The Tammah glamping resort on state land in Teton County was constructed near a wetland. (Protect Our Water Jackson Hole)

Operators of the Tammah tent hotel on state land in Teton County have resolved a septic system violation, Wyoming water quality regulators said Friday, but the source of groundwater pollution remains a mystery.

The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality said the development near Teton Village has corrected deficiencies outlined in an Oct. 29 violation order. High ammonia levels in a monitoring well led regulators to inspect a sand mound septic system for the resort’s 11 fabric-covered geodesic domes.

Regulators found water leaking from a raised leach field. A clay layer beneath the sand mound caused the leak at Tammah, the DEQ said in Friday’s notice of compliance.

Tammah’s parent company, Utah-based Basecamp Hospitality, “implemented corrective actions that addressed the underlying confining [clay] layer so that treated effluent can now infiltrate into the ground as the system was designed to do,” the DEQ stated.

“The cause of elevated ammonia in the groundwater monitoring well is currently unknown.”

DEQ notice

The DEQ hasn’t determined, however, the source of the pollution in a Tammah monitoring well. It cleared the resort to resume operating the septic system after Basecamp produced groundwater samples from between the septic system and the polluted monitoring well.

“The cause of elevated ammonia in the groundwater monitoring well is currently unknown,” the notice states. “[T]he Basecamp septic system has been ruled out as the source,” DEQ wrote.

Wyoming officials authorized the hotel, sued to prevent Teton County from inspecting it, and now continue to investigate the pollution it has uncovered on state school trust land. Teton County leaders want to know more about the probe.

“I don’t have a comment until DEQ has released the data, including the background monitoring results, and independent water quality scientists have an opportunity to review that data,” Teton County Commission Chairman Luther Propst said.

Dan Heilig, a representative of Protect our Water Jackson Hole, agreed, saying he wouldn’t comment “until we are able to independently verify the data, study protocols and other records that led them to make this determination.”

The yearslong debate over the glamping complex, constructed near a wetland despite protests in Teton County, intensified with the discovery of the monitoring well pollution.

The well produced a sample on May 15 that showed the groundwater at Tammah was within standards for the Class 1 Fish Creek watershed. By the end of the month, Tammah was open for business and collecting monitoring samples every quarter as required by a state permit.

In September, samples from the well showed ammonia levels above state standards. A second sample in October found even higher readings.

DEQ ordered the system shut down and said human waste had to be trucked away for treatment instead. Basecamp and Tammah then did more testing, according to regulators.

“Basecamp conducted additional groundwater sampling, taking a sample from a location between the sand mound septic system and the groundwater monitoring well with elevated ammonia,” the DEQ notice stated. “The sampling results indicate the sand mound system is not the cause of the elevated ammonia levels.”

The agency will continue to look for the source of the pollution, it said.

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 angus@wyofile.com or (307)...

Join the Conversation

6 Comments

WyoFile's goal is to provide readers with information and ideas that foster constructive conversations about the issues and opportunities our communities face. One small piece of how we do that is by offering a space below each story for readers to share perspectives, experiences and insights. For this to work, we need your help.

What we're looking for: 

  • Your real name — first and last. 
  • Direct responses to the article. Tell us how your experience relates to the story.
  • The truth. Share factual information that adds context to the reporting.
  • Thoughtful answers to questions raised by the reporting or other commenters.
  • Tips that could advance our reporting on the topic.
  • No more than three comments per story, including replies. 

What we block from our comments section, when we see it:

  • Pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish, and we expect commenters to do the same by using their real name.
  • Comments that are not directly relevant to the article. 
  • Demonstrably false claims, what-about-isms, references to debunked lines of rhetoric, professional political talking points or links to sites trafficking in misinformation.
  • Personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats.
  • Arguments with other commenters.

Other important things to know: 

  • Appearing in WyoFile’s comments section is a privilege, not a right or entitlement. 
  • We’re a small team and our first priority is reporting. Depending on what’s going on, comments may be moderated 24 to 48 hours from when they’re submitted — or even later. If you comment in the evening or on the weekend, please be patient. We’ll get to it when we’re back in the office.
  • We’re not interested in managing squeaky wheels, and even if we wanted to, we don't have time to address every single commenter’s grievance. 
  • Try as we might, we will make mistakes. We’ll fail to catch aliases, mistakenly allow folks to exceed the comment limit and occasionally miss false statements. If that’s going to upset you, it’s probably best to just stick with our journalism and avoid the comments section.
  • We don’t mediate disputes between commenters. If you have concerns about another commenter, please don’t bring them to us.

The bottom line:

If you repeatedly push the boundaries, make unreasonable demands, get caught lying or generally cause trouble, we will stop approving your comments — maybe forever. Such moderation decisions are not negotiable or subject to explanation. If civil and constructive conversation is not your goal, then our comments section is not for you. 

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

  1. I can not believe that anyone in their right mind would allow any kind of building that close to a wet land. The picture of the glamping resort constructed with in mere feet of not just a wet land, but one with standing surface water blows my mind. I didn’t realize that the state of Wyoming is that desperate for income from state lands to allow that.

  2. Assuming that all factors have been looked at- soil type, location, etc. seems that may be a big part of the problem?

  3. Is the detected amount like adding a teacup of contaminates to the thousands of gallons of contaminates from everyone else on the
    West Bank? Also, why no talk about shutting down the Snake River Ranch? Or all the others who are polluting the groundwater with septic tanks, fertilizers, pesticides and other hazards? And why isn’t a sewer line available to everyone on the Village Road?

    These mysteries go unanswered.

    As for cattle next to the glamping operation, the “EPA estimates that even a small quantity of fecal material from cattle escaping into surface water from livestock can cause a substantial impact. Nutrient addition to surface waters, particularly phosphorus and nitrogen, can increase algal growth, decrease water clarity, and increase ammonia concentrations which can be toxic to fish. The increased organic matter also serves as a food source for bacteria and other microorganisms, resulting in lower oxygen levels in the water, and often no oxygen in deeper bottom waters.”

    1. All great points. Many factors to consider, and the effect of one little camp isn’t tipping the balance. Just an easy target, it seems. I agree with local control completely, but the DEQ seems on top of it so far.

  4. Even-handed reporting . Thanks for that. Makes one wonder why the state prevented Teton County inspections.
    Everyone in the US knows the lack of wisdom shown in building living facilities near a swamp, but someone apparently greased the correct official to get this in place. Is that what we have here?