Lawmakers are fighting over funding for a controversial dam on the West Fork of Battle Creek that flows into the Little Snake River, seen above. Ranchers in the basin support the plan but critics say it is too expensive and benefits irrigators in Colorado who have not committed to paying a share of the costs. (Ecoflight)

State Sen. Larry Hicks vowed Thursday to put an $80 million southwest Wyoming dam project back in a water construction bill after the House removed it along with a portion of its funding.

Hicks, (R-Baggs), made his pledge after the House, in a voice vote Thursday, stripped the bill of the proposed 280-foot-high dam in Carbon County’s Little Snake River drainage, along with $10 million to seed the project. The Joint Appropriations Committee had already cut $30 million from a proposed $40 million appropriation sought by the Wyoming Water Development Commission for the dam on the West Fork of Battle Creek.

The House action sends the water construction bill to the Senate with no mention of the West Fork dam. But Hicks vowed to revive the project. He chairs the Senate Agriculture, State and Public Lands & Water Resources Committee to which the measure was referred.

“We’ll put it back in when it comes over here,” he told WyoFile. “Heck, we might even put in $60 million.”

Representatives opposing the dam cited its high cost, its limited irrigation benefits and a water-development program that doesn’t prioritize projects according to costs, benefits and persons served. The proposed dam and reservoir would store 10,000 acre feet in Hick’s district, mostly to benefit between 67 and 100 irrigators.

That limited benefit and the fact that Colorado irrigators would see a boon but have not agreed to contribute funds created skepticism among House members.

Rep. Andy Schwartz

Supporters have cited $73.7 million in public benefits and proposed that Wyoming irrigators pay only 8 percent of the $80 million project, leaving the state to fund or find the $73.6 million balance. Wyoming has secured no permits for the proposed dam that would store water above the Little Snake River and Yampa, Green and Colorado rivers downstream.

A quarter of the water stored behind the dam “would go to the state to the south of us,” said Rep. Andy Schwartz (D-Jackson) who proposed the amendment to strip the last $10 million from the water construction bill. Wyoming’s money would be “benefiting people who are not paying,” he told colleagues Thursday.

“I do not think that this is a project that we should proceed with at this time,” he said on the House floor. There are better dam projects for water development money, Schwartz said. Also, the proposal costs more than what’s in a construction account and that account fills slowly.

Defenders fail to rally House support for West Fork Dam

Rep. Dan Laursen (R-Powell) sought to rally colleagues to keep the West Fork Dam alive, citing Gov. Matt Mead’s 10-in-10 program that would build 10 water storage projects in a decade. Funding the dam is necessary to encourage and obtain contributions from Colorado, he said.

Rep. Hans Hunt (R-Newcastle), chairman of the Select Water Committee, also supported the dam. “I would hate to derail this project,” he said. Appropriating only $10 million now “gives everybody a chance to step back to move forward …”

Funding could come from a Trump administration infrastructure bill, he said.  “In general, [we’ll] possibly not have to put up the original $40 million that was proposed,” he said. “When Wyoming has infrastructure, that’s a great thing. We can find funding from somewhere else.”

But supporters could not hold back a tide of opposition.

When projects are evaluated, they are not prioritized, Rep. Bob Nicholas (R-Cheyenne) said. “It’s first-in-line, first-in-right,” he said of the Water development funding system. “There was no analysis whether or not this was the best use of our dollars.”

The water construction account, which holds some $50 million, wouldn’t cover the cost, he said, and money would have to be taken from somewhere else. Further, the construction account replenishes at a rate of less than $1 million a year, unless supplemented by the Legislature, critics argued.

The reservoir would irrigate only some 2,000 new acres, benefiting only up to 100 irrigators. “This is not the highest and best use,” Nicholas said of Wyoming’s money.  Dam backers would say in the future “folks, we just spent $10 million on this so we have to move forward with it,” he said.

Water developers want the Legislature to construct an $80 million, 280-foot-high dam on the West Fork of Battle Creek south of Rawlins. This artist’s conception shows what the reservoir would look like in a Google Earth rendition. (Wyoming Water Development Office)

Appropriating $10 million would prolong “the bleeding,” said Rep. Mike Madden (R-Buffalo), a former member of the Legislature’s Select Water Committee. The project pencils out at a high per-acre cost, he said. Irrigation at $700 to $900 an acre is justifiable, Madden said. But with the West Fork project, “we’re talking 30- to 50 thousand dollars an acre,” he said. “This is totally inappropriate.”

For Rep. Lloyd Larsen (R-Lander), the plan is flawed in seeking to secure the necessary Forest Service property before obtaining environmental construction permits and Colorado’s fiscal participation. Before obtaining the land, “you would want to know that you have the project permitted … and the participation of the state to the south,” he said. Should the project falter, “we would pay a premium price for property that we would then have to dispose of at a discounted price,” he said.

Madden backed him up. “Government’s going to buy high and sell low if it doesn’t pan out,” he said.

Long history of water shifting in basin

Discussion of additional storage in the basin has been going on for so long that Rep. Hunt, who won election to the Legislature in 2010 before he completed college, said people asked him if he was even born when water planning in the Little Snake River drainage began.

Irrigators in the basin have said Wyoming owes them additional water storage after diverting flows starting in 1965 for municipal use in Cheyenne. Between 2007 and 2016 the Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities has diverted an average of 9,673 acre-feet annually through a three-quarter-mile-long tunnel under the Continental Divide, said Brad Brooks, the utility director.

Cheyenne, which operates the public Aquatic Center, gets some of its water through a deal that diverts flows from the Little Snake River drainage. Irrigators there say Wyoming needs to make up for the diversions and that a proposed dam on the West Fork of Battle Creek would help. (City of Cheyenne)

Wyoming built the High Savery Dam about 20 miles from the proposed West Fork of Battle Creek reservoir, in part to make up for Cheyenne’s use. Constructed beginning in 2001, High Savery Reservoir was first filled to its 22,433 acre-feet capacity in 2005. High Savery serves irrigators on Savery Creek, a tributary of the Little Snake River.

West Fork backers said the two reservoirs would be operated in tandem to benefit irrigators and fisheries, ensuring that trout thrive in cool water in late summer months.

Cheyenne’s water diverted from the Little Snake River Basin is held in the Hog Park Reservoir before flowing into the Encampment and North Platte rivers — both east of the divide. Through a paper transfer, Cheyenne then uses other water in the North Platte drainage for its municipal needs.

Never miss a story — subscribe to WyoFile’s free weekly newsletter

“It’s strictly a gallon-for-gallon trade,” Brooks said. Cheyenne secured rights to unallocated water west of the divide to enable the diversion, he said.

Cheyenne can fill the Hog Park Reservoir with up to 22,600 acre feet, Brooks said, but typically doesn’t. Diversions ranged from 18,000 acre-feet in 2008 to 6,353 in 2017, he said.

Andrew Graham contributed to this story.

Angus M. Thuermer Jr. is the natural resources reporter for WyoFile. He is a veteran Wyoming reporter and editor with more than 35 years experience in Wyoming. Contact him at or (307)...

Join the Conversation


Want to join the discussion? Fantastic, here are the ground rules: * Provide your full name — no pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish and expects commenters to do the same. * No personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats. Keep it clean, civil and on topic. *WyoFile does not fact check every comment but, when noticed, submissions containing clear misinformation, demonstrably false statements of fact or links to sites trafficking in such will not be posted. *Individual commenters are limited to three comments per story, including replies.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Well, I live in Senator Hicks county and I oppose the additional reservoir. Senator Hicks works and plays within the government as a member of Baggs conservation district, within the water phase of conservation…
    I thought Senator Hick’s worked for all of his district which is Carbon County? We have a water storage reservoir called East Allen, which for the most part was a great fishery in 1998, it produces economic growth for Easter Carbon County and provides recreation back then. Today, it is a flood irrigation waste pond, and as far as producing fish, the game and fish transplanted 50,000 tiger trout, well they disappeared down the irrigation ditches. What remains is Stickel back minnows and mudpuppies. The once thriving natural reservoir is for all practical purposes, not worth the Game and fish’s time.
    Senator Hunt out of Newcastle stated in this article ” when Wyoming has the new infrastructure that a great thing” really he ought to look at Wyoming and Senator Hick’s district. You see Senator Hunt there are the following communities that don’t have modern infrastructures, in the form of Natural gas. There is Dixon, Encampment, Elk Mountain, Riverside, and Savory. Senator Hick’s said he tried when he was elected to bring this matter up, but could only get 19 Senators to listen, so he just dropped the ball. I was on the city council in Elk Mountain in 2010 and was approached by a resident to see if I could get Natural Gas into our Community, so I did talk to Senator Hicks then, but I did not stop at his door. I pressed the issue with source gas and low and behold they agreed to come and look at Elk Mountain. They even provided a google map of Elk residents all hooked up, the cost was $1.3 to hook-up the town. Granted we’re not big, yet it would have been a new infrastructure and brought economic diversity to Elk Mountain. During that same time period, Elk Mountain received a new water treatment plant and purification system to the tune of 2.3 million dollars, which in all practical purpose had remaining funds of $800,000.00 which was spent on a redundant water line to cool the new wells through flowing it under the Medicine Bow River during the summer.
    Wonder why we never got Natural Gas because the hookup fee was $5,000 a house? I failed to do my all out homework, one detail left out was every Elk Mountain Resident had as recall ten years to pay off the hook already assigned to their heating bills. Well, missing that detail the Mayor struck fear into all the residents and Council just let it go down the drain, just like Senator Hicks. I bet if you total up the residents on Easter Carbon County that would like to have East Allen viable and Natural Gas, you’d see that Senator Hick’s does represent his Bagg’s District elite, yet does truly Represent his County, I vote No…

  2. Just what we need, another evaporation tank. How many olympic swimming pools would that hold? (the standard for water volume)

  3. We appreciate this excellent, detailed reporting and background on this complicated issue.
    Thank you, Mr. Thuermer and WyoFile.
    Susan Lasher & Chris Pfister