As Wyoming plans to spend $250 million on two new dams, primarily for agricultural use, the state’s water office warned lawmakers that it will also cost hundreds of millions of dollars to restore existing irrigation canals and infrastructure.
Jason Mead, director of the Wyoming Water Development Office, outlined the state’s challenges in remarks Jan. 7 to the Legislature’s Joint Appropriations Committee.
“The real theme is just aging infrastructure,” Mead said. He reached that assessment after a survey of 10,000 irrigation structures revealed about 20% “in poor or failing condition.”
“When we put numbers to the top 30 most critical structures,” Mead said, “that dollar amount to rehabilitate or replace those structures [was] somewhere in the range of $200 [million] to $300 million.”
Municipal water infrastructure across the state is in “pretty good shape,” he said. But many plants are “original” — the first ever constructed by cities and towns — and are “getting to their end of life.”
“I feel we have a train wreck coming down the line.”
Tim French
Mead didn’t estimate those future municipal costs, but outlined other expenses the state is facing for proposed water development and maintenance projects.
The proposed West Fork or “Battle Lake” dam on Battle Creek above Baggs is expected to cost $150 million. An additional $100 million is estimated for the Alkali Creek reservoir proposed near Hyattville, Mead said.
The state has set aside $90 million to reconstruct the LaPrele Dam and about $42 million to rehabilitate the Goshen irrigation tunnels. The Goshen set-aside isn’t expected to cover Wyoming’s share, prompting questions from one legislator
Meantime, Gov. Mark Gordon wants $30 million to launch new small water development projects. Mead’s office itself is seeking $9.4 million to operate over the next biennium, a budget that doesn’t cover most planning and construction costs, which are funded by annual omnibus bills.
All that adds up to more than $700 million.
How or when the work would be undertaken is uncertain. Funding also is an issue. Water projects have been paid for by the state, by irrigation and municipal entities, and with federal funds.
Train wreck?
“I feel we have a train wreck coming down the line,” Sen. Tim French, a Republican from Ralston, said of the aging infrastructure. Another critic, Tim Gardiner, whose land neighbors the Alkali project, asked why Wyoming is taking on more when it’s facing existing challenges.
“Why would you bite off more than you can already chew?” he said in an interview.
Wyoming will apply for federal grants, Mead told lawmakers, but few leads are firm. Meantime, the state will push forward with its own money, starting when the Legislature considers water works funding at its budget session that begins Feb. 9. Lawmakers will debate appropriations for several accounts.
The $9.4 million for the Water Development Office biennium budget covers 21 staffers and their work. In addition, lawmakers seek $22.5 million for grants and $7.2 million for loans in the “Omnibus water Bill-construction” endorsed by the Select Water Committee on Jan. 21. That would fund numerous municipal and irrigation projects, including adding $1.1 million for more work on the proposed $150 million West Fork Dam on Battle Creek in Carbon County.
The committee also seeks more than $4.4 million in the “Omnibus Water Bill-planning.”
“I think our office has been as efficient as we can be,” Mead told the Appropriations Committee. “We’re really focusing on needs and trying to identify when sponsors want something, but it’s really not critical, and make sure we’re only paying for needs.
“We understand funding is limited,” he said, so the office has reduced many of its grants from 67% to 50% of a project’s cost. Now, sponsoring entities like towns and irrigation districts will pay half the cost of many projects, often backed by Water Office loans.
Holding the bag
Major projects, like the $250-plus million for the proposed dams at Alkali Creek and the West Fork of Battle Creek Dam, are sought to be funded almost entirely by the state. Federal funds for those remain elusive, Mead told lawmakers.
“There’s been a billion dollars set aside for Bureau of Reclamation infrastructure,” he said, “but all the rules and regs and how that’s going to operate, nobody knows yet. None of that’s been provided.”
Nevertheless, rehabilitation is ongoing at the Goshen tunnels without a firm federal financial commitment, Sen. Ogden Driskill, a Republican from Devils Tower, said.
“When you get to the end, if we’re short $60 million, somebody’s got to pay,” Driskill said. Who is “going to get left holding the bag?” he asked.
“We’re on limited budgets here,” Driskill said. Parts of the state could be shortchanged because “we’ve drained our accounts out to do one district.”
His comments mark Driskill’s continued dissatisfaction with water office operations, including ballooning estimates at Alkali Creek. There, the office gave $1.6 million to the Nowood Watershed Improvement District, which bought only some of the property and easements necessary for development.
Several landowners have not granted easements for the proposed dam and reservoir, stalling the project as inflation exacerbates the situation.
Driskill called for changes, asking for lawmakers to investigate water office procedures as an interim topic after the budget session. He wants things changed to prevent Alkali-like delays.
“When a sponsor comes and they’re going to irrigate a bunch of ground, easements should be in place with the application,” he said at the Select Water Commission meeting. “It should be the responsibility of the sponsor to come with a complete package that says, ‘here’s a map, here’s all the easements.’
“I want every water dollar we spend to get on the ground,” Driskill said, “not to be spent waiting for somebody to get their ducks in a row.”