The High Savery Dam and reservoir seen in this Google Earth view was built to offset water diverted from the Little Snake River drainage toward Cheyenne. Water developers and irrigators want Wyoming to build another dam and reservoir about 20 miles away to impound more water in the Little Snake River drainage. (Google Earth)

Wyoming lawmakers kept the widely questioned $80 million West Fork Dam project alive Saturday, appropriating $4,698,000 to investigate and acquire Forest Service property for construction.

The sum would allow Wyoming water developers to pursue the proposed 280-foot high dam on the West Fork of Battle Creek in southern Carbon County for another two years, according to discussions among lawmakers who reached the compromise figure. The $4.7 million should cover anticipated expenses over the next two years as the state tries to obtain title to some 100 acres of federal property in the Medicine Bow National Forest, plus some private land owned by a mining concern.

Wyoming’s plan for developing the West Fork Dam calls for securing the land first, avoiding review under the National Environmental Policy Act, which governs projects on federal property. A NEPA review would outline the environmental impact of development, involve public input and allow advocates and opponents to weigh costs against benefits.

“What we’re looking for was a congressional land-transfer approach,” Wyoming Water Development Office Director Harry LaBonde told lawmakers last week. “In order to do that, you have to set up what lands [would be] acquired, and what lands would be offered in trade.”

In the case of water development on federal property, proponents usually must show a purpose and need, among other things. The Forest Service might require proof that an alternative can’t be found on private lands and that more efficient methods of meeting a demand — such as conservation and sprinkler irrigation — are not feasible.

U.S. Sen. John Barrasso. (Creative Commons/Gage Skidmore)

But federal involvement “adds millions of dollars to that [permitting] process,” LaBonde told lawmakers. “Dealing with the Forest Service … very much complicates the NEPA process,” whereas securing the property first “very much streamlines” potential development.“Five million [dollars] gets us through that land acquisition phase,” LaBonde told a legislative conference committee.

Dam supporters say the plan must be pursued expeditiously in today’s favorable political climate, which may be fleeting.

“We have a very, very short window,” said Sen. Larry Hicks (R-Baggs), a project backer who represents residents of the Little Snake River drainage.

“We don’t know if we’re going to have [U.S. Sen. John] Barrasso on [the Senate Committee on Environment and] public works. We may not be in a position two years from now to have the opportunity in Congress to push this thing through. The urgency is real here to try to get this land process, this stuff now.”

Tortured path cuts project funding by 88 percent

Supporters will pursue the land acquisition with only 12 percent of the $40 million commitment they initially sought. Senate backers salvaged the project after House critics stripped the West Fork Dam from the water construction bill, an unusual event in pro-water-development Wyoming.

Criticism from the House, and Senate skepticism too, came at a time when lawmakers are cutting education spending by millions of dollars as energy revenues dip. The proposed 10,000 acre foot reservoir would directly aid only 67 to 100 irrigators and provide new water to only some 2,000 acres. That led skeptics to characterize the project as a $700,000 subsidy to individual ranchers. The per-acre-foot price made the irrigation cost “more than the land itself is worth,” Sen. Cale Case (R-Lander) said. A $73,000 per acre-foot price tag “scares the bejesus out of me,” he said. The project would store water at 1,000 times the cost of other water in Wyoming, Sen. Bruce Burns (R-Sheridan) argued.

Not only is the project expensive and directly beneficial to few people, it would aid Colorado, which hasn’t agreed to share costs, a particular irritant to Cheyenne solons. An amendment cured that flaw, requiring a pro-rata share from that state and financial commitments before construction could begin.

Further, the project was justified on an economic analysis of benefits that drew doubt.

The reservoir above the Little Snake River would cost far more than the nearly $60 million in the state’s water construction account. That account fills at a rate of less than $1 million a year, a fact that troubled lawmakers who criticized the Wyoming Water Development Office and commission for not having a priority list of projects derived from any sort of cost/benefit analysis. LaBonde provided a priority list of five projects that have been fully vetted. West Fork was last on the list.

This cross section of a dam shows how the West Fork structure would be built so pollution from a copper mine upstream of the dam site would not accumulate in the reservoir. (Wyoming Water Development Commission)

But lawmakers were seeking an accounting of the 15 or 20 potential dams they said are significantly less expensive that provide what one House member said was “a better bang for our buck.” As Case framed the issue, “Why would we think this is a good idea when there are other projects we could be funding?”

Proposed to provide late-season irrigation plus environmental and recreational benefits, the 280-foot-high dam and reservoir would be built on the West Fork of Battle Creek above the Little Snake River. The proposal had strong backing from the Select Water Committee and the appointed Wyoming Water Development Commission after what was said to be a decade or more of planning and study.

Nevertheless, the project’s troubled journey through the House and Senate was remarkable for a water bill. Asked whether he had ever seen a water fight like this in his more than 20 years in the Senate, Sen. Curt Meier (R-LaGrange) told Rep. Mike Greear (R-Worland) “not like this.”

But the decade-long record of investigation alone justified continuing with funding and constructing the concrete West Fork Dam, backers said. They began to criticize the critics themselves. Elected lawmakers shouldn’t interfere once proposals get so far along, water backers said several times.

“Used to be somebody got shot”

Dam supporters took aim at water critics after the House cut the $40 million appropriation from the water construction bill and sent it on to the Senate where Meier lit into foes.

“It used to be that when we had an omnibus water bill hit the floor, somebody got shot if they amended it,” Meier told the committee, to chuckled response. “And maybe we need to bring that — something like that back.”

He called colleagues ill-informed and said they started the shooting battle.

“The people who did it had no idea,” Meier said of those who stripped the project in the House. “They didn’t hear any of the discussion of what select water went through, or the select Ag committee went through. They shot from the hip and I think did the work that we did on select water a grave injustice.”

Meier’s remark led a representative from the Wyoming Outdoor Council to pause before speaking about the dam’s shortcomings. He said he would make his comments “at the risk of getting shot…”

Meier later explained his gun joke. “It’s not actual shooting,” he said. “It’s like the legislator gets in trouble.”

Sen. Hicks, (R-Baggs) who works for the Little Snake River Conservation District in the Little Snake River drainage, called the opposition “extremely troubling” because of the work done before. “To in one hour make a decision that took eight years to get through the process — I think is a tremendous disservice to the people of Wyoming and all those entities involved….”

Lawmakers shouldn’t tinker with water development bills, Sen. Ogden Driskill (R-Devils Tower) said in conference committee meeting. “We need to get a precedent about ‘we’ll work this water bill and everyone leave it alone,’” he said.

The bill, which now requires Colorado irrigators to share costs on a pro-rata basis, goes next to Gov. Matt Mead, a water development advocate who counts the proposed 10,000-acre-foot reservoir in Carbon County as part of his “10-in-10” plan to build 10 storage projects in a decade. In an interview with WyoFile, Mead also complained about those who question recommendations proposed by an appointed commission serving time voluntarily.

“People will like and dislike the water projects as a project,” Mead said, “but I do think that the system on the water projects has generally been pretty good. But … if you go through and go through and then at the last minute you change and say ‘We don’t want project nine,’ that creates problems in the process in terms of why spend two years planning this if it’s subject to change at the spur of the moment.”

But Sen. Case rejected the contention that lawmakers should only rubber-stamp proposals. He dismissed one lawmaker’s contention that a member of the public didn’t even have standing to ask questions and that criticism at the Capitol came “a little late in the game.”

Debates in the Capitol, “this is our process,” Case told colleagues as they argued about the merits of the dam. “It’s not about years and years in the water development [system].”

This fat rainbow trout caught on Savery Creek is an example of the type of catch tailwater angling can produce. A 280-foot-high dam on the nearby West Fork of Battle Creek could improve fishing there and add to the public benefits that justify Wyoming spending more than $70 million, the Wyoming Water Development Office says. (Curtis Fry)

Wyoming has studied water development in the Little Snake River drainage before, starting as early as 1985 when the Sandstone Dam and corresponding 52,000 acre-foot reservoir were planned, but never built. Subsequently, Wyoming constructed the High Savery Dam and its 22,433 acre feet reservoir on Savery Creek, above the Little Snake River. Investigations for yet another reservoir in the drainage led water developers to settle on the West Fork Dam site, some 20 miles from High Savery.

But irrigators couldn’t afford to contribute to the project at the usual 33 percentage rate. That resulted in developers proposing a funding model in which the state would pick up more than 90 percent of the costs and fund a loan to ranchers for their share. To enable that funding, however, developers would have to show that the dam and reservoir would produce as much value in public benefits as the state was spending on the project — more than $73 million.

As Hicks described the project, it would depart from the usual template that pitted environmentalists against ranchers. It would not be undertaken unless it had an overall positive benefit. To that end, construction would enable new work to remediate abandoned copper mines without exacerbating pollution and possibly reducing it. A study touted recreation benefits and other boons to the community, including windfalls from the multiplier effect of creating additional forage and fishing on private and public land. In a change from earlier investigations, a 2017 study calculated the benefit of water returned to rivers from irrigated fields, counting it as being available to ranchers a second time.

But the critical funding study — the lynchpin in justifying construction of the West Fork Dam — became public only in October last year. So while Wyoming has been studying the Little Snake River drainage for decades, essential documents supporting construction of the West Fork Dam have been public for only about five months.

A makeup for water diverted to Cheyenne?

Wyoming owed irrigators in the Little Snake River drainage additional water storage after diverting flows from their basin starting in 1965, water office director LaBonde told lawmakers. The flows through a tunnel under the Continental Divide belong to the City of Cheyenne, which accrues additional municipal supplies for its residents in the North Platte River drainage.

There was an agreement, “I’ll call it a promise,” LaBonde said, to replace those diversions. High Savery, at 22,433 acre feet, first filled in 2005, was the first project to be completed under that promise, he said.

Although Cheyenne can fill its reservoir on the east side of the divide with as much as 22,600 acre feet, it typically doesn’t divert that much annually. The city’s Board of Public Utilities has redirected an average of 9,673 acre-feet annually between 2007 and 2016, an official said.

West Fork backers said the two reservoirs would be operated in tandem to benefit irrigators and fisheries, ensuring that trout, endangered species and other wildlife benefit. But the next phase of the Little Snake promise is not supposed to be undertaken until Cheyenne begins the third stage of its municipal diversion program, an eventuality that has yet to occur, Sen. Case said.

The real value of water

While dam supporters have promoted the 6,500 acre feet of irrigation water that would be impounded behind the West Fork Dam as necessary for late-season irrigation, there are other reasons to impound the flows, lawmakers said time and again throughout the recent legislative session. By storing water and claiming “beneficial use,” Wyoming accrues rights that protect the water from downstream interests keen on claiming their own shares.

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)

“If you don’t use [it] you lose it,” Senate President Eli Bebout (R-Riverton) told his chamber. Citing a sense of urgency, Sen. Dave Kinskey (R-Sheridan) pointed to geographic fact; “The water flows out of state – that’s the problem,” he said on the Senate floor. Phoenix grew and now bustles because of water once earmarked for agriculture, he said. “That’s our water.”

Wyoming might need to make a similar conversion, Kinskey said. “I would urge us, at every opportunity in Wyoming, to protect [water] from downstream appropriation. I would urge us to not be focused too much on the here-and-now [but] where future generations will be 50-100 years from now.”

Arguments about expense make sense “if this were a pure agriculture proposition,” Sen. Charles Scott (R-Casper) told colleagues on the Senate floor. But agricultural use is “a holding maneuver,” he said. “It will give us water that, as the state develops in the next 100 years is available for municipal use,” or even for mineral development.

“It gives us some water that we can preserve and not lose to the downstream states as they put their shares to use and take ours.”

The debates over the cost of the project and each acre-foot “are somewhat invalid,” Sen. Driskill said. The real values of our water are non-agricultural. The likely future use… will be for people to drink.”

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. Mr. Stewart you tout your credentials as having being a commissioner on the WWDC. Why did you not fix all the problems “we are now hearing discussions on how to fix a WWDC process that is abused and broken” when you where on the commission? You were also a legislator why didn’t you fix the problems then? Seems like you had substantial opportunity and many years to do something about the process you complain about now.

    Neither myself nor anybody else that I can see has obstructed or diminished your “free speech rights”. I just take exception to the ignominious and mendacious information you put forth. Now days I think they call it alternative facts, which are not facts at all.

  2. I would first like to thank Wyofile for accurate and verifiable reporting on this West Fork Reservoir Project.

    Currently, we find the only defense for this project is to attack those that question the notion that this is a good expense for the State of Wyoming. As someone who has questioned this project for over five years, I am puzzled why it has now come to attempts to stifle my rights of free speech, or others rights to exercise their rights, with insults.

    Perhaps the answer lies within the fact that, at the end of the day, criticism of this project turned out to be more than just one person exercising his right to free speech (for which some rallied to condemn) or about one person that almost killed a “good project.” This is more about how reason and common sense almost killed a very bad project when a bright light was shown on it by well researched reporting.

    I have to admit, I am so proud of the parallel conversations going on around the State at the moment regarding the questionable WWDC Study process that has allowed a bad project like this to gain traction in this highly competitive world of water development. Instead of trying to defend a project merely because it has gone through a multi-year process of hired consultants telling project proponents what they want to hear and then telling legislators they are to merely rubber stamp their approval, we are now hearing discussions on how to fix a WWDC process that is abused and broken. I do not believe the State should be able to implement poor water policy by virtue of wielding its’ large checkbook.

    Everyone can rest comfortably that this this one person will continue to scrutinize, question and comment on this bad project in the future at every step in the process. This will include providing comments on the flawed purpose and need analysis provided by the WWDC Level II Studies for this reservoir when the USACE receives an application for a 404 permit.

    Further, that I will provide future meaningful comments without resorting to insulting people that disagree with me.

  3. That $ 4.7 million of earnest money now cannot be used to investigate UFO abductions of cattle , underwriting the government-industry partnership to revive the Medieval Alchemy necessary to convert coal into diamonds ; the subsidizing of a statewide broadband network that runs thru existing barbed wire fencelines, or developing global markets for Wyoming sheep tallow — all much more practical investments than the West Battle Creek Water Wonderland.

    One small caveat is the desirability of cleaning up the environmental toxicity of the old Copperton mines. I wonder if Larry Hicks has taken any of his fellow legislators up to Copperton for a look-see lately. Once there, please videotape the presentation justifying the horrendous costs of this bogus dam for any and all non-agriculture water uses for the next century… how Wyoming gets its money back over the long haul from something other than literally making hay. There’s always been so much money to be made in growing hay as a cash crop in Wyoming …Not ! What else ya got up there ? 6500 acre feet is a pittance, and any purported ‘ beneficial use’ is pure conjecture at this juncture.

    The Bottom Line is there is no formula or algorithm that pencils out to positively justify investing State money in this dam project over any time scale for any perceived economic purpose , other than hoarding water as a hedge against climate change in Post-apocalyptic 24th century Wyoming .

    P.S. Nobody owns a single drop of water in Wyoming. So it’s really not ” our ” water…

    1. After reading Mr. Vanderhoff post a couple of quotes from Dr. Thomas Sowell pop to mind.

      “The scariest people to me are those people who do not realized how little they actually know.”


      “One of the painful signs of years of dumbed-down education is how many people are unable to make a coherent argument. They can vent their emotions, question other people’s motives, make bold assertions, repeat slogans– anything except reason.”

  4. One technical correction to my post above is the cost of the dam should be “depreciated” over 100 years not amortized.

  5. Just a couple question for the author?. You routinely “quote” from someone of dubious technical or educational background (Jeb Stewart) regarding water and irrigation that only “2000 acres would benefit from the project”. Yet in this article you cite that there would be 6,500 acre feet of irrigation water availed in the reservoir, which is accurate. And given that this reservoir will provide supplemental late summer irrigation water and crop water demand (amount of water it takes to raise a crop) ranges from 30 – 36 inches in the Little Snake River basin. And irrigation efficiency is approximately 50% (which means 50% of the water comes back to the river and can be re-diverted for irrigation) then how many acres could actually be irrigated? Its really pretty simple math. At a rate of 0.75 acre feet of supplemental water per acre (.075 acre ft. X 6,500) = 8,667 acres now with a 50% efficiency which means you can divert 50% of the water again after it returns to the river equals an additional 3,250 acres and 50% of that 1,625 acres and 50% of that is 812 for a total number of acres that could be irrigated is 16,250 acres assuming a rate of 0.75 acres feet of supplemental irrigation per acre and at slightly lower rate of supplemental supply you could service the entire 19,000 aces of irrigated lands in the basin.There are approximately 20 points of diversion on Battle Creek and the Little Snake River in the service area. Any doubt how many times the return flows will be diverted?

    Another point the author has never discussed is as to why a dam in Wyoming would supply water to Colorado. I would suggest he read Article XI of the Upper Colorado River Compact.

    With regards to the economics of the project if you have a project that has a cost of $7,300 dollars and acre foot and dam that has a life expectancy of 100+ you amortize the cost of the dam over the life of the project not one year. Also as discussed above it you are going place the cost on the number of acres to be irrigated it is not 7,300 acres it is approximately 16,250 acres. Now if you amortize the cost over 100 years life expectance of the project you get a cost per acre of around $45 dollar an acre for the capitol construction cost for the project. For comparison the State of WY and the City of Gillette have constructed a $217 Million dollar water project for 6,600 acre feet of water @ an average cost of of approximately $33,000 acre foot, $7,300 per acre foot seems kind of cheep.

    The arguments about the West Fork project are really not about this project but more about the anit-dam environmentalist that senator Case represents. The only organization the testified against the project is the Wyoming Outdoor Council whose office is in Case’s district.
    The other contingent in the legislature that has opposed the project arguments are nothing more than a “stalking horse” to sweep all the money out of Water Development Account III. The arguments they made against this project could be made for every dam currently keyed up or under consideration in WY. I will leave it to your own speculation as to why they want the money.