of Wyoming and the Commission do not waive sovereign immunity by entering into this Sublease, and specifically retain immunity and all defenses available to them as sovereigns pursuant to Wyo. Stat. § 1-39-104(a) and all other state law. Designations of venue, choice of law, enforcement actions, and similar provisions should not be construed as a waiver of sovereign immunity.

F. Termination.

(i) This Sublease may be terminated immediately for cause if the Sublessee fails to perform in accordance with the terms of this Sublease.

(ii) This Sublease is granted upon the express condition that should the State Land and Investment Office hereafter find it to be in the best interest of the State to exchange the lands embraced in this Sublease for other lands, as provided by law, then

RN081115/F


Page 5 of 7

this Sublease may be terminated upon giving the Sublessee one year notice, unless by mutual consent of the Commission and the Sublessee, an earlier date of termination may be fixed.

G. Third Party Beneficiary Rights. The parties do not intend to create in any other individual or entity the status of third party beneficiary, and this Sublease shall not be construed so as to create such status. The rights, duties and obligations contained in this Sublease shall operate only between the parties to this Sublease, and shall inure solely to the benefit of the parties to this Sublease. The provisions of this Sublease are intended only to assist the parties in determining and performing their obligations under this Sublease.

H. Waivers. The failure of Commission to insist on a strict performance of any of the terms and conditions hereof shall not be deemed a waiver of the rights or remedies that Commission may have regarding that specific term or condition.

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

RN081115/F


Page 6 of 7

11. Signatures. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties to this Sublease through their duly authorized representative have executed this Sublease on the dates set out below, and certify that they have read, understand, and agree to the terms and conditions of this Sublease.

WYOMING WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ________________________________ _____________________ Floyd Canfield, Chairman Date ________________________________ _____________________ Nick J. Bettas, Secretary Date Attest: __________________________

STATE OF WYOMING ) ) ss. COUNTY OF _______________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __________ day of ____________, 2015, by ______________________________________.

______________________________________ Notarial Officer

(Seal, if any) My Commission expires: ________________.

RN081115/F


Page 7 of 7

SUBLESSEE ________________________________ _____________________ Matthew Myers Date ________________________________ _____________________ Natasha Myers Date

STATE OF WYOMING ) ) ss. COUNTY OF _______________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __________ day of ____________, 2015, by ______________________________________.

________________________________ Notarial Officer

(Seal, if any) My commission expires: _________________.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE APPROVAL AS TO FORM ________________________________ _____________________ S. Jane Caton, Date Senior Assistant Attorney General The Sublease date is the date of the last signature affixed to this page.

RN081115/F

EXHIBIT “A” SUBLEASE BETWEEN MATTHEW AND NATASHA MYERS

AND THE WYOMING WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Page 1 of 1

Exhibit A

Matthew and Natasha Myers

Sublease

Resurveyed Tract 89, Section 16, T15N, R88W, 640 Acres Resurveyed Tract 68, Section 20, T15N, R88W, 640 Acres; Resurveyed Tract 69, Section 21, T15N, R88W, 640 Acres; Resurveyed Tract 75, Section 28, T15N, R88W, 640 Acres; Resurveyed Tract 76, Section 29, T15N, R88W, 320 Acres; Carbon County, Wyoming.

RN081115/F

EXHIBIT “B” SUBLEASE BETWEEN MATTHEW AND NATASHA MYERS

AND THE WYOMING WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Page 1 of 1

Exhibit B

Matthew and Natasha Myers

Sublease

Exhibit C STATE OF WYOMING

GRANT OF EASEMENT

Easement No.6420 High Savery

WHEREAS the Board of Land Commissioners approved this grant of easement on May 16, 2001;THEREFORE, the State of Wyoming, acting through its Board of Land Commissioners (Grantor), for and inconsideration of the payment of Two hundred sixty-five thousand ninety-four and 80/ 100 dollars ($265,094.80)hereby grants and conveys to Wyoming Water Development Commission (Grantee), to use for permanent use, inthe following described tract of land for a reservoir, access roadways and wetlands purposes only, moreparticularly described as follows:

Parcel l

All that portion of the of Tract 89 (Originally Section 16), Tract 69 (Originally Section 21 ) and Tract 68(Originally Section 20), of T. l5N.,R.88W., of the 6th P.M.,, Carbon County, Wyoming, being describedon the attached exhibits A, B & E. The described land contains 657.9 acres, more or less.Parcel 2

All that portion of Tract 76 (Originally Section 29), Tract 75 (Originally Section 28), Tract 69 (OriginallySection -21 ) and Tract 89 (Originally Section 16') of T. 15N'.,R.88W.,- of the 6" P.M., Carbon CountyWyoming being described on attached exhibits C & D. The described land contains 9.22 acres, more orless.

See attached Exhibits A through E inclusive

These descriptions are based on a survey done by and under the authority of, Paul A. Reid with Wyoming PLSNo. 2927 in February of 2006 and Victor E. Anderson with Wyoming PE No. ?471 in December of 2005.

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD this easement across the above-described tract of land for the purpose oflocating, constructing, using, maintaining, improving, and repairing the above-described reservoir, roadways andwetlands, subject to the following conditions:

1. The rights granted herein shall forever be subject to the rights of the Grantor, its assigns or lessees toexplore for, develop, and extract any and all minerals or other subsurface resources beneath this easement.If required for mineral exploration, development or extraction, the Grantee shall, upon written notice from theGrantor, remove or relocate at its own expense the above-described reservoir, roadways and wetlands.

2. Upon abandonment or discontinuance of use of this easement for the purposes specified above, all ofGrantee's rights under this grant of easement shall revert to Grantor or its assigns, the same as if this granthad never been made. Failure to report to Grantor the status of the use of this easement every ten yearsfrom the date of this grant shall be evidence of intent by Grantee to abandon this easement. Should thiseasement be abandoned by Grantee, the above-described tract of land shall be returned to a conditionsatisfactory to Grantor.

3. This easement may be transferred, however, no transfer may increase the burden on the servient estate inany manner.

Any transfer of ownership of this easement, or any change of name or mailing address of the owner ofthis easement, shall be reported to Grantor within thirly (30) days of the transfer or change.

The State of Wyoming and the Board of Land Commissioners do not waive their sovereign immunity byentering into this agreement and specifically retain immunity and all defenses available to them as sovereignspursuant to Wyo. Stat. § l-39-104(a) and all other law.

4.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Board of Land Commission)President and countersigned by its Secretary, and its seal to be

caused

on thi

ent to be signed by itsday of April,;2006.

,(.Se@l)>%S'. 1,I-li,%%? :, s

%ai I a l b %.a

l ,I (0 'a',*

s.@'#

cr, %'lcr*

==',,SV-.-.,.-"r?''/ '? i

*I, 0 r .ot(:o-.?.:%}I

I,,,L:, :I-.,l:}l?16"'Lll

Countersigned:

/? /Governor, PresidentBoard of Land Commissioners

D,i9oiOffice (

?r, Secretary (,/of State Lands & Investments

Attorney General's Office Approval @s to Fortn:

'??iniii, gsistant Attorney General z Examined

0 9 l 9 9 'a??l .5

Linda A.B-1104

srnith,P-0164 05/30/2006 11:38AM PG lgfl2. Fee?41.00CARBON COUNTY CLERK

%.

T.15N., R.88W., 6THP.M.CARBON CO., WYOjk41Wv

State of WyomingEasement No. 6420Exhibit A l of 2

589"57'E 5276.0'l-€ '1

oS"8

s

*S7

AkXl rM.ua.*'

sCxLE: 1" = 1000'

@5'@

b'Cqk

',-

@ : FOUND 90 BRA55 CAP

o=sEARCHEDFORNOTFOUNDPROTRACTED tuRNER

?*, ,'::.'}:i!:,i

)41a ,-.. JIIW' ,

/

0919925

Linda A.B-1104

smith,P-0164 05/30/2006 ll:38AM PGCARBON COUNTY CLERK

'Th4 of 12 Fee q 41.00

H5ACRE4.DRG/ 45A CRE ZA K

SHEETjOF2

TRACT 89

iY':k%sxvopyoxua @

('11

p%521.2 ACRES (NORTHOF FEAjtE) 51 a34a5

213.8'-1 iiS8r52'W 46857r--------"C"--- -" - '-"- -

EXIS7TN6 FENCE uNE

1 ,'=i Th'm l['-i 'l

%ln-,IpYS

sI58r54 'W is eie.l i

" x l,sooosv' .-t% ' 138. 6 a589 5 578.4 a1. 8 A€RE5 (NOR TH OF FEME)ll

TRACT 69A€REA&E TMIULA 7TON NOR TH OF FENCETRMT89 521.2A€RE5 (5HEET10F2)

TRMT6rl 1.8ACRES (SHEET10F2)

TRA T 1 4 ACR (SHEET20F2)

TOTAi.' 657.9 ACRE5SUR VEY AND ACREAGE DETERMINA TION BY:

Xo,,61 Lar) q a,o,/ q>'4LA-% g'b,J-

Q

Dme, a.'€fro.Hs# .-' , .,' r. , ,i.l;,

. 7l . -,

J--r

'%. '

State of WyomingEasement No. 6420Exhibit A 2 of 2

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

I#

il?? -???.j? , h - X-

4a

921.2'

/ sgrww)h-

/".4y

41 f&Q/-

9/ k4!- sTh

]

% 7 -

N y6.'#/ .m

%4

EXI5 7TA6 FEAJCE LINE

T.15N., R.88W., 6THP.M.CARBON CO., VVYOMING

TRACT 89

N89'40E 5284.7'

TRACT 69$1;,';F.Pl)!ll!

134. 9 A€RES (NOR TH OF FENCE)

dl'

TRACT 68 ;lb

SCALE: j" . 1000'

@ : FOUND GLO BRASS CAP

O = SEARCHED FOR NOTFOUNDPROTRACTED CORNER

ACREA&E TAgULA TION NOR TH OF FEME

TRACT68 .....134.9 ACREs

SUR VEY AND ACREAGE DETERMINA TION aY: 6mh,l'

7.,..!#i&

l/

!'ffi#,

k<:

0919925Linda A.

B-1104

Srnith,P-0164 05/30/2006 11:38AM PG 3ofl2 Fee:741,00CARBON COUNTY CLHiRK

HSACRE5 r)RGutJrW74J'

SHEET 2 oF 2

.-? %-%.

State of WyomingEasement No. 6420Exhibit BLEG-AL DESCRIPTION

TRACT 89

A portion of land being located northerly of an existing fence line located within TRACT 89 ofTownship 15 North, Range 88 West, of the 6th Principal Meridian, Carbon County, Wyomingbeing more particularly described as follows:Beginning at the Northeast corner of said TRACT 89, said corner being a found standard G.L.O.Brass Cap; Thence SOo02'lV along the east line of said TRACT 89 a distance of 3956.6 feet tothe found standard G.L.O. Brass Cap; Thence continuing along the east line of TRACT 89,S lo34'E a distance of 213.8 feet to the intersection of the east line of TRACT 89 and an existingfence line; Thence S89o52'W along said fence line a distance of 4685.2 feet; Thence SOo03'Walong said fence line a distance of 1175.3 feet to the intersection of the south line of said TRACT89; Thence along the south line of TRACT 89, S89o54"JV a distance of 578.1 feet to thesouthwest corner of said TRACT 89; Thence NOolO'W along the west line of TRACT 89 adistance of 5363.O feet to the Northeast corner of TRACT 89, said corner being a found standardG.L.O. Brass Cap; Thence S89o57'E along the north line of TRACT 89 a distance of 5276.O feetto the Beginning of this description.The above described portion of land contains 521.2 acres.TRACT 69

A portion of land being located northerly of an existing fence line located within TRACT 69 ofTownship 15 North, Range 88 West, of the 6th Principal Meridian, Carbon County, Wyomingbeing more parti;ularly described as follows:Beginning at the Northwest corner of said TRACT 69; Thence N89o54'E along the north line ofsaid TRACT 69 a distance of 578.1 feet to the intersection of a fence line; Thence SOo03'Walong said fence line a distance of 138.6 feet; Thence S89o55'W along said fence line a distanceof 578.4 feet to a point on the west line of said TRACT 69; Thence North along the west line ofsaid TRACT 69 a distance of 138.4 feet to the Beginning of this description.The above described portion of land contains 1.8 acres.TRACT 68

A portion of land being located northerly of an existing fence line located within TRACT 68 ofTownship 15 North, Range 88 West, of the 6th Principal Meridian, Carbon County, Wyomingbeing more particularly described as follows:Beginning at the Northeast corner of said TRACT 68; Thence South along the east line of saidTRACT 68 a distance of 138.4 feet to the intersection of a fence line; Thence S89o56'W alongsaid fence line a distance of 921.2 feet; Thence S49o21'W along said fence line a distance of1845.3 feet; Thence S63o31'W along said fence line a distance of 1248.4 feet; ThenceN70ol6'W along said fence line a distance of 1047.8 feet; Thence 'N76o40?';W along said fenceline a distance of 586.8 feet; Thence S52o 12'W along said fence line a distance of 396.2 feet to apoint in the west line of said TRACT 68; Thence NOo06'E a distance of 1605.O feet to theNorthwest corner of said TRACT 68; Thence N89o40'E along the north line of said TRACT 68a distance of 5284.7 feet to the Beginning of this description.The above described portion of land contains 134.9 acres.

All of the above described lands of the State of Wyoming contained within fl 69 and

?68 of said Township 15 North, Range 88 West contains 657.9 acres.

The above described lands are based upon a field survey anddescribed above by Paul A. Reid, Wyoming PLS 2927

!A ; " '1??

D0

S

W

a)-

5a;Ib

(".Jr-l

LHC:

'a'

0CU

a

;tCC{)Y;1

1111

t-Ir-I

'D !&Da:OWr-l J

%,[)0

C'i:>'%E-11?> 20:)

0(I

<;?,IJ) jajr4gDW14

CLIU

'@'-.

0..Cr-14Jr-l -FIL s

a:l (Ji

iQ d,C%:Ic'i oM'Ctra4C("i ?r-l0..J

,Dale

'V?u?:

T. 15 N. R. 88 V. 6th P.M.

CARBON COUNTY, VYOMINGTRACT

68

n

l

State of WyomingEasement No. 6420Exhibit C 1 of 4

TRACT69

?m

aol":iisb

5110 o

is

10(10 ll]?

SCALE 1' = IG)00'

2= AL

-LS 544-

'mACT

76l

'l--i

d?s, 2,

.-'g!)

%89a5'j25"%?';?402.4' n'

??!rb *y%,y

89 59 25 (4 ?bi

.<l/t2r

.hy

A)/X'/

-'.

1

2aa AL CAP=LS 544"

'U,7?'z

XoxkTRACT Oo?o82

'Qg

s%,$?

I)ETAIL "A"

1"=5?O'

/

/

TRACT/

/

/

/

/

76/

/

/

/

/

.(l//'Q'>lCh

')l-i")/l}

.>"L

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

i

/

/

/

/

N34aSTE A.(l// 8x4'S %'iA,?

9l9'X <

<">k'

&'i Q+Tt.+ = rm

OxOo

<o

SEE I)ETAIL 'A'

TRACT

82

Cry ?

A

*

o

TRACT uNE

CL EX[STING ROAD ANn CENTEFLjNE OF 3Gl a RCWI EASEMENT

(15' ON EACH S[DE (r CENTERLO[)

TRANSlTlON POINTS (PlPC,PT)

FajM] MCNJ[NT A5i NOTED

CALCLLATED P€llNT (NOTHING FGJ4D. NOTH{NG SET)

A/ qa

e,?0

%x8e.,

TRACT

75

iQRV5Y(IRS STATMENT. PAIIL A. RElD, ?REBY STATE THAT l A)l A REGjSTEREn PRCFESSIONAL LAN]) SuRVEYORN THE STATE OF MY041NG ANn THAT THIS PLiiT REPRES[NTS A F[Eu) SlJ'lVEy PERFCIRME[]IY ME OF THE E)aST[ ROAD CENTER L[ ON THE BASIS OF- MY [NFORMATION. KWLEDGEWD BEL[Er. I BELIVE THIS PLAT TO E TRUE ANn (ff!RECT.

oALL A. REID, PLSiY(:MING PLS Na 29F!7

?Y;?,

e4,'v ?il

0919925Linda A.

B-1104 P-0164 05/30/2006Smith, CARBON COUNTY CLERK

11:38 AM PG50fl2 Fee !? 41.00

aaT 1 (F 4

mACT

76

[

68

T. 15 N. R. 88 V. 6th P.M.CARBON COUNTY, !/YOMING

.y lQl

,r:r

84,6s4 ,riagas8'iia'w AW ?'.'6?3+84.5

i

h.l3a26a23-/

k RADIUS=l651.4'i ARC=387.4'

j' s,,x9)

4

!,4 6,,.,Cb>.k/!s,%

%/i@

A,7j??") 'IJ.

)z,Q?' ?>o

j-/

/

7 F#

TRACT

TR!CT69


GLO BRASS CAP

75 ,b'

0

'Xg

A

*

o

TRACT LINE

CL EXIST?NG RaAD WD CENTEFILINE OF 3t} ' ROAD EASEMENT(l'5' ON EACH SIDE (F CENTERLINE)

TRANSfT?ON POWS <PlpC.F'T>

FOUN[l M[)NUMENT AS NOTED

CALClLATal POINT (NOTHING FCu4D. N[]THING SET)

Sf%TYORS STATMENT[. Pat A REI!1. HEREBY STATE THAT [ AM A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SLFIVEYCIRIN THE STATE (F %IYOMING ANn THAT THIS PLAT REPRESENTS A FIELD SURM:Y PEFFORMEDBY ME OF THE EXISTING ROAD CENTER L[NE. ON rHE BASIS OF MY l?tDFhATlm KN[]WLE%EAND BELIEF. l ?rVE THIS PIAT TO BE TRUE MD CORRECT.

IIXiml

SCALE 1' = lm'

2Th

piu? A FEID, PLSWYOMING PL.S NO. a!7 ?

',#,'V'?h'

0919925 B-1104P-0164 05/30/2006 11:38AM PG 6ofl2 Fee041.00Linda A. Srnith, cuRBCm COUNTY CLERK

a e (F 4

l

T. 15 N.

CARBON

R. 88 V. 6th P.M.

COUNTY, VYOMING


(;LO EIRASS CAP'1

GLO BRASS CAP

TRACT

59

TRACT

68

A

*

o

(,LO BRASS CAP * ,'TRACT /

/

69 ,,@.6J

sk

?C

X

ltg'9

M

TRACT u*

CL EXISTING R(]An AND CENTERLINE OF 38 a ROAn EASE)elT

(lal ON EACH SI[ ff CENTERL[NE)

TRANSIT[ON P01NTS (P[.PC.PT)

FJJn WNT AS F€3TED

CALCU?ATJ PO[NT (NOTH[NG FaJiD, NCITH?NG SET)

GLO BRASS CAP

SURVgYQRS STATMENTI. PAAL A REID. HEREBY STATE THAT l A!'l A REGlSTEREn PKFESSlONk LAND SuRVEyOR[N THE STATE CF WYG4lNG AND THAT THIS PLAT REPRESENTS A r[ELn SLFIVEY PERFORMEnBY )4E (F THE EXISTTNG RaAD CENTER LINE. CN THE BASIS OF MY INFORMAT[)N. KNO!jLEDGENMD BELIEF, I [LIVE THIS PLAT TO BE TRLE A)a) CORRECT.

"j) o IIIDO 2?

SCALE 1' = 1008'PAuL A. REn?. PLS

MYOMING PLS N:l. 8927

?.'V';?h'

's:0

0919925Linda A.

05/ 30/ 2006B-1104 P-0164Srnith, CARBON COUNTY CLERK

11:38 AM PG7of 12 Fee '2 41.00

SHEET 4 oF 4

l ' 71

/

/

/

/

/

/

/,(u

. ;/

.%*'"'h9%

,r.u/

TRACT ,/

89/

i //.///

/

/cor'rcccuopo/FENCE/ 4CL GATE AT DAM SITE l33+g3-j41-7 3 sSalNl4l5aW lz

14 5 0 ' "7 I ',:5.1QQ4

l126+"""

21> @o.l ""."i ' F 122a :AD":S':=:8':)7.0') N8905.T3'JlE 4 ARC=96.5a.......... ..... ......... (

m

T. 15 N. R. 88 !/. 6th P.M.

CARBON COUNTY, VYOMING

TRACT 59

GLO BRASS CAP

TRACT

68

TRACT

76

I1.!0.1

pI

?l-l

?/.

/

A/6

' sq..'9)

sagas.iaxgow

?RACT

75

TRACT

89122.92.6

p.c.

State of WyomingEasement. No. 6420

Exhibit C 4 of 4

1

lGLO BRASS CAP

A

*

o

TRACT L[NE

CL EXiSTiNG ROAD AND CENTERLINE CIF 39 ' ROAD EAS€[NT

(15a (al EACH SInE CF [.ENTERL{NE)

TRANSITION POINTS (F!.PC.PT)

FOUND )4[)NG[NT AS NOTJ

CALCuLATED POINT (NCITH?NG FOlNn, NOTH[NG SET)

SURVEYORS STATMENT

I. PAlL A. REm. HEREBY STATE Tl-rAT [ AM A FIEG?STERED PROFESSik LAND SU'lV[YORIN THE STATE OF MYOI?NG AND THAT THIS PLAT R[PRESENTS A F[aD SUIVEY P[RFORMEDBY ME (F THE EXISTING ROAn CEfflER LNE. ON T+€ BA!JS OF MY INFOR)4ATiON, KNOVLEDGEAND BEuEr. I BELIVE THIS PLAT TCI BE TRLE NID CORRECT.

sat o

r*

101)0 20110

PAJ? A. REm. PLS

VYaM[NG PLS Na !F!7 ??-l'

4ka

.'VY?h'

SCALE 1' = 1000'

WIT 3 (F 4

0919925Linda A.

B-1104 P-01(=i4 05/30/2006 11:38 AM PG 8Srnith, CARBON COUNTY CLERK

of 12 Fee e 41.00a%'

" j380.j ' t2i+96.3 'l

I b-45'53'31'al RADluS=807 [1, ARC=646.4a

-e,, /').g 5 + s

'l/6, & OA=2741'38' ' i,RADluS=l3955' t ASARC=552.7 / "" 9/ li '9/ %O E',c ,O>

)'4s3r/r%/Q):.-A/,Cn

a'X: 'e'o-" RACTT /

/

.,,, /i5-k

.v'v

690 ,:) 91.'F A" 'ak2,40-

k a9%.Cl l 14.o' r92N)# ihk ,y.: ,' a. 85 + 26 J

::@

2 l@A,'F a' + 36. J':' 51v

4/6.6o.,l

l.lul$,iyaC)5 1 o)2, -' A=2'56a50Q,7 t yRADIUS=l65l.l' 6<, i l ARC=a+.g89.< i sagaba'tt.'ac f%,/ , , J

M

.>' - >

State of WyomingEasement No. 6420Exhibit D l of 2

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

An easement being located in TRACT 76, TRACT 75, TRACT 69, and TRACT 89 of Township15 North, Range 88 West, of the 6th Principal Meridian, Carbon County, Wyoming, said easementbeing 30.00 feet wide, 15.00 feet on each side of the following described road centerline.

TRACT 76 Portion:

Commencing at the Southwest corner of said TRACT 76, said corner being a found 2? aluminumcap monument, stamped ?L.S. 544?;

Thence N 89o59'25?E along the south line of said Trad 76, a distance of 402.4 feet to theBeginning of this described easement and road centerline;

thence N34o57'E, a distance of 214.3 feet;thence N33o08'E, a distmice of 637.1 feet;thence N33ol 5'E, a distmice of 3225.9 feet to a point in the east line of TRACT 76, said pointbeing the terminus of this described easement and road centerline and from which the Northeastcorner of said TRACT 76 bears N OoOl '40? E, 1,932.4 feet.

The above-described easement contains 4,077,3 feet or 247.11 rods, more or less, in length.

TRACT 75 Portion:

Commencing at the Northwest corner of said TRACT 75, thence S OoOl '40? W, 1,932.4 feet to theBeginning of this described easement and road centerline;

thence N33ol5'E, a distance of 292.3 feet;thence N34o05'E, a distance of 457.7 feet;thence N34o49E, a distance of 612.8 feet;thence N33o32'E, a distance of 545.6 feet;thence on a curve to the left, radius 1,651.4 feet, central angle 13o26'23?, a distance of 387.4 feet;to a point on the north line of TRACT 75, said point being the terminus of this described easementand road centerline and from which the Northwest corner of said TRACT 75 bears N 89o58' 11 ? W,1,230.4 feet.

The above-described easement contains 2,295.8 feet or 139.14 rods, more or less, in length.

TRACT 69 Poition:

Commencing at the Southwest corner of said TRACT 69, thence S 89o58' ll" E, 1,230.4 feet tothe Beginning of this described easement and road centerline;

thence on a curve to the left, radius 1,651.4 feet, central angle 2o56'50?, a distance of 84.9 feet;

0919925Linda A.

B-1104P-0164 05/30/2006 11:38AMSinith, CARBON COUNTY CLERK

PG 9 of 12 Fee !? 41.00

g?-v

State of WyomingEasement No. 6420Exhibit D 2 of 2

thence Nl6o38'E, a distance of 1,190.7 feet;,thence Nl5o51'E, a distance of 478.2 feet;thence Nl4o35'E, a distance of 390.O feet;thence Nl6o00'E, a distance of 385.7 feetthence N20o48'E, a distance of 262.2 feet;thence N24o28'E, a distance of 1,569.1 feet;thence on a curve to the right, radius 1,395.5 feet, central angle 22o41 '38", a distance of 552.7 feet;thence N43ol5'E, a distance of 251.9 feet;thence on a curve to the left, radius 807.O feet, central angle 45o53 '3 l?, a distance of 646.4 feet;to a point on the north line of TRACT 69, said point being the terminus of this described easementand road centerline and from which the Northwest corner of said TRACT 69 bears S 89o53 '39? W,3,380.4 feet.

The above-described easement contains 5811.8 feet or 352.23 rods, more or less, in length.

TRACT 89 Portion:

Commencing at the Southwest corner of said TRACT 89, thence N 89o53 '39" E, 3,380.4 feet tothe Beginning of this described easement and road centerline;

thence on a curve to the left, radius 807.O feet, central angle 6o5 l ' 1 7?, a distance of 96. s feet;thence Nl2ol8'W a distance of 406.6 feet;thence N9oOO'W a distance of 549.9 feet;thence Nl4ol5'W a distance of 145.O feet

to a point, said point being the terminus of this described easement and the intersection of theexisting road centerline and an east-west fence and cattleguard of the southerly fenced Savoy Damsite, and from which the Northeast corner of said TRACT 89 bears N26o40'4 l ?E a distance of4,673.O feet.

The above-described easement contains 1,198.O feet or 72.61 rods, more or less, in length.

All of the above-described easements across the lands of the State of Wyoming contained withinTRACTS 76, 75, 69, mid 89 of said Township 15 North, Rm'ige 88 West contains 13,382.9 feet or811.08 rods, more or less in length.

The above-described easement is based upon a field surveyand prepared by Paul A. Reid, Wyoming PLS 2927.Guard ?

g%.'. t

Date'q ? r

?'Y?0Mlug

0919925Linda A.

B-1104 P-0164 05/30/2006Smith, CARBON COUNTY CLERK

11:38AM PG 10 of 12 Fee Q 41.00

I

?.l

?l

,9%!E!

t/

'Va'3[s)zn'€,'

=,-9=',,4="0%'i

. ? '

W

,ltk'

ul

01

?.. <f

IJ)%o

laa

LEGAL DESCR?PTION:SE5TION: 16TgWNSHIP: 15NRANGE: 88W

N 3/4 ? *& aa 'Aklll 4'Q' oWETLANDS 9, 10, 11 AND 126AM-Af'4D SF'lLLWAYSP-fil-m61pAL SPILLWAYE*inGENCY SPlLLWAYOUTLET WORKS60isTR6* GAGING STATIONAC(,ESS ROADS

W----.. 0

'l r-ItS-.

l7

lg

IQ('-I()'ioS@,D

CFRTiFJC61TE QF FN(&jJ)STATt CF %/YaMXNa

SSCOUNTY CF LARAMXt

un?.wy km{ s@waii? lt%ms ?s ? Pw wh?wq ? s?m? pmawauyWr?k?.' / ,2!. lA?l?m

W I s

l u ww

fS!3'm W'fDpV

E--0 -

WlI l HIGH SAVERY DAM AND R[SERV[l?R-"a-" mh* r-ravr i ANn <;rrS>MVLKT umi"i rss*y - --.-?.L[]CATE]) nN STATE LAND SECT?aNSFACILITIES

SECTI€N 16

,@;j5?.'/'

S,,;/?7)"?VVYotJll'2

J)

l1

d

'l

l

)l'

'Jl'-7'7?

@lf

/j

J FENCE LIN Ia

7.

-='y

r-

,/'k

-'S

11l*

*'r

lt

oJ l? -1

7'- r /gT

LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NWSECTION: 20TOWNSHIP: 15NRANGE: 88W

1/4 ?0piS l(%Q? ltJ SFJJlQtJ 20:WETLAND 2 & 3DlVERSION STRUCTUREEROSION CONTROL STRUCTURESWETLAND ACCESS ROAD

%

l!a:i l('%l71(.'i a'!r-11C'i -i0.

CFWlC6JE QF FNGWFRl?

STAT€ CF VYClMZNa

CDuNTY ar LaAM!t:) ss

I, ? E, J?? ?y o?y ?t %wa pl*ns w? ?*? 'wy kw4 ? -*akss 84wsask x s? ?y ?,

74,, ? d.. .[,t.??'A * 4bA. ia;51 >p,io.r-@P . P.fflW'l ?'.'7@P'l.,'. ? ' .i.i' .. .i' .'. -.

?X.k

ghfig).,,?oVvtot&"?,s

vAaawa?r7 ll

w 'nas wi w@aw wawx v'nei mvwa nW m €JL(

r*

H!GH SAVERY DA?4 ANp RE:SjRVf?JRFACI!ITIES L[]CATEp QN S,TATE !AND SiCT?[]NS

SECTI€N ?0

l]

AMENDMENT TWO TO PROJECT AGREEMENT HAZEN DRAW PROJECT

PC NO. 05SC0294856

1. Parties. This Amendment is made and entered into by and between the Wyoming Water Development Commission [WWDC], 6920 Yellowtail Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002; and Hot Springs Conservation District [Sponsor], 601 Broadway, Suite A, Thermopolis, Wyoming, 82443.

2. Purpose of Amendment. This Amendment shall constitute the second

amendment to the Agreement between the WWDC and the Sponsor which became effective on March 16, 2012. The purpose of this Amendment is to extend the term of the Agreement through December 31, 2016. The original Project Agreement, dated March 16, 2012, required the Sponsor to complete design and construction of the Hazen Draw Project for a grant of not more than fifty percent (50%) of the total estimated project budget of up to ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000.00), or a maximum of TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00) whichever is less, with an expiration date of December 31, 2014. Amendment One, dated December 21, 2014, amended the original Project Agreement extending the term of the Agreement through December 31, 2015.

3. Term of the Amendment. This Amendment shall commence immediately upon the last required signature being affixed hereto, and shall remain in full force and effect through the term of this Agreement, unless terminated at an earlier date pursuant to the provisions of the Agreement, or pursuant to federal or state statute or rule or regulation.

4. Amendments. The third sentence of Section 4(D) of the original

Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: “The sponsor shall complete the project no later than December 31, 2016 and shall

have settled all claims and paid all project expenses by said date.” 5. Additional Responsibilities of the WWDC. The WWDC has not taken on

any additional duties due to this Amendment.

6. Additional Responsibilities of Sponsor. The Sponsor has not taken on any additional duties due to this Amendment.

7. Same Terms and Conditions. With the exception of items explicitly delineated in this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Agreement between the WWDC and the Sponsor, including but not limited to sovereign immunity, including all prior amendments to this Agreement, shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

8. Entirety of Agreement. The original contract consisting of five (5) pages, Amendment One consisting of two (2) pages, and Amendment Two consisting of two (2) pages, represent the entire and integrated Agreement between the parties and supersede all prior negotiations, representations, and agreements, whether written or oral.

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

9. Signatures. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties to this Amendment through their duly authorized representatives have executed this Amendment to the Agreement between the WWDC and the Sponsor, on the days and dates set out below, and certify that they have read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of this Amendment as set forth herein. This Amendment is not binding on either party until approved by A&I Procurement and the Governor of the State of Wyoming or his designee, if required by Wyo. Stat. § 9-2-1016(b)(iv). The effective date of this Amendment is the date of the signature last affixed to this page. WYOMING WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ___________________________________________ ________________ Floyd Canfield, Chairman Date ___________________________________________ ________________ Nick Bettas, Secretary Date

Attest: _____________________________________ ________________

Date

HOT SPRINGS CONSERVATION DISTRICT ___________________________________________ ________________ Jerry Lake, Chairman Date

Attest: _____________________________________ ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE APPROVAL AS TO FORM ___________________________________________ ________________ S. Jane Caton Date Senior Assistant Attorney General

Small Water Project Summary

Project Name: Hazen Draw Watershed Study: Buffalo Creek

Sponsor: Hot Springs County CD Funding Approval Date: 3/16/2012

Estimated Total Project Cost: $33,483.00 Project Expiration Date: 12/31/2015

Approved Grant: 50% up to $25,000.00

Description:

The Hot Springs County Conservation District applied for Small Water Project grant funding for the Hazen

Draw Project in December of 2011. The purpose of the project is to take water from an existing spring

development and add a solar pump, stock tanks, and 6,000 feet of pipe. The addition of the pipeline will

move livestock into an unused area of pasture while providing water to livestock and wildlife.

The project sponsor requested a contract extension in December of 2014 with the intent of completing

the project this summer before the contract expires in December. Unfortunately, with this summer’s wet

weather the landowner sustained flood damage at a different location of their operation. As a result, the

sponsor is now requesting an additional year to complete the project. This request would allow the time

necessary to repair the damage from the flood this summer and to install the new pipeline next summer.

Wyoming Water Development Office Projections

August 2015

WDA I 2015 Projection 65,699,000

Deduct: 2015 Omnibus Water Bills (32,303,172)

Deduct: Non-Project Appropriation Agency Budget (56,137)

Deduct: Non-Project Appropriation DWSRF (1,474,527)

Subtotal 31,865,164

Income Projected Actual Difference

Tax Income 19,300,000 19,297,500 (2,500)

Interest Income 2,200,000 2,677,807 477,807

Other 4,000,000 4,056,210 56,210

Subtotal-Income 25,500,000 26,031,517 531,517

Add: Reversions 2,086,763

Deduct: Reduced FY16 Projected Income (1,500,000)

Add: FY17 and FY18 Projected Income 48,000,000

2016 Projection 80,983,444

WDA II 2015 Projection 6,510,870


Subtotal (8,660,921)

Income Projected Actual

Buffalo Bill Account - 9,000,000 9,000,000

Tax Income 3,300,000 3,255,000 (45,000)

Interest Income 400,000 523,040 123,040

Other 1,700,000 3,101,368 1,401,368

Subtotal-Income 5,400,000 15,879,408 10,479,408

Add: Reversions 813,839

Deduct: Reduced FY16 Projected Income (700,000)


2016 Projection 11,332,326

WDA III 2015 Projection 171,594,916


Subtotal 153,116,916

Income Projected Actual

Tax Income 800,000 775,000 (25,000)

Interest Income 2,200,000 3,839,175 1,639,175

Subtotal-Income 3,000,000 4,614,175 1,614,175

Add: Reversions 15,931


2016 Projection 160,747,022

katie.talbott

Typewritten Text

Water Development Account I

Preliminary Fiscal Projections as of 8/1/2015

Cash Balance 6/30/14 107,438,276

FY15 Revenues

Taxes 19,297,500

Interest 2,677,807

Loans/Interest 3,721,875

General Fund 1,500,000

Other 334,335

Total Revenues 27,531,517

FY15 Expenditures

Total Expenditures (30,201,237)

Cash Balance 6/30/15 104,768,556

Outstanding Commitments 7/1/15

Active Appropriations (196,567,527)

Expenditures Paid 99,282,415

Total Commitments 7/1/15 (97,285,112)

Total Uncommitted Balance 7/1/15 7,483,444

FY16 Anticipated Revenues


Taxes 19,300,000

Interest 2,200,000

Other 2,500,000

Total FY16 Anticipated Revenues 25,500,000


Taxes 19,300,000

Interest 2,200,000

Other 2,500,000



Taxes 19,300,000

Interest 2,200,000

Other 2,500,000


Subtotal Anticipated Revenues 73,500,000

Balance Available for Appropriation 80,983,444

Water Development Account II


Cash Balance 6/30/14 18,805,540

FY15 Revenues

Taxes 3,255,000

Interest 523,040

Loans/Interest 3,101,368

Buffalo Bill Account 9,000,000


FY15 Expenditures


Cash Balance 6/30/15 28,558,230





Total Uncommitted Balance 7/1/15 (2,767,674)


Taxes 3,300,000

Interest 400,000

Other 1,000,000



Taxes 3,300,000

Interest 400,000

Other 1,000,000



Taxes 3,300,000

Interest 400,000

Other 1,000,000




Water Development Account III


Cash Balance 6/30/14 153,131,207

FY15 Revenues


Taxes 775,000

Interest 3,839,175


FY15 Expenditures


Cash Balance 6/30/15 158,763,754





Total Uncommitted Balance 7/1/15 132,414,522



Taxes 800,000

Interest 2,200,000



Taxes 800,000

Interest 2,200,000



Taxes 800,000

Interest 2,200,000




Wyoming Water Development OfficePreliminary Budget for Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018

Series 2015 Biennium 2017 Biennium100 - Personnel Services 5,527,733 5,827,564200 - Supportive Services 479,078 479,078300 - Restrictive Services 226,963 499,806400 - Central/Data Services 66,003 36,832500 - Space Rental 658,720 658,720900 - Contractual Services 1,029,618 1,182,392Computers 85,484 0TOTAL 8,073,599 8,684,392

Exception Requests 2015 Biennium 2017 Biennium1 - Gillette Madison Pipeline Project 25,792,000 02 - Computer Equipment 85,484 03 - Water Resources Data System (WRDS) (31,189) 152,744

2016 WWDC/SWC MEETING SCHEDULE

(Revised – July 2015) Date Day Program Item

NOVEMBER November 4, 2015 Wed WWDC/SWC Workshop (Casper) November 5-6, 2015 Thurs-Fri WWDC/SWC Joint Meeting (Preliminary Funding recommendations) (Casper)

JANUARY January 6-7, 2016 Wed-Thurs WWDC Workshop/Meeting (Final funding

recommendations) (Cheyenne) January 8, 2016 Friday Select Water Committee Meeting (Review draft

Omnibus Water Bills) (Cheyenne)

FEBRUARY February 8, 2016 Mon Legislative Session starts

MARCH March 3, 2015 Thurs WWDC Workshop (Cheyenne) March 4, 2015 Friday WWDC Meeting, Scopes & Short List

MAY May 2-5, 2016 Mon-Thur WWDC Consultant Selection Interviews (Cheyenne) May 6, 2016 Friday WWDC Meeting, Selection Approval

JUNE June 1, 2016 Wed WWDC/SWC Workshop (Cheyenne) June 2, 2016 Thurs WWDC/SWC Joint Meeting, Contract Approval

AUGUST August 17-19, 2016 Wed-Fri WWDC/SWC Workshop/Summer Tour/Joint Meeting TBD

NOVEMBER November 2, 2016 Wed WWDC/SWC Workshop (Casper) November 3-4, 2016 Thurs-Fri WWDC/SWC Joint Meeting (Preliminary Funding recommendations) (Casper)

Documents

Wyoming Water Development Commission/Select Water ...irrigation water shortages and the benefitting landowners are typically not organized into ... Water Development Account II Revenues