Wyoming water developers appear to be closing in on a land exchange between the state and the Medicine Bow National Forest to enable construction of a dam and reservoir above the Little Snake River Valley in Carbon County.
Wyoming lawmakers voted last Thursday to transfer $300,000 to the state land office to help complete a swap. The money would enable the Wyoming Office of Lands and Investments and the Forest Service to complete surveys, minerals reports and other elements necessary for the exchange, Wyoming Water Development Office Director Jason Mead told lawmakers.
A land exchange, which has stirred public interest and opposition, is critical to the proposed dam and reservoir. “In order to get our permits, we have to acquire that U.S. Forest Service property,” Mead told lawmakers.
A motion to approve the transfer passed without dissent at a joint meeting of the Legislature’s Select Water Committee and Wyoming Water Development Commission last week. The money comes from $4.2 million already allocated to the water office for the proposed dam on the West Fork of Battle Creek.
“If they can consolidate … there’s potential[ly] more revenue to state lands for schools.”
Jason Mead
Medicine Bow forest officials appear ready to sign and approve a feasibility analysis and public interest determination that could move the exchange forward, Mead told lawmakers.
“The land exchange process has gone through a feasibility analysis to make sure it can be completed through the Forest Service regulations and if it’s in the public interest,” Mead said. “That, I think, currently is awaiting signature.”
The signing of a report affirming the feasibility and public interest of an exchange would advance the process, Mead said. “The next step would be an ‘agreement to initiate’ … a 64-step process, literally to complete that land exchange.”
As the effort advances, forest officials cautioned that tasks so far represent “preliminary steps.” The Forest Service, after consultation with officials in Washington, D.C., stated in an email that it “has not approved or completed a land exchange,” and that “the process is in early stages and subject to further analysis and public review.”
A draft Environmental Impact Statement on the project, announced in 2022, is expected to be published early next year by the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service.
More irrigation in troubled basin
The West Fork dam is proposed to be a 264-foot-high, 700-foot-long concrete plug in a canyon just south of scenic Wyoming Highway 70 between Saratoga and Baggs. The reservoir would be about 130 acres and cover what is now largely forested land. About 44 irrigators have expressed interest in contracting for late-season water from the planned reservoir. In 2017, water developers estimated the dam would cost $80 million and hold 8,000 acre feet.
The drainage is in the Colorado River Basin, where states are scrambling to agree on new methods to share water in the face of climate change, over-promised supplies and dwindling flows. Wyoming believes it has not used its share of basin-wide water rights and is allowed to use more on hay and alfalfa fields.
To enable the dam’s construction, the state lands office proposed exchanging Wyoming school trust property for approximately 1,490 acres of National Forest land. The state lands office has identified “a number of state parcels,” Mead said.
“The majority of those [state] parcels that they’re looking to trade are actually in roadless areas — or what maybe used to be roadless areas,” Mead told lawmakers. “They’re very isolated parcels out in the middle of forest, and the access to them is very limited.
“So if they can consolidate those into this project location of West Fork Reservoir that has access from the highway,” Mead said, “there’s potential[ly] more revenue to state lands for schools.”
The exchange would have to be of properties that are of equal value, or nearly equal value, with a payment that would make up any difference.
Half of the $300,000 would be used by the state for its surveys and other work and the other half would go to the Medicine Bow for its share of the examinations.
Medicine Bow National Forest spokesman Aaron Voos in 2023 outlined his agency’s exchange process. “The feasibility analysis, report, and public interest are all inter-related,” he wrote. “That analysis will culminate in the report and public interest statement.”
“Input previously received … on the land exchange proposal has informed the feasibility analysis, and then subsequently the report/public interest statement,” Voos wrote in 2023. The Forest Service will not take more public input before releasing the analysis and public interest report, he wrote at the time.
What is the public’s interest?
It’s uncertain what elements the Forest Service has considered in determining public interest.
“There is some flexibility in how the report can be written and how ‘public interest’ is explained throughout the report,” Voos has explained in emails. “Regardless, ‘public interest’ is required to be addressed and will be heavily factored into the Forest Supervisor’s recommendation to proceed or not proceed.”
One gauge of public interest emerged when the Natural Resources Conservation Service announced in 2022 the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement that would examine the proposal. The agency received 936 comments, according to a WyoFile tally.
Dam proponents didn’t expect so much feedback. The state water office’s consultant assumed there would be 100 comments, “with only 40 being substantive.”
WyoFile’s count found 96% of commenters opposed to the West Fork plan. Many comments were simple statements of opposition.
The Forest Service will determine which comments will be considered in the public interest determination. That’s because federal agencies have a rule on what comments they consider. Only “substantive” comments are factored into the environmental impact process according to a primer on the procedure published by the Bureau of Land Management.
“Comments that are not substantive include: Comments in favor of or against an action without any reasoning (such as ‘I do/don’t like ____’ without providing any rationale),” the BLM primer states. In contrast, substantive comments “provide relevant and new information with sufficient detail,” the primer states.
As our planet warms, any water capture projects that will benefit stream flow should be considered as future resource conservancy. However, the greater area where this dam will be located is surrounded by deeded land dating from the Rudefeha mining district days at the turn of the 20th century—as such, public access is currently restricted to acres of land within the National Forest. Battle Lake (a naturally occurring storage reservoir) is an example of such a privatized resource. The land swap would be better accomplished to “buy back” some of that kind of recreational land. In the 1980’s they built the Hog Park Reservoir and diverted the stream flow from the Little Snake River’s Middle Fork through a 36 inch concrete pipeline to fill it, for the benefit of the city of Cheyenne. There has never been any substantial mitigation for that loss of western slope users’ water to eastern slope usurpers. A project like the Battle Creek Dam would at least be a step in the right direction to rectify that loss with something other than political promises never kept.
Leave the horses land alone, it was deeded to them and we will sue you if you keep catching them
They aren’t listening to the 96% against and those substantive reports were from conservation and water resource people. The land exchange is a joke. They are trading already denuded state land for an ecologically diverse area, that will also impact a sensitive water system below. It’s a crime.
I know must be something valuable there.
Ranching socialized . Next collective farms.
In Wyoming we hate socialism and welfare, unless of course it’s going to benefit a handful of ag folks.
Good news for everybody.
I spoke with the 43 landowner/irrigators that are asking us to buy them a reservoir.
They said they are happy to let us taxpayers hunt/fish/ hike and camp their private properties until their debt to us is paid off in 100 years as a show of their appreciation.
Just kidding around.
I have to say that I am a bit “soured” on these farmers/ranchers ever since that rich Easterner over on Elk Mountain shined a big light on how public lands have been closed off to the American Public for the past 100 or so years (i.e. corner crossing).
Whole lotta take and very little give.
Let’s just say that if our ‘legislators’ ram this through, the public should get access to the reservoir AND the tail waters below the dam.
I still continue to wonder, how does this water project benefit the public who own the land?
Not at all, in fact it penalizes the public by pickpocketing us.
My Wyoming, Carbon County neighbors “IF” you really want the “LONG & SHORT” of the matter/issue lookup/research: “The 1921 water compact act” we are being “grass fed” what we are supposed to be to ignorant about noticed I used the word IGnorant and not arrogant about and “We the people” yet get another view of DEMOCRACY at work… At this point I would hope you would recite the “Pledge of Allegiance” silently or quietly to yourself now, thank you for your attention to this point, SEMPRE Fi!
Could you be more cryptic, you are way to easy to understand.
You know, getting more beavers back into the streams in the Medicine Bow National Forest would do more to provide late summer water and cost a lot less. Beaver dams create wetlands that slow the release of winter snow melt and rain. The whole forest and down stream would benefit from biodiversity increases and later summer water profiles. There’s a good story for you, WyoFile ;o)
After reading several articles about this proposed project my takeaway is that the irrigators would like the tax payers to pay to feed their livestock. No thank you.
Estimated $80 Million price tag? That’s most likely conservative. How many years will it take to “break even”? Cost/Benefit just isn’t there. If the irrigators had to fully fund this project it would NOT happen. So why should the State of Wyoming fund it?
The State of Wyoming still does not, to my knowledge, have an agreement with Colorado for the water from this proposed reservoir. The water will travel through Colorado before it gets to Wyoming irrigators so what is to prevent them from diverting all the water to the front range.???
I wonder how supportive those 44 late season irrigators would be of this dam if they were asked to pay for a portion of the construction. I sat on the local landfill board for quite a few years and the people we represented had to pay a portion of the costs associated with a mandate from Wyoming DEQ to close our local landfill. The State did have grant money available but we had to have a stake in the costs so we raised our rates and covered our percentage. Nobody gave us a free ride.
If the estimate for this dam was $80 million in 2017 it must be at least $140 million today. That is a lot of money to dole out to 44 people for a second cutting of hay. Perhaps the 44 irrigators would be willing to finance say 20% of that cost. That would only be about $28 million or $636,000 per irrigator. Sounds like a reasonable commitment to late season irrigating. If they are willing to do that then I would be willing to support this boondoggle.
It remains to be seen if the wishes of the majority of Wyoming residents prevail or if this becomes a good old boys deal.
You could buy a lot of hay and truck it to WY for $800M. Heck, you could buy land in another state and truck the cows there for $800M. This dam in this spot doesn’t make any sense.
the bigger question is….. who will suffer from this dam ??? natural resources, natural habitat, the plants and wildlife that need the natural stream to survive…. years ago Florida interfered with the flow of water in the everglades and now struggles to return as much as possible to its natural flow…
Oh OK, the forest service can cherry pick the public comments. This sounds very trumpian. Your legislature is knifing you in the back- so that Colorado irrigators can make money by pick pocketing the Wyoming public.
more socialism for ranchers
Water. The one true environmental threat we face. I would be interested to learn what impact this would have on the ever shrinking Colorado River headwaters. If there is a true public benefit and low impact I would support it.
96% of comments opposed to this welfare project.
Why would people still vote for the clowns who ignore public sentiment?
And it will be right up to the wilderness area ,so if the developers have to do any stuff in the wilderness area are they going to do it all by horseback or foot travel? I do not support this project at all
I have property about a mile away from the proposed project. It is some of the best hunting/fishing there is around, it is very remote and on public land. I sure don’t see the benefit of totally destroying a remote public hunting fishing area for the few ranchers that it will benefit. Just my opinion.
This is the most ridiculous proposed.water project in the history of Wyoming. There is no public benifit for the land exchange. There is a benefit to a dozen ranchers. BIZARRE
I am inclined to agree with Mr. Dougherty.
The article states, “Wyoming believes it has not used its share of basin-wide water rights and is allowed to use more on hay and alfalfa fields.”
Does this unused “share” of Water Rights belong to the State of WY or to the individual ranchers who will solely benefit from this proposed reservoir?