The LaPrele dam’s impending demolition brought tears to Connie Bowen’s eyes.
“We’re being emotional because, if we see that dam blow up, we’re all going to cry,” the LaPrele irrigator told lawmakers last week. “It’s been a part of my life. It’s not just a chunk of concrete. It has personality — and I know that sounds kind of silly, but it’s real.”
While a replacement dam is tentatively scheduled to be completed in 2029, the LaPrele Creek will freely flow without storage until then, and with that inevitability comes a cascade of uncertainty for the more than 100 LaPrele Irrigation District shareholders. The dam’s demolition has raised fears about losing water rights, increased flooding and regional economic decline. Some lawmakers also voiced concern about irrigators potentially being left out of the recent state breach order.
The Select Water Committee met last week to address issues stemming from the state’s Nov. 1 order to demolish the LaPrele dam 20 miles west of Douglas after years of monitoring of the deteriorating dam indicated it posed an immediate catastrophic threat.
The panel split a draft bill into two measures and agreed to continue the conversation in December. One bill proposes new stipulations — mandated economic analysis, public meetings and a vote by impacted irrigators — to the state engineer’s authority in issuing a breach order for dams or diversions. The other bill would help ensure that rights to stored water are maintained during construction of a replacement water-storage facility.
LaPrele irrigators, meantime, say they desperately need help from the state and federal agencies to secure funding for the dam’s replacement, which is estimated to cost $118 million or more, according to state officials.
“Coming up with the funding for that is almost impossible for just the irrigation district,” LaPrele irrigator Don Blackburn told the committee. “We need the assistance of the Legislature to help with that, or it just can’t happen.”
The state has set aside $30 million and has secured a $32 million grant from the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act for the dam’s demolition and replacement. The state hopes to win another $56 million in federal money.
The agricultural community that has relied on stored-water irrigation is also a major economic driver for surrounding towns where ranchers spend money to maintain and improve their operations, irrigator Shane Cross told the committee.
“I would like to see the state support the families and individuals that have made long-term, significant investments in their ranches for agriculture production and long-term, significant investments in their communities.”
The regional economic implications have already come into play, Cross added. Several years ago the state ordered the reservoir behind the dam be maintained at a lower level to avoid stress on the beleaguered Ambursen-style concrete structure, resulting in smaller late-season water deliveries and an estimated 33% reduction in hay production, he said. That has forced many buyers who typically rely on the LaPrele Irrigation District for winter stock feed to instead buy from out-of-state producers.
“This isn’t just a LaPrele issue,” Cross said. “This is an eastern Wyoming issue.”
Water rights under threat?
Without the normal, legally defined “use” of stored LaPrele Creek water between now and when a new dam is built, some fear that downstream irrigators — including in Nebraska — might push for an “abandonment” designation of the LaPrele Irrigation District’s water rights and attempt to claim those rights. Some LaPrele irrigators suggested downstream water users might even join potential legal challenges from environmental groups opposed to building a replacement dam.
Typically, a water right — including for stored water — can be challenged or determined “abandoned” after five years of non-use. But there are protections to retain a water right beyond five years of non-use for various circumstances, including for “time required in planning, developing, financing and constructing projects for the application of stored water to beneficial use which require in excess of five (5) years to complete,” according to state statute.
“We’re being emotional because, if we see that dam blow up, we’re all going to cry.”
Connie Bowen, LaPrele irrigator
The committee will consider a measure underscoring such protections. “No existing water right shall be subject to abandonment in part or in whole by a restriction or complete loss of water usage placed on it by the state engineer due to necessary repairs or breaching of a dam or diversion, so long as reasonable diligence is being made for repair or replacement,” the initial bill draft — Breach orders due process — states.
Wyoming State Engineer Brandon Gebhart said he supports the effort to clarify water rights protections and added he will be critical of attempts to declare LaPrele irrigators are abandoning their water rights.
“Considering the circumstances associated with Laprele dam, I do not intend to initiate such an action related to those water rights,” Gebhart told WyoFile.
Breaching authority
One measure of the Breach orders due process draft bill received criticism for potentially creating a months-long, arduous process that could, according to skeptics, delay immediate action that’s sometimes necessary to avoid a catastrophic dam failure.
The state engineer, who has the authority to issue a breach order, would be forced to analyze and document alternatives to a breach, provide economic impact analysis, hold a minimum of four public meetings and gain approval from the affected irrigation district before issuing such an order.
“If we’re required to go through these public meetings and all of these things, the thing that sticks in my mind is, in some of these situations, we may have hours or days to react to relieve or mitigate the situation,” Gebhart told the committee.
Committee member Sen. John Kolb (R-Rock Springs) suggested that LaPrele irrigators were caught off guard by the state engineer’s recent breach order, and he appeared to be unaware of the years-long crack-monitoring and ongoing consultation process between the state and the irrigation district.
“How did it get escalated from kind of, ‘We’re dealing with it,’ to ‘Oh, my God, we have to get a dam breach?'” Kolb said.
Several irrigation district members testified in support of requiring additional analysis before issuing a breach order, if there’s an exception to allow immediate action in an emergency, such as the case with the LaPrele dam. Though they’d hoped to avoid a breach order, district officials said that, based on years of consultation with the state and its engineers, they agreed it was necessary.
Fascinating. One constant over the centuries . . . . fighting over water rights!
But absolutely, if our collective dollars are supporting this, then public access is mandatory.
Have been denied access to fishing there my whole life.
No access no money from the tax payers
More handouts for the farmers and ranchers. I thought we were a state that believed us paying your own way. If my company has downturn I get laid off. That’s how it goes.
There are 100 irrigator businesses that benefit from the dams existence. The crop being irrigated is hay. While circumstances are different from those promoting a dam on the Little Snake River, the issues are the same. Do we want the government to spend what is essentially a million dollars of taxpayer money per irrigator so they can grow hay?
It seems to me that a business model that depends on handouts from the government for viability goes against the very grain of Wyoming’s individualism and politics of self-sufficiency.
There are so many places that $118 million in Federal and State monies could go that would benefit the community as whole, not just 100 businesses. Every town in Wyoming has infrastructure needs such as water main replacement, sewage disposal systems, internet. Rawlins could easily eat up that amount of money on their drinking water system.
Not replacing the dam will irrevocably affect the lives of at least 100 families and in a much lesser degree the surrounding region. If that’s the final outcome, the State needs to step in and support these families and communities in their efforts to creatively adapt to the change in how they support themselves. That effort should begin now. The State needs to let people vent, but then once venting winds down, begin exploring a future not dependent on government handouts.
However, the concern for 100 irrigator businesses should not be part of the discussion. As the article mentions, hay is available, it’s just further away, and therefore, costs more to purchase. Successful businesses will adapt. This is where traditional Wyoming values exist, not in government handouts.
I don’t know the public access situation at this dam, but if public money is used to rebuild it, the public should have automatic access to the area. The days of “free” money should be over. Also, what kind of fees do these hay growers pay? It seems that every year, irrigators are asking for public money.
Spot on.