2001 LEGISLATIVE REPORTWYOMING WATER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Wyoming Water Development Commission (029)http://wwdc.state.wy.us

(307) 777-7626Herschler Building, Fourth Floor, West Wing

Cheyenne, Wyoming

January, 2001

i

2001 LEGISLATIVE REPORTTable of Contents

Page

1. General Comments/Overview/Executive SummaryStatewide Vision ..............................................................................................................................1-1Agency Mission Statement...............................................................................................................1-1Agency Philosophy Statement .........................................................................................................1-2Situation Analysis ............................................................................................................................1-2

2. Specific Requirements of Statutes ................................................................................................2-1

3. Impact/Consequences/Outcomes2001 Legislative ProgramNarrative...........................................................................................................................................3-1New Development Program, 2001 Legislative Program..................................................................3-3Rehabilitation Program, 2001 Legislative Program.........................................................................3-4Financial Status Reports...................................................................................................................3-5

4. Statistical Information2001 Project ReportsNarrative...........................................................................................................................................4-1Active Project Reports1. Afton Water Supply ............................................................................................................4-42. Aladdin Water Supply.........................................................................................................4-43 Antelope Valley Water Supply ...........................................................................................4-54. Baggs Water Supply............................................................................................................4-65. Bairoil Test Well .................................................................................................................4-66. Bairoil Water Supply...........................................................................................................4-77. Basin Area Water Supply....................................................................................................4-88. Blackwillow Water Supply .................................................................................................4-99. Bridger Valley Intake Structure Rehabilitation...................................................................4-910. Bridger Valley Water Supply............................................................................................4-1011. Buffalo Hydropower .........................................................................................................4-1212. Buffalo Municipal Reservoir.............................................................................................4-1213. Buffalo Valley Water Supply............................................................................................4-1414. Bump Sullivan Reservoir ..................................................................................................4-1515. Casper Effluent Water Supply...........................................................................................4-1516. Casper Zone 2....................................................................................................................4-1617. Centennial Water Supply ..................................................................................................4-1718. Cheyenne South Crow Diversion ......................................................................................4-1719. Cheyenne Supply Pipeline ................................................................................................4-1820. Chugwater Water Supply ..................................................................................................4-1921. Coal Bed Methane Observation Wells ..............................................................................4-19

ii

22. Corn Creek Irrigation ........................................................................................................4-2023. Corner Mountain Test Well...............................................................................................4-2124. Crestview Water Supply....................................................................................................4-2125. Crook County Reservoir....................................................................................................4-2226. Crow Creek Groundwater Recharge .................................................................................4-2327. Dayton Master Plan...........................................................................................................4-2428. Dayton Water Supply Rehabilitation ................................................................................4-2429. Deaver Irrigation District ................................................................................................. 4-2530. Deer Creek Dam and Reservoir ........................................................................................4-2531. Douglas Water Supply Project ..........................................................................................4-2832. Douglas Water Supply Rehabilitation...............................................................................4-2933. Downer Neighborhood Water Supply...............................................................................4-3034. Dubois Area Master Plan ..................................................................................................4-3135. Encampment Raw Water Line ..........................................................................................4-3136. Encampment Water Supply...............................................................................................4-3237. Etna Water Supply ............................................................................................................4-3238. Fayette Irrigation District ..................................................................................................4-3339. Gillette Central Zone Isolation..........................................................................................4-3440. Gillette Fort Union Well Field ..........................................................................................4-3441. Gillette Hidden Valley Storage and Transmission ............................................................4-3542. Gillette Storage & East End Transmission Improvements................................................4-3643. Glenrock Groundwater Supply..........................................................................................4-3744. Glenrock Raw Water Irrigation.........................................................................................4-3745. Goshen Irrigation District Water System ..........................................................................4-3846. Goshen Re-regulating Reservoir .......................................................................................4-3947. Granger Water Supply.......................................................................................................4-3948. Green River Groundwater Recharge & Alternate Storage ................................................4-4049. Greybull Crossing and Tank..............................................................................................4-4150. Greybull Shell Water Supply/Greybull Groundwater .......................................................4-4151. Greybull Valley Dam and Reservoir .................................................................................4-4252. Hartville Water Supply......................................................................................................4-4353. Hawk Springs Water Supply .............................................................................................4-4454. Highline Ditch ...................................................................................................................4-4555. Horse Creek Conservation District Rehabilitation............................................................4-4656. Hot Springs Rural - Worland Pipeline ..............................................................................4-4757. Hugus-Mullison Ditch.......................................................................................................4-4858. Kaycee Master Plan...........................................................................................................4-4859. Lakeview Improvement and Service District Water Supply.............................................4-4960. Lander Intake Facilities .....................................................................................................4-5061. Lander Water Supply Rehabilitation ................................................................................4-5062. Laramie North Side Supply...............................................................................................4-5263. Laramie Rehabilitation......................................................................................................4-5364. Laramie Transmission Pipeline and Pioneer Canal Diversion ..........................................4-5365. Laramie Water Supply ......................................................................................................4-5466. Laramie West Storage .......................................................................................................4-5567. Lingle Water Supply System Rehabilitation .....................................................................4-5668. Little Snake River Small Dams and Reservoirs ................................................................4-56

iii

69. Little Snake River Valley Dam and Reservoir (Sandstone)..............................................4-5870. Lodgepole Creek ARS ......................................................................................................4-6171. McNutt Water Supply .......................................................................................................4-6272. Manville Water Supply .....................................................................................................4-6273. Meeteetse Water Supply....................................................................................................4-6374. Middle Fork Dam..............................................................................................................4-6575. Moorcroft Well..................................................................................................................4-6576. Natrona County Regional Rehabilitation ..........................................................................4-6677. Natrona County Regional Water Supply...........................................................................4-6778. Newcastle Area Water Supply ..........................................................................................4-6879. Nine Mile Water Supply ...................................................................................................4-6880. North Alpine Junction Water Supply ................................................................................4-6981. North Cheyenne Master Plan ............................................................................................4-7082. North End Water Supply ...................................................................................................4-7183. North Uinta........................................................................................................................4-7184. Northeast Wyoming Interactive Database.........................................................................4-7285. Oakley Water Supply ........................................................................................................4-7386. Opal Regional Water Supply.............................................................................................4-7387. Pine Bluffs Supply ............................................................................................................4-7488. Pine Haven Master Plan ....................................................................................................4-7589. Popo Agie Watershed Study..............................................................................................4-7590. Powell Master Plan............................................................................................................4-7691. Prairie Dog Watershed Plan ..............................................................................................4-7692. Rawlins Water Supply.......................................................................................................4-7793. Riverton East .....................................................................................................................4-7894. Riverton Valley Irrigation .................................................................................................4-7995. Riverton Water Supply #2.................................................................................................4-7996. Rock River Transmission Pipeline ....................................................................................4-8097. Rock Springs East Water Supply ......................................................................................4-8198. Rolling Hills Well .............................................................................................................4-8199. Salt Creek Water Supply ...................................................................................................4-82100. Sheridan Big Goose Water Supply....................................................................................4-82101. Sheridan Raw Water Supply .............................................................................................4-83102. Sheridan Raw Water Supply #2 ........................................................................................4-84103. Sinclair Water Supply .......................................................................................................4-84104. Smiths Fork Dam ..............................................................................................................4-85105. State Engineer’s Office Conservation Officer...................................................................4-86106. State Stream Gage System ................................................................................................4-86107. State Water Plan ................................................................................................................4-87108. Story Fire District Supply .................................................................................................4-89109. Sundance Tank ..................................................................................................................4-89110. Teton County Master Plan.................................................................................................4-90111. Thayne Water Supply .......................................................................................................4-90112. Thirty-three Mile Water Supply........................................................................................4-91113. Three Horses Watershed Plan ...........................................................................................4-92114. Torrington Water Supply ..................................................................................................4-92115. UW Study Research ..........................................................................................................4-93

iv

116. Upper Wind River Storage................................................................................................4-94117. Viva Naughton Dam Enlargement ....................................................................................4-94118. Wamsutter Water Supply ..................................................................................................4-95119. Washakie Rural Water Supply ..........................................................................................4-96120. West Side/Rock Springs Water Supply.............................................................................4-97121. Wheatland Irrigation District Laramie River Diversion....................................................4-98122. Wheatland Sand Lake Dam/Cañon Canal Rehabilitation .................................................4-98123. Wheatland Water Supply ..................................................................................................4-99124. Wind River Export Study..................................................................................................4-99125. Worland Regional Pipeline .............................................................................................4-100Completed Construction Projects.................................................................................................4-101

5. Recommendation ..........................................................................................Please refer to Chapter 4

6. Summation and Conclusions ........................................................................................................ NA

7. Appendices ..................................................................................................................................... NA

8. Index ..……………………………………………………………………………………………NA

v

Wyoming Water Development Commission, Staff and Advisors

Commissioners

James Hicks, Chairman Water Division IIDean House, Vice-Chairman Water Division IIIWilliam Franks, Secretary Water Division IKevin Behunin Water Division IVGeorge Bower Water Division IIICharles Murray Joint Tribal Council RepresentativeSharon Nichols Water Division IColleen Peterson Water Division IVDon. W. Riske Member-at-LargeWilliam Townsend Water Division II

Staff

Lawrence M. Besson DirectorJohn W. Jackson Administrator - PlanningDavid Zelenka Administrator - ConstructionJon Wade Administrator - River Basin PlanningSusan D. Good Management Services OfficerChris Abernathy Water Development Project RepresentativeDale Anderson Water Resource Development EngineerVicki S. Beckman Administrative SpecialistKevin Boyce Water Development Project RepresentativeBruce Brinkman Water Development Project RepresentativeNorma Coulson Fiscal SpecialistTheodore D. Coyer Water Resource Development EngineerMichael F. Hackett Water Resource Development EngineerMichael T. Hand Water Resource Development EngineerJodie Jackson River Basin SpecialistBarry Lawrence River Basin PlannerPhilip Ogle Water Development Project Representative

Advisors

S. Jane Caton Attorney General's OfficePat Tyrrell State EngineerLarry Pochop/Greg Wilkerson University of Wyoming

vi

Select Water Oversight Committee

Senator Bob PeckChairman

Fremont County

Representative Frank PhilpVice-ChairmanFremont County

Senator Bill BartonCrook-Weston-E. Converse-Niobrara-NE Goshen Counties

Senator Rich CathcartLaramie County

Senator Ken DecariaUinta County

Senator Gerald GeisS. Big Horn-Hot Springs-Washakie Counties

Senator Curt MeierGoshen-Platte Counties

Representative Rodney AndersonLaramie County

Representative Nick DeeganCampbell County

Representative John EyreUinta-Sweetwater Counties

Representative Roger HuckfeldtGoshen-Platte-Converse Counties

Vacant, House of Representatives

WYOMING WATERDEVELOPMENT

PROGRAM

Ch. 1 Pg. 1

CHAPTER 1. GENERAL COMMENTS/OVERVIEW/EXECUTIVE SUMMARYDecember 31, 2000

I. Statewide Vision, Philosophy and Functional Goals

A. Vision

We envision a Wyoming where people can develop the skills needed to seize the opportunities tolive their individual dreams; a Wyoming where people enjoy an environment free fromcontaminants and secure from harm, and share a quality standard of living; a Wyoming where weand future generations can enjoy the benefits of our bountiful resources and natural beauty.

B. Philosophy

Public service is a public trust. As public servants, we take pride in the service we perform forour fellow citizens. We will be open, ethical, responsive, accountable, and dedicated to the publicwe serve. In the current context of the public's view of government, we must respond to citizen'sneeds in a manner that is more positive, more accommodating and more attentive than everbefore. Within our limited resources, we believe that innovation and creativity are keys to ourlong term success. Through management support, training and development and a respect to theviews of our citizens our employees will be empowered to deliver quality services.

C. Functional Goals

To ensure the wise, productive and economically sound use of the state's natural resources whileprotecting and preserving the state’s environment. Develop additional water resources within thecontext of state priorities. Minimize the impact of federal pre-emption of priorities andprocedures.

II. Agency Mission Statement

The 1975 Legislature passed W.S. 41-2-112(a) which provided the following definition for theWyoming Water Development Program:

"The Wyoming water development program is established to foster, promote andencourage the optimal development of the state's human, industrial, mineral, agricultural,water and recreational resources. The program shall provide, through the commission,procedures and policies for the planning, selection, financing, construction, acquisitionand operation of projects and facilities for the conservation, storage, distribution and useof water, necessary in the public interest to develop and preserve Wyoming's water andrelated land resources. The program shall encourage development of water facilities forirrigation, for reduction of flood damage, for abatement of pollution, for preservation anddevelopment of fish and wildlife resources [and] for protection and improvement ofpublic lands and shall help make available the waters of this state for all beneficial uses,including but not limited to municipal, domestic, agricultural, industrial, instream flows,hydroelectric power and recreational purposes, conservation of land resources andprotection of the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the state ofWyoming."

Ch. 1 Pg. 2

III. Agency Philosophy Statement

The Wyoming Water Development Program was founded on the sound philosophy of utilizing aportion of the financial resources the state receives from the development and use of its non-renewable resources, such as coal, oil, and gas, to develop a renewable resource, water. Waterdevelopment is achieved by evaluating development alternatives, and by construction of newfacilities and rehabilitating existing infrastructure to ensure the delivery of water to Wyomingcitizens in an economical and environmentally responsible manner. Sound water planning willpreserve Wyoming’s water entitlements and will promote the effective and efficient use of thestate’s water resources.

IV. Situation Analysis

Wyoming generates an average of 16 million acre feet of surface water within its boundaries eachyear. An additional 2 million acre feet of surface water is received through streamflow fromother states. Of this 18 million acre feet of surface water, Wyoming is entitled, under the variousinterstate river compacts and court decrees, which divide the surface water among the states, touse or consume approximately 4 million acre feet per year. Presently, the state uses 2.8 millionacre feet of this water. Approximately 1.2 million acre feet remains available for Wyoming'sfuture use.

The water now in use and the water available for future use are assets of the State of Wyomingand its citizens. The Wyoming Water Development Program is a valuable tool in maintainingthese assets. The water demands of downstream states are increasing as these states approach orexceed limits of their water entitlements. Consequently, Wyoming may expect requests forvariances or challenges to the historic interpretations of the compacts and decrees that guaranteeWyoming a share of water originating in the state. Further, the federal government is seekingwater to resolve endangered species and environmental problems that are occurring downstream.

Court decisions have validated the position that water entitlements are best protected bybeneficial use. Unfortunately, Wyoming's water resources are not always located where they areneeded. The Wyoming Water Development Program serves to provide and rehabilitate theinfrastructure to deliver water to the people with water supply problems and to promote theeffective and efficient use of the state’s water, thus maintaining Wyoming’s entitlements.

The Wyoming Water Development Program provides long-term economic benefits to the State ofWyoming by providing water supplies for the existing and future needs of Wyoming's citizens.Water availability is a key ingredient for development of a stable Wyoming economy.Construction of water projects provide short-term economic benefits to the state in the form ofjobs, increased material and equipment sales, and other indirect benefits to local and stateeconomies.

The Wyoming Water Development Program has served to maintain Wyoming's water entitle-ments and has assisted Wyoming citizens in meeting water supply needs through planning andproject development. The program's client list includes eight (8) counties, eighty-two (82)municipalities, fifty-nine (59) water districts, fifty-three (53) irrigation districts, ten (10) jointpower boards and twenty-one (21) water user groups.

Ch. 1 Pg. 3

A. Program Status - Water Resource Development

In 1977, the revenue source which funds the New Development Program was established. In1982, the Governor proposed and the legislature implemented the framework for the presentWater Development Program. In 1983, the revenue stream which funds the RehabilitationProgram was established. Since 1983, the program's water resource development activities haveevolved to the following:

1. New Development Program

The New Development Program provides planning services and construction funds forthe infrastructure necessary to supply unused and/or unappropriated water to meet thepresent and future needs of Wyoming and its citizens. Water supply and storage facilitiessuch as dams, diversion structures, groundwater wells and transmission pipelines areeligible for consideration under the New Development Program. The New DevelopmentProgram is dedicated to the efficient and expeditious development of water resources,consistent with state policy, Wyoming water laws and the needs of the citizens of thestate. The criteria for scheduling new development projects is based on the generalphilosophy that effective beneficial use of Wyoming's water will insure its preservationfor Wyoming's purposes. New development projects can proceed as sponsored projectsor state projects.

a. Sponsored Projects

The project sponsor is a municipality, irrigation district, or other approvedassessment district which may be the major beneficiary of the project. Theproject sponsor must be willing and capable of financially supporting at least25% of the project development costs plus all operation and maintenance costs.Typically, sponsors request project specific technical and financial assistancefrom the Wyoming Water Development Commission through the applicationprocess. If the application is approved by the Commission, the project isassigned a study level. If the project is determined to be technically andeconomically feasible and serves to meet a water supply need or alleviate awater supply problem, the Commission may recommend that constructionfunding be appropriated by the legislature.

The New Development Program provides the opportunity for sponsors to developwater supplies with an eye to the future. The supplies serve to insure that lack ofwater will not inhibit economic growth or stability. The program has aphilosophy that water development can be achieved through state and localpartnerships. The sponsor can complete a water supply project with state fundingassistance. The actual loan/grant mix is based on WWDC funding criteria andthe sponsor's ability to pay. If the water is used by the sponsor to meet its needs,the project basically belongs to the sponsor. However, if there is the opportunityto sell water for other purposes, the sponsor and state share in the revenues.

b. State Projects

Ch. 1 Pg. 4

A state project typically benefits more than one entity and is multipurpose innature. State projects often have difficult permitting or political issues whichmust be addressed, such as endangered species issues, water quality impactsand/or resistance from downstream states. The following is a listing and briefstatus statement on the state projects:

* Buffalo Bill Enlargement. The project has been completed and standsready to meet future municipal and industrial growth and development. TheBuffalo Bill Enlargement has a firm yield of 74,000 acre feet at the mouth of theShoshone River.

* Deer Creek Dam and Reservoir. Litigation and the Endangered SpeciesAct have impacted the project schedule which has led to the consideration of thePathfinder Modification Project as a possible alternative to the eventualconstruction of the Deer Creek Project. The WWDC is working with theAttorney General's Office on the various law suits. Depending on the outcome ofthe North Platte lawsuit, either the Deer Creek project or the “PathfinderModification Project” may be constructed.

* Little Snake River Valley Dam and Reservoir. The final environmentalimpact statement has been prepared. The final mitigation plan is nearingcompletion and the Record of Decision is in draft form.

2. Rehabilitation Program

The Rehabilitation Program provides funding assistance for the improvement of waterprojects completed and in use for at least fifteen (15) years. Improvements to insure damsafety, decrease operation and maintenance costs, and provide a more efficient means ofusing existing water supplies can be considered for the Rehabilitation Program. Theprogram insures that existing water supplies and supply systems remain effective andviable.

Rehabilitation projects are typically initiated by an application from a project sponsor. Ifthe application is approved, the project is assigned a study level and can proceed throughconstruction if it is determined the project is technically and economically feasible. Theproject sponsor must be willing and capable of financially supporting at least 25% of theproject development costs plus all operation and maintenance costs. The actualloan/grant mix is based on WWDC funding criteria and the sponsor's ability to pay.

B. Program Status - Water Resource Planning

1. Water Investment Management

During the development of the Department of Commerce, the Wyoming Water DevelopmentCommission (WWDC) was named as the successor agency to the Economic Development andStabilization Board for the administration of the state's investment in Buffalo Bill and FontenelleReservoirs (Chapter 44 of the 1990 Session Laws). Subsequently, the state acquired storage inPalisades Reservoir (Chapter 18 of the 1991 Session Laws). The WWDC is responsible forinsuring that the state's annual loan payments and operation and maintenance obligations are meton the Buffalo Bill Enlargement, Fontenelle Reservoir and Palisades Reservoir.

Ch. 1 Pg. 5

In addition, the WWDC collects payments against outstanding project loans. Presently, all projectloan payments have been made. The WWDC also monitors potential water sales from thosecompleted projects in which the state retained limited partnerships.

2. Instream Flow

The Water Development Commission has two roles relative to the instream flow law. One isassigned by statute; the other is implied by our duties as the water development planning agencyfor the state.

a. W.S. 41-3-1004 assigns the Commission the responsibility to prepare feasibilityreports for all instream flow permit applications. The reports are hydrological analyses ofthe water availability in the reach of the stream in which the applications apply. Theanalyses also quantify existing water rights above and within stream segments.

b. As the water development planning agency, the Commission will also reviewthe instream flow requests to insure that they do not conflict with future potential waterdevelopment opportunities.

To date, eighty (80) applications for instream flow water rights have been prepared by theWyoming Game and Fish Department. As of December 31, 2000, the WWDC has publishedseventy-one (71) feasibility studies. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department has indicated thatit will be preparing four applications per year for instream flow water rights.

3. Water Related Research

The Commission participates in research projects relative to water development problems andissues which are not necessarily project specific but are important to general aspects of waterdevelopment in Wyoming. The Commission participates in research projects to gather theinformation that will be needed to reduce project costs and address permitting issues and specificenvironmental problems.

The Commission has developed working relationships with the State Engineer's Office, the U.S.Geological Survey and the University of Wyoming to conduct research on such water relatedissues as hydrologic modeling, flushing flows, irrigation evapotranspiration, conveyance loss, andriparian zone management.

4. Basin Wide Planning

The planning aspects of the Water Development Program establish the framework fordevelopment strategies and serve to identify and resolve water related issues. The WWDCdevelops basin-wide plans that identify water supply problems and water developmentopportunities. Planning studies have been completed for Northeastern Wyoming and the Big HornRiver, Powder River, Tongue River, Upper Bear River, Upper Green River, Upper Laramie Riverand Wind River Basins.

Ch. 1 Pg. 6

These basin wide plans, as well as the project specific evaluations, can be used to inventory watersupplies, estimate existing uses and outline basin-wide water development strategies. Chapter 81,1999 Session Laws, authorized the Commission to implement and administer the statewide waterplanning process. Studies on the Bear River, Green River/Little Snake, the Tongue/Powder andNortheast Wyoming River Basins are currently underway. The Green/Little Snake and Bear RiverBasin plans will be completed in January, 2001. The WWDC anticipates completing the initialbasin plans for all seven of the state’s major river basins in five to seven years. The planning staffwill continue to update each basin plan on a regular basis with the ongoing assistance of the BasinAdvisory Groups. The major products of the planning process will be the seven basin plans andtheir regular updates, and a renewable statewide water resources data base.

5. Groundwater Grant Program

The 1981 Session of the Wyoming Legislature enacted W.S. 41-2-119 which authorizedthe Water Development Commission to grant up to three million dollars to incorporatedcities and towns for feasibility studies and exploration programs to evaluate the potentialuse of underground water for municipal purposes. Municipalities were eligible to receiveup to $200,000 in state funds, and were required to provide 10% of total project costs inlocal matching funds. In 1984, the legislature amended W.S. 41-2-119 to add anadditional one million dollars to the account and to increase the required local matchfrom 10% to 25%.

Municipalities are required to submit an application containing a detailed feasibility studyof the area where exploration is anticipated. If the data is sufficient to indicate a highprobability of locating water, the Commission can award funds for exploratory drilling.If no feasibility study exists, or if existing data is judged inadequate, municipalities canapply for funds to complete such a study. Approval of feasibility study funding alsoreserves a specified amount to be used for exploratory drilling. If the funded studyindicates a high probability of locating groundwater, the Commission can authorizerelease of exploratory drilling funds. If not, the Commission will terminate the project atthat point and return the earmarked exploratory drilling funds to the groundwater accountfor distribution to other communities.

As of July 1, 2000, 36 municipalities had received assistance from the program.

C. Program Funding

1. Water Resource Development

The administrative costs of the Water Development Commission are approximately$2,595,000 per biennium. These costs are included in the agency budget, which isappropriated from Water Development Account No. 1. This amount does not includeproject specific budgets which are appropriated by the legislature as described in thefollowing paragraphs:

a. Water Development Account No. 1

The New Development Program is funded by Water Development Account No. 1[W.S. 41-2-124(a)(I)] which has received general fund appropriations of$117,600,000, receives revenues from a 1.5% excise tax on coal, and receives the

Ch. 1 Pg. 7

accrued interest on the account's unspent balance. Legislative approval must begranted prior to allocating water development account funds to a particularproject. Income from the tax and interest and payments for outstanding loans isapproximately $23,000,000 per year. The WWDC is committed to phase ordelay projects to insure its recommendations do not result in overruns of theaccount.

By enacting W.S. 16-1-301 the Legislature authorized the use of waterdevelopment account funds to meet federal matching grant requirements throughthe year 2003. The federal capitalization grant and the state’s matching sharewill be used to finance a “drinking water state revolving loan fund” (DWSRF)program. The DWSRF program may be used to fund improvements to watertreatment systems and other Safe Drinking Water Act compliance issues. Thisprogram is not included in the annual omnibus water bill. Water Developmentprogram funds are appropriated automatically by statute to match 10% of thefederal capitalization grant.

b. Water Development Account No. 2

The Rehabilitation Program is funded by Water Development Account No. 2[W.S. 41-2-124(a)(ii)] which receives revenues from a 0.167% severance tax onoil and gas and the interest accrued on the account's unspent balance. Legislativeapproval must be granted prior to allocating water development account funds toa particular project. Income from the tax and interest and payments foroutstanding loans is approximately $5,100,000 per year. In 1995 and in 1999,requests for project funding exceeded the funds available. The WWDC iscommitted to phase or delay projects to insure its recommendations do not resultin overruns of the account.

By enacting W.S. 16-1-301 the legislature authorized the use of waterdevelopment account funds to meet federal matching grant requirements throughthe year 2003. The federal capitalization grant and the state’s matching sharewill be used to finance a “drinking water state revolving loan fund” (DWSRF)program. The DWSRF program may be used to fund improvements to watertreatment systems and other Safe Drinking Water Act compliance issues. Thisprogram is not included in the annual omnibus water bill. Water DevelopmentProgram funds are appropriated automatically by statute to match 10% of thecapitalization grant.

2. Water Resource Planning

a. Water Investment Management

These activities are funded by the agency budget, which has historically beenappropriated from Water Development Account No. 1. However, as projectfinancial commitments on Fontenelle Reservoir cannot be met with existing

Ch. 1 Pg. 8

revenues from water sales, appropriations of $540,000 per biennium are neededto meet loan payment and operation/maintenance obligations to the Bureau ofReclamation.

b. Instream Flow

The WWDC requests $100,000 per biennium for consultant services forcompletion of some instream flow feasibility studies.

c. Water Related Research

Over the past ten years, the budget for contract services for this work has beenreduced by the WWDC from $250,000 to $25,000 per biennium. In addition, thestate's involvement in interstate endangered species efforts is funded from thisbudget category, which costs approximately $69,000 per biennium. Currentresearch related expenditures authorized in the Omnibus Water Bill - Planningare $140,000 annually.

d. Basin Wide Planning

Depending on the complexity, basin wide planning studies cost between$200,000 and $1,500,000. Much of the water planning data should be updated.Studies on the Bear River, Green River/Little Snake, Northeast Wyoming and theTongue/Powder River Basins are currently underway. The operation of theWater Resource Data System and other necessary contract services costsapproximately $750,000 per biennium.

e. Groundwater Grant Program

Of the $4,000,000 appropriation, approximately $150,000 remains available forprogram funding. There are no current plans to seek additional funding.Administration of the program costs are minimal.

3. Other

The Wyoming legislature has periodically appropriated funds from the waterdevelopment accounts to fund the operation of state government, special projects, andlitigation. As of July 1, 2000, $110,822,296 has been expended from WaterDevelopment Account Nos. 1 and 2 for these non-project purposes. In addition, throughan executive order by the Governor, the interest income to be received by the accountswas diverted to the general fund for three years, which impacted the accounts byapproximately $41,284,873.

D. Program Evolution

In order to develop a strategic plan for the program, the history and future of the Wyoming WaterDevelopment Program must first be considered. During the 1982 legislative session, funding wasrequested for 28 different projects. Over one-half of the projects included new dams or

Ch. 1 Pg. 9

rehabilitation of existing dams. By contrast, during the 1995 legislative session, constructionfunding was requested for 18 different projects. None of those projects included a dam.

While dam construction and rehabilitation remains an important element of the WaterDevelopment Program, the number of dam projects will not be as great as other waterdevelopment projects. To date, seven new development dam projects and fourteen damrehabilitation projects have been completed. The Buffalo Municipal project (Tie Hack Dam andReservoir), Sheridan’s Twin Lakes Dam and Reservoir, and the Greybull Valley IrrigationDistrict Roach Gulch project have recently been completed. The Water Development Officerecently received the Clean Water Act, Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineer for the Little Snake River Valley Dam and Reservoir project (High Savery).Construction is anticipated to commence the fall of 2001. The Deer Creek Project is delayedpending the outcome of the North Platte Litigation. Other dams in the planning process are theenlargement of the Ray Lake Dam on the Little Wind River and storage on the Wind Riverupstream of Riverton in Fremont County and, as an alternative to Deer Creek, the Pathfindermodification project.

There are reasons the number of dams in the Water Development Program are less than originallyanticipated. The first and foremost reason is cost. It is very difficult for a project sponsor toafford a storage facility even with the most favorable financing terms available. Second, thefederal permitting processing is more costly, time consuming and restrictive than it was in 1982.For example, in 1985, the federal 404 permit for the Sulphur Creek Dam was obtained in ninemonths. The permitting process cost was approximately $50,000. In 1995, after two and one-half years, we were still awaiting the issuance of the 404 Permit for the Buffalo Municipal Dam, asmaller and less complex project than the Sulphur Creek Dam. In 1996, at the conclusion of thepermitting process for the Buffalo Municipal Dam, the actual costs related to permit acquisitionwere approximately $650,000. New federal requirements for wetlands mitigation, purpose andneed criteria, and alternative analyses are the major reasons for the increased costs.

The impact of federal requirements on the program can best be demonstrated by the history of theLittle Snake River Valley Dam and Reservoir Project (Sandstone Project). Originally, theWWDC sought a 404 permit for a 52,000 acre foot reservoir that would yield 12,000 acre feet ofwater per year for irrigation purposes and 20,000 acre feet of water per year for future industrialuse. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers denied the permit using the argument that there was nospecific defined use for 20,000 acre feet of the water. The project did not meet the federalrequirements for "purpose and need", therefore the impacts to wetlands and aquatic habitatresulting from the project were not warranted, no matter how well those impacts were to bemitigated. This decision severely impacted the ability of the program to construct storageprojects and market water for future uses. More recently, the federal agencies have interpretedtheir rules and regulations to develop a position that they can only issue permits for the "leastenvironmentally damaging alternative" that meet the federal perspective of "purpose and need".Unfortunately, the federal perspective of "purpose and need" tends to ignore state goals andobjectives such as increased recreation, hydropower production, instream flow releases andeconomic development. The result is the construction of small, single purpose projects. If thisposition prevails, dam construction will be limited to small, off-channel reservoirs supplied bycanals diverting water from streams and rivers. For example, the Greybull Valley Project,intended as a supplemental agricultural water supply, consists of a 30,000 acre foot off-channelreservoir supplied by a canal and diversion structure on the Greybull River.

Ch. 1 Pg. 10

Another indicator of the history of the program is an analysis of how water development fundshave been spent over the past nineteen years. The following is a breakdown of total programexpenditures from 1980 to June 30, 1999:

A From program history and projections into the future, the following conclusions can be maderelative to the next five years:

1. While the Water Development Program has provided assistance to severalagricultural projects, those projects have been relatively small in scope. The agriculturalindustry is presently concentrating on preserving what they have rather than developingnew supplies. With one exception, the Wyoming Water Development Program has notbeen requested to assist in a water project that would place new lands under production.The agricultural projects that rely on federal storage projects can expect financial impactscaused by unfunded federal mandates relating to dam safety, water conservation,endangered species and environmental protection.

2. The major expenditures in the state project category have been for the state'sshare of the construction of the recently completed Buffalo Bill Dam Enlargement andthe repair and maintenance of Fontenelle Dam. It is difficult to acquire the necessaryfederal permits and clearances for construction of large mainstream dams and reservoirs.In addition, the costs associated with construction of large mainstream dams are extreme.For the short term, it is anticipated that multi-purpose state project expenditures will belimited to enlargements of existing facilities to replace storage lost due to siltaccumulation, to construction of small off channel reservoirs, and to construction of othermiscellaneous projects which serve more than one type of use, e.g. diversion structuresthat provide water for irrigation while simultaneously accommodating fishery needs.

Account II

State Project4% Non-Project

8%

Agriculture43%Domestic

45%

AgricultureNon-ProjectState ProjectDomestic

$48,263,632

$9,012,024$4,600,116

$50,695,865

Total $112,571,637

Ch. 1 Pg. 11

3. The domestic category includes municipal and special district projects.Municipalities and other public water systems have been the major beneficiaries of theWyoming Water Development Program. Communities must not only be concerned withthe quantity of water it can supply for culinary, irrigation, and fire flow purposes, butmust insure that the water quality meets ever-changing EPA requirements. Further, asurban populations increase, the amount of water communities must supply for publichealth and welfare purposes must also increase. Municipalities are aware that they needenough good quality water to meet their existing demands, and the demands of theincreasing number of subdivisions presently outside their corporate limits as well asenough water to insure future economic growth. The Wyoming Water DevelopmentProgram has been responsive to the needs of Wyoming communities for the past 20 yearsand while major municipal water supply projects have been funded, demands on theprogram for municipal purposes will continue for the next five years and beyond.

Special districts that provide domestic water are faced with the same EPA requirementsas municipalities. The Water Development Program is receiving more requests forfunding assistance from special districts. The problem, in part, can be explained byWyoming’s previously weak subdivision laws. Subdivisions served by shallowgroundwater wells are experiencing water quality problems caused by septic systems aspopulation densities increase. The long term solutions are to improve the municipalwater supply systems so they can be more reactive in solving the problems of thesurrounding subdivisions. In the short term, for those subdivisions already formed, it isapparent that the Wyoming Water Development Program will be considering additionalrequests for funding assistance from special districts. However, the legislature enactedmeasures during the 2000 budget session that amended existing subdivision regulationsto thoroughly address water and sewer health and safety needs. This action, coupled withimprovement and expansion of municipal systems to be more reactive in solving watersupply problems of the surrounding subdivisions, may provide the necessary long termsolutions for special districts.

Account I

State Project13%

Domestic56%

Non-Project19%

Agriculture12%

AgricultureNon-ProjectState ProjectDomestic

$63,258,205

$102,778,888

$68,387,664

$301,262,272

Total $535,687,029

Ch. 1 Pg. 12

4. Non-project expenditures relate to appropriations made from the waterdevelopment accounts to augment the general fund. For example, the agencybudgets for the Water Development Office, State Engineer's Office, and WaterResource Data System have been appropriated from the water accounts. Inaddition, an appropriation was made to supplement the funding for education.The state's costs for water related litigation is also funded from the waterdevelopment accounts.

In summary, the scope of the Wyoming Water Development Program has changed overthe past 20 years. However, the program continues to serve the principle that initiatedthe program; the effective and efficient use of water entitlements is necessary to preserveWyoming's water for Wyoming's future.

E. Program Operation

Originally, the Interdepartmental Water Conference, the predecessor to the WyomingWater Development Commission, was staffed by the State Engineer's Office WaterPlanning Program. In 1979, the Wyoming Water Development Commission was formedand an independent staff was developed. This move was made to streamline theadministration of the program and make it more effective.

The statutory authority for the Wyoming Water Development Program is vested with theten member Wyoming Water Development Commission (WWDC) which meets 8 to 12times per year. The program is administered through the Wyoming Water DevelopmentOffice (WWDO) which includes a director and 17 staff members. Over the past fiveyears, the commission and staff have overseen and administered project expendituresaveraging approximately $30 million dollars per year.

The Wyoming legislature has periodically increased the responsibilities of the WWDCand WWDO. In 1986, the administration of the construction of water developmentprojects was transferred from the Department of Economic Planning and Development(DEPAD) to the WWDC. Again, in 1986, the legislature made the WWDC an integralparty to the administration of the instream flow law. In 1991, the management of thestate's water investments was transferred from the Economic Development andStabilization Board to the WWDC. In 1999, the legislature authorized 3 additional staffto conduct river basin planning.

The Wyoming Water Development Office includes a Planning Division, a ConstructionDivision and a Basin Planning Division. Each division is managed by an administratorwho also assists with department and project management. The Planning andConstruction divisions have four project managers who are responsible for day-to-dayproject administration and special projects. The Basin Planning division has one projectmanager and one technical support staff person. The Planning Division serves toadminister project studies (Level I Reconnaissance Studies and Level II FeasibilityStudies), assist the Director and WWDC in making funding recommendations, andperform the planning functions of the agency. The operation of the Planning Division isguided by the “Operating Criteria of the Wyoming Water Development Program”. TheConstruction Division serves to administer Level III construction projects. The operationof the Construction Division is guided be the “Operating Criteria of the ConstructionDivision, Wyoming Water Development Office”. The Basin Planning Division serves toadminister basin planning studies, assist the Director and the WWDC in making funding

Ch. 1 Pg. 13

recommendations and perform the basin planning functions of the agency. The Directoris responsible for the operation of the entire program, serves as the contact with theWWDC, Governor and legislature and performs special assignments for the Governor.The Director, administrators and project managers are supported by a small fiscal controland secretarial staff.

Individual project administration has been the primary priority of the staff. However,because of renewed interest in the statewide water planning process, additional staff hasbeen authorized for basin planning purposes. Staff requirements and the project workload for project managers are determined by the number of projects within the program,not necessarily by the amount of appropriations. Administering a small project can be astime consuming as working on a larger project. The WWDC will continue to useimproved technology to reduce administrative costs and to produce state-of-the-art plansand projects.

The WWDC uses private sector consultants for the preparation of river basin plans andproject technical studies such as Level I Reconnaissance Studies and Level II FeasibilityStudies. Further, the WWDC contracts with the project sponsors to serve as the leadagency during the Level III Construction process. The project sponsors use the privatesector for project plans and specifications. The project sponsors are required to solicitbids from private contractors for project construction.

While the statutes pertaining to the Wyoming Water Development Program provideguidance and the framework for the program, they were intentionally meant to be verybroad. The Wyoming Water Development Commission was instructed by statute todevelop the priorities, guidelines, and criteria for the program. The "Operating Criteriaof the Wyoming Water Development Program" developed by the WWDC, inconsultation with the legislative Select Water Committee, serves this purpose. Thecriteria is reviewed on an annual basis to insure it directs the program in an efficient andeffective manner and continues to address the needs of Wyoming in a manner consistentwith available program resources.

SPECIFICREQUIREMENTS

OF STATUTES

Ch. 2 Pg. 1

CHAPTER 2. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OF STATUTES

The Wyoming Water Development Commission is directed to prepare water and related landresource plans as provided for in Wyoming Statutes. The following are specific references to theapplicable authorizations and directions:

W.S. 41-2-107. Water Resources plans; review; submission to commission. The Commission shall formulate and from time to time review and revise water and

related land resources plans for the State of Wyoming and for appropriate regions andriver basins. The plans shall implement the policies stated in the Wyoming constitutionand in statutes pertaining to the state’s water and related land resources.

W.S. 41-2-110. Use of plans; publication; recommendation and employment of plans.(a) The commission shall:

(i) Publish the water resources plans as they are formulated and adopted anddisseminate them to people, industries and government departments andagencies;

(ii) Give advice and assistance if requested to government departments andagencies, furnish to them the appropriate plans, and make availablerelated subsidiary and additional data and information, or data andinformation related to plans in the process of preparation;

(iii) Recommend action or legislation needed to implement and carry out theplans.

The Wyoming Water Development Commission is directed to report project specific results andfindings to the legislature as provided for in Wyoming Statutes and Wyoming Session Laws. Thefollowing are specific references to the applicable authorizations and directions:

W.S. 41-2-115. Report; authorization; assignment.

(b) The commission shall within ninety (90) days following the publichearings transmit its findings and recommendations to the governor andlegislature pursuant to W.S. 41-2-1214(a)...”

1998 Session Laws, Chapter 82, Sections 2. Level I Reconnaissance Studies - NewDevelopment, Section 3. Level II Feasibility Studies - New Development, and Section 4. LevelII Feasibility Studies - Rehabilitation.

1999 Session Laws, Chapter 81, Section 1. Amends Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the 1998 SessionLaws dealing with Level I and Level II studies and Section 2 authorizes the Statewide waterplanning process.

...”The commission shall submit a report to the legislature on each of thefollowing studies prior to the 2000 legislative session.”

2001LEGISLATIVE

PROGRAM

Ch.3 Pg.1

CHAPTER 3. IMPACT/CONSEQUENCES/OUTCOMES

2001 Legislative Program

The Water Development Commission utilizes the following process to generate its fundingrecommendations for legislative consideration.

1. New Applications

The deadline for new project applications is the fifteenth of September. Upon receipt, newapplications are reviewed, available reports are read, and project sites are visited. The WWDCmakes preliminary recommendations regarding new applications at its October meeting.

2. Existing Projects

Typically, project reports are drafted by the first of November. These reports are reviewed by theWWDC and project sponsors to determine if the project should be terminated or if they shouldadvance to either a Level II feasibility study or Level III Construction program. At the Novembermeeting of the WWDC, consultant reports are presented and project sponsors are given theopportunity to present their requests to the Commission. The WWDC provides preliminaryrecommendations on existing projects at its November meeting. The recommendations addressthe project budget and financing plan.

3. Public Meetings/Hearings

If a proposed Level I, Reconnaissance Study or a Level II, Feasibility Study is of particularconcern or controversy, the WWDC may solicit public input at a public meeting prior tofinalizing its project recommendation. The Commission holds formal public hearings on allprojects which are proposed for Level III, Final Design and Construction.

4. Coordination with the Governor

The WWDC provides the Governor with its preliminary recommendations and a financial reportaddressing impacts to the water development accounts. The Governor may provide inputthroughout the recommendation process.

5. Final Recommendations

The WWDC meets in December or early January to finalize its legislative recommendations onnew applications and existing projects. The Commission considers public input received at themeetings and hearings and recommendations of the Governor. Sponsors and interested parties orindividuals who may wish the Commission to reconsider its preliminary recommendations areprovided the opportunity to address the Commission with their concerns.

Ch.3 Pg.2

6. Select Water Committee

The Select Water Committee is comprised of 6 senators and 6 representatives. The Committeereviews and comments on the Wyoming Water Development Commission's recommendationsand budgets. Typically, the Select Water Committee serves as sponsors for the WaterDevelopment Program legislation.

7. Legislative Process

The legislature must approve the allocation of funds from the water development accounts toparticular projects. This approval is solicited through the "Omnibus" Planning and ConstructionBills.

Ch.3 Pg.3

2001 Legislative SessionWWDC’s Final Recommendations

New Development Program

PROJECT Level ProposedAppropriation

Casper Pressure Zone II II $60,000High Savery III $3,800,000Little Snake Small Reservoirs III $50,000Lodge Pole ASR I $50,000North Uinta I&S II $100,000Oakley I&S II $176,000Opal Regional II $90,000Prairie Dog Watershed I $35,000State Engineer’s Office Conservation Officer NA $50,000Story Fire District II $25,000Three Horses Watershed I $100,000Washakie Rural III $240,000Wheatland Water Supply III $222,000Worland/Hot Springs II $670,000TOTAL $5,668,000

Ch.3 Pg.4

2001 Legislative SessionWWDC’s Final Recommendations

Rehabilitation Program

PROJECT Level ProposedAppropriation

Alpine Spring II $40,000Baggs III $92,000Basin Plans I $1,550,000Bridger Valley Intake III $138,000Dayton III $440,000Dayton Water Supply II $50,000Deaver Irrigation District II $100,000Downer Neighborhood III $113,000Encampment III $60,000Gillette Central Zone III $75,000Granger II $65,000Hugus/Mullison Ditch III $325,000Lander Intake & Pipeline III $400,000Laramie North Side III $970,000Pine Haven Municipal III $235,000Popo Agie Watershed I $200,000Powell Municipal III $127,000Riverton Raw Water Supply III $85,000Riverton Valley II $40,000Sheridan Raw Water III $50,000South Crow Diversion III $70,000UW Research I $140,000WGS-NE Wyoming I $400,000Wamsutter III $140,000TOTAL $5,905,000

Ch.3 Pg.5

Financial Status Reports

A. Water Development Account No. 1

Water Development Account No. 1 [WS 41-2-124(a)(I)] finances the New Development Programand Water Planning Programs. The account has received general fund appropriations of$117,600,000 and receives revenues from a 1.5% excise tax on coal. During the 1990 legislativesession, WS 41-2-124 was amended to allow the account to receive interest benefits beginningJuly 1, 1992. Legislative approval must be granted prior to allocating funds from the account to aparticular project. The following is a summary of the financial status of Water DevelopmentAccount No. 1, as of June 30, 2000:

Cash Balance (6/30/00) $ 83,246,536

Outstanding CommitmentsActive Appropriations $270,245,180Paid 136,251,244

Total Commitments (7/01/00) $133,993,936

Total Uncommitted Balance (7/01/00) ($50,747,400)

FY 01 -- Anticipated RevenuesTaxes $ 18,900,000Interest 2,200,000Other 2,500,000

Total -- FY 01 Revenues $ 23,600,000

FY 02 -- Anticipated RevenuesTaxes $ 18,200,000Interest 2,200,000Other 2,500,000

Total -- FY 02 Revenues $ 22,900,000

Subtotal Revenues ($4,247,400)Greybull Valley Dam Reversion 7,942,542State Engineer’s Office 600,000Other Project Reversions 1,379,275

Total Anticipated Revenues $ 5,674,417

B. Water Development Account No. 2

The Water Development Account No. 2 [W.S. 41-2-124(a)(ii)] finances the RehabilitationProgram. The account receives revenues from a 0.167% severance tax on oil and gas. As of July1, 1992, this account also began receiving the interest accrued on its unspent balance. Legislativeapproval must be granted prior to allocating funds from the account to a particular project. Thefollowing is a summary of the financial status of Water Development Account No. 2, as of June30, 2000:

Ch.3 Pg.6

Cash Balance (6/30/00) $15,681,001

Outstanding CommitmentsActive Appropriations $42,464,075Paid 20,272,054

Total Commitments (7/01/00) $22,192,021Total Uncommitted Balance (7/01/00) ($ 6,511,020)

FY 01 -- Anticipated RevenuesTaxes $ 4,900,000Interest 800,000Other 1,500,000

Total -- FY 01 Revenues $7,200,000

FY 02 -- Anticipated RevenuesTaxes $ 2,800,000Interest 800,000Other 1,500,000

Total -- FY 02 Revenues $5,100,000

Subtotal Revenues $5,788,980Reversions $1,119,232

Total Anticipated Revenues $6,908,212

C. Debt Service Accounts

Account Balance as of 12/15/00Fontenelle Operation and Maintenance $ 305,746Buffalo Bill Reservoir 9,436,276Palisades Operation and Maintenance 78,273

Miscellaneous 59,909

2001PROJECTREPORTS

Ch. 4 Pg. 1

CHAPTER 4. STATISTICAL INFORMATION

2001 Project Reports

A typical water development project progresses through the following phases or levels. However, somelevels may be bypassed if there is pertinent existing information available on the project.

1. Level I, Reconnaissance Studies

These studies are preliminary analyses and comparison of development alternatives.

The typical Level I study should identify or provide the following:

a. Identify development options.b. Identify potential beneficiaries and benefits of each option.c. Describe factors that could impair or prohibit the development of any option, including legal and environmental constraints.d. Analyze water rights, including identification of conflicting prior rights.e. Compare options based on physical and legal water availability, technical,

economic, legal, and environmental considerations.

2. Level II, Feasibility Studies

The typical Level II process consists of two phases. First, project feasibility is addressed.Then, if the project is determined feasible, the proposal is refined to the status necessaryfor a Level III funding request.

The typical Level II, Phase I investigations should include the following activities:

a. Quantify reasonably, the amount of water that can physically and legally be developed.b. Determine water needs that could be served by the project.c. Determine technical feasibility including a safety analysis.d. Develop a general configuration depicting preliminary physical characteristics of

the project.e. Develop a preliminary project operation plan.f. Estimate costs for construction, consultant services, and operation and maintenance.g. Identify direct benefits that could result from project implementation and the resulting supply of industrial, agricultural and/or municipal water.h. Identify costs and benefits that would result by incorporating recreation,

hydropower generation, and flood control functions into the project.i. Define economic, legal, environmental, and administrative problems and identify alternate solutions to those problems.j. Develop an ownership map of lands that may be affected by the project.k. Commence the data collection process to identify environmental impacts and potential mitigation and enhancement opportunities.l. Conduct an analysis of the project sponsor's ability to pay.

Ch. Pg. 2

After review of the above information, a determination of technical, economic,and legal feasibility should be made. This determination, coupled with thesponsor's need for the project, interest in the project, and willingness and abilityto financially participate, will be utilized to determine if the project shouldproceed to Level II, Phase II.

The typical Level II, Phase II investigations should include the followingactivities:

a. Perform the final technical design including:

i. Hydrologic investigations.ii. An operating plan which addresses water management during

and after construction.iii. A conceptual design of the general project configuration.

b. Identify state and federal permits and clearances necessary to constructthe project. Interview representatives of each permitting agency to determinedata and schedule requirements.

c. Perform an environmental analysis of the proposed operation andconfiguration. On the more complex projects, the Wyoming Game and FishDepartment assists the WWDC in these analyses. On an annual basis, theWWDC contracts with the department to provide environmental baseline data,evaluate project impacts, and recommend mitigation measures.

d. Perform a cultural resource survey of the general project area, asapplicable.

e. Determine which lands must be acquired to implement the project.Identify applications to purchase or obtain easements on public lands and obtainappraisals of private lands that must be purchased.

f. Develop a detailed schedule of the activities necessary to complete theproject.

g. Prepare an itemized project budget which includes costs for designengineering, permitting, land acquisition, environmental mitigation, construction,construction engineering, operation, maintenance and replacement.

h. Perform an economic analysis comparing the allocated costs with projectprimary and secondary benefits. For the more complex projects, an analysis ofindirect benefits may be appropriate.

3. Level III, Final Design and Construction

The typical Level III process progresses in the following manner:

a. Prepare the project agreement, note and mortgage which formalizessponsor and WWDC project responsibilities and the financing plan/procedures.Funds are not available for expenditure until these documents are executed.

Ch. Pg. 3

b. Secure consultant services required for final design, permitting, andconstruction inspection.

c. Prepare permit applications and commence the permitting process.

d. Prepare Environmental Impact Statements or Assessments. Typically,the 404 permit application will trigger this activity.

e. Prepare the construction documents including technical specifications,contract documents and bidding plans. This work may be performed concur-rently with the permitting process if it is determined that the project feasibilitywill not be impacted by permit conditions. If there are particularly sensitivepermitting issues, this task should be postponed until those issues are success-fully resolved.

f. Acquire options on or title to the necessary project lands and easements.The scheduling of this task should be sequenced to minimize impacts to propertyowners and as dictated by the permitting process.

g. Perform mitigation of project impacts on environmental and culturalresources.

h. After the above activities are completed or there is assurance that theywill be completed prior to any construction activities, the construction biddingprocess can be initiated.

i. Perform the construction and construction administration/inspection.

j. Determine the date the sponsor accrues project benefits in order toestablish loan repayment schedules.

k. Perform project close out procedures.

Ch.4 Pg.4

Active Projects

01. PROJECT: Afton Water SupplyLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Town of AftonLOCATION: Lincoln CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 81 1999 II $75,000 2000Level III 96 2000 II $450,000* 2004* 50% grant, 50% loan (7¼%, 30 years)

PROJECT INFORMATION:The town of Afton is performing rehabilitative construction of the Periodic Springs pipeline. Theconstruction effort consists of canyon wall rock, rubble, and boulder removal; the importation ofbedding material and concrete to set a pipe bed; and the installation of approximately 1000 feet ofpipeline from the spring outlet down (approx. 170 foot elevation drop) to the existing 97,000 gallonstorage tank. The existing pipeline is quite vulnerable, i.e., subject to rockfall, therefore it is criticalto the town’s water supply that the pipeline be replaced and securely re-routed.

A contract with BRS, Inc. has been negotiated by the town for project design and constructionadministration services for the project. Removal of the canyon wall rock slabs, which rockfall was threatening the existing pipeline, were successfully removed in the late fall of 2000 by RobertsConstruction of Evanston, Wyoming. Design of the relocated line is anticipated to be completed byFebruary, 2001, with construction completed in the fall of 2001.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

02. PROJECT: Aladdin Water SupplyLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Aladdin Community Water DistrictLOCATION: Crook CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 10 1994 I $25,000 1996Level II 8 1995 I $275,000 1996Level II 15 1996 I Hold 1998Level II 82 1998 I Hold 2000Level III 16 1999 I N/A N/A* A block appropriation of $15,000 was made for all hold projects.

Ch.4 Pg.5

PROJECT INFORMATION:The WWDC completed a Level I study in 1994 which identified a well site and developed costestimates which yield monthly rates acceptable to district members. The water district requested thatWWDC proceed to Level II to construct a Madison test well and develop conceptual level plans forstorage and transmission components.

A Level II study was completed in 1995 wherein a good groundwater supply was located. During theLevel II process the project service area was reduced to the immediate Aladdin area, which includesfourteen (14) taps. Conceptual level designs and cost estimates were completed for the downsizedsystem. The total Level III project cost was estimated at $335,000, which includes the Level II wellcosts ($80,000), the transmission system ($235,000), and the distribution and chlorination systems($20,000). The distribution and chlorination systems are not eligible for WWDC participation.

The district spent two years investigating financing alternatives, and have requested only that theWWDC sell them the well with a 60/40 grant loan split. The interest rate will be 7.25% with a term

of10 years. They plan to obtain the balance of their funding from other sources.

The project will be maintained in state ownership and provisions made to allow sale of water to thedistrict and to the Department of Transportation. Water will be sold to the district for $1.20 per 1000gallons and to the Department of Transportation for $.50 per 1000 gallons. No appropriation isnecessary because the well is already in place. This authorization will allow the state to recoup itsinvestment in the well, and the well will be put to beneficial use.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

03. PROJECT Antelope Valley Water SupplyLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Antelope Valley Improvement & Service DistrictLOCATION: Campbell CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATIONPurpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel III 28 1994 II $850,000 1997Level III 96 2000 II $102,000 2004

PROJECT INFORMATIONAntelope Valley wishes to purchase Well No. 5, emplaced by WWDC in 1999, and makeimprovements to their water system as delineated in the 1999 Level II study. Construction tasksinclude; 1) Install pump, well house , appurtenances at Well No. 5 and, 2) Install chlorine feed systemat storage site. The Level II study was a combined project that included analysis of Antelope Valleyand Crestview Estates subdivisions. This project was advanced to Level III in 2000. Pendingagreement between Antelope Valley and Crestview, design work will commence.

Ch.4 Pg.6

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

04. PROJECT Baggs Water SupplyLEVEL: IISPONSOR: Town of BaggsLOCATION: Carbon CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 36 2000 I $50,000 2002

PROJECT INFORMATIONThe residents of the town of Baggs utilize treated water from a Little Snake River intake diversion. High turbidity counts (NTU’s) during spring runoff have plagued the town in the form of drinkingwater standard exceedences. Because of the water quality violation, the town applied to exploregroundwater options.

The Level II study of the existing water supply and treatment system was completed as a continuanceof the WWDC Groundwater Grant study awarded the town in 1999. The purpose of the study wasto investigate alternative diversion systems, utilizing results of 1999 test well drilling, and prepareconceptual designs, cost estimates, economic analysis, and project financing guidelines for fundingopportunities.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends the project be advanced to Level III in the Rehabilitation Program with anappropriation of $92,000. The financing plan includes a 50% grant, $92,000, from WWDC and a50% loan, $92,000 from the USDA Rural Utility Service.

05. PROJECT: Bairoil Test WellLEVEL: IISPONSOR: Town of BairoilLOCATION: Carbon CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 81 1999 I $225,000 2000Level II 36 2000 I $200,000 2002

PROJECT DESCRIPTIONThe town of Bairoil is seeking to expand their groundwater supply by drilling a second production-sizetest well with similar production and water quality properties to that of the test well emplaced in 1999

Ch.4 Pg.7

by WWDC. The town, in order to sever its dependency on an oil field water supply pipeline andprovidefor future growth and redundancy, wants an additional groundwater source. Favorable criteria forsiting the second well would include minimizing the distance for installing transmission and powerlines, maximizing the well spacing such that drawdown interference between pumping wells isreduced, and locating optimal aquifer characteristics in the Battle Springs Formation.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

06. PROJECT: Bairoil Water SupplyLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Town of BairoilLOCATION: Carbon CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATIONPurpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 81 1999 I $225,000 2000Level II 36 2000 I $200,000 2002Level III 96 2000 I $480,000* 200460% grant

PROJECT INFORMATION:The town of Bairoil is separating its supplemental municipal supply, the Battle Springs Pipeline,operated by BP-Amoco, by developing alternative groundwater supplies; and enhancing the town’soriginal Abel Springs source. BP-Amoco sold the Lost Soldier Oil Field operations to Merit Energy,posing an uncertain future for a significant portion of Bairoil’s water supply which taps the BattleSprings Pipeline. With 1999 WWDC Level II funds, a production-sized test well was drilledproviding a viable water supply. Deep groundwater sources are difficult to find because of thevariable aquifer supply quantities available and widespread occurrence of uranium deposits whichadversely affect radionuclide levels. The town purchased the test well as a supply well and wasgranted an additional$200,000 Level II appropriation (Session 2000) to drill a second production well. The second supply well is anticipated to be completed in the spring/summer of 2001.

A Level III 2000 appropriation will be used to construct necessary transmission facilities andimplement efforts to enhance flows derived from the original Abel Springs source. A contract withWester - Wetstein & Associates, Inc. of Gillette, has been negotiated by the town for project designand construction administration services for the project. Design should be completed early in 2001with construction slated to be complete in the fall of 2001.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

Ch.4 Pg.8

07. PROJECT: Basin Area Water Supply (formerly Manderson Water Supply)LEVEL: IIISPONSOR: South Big Horn County Water Supply Joint Powers BoardLOCATION: Big Horn CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel III-1 206 1995 I $670,000* 1999Level III-1 59 1996 I $5,360,000* 1999Level III-1 38 1998 I $200,000* 2002*67% grant

PROJECT INFORMATION:The town of Basin and the town of Manderson are committed to this project because they areexperiencing problems with their current water supply systems, and because they anticipate theircurrent systems will require a considerable capital investment in the near future.

The rural area around Manderson and Basin has formed a district, the South Bighorn County WaterDistrict, to provide service to approximately 170 users.

A groundwater exploration program was conducted by the WWDC in 1985 that indicated a goodpotential exists for obtaining groundwater from the Paleozoic formations approximately 8 miles eastof Manderson. In 1993, an exploratory well was constructed that produced water of excellent quality,but lacked sufficient yield to supply the projected 750 taps in the regional water system. In 1994 thewell was hydraulically fractured in an attempt to stimulate water production. The well now flowsapproximately 350 gpm of good quality water. A second well has been drilled into the Madisonformation that produces approximately 250 gpm. The water supply from the two wells will meetdemand for many years.

In 1994, the project continued through conceptual designs and cost estimates. The sponsor has 820taps committed to the project. The South Big Horn County Water Supply Joint Powers Board hasbeen formed to serve as the sponsor for the project. The engineer has conducted three separate bidlettings for the project. The first contract has been let and the second production well has been drilled.The second construction contract provides the major transmission pipeline between the wells and thetowns of Basin and Manderson. The second phase is complete and customers are receiving water. The third phase construction of the rural distribution system is complete and in service. Currentlythe WWDC, the USDA Rural Utility Services, the State Loan and Investment Board, and the sponsorare funding the project. The WWDC has been funding 67 percent of the project with the other entitiesfunding 33 percent. The Rural Utility Services will provide the remaining funding and the Phase IIIcomponents will be adjusted to match the total funding package if necessary.

Phase II and III construction is complete. Phase IV design and construction will proceed during 2001.Phase IV consists of a pipeline which will connect the regional system to the old water storage tanksat Manderson. This is necessary to correct an unstable pressure problem in Manderson.

Ch.4 Pg.9

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

08. PROJECT: Blackwillow Water SupplyLEVEL: II-HoldSPONSOR: Blackwillow SubdivisionLOCATION: Hot Springs CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 8 1995 I $25,000 1996Level II 15 1996 I Hold 1998Level II 82 1998 I Hold 2000Level II 36 2000 I Hold* 2002* A block appropriation of $15,000 was made for all hold projects.

PROJECT INFORMATION:Blackwillow subdivision is located northeast of Thermopolis. There are 16 existing homes in thesubdivision and surrounding area; all are on individual wells. The wells produce small quantities ofpoor quality water. Some residents have individual water treatment systems or haul water. In 1994,the sponsor requested assistance from the WWDC to complete a Level I study to determine theiroptions for securing a good quality water supply.

The Level I study was completed by BRS Inc. in 1995. The Level I study delineated a possible servicearea, defined water supply alternatives, and recommended a preferred alternative. Preliminary designsand cost estimates were developed for the preferred alternative. The study determined that there areother lands suitable for development in the area with similar problems and the cost to the existing 16homeowners would exceed $125.00 per month unless additional users could be brought into a district.The subdivision has elected not to pursue further study at this time pending formation of a waterdistrict.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The Commission recommends that the project be retained on Level II-Hold status.

09. PROJECT: Bridger Valley Intake Structure RehabilitationLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Bridger Valley Joint Powers BoardLOCATION: Uinta CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

PROJECT INFORMATION:The Bridger Valley Joint Powers Board sought Level III funding in 2001 to assist in the constructionreplacement of the existing intake and raw water diversion structure in the Smith’s Fork River. Theintake is located 8,700 feet upstream from the regional water treatment plant. The existing structureis

Ch.4 Pg.10

inadequate to provide the total raw water capacity of the new 4 MGD water treatment plant which iscurrently under design and being funded by a Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) loan. The existing intake structure also has problems associated with intake capacity at low river flows aswell as problems with ice and trash accumulations.

A pre-design report, which was completed in March, 2000 by Nelson Engineering and Richard P.Arber Associates, includes an evaluation of intake upgrade alternatives taking into considerationpressure requirements at the WTP, access to intake site, sediment removal, permitting costs, regulatoryissues and life cycle costs. Alternatives looked at included: alluvial wells, alternate diversionlocations, raw water transmission line replacement and construction of a booster pump station. Themost cost effective and implementable alternative selected will incorporate the replacement of theexisting 14-inch raw water pipeline and intake structure. The new intake structure will continue belocated at the site of the existing intake structure. Design and construction of the new transmissionline is included in the funding provided by a DWSRF loan and a capital facilities tax.

Total estimated project costs for the intake structure is $327,000 which includes easement acquisition,design, wetlands & environmental mitigation/permitting, construction management and a 10%contingency. The BVJPB intends to fund the estimated $52,900 for design, easement and wetlandsmitigation costs with its own funds leaving a balance of $275,000 in project costs. BVJPB isrequesting a 50% grant of these costs or $137,500. The remaining 50% of costs will be provided fromfunds collected by the capital facilities tax.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends that the project be incorporated in the Rehabilitation Program at Level IIIwith an appropriation of $138,000. The funding would be to provide 50% of the construction andconstruction management costs .

10. PROJECT: Bridger Valley Water SupplyLEVEL: II-HoldSPONSOR: Bridger Valley Joint Powers Board and Pioneer Water and Sewer DistrictLOCATION: Uinta CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 43 1992 I $125,000 1994

Level II 10 1994 I $300,000 1996Level II 15 1996 I Hold 1998Level II 82 1998 I Hold 2000Level II 36 2000 I Hold* 2002* A block appropriation of $15,000 was made for all hold projects.

PROJECT INFORMATION:In 1990, the Bridger Valley Joint Powers Board requested assistance from the WWDC in determiningthe feasibility of expanding the board's service area. The Joint Powers Board presently supplies water

Ch.4 Pg.11

to the towns of Mountain View and Lyman; the Blacks Fork, Lower Bench and Fort Bridger WaterDistricts; and 176 individual homes and businesses. Water users not in the service area have nopotable water or have poor quality water in limited supplies. The Bridger Valley Joint Powers Boardfelt at that time they had sufficient water rights and water treatment plant capacity to serve additionalusers not included in the present service area.

In 1991, the WWDC completed the Level I study which evaluated the possibility of serving additionalareas. The areas identified as the most likely to connect to the present system include: the area eastof Mountain View and south of Lyman; the area surrounding Millburne, which is south of the FortBridger Water District and west of Mountain View; and the area surrounding the Uinta CountyHighway Shop which is north of the treatment plant. These areas were organized into the PioneerWater and Sewer District. The cost to connect the district to the present system was estimated to be$3,440,000. The number of potential taps in the district was estimated to be approximately 120. Thecosts to the potential users to purchase water from the board and repay the loans was estimated at $60-$65 per month per tap.

Due to the Joint Powers Board's inability to provide the necessary loan security, as the proposedproject was outside its boundaries, the Pioneer Water and Sewer District took over as the projectsponsor.

In 1992, the Level II study defined the proposed transmission pipeline alignment, provided mappingof the proposed alignment, investigated the geologic conditions along that alignment, and evaluated the present water treatment plant. The Level II study found that the Bridger Valley Joint PowersBoard system is operating at its maximum capacity and will need a major upgrade to provide cleanwater to its current members in the very near future. The Lyman Springs, which are a majorcomponent of the area water supply, also became a concern due to the possibility of EPA regulation.

In 1993, the sponsor requested an extension of the Level II study. This Level II study extension wouldinvestigate the possibility of developing a groundwater source. This groundwater source could servethe Pioneer District and be tied into the Bridger Valley Regional System as an additional water supply. This additional study was to include a groundwater exploration program and will provide conceptualplans and detailed cost estimates for a groundwater supply system to serve the district or to serve theregional system, depending on the results of the groundwater exploration program.

In 1994, the Level II study determined that there is a surface water connection problem with theLyman Springs. The Lyman Springs Rehabilitation project has been authorized for construction. In1995, due to the protests of the land owners in the area, the sponsors decided not to pursue thegroundwater exploration program. The joint powers board is presently evaluating alternativeimprovements to the water treatment plant.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends that the project be placed on Level II-Hold status.

Ch.4 Pg.12

11. PROJECT: Buffalo HydropowerLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: City of BuffaloLOCATION: Johnson CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel III 28 1992 I $975,000* 1999Level III 59 1996 I $100,000* 1999*100% loan (4%, 5 years, 5 year deferral)

PROJECT INFORMATION:During the Level II analysis of the Buffalo Municipal Reservoir Project, the feasibility of installinga hydropower unit using the existing Buffalo water supply line from the diversion structure on ClearCreek was evaluated. Revenues from power sales would make a substantial contribution towardsretiring the loan for the Buffalo Municipal Reservoir project. Water released from the reservoir formunicipal use, meeting downstream water rights, and instream flow purposes would provide a steadyand reliable source for power generation.

In 1991, conceptual level plans, cost estimates and operating plans were completed and the final reportwas submitted to WWDC and the project sponsor. Total cost of the hydropower unit is estimated at$1,075,000. The project sponsor opted to request construction funds for the hydropower generationunit. The two projects, the Buffalo Municipal Reservoir and the Buffalo Hydropower project, aremutually interdependent for economic feasibility.

In 1992, the WWDC and the city completed the project agreement, note and mortgage necessary forthe city to access project funds. The city has received the Federal Energy Regulatory Commissionlicense necessary to operate the hydropower facility. The project has been designed and constructionbids were received in January, 1996. Construction began in the summer of 1996 and substantialcompletion was achieved in May, 1997. A small project which will help alleviate the accumulationof silt at the stream diversion structure was awarded in December, 1997.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

12. PROJECT: Buffalo Municipal ReservoirLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: City of BuffaloLOCATION: Johnson CountyPROGRAM: New Development

Ch.4 Pg.13

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel III 28 1992 I $10,650,000* 1999Level III 59 1996 I $2,450,000* 1999Level III 45 1997 I $500,000* 1999*67% grant, 33% loan (4%, 50 years, 5 year deferral)

PROJECT INFORMATION:The Buffalo Municipal Reservoir Project involves development of a municipal supply storagereservoir in the Clear Creek Basin west of Buffalo. Buffalo's existing water supply is diverted fromClear Creek about six miles west of the city. Releases from the reservoir supplement Clear Creek flowwhen the direct flow cannot fulfill Buffalo's water supply requirements.

The Level II - Phase I report was completed in March, 1989. The report concluded that the preferreddevelopment option included a dam and reservoir at the Lower Tie Hack site on South Clear Creek,a tributary of Clear Creek. In addition, the report indicated that installation of a $975,000 hydropowergeneration unit at the downstream end of the city's water supply pipeline could be economicallyadvantageous. The hydropower unit is addressed as a separate project, but construction of bothcomponents is required if the total project is to be economically feasible. The report also noted thatthe feasibility of the project would depend on the successful transfer of Buffalo's existing 1933 filingfor 1640 acre feet from Little Sourdough Creek to the dam site. This transfer was accomplished in1990.

In 1992, the WWDC and city completed the project agreement, note and mortgage needed before thecity could access project funds. The final design was been completed and construction bids wereopened and reviewed in January, 1996. The Forest Service special use permit was issued on February23, 1996, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit was issued on March 5, 1996.Construction commenced in April, 1996, with substantial completion reached in November, 1997. Although the project is substantially completed, final completion of the project will be achieved in2000. A small campground which was inundated by the new reservoir was replaced by the ForestService in 1999.

The town has an opportunity to exchange land with the U.S. Forest Service. The reservoir site isowned by the U.S. Forest Service. The town is acquiring private property contiguous to the nationalforest. The Forest Service has expressed an interest in this property. If the exchange is finalized, thetown will no longer be required to obtain a special use permit from the U.S. Forest Service. The costsfor special use permits have been escalating in recent years because they are now tied to the value ofthe property. Issues involving access to the property to be exchanged with the Forest Service remainto be worked out.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required on this project.

Ch.4 Pg.14

13. PROJECT: Buffalo Valley Water SupplyLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Buffalo Valley Water DistrictLOCATION: Teton CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 46 1997 I $90,000 1999Level III 38 1998 I $475,000* 2001*60% grant; 40% loan (7¼%, 30 years); plus $6,264 loan for well (7¼%, 30 years)

PROJECT INFORMATION:The WWDC staff prepared a Level I study in 1996 that inventoried the existing system, evaluated watersupply needs, and evaluated water supply alternatives for the water users in the Buffalo Valley area. Preliminary plans and cost estimates were developed for the identified alternatives and a preferredalternative was selected. In 1997 a Level II study was performed to drill a test well and test the wellperformance and prepare conceptual designs and cost estimates . The well was successfully completedin 1997 for a cost of $15,561.

The Buffalo Valley Water District received a 1998 grant and loan appropriation in the amount of$475,000 from Water Development Account I. The grant is for 60% of the WWDC eligible projectcosts with a 40% loan at a 7¼% interest rate over 30 years. The project scope includes constructionof a new 80,000 gallon storage tank system, well pumping, control building, chlorination facilities,valving, telemetry system, and a transmission line to the storage tanks.

A contract with Jorgensen Engineering has been negotiated by the district for project design andconstruction administration services. The WWDC funding legislation provides for a reversion date ofJuly 1, 2001. There has been a substantial project time delay owing to the issuance of a U.S.Department of Agriculture - Forest Service Special Use Permit for the storage tank system site. The onlyproperly engineered location for the storage system is on Forest Service land. The district has used duediligence in pursuing the Forest Service’s authorization to construct the storage system at that location. After two years of effort the Forest Service issued the Special Use Permit on August 28, 2000. Construction of the storage tank system and transmission line will not be able to proceed until the nextconstruction season which is anticipated to be around May 1, 2001. The Sponsor is therefore requestingthe extension of the project reversion date until December 1, 2001.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:It is recommended that the reversion date be extended one year which would be July 1, 2002 to ensurethat all project components are properly constructed and placed into operation.

Ch.4 Pg.15

14. PROJECT: Bump Sullivan Reservoir (Goshen Hole/Goshen Mutual IrrigationCompanies Canal Improvements)

LEVEL: II-HoldSPONSOR: South Goshen Conservation DistrictLOCATION: Goshen CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 82 1998 II $70,000 2000Level II 36 2000 I Hold* 2002* A block appropriation of $15,000 was made for all hold projects.

PROJECT INFORMATION:A conservation district is sponsoring this project for two irrigation companies (pending the outcome ofthis study, the companies will form a single irrigation district). The canal companies serveapproximately 12 irrigators and comprise approximately 3000 acres (Goshen Mutual: 700 acres, GoshenHole: 2,300 acres).

Goshen Mutual Ditch Company is interested in repairing or replacing their diversion dam on HorseCreek. Repairs to the main supply canal are also needed. Goshen Hole Ditch Company would like theWWDC to investigate the feasibility of placing several thousand feet of open ditch into pipe andimproving turnouts and measuring devices.

The Level II project inventoried and assessed the condition of the canals and appurtenances, surveyedcanal alignments and grades, evaluated the feasibility of needed repairs, prepared preliminary designsand cost estimates for reasonable alternatives, and explored financing options.

In 1999 the Goshen Mutual Ditch Company applied for Level III funding to fix their diversions andditches. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department has approved $28,125 (approximately 25% of theproject) from their Habitat Trust Fund to go with a 50% grant from the WWDC. However, there hasbeen no major progress towards formation of a irrigation district from either of the ditch companies.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends that the project be retained at Level II-Hold status.

15. PROJECT: Casper Effluent Water SupplyLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: City of CasperLOCATION: Natrona CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel III 96 2000 I $600,000* 2004*60% grant, 40% loan

Ch.4 Pg.16

PROJECT INFORMATION:In 1994 the city of Casper desired to reduce the demand on their present water supply system byinstalling a pipeline from the wastewater treatment plant to the North Casper Recreation Complex andthe Casper Soccer Complex for irrigation of the lawns and fields in the complexes. It was estimated thatthe project would conserve 120 acre feet per year of Casper's municipal water supply. The project mayalso reduce the scope of future water supply projects for Casper or the Regional Joint Powers Board.

WWDC involvement in the project would have been limited to the installation of 2,200 feet of irrigationwater transmission pipeline and appurtenances. The city will fund the pump station at the wastewatertreatment plant and the pump facilities at the complexes from other sources.

In 1994, the Commission recommended that the project be incorporated into the New DevelopmentProgram at Level III status with an appropriation of $150,000. The project was shutdown due to somepublic concerns on the project. The money reverted back to the WWDC.

The city of Casper has the approval of the public and has now acquired the necessary regulatoryclearances on this project.

Funding for the project was approved in 2000. Design and construction of this project will proceedduring the 2001 construction season.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action required.

16. PROJECT: Casper Zone 2LEVEL: New ApplicationSPONSOR: City of CasperLOCATION: Natrona CountyPROGRAM: New Development

PROJECT INFORMATION:Due to the rapid growth in Casper and most notable in the East Zone II area, the city would like toexpand its storage and transmission facilities that service the area. There have been two studies in thepast in this area. However, rapid growth has changed the demands since that time. The city would likea study to look at a storage tank and transmission mains from the tank to the current system.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends the project be incorporated in the New Development Program at Level II withan appropriation of $60,000.

Ch.4 Pg.17

17. PROJECT: Centennial Water SupplyLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Centennial Water and Sewer DistrictLOCATION: Albany CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel III 16 1999 I $110,000* 2002*60% grant, 40% loan (7.25%, 30 years)

PROJECT INFORMATION:This project will provide additional storage to the relatively new water system for this community.The initial water system was financed by WWDC and other funding agencies.

The project is designed and will be bid in the winter of 2000-2001 for summer construction. Theproject

is expected to be complete by the fall of 2001.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is recommended.

18. PROJECT: Cheyenne South Crow DiversionLEVEL: IISPONSOR: City of CheyenneLOCATION: Laramie CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 81 1999 II $80,0002000

PROJECT INFORMATION:This project consists of rehabilitation of the South Crow Diversion Dam located approximately 20miles west of Cheyenne. The city of Cheyenne constructed the dam in 1911 to impound and divertthe flows of South Crow Creek for municipal use. Depending upon the time of the year, it isestimated that 0 to 3 mgd can be diverted to Cheyenne’s water system.

During the past several years, the city has not relied upon the waters of the system and the dam hasdeveloped several structural problems, with numerous leaks through the dam and severe concretesloughing at various locations. As Cheyenne grows, and the use of both potable and raw water alsogrow and the need for additional water also increases. The city may want to place System Controland Data Acquisition and metering upgrades on the South Crow Dam and Reservoir along with thedam and reservoir rehabilitation.

In 1999 the legislature approved $80,000 to evaluate the current condition of the South CrowDiversion Dam and to evaluate the rehabilitation options to bring the dam up to current standards.

Ch.4 Pg.18

The time needed to test the dam conditions and the surrounding area requires a two year programwhich will be completed in the summer of 2000.

In 2000 the Commission recommended phasing the project. The first phase is the final design ofthe project with a cost of $70,000 and phase two is actual construction of the project which isestimated at approximately $1,096,000. This was due to the limited funds for year 2001.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends the project be advanced to Level III in the Rehabilitation Program withan appropriation of $70,000 for final design of the project. The financing plan includes a 50% grantof $35,000 and a 50% loan of $35,000 for 20 years at 7.25% interest.

19. PROJECT: Cheyenne Supply PipelineLEVEL: Level IIISPONSOR: City of CheyenneLOCATION: Laramie CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 74 1993 I $250,000 1994Level II 8 1995 II $250,000 1996Level III 96 2000 I $11,000,000* 2004* 60% grant; 40% loan (7¼%, 30 years)

PROJECT INFORMATION:In 1992, the CBPU requested funding for several projects. The WWDC suggested the CBPUcomplete a master plan to prioritize future improvements. The city's existing master plan hadbecome dated and did not address the latest EPA requirements.

In 1993, the Wyoming legislature approved funding to update the Cheyenne Water Supply MasterPlan. In 1994 the master plan was completed. The plan identified needed improvements, suggestedpriorities, estimated costs, and now serves as a planning tool for the city. Approximately$62,000,000 in needed capital improvements have been identified. The identified improvementsinclude an extensive upgrade to the CBPU Sherard Water Treatment Plant and several transmissionsystem improvements. These improvements were prioritized and recommended for completion bythe year 2007. Additional Level II analysis was recommended to refine designs and cost estimates.

In 1996, States West Water Resources Corporation completed a Level II study of the CheyenneWater Supply System. Conceptual designs and cost estimates were prepared for 1) a raw watersystem to irrigate parks and golf courses, 2) piping and improvements to the raw water lines feedingthe water treatment plant, 3) a new water transmission main to the east side of Cheyenne, 4)corrosion analysis, and 5) improvements to the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System.

The first portion of the raw water project was completed in 1998.

Ch.4 Pg.19

In 2000, the city of Cheyenne received additional funding to complete another phase of its plannedraw water system to start the first phase of a 14.3 mile long pipeline from Crystal Reservoir to thenew treatment plant. The Level III funding is authorized from the New Development Account as a60% grant ($6,600,000) and a 40% loan ($4,400,000) at 7.25% for 30 years to construct the initial11.7 miles starting at the Sherard Water Treatment Plant and proceeding westward to a point alongCrystal Lake Road. A contract with Black & Veatch Corporation of Denver, has been negotiatedby the city for project design and construction administration services. Design should be completedearly in 2001 with construction slated to be complete in November, 2001

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

20. PROJECT: Chugwater Water SupplyLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Town of ChugwaterLOCATION: Platte CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 15 1996 I $75,0001998Level II 46 1997 I $100,000 1998Level III 45 1997 II $103,500* 2000Level III 16 1999 I $967,800** 2003*50% grant**60% grant

PROJECT INFORMATION:Work completed under the 1997 Level III construction appropriation includes replacement of pipefrom the in town wells to the storage tank with larger pipe and rehabilitation of the valves on thestorage tank. The 1999 Level III construction appropriation authorizes replacement of one in townwell, new pumps, controls and disinfection equipment, new wells and storage tank west of townand a pipeline from those wells to town. The in town well replacement is complete, and the controlbuilding contract should be complete prior to the summer of 2001. The new wells west of townwill be designed and constructed in 2001, with the storage tank and pipeline to follow. RUS isfunding 40% of this project and 50% of the previous work not funded by the WWDC.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

21. PROJECT: Coal Bed Methane Observation WellsLEVEL: IISPONSOR: State Engineer’s OfficeLOCATION: Campbell CountyPROGRAM: New Development

Ch.4 Pg.20

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 82 1998 I $300,000 2000

PROJECT INFORMATION:The State Engineer’s Office (SEO) has seen a number of groundwater permit applications recentlyfor coal bed methane (cbm) projects. There currently are 821 cbm wells statewide, with 690 ofthose in Campbell County. Information from representatives of the cbm industry indicate thatanother 1500-2000 cbm wells may be constructed in Campbell County in the next 3-5 years. Thisnumber of wells could represent several thousand acre-feet of groundwater withdrawals yearly. Asa result of the rapid growth in this industry the SEO has requested $300,000 from the waterdevelopment account. These funds would be utilized in the drilling, completion, equipping andmonitoring of observation wells, and the installation of surface water measuring devices to belocated in the cbm production areas. These monitoring facilities would become part of the SEOstatewide observation well network.

The SEO will be required to submit an itemized accounting of expenditures with each transferrequest under this cbm authorization, and will be required to submit annual reports and a finalreport containing all information developed to date and their findings.

This work is underway, and a short report has been submitted. It is expected that well constructionwill be completed in 1999.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

22. PROJECT: Corn Creek IrrigationLEVEL: II-HoldSPONSOR: Corn Creek Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Goshen CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 10 1994 I Hold 1996Level II 15 1996 I Hold 1998Level II 82 1998 I Hold 2000Level II 36 2000 I Hold* 2002*A block appropriation of $15,000 was made for all hold projects

PROJECT INFORMATION:The concept of the project is to use existing storage in Glendo and Grayrocks Reservoirs to irrigateand develop approximately 15,000 acres of new lands in Goshen County. 1985 estimates indicateda project cost of $45M. As the initial economic analysis indicated that the sponsor could notfinancially support a loan for 25% of the project costs and operation and maintenance costs, theproject has been put on hold in order for the sponsors to re-evaluate their financial abilities, prepare

Ch.4 Pg.21

an environmental assessment and secure water supplies. This project is one of the issues beingconsidered in the North Platte law suit.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends that the project be retained at Level II-Hold status.

23. PROJECT: Corner Mountain Test WellLEVEL: IISPONSOR: Corner Mountain Water & Sewer DistrictLOCATION: Albany CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATIONPurpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 8 1995 I $25,0001996Level II 15 1996 I Hold 1998Level II 46 1997 I $350,000 1998Level II 36 2000 I $130,000 2002

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Formation of the Corner Mountain Water and Sewer District was prompted by the WWDC Level IStudy which explored alternatives for providing a community source of water. The district islocated near the community of Centennial in Albany County and encompasses 12 subdivisions andadjacent tracts along Libby Creek and the North Fork of the Little Laramie River. Permanent andsummer residents obtain water from shallow alluvial wells, springs, or haul water. Well water ismostly of a quality deemed useful for washing and flushing toilets only. The Level I studyultimately concluded that a groundwater source was the most feasible source supply.

Two test wells drilled in early 1999 revealed valuable subsurface information in the geologicallycomplex terrain which underlies Corner Mountain development . The exploration effort wasseeking a deeper ground water source than that presently utilized such as that source supply utilizedfor Centennial (Casper Formation) or for the town of Elk Mountain (Cloverly Formation).

The Corner Mountain Water & Sewer District continues Level II exploration drilling for a sourcewell to supply the district. As a result of the previous test well drilling, it is recommended that anew test well target the Cloverly Sandstone (Lower Cretaceous). This formation has the bestaquifer potential.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action required.

24. PROJECT: Crestview Water SupplyLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Crestview Estates Improvement & Service DistrictLOCATION: Campbell CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

Ch.4 Pg.22

EXISTING LEGISLATIONPurpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 82 1999 I $200,000 2000Level III 96 2000 II $82,000 2004

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:This project entails completion of the connection of the Crestview Estates system to the AntelopeValley system and rehabilitation of the existing Crestview well. Pending agreement with AntelopeValley, project design and construction will commence.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

25. PROJECT: Crook County ReservoirLEVEL: ISPONSOR: Crook County Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Crook CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 82 1998 I $100,000 2000

PROJECT INFORMATION:The sponsor requests that WWDC conduct a study of the rehabilitation or relocation of DriskillNo.1 Reservoir. This reservoir is located on state land, with the water right and easement held byOgden Driskill. The reservoir is currently utilized for irrigation solely by Mr. Driskill, a boardmember of the irrigation district, but he expressed a willingness to transfer ownership to theirrigation district. He indicated that the reservoir could benefit approximately 1800 acres under theirrigation district on the Belle Fourche River.

The reservoir currently stores 100 acre-feet, but is reportedly permitted at a total of 1000 acre-feet.The outlet works suffered damage several years ago, so the emergency spillway was lowered toprevent any further damage until repairs could be made. Mr. Driskill indicated the reservoir is usedextensively for recreation, and that an alternate dam site approximately _ mile below the currentsite would provide a deeper reservoir with additional capacity. The sponsor feels an enlargedreservoir at this location would provide them with improved management flexibility because theycould make releases from a source that is much closer to their irrigators. While the sponsor isdesirous of repairing the reservoir for irrigation use, they are also interested in providing animproved flatwater recreation site for the region.

In order to prepare for the permitting process required for a reservoir project such as this, it isappropriate to begin at Level I with a review of the alternatives, as well as appropriate hydrologicand geotechnical analyses. This will promote a more efficient permitting process, and will providethe sponsor with preliminary financial and technical feasibility information prior to the necessity ofa transfer of ownership of the reservoir.

Ch.4 Pg.23

Preliminary geotechnical work is complete, and hydrologic analyses and other planning and pre-permitting efforts have been completed. No fatal flaws have been identified to date. The study wascompleted in 1999.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

26. PROJECT: Crow Creek Groundwater RechargeLEVEL: II-HoldSPONSOR: Laramie County Conservation DistrictLOCATION: Laramie CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 79 1988 I $150,000 1990Level II 123 1990 I $1,000 1992Level II 43 1992 I $1,000 1994Level II 82 1998 I Hold 2000Level II 36 2000 I Hold* 2002* A block appropriation of $15,000 was made for all hold projects.

PROJECT INFORMATION:In 1986 Laramie County submitted an application to the WWDC requesting a flood control andgroundwater recharge study for the Crow Creek drainage. Laramie County indicated developmentin Cheyenne has aggravated flooding problems on Crow Creek. The flood control portion of thestudy was completed in 1989 and developed flood control plans for Crow Creek below Cheyenne,Dry Creek, and Allison Draw.

The groundwater recharge portion of the study was completed in 1990, concluding that withoutCheyenne wastewater effluent there was a limited amount of water available for recharge. Streamgaging equipment was installed in the Carpenter area to better quantify the volume of wateravailable.

In 1997 the Laramie County Conservation District applied to WWDC for assistance in developinginexpensive spreader dikes, and other facilities, to economically induce recharge from Crow Creekinto the alluvial aquifer near Carpenter. Their application was rejected because a conservationdistrict is not a suitable entity, but the project was placed on hold to allow WWDC staff to providetechnical support.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends that the project be retained at Level II-Hold status.

Ch.4 Pg.24

27. PROJECT: Dayton Master PlanLEVEL: ISPONSOR: Town of DaytonLOCATION: Sheridan CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 36 2000 I $60,0002002

PROJECT INFORMATION:Dayton’s water system consists of a filtration treatment plant with an infiltration gallery intake,from the Tongue River, approximately two miles upstream from Dayton. A 32 year old 10-inchtransite transmission line delivers treated water from two 63,000 gallon clear wells to the towndistribution system. The transite pipe does not comply with current EPA standards and the pipelineis undersized and cannot deliver proper fire flows to the town. A portion of the pipeline routecurrently underlies a large stock water reservoir and needs to be relocated. Dayton would like toconsider replacing the transmission line with a larger line and convert the old line to raw water todeliver water to a secondary water system for lawn watering. This would reduce the demand on thewater treatment plant and reduce treatment plant costs.

The town would also like to evaluate its treatment plant’s current efficiency, possible expansion,upgrading, and intake capacity; transmission and distribution system’s efficiency in line sizes andlooping; and the current piping into and out of their storage tanks. The system evaluation shouldinclude the surrounding region including the town of Ranchester.

The town of Dayton would like to move forward with the recommended improvements to theirwater system as outlined as “Alternative C” in the level I study funded by the WWDC in 2000.Dayton feels it is appropriate to move to a phased Level III construction project. Alternative Cconsists of: 1) replacement of existing transite transmission line; and 2) new booster pump stationand pipeline to the existing storage tank. The Level I Master Plan study estimated the cost of theimprovements to be about $880,000.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends the project be incorporated into the Rehabilitation Program at Level IIIwith an appropriation of $440,000. The financing plan is a 50% grant, $440,000 and a 50% loanfrom locally secured funding sources.

28. PROJECT: Dayton Water Supply RehabilitationLEVEL: ISPONSOR: Town of DaytonLOCATION: Sheridan CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

Ch.4 Pg.25

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 36 2000 I $60,0002002

PROJECT INFORMATION:The Town of Dayton would like to pursue a detailed cost analysis of alleviating the turbidityproblems experienced in the raw water intake used by Dayton on the Tongue River. A Level IMaster Plan study funded by the WWDC in 2000 looked very briefly at this problem and basicallyidentified its existence. The level I study listed two alternatives; “A” and “B” as most feasible.

Alternative “A” would be to reconstruct the existing infiltration gallery and install variablefrequency drives on influent water pumps. Alternative “B” would be to relocate the infiltrationgallery and construct an upstream presedimentation basin.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends the project be incorporated into the Rehabilitation Program at Level IIwith an appropriation of $50,000.

29. PROJECT: Deaver Irrigation DistrictLEVEL: New ApplicationSPONSOR: Deaver Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Park/Big HornPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

PROJECT INFORMATION:The Deaver Irrigation District would like to rehabilitate an aging irrigation delivery system.Portions of Deaver’s delivery system utilizes metal and wood flumes, many of which are becomingaged and un-repairable. This study would provide an overall cost assessment of replacing thefailing flumes and enable the district to replace them in a cost efficient as well as a “critical first”manner.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends the project be incorporated into the Rehabilitation Program at Level IIwith an appropriation of $100,000.

30. PROJECT: Deer Creek Dam and ReservoirLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: State of WyomingLOCATION: South of Glenrock, Converse County, WyomingPROGRAM: New Development

Ch.4 Pg.26

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel III 52 1984 I $3,000,000 N/ALevel IV 89 1985 I $45,000,000 N/ALevel IV 59 1996 I $15,000,000 N/ALevel IV 81 1999 I $13,500,000 N/A

PROJECT INFORMATION:Deer Creek is a tributary of the North Platte River. Its drainage basin lies in central Wyomingsouth of the town of Glenrock. The proposed Deer Creek Dam and Reservoir is located in theLaramie Range and is situated at the north end of lower Deer Creek Canyon. Access to the damsite is approximately 23 miles from Casper via the Hat Six Road.

The project includes a 280-foot high dam, spillway, outlet works, access roads, gaging stations,power supply facilities, utility and road relocations, remote sensing and control features,embankment instrumentation, a boat ramp, and appurtenances. The reservoir will have a capacityof 65,785 acre feet. The primary purpose of the project is to meet the present and future municipalwater needs of such communities as Casper, Mills, Wardwell, Evansville, Glenrock, Douglas andpossibly others. The project is permitted to provide an annual yield of 9,600 acre-feet. Thereservoir will provide flood benefits to the town of Glenrock and to residents along Deer Creek.The project will result in substantial recreation benefits from the reservoir and Deer Creek belowthe reservoir. The facility will be designed to allow future retrofitting for hydropower generationfacilities.

In October, 1986, the State of Nebraska reopened the 1945 North Platte River Decree in the U.S.Supreme Court. Nebraska's petition alleges that the proposed construction of storage capacity oncertain tributaries of the North Platte River violates the decree. The Deer Creek project is locatedon one such tributary. Wyoming has aggressively responded.

In June, 1988, Nebraska's Director of the Department of Water Resources filed another suitconcerning the Deer Creek project. The complaint alleges violations of environmental andadministrative laws and regulations against representatives of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineersand the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over issuance of the 404 permit and biological opinion.Wyoming was not named as a defendant. Upon motion of the federal defendants, the court orderedthe case stayed until issues related to the Deer Creek project are resolved.

For the past five years, negotiations have been underway to settle the lawsuit and resolveendangered species issues in the Platte River Basin which have impacted water management anddevelopment in the basin for the past twenty years. During the discussions pertaining toendangered species, Goshen Irrigation District proposed modeling the Pathfinder project to addresswater supply needs for the targeted species.

The concept involves increasing the height of Pathfinder Dam by 2.37 feet to recapture 54,000 acrefeet of storage space lost to sediment. Twenty thousand (20,000) acre feet of the recaptured spacewould be allocated to achieve the same municipal water supply benefits as the Deer Creek Dam.The remaining 34,000 acre feet of storage space would serve the federal water contractors inWyoming and Nebraska and other Wyoming water users by resolving the outstanding Section 7consultation on the federal reservoirs and pending Section 7 consultations of special use permits on

Ch.4 Pg.27

forest lands. The storage space would be allocated as a water supply component to resolveendangered species issues in the North Platte Basin through the Platte River Basin EndangeredSpecies Recovery Implementation Program. While the parameters of the program are still beingnegotiated, Wyoming's goal in participating in the program is to achieve regulatory certainty onissues relating to the recovery of the whooping crane, piping plover, least tern, and bald eagle.

In order to alleviate the impacts of recapturing the 54,000 acre feet and to compensate for themunicipal storage account, project funds would also be used to pay a federal contractor's share ofupcoming safety of dams modifications on the federal dams in Wyoming and to resolve theselenium problems at Goose and Rasmus Lee Lakes within the Kendrick Project. While therecaptured space would enjoy the benefits of the 1904 storage right, provisions would be providedto insure that the recaptured space could not place a call on existing non-federal direct flow andstorage rights above Pathfinder Reservoir.

In order for the Pathfinder Enlargement to be implemented, the following institutional issues mustbe resolved:

1. The Department of Interior must approve the concept and agree to provide the regulatory certainty desired by the state and the water users.

2. The Governor must approve the project.3. The legislature must authorize the use of the Deer Creek funds to participate in the safety of

dam modifications, the selenium issues on the Kendrick Project, and enlargement ofPathfinder Dam.

4. Formal agreements must be negotiated with the Bureau of Reclamation, the affected federal water contractors, and the municipal water users.

5. The Board of Control must approve a change of use for the recaptured storage space inPathfinder Reservoir. The State Engineer and legislature must approve the interstate waterright to allow water in the 34,000 acre foot environmental account to be delivered toNebraska for endangered species purposes.

6. Congressional authorization may be required to amend the original purpose of the Pathfinder Dam to include municipal and environmental uses.

7. NEPA and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act clearances must be achieved.

It is obvious that in order to achieve the above, there must be broad based public support for theproject.

Due to the ongoing litigation, the construction of the Deer Creek Dam has been delayed. At thesame time, other projects, in particular the Greybull Valley Dam, were in a status that requiredconstruction funding. Therefore, the WWDC recommended and the legislators authorized a$30,000,000 reduction in the project appropriation from $45,000,000 to $15,000,000 during the1996 legislative session. The WWDC remains committed to securing a water supply needed by thecity of Casper and other North Platte communities in the area. This commitment is documented bythe fact that the funding authorization for the Deer Creek Dam is proposed to remain at$45,000,000. In addition, the Commission received gubernatorial and legislative authorization touse $1,000,000 of the project appropriation to evaluate the Pathfinder Enlargement as an alternativeto meeting the water demand of North Platte River communities.

Ch.4 Pg.28

In order to fund activities associated with the state's participation in the "Cooperative Agreementfor the Platte River Research and Other Efforts Relating to Endangered Species Habitats along theCentral Platte River, Nebraska," the legislature increased the ceiling for the evaluation of thePathfinder Enlargement alternative and other alternatives to $1,400,000 from the Deer Creekappropriation.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required at this time.

31. PROJECT: Douglas Water Supply Project (formerly Douglas Master Plan)LEVEL: IIISPONSOR: City of DouglasLOCATION: Converse CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel III 16 1999 I $1,995,000 2002

PROJECT INFORMATION:The project follows a water system master plan for the city of Douglas and the adjacent areasserved by the city. There are currently 2,275 taps within the corporate limits of the city of Douglasand approximately 75 outside the city limits. A population of 5,800 is served. These areas includeusers along the Little Box Elder Spring transmission line, Sheep Mountain Well transmission line,and the Ridgewater Estates Improvement and Service District. The city currently has three sourcesof potable water: 1) the Little Box Elder Spring, 2) the water treatment plant located along theNorth Platte River, and 3) the Sheep Mountain well. The master plan evaluated the existingtransmission and distribution system and examined the ability of the sources in the system to meetthe current demands and future demands in the anticipated areas of growth in Douglas. Hydraulicmodeling was used to isolate the cause for low water pressure problems in two areas of the city,Riverbend subdivision and Frontier Village. Potential system modifications were considered tomeet current and projected growth areas which are experiencing inadequate system pressures.Preliminary designs were prepared for potential solutions and cost estimates were made forremedying transmission and distribution problems.

In addition to the hydraulic modeling and transmission and distribution system evaluation,treatment of the potable water sources were evaluated. The water treatment plant was constructedin the early 1980's. Treatment and disinfection requirements have become more strict since thattime by amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. Specifically in question is the chlorinecontact time (CT) and chlorine residual at the water treatment plant. Additionally, the DisinfectionRule will require the city to meet CT requirements for the Sheep Mountain well and the Little BoxElder Spring. There are currently over 30 domestic taps ahead of the point of chlorination on theSpring transmission line. It is recommended that the point of chlorination be moved to the springhouse.

The city of Douglas has experienced steady growth since the late 1980's. Additional potable watersources have been added to meet the increasing demands in the system. However, the entiretransmission, distribution and storage system had not been evaluated or updated.

Ch.4 Pg.29

The water treatment plant and the Sheep Mountain well have been added to the system over theyears. As they were added to the system, the impacts of each source on the entire system was neverthoroughly evaluated. Currently there are several hydraulic limitations and "bottlenecks" in thetransmission and distribution system caused by the three sources competing to supply the demands.

The water treatment plant will not currently meet the EPA disinfection requirements if it is operatedat full capacity. Additionally, a thorough evaluation of the treatment train and techniques needs tobe performed to verify compliance with all of the rules and regulations in the Safe Drinking WaterAct amendments.

Evaluation of options to resolve the issues identified in the Master Plan Document (Level I Study)has begun. This is being done by Civil Engineering Professionals Incorporated in Casper,Wyoming. The deficiencies of the system have been prioritized with the most critical item being tosecure the Little Box Elder Spring as a viable future water supply. Design of the Springimprovements is proceeding and a contract for rehabilitation of the town’s tanks will be awarded inearly 2001. Concurrently, a third project to reconstruct the Wyoming Law Enforcement Academybooster station will proceed.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required on this project.

32. PROJECT: Douglas Water Supply RehabilitationLEVEL: IISPONSOR: City of DouglasLOCATION: Converse CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 46 1997 I $100,000 1998Level II 81 1999 II $60,000 2000

PROJECT INFORMATION:The Level II feasibility study evaluated: (1) the Little Box Elder Spring water transmission linewhich carries water from the Little Box Elder Spring to the city of Douglas, (2) Little BoxelderSpring Groundwater assessment, and (3) Sheep Mountain well lightning suppression. There arecurrently 2,275 taps within the corporate limits of the city of Douglas and approximately 75 outsidethe city limits. A population of 5,800 is served. The city currently has three sources of potablewater: 1) the Little Box Elder Spring, 2) the water treatment plant located along the North PlatteRiver, and 3) the Sheep Mountain well.

The Level I master plan evaluated the existing transmission and distribution system and examinedthe ability of the sources in the system to meet the current demands and future demands in theanticipated areas of growth in Douglas. Hydraulic modeling was used to isolate the cause for lowwater pressure problems in two areas of the city, Riverbend subdivision and Frontier Village.Potential system modifications were considered to meet current and projected growth areas which

Ch.4 Pg.30

are experiencing inadequate system pressures. Preliminary designs were prepared for potentialsolutions and cost estimates were made for remedying transmission and distribution problems.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No further action is required. The city of Douglas has decided not to pursue Level III funding forthe pipeline at this time.

33. PROJECT: Downer Neighborhood Water SupplyLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Downer Neighborhood Improvement and Service DistrictLOCATION: Sheridan CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel III 16 1999 II $1,085,000 2002

PROJECT INFORMATION:The Downer Neighborhood is an area on the northeast edge of Sheridan and was served by theSoldier Creek Water Company until the Downer Neighborhood Improvement and Service Districtwas formed in 1998. There are 125 taps in the project which was built in 1948. Due to its age thesystem is needing substantial rehabilitation and improvement.

MSE-HKM was contracted to do the Level II evaluation of the system and to prepare conceptualdesigns and cost estimates. The Level II analysis was completed during 1998 andrecommendations were made regarding the improvements that are required to bring the system upto present system requirements. The total project cost is estimated to be $2,995,900.

At the annual district meeting in May of 1999, the district decided to pursue two projectsconcurrently; a water supply project and a sewer improvement project. Funding for the sewerproject will come from sources other than WWDC.

Funding for the water project has been provided by the Water Development Commission, theUSDA Rural Utilities Service, and the Wyoming Business Council. The district applied for aCommunity Development Block Grant (CDBG) in the amount of $250,000. It was awarded only$137,406. The district then requested additional funding from the WWDC of $112,594. Thisadditional funding will allow the project to advertise for bids and begin construction in early 2001.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends the project funding be increased by $113,000 to a total grant of$1,198,000.

Ch.4 Pg.31

34. PROJECT: Dubois Area Master PlanLEVEL: ISPONSOR: Town of DuboisLOCATION: Fremont CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 82 1998 I $75,0002000

PROJECT INFORMATION:The sponsor indicates their water source is able to meet their needs, but their conveyance, storage,and distribution system is aging. They have received many requests for service adjacent to theirservice area, and existing information is inadequate to plan for this growth. The WWDC prepared aLevel I master plan to assist them in an orderly expansion and rehabilitation of their system. Themaster plan was completed during 1999. The sponsor is in the process of reviewing their options.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

35. PROJECT: Encampment Raw Water LineLEVEL: ISPONSOR: Town of EncampmentLOCATION: Carbon CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 60 1982 I $150,000 1983Level III* 52 1984 I $60,0001985Level IV** 167 1985 1 $200,000 **** Level III in 1984 included only development of final plans and specifications.** Level IV in 1985 included the authorization and funding of construction.*** Chapter 167 did not include a reversion date.

PROJECT INFORMATION:The town of Encampment undertook construction of a new diversion facility and 1,800 feet oftransmission line in 1986. Encampment would now like to pursue phase two of that project andenclose the remaining 6,200 feet of open ditch in a pipeline. The total project is estimated to costabout $668,000. The request at this time is for only the final design and specifications portion ofthe project at an estimated cost of $60,000.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends the project be incorporated into the Rehabilitation Program at Level IIwith an appropriation of $60,000. The financing plan is a grant of 50%, $30,000, and a loan of50%, $30,000, for a period of 20 years at an interest rate of 7.25%.

Ch.4 Pg.32

36. PROJECT: Encampment Water SupplyLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Town of EncampmentLOCATION: Carbon CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 46 1997 I $45,000 1998Level III 38 1998 I $137,000* 2001*60% grant

PROJECT INFORMATION:The town of Encampment received a grant appropriation of $137,000 for 60% of the WWDCeligible portion of the project. The remainder of the project is financed by the town from othersources.

The purpose of the project is to connect the raw water irrigation pipe network to the town cemetery.Funding is also provided to connect the town’s drinking water system to the Sierra Madre Waterand Sewer Joint Powers Board water system. Project components include pipe, valves, and fittingsnecessary to make the connection functional.

The town has completed construction of the raw water irrigation system expansion. Work wasperformed with town crews and was financed by a capital facilities tax. The town and the SierraMadre Water and Sewer Joint Powers Board are negotiating to see if a connection is feasible.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is recommended.

37. PROJECT: Etna Water SupplyLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Etna Water and Sewer DistrictLOCATION: Lincoln CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel III 28 1994 I $300,000* 1997Level III 38 1998 I $690,000** 2002*67% grant, 33% loan (4%, 30 years) - Note: revised Level III in 1998.**67% grant; plus $16,500 loan for _ well costs (4%, 30 years)

PROJECT INFORMATION:The community of Etna, which presently serves 50 taps, formed the Etna Water and Sewer District.The community is currently dependent on two springs for its water supply. WWDC funded a LevelII study to evaluate the existing supply sources, to explore for a new source of water, and torecommend alternatives. The Level II study recommended that the springs be redeveloped to

Ch.4 Pg.33

protect water quality and that a well be constructed to meet peak demands and allow the district toserve additional existing homes in the area. In addition, the Level II investigation performed during1993 included construction of a successful test well.

In 1994 the district received WWDC Level III funding to proceed with only the immediate needsidentified in the Level II study, delaying the long term needs until an unspecified future time. Thatproject was not constructed due to local issues involved with the formation and reformation of theEtna Water and Sewer District.

More recently the district reconsidered the long-term implications of approaching the project on aphased piecemeal approach, feeling that the district residents would be better served byimplementing the "immediate" and "long term" improvement recommendations as a single project.Increased funds were requested and authorized in 1998 to allow the sponsor to complete the projectas originally presented in the Level II study.

The funding package provides a grant of $690,000 for 67% of the eligible WWDC project costs.The balance of the project financing is grant and loan from RUS and grant from the State Loan andInvestment Board. The total project scope includes springs renovation, disinfection facilities,control valving, pump, pump house, transmission lines, storage tank and distribution systemimprovements.

A contract with Forsgren Associates has been negotiated by the district for project design andconstruction administration services. Design of the project is complete, with an anticipated projectconstruction start date during the spring of 2001 and construction completion in October 2001.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

38. PROJECT: Fayette Irrigation DistrictLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Fayette Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Sublette CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 81 1999 II $75,000 2000Level III 96 2000 II $98,500* 2004*100% loan (7.25%, 20 years).

PROJECT INFORMATION:The Fayette Irrigation District was formed in July 1998, but the Fayette Ditch is a very oldIrrigation system. The original appropriations date back to 1906, with the bulk of the adjudicatedlands now in a 10-acre minimum lot size subdivision. There is one ranch with approximately 300acres. There are 2129 acres to be assessed, of which approximately 1000 are currently irrigated.The canal system is in need of rehabilitation, with some lands not able to obtain their water, andsevere erosion occurring in sections of the main canal.

Ch.4 Pg.34

The Level II study conducted an inventory of the system, identified needed rehabilitation andimprovements, examined the potential for an improved water supply, and prepared conceptualdesigns and cost estimates for those items.

The Fayette Irrigation District received a year 2000 100% loan in the amount of $98,500 torehabilitate headgates, drop structures, diversions and irrigation canals from Water Develop-ment Account II. The district has indicated that it will not proceed with the project, havingonly received loan funds and making the project economically unfeasible for the districtmembers. The project has a funding reversion date of July, 2004.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

39. PROJECT: Gillette Central Zone IsolationLEVEL: New ApplicationSPONSOR: City of GilletteLOCATION: Campbell CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Pursuant to the 1999 City of Gillette water system evaluation, this project calls for construction offour new transmission lines and isolation valves to increase static pressure in an area of townknown as Twin Spruce. Modeling of this area was done to investigate areas of low pressure andlow available fire flows. To create higher pressures, the area must be isolated and either included inone of the other existing higher pressure zones in the city or be established as a new pressure zone.

An evaluation of this project was prepared for the city by Stetson Engineering, Inc., whichsatisfactorily would serve as the WWDC Level II study. The design is estimated to cost $150,000.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends this project be funded for design only for $75,000. The financing plan isa grant of 50%, $75,000, and the sponsor is responsible for the remaining 50% funding from othersources.

40. PROJECT: Gillette Fort Union Well FieldLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: City of GilletteLOCATION: Campbell CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

Ch.4 Pg.35

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel III 206 1995 II $550,000* 1999Level III 59 1996 II $925,000* 1999Level III 38 1998 II $250,000* 2002*50% grant

PROJECT INFORMATION:The city of Gillette has experienced considerable draw down and reduced production in their "in-town" wells which tap the Fort Union and Lance/Fox Hills aquifers. In addition, the city has mademajor expenditures in rehabilitating wells and replacing pumps. The Gillette Area Master Planidentified the importance of improved management of the multi source Gillette water supply systemin order to reduce operation and maintenance costs, maximize production from existing sources,protect the long term yield of the Fort Union formation, and insure uniformity of water quality toGillette water users through blending of supply sources.

The 1994 project activities included pump testing and logging of existing wells, analysis of theoperation and maintenance procedures for both the in-town wells and the Madison well field, and areview of overall system configuration. The 1994 study established a schedule for rehabilitatingGillette's existing Fort Union well field, for developing maximum production from the Madisonwell field (included as a Level III recommendation in the 1995 New Development Program), andeventually for a new Fort Union well field.

In 1995, the design for the replacement of two wells was completed and an existing well wasrehabilitated. In 1996 two wells were drilled and the design of a supply pipeline was initiated. In1997 two additional wells were replaced and the supply pipeline was designed. In 1998 the finalthree wells were completed and construction of the supply pipeline was completed.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action required.

41. PROJECT: Gillette Hidden Valley Storage and TransmissionLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: City of GilletteLOCATION: Campbell CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATIONPurpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 43 1992 I $200,000 1994Level I 79 1993 I $50,000 1994Level III 38 1998 I $2,040,000 2002Level III 96 2000 I $1,350,000 2004

Ch.4 Pg.36

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Pursuant to goals set forth in the 1994 Gillette Master Water Plan, this project calls for constructionof a 3 MG storage reservoir and appropriate transmission lines in the southwest portion of town.The existing system has recognized design shortfalls including a dead end line on Force Road andless than adequate fire flows. Installation of a new tank and lines would increase fire flows to over1500 gpm in the Westridge and Hidden Valley areas and create a loop in the system, therebyimproving water turnover and quality. The proposed transmission line that would link the proposedtank with a tank now under construction also completes a loop along the newly constructedSouthern Drive. Significant growth has occurred in this portion of town such that these facilitieswould meet a current and future need. An evaluation of this project was prepared for the city byStetson Engineering, Inc., which satisfactorily would serve as the WWDC Level II study.

The 2000 legislature funded this project with a $1,350,000 grant. This is 60% of the projected costof the facility, the remainder is provided by city sources. The project will be constructed in twophases, the first being the transmission line and the second being the storage tank. Both projectswill begin construction in early 2001 and finish in mid year 2002.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

42. PROJECT: Gillette Storage & East End Transmission ImprovementsLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: City of GilletteLOCATION: Campbell CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATIONPurpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel III 38 1998 I $2,040,000* 2002 * 60% grant

PROJECT INFORMATION:The city of Gillette is accelerating construction of the recommended Phase III improvements, asidentified in the Gillette Area Master Plan. The new storage reservoir will allow the city to meetmaximum daily demands and provide sufficient fire flows. This reservoir will provide two days ofstorage if the 43 mile long Madison pipeline was to be out of service.

Construction of the east end transmission pipeline will complete a major loop in the city’stransmission system and will provide needed fire protection to this area. This improvement wasalso identified in the Gillette Area Master Plan.

This project is nearly complete. The line was finished in the early summer of 1999 and only minorwork remains on the new storage tank.

Ch.4 Pg.37

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action required.

43. PROJECT: Glenrock Groundwater SupplyLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Town of GlenrockLOCATION: Converse CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATIONPurpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 82 1999 I $75,000 2000Level II 81 1999 I $300,000 2000Level III 96 2000 I $1,650,000 2004

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:The town of Glenrock has purchased the supply test well No. 5 drilled under a Level II studyconducted in 1999. Construction tasks include installation of a pump, pump house, 10,220 feet of14 inch transmission line, 11,200 feet of powerline, improvements along the transmission line(air/vacuum valves, blowoffs, roadbase, ravine crossings, etc.), installation of a PRV building, andSCADA equipment.

Civil Engineering Professionals Incorporated of Casper has been retained to design theimprovements. Additional groundwater monitoring has been undertaken to insure impacts from thenew well are identified and mitigated. The project will likely begin construction in the fall of 2001.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

44. PROJECT: Glenrock Raw Water IrrigationLEVEL: IISPONSOR: Town of GlenrockLOCATION: Converse CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 82 1998 I $75,000 2000

PROJECT INFORMATION:The Glenrock water system serves a population of about 3,000 people. There are 1042 active taps.Water rates are $9.00 for the first 3000 gallons, $1.00/1000 gallons thereafter and water billsaverage $28.00 per month.

Ch.4 Pg.38

The proposed Level II study was to 1) determine water supply needs, 2) inventory and assess thetransfer of surface and groundwater rights to best benefit the town in their pursuit of raw waterirrigation system development, 3) evaluate water quality and the condition of the wells, 4) evaluatethe suitability of irrigating with groundwater from the Park well, the South Recreation Complexwell, the Deer Creek well, the AML well, and Deer Creek surface water, 5) develop water supplyoptions, 6) complete preliminary designs and cost estimates for the water supply options, 7)complete an economic study, and 8) ability to pay analysis, determine permitting and environmentalconstraints.

Sunrise Engineering was contracted to perform the analysis. The Level II study determined that themost economical solution to the town of Glenrock’s water supply problems was to increase thepotable water supply rather than to try to establish a raw water system. The engineer recommendedthat a Casper formation test well be drilled to attempt to locate an added groundwater supplysource.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

45. PROJECT: Goshen Irrigation District Water SystemLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Goshen Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Goshen CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 81 1999 II $75,0002000Level III 96 2000 II $1,726,000* 2004*100% grant for invoiced materials. The sponsor is responsible for all other project costs.

PROJECT INFORMATION:The Goshen Irrigation District received a grant appropriation of $1,726,000 for 100% of invoicedmaterials purchase for materials to automate the water delivery system, rehabilitate farm turnouts,and implement seepage control measures, such as canal lining and placing ditches into pipe.Generally the construction will be performed with district resources at district cost. Engineering,permitting, and other project costs will be borne by the district.

When constructed, the improvements will reduce seepage losses in canals and laterals and enableGID to better account for water spilled back to the North Platte, precipitation gains, runoff into thecanals, and deliveries to the Gering Fort Laramie Irrigation District in Nebraska.

Design of the highest priority ditches to be placed into pipe and the first automation locations wascompleted in the fall of 2000. Pipe and other materials were procured and construction isunderway. The district has provided a schedule of improvements for design and materialsprocurement purposes for the next three years. Construction should be completed prior to the 2004irrigation season.RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is recommended.

Ch.4 Pg.39

46. PROJECT: Goshen Re-regulating ReservoirLEVEL: II-HoldSPONSOR: Goshen Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Goshen CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 10 1994 I Hold 1996Level II 15 1996 I Hold 1998Level II 82 1998 I Hold 2000Level II 36 2000 I Hold* 2002*A total appropriation of $15,000 is available for projects on hold

PROJECT INFORMATION:The Goshen Irrigation District serves 52,484 acres and approximately 355 irrigators. The presentassessment is $18.76/acre.

In 1992, the GID requested an evaluation of a small (1000 acre feet) re-regulating reservoir. Thereservoir was planned to be located on Horse Creek, upstream of siphon #4. A small reservoir atthis location would enable the district to better regulate delivery of water to lands at the end of thesystem. In addition, a dam at this site would store water when storms allow water deliveries to bereduced. At the present time, water in the canal is wasted when calls for irrigation water arereduced due to rain. Six thousand (6,000) acre feet of water could be saved annually if the reservoirwas constructed.

The recently completed Level II study evaluated several alternate dam sites. The original site at theHorse Creek Siphon was determined to be the most cost effective. Conceptual designs and costestimates were prepared. A final report was completed in December, 1993.

Negotiations between the district and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and the Gering Fort Laramie IrrigationDistrict must be successfully completed if the project is to proceed. The district has decided topostpone any further planning for this project until institutional constraints involving water rightsand wetland mitigation issues are resolved.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:It is recommended that the project be retained at Level II-Hold status.

47. PROJECT: Granger Water SupplyLEVEL: ISPONSOR: Town of GrangerLOCATION: Sweetwater CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

Ch.4 Pg.40

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 36 2000 II $35,000 2002

PROJECT INFORMATION:The town of Granger would like to pursue a level II study as recommended in the Level I studycompleted in 2000. The level II study will evaluate the possibility of renegotiating a long term usecontract with FMC. This new agreement should allow for Granger’s permanent use of the pipelinewhile still allowing FMC to shut off the pipeline for maintenance. Additional negotiations shouldalso be conducted with Little America which would allow for emergency use of Little America’swater intake facility located on the Ham’s Fork.

The Level I study also indicated that there are leaks within the distribution system, the Level IIstudy will conduct leak testing to determine the location and amount of any leaks within thedistribution system.

Cost analysis of additional pipeline to increase pressures for fire flows and to meet DEQ standardsshould also be conducted.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends the project be incorporated into the Rehabilitation Program at Level IIwith an appropriation of $65,000.

48. PROJECT: Green River Groundwater Recharge and Alternate StorageLEVEL: ISPONSORS: State of WyomingLOCATION: Green River Basin, WYPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel 1 36 2000 I $100,000 2002

PROJECT INFORMATION:The 2000 Legislature appropriated $100,000 for a Level I study in the Green River Basin toinvestigate groundwater recharge and alternate storage for the basin’s surplus water. With the helpof the Green River Basin Advisory Group, the WWDC developed a scope of services, and afterscreening interested candidates, hired States West Water Resources Corporation as the engineeringfirm to complete this study. This study will use the Green River Basin Plan, scheduled forcompletion in January 2001, as a tool to begin an investigation on groundwater recharge potentialand develop a comprehensive list of potential reservoir locations with in the basin. Potentialreservoir sites listed in the Green River Basin Plan will be investigated on a reconnaissance level.A short list will then be developed containing the five selected sites that score highest in the rankingcriteria developed for the Green River Basin Plan. These five sites will be studied in greater detailand will include conceptual designs and preliminary cost estimates. This study is scheduled forcompletion in November of 2001.

Ch.4 Pg.41

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No action required.

49. PROJECT: Greybull Crossing & TankLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Town of GreybullLOCATION: Big Horn CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 46 1997 I $55,0001998Level III 96 2000 I $1,850,000* 2004*60% Grant & 40% Loan (7¼%, 20 years)

PROJECT INFORMATION:The town system consists of an infiltration gallery, three flowing wells, two tanks with 1.3 milliongallons of storage, and a number of manual and automatic control valves. The town is underadministrative order from EPA for violations of the Surface Water Treatment Rule associated withthe diversion through their infiltration gallery on Shell Creek. EPA has also expressed concernwith the town having all its storage on the east side of the Bighorn River, with none on the westside of the river. This situation leaves them vulnerable to a line failure at their river crossing. Inaddition, residents southwest of Greybull have requested water service.

The Level II study makes recommendations regarding additional storage, transmission anddistribution lines that will resolve the town’s storage problems, provide water to areas adjacent totown, and provide for more efficient operation of the system. The town would now like to build anauxiliary Big Horn River crossing and the new storage tank on the west side of the river.

The town has selected an engineer to design the river crossing, pipeline and storage facilities.Construction is projected to start in the year 2001 and be completed 2001/2002.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action required.

50. PROJECT: Greybull Shell Water Supply/Greybull GroundwaterLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Town of GreybullLOCATION: Big Horn CountyPROGRAM: New Development

Ch.4 Pg.42

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 8 1995 I $75,0001996Level II 15 1996 I $400,000 1998Level III 38 1998 I $305,000 2001Level III 16 1999 I $212,000 2001

PROJECT INFORMATION:The town system consists of an infiltration gallery, two flowing wells, two tanks with 1.3 milliongallons of storage, and a number of manual and automatic control valves. The town is under anadministrative order from EPA for violations of the Surface Water Treatment Rule associated withthe diversion through the infiltration gallery on Shell Creek.

In 1995, the Level II study identified several needed improvements to the Shell Creek transmissionpipeline. These improvements were incorporated into a Level III rehabilitation project for thetown.

The administrative order has placed Greybull in the position of needing to either build a watertreatment plant or find a groundwater source that is not under the influence of surface water. Adeep Madison formation well was drilled during 1996, however, the yield was inadequate to replacethe infiltration gallery. Analysis and testing of the well has indicated that the well was a goodcandidate for stimulation or fracturing. This stimulation effort was completed during 1997. Theyield of the well was increased from about 60 gpm to about 220 gpm.

The plans and specifications for construction of the water storage tank and the transmission pipelineare complete. The project has been under construction during 2000 and will be finalized in early2001.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

51. PROJECT: Greybull Valley Dam and ReservoirLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Greybull Valley Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Park CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel III-I 28 1994 I $3,000,000* 2000Level III 59 1996 I $37,000,000* 2000*75% grant, 25% loan (4%, 50 years)

PROJECT INFORMATION:The Greybull Valley Irrigation District serves 80,000 acres of irrigated land in Park and Big HornCounties and has experienced severe water shortages for several years. Increased storage willprovide considerable agricultural and economic benefits.

Ch.4 Pg.43

The project includes a diversion dam on the Greybull River, a 4-mile supply canal, and an off-channel reservoir on a tributary of Roach Gulch, which is a tributary of the Greybull Riverdownstream of Meeteetse. The reservoir will have a capacity of 30,000 acre feet.

The Level II study was phased. The first phase was completed in 1990 and concentrated on thehydrologic and geotechnical feasibility of the project. It was determined that the project istechnically feasible. The second phase served to evaluate the costs and benefits of the two mostfeasible dam sites and select the preferred site. The third phase included the development of theconceptual designs and cost estimates. In 1992, contacts with the Bureau of Reclamation indicatedthat the project may be eligible for partial federal funding through the Small Reclamation ProjectAct. The sponsor and WWDC decided it would be in the best interests of both parties to delay theproject and seek federal funding. However, in 1993, Dan Beard, the Commissioner of the Bureau,indicated that the Small Reclamation Program would be discontinued. Therefore, the only availablefunding was through the Water Development Program.

The estimated total cost for the proposed project is $40,000,000. Due to a lack of funds in WaterDevelopment Account I, a phased Level III recommendation was made and granted in 1994. Theinitial appropriation of $3,000,000 provided funding for permit procurement, land acquisition, andfinal design for the project. In 1994, consultants were selected by the district and the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed project.In 1996, an additional appropriation of $37,000,000 completed funding and allowed the project toproceed through design to construction.

The design of this project was complete in 1998. The design included provisions that addressed thepoor supporting characteristics of the foundation soils. The difficult geology in the area influencedthe construction, delaying completion by nearly approximately one month.

Project construction started in the summer of 1998. The supply canal was complete in December of1999 and the Dam was complete in May of 2000. After approximately one year of testing andstartup, the entire project may be operational for the summer of 2001. The project functioned wellduring the dry summer of 2000, by eliminating waste due to fluctuating water levels.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action required.

52. PROJECT: Hartville Water SupplyLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Town of HartvilleLOCATION: Platte CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 8 1995 I $75,000 1996Level II 15 1996 II $150,000 1998

Ch.4 Pg.44

PROJECT INFORMATION:In 1994, Guernsey and Hartville submitted applications requesting assistance in evaluating thewater supply, treatment, storage, transmission and distribution systems. The Commission conducteda joint Level I Master Plan study during 1995 to determine the feasibility of a regional system, but acombined system was found not to be feasible. The aquifer in the Hartville area is recoveringbecause the Sunrise Mine terminated operations and stopped dewatering. A source of supply insidethe town limits would eliminate the five-mile pipeline from existing wells near the North PlatteRiver. In 1996, the Commission recommended that the project be incorporated into the NewDevelopment Program at Level II status with a budget of $150,000. A successful test well wasdeveloped producing adequate yield to meet the community’s peak demands when developed inconjunction with an existing well with the town limits.

The Abandoned Mine Lands program determined that Hartville is eligible for 90% grant funding ofa $1,025,000 project to put wells #3 and 9 on line, improve the storage tanks, and construct a newdistribution system. Hartville intends to request the balance in a loan from the Board of StateLands and Investments. That loan will include $19,020 to repay the WWDC for 40% of the costsof constructing the test well. Legislative authority is required to transfer ownership of the wellfrom the state to the town. This authority was granted by the legislature during the 1998 session.

During the course of 1998, the well developed high levels of nitrates. The town is currentlyevaluating options relative to purchase of the well. During the course of 2000, the high level ofnitrates required shutting down the well. This prompted discussions of ways to resolve the nitratesolution. The town has concurred with a blending protocol. However, the well will not again beoperational until the town purchases the well.

During the year 2000, the town affirmed its desire to purchase the well

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action required.

53. PROJECT: Hawk Springs Water SupplyLEVEL: II-HoldSPONSOR: Hawk Springs Water and Sewer DistrictLOCATION: Goshen CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 8 1995 I $125,000 1996Level II 15 1996 I Hold 1998Level II 82 1998 I Hold 2000Level II 36 2000 I Hold* 2002* A block appropriation of $15,000 was made for all hold projects.

Ch.4 Pg.45

PROJECT INFORMATION:The population of Hawk Springs is approximately 125, with an estimated 31 taps that would beserved by a central water supply system. The Hawk Springs Water and Sewer District was formedin 1994. The district requested a study to investigate alternative water sources, storage, anddistribution facilities for the area in and around Hawk Springs. Residents currently rely onindividual wells. Some wells in the area are contaminated by high levels of dissolved solids,radionuclides, and septic system effluent.

A Level II study was completed in 1995 to evaluate storage, distribution, transmission, and watersupply alternatives. The exploration program located a suitable groundwater supply west of thecommunity. Preliminary designs, cost estimates, and economic analyses have been prepared for thepreferred alternative, with the estimated total project cost at $2,145,664. The estimated monthlybill for the project is $45.49/tap. The sponsor is currently working on financing alternatives.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends that the project remain on Level II-Hold status.

54. PROJECT: Highline DitchLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Highline Watershed Improvement DistrictLOCATION: Carbon CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 81 1999 II $50,0002000Level III 96 2000 II $726,000* 2004*50% grant; 50% loan (6%, 20 years)

PROJECT INFORMATION:The project is located east of Saratoga within the proposed Highline Watershed ImprovementDistrict. The purpose of the Level II study was to address problems associated with erosion ofseveral ditches. Head cut has not stabilized and is working upstream towards a concrete diversionstructure. The county has moved the road once because of the danger and may have to move itagain. The ditches are 30 plus feet deep and have combined because of the bank erosion.

A large number of irrigated acres are dependent on this water delivery system. This area produces2 to 3 tons of hay per irrigated acre and also supplies a large amount of forage for spring and fallgrazing as well as a considerable amount of forage for area wildlife. The irrigation water deliverysystem is being threatened. A structure such as a pipe-drop is needed to prevent further erosion.Preliminary design work on this has been done in the past.

In 1999 the legislature approved $50,000 to evaluate the current condition of the Highline Ditchand other ditches in the irrigation system. The consultant, Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc.,determined that a set of new ditches with a series of drop structures in each would be the bestoption for the district to save their ditches.

Ch.4 Pg.46

The Highline Watershed Improvement District received a Level III appropriation of $726,000 (50%grant, 50% loan) in the year 2000 to rehabilitate washouts on the Highline, Ryan-Foreman, Wiant,and MaCannany ditches within the improvement district. A contract with PMPC ConsultingEngineers of Saratoga was negotiated by the district for project design and constructionmanagement services. Phase I of the project, involving the Highline and Ryan-Foreman washouts,was designed and constructed during the year 2000. Phase II work on the MaCannany and Wiantditches will be designed and completed in 2001.��� ����������� ������ ��� ����

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

55. PROJECT: Horse Creek Conservation District RehabilitationLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Horse Creek Conservation DistrictLOCATION: Goshen CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel III 38 1998 II $115,000* 2002Level II 82 1998 II $30,0002000Level III 16 1999 II $131,600* 2002*100% grant for invoiced materials. The sponsor is responsible for all other project costs.

PROJECT INFORMATION:The Level II project inventoried and assessed the condition of the canals and appurtenances,surveyed canal alignments and grades, evaluated the feasibility of needed repairs, preparedpreliminary designs and cost estimates for reasonable alternatives, and explored financing options.The Horse Creek Conservation District has received a total grant appropriation of $246,600 for100% of invoiced materials accepted by WWDC. The labor and equipment, engineering designand inspection, and all other project costs are financed by the district.

In 1999 the sponsor replaced the highest priority ditch segment with pipe. An extension of thatditch was placed in pipe in 2000. The engineer is designing construction for 2001 and subsequentyears for construction by district forces. The Horse Creek Conservation District plans torehabilitate approximately 8 open laterals (about 18,500 lineal feet) with plastic pipe and liners overseveral years.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

Ch.4 Pg.47

56. PROJECT: Hot Springs Rural-Worland PipelineLEVEL: IISPONSOR: Big Horn Regional Joint Powers Board

(Former sponsor: City of Worland and Lucerne Water & Sewer District)LOCATION: Big Horn, Washakie, and Hot Springs CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 36 2000 I $160,000 2002

PROJECT INFORMATION:The 2000 WWDC Level II Study by BRS Inc., has completed an investigation of ground waterpotential for a municipal water supply in the southern Big Horn Basin. Eight (8) well sites wereinvestigated within the southern Big Horn Basin that could potentially yield abundant (>500gpm),good quality (<500 mg/l TDS) water. These sites were chosen on the basis of geologic structure,drilling depths, geothermal gradient, distance from known geothermal activity, accessability, andpotential ground water quality. An extensive review of ground water data within the southern BigHorn Basin reveals that the most likely aquifer to yield abundant, good quality water in thePaleozoic-age is the Madison-Big Horn Aquifer. A secondary target aquifer, that is deemed viablein the study, is the Cambrian Flathead sandstone.

Of the sites considered, a location at the Wild Horse Butte anticline (13 miles east of Thermopolis)and a location at the Buffalo Creek monocline (6.5 miles SE of Thermopolis) both ranked as topchoices. Conceptually, a test well would be drilled in each these separate geologic structures, withthe first test well at Wild Horse Butte as a Madison-BigHorn Aquifer completion and the second atthe Buffalo Creek monocline as a dual Madison-Big Horn/Flathead Ss. completion. A pipelinefrom the Wild Horse Butte site is most easily aligned via routes in close proximity to the BuffaloCreek monocline site, thence to Thermopolis and user points beyond.

The continued study will also include exploration into the feasibility of a Hot Springs Rural Systemwith a conceptual look at routing of a supply pipeline from the potential well field throughout usersystems in Hot Springs County thence to a connection with Washakie Rural at Winchester (HotSprings/Washakie county line). In addition, preliminary design efforts will be undertaken for theBig Horn Rural pipeline route (second Worland well field pipeline) which has been defined in thepresent Level II study.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends the existing Level II project in the New Development Program beexpanded and the appropriation be increased by $670,000 to $830,000.

Ch.4 Pg.48

57. PROJECT: Hugus-Mullison Ditch (Hugus Ditch)LEVEL: IISPONSOR: Hugus Watershed Improvement DistrictLOCATION: Carbon CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 81 1999 II $40,0002000Level II 36 2000 II $30,0002002

PROJECT INFORMATION:The Hugus-Mullison Ditch runs northerly through the western part of Saratoga and conveysirrigation water to users in and north of Saratoga. Urban surface water runoff from the developedarea west of the ditch and the airport drains into the ditch causing it to function as a storm sewer aswell as an irrigation ditch. There are two manually controlled ditch overflows that can divert waterfrom the ditch to the North Platte River. The ditch appears to be leaking and contributing to theproblems of adjoining buildings, property and streets that have developed along the ditch. Undersized culverts and elevated turnouts require ditch operation practices that contribute to the seepage.

In 1999 the WWDC conducted a Level I reconnaissance study of the ditch that evaluated the entireditch system within the town, investigated alternatives and recommend needed improvements. Theneeds of the community and the ditch owners/users were addressed in this study. The irrigationwater users formed the Hugus Watershed Improvement District in 1999 which is the sponsor for theLevel II project.

The Hugus Watershed Improvement District would like to move forward with the recommendedimprovements to the Hugus-Mullison Ditch as recommended in the Level II study completed in2000. The district would like to pursue phases 1 and 2 of a 5 phase rehabilitation project. Phase 1consists primarily of replacing box culverts at street crossings to increase flow capacity and Phase 2focuses on providing a concrete lining in portions of the ditch where leakage is most prevalent.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends that the project be advanced to Level III status in the RehabilitationProgram with an appropriation of $325,000. The financing plan is a 50% grant, $325,000, and a50% loan, $325,000, to be secured by the sponsor through other sources.

58. PROJECT: Kaycee Master PlanLEVEL: ISPONSOR: Town of KayceeLOCATION: Johnson CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 82 1998 I $40,000 2000

Ch.4 Pg.49

PROJECT INFORMATION:The sponsor has received approximately 45 requests for domestic water service from areasimmediately surrounding their existing service area. To aid in planning for a potential systemexpansion they have requested WWDC to prepare a Level I water system master plan. Theyanticipate extension of their main water lines to the north, south, and east, and additional storage tomeet these potential demands.

The WWDC contracted with Grizzly Engineering of Buffalo, Wyoming to conduct the Level Imaster plan. The master plan was completed during 1999. The sponsor is considering its options.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

59. PROJECT: Lakeview Improvement and Service District Water SupplyLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Lakeview Improvement and Service DistrictLOCATION: Natrona CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 82 1999 I $25,0002000Level III 96 2000 I $390,000 2004

PROJECT INFORMATION:There are approximately 70 residents living in the Lakeview Improvement and Service District withapproximately 29 potential taps in the district. Private wells of most Lakeview residents providepoor quality ground water high in nitrates, sulfates, and selenium. Consequently, most residentshaul water from town. In order to provide Lakeview residents with suitable drinking water, theLakeview Service and Improvement District would like to construct an 8-inch PVC water supplypipeline system for their district which would tie into an existing Central Wyoming Regional WaterSystem 16 inch transmission line.

The legislature appropriated $390,000 to connect the district to the Central Wyoming RegionalSystem. A bond election was held November 7, 2000, to allow the district to incur the necessarydebt to construct the system. Civil Engineering Professionals Incorporated of Casper has beenretained to do the design and construction engineering. Currently the project schedule calls forcompletion in fall of 2002.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

Ch.4 Pg.50

60. PROJECT: Lander Intake FacilitiesLEVEL: IISPONSOR: City of LanderLOCATION: Fremont CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 8 1995 I $100,000 1996Level II 46 1997 I $175,000 1998Level III 16 1999 II $200,000 2003

PROJECT INFORMATION:Growth in the city and the surrounding area prompted the city to request analysis of their watersystem. The rural areas around Lander typically obtain their water from wells, which are of poorquality and quantity, or they haul their water from Lander. Several areas, including Tweed Lane,south of Lander, northeast of Lander, and Baldwin Creek, have approached the city requestingwater service. However, the city was uncertain whether their system could reliably meet these andother future water service demands. A Level I master plan was completed to serve as a planningtool to respond to these requests.

The Level I study assessed the physical and economical limits of the existing system to serve anexpanded service area. The study determined the water supply needs of that area, and evaluatedthe capability of Lander's existing water supply to meet those needs. The study maderecommendations regarding the upgrading that will be required before the city can serve the ruralareas. The study developed preliminary designs and cost estimates for the facilities identified asneeding improvements. The city prioritized the system improvements and requested a Level IIevaluation of the supply line to the treatment plant, enlargement of the treatment plant, andadditional storage at the treatment plant and near the city. The Level II study recommended thatthe intake facilities be improved and provisions made to handle the course sediments that enter thewater supply line from the river. The estimated cost of the improvements is $400,000. Projectdesign will begin during the upcoming year with anticipated construction in the year 2002.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

61. PROJECT: Lander Water Supply RehabilitationLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: City of LanderLOCATION: Fremont CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

Ch.4 Pg.51

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 8 1995 I $100,000 1996Level II 46 1997 I $175,000 1998Level II 81 1999 I $100,000 2000Level III 16 1999 II $400,000 2003Level III 96 2000 II $1,696,000 2004

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:The city of Lander Level III initial application submission was a request for $1,180,000 to replacethe existing 20-inch asbestos cement treated water transmission pipeline from the water treatmentplant to the Ellis tank, a distance of approximately 12,295 feet. Reconstruction of the Sinks CanyonHighway by the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) in 2002 and 2003 inconjunction with the required increase in the treatment capacity of the water treatment plant dictatesthat the transmission pipeline be replaced.

Water Development Account II funding was approved for the city of Lander water system duringthe 1999 and 2000 Legislative Sessions. In 2000, $1,696,000 (50% grant and 50% loan) wasauthorized for the replacement of the raw water transmission pipeline from the intake to the watertreatment plant. The raw water transmission pipeline, which is 9,320 feet long, will also be affectedby the WYDOT Sinks Canyon Road reconstruction.

The most recent engineering estimate (by Aspen Engineering 10/10/00) for replacement of bothpipelines has a total cost of $2,665,500, which can be broken down as $1,240,500 for the raw waterpipeline and $1,425,000 for the treated water pipeline. This means the Water DevelopmentAccount funds authorized for the raw water pipeline are $455,500 above the current estimate.Should the authorizing legislation be changed to allow funding of the raw and treated waterpipelines the WWDC funds would be short $969,500 to allow for the replacement of both pipelines.Due to very tight right-of-way constrictions on the upper end of the raw water transmission line(Highway Sta 81+00 to 96+00), it appears that the only place to locate the pipeline is directly underthe roadway. It is therefore very desirable that the replacement of the pipeline in this section beaccomplished by the highway reconstruction contractor working for WYDOT. The estimated costfor this portion of the pipeline is $760,400. It is recommended that WYDOT be approached to havethe pipeline project incorporated into the roadway reconstruction contract.

Total project costs (replacement of raw and treated water transmission pipelines) are thusapproximately $400,000 short of funds; assuming $569,500 is contributed by either WYDOT or thecity and the existing Water Development Account funds of $1,696,000 is used for constructing theraw and treated water pipelines.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends that the previous legislation for the raw water transmission pipeline beamended to allow funding for the raw and treated water pipelines; and that additional funding forthe project be incorporated in the Rehabilitation Program at Level III with an appropriation of$400,000.

Ch.4 Pg.52

62. PROJECT: Laramie North Side SupplyLEVEL: IISPONSORS: City of LaramieLOCATION: Albany CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 36 2000 II $ 45,000 2002

PROJECT INFORMATION:The 1994 Master Plan study evaluated various options for expanding Laramie's water supply,storage, treatment, transmission and distribution system to meet expanding demands. The studyrecommended a long-term schedule for improving both the surface and groundwater supplysystems. Recommendations were made for Level III construction funding from both the NewDevelopment and Rehabilitation accounts.The 1995 New Development Program recommendation addressed the conversion of an existing testwell to production status and the construction of monitoring wells at the LaPrele site. This workhas been completed. The 1996 recommendation provided for the construction of two productionwells at the Spur site, a pipeline to connect the well field to the city distribution system, and a newstorage tank. In 1997 the two Spur wells were drilled, developed, and an extensive pump test wasconducted. The 2000 legislature authorized the city of Laramie to expand the 1995 Level I study toinclude the evaluation of a portion of the 20 inch pipeline south and west of town, to combine theEast Side Tank and Corthell Hill Pipeline projects, and to add a North Side Transmission Linereconnaissance level investigation. This study recommends that the town of Laramie rehabilitatethe previously mentioned 20 inch section of pipeline south and west of town, and add a tank andtransmission lines east of town to provide water for the Corthell Hill and Altavista areas. The cityof Laramie has proposed a schedule for these projects that would be finished in 2006. This year thetown of Laramie is asking for funding for Level III final design work and right of way acquisitionon the two selected projects at a cost of $970,000. Project design and cost estimates are as followsin 2002 dollars.

Pipeline RehabilitationProject Cost $ 2,900,000Design Portion $ 230,000

Tank & Transmission LinesProject Cost $11,190,000Design Portion $ 740,000

Total Project Costs $14,090,000Design Total $ 970,000

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends the project be incorporated in the Rehabilitation Program at Level IIIwith an appropriation of $970,000. The financing plan includes a 50% grant, ($485,000) and a 50%loan, ($485,000) at 7.25% interest for 20 years.

Ch.4 Pg.53

63. PROJECT: Laramie RehabilitationLEVEL: IIISPONSORS: City of LaramieLOCATION: Albany CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 10 1994 I $200,000 1996Level III 206 1995 II $550,000* 1999Level III 59 1996 II $1,200,000* 1999*50% grant, 50% loan (4%, 20 years)

PROJECT INFORMATION:The 1994 Master Plan study evaluated various options for expanding Laramie's water supply,storage, treatment, transmission and distribution system to meet expanding demands. The studyrecommended a long-term schedule for improving both the surface and groundwater supplysystems. In 1995 recommendations for Level III construction funding were made from both theNew Development and Rehabilitation accounts.

The 1995 Rehabilitation Program appropriation addressed rehabilitation of an existing storagefacility and Soldier Springs. The storage facility rehabilitation is now complete and thereplacement well at Soldier Springs was drilled in 1997. Also in 1997 design was completed onthe replacement of portions of the water supply pipeline between the water treatment plant and thecity, replacement of a portion of the raw water pipeline between Sodergreen Lake and the watertreatment plant, and a new pumphouse for the Soldiers Springs replacement well. All three projectsare essentially complete with only clean up work and resolution of electrical interference with thetown of Walden, Colorado remaining.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

64. PROJECT: Laramie Transmission Pipeline and Pioneer Canal DiversionLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: City of LaramieLOCATION: Albany CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel III 38 1998 II $4,945,000 2002

PROJECT INFORMATION:During the 1996-1997 Level III Rehabilitation Program it was discovered that the severity of thecorrosion 36 inch diameter transmission pipeline was not as extensive as was anticipated, therefore,this pipeline will not need to be replaced. However, the corrosion of the 24 inch transmissionpipeline was discovered to be worse than what was documented in the 1995 Level II study. This

Ch.4 Pg.54

pipeline will now need to be replaced. This project is currently under design with the start ofconstruction anticipated in the spring of 1999 and completion for the fall of 2000.

The second component of this project is to rehabilitate the Laramie River Pioneer Canal Diversionstructure to accommodate winter flows. Recent growth and population projects require the city tooperate its water treatment plant on a year round basis. Presently winter flows to the treatmentplant are measured by installing a temporary flume which is plagued by icing conditions. Thisproject will provide a permanent solution for diverting and measuring the flows which will improvethe winter time operation. This part of the project is complete.

The pipeline replacement started in the summer of 1999 and is scheduled for completion in thesummer of 2000. A second element of the pipeline project will be constructed in the winter of2000-2001 due to the need for the line to be shut down at that time. Upon completion of thiselement, the project will be complete.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action required.

65. PROJECT: Laramie Water SupplyLEVEL: IIISPONSORS: City of LaramieLOCATION: Albany CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel III 206 1995 I $400,000* 1999Level III 59 1996 I $4,000,000* 1999*67% grant, 33% loan (4%, 20 years)

PROJECT INFORMATION:The 1994 Master Plan study evaluated various options for expanding Laramie's water supply,storage, treatment, transmission and distribution system to meet expanding demands. The studyrecommended a long-term schedule for improving both the surface and groundwater supplysystems. Recommendations for Level III construction funding were made from both the NewDevelopment and Rehabilitation accounts.

The 1995 New Development Program recommendation addressed the conversion of an existing testwell to production status and the construction of monitoring wells at the LaPrele site. This workhas been completed. The 1996 recommendation provided for the construction of two productionwells at the Spur site, a pipeline to connect the well field to the city distribution system, and a newstorage tank. In 1997 the two Spur wells were drilled, developed, and an extensive pump test wasconducted. The extensive public input received delayed the project such that construction of thepipeline and well houses will not be completed until 2000. The project was further delayed in 2000due to disputes between the power supplier

Ch.4 Pg.55

and landowners who had granted easements for the new power line. These have been resolved andthe project will be on line by the end of 2000.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

66. PROJECT: Laramie West StorageLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: City of LaramieLOCATION: Albany CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel III 16 1999 I $2,950,000 2002

PROJECT INFORMATION:The Laramie Airport Joint Powers Board has received a tax based funding package to provideadditional water service to the airport from the city of Laramie. This will include a transmissionline and storage among other water system needs for the airport.

The 1998 Level II project examined a joint construction project with the city of Laramie and theairport to provide additional service to the airport and to the West Laramie area at the same time.Laramie has requested additional funding for the airport project to enlarge the new storage facility,increase the new transmission line size and construct a loop in the existing water system to provideimproved service to the expanding west Laramie area. Laramie is currently experiencing lowpressure service to the Seven Mile area west of Laramie. The Nine Mile area would also like toreceive water from the Laramie system which would require additional water quantity and pressurefrom the system.

Standby generators were also examined in the Level II study. When other alternatives areavailable, standby power supplies should be funded by other non WWDC funding sources. Mostshort term water supply needs can be handled by storage which is eligible for WWDC funding.Therefore, this recommendation does not include funding for standby generators.

This project is partially funded by the Laramie Airport Board. Airport funding will constructimprovements to provide fire flow and drinking water at the airport from the tank and supply linesconstructed under this project.

Design of the improvements began in 1999, however right of way acquisition issues delayed theproject. Agreement was reached with the property owner in late 1999. This project will beginconstruction in 2000. As of late 2000, the project is on schedule and completion is anticipated in2001.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

Ch.4 Pg.56

67. PROJECT: Lingle Water Supply System RehabilitationLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Town of LingleLOCATION: Goshen CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 82 1998 I $ 40,000 2000Level III 16 1999 II $400,000* 2003*50% grant, 50% loan (7.25%, 30 years)

PROJECT INFORMATION:The town utilizes three shallow wells and two storage tanks as their water supply source. Theirwater system is quite old, and portions are in poor condition. The main part of town is fed by 4inch lines from a 50,000 gallon 1928 storage tank. The much smaller new section of town is feedfrom a new 126,000 gallon storage tank.

Level III funding is authorized to replace the 6 inch line from the tank to the north edge of the olderpart of town with an 8 inch pipeline and to replace 4 inch lines through the center of town with 8inch lines. The 1928 storage tank will be removed from service. The town has hired the engineer todesign the project, with construction anticipated in 2000.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

68. PROJECT: Little Snake River Small Dams and ReservoirsLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Little Snake River Conservation DistrictLOCATION: Carbon CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 46 1997 I $125,000 1998Level III 16 1999 I $215,000* 2003*60% grant, 40% loan (7¼%, 25 years)

PROJECT INFORMATION:The project has been proposed to improve 25 ranching operations and 22,400 acres of rangeland.Livestock production may be enhanced and water may be provided for wildlife. The Little SnakeRiver Conservation District originally requested a 60% grant 40% loan totaling $687,500 fromWater Development Account 1 for Level III funding of 34 ponds. The district planned on obtainingfunding from alternative sources to repay the WWDC loan once the project is constructed.

The conservation district estimates that 400 acre feet of water would be developed by constructing34 ponds ranging in size from 5 to 100 acre feet. The ponds are proposed to be constructed on

Ch.4 Pg.57

several tributaries to the Little Snake River and would be used primarily for livestock watering,range land improvement and fish and wildlife habitat enhancement. The reservoirs would belocated on federal (BLM), state, and private land.

The project sponsor estimates that 22,400 acres of rangeland will be improved. The proposedproject may have merit and further study would clarify if these projects are something that theWWDC would be interested in participating in. The Level II study:

1. Determined the projected life and annual maintenance costs of maintaining these kinds ofstructures.

2. Determined the economic feasibility of these kinds of projects.3. Determined the potential to develop wetlands for mitigation of the Little Snake

Supplemental Irrigation Project, and inclusion in the Wyoming Wetland bank.4. Determined permitting requirements.5. Determined water right ownership on the facilities.6. Analyzed implications of development of projects on private lands.7. Reviewed design and construction specifications of the federal agencies.8. Reviewed geotechnical investigations needs.9. Determined who would be responsible for operation and maintenance and, if necessary,

develop needed contract/agreement documents.

Lidstone and Anderson was hired to complete the Level II study. The study determined that 12sites could be developed and 2552 acre feet of water impounded at an estimated cost of $2,254,650.The conservation district is the proposed sponsor. The district did not have the financial resourcesto meet the legal requirements for a conservation district to borrow money. The project wasrescoped to make the project fit within the financial limitations of the conservation district. Theestimated project cost with this criteria is $215,000.

The Little Snake River Conservation District received a 1999 grant and loan appropriation in theamount of $215,000 from the Water Development Account I. The grant is for 60% of the WWDCeligible project costs with a 40% loan at 7¼% interest rate over twenty-five (25) years for a numberof the twelve projects identified and recommended in the Level II study. Approval of the firstphase of funding (2000) was done with the understanding that two or three dams were to beconstructed as demonstration projects. The original Level II estimated costs have increased as aresult of design revisions required by the Bureau of Land Management, which will be the eventualoperations and maintenance agency for the first two dams completed under the Level III projectscope. Under the original $215,000 appropriation, materials have been purchased for the spillwaypiping, inlet and outlet works for the first two dams along with the construction completion of onedam (Smiley Draw) . In order to proceed with the construction of the second dam in spring 2001, anadditional $50,000 is needed to provide adequate funds for the earthwork contract. Construction isanticipated to proceed in the late spring of 2001 and be completed by early summer 2001.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends an additional $50,000 be appropriated from the New DevelopmentAccount as a continuation of the year 1999 Level III project to enable completion of the seconddam at Ketchum Butte.

Ch.4 Pg.58

69. PROJECT: Little Snake River Valley Dam and Reservoir (Sandstone)LEVEL: IIISPONSOR: State of WyomingLOCATION: Carbon CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel III 79 1988 I $5,000,000* 1998Level III 268 1989 I $5,000,000 1998Level III 89 1993 I $20,400,000 1998Level III 38 1998 I $30,000,000 2001*$400,000 has been allocated by statute to the Little Snake River Basin Planning Study; therefore,the total appropriation available to the project is $30,000,000.

PROJECT INFORMATION:The original Sandstone project proposed to impound 52,000 acre-feet of water with a 200 foot highdam as a state investment. The facility would have provided immediate benefits in the form ofsupplemental municipal and agricultural water, recreation, and flood control. Future benefits wouldhave included water for industrial purposes and hydropower. The estimated cost of the project was$70,000,000.

In 1979, the legislature enacted WS 41-2-204, which defined the Stage I, II, and III Projects, as wellas "in-basin needs". In 1980, the legislature authorized the Stage II Project and, in the samelegislation, instructed the Commission to study the feasibility of constructing in the Little SnakeRiver drainage, above the confluence of the river and Savery Creek, a reservoir of at least 3,000acre feet, noting that the reservoir shall satisfy immediate in-basin agricultural, recreational, andmunicipal needs and shall promote in-basin water purity. In 1983, the legislature included aprovision in the criteria for water development projects, which specified that a project involving atrans-basin diversion shall address the impact of the diversion and recommend measures to mitigateany impact identified in the basin of origin. Subsequent session laws identified the Sandstone Damas the in-basin component of the Stage III Project.

In 1987, the WWDC requested construction funding for the Sandstone Dam. The legislature deniedthe request. However, in 1988 and 1989, the legislature appropriated $5,000,000 each year towardthe construction of the Sandstone Dam.

In 1988, a draft environmental impact statement and biological assessment was prepared. In 1989and 1990, work continued toward meeting the National Environmental Policy Act requirements andacquiring the required 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE). OnDecember 14, 1990, the WWDC received a letter from Colonel Donald E. Hazen, District Engineerfor the USCOE, advising that it was his recommendation that the 404 permit be denied for theSandstone Project as there is no specific use for 20,000 acre feet of the project yield. In cases thatthe District Engineer and the Governor of the state disagree on the disposition of a permit, thepermitting decision is elevated to the Missouri River Division Engineer. Since Governor Sullivanrequested that the permit be issued, the Sandstone Project was reviewed by the Division Engineer.In 1991, the WWDC was notified that the Division Engineer upheld the District Engineer'srecommendation. Therefore, the 404 permit was denied for the 52,000 acre-foot Sandstone

Ch.4 Pg.59

Reservoir. However, the USCOE noted that it would be prepared to reopen consideration of theapplication in the event that the ultimate use of the reservoir yield could be clearly defined.

In 1992, the Little Snake River Basin Planning Study was completed. One of the tasks of the studywas to evaluate several reservoir sites to determine if it was feasible to construct a small damcapable of meeting the supplemental irrigation water needs in the Little Snake River Basin. At therequest of the Little Snake Water Conservancy District, a down-sized version of the Sandstone Damwas included among the alternatives. The Commission recommended construction funding for aSandstone Reservoir with a capacity of 23,000 acre feet that would yield 12,000 acre feet per year.Legislation was approved during the 1993 session to provide $30,000,000 for a Level III project.The project purpose is to serve as an agricultural, municipal and domestic water supply, as well asto provide recreation opportunities, environmental enhancement, and mitigation for the Stage I, II,III trans-basin diversion water supply projects.

In 1993, additional mapping of the reservoir site was completed, additional hydrology analysis wereperformed, and supplemental geotechnical investigations were undertaken. The geotechnicalinvestigations involved drilling of two more exploratory holes to test foundation strength anddetermine the suitability of the site to bear the weight of a roller compacted concrete (RCC) dam.The Level I designs were also reviewed and the cost estimates checked for accuracy. In addition,additional borrow area investigations were completed to determine the suitability and quantity ofaggregate for the RCC mix. In late 1993, a draft supplemental geotechnical report was delivered tothe WWDC. The report concluded that the construction of a RCC dam at the Sandstone site wastechnically feasible.

In 1994, the WWDC began the process of obtaining federal permits to enable the construction ofthe smaller Sandstone project. The WWDC entered into an agreement with the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (USCOE) and with Burns and McDonnell, scientists and engineering consultants, tocomplete a third party Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS, as required by the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA), is being prepared. In addition, a biological opinion and Section7 consultation, required by the Endangered Species Act, must be completed.

In January, 1995, the USCOE advised that a 404 permit could be issued only for the "leastenvironmentally damaging alternative." During the summer of 1995, the USCOE indicated that the“least damaging practicable alternative” was a combination of two alternative reservoirs (Dutch Joeand Big Gulch), and therefore, a 404 permit may not be issued for the Sandstone project. Thefederal government (USCOE) had narrowly defined the federal “purpose and need” for the projectas “supplemental late season irrigation water supply.” This conflicted with the Wyominglegislation that authorized the project and stipulated “recreation, environmental enhancement,municipal water supply, supplemental irrigation, and mitigation for past and future trans-basinwater projects" as legitimate purposes. The Dutch Joe/Big Gulch alternative would not provide asmany recreation benefits as the Sandstone project. In August, 1995, the WWDC and Select WaterCommittee were briefed on the status of the EIS, toured the alternatives, and concluded that theywould consider alternatives to the Sandstone Project if there was a clear consensus of support in theLittle Snake Valley for that alternative. Public meetings were held in the Little Snake Valley inAugust, October and December, 1995 for the purposes of discussing project alternatives. It wasapparent that a majority of those attending the meetings preferred the construction of SandstoneDam. The majority believed that Sandstone would provide more multiple use benefits than theother alternatives and disagreed with the Corps decision not to include other project purposes in thefederal “purpose and need.”

Ch.4 Pg.60

The WWDC supported the position expressed by a majority of the Little Snake valley residents andhas directed the WWDC staff to further pursue changing the “purpose and need” section of theDEIS to include the state project purposes, particularly recreation. The lack of agreement on thisissue has resulted in an unforeseeable and unavoidable delay in completing the project.

In 1996, the WWDC staff worked with representatives of the Little Snake Valley, the WyomingGame and Fish Department, the Wyoming Department of Commerce, the USCOE, the U.S. EPA,the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other cooperating agencies to address and resolve the issuespreviously discussed. At the request of the Savery-Little Snake River Conservancy District and anadvocacy group comprised of Little Snake Valley residents, several studies were undertaken in1996. The WWDC contracted with Burns and McDonnell to complete an analysis of the need foradditional flat water recreation in the Baggs, Wyoming area. The recreation study was completedin September 1996. In addition, Burns and McDonnell completed detailed wetland delineations ofthe Sandstone, High Savery, Dutch Joe and Big Gulch dam sites. The Wyoming Game and FishDepartment was contracted to prepare wildlife impact assessments and mitigation plans for theDutch Joe and Sandstone Dam sites. A draft report was completed in October 1996. Additionalwildlife impact assessments and mitigation plans were completed in 1997 for the High Savery Damsite. Western Water Consultants completed additional operation and yield analysis of all the sites.A conveyance loss study of lower Savery Creek and the Little Snake River was drafted by VictorHasfurther Ph.D., University of Wyoming, Civil Engineering Department. A contract was enteredinto with States West Water Resources Corporation to review the designs, operation, and projectedcosts of Sandstone, Dutch Joe, and High Savery dams. Additional geotechnical work wascompleted at the Dutch Joe water supply canal and High Savery Dam site. Further geotechnicalwork at the High Savery site was completed in 1997.

The studies did not improve the feasibility of the Sandstone alternative. The Corps reaffirmed thatthe only federal project purpose could be supplemental irrigation water supply. The Corps sees nofederal need for reservoir based recreation in the area. Further, the Corps has indicated verballyand in writing that the project should provide 12,000 acre feet of water on a firm basis 8 out of 10years. A firm 12,000 acre foot yield 10 out of 10 years had been requested by the Savery-LittleSnake River Conservancy District. Sandstone is the most costly project (about $48 million). DutchJoe is nearly $10 million less. High Savery is the least costly at about $30 million. Environmentalimpacts are greatest at Sandstone but appear to be significant at the Dutch Joe and High Saverysites as well. A meeting attended by representatives of the Corps, other federal agencies, severalstate agencies, the Governor’s Office, representatives from the Savery-Little Snake RiverConservancy District, other representatives from Carbon County, the Wyoming WaterDevelopment Commission, the Select Water Committee, and the press, was held on November 19,1996. The Corps representatives stated that given the data that had been presented to them,Sandstone would not be permitted. They indicated that Dutch Joe was still the least damagingproject and most likely to be permitted. High Savery may be permitted if it could be shown thatimpacts to big game winter range at Dutch Joe were more environmentally damaging than thewetland and stream channel impacts at High Savery. A meeting was held in Baggs on December 5,1996 and the irrigators and Little Snake Valley residents supported a motion to change the projectname from “Sandstone” to the “Little Snake Water Supply Project.” The work completed in 1996resulted in a significant delay in the project. In 1997, the project got back on track with theselection of High Savery Dam and Reservoir as the preferred alternative.

During 1999, the environmental impact statement was completed and land acquisition was initiated.States West Water Resources Corporation was hired to begin design of the dam and associated

Ch.4 Pg.61

facilities, including the mitigation plan. Work on significant cultural resources issues continued.The following activities were completed or were well underway in 2000:

1. The process for obtaining the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Clean Water Act Section 404 permit continued and was completed late in December 2000. The final paper work will be completed in January 2001.

2. Detailed plans were developed for mitigation of impacts to rangelands, riparian shrubcommunities, and wetlands. Preferred sites for the mitigation were selected.

3. Purchases of property for the dam, reservoir, facilities and mitigation were initiated.4. Design data were collected during the year for the dam and facilities and for the mitigation by the States West team. The Designs should be completed in early 2001. The site has proved to be more complex the originally thought and this will increase the cost for construction to some degree.5. Work on state and federal rights-of-way and easements for the dam and facilities and for

the mitigation has begun and should be completed in early 2001.6. Work on significant cultural resources continued during 2000. A programmatic agreement was developed between the corps, WWDC, and the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office to assure continued protection of cultural resources in the area of the project.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATION ACTION:The State of Wyoming has appropriated $30,000,000 for the costs of studies, permitting, easements,land acquisition, geotechnical investigations, design and construction of the High Savery Dam.Ongoing permitting, land purchases, design and construction costs have been projected to exceedpresent financing by about $3,800,000. The WWDC recommends that a supplemental amount of$3,800,000 be appropriated to this project so that there is certainty of having sufficient funds toaward bids and commence construction in the early summer of 2001. The WWDC alsorecommends that the reversion date be extended from 2001 to 2005 to allow time to construct thedam and reservoir.

70. PROJECT: Lodgepole Creek ASRLEVEL: New ApplicationSPONSOR: Ground Water Users of Eastern Laramie CountyLOCATION: Laramie CountyPROGRAM: New Development

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Eastern Laramie County ranks high as one of the most intensively farmed areas of the state. Thearea is unique among irrigated areas of the state as depending on ground water pumping almostexclusively as irrigation source supply. In 1970, a Ground Water Control Area was formed forextreme eastern Laramie County and expanded in 1982 (to include that portion of the county east ofI-25, not inclusive of the city of Cheyenne) in response to ground water level declines. A ControlArea Advisory Board reviews and makes recommendations to the State Engineer concerning anynew development of high production ground water wells, enlargement of existing wells, or placingnew lands under irrigation.

Since inception of the Control Area, ground water level declines have slowed and in some areasceased, but have not rebounded. Aquifer storage and retrieval (ASR) is a technology that has beentested in arid western states with varied success. This study would determine if a secondary supply

Ch.4 Pg.62

source (e.g., surplus and/or unencumbered city of Cheyenne Stage II supplies) is available and iflands generally underlying Lodgepole Creek drainage in eastern Laramie County are a suitablecandidate for ASR techniques or other technologies.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends that the project be incorporated into the New Development Program atLevel I with an appropriation of $50,000.

71. PROJECT: McNutt Water SupplyLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: McNutt Improvement DistrictLOCATION: Washakie CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 82 1998 I $25,0002000

PROJECT INFORMATION:The city of Worland installed a new water line to the Boy’s School several years ago that passesvery near to the sponsor’s service area. At the time that line was constructed, the city installed a tapto accommodate the sponsor’s future plans for a water system.

The sponsor requested assistance to complete a rural water system for their subdivision. A Level IIstudy was performed in 1998 which shows the project to be feasible, and monthly water bills willbe approximately $50/tap/month. The total project cost is estimated at $165,000, with $102,000 ofthat amount eligible for WWDC participation. The sponsor has requested a 60/40 grant loan split,and 7.25% financing for 30 years.

There are currently about 45 people living in the service area, with a number of unoccupied lots.They predict there will be 20 taps on their system initially, and are confident that additionalrequests will be made for taps once the system moves forward. The sponsor currently utilizesindividual wells of marginal quality, and septic systems.

The project has been incorporated into the Washakie Rural Water Supply Project, and advanced toLevel III in the New Development Program with an appropriation of $60,000 as part of theappropriation for the Washakie Rural Water Supply project.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

72. Project: Manville Water SupplyLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Town of ManvilleLOCATION: Niobrara CountyPROGRAM: New Development

Ch.4 Pg.63

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel III 38 1998 I $69,000 2001

PROJECT INFORMATION:The town is presently served by two wells about 200 feet deep into the Arikaree formation. Thewells are 70 years old, located only about 30 feet apart. The town recently completed renovation oftheir 25,000 gallon storage tank, using State Land and Investment Board funds, and has diligentlymaintained the distribution portion of their system. In 1996, the Commission recommended thatthe project be incorporated into the New Development Program at Level II with a budget of$200,000. This Level II project consisted of a well siting study, construction and testing ofproduction-sized well, and conceptual plans and cost estimates for converting the test well toproduction status and connecting the new well to the town’s existing distribution system.

The well was successfully completed, and converted to a production well.

The remainder of the project is to complete the piping from the new well to the town’s storage tank,modernize the control building, and install associated controls. Bids were opened in the fall of1998. Project is essentially complete with only minor work items remaining.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action required.

73. PROJECT: Meeteetse Water SupplyLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Town of MeeteetseLOCATION: Park CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 8 1995 I $75,000 1996Level II 15 1996 I $100,000 1998Level III 38 1998 I $333,000* 200260% grant, balance of project cost from other sources.

PROJECT INFORMATION:Meeteetse has a population of 386. There are 240 taps in town and 32 existing taps in the ruralareas served by the town. The median household income for Meeteetse is $20,667. Water rates are$17.00 per month for the first 5,000 gallons, plus $0.75 per 1000 gallons for usage over 5,000gallons. The average monthly water bill is $33.25 compared to the state average of $26.62. Thetown has obtained significant assistance from the Rural Utilities Service (RUS).

The Level II study was conducted by RBD, Inc. Engineering Consultants, a division of The Sear-Brown Group. The Level I study was completed by James Gores and Associates in 1995. Thetown of Meeteetse operates a conventional filtration plant that treats water diverted from the Wood

Ch.4 Pg.64

River. The Level I study reported several problems/deficiencies with the water supply andtreatment systems. These problems include:

1. The quality of the water supply is extremely variable throughout the year. It is turbid in thespring during runoff and very clear in the winter.

2. The treatment plant is located on the 100 year flood plain and is vulnerable to inundation.3. The intake is also vulnerable to flooding and should be moved or extensively modified.4. The existing treatment process should be extensively modified to treat the variable water

supply and comply with the provisions of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.

A Level I study completed in 1995 by James Gores and Associates recommended moving the watersupply intake to Lower Sunshine Reservoir and building a new water treatment plant outside the100 year flood plain near Sunshine Reservoir. A pilot plant study was completed in 1997 todetermine the feasibility and projected cost of treating Lower Sunshine Reservoir water withconventional and micro-filtration processes. Micro-filtration is feasible and is expected to haveconsiderably lower operation and maintenance costs. The Level II study was completed in 1997and recommended the following improvements to the Meeteetse water system:

1. Move the diversion from the Wood River to the Lower Sunshine Reservoir at the GateHouse.

2. Construct a backup supply lift station at the Sunshine Dam toe drain.3. Construct a raw water pipeline from the dam diversion to the water treatment plant.4. Construct a new water treatment plant.5. Construct a finished water transmission main to tie in with the main from the existing water

treatment plant to the town.

Preliminary designs and cost estimates were prepared for the above listed improvements.

The town has received funding (60% grant only) for items 1, 2, 3, and 5 from the WWDC NewDevelopment account. The remaining 40% of the capital cost of these components will be financedwith grants from the RUS. Component 4 would be financed from a combination of grants andloans from the Wyoming State Land and Investment Board (WSLIB) and the RUS.

The project is financed as follows:

WWDC grant (17.8%): $333,000WSLIB grant (16%): $300,000 (more grant funds may be available)RUS grant (44.8%): $1,070,000RUS loan (21.4%): $402,000

The project is now under construction and will be completed in 2001.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

Ch.4 Pg.65

74. PROJECT: Middle Fork DamLEVEL: II-HoldSPONSOR: State of WyomingLOCATION: Johnson CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 10 1994 I Hold 1996Level II 15 1996 I Hold 1998Level II 82 1998 I Hold 2000Level II 36 2000 I Hold* 2002*A block appropriation of $15,000 was made for all hold projects

PROJECT INFORMATION:The proposed project would be located on the Middle Fork of the Powder River. The Middle ForkReservoir would have a total capacity of 59,600 acre-feet, of which 47,700 acre-feet would beactive storage for water supply and the remaining 11,900 acre-feet would be for the purposes offisheries and recreation (minimum pool). The project would yield 32,200 acre-feet per year forindustrial, agricultural and instream flow purposes. The project would cost approximately$55,000,000. In 1990, WWDC completed negotiations to obtain an interest in the reservoir permitsfrom the Powder River Reservoir Corporation (PRRC). The transfer required a separate contractbetween EXXON U.S.A. and WWDC. EXXON has invested about 1.5 million dollars in the projectand has a contract with the PRRC which had to be addressed before the state can proceed towardconstruction of the project. The Commission contracted with the USGS for a study of water qualityparameters in the Powder River drainage. This report was completed in 1992.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends that the project be retained at Level II-Hold status.

75. PROJECT: Moorcroft WellLEVEL: IISPONSOR: Town of MoorcroftLOCATION: Crook CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATIONPurpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 38 1992 I $35,0001992Level II 74 1994 I $225,000 1994Level III 28 1994 I $930,000 1997Level II 36 2000 I $355,000 2002

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:In 1992, a Level I study conducted for the town of Moorcroft recommended construction of a newstorage tank, collection system and the construction of both a Lance/Fox Hills well and a Madison

Ch.4 Pg.66

well. In 1994, after the conclusion of a Level II study, the town of Moorcroft constructed the newstorage tank, collection system, and drilled the Lance/Fox Hills well. The town is now ready tocomplete the remainder of the recommendations and would like to complete the Madison well andassociated pipeline. Under the current supply situation, the town can marginally meet its dailywater demands. The town currently meets its high demand needs by purchasing water from the cityof Gillette. This purchase of water was originally intended only to meet emergency demands andnot to be a constant supply source. The town would like to see the project constructed as a Level IIwell project and a Level III pipeline project.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action required.

76. PROJECT: Natrona County Regional RehabilitationLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Natrona County Regional Water System Joint Powers BoardLOCATION: Natrona CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel III-I 206 1995 II $1,500,000* 1999Level III-II 59 1996 II $3,800,000* 1999Level III-III 38 1998 II $57,000* 2002*50% grant, 50% loan (4%, 30 years)

PROJECT INFORMATION:The aggregate population of the entities served by the Natrona County Regional Water SystemJoint Powers Board is approximately 60,000 residents. The Level II feasibility study of the NatronaCounty Regional Water Supply Project identified $60,000,000 of needed improvements, of which$37,000,000 would be eligible for WWDC assistance, and identified a phased approach forcompleting the project. Some infrastructure improvements should be completed by 1997 tofacilitate operation of the regional system.

The Level II feasibility study of the Natrona County Regional Water Supply Project recommendedthat the Fort Caspar and Dempsey Acres well fields be rehabilitated. The estimated cost for thiscomponent of the project is $4,814,000. The project will be completed in three phases: drilling,final design, and construction. The well fields are a primary water supply for the regional system.The existing wells are old and production has dropped. The project would serve to increase thewell production to its permitted amount. In addition, several water storage tanks will be operatedby the Joint Powers Board. Telemetry modifications to the tanks and some rehabilitation isrequired to extend their usable life. The estimated cost for the improvements to the storage tanks is$586,000. These project components are eligible for funding from the rehabilitation account.Because of limited funds available, the WWDC recommended that this project be phased.

The first phase of the well rehabilitation project has been constructed. The second phase is underconstruction and will be completed in the next two years. The rehabilitation of the storage tanks iscurrently under design. One of the tanks has been identified as needing a new inlet pipe to helpprevent stagnation of the water in the tank.

Ch.4 Pg.67

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

77. PROJECT: Natrona County Regional Water SupplyLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Natrona County Regional Water System Joint Powers BoardLOCATION: Natrona CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel III-I 206 1995 I $1,650,000* 1999Level III-II 59 1996 I $11,200,000* 1999Level III-III 38 1998 I $13,900,000* 2002*67% grant, 33% loan (4%, 30 years)

PROJECT INFORMATION:The Level II report was completed in 1994. The Level II study refined a Level I planning studycompleted in 1990. Both studies showed that the area could be effectively served through aregional system. The recently completed Level II study developed conceptual designs and costestimates to connect the entities in and around Casper to a single water supply system. During thepast 10 years, the Commission has received numerous applications from municipalities and waterdistricts in the area seeking assistance in developing good water supplies. The state's financialresources would be better applied to solving the area's problems than to continue piecemealdevelopment.

Progress was delayed while the political subdivisions in the area formed a joint powers board. Inearly 1994, a joint powers board comprised of representatives from Natrona County, Casper, Mills,Wardwell Water and Sewer District, the Salt Creek Joint Powers Board, Evansville, and BrooksWater and Sewer District was formed. In early 1995, the towns of Mills and Evansville opted outof the board.

The aggregate population of the entities served by the Natrona County Regional Water SystemJoint Powers Board is approximately 60,000 residents. The Level II feasibility study of the NatronaCounty Regional Water Supply Project identified $60,000,000 of needed improvements, of which$37,000,000 would be eligible for WWDC assistance, and identified a phased approach forcompleting the project. Some infrastructure improvements will be completed by 1997 to facilitateoperation of the regional system. Pipelines are needed to connect the various entities to the regionalsystem. This first phase of the pipeline improvements is estimated to cost $5,110,000. Because oflimited funds available during the 1995 session, the WWDC recommended that this project bephased.

In 1995, the joint powers board completed the ownership agreements with the participating entities,executed the contracts with the WWDC, retained a project manager and retained a design firm. Bidpackage No.1, No 2, No. 4, No. 6 and No. 7 have been completed. Bid package No 5, watertreatment plant modifications, is under construction. Bid Package No. 8 will be constructed during2000-2001.

Ch.4 Pg.68

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

78. PROJECT: Newcastle Area Water SupplyLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: City of NewcastleLOCATION: Weston CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATIONPurpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 15 1996 I $100,000 1998Level II 46 1997 I $500,000 2000Level II 82 1998 I $140,000 2000Level II 81 1999 I $420,000 2000Level III 96 2000 I $1,320,000* 2004*60% grant, 40% loan (7.25%, 30 years)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:The city of Newcastle received a loan and grant appropriation for construction of a water storagetank, pressure reducing valve stations, and transmission pipelines to improve the municipal watersystem and its ability to provide service to neighboring entities, e..g. Cambria, West End, SaltCreek, and Blacktail. Regional solutions were explored in the 1999 Level II study, which alsoprovided for the drilling of a Madison formation well for the Salt Creek Water District.

In 2000 the city executed the legal documents and has begun negotiations for engineering services.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

79. PROJECT: Nine Mile Water SupplyLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Nine Mile Water and Sewer DistrictLOCATION: Albany CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 82 1998 I $20,0002000Level II 81 1999 I $30,0002000Level III 96 2000 I $920,000* 2004*60% grant; 40% loan (7¼%, 20 years)

PROJECT INFORMATION:The Nine Mile water users are currently hauling water from Laramie to their storage tanks. Oneuser has 1000 gallons per week hauled to her home at a rate of approximately $90.00 per month.

Ch.4 Pg.69

The groundwater is not usable in the area due to high chemical content. In addition to not havingdrinking water, there isn’t a water supply available in the area to suppress fires. Two major firesoccurred in the Nine Mile area in 1996.

The Nine Mile residents formed a water and sewer district in 1998. They have also contacted thecity of Laramie and indicated that they would like to purchase water from the city. The city ofLaramie would like to know what the logistics are for providing water to this area and thecommitment of the residents to making the water district work.

The 1998 Level I project looked at the supply and distribution options and analyzed the Laramiewater supply system capabilities and estimated the costs to connect a water system. This analysisalso looked at the nearby Seven Mile area that is currently being served by the Laramie watersystem.

The 1999 Level II project refined the Nine Mile system design and cost estimates, examined thepossibility of a joint system with other local water users and examined the supply options from thecity of Laramie.

The 2000 Level III authorization provides funds for final design and construction of a water mainsystem for the Nine Mile District which will include taps to the two main Laramie pipelines, controlhouse, buster pump station, and transmission mains. A contract with Western Water Consultants ,Inc. of Laramie was negotiated by the district for project design and construction managementservices. Design is underway and is scheduled to be completed in 2001 with constructioncompletion by the summer of 2002.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

80. PROJECT: North Alpine Junction Water SupplyLEVEL: II-HoldSPONSOR: Lincoln County Commissioners/Town of AlpineLOCATION: Lincoln CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 8 1995 I $35,000 1996Level II 15 1996 I Hold 1998Level II 82 1998 I Hold 2000Level II 36 2000 I Hold* 2002*A block appropriation of $15,000 was made for all hold projects

PROJECT INFORMATION:The project would serve 450 residents with 230 taps in the unincorporated area north of the SnakeRiver. The current Alpine Water Supply project is currently involved with approximately the samenumber of residents and taps in the incorporated area south of the river. The Lincoln CountyCommissioners, as well as the town of Alpine, are concerned about the rapid development in theAlpine Junction area. They would like to develop a master plan for water (and sewer) service to

Ch.4 Pg.70

serve the region including the residents of the areas north and south of the Snake River. The townof Alpine is also considering regionalization of the area and had a connecting pipeline placed in theplans of the new Snake River Bridge when it was constructed in the summer of 1995.

The applicants would like to drill a test well in the north area around the Port of Entry and also dosome pump testing in that area. They would also like to complete additional population growthprojections and reevaluate the land ownership in the Alpine area. Due to the rapid growth andchanging of land ownership in the area, it will be hard to determine the service area and districtboundaries at the present time. Therefore, it is recommended to place this project in the holdcategory until a district is formed. After a district is formed, the project will be eligible for Level IIfunding.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends that the project be retained at Level II-Hold status.

81. PROJECT: North Cheyenne Master PlanLEVEL: II-HoldSPONSOR: Laramie County CommissionLOCATION: Laramie CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 10 1994 I Hold 1996Level II 15 1996 I Hold 1998Level II 82 1998 I Hold 2000Level II 36 2000 I Hold* 2002*A total appropriation of $15,000 is available for hold projects.

PROJECT INFORMATION:Water levels in domestic and stock wells in the north Cheyenne area have been decreasing. Thereare approximately 1,500 residences in the north Cheyenne area with a population of approximately5,000 people. The area encompasses approximately 30 square miles. All the residences are servedby individual wells and waste water is treated with individual septic systems. In 1991, the LaramieCounty Commissioners requested a Level I planning study to develop a master plan for the northCheyenne area. The request was initiated in response to complaints of residents concerning reducedwater levels in wells and possible water quality degradation.

In 1992, the WWDC contracted with States West Water Resources Corporation (States West) tocomplete a Level I water supply master plan study of the north Cheyenne area. The study wascompleted in 1993 and identified several water supply alternatives. Reconnaissance level designsand cost estimates were prepared for a system that would utilize groundwater as a water source, arural water supply system with transmission capacity to address future growth using water suppliedby the Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities, and a water supply system with limited transmissioncapacity using water supplied by the Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities. In addition, waterconservation, aquifer recharge and no action alternatives were also evaluated. The Level I reportconcluded that the preferred alternative is to purchase water from the city of Cheyenne and tosystematically construct a transmission pipeline system to accommodate existing and future water

Ch.4 Pg.71

supply needs. The cost for the water supply system built to city of Cheyenne standards is about $45per household per month. In addition, each landowner would have to finance approximately$14,000 for completion of a distribution system and connection to the main water supply lines.

The project was terminated at the conclusion of the Phase I work program because several issues(annexation, property owner interest) had to be resolved before additional technical work can beperformed. In all probability, the interest in the project will vary throughout the area and theultimate project will be phased based upon that interest.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The Commission recommends the project be retained at Level II-Hold status.

82. PROJECT: North End Water SupplyLEVEL: ISPONSOR: North End Water UsersLOCATION: Park CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 82 1998 I $50,0002000

PROJECT INFORMATION:The water supply system for the North End Water Users was constructed in 1964 and supplieswater to 205 taps north of Powell. The system has experienced considerable growth over the yearsand is experiencing difficulty meeting demands. The potential to connect to the Big Horn BasinRural project has been suggested. The area presently depends on wells in the southern portion oftheir service area. The study will determine the required facility expansion, prepare preliminarydesigns and cost estimates and prepare the project reports.

The Level I analysis has been completed and the sponsor is reviewing its options..

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

83. PROJECT: North UintaLEVEL: IISPONSOR: North Uinta County Improvement Service DistrictLOCATION: Uinta CountyPROGRAM: New Development

Ch.4 Pg.72

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 81 1999 I $40,000 2000

PROJECT INFORMATION:The North Uinta County Improvement Service District (NUC) is located 10 miles north ofEvanston. The district consists of six different sections, Whitney Canyon, El Caballo 1, El Caballo2, Lower Deer Mountain, Upper Deer Mountain 1, Upper Deer Mountain 2, and a race trackcomplex. The district would like to pursue a Level II study as recommended by the Level I studycompleted in 2000. During the Level I study, one of the two supply wells for the Deer Mountainsubdivision began to fail and had a difficult time producing potable water. The district would liketo drill a test well in the Deer Mountain area to replace the failing well.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends the project be incorporated into the New Development Program at LevelII with an appropriation of $100,000.

84. PROJECT: Northeast Wyoming Interactive DatabaseLEVEL: New ApplicationSPONSOR: Wyoming Geological SurveyLOCATION: Northeast WyomingPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

PROJECT INFORMATION:The coalbed methane development in the Powder River Basin is currently one of the most active inthe U.S., with more than 2,400 producing wells. These wells collectively produced 58.1 billioncubic feet of gas in 1999. There are also 1,300 shut-in wells capable of producing once they areconnected to a pipeline. The average water production per well is approximately 12 gpm, whichequates to approximately 40 mgd currently being discharged to the surface. Over 7,200 additionalwells have been permitted in the last year, with BLM projecting that a total of 35,000 to 70,000cbm wells may ultimately be completed.

The purpose of the proposed project is to generate an interactive database that will provideinformation on the surficial and subsurface geology, groundwater hydrology, and surface andsubsurface water quality of part of the Powder River Basin. In addition, the project will includeavailable information on water well completion reports. As the emphasis will be on the coalbedmethane producing formations and beds in the area, links to information on coalbed methaneproduction and produced water will also be available. This will be accomplished throughcooperative efforts among the Wyoming Geological Survey, Water Resources Data System, UnitedStates Geological Survey Water Resources Division, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming Oiland Gas Conservation Commission, Wyoming Water Development Commission, WyomingDepartment of Environmental Quality, and the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office.

The project is proposed to be completed by October 2002, with subsequent appropriation requestsfor the other basins in the State.

Ch.4 Pg.73

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The Commission recommends that the project be incorporated into the Rehabilitation Program atLevel I with an appropriation of $400,000.

85. PROJECT: Oakley Water SupplyLEVEL: II (Opal Regional Water Supply)SPONSOR: Oakley Service and Improvement DistrictLOCATION: Lincoln CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 36 2000 II $30,000 2002

PROJECT INFORMATION:The Oakley Subdivision is organizing as the Oakley Improvement and Service District and wouldlike to move forward with the water supply pipeline from Kemmerer/Diamondville JPB hook-up toOakley as outlined in the level II study funded by the WWDC in 2000. The pipeline would consistof a 4 inch transmission line from the Kemmerer-Diamondville Joint Powers Board hookup inDiamondville and run along Wyoming Highway 30 across the Hams Fork River and Union Pacificrailroad into Oakley.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends the project be incorporated into the New Development Program at LevelIII with an appropriation of $176,000. The financing plan is a grant of 50%,$176,000, and a loan of50%, $176,000, to be secured by the sponsor through other sources. The WWDC also recommendsthat the authorization be conditioned on successful formation of the district.

86. PROJECT: Opal Regional Water SupplyLEVEL: IISPONSOR: Town of OpalLOCATION: Lincoln CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 268 1989 I $70,0001990Level II 36 2000 I $30,0002002

PROJECT INFORMATION:In 1999, the town of Opal requested a feasibility study for the costs associated with installing andmaintaining a water treatment unit designed to reduce or eliminate excessive fluoride present inOpal’s drinking water. This report was completed in November 2000. The report indicated thatinstallation costs were affordable, however yearly maintenance costs (to the town) would beapproximately $11,000 per year.

Ch.4 Pg.74

The town of Opal would like to continue with the Level II study completed in 2000 by requestingan additional study to determine the feasibility of obtaining a new groundwater source from whichthe town may blend water with their existing water supply to dilute the fluoride concentrations andthereby addressing the EPA Administrative Order recently issued relative to the State DrinkingWater Act violations.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends the existing Level II project in the New Development Program beexpanded and the appropriation be increased by $90,000 to $120,000.

87. PROJECT: Pine Bluffs SupplyLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Town of Pine BluffsLOCATION: Laramie CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 10 1994 I $75,0001996Level II 8 1995 I $150,000 1996Level III 96 2000 I $1,245,000* 2004*60% grant, 40% loan (7.25%, 20 years)

PROJECT INFORMATION:The town of Pine Bluffs’ water wells are currently connected to the town’s distribution system. ALevel I study funded by the WWDC determined that a need existed for construction of atransmission line which would connect the town’s wells to the storage tanks. In 1995, a Level IIstudy looked at rehabilitation of the town’s existing wells, as well as location, sizing and costsassociated with a new transmission pipeline. A subsequent Level III construction projectrehabilitated one well, but was not successful in replacing another well as drilling did not encountersufficient water. This Level III appropriation will fund construction of a transmission line thatwill allow the town to disinfect their drinking water in accordance with proposed federalrequirements. The proposed transmission line will provide centralized disinfection and will providea cost effective method to avoid individual disinfection equipment at each well. The town currentlyhas six wells, of which only three are currently being disinfected, and of those, two have little to nocontact time. Modifications to the distribution system are being financed with State LandInvestment Board loan and grant funds.

The town has hired an engineer and design is underway. Construction is anticipated during thesummer of 2001 with completion of the project by the end of the calendar year.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

Ch.4 Pg.75

88. PROJECT: Pine Haven Master PlanLEVEL: ISPONSOR: Town of Pine HavenLOCATION: Crook CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 36 2000 I $35,000 2002

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:The town of Pine Haven Water System Master Plan, completed in November of 2000 by StetsonEngineering for WWDC, suggested several possible system expansion alternatives. With WWDCfunding assistance, the town wishes to pursue two Level III considerations, 1) a 6" pipeline to tiethe existing Keyhole No. 1 Well directly to the town’s .25MG storage tank, and 2) an 8" “tank tie-in” transmission line from the storage tank to the town’s distribution system to enhance the systemreliability/redundancy and to provide looping from the storage facility.

.RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends the project be incorporated in the Rehabilitation Program at Level IIIwith an appropriation of $235,000. The financing plan is a 50% grant, $117,500 and a 50% loan,$117,500, for thirty years at 7.25% interest.

89. PROJECT: Popo Agie Watershed StudyLEVEL: New ApplicationSPONSOR: Popo Agie Conservation DistrictLOCATION: Fremont CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

PROJECT INFORMATION:The Popo Agie watershed begins in the Wind River mountains southwest of Lander. The PopoAgie drainage is made up of three major tributaries, the Little Popo Agie River, Middle Fork of thePopo Agie River and the North Fork of the Popo Agie River. The watershed comprisesapproximately 522,350 acres. The land ownership can be divided among federal (67%), private(26%), and state (7%).

The Popo Agie watershed supports irrigated agriculture, however cattle production is the primaryagricultural industry in the watershed.

The conservation district would like to look at several variables within the watershed. Districtconstituents have concerns based on things such as a consistent supply of water flow, conveyancelosses in irrigation ditches, impacts from subdivisions, and a study of the fluvial health of thewatershed. This information would provide the baseline information from which the district cancontinue to expand upon.

The district has collected considerable data on water quality and has organized technical advisorygroups to assist them. The results of those efforts will be used to the maximum extent possible.

Ch.4 Pg.76

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends the project be incorporated in the Rehabilitation Program at Level I withan appropriation of $200,000.

90. PROJECT: Powell Master PlanLEVEL: ISPONSOR: Town of PowellLOCATION: Park CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 36 2000 II $45,000 2002

PROJECT INFORMATION:The city of Powell would like to move forward with the recommended improvements to their watersystem as outlined in the Level I study funded by the WWDC in 2000. The Level I studyrecommended replacing the old 75,000 gallon elevated storage tank wih a 400,000 elevated tank inthe southwest part of town. This new storage tank will meet the storage needs of Powell well intothe future.

A new pressure zone is needed in Powell to increase marginal pressures in the western part of town.Four pressure reducing valves and associated piping are also needed to complete the pressure zone.This current application is to finance phase 1 of a 3 phase project. Phase 1 consists of design andspecifications of the remaining two phases, completing the permitting and mitigation work, legalfees and access and rights-of-way. Phase 2 will include the pressure reducing valves and pipingconstruction; phase 3 will be the storage tank and telemetry.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends the project be incorporated in the Rehabilitation Program at Level IIIwith an appropriation of $127,000. The financing plan is a 50% grant, $127,000, and a 50% loan,$127,000, to be secured by the sponsor through other sources.

91. PROJECT: Prairie Dog Watershed PlanLEVEL: ISPONSOR: Sheridan County Conservation DistrictLOCATION: Sheridan CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 36 2000 I $100,000 2002

PROJECT INFORMATION:The Prairie Dog Creek watershed begins approximately 15 miles south of Sheridan and flows northto its confluence with the Tongue River near the Montana border. The watershed includes

Ch.4 Pg.77

approximately 236,000 acres. The major tributaries in this watershed are Meade, Jenks, Jim, SR,Arkansas, Coutant, Wildcat and Dutch Creeks.

The Prairie Dog watershed supports irrigated as well as dryland agriculture, however, cattleproduction is the primary agricultural industry in the watershed. In the 1880's three significanttrans-basin water diversions were built. These diversions were built to divert water from NorthPiney Creek into the Prairie Dog watershed. While these diversions opened up thousands of acresfor irrigation, they have created an unnatural hydrologic condition. Because of the steepness of theupper portion of the watershed, the diversions have created areas of significant erosion. Prairie DogCreek is currently on the Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) “Needs to be Monitored”list. This study was initiated during the summer of 2000, and will be completed in October of 2001.

While the project was underway, the 24 landowners in the Hidden Hills Subdivision proposedlooking at a water system. This subdivision is within the Prairie Dog Creek Watershed and anadditional 40 other homeowners are within the area. It was determined that the most efficient useof funds would be to add this as a level I investigation to the ongoing watershed project. The firstoption for a water supply would be to try to tie into the Sheridan area system. The second optionwould be to look at a stand-alone system from local groundwater supplies.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends that a supplemental amount of $35,000 be appropriated and added to the$100,000, 2000 appropriation for the Prairie Dog Creek Watershed study to allow completion of theproposed additional Level I work.

92. PROJECT: Rawlins Water SupplyLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: City of RawlinsLOCATION: Carbon CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 10 1994 I $250,000 1996Level II 46 1997 I $120,000 1998Level III 38 1998 II $3,810,000* 2002*60% grant

PROJECT INFORMATION:In 1996, the city of Rawlins requested a Level II study to evaluate possible improvements to theirSage Creek spring collector system, the Fort Steele pipeline, and the water treatment plant. The Ft.Steele line is in poor condition, badly corroded, and is nearly unusable. The city has experiencedtaste and odor problems during summer months and has asked the Farm Loan Board to fundadditional development of the springs on Sage Creek. It appears the algae growth in the reservoirin conjunction with the existing treatment process has resulted in unacceptable water quality. LevelII funding was provided by the Wyoming legislature and the WWDC contracted with WesternWater Consultants to complete a Level II study. The study was completed in the spring of 1998.

Ch.4 Pg.78

A preliminary report prepared by the consultant recommended expansion of the spring collectionfield, replacement of a wood stave transmission line in the spring field, replacement and relocationof the Platte River diversion, replacement and relocation of the Platte River water supply raw watertransmission main, and major water treatment plant improvements. The preliminary Level II studyconcludes that these improvements will provide Rawlins with a reliable water supply for the next25 years.

Expansion of the spring collector field alone is insufficient to provide adequate water to Rawlins forthe 25 year planning horizon. In order to meet peak day demands, replacement of the pipeline thatconveys water from the North Platte River to the city is needed. The proposed new pipeline wouldfollow a more efficient route which will involve a change in the point of diversion. The newalignment will facilitate possible delivery of raw water to outlying subdivisions, potential raw waterirrigation of some parks, and delivery of water to the town of Sinclair in emergencies.

Expansion and improvement of the spring field is contemplated at a later date. In addition, thereare proposed water treatment plant upgrades that total $3,500,000. The city of Rawlins will fundthese improvements with capital facilities tax money and grants/loans from funding agencies otherthan the WWDC.

In 1998 the city of Rawlins received a 60% grant for replacement of the Ft Steele pipeline($6,352,000 total cost). The remaining 40% of the project cost was financed through a capitalfacilities sales tax that passed on November 4, 1997.

Currently, construction of the improvements to the water treatment plant is nearing completion. Anengineering contract was awarded in April, 1999 to Western Water Consultants Engineering –Laramie with the anticipated completion of the diversion and transmission plans and specificationsby March 2001. Routing of the transmission line will provide raw to the water treatment plant aswell as for irrigation of the new city golf course which is to be located on the east side of the city.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required for this project.

93. PROJECT: Riverton EastLEVEL: Level IISPONSOR: State/TribesLOCATION: Fremont CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 36 2000 I $125,000 2002

PROJECT INFORMATION:The Tribes were awarded water to irrigate the Riverton East Project in Fremont County east of thecity of Riverton and east of the Wind River. The project is to irrigate about 3900 to 4000 acres ofunirrigated range land. The project will review the studies done to date and will determine the

Ch.4 Pg.79

feasibility of irrigating the area by means of sprinkler irrigation from the Wind River and/or LittleWind River. The study will also evaluate the potential of using alternate means to power thepumps, such as natural gas. The study is scheduled to be completed in the fall of 2001.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC is recommending that the project remain at Level II and no legislative action isnecessary.

94. PROJECT: Riverton Valley IrrigationLEVEL: New ApplicationSPONSOR: Riverton Valley Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Fremont CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

PROJECT INFORMATION:Flow measurements on the Riverton Valley Canal were conducted as part of the Wind River Basinstudy. The Riverton Valley open laterals experience high exfiltration as well as high maintenancecosts. In 1994, the Commission recommended the project be advanced in the RehabilitationProgram to Level III status with an appropriation of $350,000. This project addressed twelvelaterals under the main canal system. These open canals were replaced by buried pipelines, whichgreatly reduced maintenance costs and water losses. The district prioritized system repairs andwork was completed in four phases from 1995 through the spring of 1999. The projectappropriation served as a grant for project materials, with payments only being made for materialsinvoiced to the district. The district was responsible for all costs related to project design, permitprocurement, land procurement, construction engineering and construction of the project.

The Riverton Valley Irrigation District would like to rehabilitate the remainder of their laterals in asimilar manner. The district has realized a 25% increase in efficiency since making these improve-ments. Continued rehabilitation of the system would further increase efficiencies, assist inmaintenance, and ultimately improve the ability to deliver water to the users. Due to the time framesince the Level III project was initiated, a detailed cost analysis of piping the remainder of thelaterals is warranted.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends that the project be included in the Rehabilitation Program at a Level IIstatus with an appropriation of $40,000.

95. PROJECT: Riverton Water Supply #2LEVEL: IISPONSOR: City of RivertonLOCATION: Fremont CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 46 1997 I $150,000 1998Level II 81 1999 I $65,0002000

Ch.4 Pg.80

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project proposal is the result of recommendations of theWWDC Level II Riverton Water Supply Study completed by Nelson Engineering in June of 2000.The municipal and residential raw water distribution system within the city of Riverton is anoffshoot of surrounding agricultural irrigation systems. The responsibility for operations andmaintenance of the ditches, pipes, and laterals comprising the system was assumed by the cityseveral years ago. The system serves approximately 200 paying customers ($98.00/user/year), butactual users are estimated to be upwards of 400, and up to 790 users could be served by anexpanded, rehabilitated system.

Preservation and expansion of the system would extend the life-span of the city of Riverton watertreatment plant since the present-day use of the irrigation system is estimated at 400,000gallons/day. Two laterals that are proposed for rehabilitation are primary laterals for RivertonValley Irrigation District and LeClair Irrigation District that deliver water to irrigators downstreamof the city of Riverton system.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends that the project be advanced to Level III in the Rehabilitation Programand only final design specifications for the project be funded with an appropriation of $85,000. Thefinancing plan is a 50% grant, $85,000, from WWDC and the remaining 50% will be locallyfunded.

96. PROJECT: Rock River Transmission PipelineLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Town of Rock RiverLOCATION: Albany CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel III 59 1996 II $670,000* 1999*50% grant, balance of project cost from capital facilities tax

PROJECT INFORMATION:In 1998 the town of Rock River received a Level III grant in the amount of $670,000 from WaterDevelopment Account II. The grant is for 50% of the WWDC eligible project costs with thebalance of the project to be financed with proceeds from a 1998 Albany County capital facilitiestax.

The Level III project includes the replacement of the final five miles of a 14.2 mile transmissionpipeline and the enlargement of the town’s infiltration gallery on Rock Creek. The enlargement ofthe infiltration gallery will reduce the need for frequent backwashing during high turbidity periods,saving the town considerable costs associated with operations and maintenance, while increasingthe quality of water being delivered to the water treatment plant. The transmission line replacementwill complete the replacement project which the town began in the 1980's to ensure a moredependable source of water supply.

Construction of the transmission line replacement was completed in the fall of 1999. Constructionof the infliltration gallery and intake modifications was completed in November 2000 inconjunction with the town’s new microfiltration water treatment plant.

Ch.4 Pg.81

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required for this project.

97. PROJECT: Rock Springs East Water SupplyLEVEL: II-HoldSPONSOR: Green River - Rock Springs - Sweetwater County Joint Powers Water

BoardLOCATION: Sweetwater CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 8 1995 I $50,0001996Level II 15 1996 I Hold 1998Level II 82 1998 I Hold 2000Level II 36 2000 I Hold* 2002* A block appropriation of $15,000 was made for all hold projects.

PROJECT INFORMATION:Several areas east of Rock Springs would like to receive water from the Rock Springs water supplysystem. In order to supply water to the area, a new transmission pipeline would be required. Inparticular, the Arrowhead Springs subdivision, located 4.5 miles southeast of the city, is in need ofa centralized water supply. SF Industries may be interested in participating in the project. Further,the Sweetwater County Airport, located 7 miles east of Rock Springs, would like water service.

The Level I study delineated a service area and provided preliminary designs and cost estimates forthe pipeline.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC is recommending that the project remain on Level II-Hold status.

98. PROJECT: Rolling Hills WellLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Town of Rolling HillsLOCATION: Converse CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel III 96 2000 II $225,000 2004

PROJECT INFORMATION:This project was incorporated into the Rehabilitation Program in 2000. The intent of the project isto drill a new well adjacent to the town’s existing number 2 well and incorporate this new well intothe town’s system. The existing number 2 well will be abandoned due to the large quantity ofsediment and metals produced. Wester-Wetstein and Associated of Laramie has been retained for

Ch.4 Pg.82

the design and construction engineering. The project will advertise for bids and a constructioncontract awarded in early 2001.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action required.

99. PROJECT: Salt Creek Water SupplyLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Salt Creek Water DistrictLOCATION: Weston CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATIONPurpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 15 1996 I $100,000 1998Level II 46 1997 I $500,000 2000Level II 82 1998 I $140,000 2000Level II 81 1999 I $420,000 2000Level III 96 2000 I $690,000* 2004*60% grant, 40% loan (7.25%, 30 years)

PROJECT INFORMATION:Salt Creek Water District wishes to make improvements to their existing system as well as join in aregional, Newcastle area system which was evaluated in the 1999 Level II study. This projectincludes the district’s purchase of the SCWD No. 1 Well drilled by WWDC in 1999 withdirectional drilling technology and completed in the Madison formation aquifer.

The Level III appropriation will finance pump, plumbing, and controls to connect the SCWD No. 1Well into the district’s water delivery system. The appropriation will also finance construction of apipeline to connect the well and to replace old transmission pipe.

The district has hired an engineer who is designing the improvements. Construction is anticipatedin 2001 with completion of the project toward the end of the calendar year.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

100. PROJECT: Sheridan Big Goose Water SupplyLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: City of SheridanLOCATION: Sheridan CountyPROGRAM: New Development

Ch.4 Pg.83

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 82 1998 I $75,0002000Level III 96 2000 I $1,587,000 2004

PROJECT INFORMATION:The water supply system for the Sheridan area is operated by both the Sheridan Area Water SystemJoint Powers Board (SAWSJPB) and the city of Sheridan. The diversion is operated by Sheridanand delivers water to the SAWSJPB water treatment plant and to the city of Sheridan watertreatment plant. During peak demand and during turbid water conditions the diversion andpresedimentation facilities cannot meet the system demand. The study will determine the requiredfacility expansion, prepare preliminary designs and cost estimates and prepare the project reports.

The WWDC contracted with MSE-HKM to conduct the Level II analysis. The Level II analysisrecommended improvements and expansion of the existing diversion facilities from Big GooseCreek. The city has requested funding of these improvements.

Project documents to allow funding of this project have been executed and HKM engineering ofSheridan has been retained for design and construction engineering.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action required.

101. PROJECT: Sheridan Raw Water SupplyLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: City of SheridanLOCATION: Sheridan CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel III 16 1999 I $686,000 2002Level III 96 2000 I $110,000 2002

PROJECT INFORMATION:The city of Sheridan presently irrigates the Sheridan Cemetery with treated water from the citysystem. This causes an unnecessary demand on the treatment and delivery system. The city hasacquired and transferred a water right to a potential diversion point on Big Goose Creek adjacent tothe cemetery. The Joint Powers Board and the city are required under the Twin Lakes Reservoir404 Permit to install water conservation measures. This project will conserve treated water andhelp address the permit condition. The study looked at the feasibility of constructing a diversion,pump plant and transmission line to convey water from Big Goose Creek to the cemetery. The totalestimated cost of the project is $1,143,300.

This project was constructed in 2000 and only minor cleanup items remain.

Ch.4 Pg.84

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action required.

102. PROJECT: Sheridan Raw Water Supply #2LEVEL: New ApplicationSPONSOR: City of SheridanLOCATION: Sheridan CountyPROGRAM: New Development

PROJECT INFORMATION:This project would provide funding for the design of the raw water transmission facilities for theirrigation of the Kendrick Golf Course which is owned and operated by the city of Sheridan. Thecurrent system is in poor condition and is inefficient. The golf course receives its water supplyfrom the Sheridan Regional Water Supply. These same facilities also deliver water to the Sheridan,Big Goose, and Veteran’s Affairs Medical Center water treatment plants. Rehabilitation of the golfcourse irrigation system would provide more usable water for domestic use in the city of Sheridan,Big Goose, and the Veteran’s Affairs Medical Center.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends that the project be advanced to Level III status in the RehabilitationProgram with an appropriation of $50,000.The financing plan is a 50% grant, $50,000, and a 50%loan, $50,000, to be secured by the sponsor through other sources.

103. PROJECT: Sinclair Water SupplyLEVEL: IISPONSOR: Town of SinclairLOCATION: Carbon CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 10 1994 1 $250,000 1996Level II 15 1996 I Hold 1998Level II 82 1998 I Hold 2000Level II 81 1999 I $50,0002000

PROJECT INFORMATION:The town of Sinclair is an incorporated municipality with a population of 500. The town and theSinclair Refinery share a common water system. The water treatment and distribution system forthe town of Sinclair is operated by the Sinclair Refinery. The town has identified several deficien-cies in their supply and distribution system. The existing 75,000 gallon tank was constructed in1924 and is badly corroded. In 1993, the town requested funding for a water supply master plan toassess present/future needs and to evaluate the entire water system that was constructed sevendecades ago.

A Level I master plan water supply study was completed by the WWDC in 1996. This studyindicated that the treatment plant, tank and transmission and distribution lines need to be upgraded.The town and refinery have an agreement for the operation and maintenance of the water system.

Ch.4 Pg.85

The town owns the water right. For the use of 90% of the water, the refinery pays up to $15,000 foroperation and maintenance of the water system per year. The water system consists of apretreatment unit which is located at the river. The water is run through a final treatment plant thatpurifies the water. Most of the refinery’s 90% does not need to be potable. Therefore, they are notinterested in the final treatment of the water. In addition to technical issues, the study will focus onresolving the fair share project cost for the refinery and the sponsor. The project was delayed andplaced in a Level II - Hold status pending resolution of institutional issues between the town ofSinclair, the Sinclair Refinery, and the city of Rawlins that has never been fully resolved.

The town of Sinclair requested a 1999 Level II water supply master plan study to provide additionalinformation to the Level I study completed in 1996 for their use in prioritizing their system’srehabilitation.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action required.

104. PROJECT: Smiths Fork DamLEVEL: II-HoldSPONSOR: State of WyomingLOCATION: Lincoln CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 10 1994 I Hold 1996Level II 15 1996 I Hold 1998Level II 82 1998 I Hold 2000Level II 36 2000 I Hold* 2002*A block appropriation of $15,000 was made for all hold projects.

PROJECT INFORMATION:In 1984, the States of Wyoming, Utah and Idaho joined forces to evaluate the potential of a projecton the Smiths Fork of the Bear River which would serve to provide benefits to all three states.Since that time, the project has evolved to a 50,000 acre-foot reservoir which would costapproximately $35,000,000. The project would provide water supply, hydropower, water quality,flood control and recreation benefits. In 1986, the State of Utah prepared an economic feasibilityreport which concluded that the project was economically feasible if all three states participated inthe costs and the benefits.

The project could provide flood control, recreation, hydropower, and supplemental irrigation watersupply benefits to Wyoming water users and the public. Presently, the tri-state Smiths Fork projectappears to be the most economical means to develop the Cokeville and Cokeville DevelopmentAssociation’s storage allocation of 14,520 acre-feet. Therefore, the WWDC has included theSmiths Fork among its candidates for state projects to be pursued as financial resources areavailable. However, a primary consideration will be the ability of the states of Utah and Idaho toobtain their share of required project funding.

Ch.4 Pg.86

In 1988, the U.S. Corps of Engineers (COE) prepared a development plan for the entire Bear River.The report was completed in 1989. Several options were identified. The report verified that a damon the Smiths Fork would provide considerable flood control, storage and water quality benefits.However, the economic assessment concluded that the project had an unfavorable benefit-cost ratioand, therefore, would not be eligible for federal funding under existing criteria. The project ispresently on hold status in the New Development Program. There is local and increasingdownstream interest in the project.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends that the project be retained at Level II-Hold status.

105. PROJECT: State Engineer’s Office Conservation OfficerLEVEL: N/ASPONSOR: State Engineer’s OfficeLOCATION: StatewidePROGRAM: New Development

PROJECT INFORMATION:The State Engineer’s Office (SEO) has requested matching funds to continue the position ofConservation Officer. This is a program where the Bureau of Reclamation provides matching fundsto promote water conservation in the state, and has been in place for the past two years.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The Commission recommends that the conservation staff position in the State Engineer’s Office befunded through a $50,000 appropriation from the New Development Account.

106. PROJECT: State Stream Gage SystemLEVEL: IISPONSOR: State Engineer’s OfficeLOCATION: StatewidePROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 59 1996 II $200,000 1998Level II 82 1998 I $200,000 2000Level II 36 2000 II $200,000 2002

PROJECT INFORMATION:In 1996, $200,000 was appropriated from Water Development Account 2 for Wyoming stream gagerehabilitation and construction for FY 96-97. The Bureau of Reclamation and the USGS alsoappropriated monies for work on these Wyoming stream gages. An October 3, 1997 letter from theState Engineer’s Office (SEO) stated that a systematic, continuing program of maintenance, upkeepand evaluation of statewide stream gage needs is necessary. The federal agencies may have fundsavailable for stream gage work statewide for the next 3 to 4 years. This project could continue as a

Ch.4 Pg.87

special funding for construction and maintenance of stream gages throughout the State of Wyomingfor the next few years.

The SEO is required to submit an itemized accounting of expenditures with each transfer requestunder the 1998 authorization, and will be required to submit annual reports and a final reportcontaining all information developed to date and their progress.

The SEO did not undertake any stream gage rehabilitation measures during FY 98-99 and requestedthat $200,000 in funding be included in the 2000 omnibus water bill. The FY 98-99 $200,000 willrevert back to Water Development Accounts.

In 2000, $200,000 was appropriated from Water Development Account II for Wyoming streamgage rehabilitation and construction for FY 00-01.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

107. PROJECT: State Water PlanLEVEL: ISPONSOR: State of WyomingLOCATION: StatewidePROGRAM: Rehabilitation

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateState Plan 1 1996 N/A N/A 1996Aerial Photo. * 1 1996 I $250,000 1998State Plan 46 1997 I $250,000 1998Basin Plan * 30 1998 I $250,000 2000State Water Planning Process 81 1999 I $1,435,000 2001State Water Planning Process 36 2000 I $800,000 2002* Contained in Agency Budget

PROJECT INFORMATION:In 1996, the Wyoming Legislature directed the Wyoming Water Development Commission(WWDC) and the State Engineer’s Office (SEO) to develop a proposal for updating the state’sFramework Water Plan, which was written in the early 1970's and published in 1973. WWDC andthe SEO prepared and submitted that proposal to the Governor and the Select Water Committee inOctober of 1996.

During the 1997 Legislative Session, $250,000 was appropriated from Water Development AccountI to enable the WWDC to conduct a feasibility study to determine the costs and methods ofimplementing a new water planning process for the state. This process generates a descriptive planfor each of the seven major river basins, and includes a state-wide computer database that will beupdated as conditions change.

During 1997 and 1998, the WWDC conducted the feasibility study, which consisted of thefollowing components:

Ch.4 Pg.88

• Preparation of a pilot Basin Plan in the Bear River Basin to test data collection methods andprocedures, new technology, information dissemination methods, presentation methods,etc.

• A coordination process to present information on the proposed Statewide Water PlanningProcess, and to obtain input from interested parties:� State-wide water issues public opinion survey, with published results.� Newsletters and news releases to inform the public of River Basin Planning

activities.� Presentations on water planning to water and resource interest groups statewide.� Development and maintenance of a Water Planning Web Page, currently accessed

an average of 24,000 times per month� Organization of a citizens’ Basin Advisory Group in the Bear River Basin to test

public participation methods and lay the groundwork for a plan in that basin.� Public Open Houses in each of the four water divisions to solicit public comment on the implementation recommendations.

• Contracts for aerial photography and irrigated lands mapping in two river basins, theSnake/Salt and the Bear, to be used in those Basin Plans.

• Preparation of a Statewide Data Inventory of water and related resources information by theWater Resources Data System.

• Contract with a water resources engineering firm to complete an analysis of the costs andstaff requirements for implementation of the Statewide Water Planning Process.

• Development of implementation recommendations and cost estimates.

Following authorization by the 1999 Legislature, the Water Development Commission, in July,1999, formally established a River Basin Planning section to implement the Statewide WaterPlanning Process. The first two River Basin Plans were initiated in the Green and Bear RiverBasins. Consultants were selected to prepare these basin plans, and a coordination process wasimplemented to gain input from individuals and private interest groups, and local, state, and federalagencies. The Bear River Basin Plan was completed in November, 2000, and the Green RiverBasin Plan will be completed in January, 2001. Products of the Statewide Water Planning Processare published to the Water Planning website at: http://waterplan.state.wy.us

The 2000 Legislature authorized river basin plans to be prepared for the Powder/Tongue andNortheast Wyoming River Basins. The two Basin Advisory Groups are formed and working inthose basins, and consultants are underway on the plans. Both plans are scheduled for completionin December 2001.In order to stay on schedule a request for authorization to begin the next two basins will bepresented to the 2001 Legislature. Consultant services for the Wind/Bighorn and Snake/Salt RiverBasins are estimated to cost $1,550,000. Those plans will be completed in December 2002, andpending completion of the North Platte River Basin plan, river basin plans for the entire state willbe completed in December 2003. Following completion of the plans in each of the state’s sevenbasins the process of updating the plans will begin. Each river basin plan will be updated onapproximately a five year interval to maintain the accuracy and usefulness of the data.

The WWDC anticipates that an appropriation for consultant services for the North Platte RiverBasin Plan will be requested in 2002. Following completion of all seven river basin plans it isanticipated that the update process will begin, and smaller funding requests will be submitted to thelegislature in subsequent sessions.

Ch.4 Pg.89

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The Commission recommends that the project be incorporated into the Rehabilitation Program atLevel I with an appropriation of $1,550,000.

108. PROJECT: Story Fire District SupplyLEVEL: IISPONSOR: Story Fire DistrictLOCATION: Sheridan CountyPROGRAM: New Development

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:The Story Fire District is a Sheridan County fire district that has been in existence since 1952 andpresently serves the southern portion of the county south of Meade Creek and includes theCommunity of Story (unincorporated). A recognized shortfall in the district’s ability toeffectively respond to fire emergencies is due to a lack of a central, reliable year round watersupply. The closest surface water source to a fire serves as the district’s supply for fighting thefire. In the winter months, when surface water is frozen over, the only reliable supply is from theStory Fish Hatchery which is at a remote location in relation to the whole district.

The district is planning upgrades by moving its base operation to a new location, building a newfire hall, and replacing out-dated equipment. In addition, the district board wishes to improve theISO (Insurance Services Office) rating for the district from its present rating of 9 to a rating of 7.WWDC funding is sought for test drilling for development of a ground water supply sourcewhich is nearby and reliable in the winter months.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends the project be incorporated in the New Development program at LevelII with an appropriation of $25,000 to drill a test well.

109. PROJECT: Sundance TankLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Town of SundanceLOCATION: Crook CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATIONPurpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel III 96 2000 I $325,000* 2004*60% grant, 40% loan (7.25%, 30 years)

PROJECT INFORMATION:The town of Sundance received a loan and grant appropriation to install a 280,000 gallon storagetank, approximately 1500 feet of 8-inch water line, 500 feet of 6-inch water line, and associatedfittings and controls. This storage facility will replace a 66,000 gallon tank constructed in the1930's and provide storage to a present pressure zone which currently has no storage. A

Ch.4 Pg.90

geotechnical report, completed for the chosen tank site, demonstrates that the site is acceptablefor the proposed project. The Level II study was completed by the town.

The sponsor has hired an engineer who is currently designing the project for bidding in early2001 with completion by August 2001.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

110. PROJECT: Teton County Master PlanLEVEL: ISPONSOR: Teton CountyLOCATION: Teton CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 46 1997 I $250,000 1998

PROJECT INFORMATION:Teton County is experiencing rapid growth in the privately owned portion of the county. Thearea included in this ongoing project includes all the private lands south of Teton Park and thearea around Kelly. The WWDC has received several applications over the past few years forassistance in developing rural water supply systems in Teton County. This study will presentinformation necessary to assemble the most efficient water supply development strategy from thestate and county’s perspective. This Level I master plan will provide needed information andbecome a planning document for the county. The master plan was completed during 1999. Theproject sponsor is reviewing its options.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

111. PROJECT: Thayne Water SupplyLEVEL: IIISPONSORS: Town of ThayneLOCATION: Lincoln CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 8 1995 I $50,0001996Level II 15 1996 I $250,000 1998Level III 38 1998 I $850,000* 2002*60% grant; 40% loan (7¼%, 30 year)

Ch.4 Pg.91

PROJECT INFORMATION:Level I and II studies inventoried the existing system, evaluated water supply needs, and evaluatedwater supply alternatives for the town of Thayne. Preliminary plans and cost estimates weredeveloped for the preferred alternative.

In 1998, the town of Thayne received $850,000 of Level III grant and loan assistance forconnecting the Level II test well to their system, rehabilitating their spring, and constructing a newtransmission line from the springs to the town distribution system. The grant is for 60% of theWWDC eligible project costs with a 40% loan at 7¼% interest rate over thirty (30) years.

Construction of the well connection and pumphouse was completed in March, 1999. ForsgrenAssociates, Inc. has completed the design of the springs improvements and transmission line whichwere constructed and completed in the fall of 2000. Only project cleanup and project clouseoutactivities remain.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required for this project.

112. PROJECT: Thirty-three Mile Water SupplyLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: 33 Mile Road Improvement and Service DistrictLOCATION: Natrona CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 82 1998 I $18,0002000Level II 81 1999 I $50,0002000Level III 96 2000 I $1,044,486 2004

PROJECT INFORMATION:There are approximately 150 people (with approximately 60 taps) residing within the 33 Mile RoadImprovement and Service District. Existing groundwater is generally not suitable for human orlivestock use due to selenium levels resulting in residents having to haul water from nearbymunicipalities. Residents report bills in excess of $120/month to haul water from the Casper areaor self-treating poor quality groundwater.

A Level II study was conducted to investigate options for connecting to the Pioneer Water andSewer District or the Airport water system. The connection to the Pioneer system was chosen asthe preferred alternative. The Level II study concluded that a system from Pioneer Water andSewer District could be constructed at a cost of about $1,741,000.

The 2000 legislature provided funding in the amount of $1,044,486. This, combined with fundingfrom the USDA Rural Utilities Service, will allow the project to commence. The district conducteda bond election on November 7 to allow it to incur the debt. Design will commence in 2001.

Ch.4 Pg.92

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is recommended.

113. PROJECT: Three Horses Watershed PlanLEVEL: New ApplicationSPONSOR: Campbell County and Lake DeSmet Conservation DistrictsLOCATION: Campbell, Johnson and Sheridan CountiesPROGRAM: New Development

PROJECT INFORMATION:The drainage of Spotted Horse Creek, Dead Horse Creek and Wild Horse Creek head east of thePowder River and are tributary to the Powder River. These three watersheds make up thewatershed study area to be considered.

The Three Horses Watershed supports some limited irrigated as well as dryland agriculture,however, cattle production is the primary agricultural industry in the watershed.

Due to recent activity involving coalbed methane exploration and extraction, the conservationdistricts are interested in evaluating the cumulative impacts to the watershed due to these activities.This project will include an analysis of these impacts as well as making full use of any otherexisting studies available for a complete watershed plan.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends the project be incorporated in the New Development Program at Level Iwith an appropriation of $100,000.

114. PROJECT: Torrington Water SupplyLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Town of TorringtonLOCATION: Goshen CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 8 1995 I $100,000 1996Level I 15 1996 I $150,000 1998Level III 38 1998 I $4,500,000* 2002*60% grant, 40% loan (7.25%, 30 years)

PROJECT INFORMATION:The town of Torrington received financing from the 1998 legislature to complete a new municipalwell field and bring the water into the town’s distribution system. It is anticipated that loan fundswill be offset by financing from RUS.

Ch.4 Pg.93

The purpose of the project is to replace older high nitrate wells with new wells located closer to theNorth Platte River, which are expected to be lower in nitrates. This approach has been usedsuccessfully in other communities in the region. Project components include wells, pumps,electrical service, control and disinfection facilities, telemetry, booster pumps, pipe, andappurtenances.

The initial production well and test wells will be drilled early in 2001. The remaining productionwells and pipeline and appurtenances will proceed depending upon the water quality and quantityresults from the initial production well and test wells. The project is anticipated to be complete bythe summer of 2002.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is recommended.

115. PROJECT: UW Study ResearchLEVEL: ISPONSOR: State of WyomingLOCATION: StatewidePROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 30 1998 I $ 41,584 2000Level I 36 2000 I $140,000 2002

PROJECT INFORMATION:Dr. Larry Pochop, College of Engineering professor, is the principal investigator in charge of waterrelated research at the University of Wyoming. The research, conducted under Dr. Pochop’sleadership, is being provided through a cooperative partnership. Participants include state naturalresource agencies and the United States Geological Survey (USGS).

Funding is being provided primarily by the Wyoming Water Development Commission and theUSGS. The Water Development Commission provides $2 to every $1 provided by the USGS.Other state agencies have provided labor or “in kind” research activities to leverage the USGSfunds.

The WWDC and the State Engineer’s Office have presented Dr. Pochop with several researchtopics. These topics include instream flow, the Clean Water Act and issues which involve qualityof surface water or total maximum daily loads, endangered species issues, conjunctive uses ofgroundwater and surface water, hydrologic connectivity of groundwater and surface water, andconservation and conveyance losses along streambanks and canals.

In year 2000, the legislature appropriated $140,000 to match available USGS funds. The legislaturewill be asked to appropriate another $140,000 to continue to develop water related research incooperation with the USGS.

Ch.4 Pg.94

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The Commission recommends that the project be place in the Rehabilitation Program at Level Iwith an appropriation of $140,000. The WWDC anticipates yearly appropriations for the upcomingyears for continuation to these research projects.

116. PROJECT: Upper Wind River StorageLEVEL: ISPONSOR: State/TribesLOCATION: Fremont CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 36 2000 I $200,000 2002

PROJECT INFORMATION:The court decisions associated with the Big Horn General Adjudication case have effectivelyincreased the competition for water in the Wind River drainage. This study effort will look atstorage potential to alleviate the anticipated future shortages that will occur when the Tribes fullyactivate their decreed award. Over the years numerous storage sites have been identified in theWind River drainage. This study will screen the previously identified sites and determine the leastenvironmentally damaging potential reservoir development that will provided the supplementalwater needed in the Wind River drainage.

This study is continuing, with the final report to be submitted at the end of October 2001. To datethe demands for water have been evaluated and reservoir sites reviewed. A major result of thisstudy will be to identify potential reservoir sites and develop a short list of sites which can addressthe water needs and which are practical to permit and construct.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action required.

117. PROJECT: Viva Naughton Dam EnlargementLEVEL: II-HoldSPONSOR: State of WyomingLOCATION: Lincoln CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 10 1994 I Hold 1996Level II 15 1996 I Hold 1998Level II 82 1998 I Hold 2000Level II 36 2000 I Hold* 2002* A block appropriation of $15,000 was made for all hold projects

Ch.4 Pg.95

PROJECT INFORMATION:The Level II investigations indicate enlarging Viva Naughton Reservoir is one of the more efficientwater development projects in the state when considering yield and cost. The reservoir has anexisting capacity of 42,393 acre feet. Studies indicate the capacity could be enlarged to 87,000 acrefeet for an estimated cost of $15,000,000. However, the existing reservoir is owned and operatedby PacifiCorp, who is not presently interested in enlarging the reservoir as they presently do notneed an additional water supply.

The existing municipal and agricultural needs do not warrant the WWDC to unilaterally pursue theproject. At this time, financial participation from PacifiCorp is necessary before the project canproceed. The project is presently on hold status.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends that the project be retained at Level II-Hold status.

118. PROJECT: Wamsutter Water SupplyLEVEL: Level IISPONSOR: Town of WamsutterLOCATION: Sweetwater CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 46 1997 I $105,000 1998

PROJECT INFORMATION:This project includes refinancing of an existing State Land and Investment Board emergency loanthat funded the replacement of an old three inch diameter transmission line, funded the constructionof a transmission line to connect an existing but unused well to the town’s system and otherappurtenant facilities. The connection of the well previously drilled under a WWDC groundwatergrant will replace the town’s old well system drilled around the early 1900s.

The Level II study identified a total of about 2.1 million dollars of needed improvements. The townhas been planning to phase the construction of the identified components. This project is phase oneand had to be accelerated to be able to utilize a grant from industry to help pay for improvements.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends that the project be included in the program at Level III status in theRehabilitation Program with an appropriation of $140,000. The total project budget is estimated tobe $280,000. The financing plan is a 50% grant, $140,000, and 50% is to be secured by thesponsor through other sources.

Ch.4 Pg.96

119. PROJECT: Washakie Rural Water SupplyLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Washakie Rural Improvement DistrictLOCATION: Washakie CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 10 1994 I $100,000 1996Level II 15 1996 I Hold* 1998Level II 82 1998 I $100,000 2000Level III 16 1999 I $5,220,000* 2004*60% grant, balance of project cost from other sources.

Project Description: The project consists of a rural water system extending from the Hot Springscounty line on the south, to the Big Horn county line on the north, and encompasses most of theprivate lands along both sides of the Big Horn River. The new system will obtain its water from thecity of Worland, who has an ample supply from two flowing Madison-Bighorn formation wells.The system will operate entirely by gravity flow.

The district’s members currently utilize individual wells, which generally exceed EPA regulationsfor TDS and Sulfates. Some local wells are also high in sodium, selenium, and nitrate. It isestimated that up to 70% of the district’s members haul water or utilize bottled water for domesticuse. The first phase construction will begin in 2001.

The total cost of the rural water system prior to this request is estimated at $9,950,000. However,the portions eligible for WWDC assistance are estimated at $8,600,000. With this request,WWDC’s portion would increase to $9,000,000. Also with this request, the sponsor has requesteda grant from WWDC for 60% of the additional eligible components, which amounts to $240,000.They propose to secure the remainder of the required funds from the Rural Utilities Service in theform of a grant and loan.

The McNutt Improvement and Service District project has been combined with this project.

Proposed Budget: 60% WWDC Grant $240,000.0040% Other Sources $160,000.00Total $400,000.00

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends approval of an additional $240,000 grant for this project expense.

Ch.4 Pg.97

120. PROJECT: West Side/Rock Springs Water SupplyLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: City of Green River/City of Rock Springs/Sweetwater County Joint Powers

Water BoardLOCATION: Sweetwater CountyPROGRAM: New Development and Rehabilitation

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 82 1998 I $30,0002000Level III 16 1999 I $450,000* 2003Level III 16 1999 II $625,000** 2003* 60% grant, 40% loan (7¼%, 30 years)**50% grant, 50% loan (7¼%, 30 years)

PROJECT INFORMATION:The 1998 Level II project looked at combining the West Side Sewer & Water District with severalother well water users in the area west of Rock Springs in a common water system. The watersupply for the project will be obtained from the city of Green River, Wyoming; city of RockSprings, Wyoming, Sweetwater County, State of Wyoming Joint Power Water Board through apipeline that is operated and maintained by the city of Rock Springs. The water users in the areaconsist of a collection of homes, trailer courts and businesses. Water users currently get their waterfrom private wells and from 12 inch or 6 inch water lines which are connected to the old RockSprings water system 20 inch line. The old 20 inch Rock Springs water system line in the area wasbuilt around 1929 and the district members state that it is in constant need of repair.

The 1998 Level II project evaluated providing three new water system loops in the area whichwould replace private wells and most of the old water system. The new development portion of theproject will provide new transmission mains in the south and north areas of west Rock Springs.The portion of the project funded from water development account II will rehabilitate the oldtransmission main.

The district was the original applicant for the Level II project. However, because the system isowned by the Joint Powers Board and operated by Rock Springs, the Joint Powers Board will be thesponsor for the Level III project.

The 1999 legislature approved an appropriation of $450,000 from the New Development Programfor the installation of new transmission lines and an appropriation of $625,000 for the rehabilitationof existing transmission mains.

The Joint Powers Water Board awarded an engineering contract for design and constructionadministration services to Nelson Engineering Inc. in September, 1999 with completion of design inApril of 2000. A construction contract was awarded in July, 2000 with an anticipated completiondate in early spring of 2001.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

Ch.4 Pg.98

121. PROJECT: Wheatland Irrigation District Laramie River DiversionLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Wheatland Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Albany and Platte CountiesPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel II 8 1995 II $100,000 1996Level III 45 1997 II $315,000* 2000Level III 16 1999 II $141,500* 2000*50% grant, 50% loan (4%, 20 years)

PROJECT INFORMATION:The Wheatland Irrigation District received Level III funding for construction of a headsail,measuring device, and control gates for the headgates from the Laramie River into the tunnel forBluegrass Creek. A portion of the funding was used to finance installation of telemetrycommunication equipment. This equipment enables the district to monitor and/or operate systemcomponents at their office in Wheatland. Construction of the headsail and water control works iscomplete. Installation of the telemetry equipment should be complete prior to the 2001 irrigationseason.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is required.

122. PROJECT: Wheatland Sand Lake Dam/Cañon Canal RehabilitationLEVEL: IIISPONSOR: Wheatland Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Carbon, Albany, and Platte CountiesPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 15 1996 I $200,000 1998Level III 38 1998 II $475,000* 2002*50% grant, 50% loan (6%, 25 years)

PROJECT INFORMATION:The Wheatland Irrigation District received a loan and grant appropriation of $475,000 for eligibleproject expenses. The purpose of the project is to repair the breach of the Sand Lake Dam, armorthe spillway, install a telemetry monitoring system at Sand Lake, repair the Dutton Creek Reservoiroutlet pipe, replace Dutton Canal concrete lining, stabilize the Canon Canal slide area, installconcrete lining in Canon Canal along I-80, replace and install check and turnout structures andinstall appurtenances as necessary.

The engineer has essentially completed design of both the Sand Lake improvements and the DuttonCanal rehabilitation. Dutton Canal should proceed with construction in the spring of 2001. Sand

Ch.4 Pg.99

Lake is on hold pending permitting, particularly Endangered Species Act consultation.Construction of the various project components is likely to extend over several years.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:No legislative action is recommended.

123. PROJECT: Wheatland Water SupplyLEVEL: New ApplicationSPONSOR: Town of WheatlandLOCATION: Platte CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

PROJECT INFORMATION:This project would provide funding for the design and construction of a new well, new storage, andpipeline to connect the improvements to the town of Wheatland’s system. The improvementswould provide additional supply to the southwest portion of town. This area includes a new schoolthat can not be used until sufficient water supply in the area is available.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends that the project be included in the program at Level III status in theRehabilitation Program with an appropriation of $222,000. The total project budget is estimated tobe $854,000. The financing plan is a 26% grant, $222,000, and 74% of the project budget is to besecured by the sponsor through other sources.

124. PROJECT: Wind River Export StudyLEVEL: ISPONSOR: State/TribesLOCATION: Fremont CountyPROGRAM: New Development

EXISTING LEGISLATION:Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due DateLevel I 36 2000 I $175,000 2002

PROJECT INFORMATION:The North Platte River has experienced increased pressure through the Endangered Species Act andthe Section 7 Consultation actions required by the US Fish & Wildlife for North Platte Riverdepletions. The Tribes are interested in marketing a portion of their decreed water. The state andTribes are interested in determining the least environmentally damaging and most economic routeand means for diverting water from the Wind River system to the North Platte River. The studywill evaluate the potentials of alternative power sources as well as power generation potentials.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends that the project be retained at Level I and no legislative action isnecessary.

Ch.4 Pg.100

125. PROJECT: Worland Regional PipelineLEVEL: New ApplicationSPONSOR: City of WorlandLOCATION: Washakie CountyPROGRAM: New Development

PROJECT INFORMATION:The Washakie County Commissioners applied for a Level I study to evaluate the potential ofproviding water to rural areas in the Worland vicinity. There has been substantial residentialdevelopment in rural Washakie County, and because groundwater is generally poor in the area thereis need for a centralized water system.

In 1994 the Level I study identified potential rural users that could be served by a rural watersystem. Several sources of supply were considered, with the Worland municipal system selected asthe most cost effective choice. The Level II study refined the Level I work, and approximately 500potential taps were identified, which would require installation of pipelines that would extendcompletely through the county from north to south. A number of variations in service areaconfigurations were considered in an effort to delineate the most cost effective means to serve themaximum number of taps.

In 1999 the city of Worland in conjunction with the other major water users in the area (Greybull,Basin, Manderson, Kirby, Lucerne, and Thermopolis) would like to evaluate the feasibility ofconstructing a new regional water supply pipeline as a portion of the Washakie Regional System.This pipeline would extend from the Worland well field down the Nowood River drainage to theBig Horn River then up the valley to Worland. This pipe would provide Worland redundantconveyance capabilities from the well field and would serve additional users along its route. Asecond line would run from the north end of the Big Horn Regional System north across theGreybull River to the Greybull Area System. This pipeline would provide an alternate redundantsupply to Greybull and their proposed new storage tank on the west bank of the Big Horn River.The water users in the Hot Springs County area are also looking at adding to the Regional Systemvia the Hot Springs Rural System.

RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ACTION:The WWDC recommends that the project be incorporated into the New Development Program atLevel II with an appropriation of $65,000.

Ch.4 Pg.101

Completed Construction Projects

1. PROJECT: Airport Bench Water Supply SPONSOR: Airport Bench W&S DistrictLOCATION: Big Horn County (Greybull)PROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $225,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $225,000DESCRIPTION: Pipeline, storage tankENGINEER: Engineering Associates; Cody, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Whitlock Construction; Powell, Wyoming

2. PROJECT: Afton Water SupplySPONSOR: Town of AftonLOCATION: Lincoln CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $2,600,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $2,518,911DESCRIPTION: Spring renovation, pipeline, storage tank, wellENGINEER: Sunrise Engineering; Afton, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Kilroy Construction; Alpine, Wyoming

Snyder Construction; Lyman, WyomingAG SERVICES, Inc.; Blackfoot, Idaho

3. PROJECT: Alpine Water SupplySPONSOR: Town of AlpineLOCATION: Lincoln CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $700,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $700,000DESCRIPTION: Pipeline, storage tanks, wellENGINEER: Sunrise Engineering; Afton, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Kilroy Construction; Alpine, Wyoming

ABC Tank, Salt Lake City, Utah

4. PROJECT: American Road Water Supply ProjectSPONSOR: American Road Water and Sewer DistrictLOCATION: Campbell CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $250,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $132,010DESCRIPTION: New WellENGINEER: Wester-Wetstein Associates; Laramie, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Ruby Drilling, Gillette, Wyoming

Ch.4 Pg.102

5. PROJECT: Antelope Valley Storage FacilitySPONSOR: Antelope Valley Improvement & Service Dist.LOCATION: Campbell CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $850,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $378,621DESCRIPTION: Storage TankENGINEER: Bruce Engineering Services; Gillette, WyomingCONTRACTOR: L&T Fabrication; Gillette, Wyoming

6. PROJECT: Basin Water SupplySPONSOR: Town of BasinLOCATION: Big Horn CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $1,750,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $1,152,204DESCRIPTION: Pipeline, reservoirsENGINEER: Civil Engineering Professionals, Inc.; Casper, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Larry's Inc.; Gillette, Wyoming

7. PROJECT: Bedford Water SupplySPONSOR: Bedford Water and Sewer DistrictLOCATION: Lincoln CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $1,300,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $1,151,230DESCRIPTION: Springs, well, pipelineENGINEER: Forsgren Associates, Inc.; Evanston, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Snyder Construction, Inc.; Evanston, Wyoming

8. PROJECT: Big Horn Basin Rural Water SupplySPONSOR: Northwest Rural Water DistrictLOCATION: Park and Big Horn CountiesPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $11,410,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $11,410,000DESCRIPTION: Rural domestic water supply for rural Park and Big Horn

Counties residentsENGINEER: Engineering Associates; Cody, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Several

9. PROJECT: Big Horn Canal ImprovementsSPONSOR: Big Horn Canal Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Washakie and Big Horn CountiesPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $693,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $485,420

Ch.4 Pg.103

DESCRIPTION: Elk Creek SiphonENGINEER: Natural Resources Conservation Service

Donnell & Allred, Inc.; Worland, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Big Horn Redi-Mix; Greybull, Wyoming

10. PROJECT: Big Horn Spillway ImprovementSPONSOR: Big Horn Canal Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Washakie CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $120,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $120,000DESCRIPTION: Crooked S WastewayENGINEER: Soil Conservation Service; Worland, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Big Horn Redi-Mix; Greybull, Wyoming

11. PROJECT: Big Piney Water SupplySPONSOR: Town of Big PineyLOCATION: Sublette CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $410,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $265,784DESCRIPTION: Transmission pipelineENGINEER: Jorgensen Engineering; Jackson, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Eiden's Construction; Marbleton, Wyoming

12. PROJECT: Boulder Irrigation DistrictSPONSOR: Boulder Irrigation District BoardLOCATION: Sublette CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $42,815ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $52,815DESCRIPTION: Repairs to diversion structureENGINEER: NACONTRACTOR: NA

13. PROJECT: Bridger Valley PipelineSPONSOR: Bridger Valley Joint Powers BoardLOCATION: Uinta CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $625,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $577,466DESCRIPTION: Transmission lineENGINEER: Uinta Engineering & Surveying; Evanston, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Snyder Construction; Lyman, Wyoming

14. PROJECT: Brooks Hat Six Water SupplySPONSOR: Town of Evansville

Ch.4 Pg.104

LOCATION: Natrona CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $150,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $150,000DESCRIPTION: Transmission pipelineENGINEER: Hibsman Associates; Casper, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Hedquist Construction; Casper, Wyoming

15. PROJECT: Buffalo Bill Dam and ReservoirSPONSOR: State of WyomingLOCATION: Park CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $52,000,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $52,000,000DESCRIPTION: Dam enlargement and power facilitiesENGINEER: Bureau of Reclamation; Cody, WyomingCONTRACTOR: ASI Moltz; Cody, Wyoming

16. PROJECT: Buffalo HydropowerSPONSOR: Town of BuffaloLOCATION: Johnson CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $1,075,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $1,045,033DESCRIPTION: Installation of a hydropower unitENGINEER: States West Water Resources, Cheyenne, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Sulzer Canada, Ontario, Canada; Larry’s Inc, Gillette,

Wyoming; ASI Moltz, Cody, Wyoming

17. PROJECT: Buffalo Municipal ReservoirSPONSOR: Town of BuffaloLOCATION: Johnson CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $13,600,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $13,232,084DESCRIPTION: Construction of a municipal water supply reservoirENGINEER: States West Water Resources, Cheyenne, WyomingCONTRACTOR: ASI Moltz, Cody, Wyoming; Lamax Construction, Inc. Basin,

Wyoming; Bartlett Construction, Hanna, Wyoming

18. PROJECT: Buffalo Raw Water SupplySPONSOR: City of BuffaloLOCATION: Johnson CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $270,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $270,000DESCRIPTION: Diversion facilities, pipeline

Ch.4 Pg.105

ENGINEER: R.G. Stuckert & Associates; Buffalo, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Venture Construction; Worland, Wyoming

19. PROJECT: Buffalo Water SupplySPONSOR: City of BuffaloLOCATION: Johnson CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $1,000,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $1,000,000DESCRIPTION: Diversion dam, pipelineENGINEER: Grizzly Engineering, Inc.; Buffalo, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Fletcher Construction; Sheridan, Wyoming

20. PROJECT: Burlington Water SupplySPONSOR: Town of BurlingtonLOCATION: Big Horn CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $360,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $316,957 DESCRIPTION: Transmission Pipeline and Well PumpsENGINEER: MSE-HKM, Inc., Sheridan, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Brandon Construction, Inc., Powell, Wyoming

21. PROJECT: Carpenter Water SupplySPONSOR: Carpenter Water and Sewer DistrictLOCATION: Laramie CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $360,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $328,620DESCRIPTION: Wells, pumps, controls, disinfection, storage, pipelineENGINEER: States West Water Resources Corporation; Cheyenne,

WyomingCONTRACTOR: Town & Country Plumbing, Inc.; Burns, Wyoming

22. PROJECT: Casper AlcovaSPONSOR: Casper Alcova Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Natrona CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation APPROPRIATION: $1,263,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $1,231,925DESCRIPTION: Canal liningENGINEER: Soil Conservation ServiceCONTRACTOR: LaMax Construction; Basin, Wyoming

Big Horn Redi-Mix, Greybull, WyomingCentral Contractors, Mills, WyomingCasper Concrete, Casper, WyomingJerry’s Irrigation, Powell, Wyoming

Ch.4 Pg.106

Hedquist Construction, Casper, Wyoming71 Construction, Casper, Wyoming

23. PROJECT: Casper Raw Water SupplySPONSOR: City of CasperLOCATION: Natrona CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $1,600,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $1,117,314DESCRIPTION: Diversion structure, dam rehabilitation, pipelineENGINEER: Civil Engineering Professionals, Inc.; Casper, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Lamax Construction, Inc.; Basin, Wyoming

24. PROJECT: Centennial Water SupplySPONSOR: Centennial Water and Sewer DistrictLOCATION: Albany CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $315,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $315,000DESCRIPTION: Wells, pumps, pipeline, storageENGINEER: J.M Montgomery; Laramie, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Pete's Excavating; Torrington, Wyoming

25. PROJECT: Chamberlain ReservoirSPONSOR: LaPrele Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Converse CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $150,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $117,241DESCRIPTION: Dam rehabilitationENGINEER: Western Water Consultants; Laramie, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Domino Construction; Laramie, Wyoming

26. PROJECT: Cheyenne King II Storage FacilitySPONSOR: City of CheyenneLOCATION: Laramie CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $1,534,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $1,510,000 (approx)DESCRIPTION: 15 MG storage facilityENGINEER: Black & Veatch; Denver, ColoradoCONTRACTOR: TIC; Casper, Wyoming

27. PROJECT: Cheyenne Raw Water SupplySPONSOR: City of CheyenneLOCATION: Laramie CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

Ch.4 Pg.107

APPROPRIATION: $1,800,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $1,800,000DESCRIPTION: Irrigation of park landsENGINEER: States West Water Resources Corporation, Cheyenne,

WyomingCONTRACTOR: Excel Construction, Sheridan, Wyoming

28. PROJECT: Cheyenne Stage I RehabilitationSPONSOR: City of CheyenneLOCATION: Carbon and Albany CountiesPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $13,700,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $13,307,212DESCRIPTION: Slip lining existing collection pipe and transmission line

improvementsENGINEER: CH2M Hill, Denver, ColoradoCONTRACTOR: Barcon Wyoming, Sheridan, Wyoming

29. PROJECT: Cheyenne Upper North Crow ReservoirSPONSOR: City of CheyenneLOCATION: Laramie CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $3,500,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $3,070,448DESCRIPTION: Dam rehabilitationENGINEER: States West Water Resources Corporation; Cheyenne,

WyomingCONTRACTOR: Larry's Inc.; Gillette, Wyoming

30. PROJECT: Cheyenne Water (Stage II)SPONSOR: City of CheyenneLOCATION: Carbon CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $20,000,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $20,000,000DESCRIPTION: Dams (2), collector pipelineENGINEER: Banner Associates, Inc.; Laramie, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Several

31. PROJECT: Cheyenne Well Rehabilitation SPONSOR: City of CheyenneLOCATION: Laramie CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $1,450,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $1,450,000DESCRIPTION: Replace 15 well in the municipal well field

Ch.4 Pg.108

ENGINEER: Bearlodge Ltd., Sundance, WyomingWester-Wetstein & Associates, Laramie, Wyoming

Weston Engineering, Inc, Laramie, Wyoming CONTRACTOR: Sargent Irrigation, Scottsbluff, Nebraska

D.C. Drilling Co.; Lusk, Wyoming Weston Engineering, Inc, Upton, Wyoming

Magee Trucking; Cheyenne, WyomingWard’s Well Service; Riverton, Wyoming

32. PROJECT: Chugwater Water SupplySPONSOR: Town of ChugwaterLOCATION: Platte CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $103,500ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $101,818DESCRIPTION: PipelineENGINEER: States West Water Resources Corporation; Cheyenne,

WyomingCONTRACTOR: 71 Construction; Casper, Wyoming

33. PROJECT: Clearview Water SupplySPONSOR: Clearview Improvement and Service DistrictLOCATION: Sweetwater CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $245,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $167,500DESCRIPTION: PipelineENGINEER: Johnson-Fermelia Company, Inc.; Rock Springs, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Lamax Construction; Basin, Wyoming

34. PROJECT: Cody Area Water Supply (Valley View)SPONSOR: City of CodyLOCATION: Park CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $785,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $785,000DESCRIPTION: Potable water service to Valley ViewENGINEER: Engineering Associates, Cody, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Harris Trucking, Cody, Wyoming

35. PROJECT: Cody Raw WaterSPONSOR: City of CodyLOCATION: Park CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $850,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $714,060 DESCRIPTION: Raw Water irrigation system rehabilitation

Ch.4 Pg.109

ENGINEER: Engineering Associates, Cody, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Brandon Construction, Inc., Wyoming

36. PROJECT: Cokeville Tri-Diversion DamSPONSOR: Cokeville Watershed Improvement DistrictLOCATION: Lincoln CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $160,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $17,919 DESCRIPTION: Bank realignment, channel stabilization and placement of bank

rip rapENGINEER: Rio Verde Engineering; Pinedale, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Noble Construction; Cora, Wyoming

37. PROJECT: Cokeville Water SupplySPONSOR: Town of CokevilleLOCATION: Lincoln CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $629,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $629,000DESCRIPTION: Wells, pumping station, transmission pipeline and storage tankENGINEER: Forsgren Associates; Evanston, WyomingCONTRACTOR: JASCO, Inc.,Evanston, Wyoming

38. PROJECT: Collins Heights Water SupplySPONSOR: Collins Heights Industrial Park I&S DistrictLOCATION: Campbell CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $200,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $141,182 DESCRIPTION: Transmission pipelinesENGINEER: Centennial Engineering and Research; Gillette, WyomingCONTRACTOR: S & S Builders; Gillette, Wyoming

39. PROJECT: Cook Road Water SupplySPONSOR: Cook Road Water DistrictLOCATION: Campbell CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $1,700,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $1,373,487DESCRIPTION: New tank and transmission pipelinesENGINEER: Stetson Engineering; Gillette, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Larry's Inc.; Gillette, Wyoming

40. PROJECT: Crystal-Granite Dam RehabilitationSPONSOR: City of Cheyenne

Ch.4 Pg.110

LOCATION: Laramie CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $4,100,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $4,041,703DESCRIPTION: Dams (2)ENGINEER: Harza Engineering Company; Denver, ColoradoCONTRACTOR: Gracon Construction Company; Loveland, Colorado

41. PROJECT: Deaver Canal RehabilitationSPONSOR: Town of Deaver and Deaver Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Big Horn CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $120,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $51,786DESCRIPTION: Canal conversion to pipelineENGINEER: Soil Conservation Service; Worland, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Deaver Irrigation District

42. PROJECT: Dixon Water SupplySPONSOR: Town of DixonLOCATION: Carbon CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $215,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $215,000DESCRIPTION: Infiltration gallery and transmission pipelineENGINEER: Lidstone and Anderson; Fort Collins, ColoradoCONTRACTOR: Bartlett Construction; Hanna, Wyoming

43. PROJECT: Douglas Area Water SupplySPONSOR: City of DouglasLOCATION: Converse CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $1,700,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $1,676,442DESCRIPTION: Well, pipeline, storage facilityENGINEER: CEPI; Casper, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Hedquist Construction; Casper, Wyoming

44. PROJECT: Douglas Intake StructureSPONSOR: City of DouglasLOCATION: Converse CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $400,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $307,872DESCRIPTION: Diversion and intake structureENGINEER: CEPI; Casper, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Russell Construction; Douglas, Wyoming

Ch.4 Pg.111

45. PROJECT: Dubois Water SupplySPONSOR: Town of Dubois LOCATION: Fremont CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $90,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $83,108DESCRIPTION: Pump StationENGINEER: Nelson Engineering; Jackson, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Wilkinson Construction; Dubois, Wyoming

46. PROJECT: Edgerton/Midwest Water SupplySPONSOR: Salt Creek Joint Powers BoardLOCATION: Natrona CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $3,750,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $3,208,580DESCRIPTION: Potable Water Transmission PipelineENGINEER: Worthington, Lenhart and Carpenter, Inc., Casper, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Larry’s, Inc. Gillette, Wyoming

Bartlett, Inc, Hanna, Wyoming

47. PROJECT: Elk Mountain Water SupplySPONSOR: Town of Elk MountainLOCATION: Carbon CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $335,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $331,743DESCRIPTION: Put Level II well on lineENGINEER: PMPC; Saratoga, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Bartlett Construction; Hanna, Wyoming

48. PROJECT: Encampment WaterSPONSOR: Town of EncampmentLOCATION: Carbon CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $200,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $181,602DESCRIPTION: Diversion dam, pipelineENGINEER: Probity Engineering; Cheyenne, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Great Divide Construction; Baggs, Wyoming

49. PROJECT: Etna Diversion DamSPONSOR: Etna Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Lincoln CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $200,000

Ch.4 Pg.112

ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $152,765DESCRIPTION: Diversion dam replacementENGINEER: Forsgren Associates; Evanston, WyomingCONTRACTOR: T.J.G., Inc.; Evanston, Wyoming

50. PROJECT: Evanston Raw Water SupplySPONSOR: City of EvanstonLOCATION: Uinta CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $1,500,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $1,500,000DESCRIPTION: Irrigation pipeline, pumps and primary filtersENGINEER: Sunrise Engineering, Inc.; Afton, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Flare Construction; Coalville, Utah

51. PROJECT: Evansville Elkhorn Creek Water SupplySPONSOR: Town of EvansvilleLOCATION: Natrona CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $50,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $0DESCRIPTION: Infiltration gallery and monitoring facilityENGINEER: Hibsman Associates; Casper, WyomingCONTRACTOR: 71 Construction; Casper, Wyoming

52. PROJECT: Evansville Water SupplySPONSOR: Town of EvansvilleLOCATION: Natrona CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $750,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $382,606DESCRIPTION: Water storage tankENGINEER: Hibsman Associates; Casper, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Bartlett Construction; Hanna, Wyoming

53. PROJECT: Fairview Water Supply SPONSOR: Fairview Water and Sewer DistrictLOCATION: Lincoln CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $502,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $391,640DESCRIPTION: Well, storage and pipelineENGINEER: Forsgren Associates; Evanston, WyomingCONTRACTOR: JASCO; Evanston, Wyoming

54. PROJECT: Fairview Water Supply SPONSOR: Fairview Irrigation District

Ch.4 Pg.113

LOCATION: Lincoln CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $150,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $150,000DESCRIPTION: Open canal to pipeline designENGINEER: ARIX; Riverton, WyomingCONTRACTOR: NA

55. PROJECT: Ferris Diversion Dam RehabilitationSPONSOR: Ferris Irrigation District/Town of TorringtonLOCATION: Goshen CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $500,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $475,847DESCRIPTION: Diversion dam, pipelineENGINEER: Western Water Consultants; Laramie, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Pete's Excavation; Torrington, Wyoming

56. PROJECT: Fontenelle Dam RepairSPONSOR: State of WyomingLOCATION: Sweetwater CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $3,500,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $3,247,283DESCRIPTION: DamENGINEER: Bureau of Reclamation

57. PROJECT: Freedom Water SupplySPONSOR: Freedom Water and Sewer DistrictLOCATION: Lincoln CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $737,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $678,899DESCRIPTION: Well, storage, pipelineENGINEER: Forsgren, Evanston, Wyoming.CONTRACTOR: Snyder Construction, Lyman, Wyoming.

58. PROJECT: Fremont Lake ReservoirSPONSOR: Highland Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Sublette CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $457,834ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $411,862DESCRIPTION: Dam, headgatesENGINEER: Soil Conservation ServiceCONTRACTOR: Bartlett Construction; Hanna, Wyoming

Noble Construction; Pinedale, Wyoming

Ch.4 Pg.114

59. PROJECT: Gillette Fort Union Well FieldSPONSOR: City of GilletteLOCATION: Campbell CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $1,725,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $1,331,818 DESCRIPTION: Construction of ten new wells and a supply pipelineENGINEER: Stetson Engineering, Gillette, Wyoming; Wester-Wetstein &

Associates, Laramie, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Ruby Drilling, Gillette, Wyoming; DRM Construction, Gillette,

Wyoming; Weston Engineering, Upton, Wyoming

60. PROJECT: Gillette Madison Well Field ExpansionSPONSOR: City of GilletteLOCATION: Campbell CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $1,628,250ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $1,619,192DESCRIPTION: Two New Wells, Improvement of another well, pipelineENGINEER: Wester-Wetstein; Gillette, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Jim’s Water Service; Gillette, Wyoming, Hot Iron; Gillette,

Wyoming, Tower Construction; Gillette, Wyoming

61. PROJECT: Gillette Pipeline ProjectSPONSOR: City of GilletteLOCATION: City of GillettePROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $408,700ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $301,684DESCRIPTION: PipelineENGINEER: Consolidated Engineers and Materials Testing; Gillette,

WyomingCONTRACTOR: S&S Builders; Gillette, Wyoming

62. PROJECT: Gillette RehabilitationLEVEL: IIIPROGRAM: RehabilitationLOCATION: Campbell CountySPONSOR: City of GilletteAPPROPRIATION: $300,000,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $300,000,000DESCRIPTION: Installation of new electrical distribution cable, new

transformers, grounding system, new surge arresters, newswitch gear, and new electrical controls.

ENGINEER: Cooper Power Systems; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, ConsolidatedEngineering & Material Testing; Gillette, Wyoming

Ch.4 Pg.115

CONTRACTOR: Automation & Electronics; Casper, Wyoming (Numeroussuppliers)

63. PROJECT: Glenrock Water SupplySPONSOR: Town of GlenrockLOCATION: Converse CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $2,500,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $1,941,720DESCRIPTION: Wells, pipelineENGINEER: Nelson Engineering; Jackson, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Larry's Inc.; Gillette, Wyoming

64. PROJECT: Goshen Canal ImprovementsSPONSOR: Goshen Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Goshen CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $24,500ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $24,303DESCRIPTION: Automate three canal spillway gatesENGINEER: Lidstone & Anderson; Fort Collins, ColoradoCONTRACTOR: Sutron Corporation; Sterling, Virginia

65. PROJECT: Goshen Irrigation District RehabilitationSPONSOR: Goshen Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Goshen CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $600,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $437,688DESCRIPTION: Canal conversion to pipelineENGINEER: Kennedy Engineering; Wheatland, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Goshen Irrigation District

66. PROJECT: Goshen Pump StationSPONSOR: Goshen Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Goshen CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $330,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $330,000DESCRIPTION: Pump stationENGINEER: AVI; Cheyenne, Wyoming

Lidstone-Anderson; Ft. Collins, ColoradoCONTRACTOR: Bartlett Construction; Hanna, Wyoming

John’s Pump Service; Torrington, Wyoming

67. PROJECT: Greybull RehabilitationSPONSOR: Town of Greybull

Ch.4 Pg.116

LOCATION: Big Horn CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $355,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $322,764 DESCRIPTION: Water system rehabilitationENGINEER: Crank Companies, Inc., Kemmerer, WyomingCONTRACTORS: Lamax Construction, Basin, Wyoming

Automation Electronics, Casper, Wyoming

68. PROJECT: Grover Water SupplySPONSOR: Grover Water and Sewer DistrictLOCATION: Lincoln CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $493,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $493,000DESCRIPTION: Well storage, pipelineENGINEER: Forsgren Associates, Evanston, WyomingCONTRACTOR: JASCO; Evanston, Wyoming

69. PROJECT: Guernsey Water SupplySPONSOR: Town of GuernseyLOCATION: Goshen CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $550,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $511,995 DESCRIPTION: Construction of a new well and a supply pipelineENGINEER: TST Engineering, Denver, Colorado; Weston Engineering,

Laramie WyomingCONTRACTOR: D. C. Drilling, Wheatland, High Plains Construction, Casper,

Wyoming

70. PROJECT: Gunbarrel Lateral RehabilitationSPONSOR: Platte County Resource DistrictLOCATION: Platte CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $250,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $210,782DESCRIPTION: Replaced an open ditch with a buried pipeline.

Provided construction materials only.ENGINEER: Natural Resources Conservation ServiceCONTRACTOR: Sponsor

71. PROJECT: Hanover IrrigationSPONSOR: Hanover Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Washakie CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $600,000

Ch.4 Pg.117

ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $600,000DESCRIPTION: Moss catcher and structureENGINEER: Crank Companies, Inc.; Kemmerer, WyomingCONTRACTOR: R-D Construction, Casper, Wyoming

Magic Valley Heliac, Twin Falls, Idaho

72. PROJECT: Hawk SpringsSPONSOR: Horse Creek Conservation DistrictLOCATION: Goshen CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $8,871,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $8,491,098DESCRIPTION: Dams, canalsENGINEER: Soil Conservation Service; Casper, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Several

73. PROJECT: Highland Hanover RehabilitationSPONSOR: Highland Hanover Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Washakie CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $536,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $536,000DESCRIPTION: Pump station rehab; canal and lateral repairsENGINEER: Nelson Engineering; Jackson, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Mainline Construction; Billings, Montana

Big Horn Red-Mix; Worland, WyomingTesco Electric; Worland, Wyoming

74. PROJECT: Highline Ditch Rehabilitation SPONSOR: Highline Irrigation District

LOCATION: Sheridan CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $260,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $231,560DESCRIPTION: Diversion dam, pipelineENGINEER: Engineering, Inc.; Sheridan, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Fletcher Construction; Sheridan, Wyoming

75. PROJECT: Hulett Water SupplySPONSOR: Town of HulettLOCATION: Crook CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $250,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $246,635DESCRIPTION: Pump, storage tank and pipelineENGINEER: Weston Engineering; Upton, WyomingCONTRACTOR: S & S Builders; Gillette, Wyoming

Ch.4 Pg.118

76. PROJECT: Hunt Canal RehabilitationSPONSOR: Hunt Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Big Horn CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $650,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $640,000DESCRIPTION: Diversion dam and headgate replacement, canal repairsENGINEER: Nelson Engineering; Jackson, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Nichols and Lewis; Lovell, Wyoming

77. PROJECT: Indian Springs Water SupplySPONSOR: Indian Springs Improvement and Service DistrictLOCATION: Natrona CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $150,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $107,713DESCRIPTION: Transmission pipelineENGINEER: Hibsman Associates; Casper, WyomingCONTRACTOR: High Plains Construction; Mills, Wyoming

78. PROJECT: Iron Creek RehabilitationSPONSOR: Shoshone/Deaver Irrigation DistrictsLOCATION: Park CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $1,500,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $1,500,000DESCRIPTION: Tunnel repairENGINEER: Harza Engineering Company; Denver, ColoradoCONTRACTOR: Shoshone Irrigation District

79. PROJECT: Jackson Raw Water SupplySPONSOR: Town of JacksonLOCATION: Teton CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $450,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $450,000DESCRIPTION: Irrigation and thaw wells, pipeline, and pumpsENGINEER: Nelson Engineering; Jackson, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Thomas Drilling; Afton, Wyoming

G.M. Stewart Corporation; Evanston, Wyoming�������

80. PROJECT: Jackson Water SupplySPONSOR: Town of JacksonLOCATION: Teton CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $2,300,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $1,952,515

Ch.4 Pg.119

DESCRIPTION: Three new wells with control buildingENGINEER: Nelson Engineering, Jackson, WyomingCONTRACTOR: H-K Contractors, Inc., Idaho Falls, ID

81. PROJECT: Kemmerer City Dam RehabilitationSPONSOR: City of KemmererLOCATION: Lincoln CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $940,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $940,000DESCRIPTION: Dam repairENGINEER: Woodward-Clyde Consultants; Denver, ColoradoCONTRACTOR: Nicholas Construction Company; Denver, Colorado

82. PROJECT: Kirby DitchSPONSOR: Kirby Ditch Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Hot Springs CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $60,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $42,069 DESCRIPTION: Siphon and WastewayENGINEER: Natural Resources Conservation Service, WyomingCONTRACTOR: W.A.R., Inc., Thermopolis, Wyoming

83. PROJECT: Kirby DitchSPONSOR: Kirby Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Hot Springs CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $141,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $70,363DESCRIPTION: Siphon, measuring devicesENGINEER: Soil Conservation Service; Worland, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Big Horn Red Mix; Greybull, Wyoming

84. PROJECT: Lake Adelaide Reservoir EnlargementSPONSOR: Shell Valley Watershed Improvement DistrictLOCATION: Big Horn CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $2,200,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $1,840,503DESCRIPTION: Dam enlargementENGINEER: ESA Consultants, Inc.; Fort Collins, Colorado

CONTRACTOR: MRC, Inc.; Casper, Wyoming

85. PROJECT: Lake Hattie Dam RehabilitationSPONSOR: Pioneer Canal - Lake Hattie Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Albany County

Ch.4 Pg.120

PROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $360,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $345,580DESCRIPTION: Dam repairENGINEER: Western Water Consultants; Laramie, Wyoming

CONTRACTOR: Domino Construction; Laramie, Wyoming

86. PROJECT: Lake Hattie Supply CanalSPONSOR: Lake Hattie Irrigation District LOCATION: Albany CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $1,400,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $1,270,195DESCRIPTION: Canal structures and alignmentENGINEER: Western Water Consultants; Laramie, Wyoming

CONTRACTOR: Bartlett Construction; Hanna, WyomingDomson, Inc.; Torrington, Wyoming

87. PROJECT: Lance Creek Water RehabilitationSPONSOR: Lance Creek Water and Sewer DistrictLOCATION: Niobrara CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $327,900ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $327,900DESCRIPTION: Pipeline, backflow preventionENGINEER: Western Water Consultants; Laramie, Wyoming

CONTRACTOR: Excel Construction, Inc.; Sheridan, Wyoming

88. PROJECT: Lander Worthen Meadows Dam Rehabilitation SPONSOR: City of Lander LOCATION: Fremont County

PROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $1,250,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $811,804DESCRIPTION: Dam repairENGINEER: Versar; Riverton, Wyoming

CONTRACTOR: C.J. Abbot; Casper, Wyoming

89. PROJECT: LaPrele RehabilitationSPONSOR: LaPrele Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Converse CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $1,500,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $1,476,203DESCRIPTION: Tunnel repair, canalsENGINEER: Nelson Engineering; Jackson, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Central Contractors, Inc.; Mills, Wyoming

Ch.4 Pg.121

90. PROJECT: Laramie RehabilitationSPONSOR: City of Laramie LOCATION: Albany CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $1,750,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $1,546,216DESCRIPTION: Rehabilitation of an existing storage facility, Soldier springs

well and pumphouse, and raw water supply pipelineENGINEER: Western Water Consultants, Laramie Wyoming; Wester-

Wetstein & Associates, Laramie WyomingCONTRACTOR: Bartlett Construction, Hanna, Wyoming; Johnson Well Service,

Laramie, Wyoming; High Plains Construction, Casper,Wyoming; Domino Construction, Laramie, Wyoming

91. PROJECT: Laramie RiversSPONSOR: Pioneer Canal-Lake Hattie Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Albany CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $165,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $165,000DESCRIPTION: Refinanced existing loansENGINEER: NACONTRACTOR: NA

92. PROJECT: LeClair Irrigation RehabilitationSPONSOR: LeClair Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Fremont CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $470,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $442,845DESCRIPTION: Canal repairsENGINEER: Crank Company, Inc.; Kemmerer, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Foster Construction Company, Inc.; Riverton, Wyoming

93. PROJECT: LeClair LateralSPONSOR: LeClair Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Fremont CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $750,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $361,342DESCRIPTION: Lateral open ditches replacement with pipelinesENGINEER: Apex Surveying - R.D. Connell and Associates, Riverton,

WyomingCONTRACTOR: LeClair Irrigation District; Riverton, Wyoming

Ch.4 Pg.122

94. PROJECT: Lingle Water Supply System RehabilitationSPONSOR: Town of LingleLOCATION: Goshen CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $400,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $350,000DESCRIPTION: Upgrade transmission pipelinesENGINEER: BenchMark of Torrington, P.C.; Torrington, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Scott and Son, Inc. Torrington, Wyoming

95. PROJECT: Little Snake RehabilitationSPONSOR: Little Snake Conservancy DistrictLOCATION: Carbon CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $2,700,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $2,700,000DESCRIPTION: Diversion Dam Replacements and Canal RepairsENGINEER: States West Inc., Cheyenne, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Bartlett Construction, Hanna, Wyoming

96. PROJECT: Lovell Irrigation District RehabilitationSPONSOR: Lovell Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Big Horn CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $820,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $749,958DESCRIPTION: Canal RepairsENGINEER: Soil Conservation Service; Casper, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Nichols & Lewis, Inc.; Lovely, Wyoming

C. A. Wilson Construction Company; Cowley, WyomingJerry's Irrigation and Drainage, Inc.; Powell, WyomingDale Weaver, Inc.; Worland, Wyoming

97. PROJECT: Lusk Water SupplySPONSOR: Town of LuskLOCATION: Niobrara CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $709,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $550,982DESCRIPTION: Transmission pipelines, storage tank, pump, controlsENGINEER: MK Centennial Engineering, Inc., Cheyenne, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Western Municipal Construction, Inc., Billings, Montana

98. PROJECT: McKenney Water SupplySPONSOR: McKenney I&S DistrictLOCATION: Campbell CountyPROGRAM: New Development

Ch.4 Pg.123

APPROPRIATION: $140,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $109,107 DESCRIPTION: Transmission pipelinesENGINEER: TSP TWO, Inc.; Gillette, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Larry's Inc.; Gillette, Wyoming

99. PROJECT: Lyman Springs RehabilitationSPONSOR: Town of LymanLOCATION: Uinta CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $255,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $255,000DESCRIPTION: Springs renovation and pumping stationENGINEER: Forsgren Associates, Inc.; Evanston, WyomingCONTRACTOR: X-it Construction, Inc.; Lyman, Wyoming

S.C.I. Inc.; Lyman, Wyoming

100. PROJECT: Manville Water SupplySPONSOR: Town of ManvilleLOCATION: Niobrara CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $69,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $67,104DESCRIPTION: New well and supply pipelineENGINEER: Western Water Consultants, Laramie WyomingCONTRACTOR: Landkammer Trenching, Lance Creek, Wyoming

101. PROJECT: Means Water Supply SPONSOR: Means First Extension W&S District

LOCATION: Campbell CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $225,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $212,253 DESCRIPTION: Pump station improvements, storage tank, and transmission

pipelineENGINEER: Bruce Engineering Services; Gillette, WyomingCONTRACTOR: DRM, Inc.; Gillette, Wyoming

102. PROJECT: Midvale Sand Mesa Pipeline SPONSOR: Midvale Irrigation District

LOCATION: Fremont CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $3,000,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $2,900,879DESCRIPTION: Gravity pressure irrigation delivery pipeline

Ch.4 Pg.124

ENGINEER: Natural Resources Conservation ServiceR. D. Connell & Associates; Riverton, Wyoming

CONTRACTOR: Midvale Irrigation District

103. PROJECT: Midwest RehabilitationSPONSOR: Town of MidwestLOCATION: Natrona CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $100,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $100,000 DESCRIPTION: PipelineENGINEER: Geocivil Engineers, Inc.; Casper, WyomingCONTRACTOR: La Max Construction; Basin, Wyoming

104. PROJECT: Moorcroft Water SupplySPONSOR: Town of MoorcroftLOCATION: Crook CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $930,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $853,767DESCRIPTION: Wells, pipeline, and storage tankENGINEER: Weston Engineering; Upton, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Hot Iron, Inc.; Gillette, Wyoming

Williams Drilling Co.; Gillette, Wyoming

105. PROJECT: Muddy GuardSPONSOR: North Fork Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Johnson CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $600,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $600,000DESCRIPTION: Purchase of minimum pool in storageENGINEER: NACONTRACTOR: NA

106. PROJECT: North Fork Crazy Woman RehabilitationSPONSOR: Crazy Woman Watershed Improvement DistrictLOCATION: Johnson CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $650,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $471,366DESCRIPTION: Canal improvements, pipelineENGINEER: HKM Associates; Sheridan, WyomingCONTRACTOR: S&S Builders; Gillette, Wyoming

Mollinax Concrete Service Company; Sheridan, Wyoming

Ch.4 Pg.125

107. PROJECT: North Platte GagesSPONSOR: State Engineer's OfficeLOCATION: Carbon, Converse, Goshen and Natrona CountiesPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $850,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $790,000 (approx)DESCRIPTION: Six (6) major stream gaging stations on the North Platte River

and tributariesENGINEER: States West Water Resources; Cheyenne, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Bartlett Construction; Hanna, Wyoming

High County Construction; Casper, WyomingRieman Construction; Cheyenne, WyomingStructures, Inc.; Riverton, Wyoming

108. PROJECT: Osage Water SupplySPONSOR: Osage Water DistrictLOCATION: Weston CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $1,205,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $954,951DESCRIPTION: Pipeline, storage, disinfection, pump, controlsENGINEER: Weston Engineering, Inc.; Upton, WyomingCONTRACTOR: DRM, Inc.; Gillette, Wyoming

109. PROJECT: Park Reservoir DamSPONSOR: Park Reservoir CompanyLOCATION: Sheridan CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $3,750,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $3,725,000DESCRIPTION: DamENGINEER: Woodward Clyde Consultants; Denver, ColoradoCONTRACTOR: McIntyre Construction; Great Falls, Montana

110. PROJECT: Pavillion Water Supply SPONSOR: Town of Pavillion

LOCATION: Fremont CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $400,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $300,000DESCRIPTION: Well, storage tank, and pipelineENGINEER: Rolly Connell & Associates; Riverton, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Rieman Construction; Cheyenne, Wyoming

Rawhide Mechanical; Riverton, Wyoming

111. PROJECT: Pine Bluffs Well Rehabilitation SPONSOR: Town of Pine Bluffs

Ch.4 Pg.126

LOCATION: Laramie CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $155,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $132,723DESCRIPTION: Well rehabilitationENGINEER: Lidstone & Associates, Inc.; Fort Collins, ColoradoCONTRACTOR: Sargent Irrigation Company; Scottsbluff, Nebraska

112. PROJECT: Pinedale PipelineSPONSOR: Town of PinedaleLOCATION: Sublette CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $320,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $202,974DESCRIPTION: Transmission pipelineENGINEER: Rio Verde; Pinedale, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Snyder Construction; Lyman, Wyoming

113. PROJECT: Pinedale Transmission LineSPONSOR: Town of PinedaleLOCATION: Sublette CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $3,550,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $2,974,131 DESCRIPTION: Transmission pipelineENGINEER: Rio Verde Engineering; Pinedale, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Snyder Construction, Inc.; Lyman, Wyoming

114. PROJECT: Pine Haven Water Supply

SPONSOR: Town of Pine HavenLOCATION: Crook CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $165,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $97,162DESCRIPTION: Pipeline, storage tankENGINEER: Bearlodge Engineering; Sundance, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Sundance Construction; Newcastle, Wyoming

115. PROJECT: Pioneer CanalSPONSOR: Pioneer Canal-Lake Hattie Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Albany CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $1,400,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $1,270,195DESCRIPTION: Repairs to canal structures and diversion on Little LaramieENGINEER: Western Water Consultants; Laramie, Wyoming

Ch.4 Pg.127

CONTRACTOR: Barlett Inc.; Hanna, WyomingDomson Inc.; Torrington, Wyoming

116. PROJECT: Poison Spider Water SupplySPONSOR: Poison Spider Improvement & Service Dist.LOCATION: Natrona CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $640,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $538,076DESCRIPTION: Pipelines, metering, chlorinationENGINEER: Civil Engineering Professionals, CasperCONTRACTOR: Hedquist Construction, Inc., Casper, Wyoming

117. PROJECT: Porto CanalSPONSOR: Porto Canal Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Lincoln CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $808,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $681,040DESCRIPTION: Converting open ditch to pipelineENGINEER: Sunrise Engineering; Afton, Wyoming Laramie, WyomingCONTRACTOR: H-K Construction; Idaho Falls, Idaho

118. PROJECT: Rawlins Groundwater SupplySPONSOR: City of RawlinsLOCATION: Carbon CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $8,200,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $7,505,939DESCRIPTION: Wells, pipelineENGINEER: J.M. Montgomery; Laramie, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Several

119. PROJECT: Rawlins Springs RehabilitationSPONSOR: City of RawlinsLOCATION: Carbon CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $220,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $55,722DESCRIPTION: Springs enhancementENGINEER: J.M. Montgomery; Laramie, WyomingCONTRACTOR: City of Rawlins

120. PROJECT: RiversideSPONSOR: Sierra Madre Water & Sewer Joint Powers BoardLOCATION: Carbon CountyPROGRAM: New Development

Ch.4 Pg.128

APPROPRIATION: $1,225,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $834,574DESCRIPTION: Municipal water supplyENGINEER: PMPC; Saratoga, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Bartlett Construction; Hanna, Wyoming

121. PROJECT: Riverton ValleySPONSOR: City of Riverton/Riverton Valley Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Fremont CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $5,750,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $5,743,436DESCRIPTION: Canal, pipelineENGINEER: R.D. Connell and Associates; Riverton, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Larry's Inc.; Gillette, Wyoming

122. PROJECT: Riverton Valley LateralsSPONSOR: City of Riverton/Riverton Valley Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Fremont CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $350,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $348,544 DESCRIPTION: Canal, pipelineENGINEER: R.D. Connell and Associates; Riverton, WyomingCONTRACTOR: City of Riverton/Riverton Valley Irrigation District;

Riverton, Wyoming

123. PROJECT: Riverton Water SupplySPONSOR: City of RivertonLOCATION: Fremont CountyPROGRAM: New ConstructionAPPROPRIATION: $312,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $283,106DESCRIPTION: Well and Transmission PipelineENGINEER: Wester-Wetstein & Assoc., Inc., Laramie, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Patrick Construction

124. PROJECT: Rock Springs/Green River Area SupplySPONSOR: GR-RS-SC JPWBLOCATION: Sweetwater CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $27,000,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $27,000,000DESCRIPTION: Transmission Line, Storage, Pumping, Controls

125. PROJECT: Rock Springs/Green River Area SupplySPONSOR: GR-RS-SC JPWB

Ch.4 Pg.129

LOCATION: Sweetwater CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $27,000,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $27,000,000DESCRIPTION: Transmission Line, Storage, Pumping, ControlsENGINEER: Forsgren Engineering, Evanston, Wyoming

Crank Companies, Kemmerer, WyomingCONTRACTOR: DeBernardi Construction, Rock Springs, Wyoming

Snyder Construction, Lyman, WyomingH-K Construction, Idaho Falls, IdahoHigh Pains Construction, Casper, WyomingResource Engineering, Rock Springs, WyomingC M E, Green River, Wyoming ENGINEER:Forsgren Engineering, Evanston, WyomingCrank Companies, Kemmerer, Wyoming

CONTRACTOR: DeBernardi Construction, Rock Springs, WyomingSnyder Construction, Lyman, WyomingH-K Construction, Idaho Falls, IdahoHigh Pains Construction, Casper, WyomingResource Engineering, Rock Springs, WyomingC M E, Green River, Wyoming

126. PROJECT: Rolling Hills Water SupplySPONSOR: Town of Rolling HillsLOCATION: ConversePROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $282,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $221,878DESCRIPTION: New Tank and Transmission LinesENGINEER: R. C. H and Associates, Glenrock, WyomingCONTRACTOR: CVIC, Casper; Phipps, Glenrock; D.C. Drilling, Lusk,

Wyoming; Bartlett, Hanna, Wyoming

127. PROJECT: Sahara RehabilitationSPONSOR: Powder River Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Johnson CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $900,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $900,000DESCRIPTION: Diversion structure, canal improvementsENGINEER: Western Water Consultants; Sheridan, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Foster Construction; Riverton, Wyoming

128. PROJECT: Shell CanalSPONSOR: Shell Valley Watershed Improvement DistrictLOCATION: Big Horn CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

Ch.4 Pg.130

APPROPRIATION: $190,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $190,000DESCRIPTION: Canal repairsENGINEER: Soil Conservation Service; Worland, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Big Horn Ready Mix, Inc; Greybull, Wyoming

129. PROJECT: Shell Valley/Greybull Water SupplySPONSOR: Town of GreybullLOCATION: Big Horn CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $666,400ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $521,291DESCRIPTION: Wells, pipelineENGINEER: Crank Company; Kemmerer, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Continental Construction; Jackson, Wyoming

130. PROJECT: Sheridan Area Water SupplyLEVEL: IIIPROGRAM: New DevelopmentSPONSOR: Sheridan Area Water Supply Joint Powers BoardLOCATION: Sheridan CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $37,206,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $37,206,000DESCRIPTION: Enlargement of Twin Lakes Reservoir, Water transmission

facilities, Water treatment plant in Big Goose Valley, Rawwater transmission pipeline,

ENGINEER: SeveralCONTRACTOR: Several (21 separate contracts)

131. PROJECT: Sheridan Intake StructureSPONSOR: City of SheridanLOCATION: Sheridan CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $200,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $200,000DESCRIPTION: Diversion damENGINEER: TSP; Sheridan, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Husman Construction; Sheridan, Wyoming

132. PROJECT: Shoshone Municipal PipelineSPONSOR: Shoshone Municipal Water Supply Joint Powers BoardLOCATION: Park and Big Horn CountiesPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $38,750,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $38,451,942DESCRIPTION: Pipeline, storage tanks, controls

Ch.4 Pg.131

ENGINEER: Banner Associates; Laramie, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Barcon; Sheridan, Wyoming

TIC; Casper, WyomingASI Moltz; Cody, Wyoming

133. PROJECT: Shoshone RehabilitationSPONSOR: Shoshone Irrigation Project Joint Powers BoardLOCATION: Park/Big Horn CountiesPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $7,500,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $7,400,000DESCRIPTION: Pipelines, canal structures, tunnel grouting, siphon coating,

headgate repairENGINEER: Graham, Dietz & Associates, Powell, Wyoming

Engineering Associates, Cody, WyomingInberg-Miller Engineers, Powell, WyomingESA, Bozeman, MontanaEngineering Science, Inc., Salt Lake City, UtahWater Resources Engineers, Powell, Wyoming

CONTRACTOR: LaMax Construction, Basin, WyomingMiller Fabrication, Lovell, WyomingAdvanced American Diving, Oregon City, OregonElkhorn Construction, Powell, WyomingMoltz Construction, Cody, WyomingWilliams Plumbing & Heating, Bozeman, MontanaExcel Construction., Sheridan, WyomingBig Horn Ready-Mix, Greybull, Wyoming

MATERIALS: Elk River Concrete, Helena, MontanaA-C Supply, Basin, WyomingBoomers Irrigation, Powell, WyomingJ&E, Inc., Greybull, WyomingTNT Irrigation, Inc., Powell, Wyoming

134. PROJECT: Shoshoni Water SupplySPONSOR: Town of Shoshoni LOCATION: Fremont CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $740,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $660,066DESCRIPTION: Well replacement, water storage improvementsENGINEER: Civil Engineering Professionals, Inc.; Casper, WyomingCONTRACTOR: 71 Construction, Inc.; Casper, Wyoming

135. PROJECT: Sidon Canal RehabilitationSPONSOR: Sidon Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Big Horn CountyPROGRAM: Rehabilitation

Ch.4 Pg.132

APPROPRIATION: $1,060,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $730,260DESCRIPTION: Diversion Headgate, Inverted SiphonsENGINEER: Inberg Miller Engineers, Riverton, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Excel Construction, Inc., Sheridan, Wyoming

136. PROJECT: Sinnard DamSPONSOR: Horse Creek Conservation DistrictLOCATION: Goshen CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $1,100,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $918,814DESCRIPTION: Dam and outlet worksENGINEER: ECI; Englewood, ColoradoCONTRACTOR: Domino Construction; Laramie, Wyoming

137. PROJECT: Sleepy Hollow Well ReplacementSPONSOR: Central Campbell County I&S DistrictLOCATION: Campbell CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $375,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $227,811DESCRIPTION: Replacement of well, pump, controls, pipeENGINEER: Soda Butte Services; Upton, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Williams Drilling; Gillette, Wyoming

Hladky Construction; Gillette, Wyoming

138. PROJECT: Smiths Fork Water SupplySPONSOR: Smiths Fork Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Lincoln CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $340,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $307,027DESCRIPTION: Diversion structure, headgate replacement and siphonENGINEER: Versar; Denver, ColoradoCONTRACTOR: Reiman Construction; Cheyenne, Wyoming

139. PROJECT: Smoot Water SupplySPONSOR: Greater Smoot Water and Sewer DistrictLOCATION: Lincoln CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $1,100,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $1,040,298DESCRIPTION: Well, storage tank, spring improvements, pipelineENGINEER: Forsgren Associates; Evanston, WyomingCONTRACTOR: JASCO; Evanston, Wyoming

Ch.4 Pg.133

140. PROJECT: South of Laramie Water SupplySPONSOR: South of Laramie Water and Sewer DistrictLOCATION: Albany CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $3,146,400ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $1,771,887DESCRIPTION: Storage tank, city connection, pipeline, controlsENGINEER: Banner Associates; Laramie, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Hedquist Construction; Casper, Wyoming

141. PROJECT: Southwest Casper Water SupplySPONSOR: City of CasperLOCATION: Natrona CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $1,000,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $1,000,000DESCRIPTION: Storage Tank and PipelineENGINEER: Worthington Lenhart, Carpenter, Inc.CONTRACTOR: Lobo, Inc., Casper, Wyoming

142. PROJECT: Spring Draw DitchSPONSOR: Spring Draw Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Sheridan CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $350,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $282,924DESCRIPTION: Ditch reclamation, and pipeline installationENGINEER: Pilch Engineering, Sheridan, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Larry’s Inc, Gillette, Wyoming

143. PROJECT: Squaw Creek Water SupplySPONSOR: Squaw Creek Water DistrictLOCATION: Teton CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $580,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $530,297DESCRIPTION: Wells, pipeline, storageENGINEER: AVI, Cheyenne, WyomingCONTRACTOR: G. M. Stewart Construction, Evanston, Wyoming

Thomas Brothers Drilling, Afton, Wyoming

144. PROJECT: Stage II PipelineSPONSOR: City of CheyenneLOCATION: Carbon, Albany, Laramie CountiesPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $48,200,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $47,713,214

Ch.4 Pg.134

DESCRIPTION: PipelineENGINEER: Banner Associates, Inc.; Laramie, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Guernsey Stone; Sheridan, Wyoming

145. PROJECT: Sulphur CreekSPONSOR: City of EvanstonLOCATION: Uinta CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $25,000,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $19,758,207DESCRIPTION: Dam, pipelines (2)ENGINEER: SeveralCONTRACTOR: Several

146. PROJECT: Superior Water SupplySPONSOR: Town of SuperiorLOCATION: Sweetwater CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $40,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $30,880DESCRIPTION: Groundwater well, pump stationENGINEER: Wester-Wetstein & Associates; Laramie, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Ward's Well Service; Riverton, Wyoming

147. PROJECT: Teton Village Water SupplySPONSOR: Teton Village Water and Sewer DistrictLOCATION: Teton CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $700,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $700,000DESCRIPTION: Two wells, pipelineENGINEER: Nelson Engineering; Jackson, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Thomas Drilling; Afton, Wyoming

H-K Construction; Idaho Falls, Idaho

148. PROJECT: Upper Bluff RehabilitationSPONSOR: Upper Bluff Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Washakie CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $436,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $399,913DESCRIPTION: Pump stations (2), measuring devices, canal repairsENGINEER: Nelson Engineering; Jackson, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Big Horn Red-Mix; Greybull, Wyoming

149. PROJECT: Upper Hanover Water SupplySPONSOR: Hanover Irrigation District

Ch.4 Pg.135

LOCATION: Washakie CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $1,200,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $1,086,100DESCRIPTION: Wasteways, flumes, canal liningENGINEER: Donnell & Associates; Worland, WyoemingCONTRACTOR: Big Horn Red-Mix; Greybull, Wyoming

Pope Construction; Casper, Wyoming

150. PROJECT: Upper Little Warm Springs Water SupplySPONSOR: Warm Springs Water DistrictLOCATION: Fremont CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $1,600,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $1,426,485DESCRIPTION: Pipelines, pumps, storage tank, controlsENGINEER: Jorgensen Engineering, Jackson, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Foster Construction, Riverton, Wyoming

151. PROJECT: Upton Water SupplySPONSOR: Town of UptonLOCATION: Weston CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $365,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $328,375DESCRIPTION: Well and pipelineENGINEER: Weston Engineering; Upton, Wyoming

High Plains Engineering; Newcastle, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Cyclone Drilling; Gillette, Wyoming

Sundance P&H; Sundance, Wyoming

152. PROJECT: Vista West Water SupplySPONSOR: Vista West Water and Sewer DistrictLOCATION: Crook CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $540,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $523,135DESCRIPTION: Wells, pipeline, storageENGINEER: Weston Engineering, Upton, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Dan Hart Patrol, Upton, Wyoming

Water System Management, Gillette, Wyoming

153. PROJECT: Wheatland Reservoir No. 1 SPONSOR: Wheatland Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Platte CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $392,000

Ch.4 Pg.136

ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $80,288 DESCRIPTION: Dam rehabilitationENGINEER: States West Water Resources Corporation; Cheyenne,

WyomingCONTRACTOR: Lamax Construction; Basin, Wyoming

154. PROJECT: Wild Rose Water SupplySPONSOR: Wild Rose Service and Improvement DistrictLOCATION: Sheridan CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $126,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $126,000DESCRIPTION: Canal, pipeline, reservoirENGINEER: Centennial Engineering; Sheridan, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Fletcher Construction; Sheridan, Wyoming

155. PROJECT: Willwood Dam RehabilitationSPONSOR: Willwood Irrigation DistrictLOCATION: Park CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $480,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $305,111DESCRIPTION: Dam repairsENGINEER: Engineering Associates, Cody, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Cop Construction, Billings, Montana

156. PROJECT: Wright Water SupplySPONSOR: Town of WrightLOCATION: Campbell CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $450,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $231,591DESCRIPTION: Well, pipelineENGINEER: J.M. Montgomery; Laramie, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Larry's Inc.; Gillette, Wyoming

157. PROJECT: Wright Water SupplySPONSOR: Wright Water and Sewer DistrictLOCATION: Campbell CountyPROGRAM: RehabilitationAPPROPRIATION: $50,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $50,000DESCRIPTION: Well and pipe rehabilitationENGINEER: Bruce Engineering, Gillette, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Weston Groundwater Engineering, Upton, Wyoming

158. PROJECT: Yoder Water SupplySPONSOR: Town of YoderLOCATION: Goshen CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $577,200ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $433,391DESCRIPTION: Pump facilities and transmission pipelineENGINEER: Banner Associates; Laramie, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Interstate Irrigation; Yuma, Colorado

159. PROJECT: Yoder Water WellSPONSOR: Town of YoderLOCATION: Goshen CountyPROGRAM: New DevelopmentAPPROPRIATION: $30,000ACTUAL EXPENDITURES: $14,722DESCRIPTION: Drilled a wellENGINEER: Wells Engineering; Lusk, WyomingCONTRACTOR: Midwest Farm Service; Scottsbluff, Nebraska