SUBJECT TO REVISION

Wyoming Water Development Commission/Select Water Committee Joint Workshop/Meeting Capitol Extension, Public Meeting Room No. 5, 200 W. 24th St., Cheyenne, WY November 4-5, 2020

To live stream either event, follow the link provided at our website: http://wwdc.state.wy.us/. Please also check for any updates to the Agenda and E-Notebook.

Wednesday, November 4, 2020 1:30 p.m. Workshop Agenda:

1. Call to Order

2. Roll Call

3. Audience Introductions

4. Financial Status Report (A)

5. Funding Applications – Preliminary Review (See attachment)

6. Project Updates (See attachment) • Lake Hattie Full Utilization Study, Level I • LaPrele Irrigation District Dam Rehabilitation, Level II, Phase II

7. Aging Infrastructure (B)

8. Wyoming Water Development Program Priorities (C)

9. Application Fees (D)

10. Financial Disclosure Forms (E) – WWDC – Due by Dec. 31, 2020

Wednesday, November 4, 2020 Select Water Committee Agenda: To begin at the conclusion of the Joint Workshop

11. Orphan Water Rights (F)

12. America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2020 (G)

1 | Page

SUBJECT TO REVISION

Thursday, November 5, 2020 8:30 a.m. Joint Meeting Agenda:

1. Call to Order

2. Pledge of Allegiance

3. Roll Call

4. Audience Introductions

5. Approval of Minutes (H) (Action Item) • October 9, 2020 - WWDC Meeting Minutes

6. Closeout Memos (I) (Action Item) • Lander Test Well Study, Level II, Phase I • Salt Creek-Edgerton-Midwest Master Plan, Level I • Torrington Water Master Plan, Level I

7. Operating Criteria (J) (Action Item) • Small Water Program • Water Development Program

8. Contingency Account II Request (K) (Action Item) • Piney and Cruse Canal Piping

9. 2021 Funding Recommendations – New Development (See attachment) • Account I, Level III, II, I

10. 2021 Funding Recommendations – Dam and Reservoir Program (See attachment) • Account III, Level II

11. 2021 Funding Recommendations – Rehabilitation Program (See attachment) • Account II, Level III, II, I

12. Other Items Requiring Commission Action

13. Director’s Comments

14. Future Meeting Schedule

15. Adjourn 2 | Page

SUBJECT TO REVISION

Attachment to the Agenda

Thursday, November 5, 2020 8:30 a.m. Joint Meeting Agenda Attachment:

New Development Program – Account I

Level III Projects • Cloud Seeding: Medicine Bow & Sierra Madre Mountain Ranges 2022 (A) • Cloud Seeding: Wind River Mountain Range 2022 (B) • Lander Well and Transmission Pipeline 2021 (C) • Northwest Rural Water System Improvements 2021 (D) • Torrington Well Connection 2021 (E)

Level III Projects – Amendments • Arapahoe Water Supply 2016 (F) • Ethete Water Supply (G) • Small Water Project Program – New Development (H)

Level II Projects • Big Horn Regional Transmission (I) • Byron Rural Water Supply (J) • Gillette Water System Improvements (K) • Little Snake River Valley Water Supply, Phase II (L)

Level I Projects • Hoback River Watershed Study (M) • Lander Water Master Plan (Mc) • Nordic Ranches Water Master Plan (N) • Upton Water Master Plan (O) • Wheatland Water Master Plan (P)

• Lake Hattie Full Utilization Study* (Q) *Deferred from May WWDC Meeting

General • UW Water Research Program (R)

Dams and Reservoirs Program – Account III

Level II Projects – Amendments • Clear Creek Storage (S) – Time Extension Only • Fontenelle Dam and Outworks Infrastructure Completion (T) – Time Extension Only • Glendo Reservoir Full Utilization Project (U) – Time Extension Only • Nowood River Storage – Alkali Creek (V) – Time Extension Only

1 | Page

SUBJECT TO REVISION

Rehabilitation Program – Account II

Level III Projects • Interstate Irrigation & Reservoir Irrigation District Improvements 2021 (W) • Salt Creek Transmission Pipeline 2021 (XYZ) • Shoshone Irrigation District Improvements 2021 (A2) • Sidon Irrigation District Improvements 2021 (B2)

Level III Projects – Amendments • Small Water Project Program – Rehabilitation (C2) • Sponsor’s Contingency Fund – Rehabilitation (D2)

Level II Projects • Lander Ditches Rehabilitation (E2)

Level II Project Amendment • LaPrele Irrigation District Dam Rehabilitation, Phase II (F2)

Level I Projects • Highland Irrigation District Master Plan (G2)

2 | Page

2021 RECOMMENDATION-CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Project Name: Cloud Seeding in the Medicine Bow, Program: New Development and Sierra Madre Mountain Ranges 2021-2022

Project Type: Winter Snowpack Augmentation County: Albany and Carbon

Sponsor: WWDO

WWDO Recommendation: Level III Proposed Budget: $728,000

Project Manager: Julie Gondzar

Project Description

The WWDO requests financial support from the Wyoming State Legislature for airborne cloud seeding operations targeting the Medicine Bow and Sierra Madre Mountain Ranges, located in southeast Wyoming within the North Platte River Basin and Little Snake River Basin (western flanks of the Sierra Madres), for the 2021-2022 winter season. This cloud seeding program is focused on increasing high elevation snowpack in order to increase streamflow and runoff in a particularly drought-stricken area, as part of a strategy for flow enhancement within the affected basins.

Airborne cloud seeding operations for the current 2020-2021 winter season were funded by the 2020 Wyoming State Legislature (in the “Omnibus Water Bill – Construction), with additional contributions from the City of Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities. It should be noted that no water ownership is implied by this collaboration, nor is there any expectation of a specific amount of water being delivered downstream, and any additional precipitation and subsequent stream flow that was produced through the program will be treated as a natural event, and subject to applicable state water laws.

The WWDO has been successful in securing a local funding partner for the current winter season’s operations. The City of Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities has contributed $50,000 to the program, as they have a vested interest in additional runoff and water supplies coming from the Medicine Bow and Sierra Madre Mountain Ranges. There have been positive discussions around the possibility of this funding partner being a continuous part of the program, and the WWDO is anticipating future contributions.

Every year, the science of cloud seeding continues to strongly suggest that increasing snowpack through cloud seeding augments water supply by increasing precipitation and runoff. The recently completed Medicine Bow/Sierra Madre Final Design and Permitting study showed a positive cost benefit and average increase in streamflow by approximately 12,500 acre-feet due to seeding activities throughout a winter season. With an estimated seeding effect of 5 to 10% (results from the Wyoming Weather Modification Pilot Program), it was also determined that airborne seeding would likely result in an estimated $11 to $22 cost per acre foot.

Nearby states (Idaho, North Dakota) have a long history of conducting airborne cloud seeding programs, with success. With neighboring states as a model, the WWDO is focused on continuing airborne cloud seeding over the Medicine Bow and Sierra Madre Mountain Ranges for the winter season of 2021-2022. The following budget has been prepared for such a scenario.

1

Medicine Bow and Sierra Madre Mountain Ranges Winter 2021-2022 Estimated Budget

Winter 2021-2022 Operations Budget $ 773,000

Anticipated Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities Local - $ 50,000 Funding Contribution

Wyoming Water Development Office (oversight) Travel/Communications $ 5,000

Project Total Requested Appropriation $ 728,000

Funds are being requested for the operations contractor to prepare operational forecasts, decision support, fly one aircraft, maintain the equipment, and conduct airborne seeding operations across southeast Wyoming.

More Details about the Airborne Cloud Seeding Program in Southeast Wyoming:

As proposed in this recommendation, airborne cloud seeding would take place during the winter of 2021-2022 across the Medicine Bow and Sierra Madre Mountain Ranges.

Important Facts about Cloud Seeding:

• Cloud seeding is one of many tools to manage water resources, and is relatively inexpensive.

• Airborne cloud seeding, especially over more complex terrain like the Medicine Bow and Sierra Madre Mountains, is expected to be less expensive as compared to ground-based cloud seeding (Medicine Bow/Sierra Madre Final Design and Permitting Study, 2018).

2

• Cloud seeding has been utilized since the 1940’s, however, incredible advances in research have been made within the past 15 years. The cloud seeding community views the WWDO’s Wyoming Weather Modification Pilot Study (completed in 2014) as the forefront of new innovative research, and one of the most recent cutting-edge studies actually builds on Wyoming’s original Pilot Study.

• Winter cloud seeding is a natural technique to increase the amount of ice nuclei within a cloud, allowing ice formation (and ultimately snow formation) to begin sooner.

• Studies have shown that the use of Silver Iodide in cloud seeding is safe, as it is a natural salt- compound. Silver is widespread in the natural environment, and sampling within cloud seeding target areas found silver to be undetectable above naturally-occurring background levels. Silver from cloud seeding is incredibly hard to find, even with the most advanced equipment.

• Extra Area Effects: The theory that cloud seeding reduces moisture downwind is a common misunderstanding. Long-term studies (44+ years) consistently show no precipitation decreases resulting from seeding. In fact, many studies show the potential for a slight increase downwind.

• Cloud seeding allows for an incremental increase in mountain snowpack, and is not the initial cause of springtime flooding events. Every year, the program must adhere to a strict suspension criteria. One of the thresholds for suspension is if snowpack reaches a specific above-normal level.

3

2021 RECOMMENDATION-CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Project Name: Cloud Seeding in the Wind River Program: New Development Mountain Range 2021-2022

Project Type: Winter Snowpack Augmentation County: Fremont, Sublette

Sponsor: WWDO

WWDO Recommendation: Level III Proposed Budget: $215,000

Project Manager: Julie Gondzar

Project Description

The WWDO requests partial financial support from the Wyoming State Legislature for cloud seeding operations targeting the Wind River Mountains in western Wyoming, for the 2021-2022 winter season. This would be the eighth consecutive year of cloud seeding in the Wind River Mountains representing the continuation of a collaborative, operational program focused on snowpack augmentation as part of a larger strategy for flow enhancement in Wyoming’s Green River drainage of the Colorado River Basin.

Since 2014, cloud seeding operations have been funded in part by the Wyoming State Legislature in each session’s “Omnibus Water Bill – Construction.” Funding for this project has been a cost share between the State of Wyoming and other interested parties or water users. Wyoming’s cost share for the 2020-2021 season was capped at 37%, with 63% of remaining project funding required from other interested parties.

Cloud seeding operations targeting the Wind River Mountains are planned for this winter 2020-2021 season. Since the Wyoming Weather Modification Pilot Program in the early 2000’s, the Lower Basin parties (Central Arizona Water Conservation District, Colorado River Board of California – Six Agency Committee, and Southern Nevada Water Authority) have continued to be long-standing funding partners contributing to the cost share. Other funding partners have also included local trona companies, such as, Genesis Alkali, TATA Chemicals, Solvay Minerals and Ciner Wyoming LLC, along with Rocky Mountain Power, and the Green River/Rock Springs/Sweetwater County Joint Powers Water Board, all located in the Green River Basin. Contracts have been negotiated and operations are expected to begin on November 15, 2020. Barring early suspension, operations will continue through April 15, 2021.

The WWDO is signatory to an Agreement Establishing Programmatic Funding for Colorado River Basin Weather Modification with the Lower Basin (signed in 2018, also known as “The Agreement”), which ensures that the State of Wyoming remains a leader in increasing water supplies within the Colorado River Basin, while also remaining an active participant and contributor to the quickly-advancing science that cloud seeding is a viable and successful technology.

Every year, the science of cloud seeding continues to strongly suggest that increasing snowpack through cloud seeding augments the Colorado River Basin’s water supply by increasing precipitation and runoff. All seven of the Colorado River Basin States (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, California and Nevada) and their water users, benefit from increased water supply in the Colorado River Basin. Any increase in runoff produced through cloud seeding is considered additional “system” water that benefits all states within the Colorado River Basin.

As stated in The Agreement, the Lower Basin parties recognize opportunities for augmenting Colorado River System runoff through this cooperative cost-share funding mechanism. It also provides greater certainty and efficiency going forward, and allows for opportunities to expand Upper Basin States’ projects. The terms of The Agreement are:

1

• The Funding Parties in the Lower Basin agree to contribute up to five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) each, and up to one million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000) collectively, in funding for Activities approved in a single Water Year (“Yearly Contribution”) in the Upper Basin.

• The Funding Parties further agree to contribute a maximum of up to four million five hundred thousand dollars ($4,500,000) individually, and thirteen million five hundred thousand dollars ($13,500,000) collectively, in funding the Upper Basin Programs provided the Agreement does not terminate prior to the end of the Term (“Total Contribution”).

• Cost-sharing relationship of generally fifty/fifty percent (50%/50%) between the Funding Parties, the NMISC, and the Upper Basin Entities.

• The Funding Parties do not expect to fund any Activities when Lake Powell and Lake Mead are projected to collectively exceed eighty percent (80%) of live storage capacity in the upcoming Water Year. Notice of the decision of whether to fund Activities will be based on the results of the United States (“U.S.”) Bureau of Reclamation’s August Twenty Four (24) Month Study projections of collective inflow and storage at Lake Powell and Lake Mead.

• Through their efforts, the Parties do not claim a right to any increase in water attributable to the Activities funded herein. Rather, any increase in the water supply is Colorado River System water and shall not be specifically claimed by any Party.

Relocation of Two Ground-Based Generators

Included in this budget recommendation is the recommendation to relocate two of the southern-most generators to be placed along the more northwesterly slopes of the Wind River Mountains. In past years, it has become evident that the two southern-most generators operate the least and would be of better use further north where more generators are needed for efficient cloud seeding. An evaluation of this effort was completed as part of the 2019-2020 cloud seeding operational project this past summer and fall. The total additional cost to this project would be approximately $25,000. This cost is a necessary improvement to the project, and has been included in the Winter 2021-2022 operations budget below.

Wyoming’s Allocation as Stated in The Upper Colorado River Compact

The Upper Colorado River Basin Compact allocates 14% of the upper basin water supply to Wyoming. During the 2020-2021 winter season, the State of Wyoming contributed $195,000 for cloud seeding in the Wind River Mountains. The total estimated cloud seeding expenditures in the upper basin (CO, UT, & WY) for the 2020-2021 season is approximately $1,983,000, thereby making Wyoming’s contribution at 9.83% of total program funding. For the 2021-2022 winter season, the recommendation is that Wyoming continue the same 37/63 funding split as last year. The requested 37% of Wyoming funding is $210,000 which would be equivalent to 10.6% of total anticipated cloud seeding program costs in the upper basin for next season.

2

Wind River Mountains Winter 2021-2022 Estimated Budget

The following budget has been prepared for a continued cost sharing scenario for cloud seeding operations targeting the Wind River Mountains during the winter of 2021-2022. Funds are being requested for the contractor to relocate two generators, prepare weather forecasts and decision support, release soundings, maintain equipment, and conduct seeding operations through the use of ground-based generators.

Winter 2021-2022 Operations Budget $ 566,000

63% Cost Share from - $ 356,580 Colorado River Basin Funding Partners

37% Cost Share from WWDO $ 209,420

Wyoming Water Development Office (oversight) $ 5,000 Travel/Communications

Project Total Requested Appropriation $ 214,420

Project Total Requested Appropriation (Adjusted) $ 215,000

Important Facts about Cloud Seeding:

• Cloud seeding is one of many tools to manage water resources, and is relatively inexpensive.

• Cloud seeding has been utilized since the 1940’s, however, incredible advances in research have been made within the past 15 years. The cloud seeding community views the WWDO’s Wyoming Weather Modification Pilot Study (completed in 2014) as the forefront of new innovative research, and one of the most recent cutting-edge studies actually builds on Wyoming’s original Pilot Study.

• Winter cloud seeding is a natural technique to increase the amount of ice nuclei within a cloud, allowing ice formation (and ultimately snow formation) to begin sooner.

• Studies have shown that the use of Silver Iodide in cloud seeding is safe, as it is a natural salt- compound. Silver is widespread in the natural environment, and sampling within cloud seeding target areas found silver to be undetectable above naturally-occurring background levels. Silver from cloud seeding is incredibly hard to find, even with the most advanced equipment.

• Extra Area Effects: The theory that cloud seeding reduces moisture downwind is a common misunderstanding. Long-term studies (44+ years) consistently show no precipitation decreases resulting from seeding. In fact, many studies show the potential for a slight increase downwind.

• Cloud seeding allows for an incremental increase in mountain snowpack, and is not the initial cause of springtime flooding events. Every year, the Wind River Mountains project must adhere to a strict suspension criteria. One of the thresholds for suspension is if snowpack reaches a specific above- normal level.

3

The ten ground-based generators targeting the Wind River Mountains are shown on the map (left) along with the WWDO-owned radiometer located near Pinedale, WY.

Image Courtesy of Weather Modification International (WMI).

Wind River Range Ground-Based Generator Seeding Events by Season*

November December January February March April TOTAL

2019-20 2 / 1 3 10 4 5 / 2 3 30

2018-19 n/a 2 3 6 1 n/a 12

2017-18 n/a 4 / 1 3 5 4 / 1 n/a 18

2016-17 0 6 5 3** SUSP SUSP 14

2015-16 1 / 2 6 / 1 5 2 / 2 3 / 3 2 27

2014-15 2 4 / 3 2 5 3 2 21

* Events in RED indicate the sole use of the east-slope generator (“Enterprise”) ** Snowpack conditions mandated early suspension of operations on February 10, 2017

4

Resources Deployed in the Wind River Range Target Area

• 10 Ground-Based Generators (6 on state lands, 4 on private lands) • 2 Weather Stations • Rawinsonde Unit • WWDO-owned Radiometer – located in Pinedale, WY

During the operational season, at least one WMI meteorologist is on-site in Pinedale, and several WMI technicians (on-site and off-site) maintain and manage the equipment in the field.

Ground-Based Cloud Seeding Generator

The primary components of the WMI remotely controlled ground-based cloud seeding generator are illustrated.

A: shows the contents of the control boxes.

B: provides a view up and into an ignited generator.

C: shows how the seeding solution is atomized through a nozzle and into the burning propane (blue flame) and ignited (orange flame).

Projection of Additional Runoff in the Green River and Colorado River Basin:

Additional Runoff and Expected Cost Per Acre Feet

The Wyoming Weather Modification Pilot Program (WWMPP) was a robust study that analyzed streamflow and runoff impacts from cloud seeding over the Medicine Bow and Sierra Madre Mountains. The results from this study can be projected to the Wind River Mountains, where similar yields are expected (assuming a 10% seeding effect impacting 60% of the target area, producing approximately a 1.8% increase in runoff).

The table below shows a summary of cumulative annual runoff* (in acre-feet) for the Wind River Mountains (Green River Basin side only). Based on the results from the WWMPP, a 1.8% increase can be applied to indicate an additional 16,032 acre-feet of runoff due to cloud seeding within the Green River Basin. The proposed Wind River Mountains cloud seeding contract for the winter of 2021-2022 totals $566,000. Should similar increases be realized, the cost per acre foot of additional runoff generated in the Green River Basin would then be $35.30, or approximately $35/acre-foot.

In the past seven years, research has advanced greatly to show an increase in streamflow, runoff and water supply as a result of winter cloud seeding efforts.

5

Area Number (shown in figure above), Cumulative Green River Additional Stream Gage Location and WY population Annual Runoff Basin Total Runoff center the gage is near (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet)

Wind River Mountains

12. Green River near Daniel 362,449 13. New Fork River above New Fork Lakes 25,724 14. Willow Creek near Cora 4,672 15. Pine Creek above Fremont Lake 126,347 16. Pole Creek near Pinedale 98,952 890,685 16,032 17. Boulder Creek near Boulder 85,437 18. East Fork River near Big Sandy 74,541 19. Silver Creek near Big Sandy 31,955 20. Big Sandy River at Leckie Ranch 65,241 21. Little Sandy Creek Near Elkhorn 15,367

USGS site monthly averages in CFS were obtained for each gaging station and converted into acre feet. The cumulative sums of the monthly averages were then calculated to determine annual runoff. The data was then normalized to eliminate potential high and low biases.

6

2021 RECOMMENDATION-CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Project Name: Lander Well & Transmission Pipeline 2021 Program: New Development

Project Type: Municipal County: Fremont

Sponsor: City of Lander

WWDO Recommendation: Level III Proposed Budget: $884,400

WWDC Grant (67%) $ 884,400 Other Funding Source1 (33%) $ 435,600 Total $ 1,320,000

Authorization for sponsor acquisition of Level II Wells at 33% of well construction cost².

1 WYDWSRF or City of Lander Reserve Funds ² Not WWDC eligible, WYDWSRF or City of Lander Reserve Funds

Project Manager: Kevin J. Boyce, P.G., WWDO Planning Division

Project Description: New Well Field Development

1. Describe existing status in the program and previous appropriations. Prior Legislation Year Project Appropriation 1995 Lander Master Plan $ 100,000 1995/97 Lander Water Supply $ 283,710 2002/05 Lander Paleozoic Test $ 1,005,000 2008/10 Lander Master Plan $ 185,000 2012 Lander Water Supply $ 3,068,000 2016 Lander Pipeline 2016 $ 2,070,970 2017 Lander Test Well Study $ 2,340,000 2019 Lander Tank and Pump Station (Design only) $ 227,800

2. Describe existing water supply using information in the application. The City of Lander diverts its water from the Middle Fork Popo Agie River. From the water treatment plant below the diversion, water flows by gravity to a 4MG storage tank thence to town and three other storage tanks (Ellis tank, Mager tank, and Rodeo tank) that serve separate pressure zones.

3. Summarize the request. The funding request is for a 4-well wellfield construction project to manifold Level II production-size wells drilled, completed, and tested in August-September 2020 into the existing supply infrastructure.

4. Summarize the reasons for the request. The proposed Level III project is based on the results of the Lander Test Well Level II Study conducted during 2018-2020. The Level II Study was tasked to identify and investigate a groundwater resource in the vicinity of the City’s Water Treatment Plant (WTP).

The groundwater resource will provide the following:

• an emergency groundwater supply that allows the temporary shut-down of the 1

WTP in response to facility or diversion failure/repair and to surface water quality upsets (e.g. turbidity during spring runoff, forest fires); • reduce the risk of water supply deficit caused by late-season drought and surface water regulation; • a supplemental water supply during seasonal (e.g. low demand winter use) and future demand (e.g. future growth); and • the operational versatility of a groundwater supply that complements and supports the primary treated surface water supply.

In the Level II Study, four production wells were installed in the alluvial aquifer on the west side of the river on State-owned property northeast of the WTP. A conceptual design and cost estimate were developed for a 4-well wellfield with a production capacity of approximately 1,100 gallons per minute (gpm) (i.e. 1.6 million gallons per day).

Estimated Level III WWDC Eligible Costs:

Preparation of Final Designs and Specifications $ 92,332 Permitting and Mitigation $ 5,000 Title of Opinion $ 5,000 Acquisition of Access and Rights of Way $ 5,000 Pre-Construction Costs (Subtotal # 1) $ 107,332

Cost of Project Components Mobilization & Bonds $ 84,000 Submersible Pumps & Equipment X 4 Wells $ 80,000 Pitless Units X 4 Wells $ 40,000 6” Water Main – 950’ $ 47,500 12” Water Main – 50’ $ 3,500 Highway Bore, 6” HDPE – 150’ $ 18,750 Connection to Existing 24” Transmission Line $ 10,000 Revegetation $ 2,000 Central Well Building & Chlorination $ 453,600 SCADA $ 45,000 Electrical Supply to Central Well Bldg. $ 40,000 Power to Wells $ 20,000 Auxiliary Power Supply $ 35,000 Unlisted Items (5%) $ 43,968

Construction Cost (Subtotal #2) $ 923,318 Construction Engineering Costs (Subtotal # 2 x 10%) $ 92,332 Components and Engineering Costs (Subtotal # 3) $ 1,015,650 Contingency (Subtotal #3 x 15%) $ 152,348 Construction Cost Total (Subtotal #4) $ 1,167,998

Total Project Cost (Subtotal #1 + Subtotal #4) $ 1,275,330 Inflation Costs (3% per one year) $ 38,260

Total Project Costs $ 1,313,590

Total Project Costs Rounded $ 1,320,000

Level III Recommended Funding @ 67% Grant: $ 884,400

Ineligible Expenses: None 2

PROJECT INFORMATION:

A. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

1. Service Area Information a. Population (2000 Census) 7,487 (Current Estimate) 7,503

b. Does the entity have a comprehensive planning boundary? Yes If so, what is the estimated additional population that could be served in the future? ≈500

Pre-Project Post Project

c. Taps served within the entity boundaries? 3,326 3,326

d. Taps outside the entity boundaries? 42 42

e. Names of other water systems served? Fox Park and State School Same

2. Water Usage (Potable water system only) Pre-Project Post Project

a. Total number of gallons produced by the water sources annually: 65.5MG 65.5MG

b. Gallons used per capita per day:

Average Day: 110 gal 110 gal Maximum Day: 200 gal 200 gal

3. System capacity (Potable water system only): Pre-Project Post-Project

a. Maximum capacity of the water supply system Gallons per day: 8MGD 8MGD

b. What is the factor (bottleneck) limiting the ability to provide water (supply, canals, etc.): Storage & Distribution Same

c. Increased capacity needed: Gallons per day 2MGD 0

d. Estimated system water losses (percentage): 12% 12%

4. Does the entity have an independent raw water irrigation system? No

a. Raw water system capacity (acre feet per day & gallons per day): N/A

b. Average annual raw water usage (acre feet & gallons): N/A

5. Rates

a. Tap fees: Pre-Project Post-Project

Residential: $ 665 $ 665 Commercial: $ 2,355 $ 2,355 3

b. Average monthly water bill: $ ≈60 $ ≈60

c. Water Rates

Pre-project monthly rates for all tiers and categories of use: Residential $34.03 for 4,000 gallons and $2.82 per 1,000 gal. used additionally for 5/8” meter Commercial ¾” to 8” meter - $36.34 to $887.41 for base 4,000 gals. And $2.82/1,000 gals. used additionally

Post-project rates for all tiers and categories of use: TBD

6. Financial Statement (2019 $) Pre-Project Post-Project

Annual revenues generated from water sales: $ 2,309,187 $ 2,309,187 Annual revenues from tap fees: $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Annual revenues from other sources: $ 131,056 $ 131,056 Total annual revenues: $ 2,445,243 $ 2,445,243

Annual budget for operation and maintenance expenses: $ 801,093 $ 801,093 Annual payments for debt retirement: $ 285,000 $ 285,000 Annual payments to a repair and replacement fund: $ 331,186 $ 331,186 Annual payments to an emergency fund: $ 0 $ 0 Annual payments for other purposes: $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Total annual payments: $ 1,467,279 $ 1,467,279

Balance in repair and replacement fund: $ 332,508 $ 332,508 Balance in emergency fund: $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Annual cost of water quality testing: $ 2,850 $ 2,850

B. COMPARISON WITH OPERATING CRITERIA

1. Project Priority according to the Criteria? 2 - Level III projects developing unappropriated water.

2. Is the project supported by the City Council or County Commission, which has jurisdiction over the project area? Yes

3. Will the project serve at least 15 water taps? Yes Number of taps 3,368

4. Is the sponsor under any federal (EPA) mandates to improve your system? (eg. Administrative orders, violations, actions taken): No

5. Does anyone in the service area haul water? Yes

6. Is the sponsor eligible for funding from other state or federal programs? Yes If so, what are they: RUS, SLIB, SRF

7. Is water metered? Yes Are billings based on meter readings? Yes

8. What is monthly water bill for 5,000 gallons? $36.85 20,000 gallons? $79.15

9. Theoretical reasonable monthly water bill ($52,877 (Lander City AMHI) x 2.5%/12) = $110.16 4

10. What water conservation measures are employed by the sponsor? Water conservation is being achieved through targeting leaking lines for repair, tiered water rates, and education.

11. Is the operation of the water supply system self-supporting in terms of revenues offsetting costs for operation, maintenance, debt retirement, replacement funds and emergency funds? Yes

12. Will the project consider regional solutions? No

13. Can the project be delayed? Yes Should it be? No. The new wells completed under the Level II Lander Test Well Study project will need to be connected to the city’s water system.

Can the project be staged? The project concept is staged by construction/testing of production-size wells in the 2018-2020 Level II Lander Test Well Study thence to be manifolded into Lander supply system with the 2021 Level III Construction project funds.

14. Basis for the funding recommendation: The Sponsor is an eligible entity to request/receive Acct. I funds.

5

6

7 2021 RECOMMENDATION-CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Project Name: Northwest Rural Water System Program: New Development Improvements 2021

Project Type: Municipal County: Park

Sponsor: Northwest Rural Water District (NRWD)

WWDO Recommendation: Level III Proposed Budget: $1,413,700

WWDC Grant1 (67%) $ 1,413,700 Other Funding Source2 (33%) $ 696,300 Total $ 2,110,000

1 Not to Exceed 67% of project eligible costs 2 Not to exceed 33% of project eligible costs (will seek DWSRF loan)

Project Manager: Tavelli / Lawrence

Project Description: This project will include improvements to the Sage Creek Pump Station / Cooper Land Connection building, 70,000 gallons of additional storage for the Sage Creek Service Area, and approximately 2,000 feet of 12-inch main line. The Sage Creek / Cooper Lane Connection building will be replaced with a larger building in a more ideal location and retrofitted with higher capacity pumps and motors to help meet growing demands, and replacement of valves serving the Cooper Lane Service Area. Two 35,000-gallon storage tanks will add 70,000 gallons of additional storage in the Sage Creek Service Area. Approximately 2,000 feet of 12-inch main line will provide added capacity to get water from the pump station to the storage tanks.

1. Describe existing status in the program and previous appropriations. Prior Legislation Year Project Appropriation 2003 L-III, Northwest Rural Water Storage $ 1,120,000 2006 L-III, Northwest Rural Water Storage II $ 2,960,000 2012 L-III, Northwest Rural Northern Expansion $ 281,400 2013 L-III, Northwest Rural Northern Expansion $ 3,690,025 2014 L-I, North Fork Shoshone Water Supply $ 150,000 2016 L-I, Northwest Rural Water Master Plan $ 230,000 2018 L-III, Northwest Rural Water System Improvements 2018 $ 1,076,690 2019 L-III, Northwest Rural Water System Improvements 2019 $ 1,055,250 2020 L-III, Northwest Rural Water System Improvements 2020 $ 676,700

2. Describe existing water supply using information in the application. Water is contracted between SMP and BOR out of Buffalo Bill Reservoir. NRWD purchases treated water from SMP

3. Summarize the request. Replace, enlarge, and relocate the Sage Creek Pump Station / Cooper Land Connection Building, and retrofit with higher capacity pumps; construct two 35,000-gallon storage tanks; install 2,000 feet of twelve-inch main transmission line from the pump station to the tanks.

4. Summarize the reasons for the request. The 2017 NWRD Master Plan identified three areas of concern with regard to NRWD’s capacity to meet

1 growing needs; pumping capacity, transmission line capacity, and storage capacity. The three components of this project will help improve the system and address the concerns identified in the Master Plan.

Estimated Level III WWDC Eligible Costs:

Preparation of Final Designs and Specifications $ 139,900 Permitting and Mitigation $ 5,000 Title of Opinion $ 0 Acquisition of Access and Rights of Way $ 125,000 Pre-Construction Costs (Subtotal # 1) $ 269,900

Cost of Project Components Mobilization, Bond, and Insurance $ 100,000 Electrical Service Connection $ 50,000 2 – 35,000 Gallon Storage Tanks with Fittings and Piping $ 280,000 Site Grading $ 20,000 Tank Fencing $ 5,000 Electrical Service Connection $ 40,000 Pump Station Building with Meters, Valves, Fittings, Piping, Controls, SCADA, Electrical, Booster Pump Skid $ 650,000 2,000 Linear Feet of 12-inch Pipe $ 154,000 Decommission Existing Pump Station/Piping for Cooper Lane $ 50,000 Road Bores for Pump Station $ 50,000

Construction Cost (Subtotal #2) $ 1,399,000 Construction Engineering Costs (Subtotal # 2 x 10%) $ 139,900 Components and Engineering Costs (Subtotal # 3) $ 1,538,900 Contingency (Subtotal #3 x 15%) $ 230,835 Construction Cost Total (Subtotal #4) $ 1,769,735

Total Project Cost (Subtotal #1 + Subtotal #4) $ 2,039,635 Inflation Costs (3% per one year) $ 61,189

Total Project Costs: $ 2,100,824

Total Project Costs Rounded: $ 2,110,000

Level III Recommended Funding @ 67% Grant: $ 1,413,700

Ineligible Expenses: None

PROJECT INFORMATION:

A. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

1. Service Area Information a. Population (2000 Census) 7,000 (Current Estimate) 7,500

b. Does the entity have a comprehensive planning boundary? Yes If so, what is the estimated additional population that could be served in the future? 15,000

2 Pre-Project Post Project

c. Taps served within the entity boundaries? 3,150 3,250

d. Taps outside the entity boundaries? 1 1

e. Names of other water systems served? The district (outside tap) was recently annexed by the City of Cody and the NRWD has an agreement with the City of Cody to serve the lot.

2. Water Usage (Potable water system only) Pre-Project Post Project

a. Total number of gallons produced by the water sources annually: 1.2BG 1.2BG

b. Gallons used per capita per day:

Average Day: 133 gal 133 gal Peak Day: 350 gal 350 gal

3. System capacity (Potable water system only): Pre-Project Post-Project

a. Maximum capacity of the water supply system Acre feet per day: 2.4 3.78 Gallons per day: 1.16MGD 1.23MGD

b. What is the factor (bottleneck) limiting the ability to provide water (supply, canals, etc.): Pumping, transmission, and Storage Capacity None

c. Increased capacity needed: Acre feet per day 0.43 0.21 Gallons per day 140,000 70,000

d. Estimated system water losses (percentage): 8% 8%

4. Does the entity have an independent raw water irrigation system? No

a. Raw water system capacity (acre feet per day & gallons per day): N/A

b. Average annual raw water usage (acre feet & gallons): N/A

5. Rates Pre-Project Post-Project

a. Tap fees: Residential: $ 4,200 $ 4,400 Commercial: $ 4,900 $ 5,500

b. Average monthly water bill: $ 65 $ 66

c. Water Rates Tiered water rates

6. Financial Statement Pre-Project Post-Project

Annual revenues generated from water sales: $ 440,000 $ 440,000 3 Annual revenues from tap fees: $ 100,000 $ 150,000 Annual revenues from other sources: $ 2,021,000 $ 2,251,000 Total annual revenues: $ 2,561,000 $ 2,841,000

Annual budget for operation and maintenance expenses: $ 2,062,000 $ 2,062,000 Annual payments for debt retirement: $ 393,000 $ 527,000 Annual payments to a repair and replacement fund: $ 56,000 $ 201,000 Annual payments to an emergency fund: $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Annual payments for other purposes: $ 0 $ 0 Total annual payments: $ 2,561,000 $ 2,840,000

Balance in repair and replacement fund: $ 1,686,000 $ 1,936,000 Balance in emergency fund: $ 307,664 $ 357,664 Annual cost of water quality testing: $ 4,000 $ 4,000

B. COMPARISON WITH OPERATING CRITERIA

1. Project Priority according to the Criteria? 3 – Level III transmission pipelines

2. Is the project supported by the City Council or County Commission, which has jurisdiction over the project area? No other entities are being impacted; therefore, there have been no formal discussions regarding support at this time. If support is necessary NRWD will approach the County.

3. Will the project serve at least 15 water taps? Yes Number of taps 3,150

4. Is the sponsor under any federal (EPA) mandates to improve your system? (eg. Administrative orders, violations, actions taken): No

5. Does anyone in the service area haul water? Yes

6. Is the sponsor eligible for funding from other state or federal programs? Yes If so, what are they: RUS, SLIB, SRF

7. Is water metered? Yes Are billings based on meter readings? Yes

8. What is monthly water bill for 5,000 gallons? $64.25 20,000 gallons? $113.00

9. Theoretical reasonable monthly water bill ($59,583 (AMHI) x 2.5%/12) $124.13

10. What water conservation measures are employed by the sponsor? Tiered water rates.

11. Is the operation of the water supply system self-supporting in terms of revenues offsetting costs for operation, maintenance, debt retirement, replacement funds and emergency funds? Yes

12. Will the project consider regional solutions? Yes; this is a regional system

13. Can the project be delayed or staged? Yes Should it be? No

14. Basis for the funding recommendation: The 2017 Master Plan identified three major issues that are addressed by this Level III project.

4 5

6 7

2021 RECOMMENDATION-CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Project Name: Torrington Well Connection 2021 Program: New Development

Project Type: Municipal County: Goshen

Sponsor: City of Torrington

WWDO Recommendation: Level III Proposed Budget: $389,270

WWDC Grant (67%) $ 389,270 Other Funding Source1 (33%) $ 191,730 Total $ 581,000

1 WYDWSRF

Project Manager: Kevin Boyce, P.G., Planning

Project Description: Connect a new well, completed under a Ground Water Grant, to the City of Torrington’s water system.

1. Describe existing status in the program and previous appropriations. Prior Legislation Year Project Appropriation 1995 Level I $ 100,000 1996 Level I, Phase II $ 150,000 1998/2002 Level III* $ 3,392,783 2002 Level III** $ 96,000 2012 Ground Water Grant, Ball Diamond Well $ 41,250 2019 Level I, Master Plan $ 174,000 2020 Ground Water Grant, Well #16 $ 120,000

* Torrington Well Field ** Torrington Raw Water

2. Describe existing water supply using information in the application. The City of Torrington operates a municipal system with about 3,000 taps. Source supply is 5 wells completed in the valley fill (Quaternary-age alluvium) of the North Platte River and the wells have a total average yield of 4,800 gpm. The supplied groundwater is treated at the Central Water Plant by reverse osmosis/blending/chlorination and stored in above-ground tanks with a total capacity of 3.03 million gallons.

3. Summarize the request. “Torrington received a Ground Water [Exploration] Grant to install an emergency supply well which is in the process of being constructed. The Level III application is for the Well house, necessary piping, pumps and SCADA components to bring the new well on-line.

4. Summarize the reasons for the request. New Well #16 Drilled with WWDC Ground Water Exploration Grant and recommendations of 2020 Level I Study.

1

Estimated Level III WWDC Eligible Costs:

Preparation of Final Designs and Specifications $ 40,910 Permitting and Mitigation $ 5,000 Title of Opinion $ 0 Acquisition of Access and Rights of Way $ 0 Pre-Construction Costs (Subtotal # 1) $ 45,910

Cost of Project Components Well #16 Bonds & Insurance $ 8,000 Mobilization/Demobilization $ 20,000 Potholing Utilities $ 1,500 8” Bends $ 2,750 8” Gate Valve $ 3,500 24” Main 8” Wet Tap $ 3,500 Install 300’ 8” C-900 PVC Main $ 75,000 Site Grading $ 3,000 Site Restore $ 5,000 New 100 hp Submersible Pump $ 80,234 Furnish/Install Solution Chlorination System $ 9,970 Well Disinfection & W/Q Sampling $ 3,500 Well Building $ 100,600 Furnish/Install Building Piping $ 38,890 Furnish/Install Building Electrical $ 33,628 SCADA $ 20,000

Construction Cost (Subtotal #2) $ 409,072 Construction Engineering Costs (Subtotal # 2 x 10%) $ 40,910 Components and Engineering Costs (Subtotal # 3) $ 449,982 Contingency (Subtotal #3 x 15%) $ 67,498 Construction Cost Total (Subtotal #4) $ 517,480

Total Project Cost (Subtotal #1 + Subtotal #4) $ 563,390 Inflation Costs (3% per one year) $ 16,900

Total Project Costs: $ 580,290

Total Project Costs Rounded: $ 581,000

Level III Recommended Funding @ 67% Grant: $ 389,270

Ineligible Expenses:

Preparation of Final Designs and Specifications $ 37,850 Permitting and Mitigation $ 0 Title of Opinion $ 0 Acquisition of Access and Rights of Way $ 0 Pre-Construction Costs (Subtotal # 1) $ 37,850

Electrical Upgrade Golf Course Meter Station (GCMS) $ 188,545 Boost Pump Station 1 (BPS-1) $ 57,476 2

Boost Pump Station 2 (BPS-2) $ 93,012 Boost Pump Station 3 (BPS-3) $ 39,500

Construction Cost (Subtotal #2) $ 378,533 Construction Engineering Costs (Subtotal # 2 x 10%) $ 37,850 Components and Engineering Costs (Subtotal # 3) $ 416,383 Contingency (Subtotal #3 x 15%) $ 62,458 Construction Cost Total (Subtotal #4) $ 478,841

Total Project Cost (Subtotal #1 + Subtotal #4) $ 516,691 Inflation Costs (3% per one year) $ 15,500

Total Ineligible Project Costs: $ 532,191

Total Ineligible Project Costs Rounded: $ 540,000

PROJECT INFORMATION:

A. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

1. Service Area Information a. Population (2000 Census) 5,776 (Current Estimate) 6,701

b. Does the entity have a comprehensive planning boundary? Yes If so, what is the estimated additional population that could be served in the future? 7,316 by 2040

Pre-Project Post Project

c. Taps served within the entity boundaries? 2,792 2,792

d. Taps outside the entity boundaries? 172 172

e. Names of other water systems served? South Torrington Water & Sewer District

2. Water Usage (Potable water system only) Pre-Project Post Project

a. Total number of gallons produced by the water sources annually: 1.57MG 1.57MG

b. Gallons used per capita per day:

Average Day: 248 gal 248 gal Peak Day: 517 gal 517 gal

3. System capacity (Potable water system only): Pre-Project Post-Project

a. Maximum capacity of the water supply system Gallons per day: 4.71MGD 4071MGD

3

b. What is the factor (bottleneck) limiting the ability to provide water (supply, transmission, treatment, distribution, etc.)

Lack of standby power to operate all Same wells, pumps and RO system

c. Increased capacity needed: Gallons per day 1,350 gpd 0

d. Estimated system water losses (percentage): 8% 8%

4. Does the entity have an independent raw water irrigation system? No

a. Raw water system capacity (acre feet per day & gallons per day): N/A

b. Average annual raw water usage (acre feet & gallons): N/A

5. Rates Pre-Project Post-Project

a. Tap fees: Residential: $ 581.54 Same Commercial: $ 581.54 Same up to $ 13,040.94

b. Average monthly water bill: $ ≈40.00 $ ≈40.00

c. Water Rates Residential (2017) Monthly Billing System Availability Charge $12.00 Customer Service Charge $6.25 First 8,000 Gallons $13.00 minimum Next 42,000 Gallons $2.00 per 1,000 gallons Over 50,000 Gallons $2.60 per 1,000 gallons Residential, Out-of-City (2017) Monthly Billing System Availability Charge $15.00 Customer Service Charge $7.81 First 8,000 Gallons $16.25 minimum Next 42,000 Gallons $2.50 per 1,000 gallons Over 50,000 Gallons $3.25 per 1,000 gallons

6. Financial Statement Pre-Project Post-Project

Annual revenues generated from water sales: $ 1,754,744 $ - Annual revenues from tap fees: $ 15,000 $ - Annual revenues from other sources: $ 682,817 $ - Total annual revenues: $ 2,452,561 $ -

Annual budget for operation and maintenance expenses: $ 1,838,958 $ -

Annual payments for debt retirement: $ 300,521 $ - Annual payments to a repair and replacement fund: $ 755,673 $ - Annual payments to an emergency fund: $ 0 $ - 4

Annual payments for other purposes: $ 1,446,701 $ - Total annual payments: $ 2,502,895 $ -

Balance in repair and replacement fund: $ 417,873 $ - Balance in emergency fund: $ 457,239 $ - Annual cost of water quality testing: $ 10,000 $ -

B. COMPARISON WITH OPERATING CRITERIA

1. Project Priority according to the Criteria? 2 - Level III developing unappropriated water.

2. Is the project supported by the City Council or County Commission, which has jurisdiction over the project area? Yes

3. Will the project serve at least 15 water taps? Yes Number of taps 2,964

4. Is the sponsor under any federal (EPA) mandates to improve your system? (eg. Administrative orders, violations, actions taken): No

5. Does anyone in the service area haul water? No

6. Is the sponsor eligible for funding from other state or federal programs? Yes If so, what are they: RUS, SLIB, SRF

7. Is water metered? Yes Are billings based on meter readings? Yes

8. What is monthly water bill for 8,000 gallons? $35.31 20,000 gallons? $59.31

9. Theoretical reasonable monthly water bill ($44,493 (AMHI) x 2.5%/12) $92.69

10. What water conservation measures are employed by the sponsor? Water rate base amount adjustments, water use restrictions

11. Is the operation of the water supply system self-supporting in terms of revenues offsetting costs for operation, maintenance, debt retirement, replacement funds and emergency funds? Yes

12. Will the project consider regional solutions? No

13. Can the project be delayed or staged? Yes Should it be? No. The new well completed under the Groundwater Grant program will need connection to the city’s water system.

14. Basis for the funding recommendation: Sponsor is an eligible applicant.

5

6

7 2021 RECOMMENDATION-CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Project Name: Arapahoe Water Supply 2016 Program: New Development

Project Type: Rural Domestic County: Fremont – Wind River Indian Reservation Sponsor: Northern Arapaho Tribe

Sponsor’s Request: Three Year Time Extension Proposed Budget Increase: $0

WWDO Recommendation: Extend the reversion date from July 1, 2021 to July 1, 2024. Previously Approved Budget from 2016 Appropriation: $ 3,355,000

WWDC Grant (67%) $ 2,247,850 Sponsor (33%) $ 1,107,150 Total $ 3,355.000

Project Manager: Verplancke

Project Description: Installation of transmission mains along Left Hand Ditch Road, 17 Mile Road.

As of late 2019 the Sponsor obtained from the Department of Indian Health Services (HIS), all required match funding to complete the design, bidding and construction of all work with the project. The work includes three separate sections of transmission mains in the Arapahoe Area. Over the last 5 years the project has expended a total of $150,544.51 of the total $2,247,850.00.

Because of holdups in easement acquisitions the project schedule has been delayed. Easements for Phase I of the transmission mains are anticipated to be in place by mid-September 2020 and this phase will be bid for winter 2020/spring 2021 construction. Easement work is continuing on the other phases of the project. It is anticipated to have the construction completed by summer/fall 2023.

The Sponsor provide the following update for the project.

o Easements for Phase I of project to be complete September 2020 o Design for Phase I of project is at roughly 75%. o First Phase of Project will be bid for Winter 2020/Spring 2021 o Easement work for Phase II project has been initiated, but waiting for Phase I easements to be cleared. o Design of Phase II is at roughly 50% o No easement work has been completed for Phase III and design is at about 10%. o Tentative construction for all phases completed by Summer/Fall 2023

1 2021 RECOMMENDATION-CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Project Name: Ethete Water Supply Program: New Development

Project Type: Rural Domestic County: Fremont

Sponsor: Northern Arapaho Tribe

Sponsor’s Request: Two Year Time Extension Proposed Budget Increase: $0

WWDO Recommendation: Extend the reversion date from July 1, 2021 to July 1, 2023

Previously Approved Budget from 2010 Appropriation: $ 2,000,000

WWDC Grant (50%) $ 2,000,000 Sponsor (50%) $ 2,000,000 Total $ 4,000.000

Project Manager: Wade Verplancke

Project Description: Northern Arapaho Utilities [NAU] supplies the present Ethete public water supply system with surface water diverted from the Little Wind River, filtered at a 2 MG water treatment facility, delivered to 3 welded steel storage tanks (1.85 MG total capacity), then distributed to rural users over an area of approximately 25 square miles. The Sponsor requested and received funds for an alluvial well field, transmission lines, two clear-well high service pumps, and renovations at three storage tanks in 2010. Over the last ten years the project has expended a total of $472,289,30 of the total $2,000,000.00. The project received the original appropriation in 2010 with time extensions approved by the Wyoming Water Development Commission and the Wyoming Legislature in 2015 and 2018.

Several phases of the project have been completed but because of difficulties of obtaining easements on the well field property the project has continued to be delayed. As of now the easements are approved and in place. The plans and specification have been approved to move forward with the construction of the test wells and bidding is intended late this fall for a winter/spring construction schedule. Final well field design and connecting transmission line design will be completed after the test wells. The anticipate date of construction of the well field and transmission lines is planned to start in late 2021 and is anticipated to be complete by end of summer 2022.

The Sponsor provided the following update for the project.

• Bid for Test Wells in October / November 2020 • Deadline for drilling test wells – (February 2021-April 2021) • Well field design April – August 2021 • Well field bid September / October 2021 • Well field construction November 2021 – April 2022 • Right of Way Application for Transmission Main to Ethete Treatment Plant in process • Anticipate Transmission Main to Ethete Treatment Plant design and construction overlap with well field

1 2021 RECOMMENDATION-CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS Small Water Project Program

Project Name: Small Water Project Program Program: New Development

Project Type: Multipurpose County: Statewide

Sponsor: WWDC

WWDO Recommendation: Level III (continuing) Proposed Budget Increase: $1,000,000

New Development (WDA I) Presently available (as of 10/21/20) $ 397,195 Proposed budget increase $1,000,000 Revised available $1,397,195

Project Description: Funding program for small water projects including small reservoirs, wells, pipelines and conveyance facilities, springs, solar platforms, irrigation works, windmills, environmental projects, rural community fire suppression, recreational, and wetland developments.

1. Description of the existing status in the program and previous appropriations. EXISTING LEGISLATION-New Development Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due Date Small Projects 88 2002 I $500,000 2014 Small Projects 118 2004 I $750,000 2014 Small Projects 114 2005 I $500,000 2014 Small Projects 32 2010 I $200,000 2014 Small Projects 14 2012 I $300,000 2014 Small Projects 14 2014 I $600,000 2025 Small Projects 100 2015 I $500,000 2025 Small Projects 100 2016 I $750,000 2025 Small Projects 121 2018 I $750,000 2025 Small Projects 55 2019 I $2,000,000 2025 Small Projects 113 2020 I $1,063,000 2025

2. Summary of the request.

The WWDO is recommending that the authorization of the program be ongoing and an additional $1,000,000 be appropriated to meet project application demands.

3. Program Statistics:

Current Active Account I Projects: 119

Application History: Year # of Account I Total # of Project Sponsors Estimated WWDC Applications (between both accounts) Account I Project Cost 2012 9 5 $225,000 2013 9 6 $225,000 2014 35 7 $816,080 2015 33 8 $806,830 2016 14 6 $313,525 2017 25 9 $612,760 2018 50 10 $1,295,654 2019 61 14 $1,693,617 2020 77 17 $2,034,290

1

2021 WATER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS

Project Name: Big Horn Regional Transmission Program: New Development

Project Type: Joint Powers Water Board Water System County: Washakie

Sponsor: Big Horn Regional Joint Powers Board (BHRJPB)

WWDO Recommendation: Level II Proposed Budget: $146,000

Basis for the Funding Recommendation: BHRJPB was founded in 2000 to provide regional wholesale public water supply within the Big Horn River corridor from the Town of Greybull south to Lucerne in Hot Springs County. The WWDC has made a considerable investment in the construction of transmission lines, storage, and development of source supply wells that serve the system. The 2020 WWDC Level III funding appropriation provides for a transmission pipeline extension to the Town of Burlington. This Level II study will assist the BHRJPB in providing more efficient transmission in Washakie County and potential regional expansion in Hot Springs County.

Project Manager: Kevin J. Boyce, P.G.

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Feasibility Study for Big Horn Regional Transmission Improvements and Expansion

1. Existing and Prior Legislation:

Project Level Chapter Session Account Appropriation Reversion Year Hot Springs Rural-Worland W/S II 36/86/7 2000/01 I $ 1,505,000 2005 /02 Big Horn Regional JPB Pipeline III 8/118/121 2002/04 I $ 23.8 M 2017 /1 /07/12 Big Horn Regional Groundwater II 75/66 2005/09 I $ 2,350,000 2012 Big Horn Regional Southern II 65 2017 I $ 180,000 2020 Supply Big Horn Regional III 113 2020 I $ 4,361,700 2025 Transmission 2020

2. Describe the location of the project: The BHRJPB administers and operates a regional municipal and rural public water supplier along the eastern margin of the Big Horn Basin with customers in Big Horn, Washakie, and Hot Springs Counties.

3. Summarize the request: The BHRJPB is concerned with existing transmission deficiencies East and South of Worland and potential future transmission restrictions in Hot Springs County, from Kirby through the Lucerne Water & Sewer District.

4. Summarize the reasons for the request: A Level II feasibility study would be intended to improve service to the City of Worland, Washakie Rural Improvement & Service District, Town of Kirby, Lucerne Water & Sewer District, and providing alternative service to additional Hot Spring County users (e.g. Owl Creek Water District, etc.).

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 1 OF 6

II. WWDC ELIGIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS

1. Is the Sponsor a public entity? Yes 2. Project Priority According to WWDO Criteria: Acct I - Priority 6: LII Feasibility Studies

3. Will the project serve at least 15 water taps? Yes A. Number of Taps: 6,875 4. Is the sponsor eligible for funding from other state or federal programs? Yes A. If so, what are they (RUS, SRF, other)? All of the above 5. Is the Sponsor under any federal (EPA) mandates to improve its system? (e.g., Administrative Orders, violations, actions taken, etc.)? No 6. Is the Sponsor currently served by a regionalized water supply system? The Sponsor is a regional purveyor. 7. What is monthly water bill for 5,000 gallons? N/A, the BHRJPB does not set rates for member entities. A. 20,000 Gallons? N/A, See above. 8. Theoretical Monthly Water Bill: Varies between member entities. 9. Can the project be delayed or staged? There would be no cost savings to delay or stage the project. A. Should it be? Commission prerogative.

III. PERTINENT INFORMATION

1. Existing Water Supply System A. EPA Public Water System (PWS) Identification Number: WY5601605 B. Groundwater (1) Number of Wells: 8 (2) Primary Supply Aquifer(s) or Formation(s): Madison Group Aquifer (3) Total Average Production Yield of All Wells (GPM): 3,000 GPM C. Surface Water (1) Source Name(s): N/A (2) Type of Diversion(s) (Headgate, Infiltration Gallery, Pumps, Etc.): N/A (3) Total Average Diversion Yield (CFS of GPM): N/A D. Springs (1) Name of Spring(s): N/A (2) Total Average Production Yield of All Springs (CFS or GPM): N/A E. Water Rights (1) For the water source supply (or supplies) described above, does the Sponsor possess valid and/or adjudicated water rights? Yes F. Transmission Pipeline (1) Maximum Capacity of the Transmission Pipeline(s) (Gallons per Day): 5.7 MGD (2) Increased Capacity Needed (If Known) (Gallons per Day): Unknown (3) Approximate Distance from Source(s) to Distribution System: 100 miles (4) Transmission Pipe Diameter(s): 8” thru 20” (5) Type of Transmission Pipe Material(s): PVC, HDPE, FWP, Steel (6) Age of Transmission Pipeline(s): 5 to 15 Years

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 2 OF 6

(7) Condition of Transmission Pipeline(s): Excellent (8) Does the applicant possess clear title to transmission corridor easements? Yes G. Water Storage (1) Raw (Volume and Tank Description): N/A (2) Treated (Volume and Tank Description): 1.32 MG Total, buried concrete H. Treatment (1) Specify Water Treatment (None, Chlorination, Filtration, Etc.): Chlorination only

2. Existing Water Distribution System - BHRJPB PROVIDES WHOLESALE WATER TRANSMISSION ONLY A. Is the water use metered? Yes B. Are billings based on meter readings? Yes + assessments C. Identify unmetered usage (e.g., irrigation of parks, cemeteries, fire protection, etc.): None D. Average Day Demand Water Usage (Gallons per Capita per Day): N/A E. Maximum Day Demand Water Usage (Gallons per Capita per Day): N/A F. Peak Hourly Demand Water Usage (Gallons per Capita per Day): N/A G. Distribution Pipe Diameter(s): N/A H. Type of Distribution Pipe Material(s): N/A I. Age of Distribution Pipeline(s): N/A J. Condition of Distribution Pipeline(s): N/A K. Estimated System Water Losses (Percentage): 2% L. Describe any fire flow protection that the system provides: Not a provider of fire flow M. What water conservation measures are employed? Monitoring for losses N. Is there an independent raw water irrigation system? N/A (1) Raw Water System Capacity (Gallons per Day): N/A (2) Average Annual Raw Water Usage (Gallons per Year): N/A

3. Demographic Information and Existing Water Service Area A. Population (2010 Census): 14,500 B. Current Population Estimate: 14,500 C. Does the applicant have a comprehensive planning boundary? Yes (1) If so, what is the estimated additional population that may be served in the future? 6,000 D. How many taps are served within the JPB service area? 6,875 E. How many taps are served outside of the corporate limits/JPB service area? None F. Identify names of water systems served: Town of Greybull, Town of Basin, Town of Manderson, South Big Horn Rural JPB, Washakie Rural ISD, City of Worland, WY Boys School, Town of Kirby, Lucerne W&S District G. Identify any existing planning reports (municipal or county) that address growth management in the project area. Various county planning documents – Big Horn County, Washakie County, Hot Springs County.

4. Financial Information A. Rates (1) Tap Fee(s) – Residential: N/A (2) Tap Fee(s) – Commercial: N/A (3) Average Residential Monthly Water Bill and Corresponding Gallons Used: N/A

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 3 OF 6

(4) Water Rates (Provide rates for all tiers and categories of use. Attach additional pages as needed.): BHR assesses $10.24 per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) per month BHR wholesale water rate is $0.45 per 1,000 gallons

(5) Identify any local conditions that affect water rates (e.g., flow-through for frost prevention, etc.): None B. Financial Statement (of Water Utility) (1) Revenues a. Annual Revenues Generated from Water Sales: $ 22,166 b. Annual Revenues from Tap Fees: $ 0.00 c. Annual Revenues from Other Sources: $ 822,592 d. Total Annual Revenues: $ 844,758 (2) Expenditures a. Annual Budget for Operation and Maintenance Expenses: $ 358,208 b. Annual Payments for Debt Retirement: $ 338,070 c. Annual Payments to a Repair and Replacement Fund: $ 100,000 d. Annual Payments to an Emergency Fund: $ 40,000 e. Annual Payments for Other Purposes: $ 0.00 f. Total Annual Payments: $ 836,278 (3) Other a. Balance in Repair and Replacement Fund: $ 405,655 b. Balance in Emergency Fund: $ 105,000 c. Annual Cost of Water Quality Testing: $ 5,500 (4) Is the operation of the water system self-supporting in terms of revenues offsetting costs for operation, maintenance, debt retirement, replacement funds, emergency funds, etc.? Yes

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 4 OF 6

PROJECT AREA MAP

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 5 OF 6

RESOLUTION

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 6 OF 6

2021 WATER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION RURAL DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEMS

Project Name: Byron Rural Water Supply Program: New Development

Project Type: Other (Rural Water Supply) County: Big Horn

Sponsor: Northwest Rural Water District (NRWD)

WWDO Recommendation: Level II Proposed Budget: $127,000

Basis for the Funding Recommendation:

This study will determine the feasibility of adding rural water users to an existing regional system serving residents from the South Fork Shoshone area to Cody, Lovell and Frannie. The potential users either haul water or have wells as their source of potable water. The Town of Byron and the Shoshone Municipal Joint Powers Board provided letters of support for the study.

Project Manager: Chace Tavelli

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Recently the rural residents near the Town of Byron approached the Town of Byron, the Shoshone Municipal Joint Powers Board, and the Northwest Rural Water District requesting assistance in obtaining a reliable source of potable water. During following meetings and discussions, it was determined that the Northwest Rural Water District has the capability to serve water and would be the appropriate entity to sponsor a project to evaluate and develop alternatives and cost estimates for serving the rural residents with a potable water supply.

1. Existing and Prior Legislation:

Project Level Chapter Session Account Appropriation Reversion Year Northwest Rural Water Storage III 69 2003 I $ 1,120,000 2008 Northwest Rural Water Storage II III 105 2006 I $ 2,960,000 2010 Northwest Rural Northern III 14 2012 I $ 281,400 2017 Expansion Northwest Rural Northern III 141 2013 I $ 3,690,025 2018 Expansion North Fork Shoshone Water I 74 2014 I $ 150,000 2017 Supply Northwest Rural Water Master I 38 2016 I $ 230,000 2019 Plan Northwest Rural Water System III 121 2018 I $ 1,076,690 2023 Improvements 2018 Northwest Rural Water System III 55 2019 I $ 1,055,250 2024 Improvements 2019 Northwest Rural Water System III 113 2020 I $ 676,700 2025 Improvements 2020

2021 RECOMMENDATION RURAL DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 1 OF 10

2. Describe the location of the project:

The proposed project boundary is directly west, north, and east of the Town of Byron in Big Horn County.

3. Summarize the request:

Level II Feasibility study to assess viability of supplying water to rural residents surrounding the Town of Byron.

4. Summarize the reasons for the request:

The rural residents near the Town of Byron haul water or have wells and are interested in a new potable water supply.

II. WWDC ELIGIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS

1. Does an entity of local government exist? Yes A. If an entity of local government exists, provide the following: (1) Type of Entity (Water District, Water & Sewer District, Improvement & Service District, etc.): Water District (2) Date of Formation: 1/16/1990 B. If no entity exists, provide the following: (1) Is the recommendation for a Level I study or Level I or II study for a dam and reservoir project? No (2) Has district formation started? N/A (3) Has a petition been submitted to the City Council or County Commission? N/A (4) Has the district formation hearing been held? N/A (5) Has the district formation election been held or scheduled? N/A 2. Is the area made up a subdivision, subdivisions, or un-platted development? Deeded land 3. Provide the date or dates that the subdivision or subdivisions were approved by the City or County: N/A 4. Is the project supported by the City Council or County Commission which has jurisdiction over the project area? Yes, The Town of Byron and the Shoshone Municipal JPB have submitted letters of support for the study A. Provide any comments from City Council or County Commission: Both aforementioned entities support the study and the NRWD sponsoring the study. 5. Project Priority According to WWDO Criteria: Acct I - Priority 6: LII Feasibility Studies

6. Will the project serve at least 15 water taps? Yes A. Number of Taps: 23 anticipated 7. Is the Sponsor eligible for funding from other state or federal programs? Yes A. If so, what are they (RUS, SRF, other)? RUS 8. Is the Sponsor under any federal (EPA) mandates to improve its system? (e.g., Administrative Orders, violations, actions taken, etc.)? No 9. Is the Sponsor currently served by a regionalized water supply system (specify)? Or will the Sponsor consider regional solutions to the purpose and needs of its water supply system?

2021 RECOMMENDATION RURAL DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 2 OF 10

Yes, Northwest Rural Water Supply is part of a regional system that receives water from the Shoshone Municipal Pipeline that serves several entities from Cody to Lovell. 10. What is monthly water bill for 5,000 gallons? $64.25 A. 20,000 Gallons? $113.00 11. Theoretical Monthly Water Bill (Median Household Income X 2.5%/12): $59,583 X 2.5% / 12 = $124.13 12. Can the project be delayed or staged? No A. Should it be? No

III. PERTINENT INFORMATION

1. Existing Water Supply System A. EPA Public Water System (PWS) Identification Number: WY5601254 B. Groundwater (1) Number of Wells: N/A (2) Primary Supply Aquifer(s) or Formation(s): N/A (3) Total Average Production Yield of All Wells (GPM): N/A C. Surface Water (1) Source Name(s): Buffalo Bill Reservoir (2) Type of Diversion(s) (Headgate, Infiltration Gallery, Pumps, Etc.): Infiltration Gallery (3) Total Average Diversion Yield (CFS of GPM): 2,284 GPM D. Springs (1) Name of Spring(s): N/A (2) Total Average Production Yield of All Springs (CFS or GPM): N/A E. Water Rights (1) For the water source supply (or supplies) described above, does the Sponsor possess valid and/or adjudicated water rights? Yes F. Transmission Pipeline (Shoshone Municipal Pipeline (SMP) is the main transmission for NRWD) (1) Maximum Capacity of the Transmission Pipeline(s) (Gallons per Day): 26 mgd (2) Increased Capacity Needed (If Known) (Gallons per Day): None (3) Approximate Distance from Source(s) to Distribution System: 300 feet (4) Transmission Pipe Diameter(s): 24 inches (5) Type of Transmission Pipe Material(s): Mortar lined steel pipe (6) Age of Transmission Pipeline(s): 30 years (7) Condition of Transmission Pipeline(s): Excellent (8) Does the applicant possess clear title to transmission corridor easements? Yes (SMP) G. Water Storage (1) Raw (Volume and Tank Description): No (2) Treated (Volume and Tank Description): 1,120,000-gallon buried fiberglass H. Treatment (1) Specify Water Treatment (None, Chlorination, Filtration, Etc.): Chloramines

2021 RECOMMENDATION RURAL DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 3 OF 10

2. Existing Water Distribution System A. Is the water use metered? Yes B. Are billings based on meter readings? Yes C. Identify unmetered usage (e.g., irrigation of parks, cemeteries, fire protection, etc.): None D. Average Day Demand Water Usage (Gallons per Capita per Day): 119 E. Maximum Day Demand Water Usage (Gallons per Capita per Day): 183 F. Peak Hourly Demand Water Usage (Gallons per Capita per Day): 512 G. Distribution Pipe Diameter(s): 4 to 12 inches H. Type of Distribution Pipe Material(s): HDPE AND PVC I. Age of Distribution Pipeline(s): 5 to 25 years J. Condition of Distribution Pipeline(s): Excellent K. Estimated System Water Losses (Percentage): 7% L. Describe any fire flow protection that the system provides: None M. What water conservation measures are employed? Tiered Water Rates N. Does anyone in the service area haul water? Yes O. Is there an independent raw water irrigation system? No (1) Raw Water System Capacity (Gallons per Day): N/A (2) Average Annual Raw Water Usage (Gallons per Year): N/A

3. Demographic Information and Existing Water Service Area A. Population Being Served: 7,000 B. Does the applicant have a comprehensive planning boundary? Yes (1) If so, what is the estimated additional population that may be served in the future? 3,000 C. How many taps are served within the district boundary? 3,100 D. How many taps are served outside the district boundary? None E. Identify names of other water system served: None F. Identify any existing planning reports (municipal or county) that address growth management in the project area. Provide titles and how copies of the reports could be obtained: None

4. Financial Information A. Rates (1) Tap Fee(s) – Residential: $4,200 (3/4-inch tap) (2) Tap Fee(s) – Commercial: $4,850 (1-inch tap) (3) Average Residential Monthly Water Bill and Corresponding Gallons Used: $62.00 per 4,000 gallons (includes $53.00 base rate) (4) Water Rates (Provide rates for all tiers and categories of use. Attach additional pages as needed.):

2021 RECOMMENDATION RURAL DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 4 OF 10

(5) Identify any local conditions that affect water rates (e.g., flow-through for frost prevention, etc.): None

2021 RECOMMENDATION RURAL DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 5 OF 10

B. Financial Statement (of Water Utility) (1) Revenues a. Annual Revenues Generated from Water Sales: $ 2,559,144 b. Annual Revenues from Tap Fees: $ 95,000 c. Annual Revenues from Other Sources: $ 0 d. Total Annual Revenues: $ 2,654,144

(2) Expenditures a. Annual Budget for Operation and Maintenance Expenses: $ 2,046,144 b. Annual Payments for Debt Retirement: $ 338,000 c. Annual Payments to a Repair and Replacement Fund: $ 250,000 d. Annual Payments to an Emergency Fund: $ 20,000 e. Annual Payments for Other Purposes: $ 0 f. Total Annual Payments: $ 2,654,144 (3) Other a. Balance in Repair and Replacement Fund: $ 1,425,020 b. Balance in Emergency Fund: $ 302,707 c. Annual Cost of Water Quality Testing: $ 4,300 (4) Is the operation of the water system self-supporting in terms of revenues offsetting costs for operation, maintenance, debt retirement, replacement funds, emergency funds, etc.? Yes

2021 RECOMMENDATION RURAL DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 6 OF 10

PROJECT AREA MAP

2021 RECOMMENDATION RURAL DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 7 OF 10

RESOLUTION

2021 RECOMMENDATION RURAL DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 8 OF 10

LETTERS OF SUPPORT

2021 RECOMMENDATION RURAL DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 9 OF 10

2021 RECOMMENDATION RURAL DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 10 OF 10

2021 WATER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS

Project Name: Gillette Water System Improvements Program: New Development

Project Type: Municipal Water System County: Campbell

Sponsor: City of Gillette

WWDO Recommendation: Level II Proposed Budget: $150,000

Basis for the Funding Recommendation:

The City of Gillette is requesting a Level II feasibility study to plan for: incorporating the existing wells and storage facilities of the Antelope Valley water system into the City’s water system; improving the City’s existing storage facilities; and adding new storage in the water system. Additionally, the hydraulic modeling completed for Wyoming DEQ permitting has shown that improvements to pump station operation may be obtained by changes to water storage.

Project Manager: Keith Clarey\Chace Tavelli

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The City of Gillette has requested a Level II feasibility study to evaluate and investigate changes in water storage, improvements to pump station operation, and incorporation of the wells and storage of the Antelope Valley water system into the City’s water system.

1. Existing and Prior Legislation:

Project Level Chapter Session Account Appropriation Reversion Yr Gillette Regional Master Plan I 88 2008 I $ 350,000 2011 Gillette Regional Connections II 57 2012 I $ 500,000 2015 Gillette Regional Extensions III 14 2012 I $ 703,500 2017 Gillette Regional Extensions III 141 2013 I $ 5,494,000 2018 Gillette Regional Extensions III 100 2014 I $ 234,500 2018 Gillette Regional Extensions III 55 2016 I $ 562,800 2021 Gillette Regional Extension 2017 III 75 2017 I $ 361,800 2022 Gillette Regional Extensions – III 75 2017 I $ 1,675,000 2022 Phase II Gillette Regional Extensions III 121 2018 I $ 2,030,100 2022 Gillette Regional Extensions III 121 2018 I $ 1,809,000 2023 Phase IV Gillette Madison Pipeline III Multiple Multiple I $ 190,120,358 Varies

2. Describe the location of the project:

The City of Gillette is located in Campbell County and resides within the Powder River Basin. The City has a population of 31,903 people and they are served through 10,953 taps within the service area and 13 taps outside of the service area. The water system is supplied with groundwater from 28 wells completed into the Madison

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 1 OF 8 Limestone, Fox Hills Sandstone, and Fort Union Formation. Water storage includes raw water in 2 tanks with a total capacity of 1.9 million gallons and treated water in 10 tanks with a total capacity of 23.3 million gallons. A 42-mile transmission pipeline system (30” & 42” pipelines) transfers water from the Madison Well Field to Gillette. The Gillette water system is a regionalized system that serves several adjacent water systems and users. The City of Gillette serves three pressure zones within its water system, in addition to regional water services to surrounding water districts at a variety of different elevations.

3. Summarize the request:

A Level II feasibility study is requested to plan for improving water storage, improving pump station operations, and incorporating the wells and storage of the Antelope Valley water system into the City of Gillette’s water system.

4. Summarize the reasons for the request:

The City of Gillette is requesting a Level II feasibility study to improve water storage and operations of the City’s water system, and to incorporate the existing wells and storage of the Antelope Valley water system into the City’s system in the future.

II. WWDC ELIGIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS

1. Is the Sponsor a public entity? Yes 2. Project Priority According to WWDO Criteria: Acct I - Priority 6: LII Feasibility Studies

3. Will the project serve at least 15 water taps? Yes A. Number of Taps: 10,966 taps (10,953 taps within service area; 13 taps outside) 4. Is the sponsor eligible for funding from other state or federal programs? Yes A. If so, what are they (RUS, SRF, other)? RUS, SRF, and Others 5. Is the Sponsor under any federal (EPA) mandates to improve its system? (e.g., Administrative Orders, violations, actions taken, etc.)? No 6. Is the Sponsor currently served by a regionalized water supply system (specify)? Or will the Sponsor consider regional solutions to the purpose and needs of its water supply system? The City of Gillette operates a regionalized water supply system. 7. What is monthly water bill for 5,000 gallons? $26.25 A. 20,000 Gallons? $85.50 8. Theoretical Monthly Water Bill (Median Household Income X 2.5%/12): $153.15 (Calculation: 2018 MHI $73,513 x 2.5% = $1,837.83/12 = $153.15) 9. Can the project be delayed or staged? Yes A. Should it be? No

III. PERTINENT INFORMATION

1. Existing Water Supply System A. EPA Public Water System (PWS) Identification Number: WY5600019 B. Groundwater (1) Number of Wells: 28 (2) Primary Supply Aquifer(s) or Formation(s): Madison Limestone, Fox Hills Sandstone, & Fort Union Formation (3) Total Average Production Yield of All Wells (GPM): 14,700 gpm

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 2 OF 8 C. Surface Water (1) Source Name(s): None (2) Type of Diversion(s) (Headgate, Infiltration Gallery, Pumps, Etc.): N/A (3) Total Average Diversion Yield (CFS of GPM): N/A D. Springs (1) Name of Spring(s): None (2) Total Average Production Yield of All Springs (CFS or GPM): N/A E. Water Rights (1) For the water source supply (or supplies) described above, does the Sponsor possess valid and/or adjudicated water rights? Yes F. Transmission Pipeline (1) Maximum Capacity of the Transmission Pipeline(s) (Gallons per Day): 34,200,000 GPD (2) Increased Capacity Needed (If Known) (Gallons per Day): No additional capacity needed. (3) Approximate Distance from Source(s) to Distribution System: 42 miles (4) Transmission Pipe Diameter(s): 30-inch and 42-inch (5) Type of Transmission Pipe Material(s): Cement mortar-lined steel (6) Age of Transmission Pipeline(s): Completed 1981 (30”) & Completed 2018 (42”) (7) Condition of Transmission Pipeline(s): Rehabilitated (30”), New (42”). (8) Does the applicant possess clear title to transmission corridor easements? Yes G. Water Storage (1) Raw (Volume and Tank Description): 2 welded steel tanks at 1.9 million gallons total. (2) Treated (Volume and Tank Description): 10 welded steel tanks at 23.3 million gallons total. H. Treatment (1) Specify Water Treatment (None, Chlorination, Filtration, Etc.): Chlorination

2. Existing Water Distribution System A. Is the water use metered? Yes B. Are billings based on meter readings? Yes C. Identify unmetered usage (e.g., irrigation of parks, cemeteries, fire protection, etc.): Fire hydrants, flushing D. Average Day Demand Water Usage (Gallons per Capita per Day): 190 gpcd E. Maximum Day Demand Water Usage (Gallons per Capita per Day): 613 gpcd F. Peak Hourly Demand Water Usage (Gallons per Capita per Day): 920 gpcd G. Distribution Pipe Diameter(s): 8”, 10”, 12”, 14”, 15”, 16”, 18”, 20”, & 24” H. Type of Distribution Pipe Material(s): PVC, Ductile Iron I. Age of Distribution Pipeline(s): 1960s through 2019 J. Condition of Distribution Pipeline(s): Good K. Estimated System Water Losses (Percentage): 2% L. Describe any fire flow protection that the system provides: The City’s distribution provides levels of fire flow protection based on Zoning Type. M. What water conservation measures are employed? Odd/Even watering schedule, rebates for smart irrigation controllers, rebates for installation of ET controllers, Waterwise Education kits for all 5th graders in the school district.

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 3 OF 8 N. Is there an independent raw water irrigation system? No (1) Raw Water System Capacity (Gallons per Day): N/A (2) Average Annual Raw Water Usage (Gallons per Year): N/A

3. Demographic Information and Existing Water Service Area A. Population (2010 Census): 29,087 B. Current Population Estimate: 31,903 C. Does the applicant have a comprehensive planning boundary? Yes (1) If so, what is the estimated additional population that may be served in the future? 57,600 D. How many taps are served within the corporate limits/JPB service area? 10,953 E. How many taps are served outside of the corporate limits/JPB service area? 13 F. Identify names of other water system served: Bennor, Antelope Valley, Cook Road, Overbrook, Rafter D, South Fork, Spring Hill Ranch, Force Road, Rock Road, Stone Gate, Eight Mile (under construction), & Buckskin. G. Identify any existing planning reports (municipal or county) that address growth management in the project area. Provide titles and how copies of the reports could be obtained: The Gillette Plan, 2013 Comprehensive Plan Update, November 2013 (www.gillettewy.gov) Regional System Potential Participant Connection Study, May 2010 (www.gillettewy.gov)

4. Financial Information A. Rates (1) Tap Fee(s) – Residential: $1,287.50 (1”), $4,287.38 (1.5”), $14,634.00 (2”), $23,035.00 (3”), $50,812.50 (4”), & $60,975.00 (6”) (2) Tap Fee(s) – Commercial: Same as residential tap fees. (3) Average Residential Monthly Water Bill and Corresponding Gallons Used: $30.20/month for 6,000 gallons used. (4) Water Rates (Provide rates for all tiers and categories of use. Attach additional pages as needed.): Base Charge - $6.50 per month; Consumption Rate - $3.95 per 1,000 gallons Regional Base Charge Full Time - $6.50/lot/month plus $3.01 per 1,000 gallons Regional Base Charge Intermittent -- $5.00/lot/month plus $6.03 per 1,000 gallons (5) Identify local conditions that affect water rates (e.g., flow-through for frost prevention, etc.): N/A B. Financial Statement (of Water Utility) (1) Revenues a. Annual Revenues Generated from Water Sales: $ 7,122,576 b. Annual Revenues from Tap Fees: $ 60,000 c. Annual Revenues from Other Sources: $ 100,300 d. Total Annual Revenues: $ 7,282,576 (2) Expenditures a. Annual Budget for Operation and Maintenance Expenses: $ 6,663,018 b. Annual Payments for Debt Retirement: $ 0 c. Annual Payments to a Repair and Replacement Fund: $ 2,213,879 d. Annual Payments to an Emergency Fund: $ 0 e. Annual Payments for Other Purposes: $ 0 f. Total Annual Payments: $ 8,876,897

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 4 OF 8 (3) Other a. Balance in Repair and Replacement Fund: $ 2,353,509 b. Balance in Emergency Fund: $ 1,642,936 c. Annual Cost of Water Quality Testing: $ 20,000 (4) Is the operation of the water system self-supporting in terms of revenues offsetting costs for operation, maintenance, debt retirement, replacement funds, emergency funds, etc.? No a. If not, how is the difference subsidized? State Grants, State Loans, 1% Local Optional Sales Tax Revenue, and 1% Local Capital Facilities Tax Revenue is used to pay for major water system capital replacement and expansion projects.

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 5 OF 8 PROJECT AREA MAP

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 6 OF 8

PHOTOS

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 7 OF 8

RESOLUTION

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 8 OF 8

2021 WATER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS

Project Name: Little Snake River Valley Water Supply, Phase II Program: New Development

Project Type: Joint Powers Water Board Water System (Potential) County: Carbon

Sponsor: Town of Dixon / Town of Baggs

WWDO Recommendation: Level II Proposed Budget: $163,000

Basis for the Funding Recommendation:

A Level II, Phase II study will build upon the recently completed Level II Study.

Project Manager: Chace Tavelli

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A Level II study was recently completed; the purpose of that study was to conceptually plan a regional potable water supply system. The study included the Towns of Baggs and Dixon, the unincorporated Town of Savery, and rural users from Savery to Baggs. A Level II, Phase II study will develop a final alternative and cost estimates, determine the number of users, and identify regional water rates. The Towns of Dixon and Baggs are in the planning process of establishing a Steering Committee with representatives from Baggs, Dixon, and rural users to help direct this study, which could lead to the establishment of a Joint Powers Board. It is anticipated this study will work in coordination with the Steering Committee throughout the study.

1. Existing and Prior Legislation:

Town of Dixon Project Level Chapter Session Account Appropriation Reversion Year Dixon Water Supply Project I 38 1991 I $ 35,000 1994 Dixon Water Supply Project II 74 1993 I $ 150,000 1996 Dixon Water Supply III 28 1994 II $ 215,000 1999 Dixon Water Supply II II 85 2007 I $ 75,000 2010 Little Snake River Valley II 94 2018 I $ 135,000 2021 Municipal Water Supply

Town of Baggs Project Level Chapter Session Account Appropriation Reversion Year Little Snake River Basin Plan I 231 1991 I $ 400,000 1994 Study Volume I; Evaluation of the Baggs Water Supply, Treatment and Delivery System Town of Baggs, Wyoming Alluvial GW 82 1998 I $ 150,000 2001 Well Project Grant Town of Baggs, Wyoming Water II 36 2000 I $ 50,000 2003 Supply Project Baggs Water Supply III 2 2001 II $ 92,000 2006

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 1 OF 9 Town of Baggs, Wyoming Water I 7 2002 I $ 40,000 2005 Master Plan Baggs Water Supply III 125 2003 II $ 28,000 2008 Baggs Water & Raw Water II 34 2004 II $ 50,000 2007 Supply Baggs Water Supply III 125 2003 II $ 28,000 2008 Baggs Raw Water and Dedicated III 114 2005 I $ 331,500 2010 Transmission Line Little Snake River Valley II 94 2018 I $ 135,000 2021 Municipal Water Supply

2. Describe the location of the project:

The project is located in southern Carbon County in the Little Snake River Valley to include the Towns of Dixon and Baggs and the unincorporated community of Savery. The Little Snake River is in the Upper Colorado River Basin.

3. Summarize the request:

The request is for a Level II, Phase II study to investigate alternatives for a regional system in the Little Snake River Valley.

4. Summarize the reasons for the request:

The Towns of Dixon and Baggs have experienced increased costs for water treatment and would like to have the opportunity to provide water to surrounding area residents and have the potential for growth in their communities. It is anticipated that a regional system would provide these opportunities as well as focus costs on a single system and provide long term water security to the area.

II. WWDC ELIGIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS

1. Is the Sponsor a public entity? Yes; This is a joint application from two municipalities, Dixon and Baggs. Each town is prepared to consider the formation of a joint powers board. A. If not, is the recommendation for a Level I study or Level I or II study for a dam and reservoir project? N/A 2. Project Priority According to WWDO Criteria: Acct I - Priority 6: LII Feasibility Studies

3. Will the project serve at least 15 water taps? Yes A. Number of Taps: Dixon = 75; Baggs = 279; there is the potential for additional taps. 4. Is the sponsor eligible for funding from other state or federal programs? Yes A. If so, what are they (RUS, SRF, other)? RUS, SRF 5. Is the Sponsor under any federal (EPA) mandates to improve its system? (e.g., Administrative Orders, violations, actions taken, etc.)? No. However, both towns have had water quality issues and have received (in the past) EPA administrative orders. 6. Is the Sponsor currently served by a regionalized water supply system (specify)? Or will the Sponsor consider regional solutions to the purpose and needs of its water supply system? No; the Sponsors are considering a regional system as part of this study. 7. What is monthly water bill for 5,000 gallons? Dixon = $65; Baggs = $46.25 (both values represent in-town rates) A. 20,000 Gallons? Dixon = $65; Baggs = $88 (both values represent in-town rates) 8. Theoretical Monthly Water Bill (Median Household Income X 2.5%/12): Dixon = $65; Baggs = $111

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 2 OF 9 9. Can the project be delayed or staged? Yes A. Should it be? No

III. PERTINENT INFORMATION

1. Existing Water Supply System A. EPA Public Water System (PWS) Identification Number: Dixon = 5600059C; Baggs = 5600058C B. Groundwater (1) Number of Wells: N/A (2) Primary Supply Aquifer(s) or Formation(s): N/A (3) Total Average Production Yield of All Wells (GPM): N/A C. Surface Water (1) Source Name(s): Little Snake River (both systems) (2) Type of Diversion(s) (Headgate, Infiltration Gallery, Pumps, Etc.): Infiltration Gallery (both systems) (3) Total Average Diversion Yield (CFS of GPM): Dixon = 9 GPM; Baggs = 44 GPM D. Springs (1) Name of Spring(s): N/A (2) Total Average Production Yield of All Springs (CFS or GPM): N/A E. Water Rights (1) For the water source supply (or supplies) described above, does the Sponsor possess valid and/or adjudicated water rights? Yes F. Transmission Pipeline (1) Maximum Capacity of the Transmission Pipeline(s) (Gallons per Day): N/A (2) Increased Capacity Needed (If Known) (Gallons per Day): N/A (3) Approximate Distance from Source(s) to Distribution System: Dixon = 300 ft; Baggs = 6,520 ft (4) Transmission Pipe Diameter(s): 8 inches (both systems) (5) Type of Transmission Pipe Material(s): PVC (both systems) (6) Age of Transmission Pipeline(s): Dixon = 42 years; Baggs = 13 years (7) Condition of Transmission Pipeline(s): Good (both systems) (8) Does the applicant possess clear title to transmission corridor easements? Yes (both systems) G. Water Storage (1) Raw (Volume and Tank Description): 0 (both systems) (2) Treated (Volume and Tank Description): Dixon = 110,000 gallons; Baggs = 420,000 gallons H. Treatment (1) Specify Water Treatment (None, Chlorination, Filtration, Etc.): Oxidation, coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, chlorination, and disinfection (both systems)

2. Existing Water Distribution System A. Is the water use metered? Yes (both) B. Are billings based on meter readings? Yes (both) C. Identify unmetered usage (e.g., irrigation of parks, cemeteries, fire protection, etc.): Dixon = park irrigation; Baggs = none

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 3 OF 9 D. Average Day Demand Water Usage (Gallons per Capita per Day): 136 (both systems) E. Maximum Day Demand Water Usage (Gallons per Capita per Day): Dixon = 369; Baggs = 370 F. Peak Hourly Demand Water Usage (Gallons per Capita per Day): Unknown G. Distribution Pipe Diameter(s): Dixon = 2, 4, 6, 8 inches; Baggs = 4, 6, 8 inches H. Type of Distribution Pipe Material(s): Dixon = PVC & CIP; Baggs = PVC, DIP, and AC I. Age of Distribution Pipeline(s): Dixon = 25 years; Baggs = 8 to 73 years J. Condition of Distribution Pipeline(s): Dixon = Good; Baggs = Good to Fair K. Estimated System Water Losses (Percentage): Dixon = 12%; Baggs = 4% L. Describe any fire flow protection that the system provides: Dixon = 750 GPM for 75 minutes; Baggs = 1,500 GPM for 2 hours M. What water conservation measures are employed? Dixon = Metering; Baggs = metering, tiered water rates, outside water restriction when stream flow is low N. Is there an independent raw water irrigation system? No (both systems) (1) Raw Water System Capacity (Gallons per Day): N/A (2) Average Annual Raw Water Usage (Gallons per Year): N/A

3. Demographic Information and Existing Water Service Area A. Population (2010 Census): Dixon = 97; Baggs = 440 B. Current Population Estimate: Dixon = 94; Baggs = 435 C. Does the applicant have a comprehensive planning boundary? No (both systems) (1) If so, what is the estimated additional population that may be served in the future? N/A D. How many taps are served within the corporate limits/JPB service area? Dixon = 75; Baggs = 279 E. How many taps are served outside of the corporate limits/JPB service area? Dixon = 4; Baggs = 12 F. Identify names of other water system served: Dixon = none; Baggs = Stanlin Homeowner’s, North Baggs Water Users Association G. Identify any existing planning reports (municipal or county) that address growth management in the project area. Provide titles and how copies of the reports could be obtained: None (both systems)

4. Financial Information A. Rates (1) Tap Fee(s) – Residential: Dixon = $4,000 (3/4 inch); Baggs = $2,350 (3/4 inch), $2,900 (1 inch), $4,600 (2 inch) (2) Tap Fee(s) – Commercial: Dixon = same as residential; Baggs = $15,000 (4 inch), $30,000 (6 inch) (3) Average Residential Monthly Water Bill and Corresponding Gallons Used: Dixon = $65 / 5,000 gallons; Baggs = $53 / 6,660 gallons (4) Water Rates (Provide rates for all tiers and categories of use. Attach additional pages as needed.): Dixon: • In Town - $65 for first 30,000 gallons • Commercial and Out of town - $77 for first 30,000 gallons • Uses over 30,000 gallons = $2.50 per 1,000 gallons • Off Water Fee = $30.00

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 4 OF 9 Baggs

(5) Identify any local conditions that affect water rates (e.g., flow-through for frost prevention, etc.): None (both systems) B. Financial Statement (TOWN OF DIXON) (1) Revenues a. Annual Revenues Generated from Water Sales: $ 48,000 b. Annual Revenues from Tap Fees: $ 0 c. Annual Revenues from Other Sources: $ 11,500 d. Total Annual Revenues: $ 59,500 (2) Expenditures a. Annual Budget for Operation and Maintenance Expenses: $ 47,380 b. Annual Payments for Debt Retirement: $ 0 c. Annual Payments to a Repair and Replacement Fund: $ 0 d. Annual Payments to an Emergency Fund: $ 11,280 e. Annual Payments for Other Purposes: $ 0 f. Total Annual Payments: $ 58,660 (3) Other a. Balance in Repair and Replacement Fund: $ 0 b. Balance in Emergency Fund: $ 43,829 c. Annual Cost of Water Quality Testing: $ 2,500 (4) Is the operation of the water system self-supporting in terms of revenues offsetting costs for operation, maintenance, debt retirement, replacement funds, emergency funds, etc.? Yes a. If not, how is the difference subsidized? N/A

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 5 OF 9 C. Financial Statement (TOWN OF BAGGS) (1) Revenues a. Annual Revenues Generated from Water Sales: $ 200,000 b. Annual Revenues from Tap Fees: $ 0 c. Annual Revenues from Other Sources: $ 30,000 d. Total Annual Revenues: $ 230,000 (2) Expenditures a. Annual Budget for Operation and Maintenance Expenses: $ 65,000 b. Annual Payments for Debt Retirement: $ 35,000 c. Annual Payments to a Repair and Replacement Fund: $ 9,500 d. Annual Payments to an Emergency Fund: $ 0 e. Annual Payments for Other Purposes: $ 0 f. Total Annual Payments: $ 109,500 (3) Other a. Balance in Repair and Replacement Fund: $ 9,500 b. Balance in Emergency Fund: $ 136,000 c. Annual Cost of Water Quality Testing: $ 3,000 (4) Is the operation of the water system self-supporting in terms of revenues offsetting costs for operation, maintenance, debt retirement, replacement funds, emergency funds, etc.? Yes a. If not, how is the difference subsidized? N/A

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 6 OF 9

PROJECT AREA MAP

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 7 OF 9

RESOLUTIONS

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 8 OF 9

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 9 OF 9

2021 WATER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION WATERSHED STUDIES

Project Name: Hoback River Watershed Study Program: New Development

Project Type: Multipurpose County: Sublette, Lincoln and Teton

Sponsor: Sublette County Conservation District

WWDO Recommendation: Level I Proposed Budget: $277,000

Basis for the Funding Recommendation:

The District will benefit from comprehensive watershed information and the development of rehabilitation plans for the study area drainages and water supply (irrigation and domestic) systems. Due to difficulties accessing groundwater, particularly in the Teton County portion of the watershed, there is interest in surface water development. This information will put the District in a position where they can leverage the Small Water Project Program, other WWDC programs, and partnerships with other entities to address specific issues.

Project Manager: Mabel Jones

Project Description:

The Sublette County Conservation District requests a watershed study to evaluate watershed function, current and future water sources (including groundwater and geothermal) and natural hazard (e.g. flooding, mass wasting, wildfire and seismic events) impacts on current water infrastructure and future demand. Potable water sources and water quality for rural residential and recreational facilities, including campgrounds, summer homes and outfitter camps, are also of interest. Of particular concern is contamination of drinking water with nitrates at Hoback Junction and community level solutions are being sought through an active stakeholder group. The District is also experiencing impacts to irrigation infrastructure where ditches have been washed out due to landslides. This study will provide baseline information from which the conservation district can help landowners pursue management practices and rehabilitation opportunities such as formation of water districts, spring development, solar conversions, water well development, upland water sources and stock water pipelines.

The Hoback River Watershed Study Area, located primarily in Lincoln and Sublette Counties, covers approximately 735,000 acres. The study area encompasses drainages feeding the mainstem of the Snake River downstream and including its confluence with the Hoback River. Primary stream systems include the Snake, Hoback, and Greys Rivers. Fifteen stock and fourteen multiple use reservoirs are recognized by the Wyoming State Engineers Office.

PROJECT INFORMATION:

A. EXISTING WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

What is the extent of the stream system? Includes approximately 429 miles of perennial streams

Has DEQ classified this stream or segment as impaired? No

Are there any DEQ Watershed based plans being conducted or in place? No

2021 RECOMMENDATION WATERSHED STUDIES PAGE 1 OF 4

Is there a TMDL being prepared or in place? No

Is there a NRCS watershed assessment being prepared or in place? No

Are there any instream flow segments in this watershed? Yes

Any instream flow segments petitioned? No

Is there a soil survey completed for this area? Incomplete/Partial

B. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

If the entity is a conservation district, what is the status of their local revenue funding? Yes, three Conservation Districts will be participating in the Study. The sponsor (Sublette County Conservation District) receives funding from the County. Star Valley County Conservation District is also funded by the County. Teton County Conservation is funded via mill levy.

C. COMPARISON WITH OPERATING CRITERIA

What is the entity status of the sponsor? Conservation District

Project Priority according to the Criteria? Priority 7, Watershed Studies

If the entity is a conservation district, what is the status of a legal entity developing within the district? The Sponsor is aware of the entity requirements.

How many acres are irrigated? 4,241 Acres (based on WWDC Framework Plan)

How many individual landowners in the watershed? Estimated 9000 Residents. Number of individual landowners is not known

Will the project consider regional solutions? The formation of a Drinking Water District for the area of Hoback Junction is being considered. A portion of the Hoback Junction District may include portions of the study area. The areas outside of Hoback Junction and Bondurant are very rural and there would be limited opportunity for organizational establishment of water users.

Can the project be postponed or staged? Yes

2021 RECOMMENDATION WATERSHED STUDIES PAGE 2 OF 4

PROJECT AREA MAP

2021 RECOMMENDATION WATERSHED STUDIES PAGE 3 OF 4

RESOLUTION

2021 RECOMMENDATION WATERSHED STUDIES PAGE 4 OF 4

2021 WATER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS

Project Name: Lander Water Master Plan Program: New Development

Project Type: Municipal Water System County: Fremont

Sponsor: City of Lander

WWDO Recommendation: Level I Proposed Budget: $208,000

Basis for the Funding Recommendation:

Numerous WWDO funded studies have been completed for this system and the City has completed many of the projects which were identified. The previous planning documents do not reflect the upgrades to the water system. Current growth and expansion areas were not addressed in previous water planning studies and this project will enhance the ability for the City to be proactive in planning for and developing infrastructure for these areas. The Lander Test Well study will be completed prior to this study and alternative supplies will be an additional node of the water system which this Water Supply Master Plan will address.

The City has also expressed an interest, through the submittal of a 2020 Level II Application, in investigating the enlargement of Worthen Meadows Reservoir (WMR). Previous work indicates WMR is a reliable water supply. Under this Level I Master Plan, alternative reservoir operations should be considered if they are supported by the quantification of potential service areas, need for regional expansion, water demand projections and ability to meet demand.

Project Manager: Mabel Jones

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The City of Lander municipal water supply is a direct-flow diversion off the Middle Popo Agie River. The city has made significant progress implementing improvements to the municipal water systems based on previous Master Plans. The City is requesting a Level I Municipal Master Plan to provide an update to the existing Water System Master Plan which reflects changes in system operations and maintenance, updates water system models, and identifies infrastructure needs for future expansion areas.

1. Existing and Prior Legislation:

Project Level Chapter Session Account Appropriation Reversion Year Lander Master Plan I 8 1995 I $ 100,000 1998 Lander Water Supply II 46/81 1997/99 I $ 283,710 2002 Lander Paleozoic Test II 125/75 2002/05 I $ 1,005,000 2008 Lander Master Plan I 33/32 2008/10 I $ 185,000 2009 Lander Water Supply III 14 2012 I $ 3,068,000 2017 Lander Pipeline 2016 III 55 2016 I $ 2,070,970 2021 Lander Test Well Study II 94 2018 I $ 2,340,000 2021 Lander Storage Tanks and III 55 2019 I $ 3,423,700 2024 Pump Station 2019

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 1 OF 7 2. Describe the location of the project:

Lander, the county seat of Fremont County, is located on the southwestern margin of the Wind River Basin on the Middle Popo Agie River within Wind River/Big Horn River watershed. Access is via US HWY 287 and State HWY 789. (42°50’03” N, 108°43’45” W)

3. Summarize the request:

The Level I Study will provide an update to the City of Lander’s Water System Master Plan. The City has undergone or is in the process of completing significant improvements to their water systems. Growth and expansion areas were identified in the 2012 Comprehensive Master Plan for the City and alternative source supplies are currently being studied in a Level II Study. Water system improvements to accommodate the growth areas are not reflected in current water master planning documents. This Level I Study would provide updated water system modeling to reflect capital improvements and new water source supplies and allow the city to adequately plan for maintenance, operation and growth areas.

4. Summarize the reasons for the request:

The City of Lander completed a Water System Master Plan in 2011 and most of the capital improvements identified have been accomplished or they are no longer relevant. Work has included installing a new 4 MG water tank to replace three existing tanks, adding emergency backup well supply, upgrading the transmission supply system, installing a new pump station for the hospital, adding additional connections to zones that were previously single sources, upgrading the City’s SCADA system, adding meters to the rural water station and creating GIS mapping from existing record drawings. This City has concerns about serving future growth areas. This Level I study will allow the City to correctly plan and develop infrastructure for new source supplies and growth areas and maintain and operate the water system.

II. WWDC ELIGIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS

1. Is the Sponsor a public entity? Yes A. If not, is the recommendation for a Level I study or Level I or II study for a dam and reservoir project? N/A 2. Project Priority According to WWDO Criteria: Acct I - Priority 8: LI Reconnaissance Studies

3. Will the project serve at least 15 water taps? Yes A. Number of Taps: 3027 4. Is the sponsor eligible for funding from other state or federal programs? Yes A. If so, what are they (RUS, SRF, other)? RUS, SRF and others 5. Is the Sponsor under any federal (EPA) mandates to improve its system? (e.g., Administrative Orders, violations, actions taken, etc.)? No 6. Is the Sponsor currently served by a regionalized water supply system (specify)? No Or will the Sponsor consider regional solutions to the purpose and needs of its water supply system? Yes, the Sponsor is interested in regional opportunities. 7. What is monthly water bill for 5,000 gallons? $36.85 for 5/8” Meter A. 20,000 Gallons? $79.15 for 5/8” Meter 8. Theoretical Monthly Water Bill (Median Household Income X 2.5%/12): $110.16 9. Can the project be delayed or staged? Yes A. Should it be? No, delaying the project will put the city in a situation where growth planning and water system master plans do not reflect existing conditions.

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 2 OF 7 III. PERTINENT INFORMATION

1. Existing Water Supply System A. EPA Public Water System (PWS) Identification Number: WY5600176C B. Groundwater (1) Number of Wells: N/A (2) Primary Supply Aquifer(s) or Formation(s): N/A (3) Total Average Production Yield of All Wells (GPM): N/A C. Surface Water (1) Source Name(s): Middle Fork of Popo Agie River (2) Type of Diversion(s) (Headgate, Infiltration Gallery, Pumps, Etc.): Headgate (3) Total Average Diversion Yield (CFS or GPM): 3-6 MGD D. Springs (1) Name of Spring(s): N/A (2) Total Average Production Yield of All Springs (CFS or GPM): N/A E. Water Rights (1) For the water source supply (or supplies) described above, does the Sponsor possess valid and/or adjudicated water rights? Yes F. Transmission Pipeline (1) Maximum Capacity of the Transmission Pipeline(s) (Gallons per Day): 8 MGD (2) Increased Capacity Needed (If Known) (Gallons per Day): Unknown (3) Approximate Distance from Source(s) to Distribution System: 5 miles (4) Transmission Pipe Diameter(s): 8” to 24” (5) Type of Transmission Pipe Material(s): PVC, Ductile Iron, HDPE (6) Age of Transmission Pipeline(s): 0 to 50 Years (7) Condition of Transmission Pipeline(s): Poor to Good (8) Does the applicant possess clear title to transmission corridor easements? Yes G. Water Storage (1) Raw (Volume and Tank Description): 1503.6 ac-ft at Worthen Meadow Reservoir (2) Treated (Volume and Tank Description): 7 MG Combined Storage in 3 above ground steel tanks H. Treatment (1) Specify Water Treatment (None, Chlorination, Filtration, Etc.): Chlorination and Filtration

2. Existing Water Distribution System A. Is the water use metered? Yes B. Are billings based on meter readings? Yes C. Identify unmetered usage (e.g., irrigation of parks, cemeteries, fire protection, etc.): Two Parks D. Average Day Demand Water Usage (Gallons per Capita per Day): 110 E. Maximum Day Demand Water Usage (Gallons per Capita per Day): 220 F. Peak Hourly Demand Water Usage (Gallons per Capita per Day): 200 G. Distribution Pipe Diameter(s): 3” to 8” H. Type of Distribution Pipe Material(s): PVC, Ductile Iron, HDPE, Iron

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 3 OF 7 I. Age of Distribution Pipeline(s): 0 to 100 Years J. Condition of Distribution Pipeline(s): Poor to Good K. Estimated System Water Losses (Percentage): <10% L. Describe any fire flow protection that the system provides: Water system provides fire flow for the City of Lander and the Wyoming Life Resource Center M. What water conservation measures are employed? Metering, Billing, Replacement, Education N. Is there an independent raw water irrigation system? No (1) Raw Water System Capacity (Gallons per Day): N/A (2) Average Annual Raw Water Usage (Gallons per Year): N/A

3. Demographic Information and Existing Water Service Area A. Population (2010 Census): 7487 B. Current Population Estimate: 7503 C. Does the applicant have a comprehensive planning boundary? No (1) If so, what is the estimated additional population that may be served in the future? N/A D. How many taps are served within the corporate limits/JPB service area? 3027 E. How many taps are served outside of the corporate limits/JPB service area? 30 F. Identify names of other water system served: Wyoming Life Resource Center; Fox Park G. Identify any existing planning reports (municipal or county) that address growth management in the project area. Provide titles and how copies of the reports could be obtained: Lander Master Plan-2012 available at https://www.landerwyoming.org/

4. Financial Information A. Rates (1) Tap Fee(s) – Residential: $410 (3/4” line with 5/8” meter) (2) Tap Fee(s) – Commercial:

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 4 OF 7

(3) Average Residential Monthly Water Bill and Corresponding Gallons Used: Average Residential Bill= $42.49 at 7000 Gallons Used (4) Water Rates (Provide rates for all tiers and categories of use. Attach additional pages as needed.):

Excess Water Charges for inside city limit users all meter sizes and outside city limit users with 5/8" meters. For water use in excess of the minimum water use included in the minimum charge, charges shall be assessed at the following: • $2.82 per 1,000 gallons over the allotted 4,000 gallons in city limits Excess Water Charges for outside city limit users with meters: 3/4" to 8" • $4.03 per 1,000 gallons over the allotted 4,000 gallons

(5) Identify any local conditions that affect water rates (e.g., flow-through for frost prevention, etc.): The city may allow an additional flow through of 2000 gallons in winter month for frost prevention.

B. Financial Statement (of Water Utility) (1) Revenues a. Annual Revenues Generated from Water Sales: $ 2,000,000 b. Annual Revenues from Tap Fees: $ 7,000 c. Annual Revenues from Other Sources: $ 200,000 d. Total Annual Revenues: $ 2,207,000 (2) Expenditures a. Annual Budget for Operation and Maintenance Expenses: $ 240,000 b. Annual Payments for Debt Retirement: $ 285,000 c. Annual Payments to a Repair and Replacement Fund: $ 141,000 d. Annual Payments to an Emergency Fund: $ 0 e. Annual Payments for Other Purposes: $ 0 f. Total Annual Payments: $ 666,000 (3) Other a. Balance in Repair and Replacement Fund: $ 200,000 b. Balance in Emergency Fund: $ 1,500,000 c. Annual Cost of Water Quality Testing: $ 5,500 (4) Is the operation of the water system self-supporting in terms of revenues offsetting costs for operation, maintenance, debt retirement, replacement funds, emergency funds, etc.? Yes

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 5 OF 7

PROJECT AREA MAP

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 6 OF 7

RESOLUTION

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 7 OF 7

2021 WATER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION RURAL DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEMS

Project Name: Nordic Ranches Water Master Plan Program: New Development

Project Type: Rural Domestic County: Lincoln

Sponsor: Nordic Ranches Community Water & Sewer District

WWDO Recommendation: Level I Proposed Budget: $63,000

Basis for the Funding Recommendation: The Sponsor is a public entity eligible for a Planning Program water system master plan as a first-time applicant. The study will inventory and evaluate the current condition of the system and identify parts that are deficient and provide a schedule for improvements with cost estimates.

Project Manager: Kevin J. Boyce, P.G.

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Rural Domestic Water System Master Plan

1. Existing and Prior Legislation: None

2. Describe the location of the project: Subdivisions included within the boundary of the District lie in the Lower Star Valley just east of US HWY 89, approximately 6 miles south of Alpine, WY in Lincoln County (approx. 43°04’35” N, 111°00’00” W, Elev. 6,000’)

3. Summarize the request: The Sponsor is seeking funding for a WWDC water system master plan to evaluate the current condition of their water system and to provide the tools and guidance necessary to assist in the planning, rehabilitation, upgrading, and managing of their system. The plan would serve as a framework to establish project priorities and to perform financial planning necessary to meet those priorities. The plan would also provide reconnaissance-level information regarding costs and scheduling.

4. Summarize the reasons for the request: “Currently, the water system functions well and supplies excellent water quality. The concern is the age of infrastructure and additional capacity needed at build out. There is also concern about the aquifer. Water systems around [Nordic Ranches] in the Star Valley – Star Valley Ranch, Etna, and Broken Wheel have all experienced issues requiring substantial upgrades. Given the needs of those systems [Nordic Ranches] would like to be proactive and ready when this system begins to fail.” (from funding application to WWDC, received 3/2/2020)

II. WWDC ELIGIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS

1. Does an entity of local government exist? Yes, however the utility components are owned and operated by Nordic Ranches Water, LLC, owners Dorothy Reinhart and Ganelle Edwards.” A. If an entity of local government exists, provide the following: (1) Type of Entity: Water and Sewer District (2) Date of Formation: December 2019

2021 RECOMMENDATION RURAL DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 1 OF 8

B. If no entity exists, provide the following: (1) Is the recommendation for a Level I study or Level I or II study for a dam and reservoir project? No (2) Has district formation started? N/A (3) Has a petition been submitted to the City Council or County Commission? N/A (4) Has the district formation hearing been held? N/A (5) Has the district formation election been held or scheduled? N/A 2. Is the area made up a subdivision, subdivisions, or un-platted development? Subdivisions 3. Provide the date or dates that the subdivision or subdivisions were approved by the City or County: 13 subdivisions approved from 1985 - 2004 4. Is the project supported by the City Council or County Commission which has jurisdiction over the project area? Yes; Water & Sewer District Board of Directors A. Provide any comments from City Council or County Commission: None 5. Project Priority According to WWDO Criteria: Acct I - Priority 8: LI Reconnaissance Studies

6. Will the project serve at least 15 water taps? Yes A. Number of Taps: 172 7. Is the Sponsor eligible for funding from other state or federal programs? Yes A. If so, what are they (RUS, SRF, other)? RUS, SRF, etc. 8. Is the Sponsor under any federal (EPA) mandates to improve its system? (e.g., Administrative Orders, violations, actions taken, etc.)? No 9. Is the Sponsor currently served by a regionalized water supply system (specify)? No Or will the Sponsor consider regional solutions to the purpose and needs of its water supply system? Yes 10. What is monthly water bill for 5,000 gallons? $85.00 A. 20,000 Gallons? $101.00 11. Theoretical Monthly Water Bill (Median Household Income X 2.5%/12): @MHI $81,172 (Town of Alpine) = $169.11

12. Can the project be delayed or staged? Yes or no, depending on WWDC fiscal determination. A. Should it be? If necessary

III. PERTINENT INFORMATION

1. Existing Water Supply System A. EPA Public Water System (PWS) Identification Number: WY560418 B. Groundwater (1) Number of Wells: 3 (2) Primary Supply Aquifer(s) or Formation(s): Salt Lake Formation (3) Total Average Production Yield of All Wells (GPM): 325 GPM C. Surface Water (1) Source Name(s): N/A

2021 RECOMMENDATION RURAL DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 2 OF 8

(2) Type of Diversion(s) (Headgate, Infiltration Gallery, Pumps, Etc.): N/A (3) Total Average Diversion Yield (CFS of GPM): N/A D. Springs (1) Name of Spring(s): N/A (2) Total Average Production Yield of All Springs (CFS or GPM): N/A E. Water Rights (1) For the water source supply (or supplies) described above, does the Sponsor possess valid and/or adjudicated water rights? Yes, valid permits in the name of “Clarence and/or Dorothy Reinhart”, the water company owners and operators; however not adjudicated per WSEO. F. Transmission Pipeline (1) Maximum Capacity of the Transmission Pipeline(s) (Gallons per Day): Unknown (2) Increased Capacity Needed (If Known) (Gallons per Day): Unknown (3) Approximate Distance from Source(s) to Distribution System: Within System (4) Transmission Pipe Diameter(s): 6”, 8”, 10” (5) Type of Transmission Pipe Material(s): PVC (6) Age of Transmission Pipeline(s): Back to 1985 (7) Condition of Transmission Pipeline(s): Unknown (8) Does the applicant possess clear title to transmission corridor easements? Yes G. Water Storage (1) Raw (Volume and Tank Description): N/A (2) Treated (Volume and Tank Description): 7 – 10,000 gallon connected tanks H. Treatment (1) Specify Water Treatment (None, Chlorination, Filtration, Etc.): None

2. Existing Water Distribution System A. Is the water use metered? Yes B. Are billings based on meter readings? Yes C. Identify unmetered usage (e.g., irrigation of parks, cemeteries, fire protection, etc.): None D. Average Day Demand Water Usage (Gallons per Day): 41,200 (103 gpcpd) E. Maximum Day Demand Water Usage (Gallons per Day): 120,000 (300 gpcpd) F. Peak Hourly Demand Water Usage (Gallons per Capita per Day): Unknown G. Distribution Pipe Diameter(s): 2”, 4”, 6” H. Type of Distribution Pipe Material(s): PVC I. Age of Distribution Pipeline(s): Since 1985 J. Condition of Distribution Pipeline(s): Unknown K. Estimated System Water Losses (Percentage): Unknown L. Describe any fire flow protection that the system provides: Hydrants for filling fire trucks M. What water conservation measures are employed? None N. Does anyone in the service area haul water? No O. Is there an independent raw water irrigation system? Yes (1) Raw Water System Capacity (Gallons per Day): Varies

2021 RECOMMENDATION RURAL DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 3 OF 8

(2) Average Annual Raw Water Usage (Gallons per Year): Varies

3. Demographic Information and Existing Water Service Area A. Population Being Served: 400 B. Does the applicant have a comprehensive planning boundary? Yes (1) If so, what is the estimated additional population that may be served in the future? 200-250 C. How many taps are served within the district boundary? 172 D. How many taps are served outside the district boundary? None E. Identify names of other water system served: None F. Identify any existing planning reports (municipal or county) that address growth management in the project area. Provide titles and how copies of the reports could be obtained: 2009 WWDC Star Valley Regional Master Plan, Level I (available thru WWDC website)

4. Financial Information A. Rates (1) Tap Fee(s) – Residential: $4,000 (2) Tap Fee(s) – Commercial: N/A (3) Average Residential Monthly Water Bill and Corresponding Gallons Used: $85.00/month for first 10,000 gallons (4) Water Rates (Provide rates for all tiers and categories of use. Attach additional pages as needed.): $85.00/month for first 10,000 gallons; $1.60/1,000 gallons over 10,000; $2.20/1,000 gal. over 20,000 (5) Identify any local conditions that affect water rates (e.g., flow-through for frost prevention, etc.): None B. Financial Statement (of Water Utility) (1) Revenues a. Annual Revenues Generated from Water Sales: $ 175,000 b. Annual Revenues from Tap Fees: $ 4,000 c. Annual Revenues from Other Sources: $ 12,000 d. Total Annual Revenues: $ 191,000

(2) Expenditures a. Annual Budget for Operation and Maintenance Expenses: $ 140,000 b. Annual Payments for Debt Retirement: $ 12,000 c. Annual Payments to a Repair and Replacement Fund: $ 21,000 d. Annual Payments to an Emergency Fund: $ 7,000 e. Annual Payments for Other Purposes: $ 10,000 f. Total Annual Payments: $ 190,000 (3) Other a. Balance in Repair and Replacement Fund: $ 21,000 b. Balance in Emergency Fund: $ 7,000 c. Annual Cost of Water Quality Testing: $ 1,500

2021 RECOMMENDATION RURAL DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 4 OF 8

(4) Is the operation of the water system self-supporting in terms of revenues offsetting costs for operation, maintenance, debt retirement, replacement funds, emergency funds, etc.? YES a. If not, how is the difference subsidized? A Public Service Commission established rate of $85/month/tap up from $35/month/tap cover all budget requirements. It is questionable if current reserve fund allocations will be sufficient to fun future capital improvement needs.

2021 RECOMMENDATION RURAL DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 5 OF 8

PROJECT AREA MAP

2021 RECOMMENDATION RURAL DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 6 OF 8

RESOLUTION

2021 RECOMMENDATION RURAL DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 7 OF 8

2021 RECOMMENDATION RURAL DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 8 OF 8

2021 WATER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS

Project Name: Upton Water Master Plan Program: New Development

Project Type: Municipal Water System County: Weston

Sponsor: Town of Upton

WWDO Recommendation: Level I Proposed Budget: $153,000

Basis for the Funding Recommendation:

The Town of Upton is requesting a Level I reconnaissance-level water master plan study to fully evaluate the infrastructure of the Town’s public water supply system. The study will evaluate the current condition of their water system and provide the tools and guidance needed to assist in the planning, rehabilitating, upgrading, and managing of their system. It would also develop a plan to accommodate future growth of the Town.

Project Manager: Keith Clarey/Kevin Boyce

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Town of Upton has requested a Level I water master plan study to identify the components of their existing system which are deficient and to provide a schedule for improvements.

1. Existing and Prior Legislation:

Project Level Chapter Session Account Appropriation Reversion Year Upton Water Well II 123 1990 I $ 150,000 1993 Upton Water Supply III 231 1991 I $ 365,000 1994 Upton Tank Replacement III 88 2002 II $ 158,800 2007 Upton No. 6 Well Evaluation II 85 2007 I $ 75,000 2010 Upton Well III 38 2009 I $ 395,000 2014

2. Describe the location of the project:

The Town of Upton is located in Weston County and resides within the Cheyenne River Basin. The Town has a population of 1,100 people and they are served through 525 taps within the corporate limits and 2 taps outside of the corporate limits. The Town is supplied with groundwater from three (3) Madison Limestone wells and has four (4) storage tanks (three (3) 200,000-gallon tanks and one (1) 300,000-gallon tank).

3. Summarize the request:

A Level I water master plan is requested by the Town of Upton to evaluate the current condition of their water system and to provide the tools and guidance necessary to assist in the planning, rehabilitation, upgrading, and managing of their system. The plan would serve as a framework to establish project priorities and to perform financial planning necessary to meet those priorities. The plan would also provide reconnaissance-level information regarding costs and scheduling.

As part of this Level I reconnaissance study, the Town of Upton is specifically looking to replace a short 200,000- gallon tank that needs repairs, with a standpipe-type tank to match the two existing 200-000-gallon standpipe

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 1 OF 8 storage tanks. In addition, the Town would like planning to refurbish these two existing 200,000-gallon standpipe tanks.

As of February 2020, a professional engineering report of the Town of Upton’s water system is currently being prepared through funding provided by the USDA-RUS Program. This upcoming report, which is anticipated to be completed by Summer 2020, will help identify components of the Town’s system that need to be replaced and provide a schedule for replacement. The report will feed much needed structural inventory and condition information into WWDC planning efforts and will serve to greatly reduce the overall water master plan cost.

4. Summarize the reasons for the request:

The Town of Upton is requesting a Level I water master plan study to identify the components of the existing system that are deficient and to provide a schedule for improvements. It will also identify system needs and develop a plan to accommodate future growth.

II. WWDC ELIGIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS

1. Is the Sponsor a public entity? Yes 2. Project Priority According to WWDO Criteria: Acct I - Priority 8: LI Reconnaissance Studies

3. Will the project serve at least 15 water taps? Yes A. Number of Taps: 527 total (525 taps inside Town limits and 2 taps outside) 4. Is the Sponsor eligible for funding from other state or federal programs? Yes A. If so, what are they (RUS, SRF, other)? RUS, SRF, and Others 5. Is the Sponsor under any federal (EPA) mandates to improve its system? (e.g., Administrative Orders, violations, actions taken, etc.)? No 6. Is the Sponsor currently served by a regionalized water supply system (specify)? Or will the Sponsor consider regional solutions to the purpose and needs of its water supply system? No 7. What is monthly water bill for 5,000 gallons? $29.70 A. 20,000 Gallons? $79.20 8. Theoretical Monthly Water Bill (Median Household Income X 2.5%/12): $80.88 (Calculation: 2018 MHI $38,824 x 2.5% = $970.60/12 = $80.88) 9. Can the project be delayed or staged? Yes A. Should it be? No

III. PERTINENT INFORMATION

1. Existing Water Supply System A. EPA Public Water System (PWS) Identification Number: WY5600140 B. Groundwater (1) Number of Wells: 3 (WSW #2 - 150 gpm; WSW #4 - 260 gpm; WSW #6 - 700 gpm) (2) Primary Supply Aquifer(s) or Formation(s): Madison Limestone (3) Total Average Production Yield of All Wells (GPM): From ~700 to ~1,100 gpm C. Surface Water (1) Source Name(s): None (2) Type of Diversion(s) (Headgate, Infiltration Gallery, Pumps, Etc.): N/A (3) Total Average Diversion Yield (CFS of GPM): N/A

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 2 OF 8 D. Springs (1) Name of Spring(s): None (2) Total Average Production Yield of All Springs (CFS or GPM): N/A E. Water Rights (1) For the water source supply (or supplies) described above, does the Sponsor possess valid and/or adjudicated water rights? Yes F. Transmission Pipeline (1) Maximum Capacity of the Transmission Pipeline(s) (Gallons per Day): 2,592,000 GPD (2) Increased Capacity Needed (If Known) (Gallons per Day): Unknown (3) Approximate Distance from Source(s) to Distribution System: 0 (4) Transmission Pipe Diameter(s): 6”, 8”, 10” (5) Type of Transmission Pipe Material(s): PVC, Asbestos Cement (6) Age of Transmission Pipeline(s): 6” (35-40 years), 8” (50+ years), 10” (8 years) (7) Condition of Transmission Pipeline(s): PVC – Good, Asbestos Cement - Fair (8) Does the applicant possess clear title to transmission corridor easements? Yes G. Water Storage (1) Raw (Volume and Tank Description): None (2) Treated (Volume and Tank Description): Tank #1 – 200,000 gallons; Tank #2 – 200,000 gallons, Tank #3 – 200,000 gallons, Tank #4 – 300,000 gallons. H. Treatment (1) Specify Water Treatment (None, Chlorination, Filtration, Etc.): Sodium Hypochlorite

2. Existing Water Distribution System A. Is the water use metered? Yes B. Are billings based on meter readings? Yes C. Identify unmetered usage (e.g., irrigation of parks, cemeteries, fire protection, etc.): N/A D. Average Day Demand Water Usage (Gallons per Capita per Day): 173 gpcpd E. Maximum Day Demand Water Usage (Gallons per Capita per Day): 560 gpcpd F. Peak Hourly Demand Water Usage (Gallons per Capita per Day): ~800 gpcpd (estimated) G. Distribution Pipe Diameter(s): 6”, 8”, 10” H. Type of Distribution Pipe Material(s): PVC, Asbestos Cement I. Age of Distribution Pipeline(s): PVC – 8 to 40 years, Asbestos Cement – 50+ years J. Condition of Distribution Pipeline(s): Good to Fair K. Estimated System Water Losses (Percentage): 25% L. Describe any fire flow protection that the system provides: The local schools have fire flow protection. M. What water conservation measures are employed? The Town of Upton always encourages water conservation, but does not have a written program. N. Is there an independent raw water irrigation system? No (1) Raw Water System Capacity (Gallons per Day): N/A (2) Average Annual Raw Water Usage (Gallons per Year): N/A

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 3 OF 8 3. Demographic Information and Existing Water Service Area A. Population (2010 Census): 1,100 B. Current Population Estimate: 1,100 C. Does the applicant have a comprehensive planning boundary? No (1) If so, what is the estimated additional population that may be served in the future? N/A D. How many taps are served within the corporate limits/JPB service area? 525 E. How many taps are served outside of the corporate limits/JPB service area? 2 F. Identify names of other water system served: None G. Identify any existing planning reports (municipal or county) that address growth management in the project area. Provide titles and how copies of the reports could be obtained: N/A

4. Financial Information A. Rates (1) Tap Fee(s) – Residential: ¾” water service $1,600.00 cost to customer. (2) Tap Fee(s) – Commercial: 1” water service $2,000.00 cost to customer. (3) Average Residential Monthly Water Bill and Corresponding Gallons Used: $28.52 per month for 4,829 gallons used (average billing from 02/2019 to 02/2020). (4) Water Rates (Provide rates for all tiers and categories of use. Attach additional pages as needed.): Inside Town Limits: Residential/commercial base cost per tap, including the first 1,000 gallons for each month, is $16.50/month. Each 1,000 gallons used above the first 1,000 gallons is charged at a rate of $3.30 per 1,000 gallons used. Out-of-Limits: Residential/commercial base cost per tap, including the first 1,000 gallons for each month, is $33.00/month. Each 1,000 gallons used above the first 1,000 gallons is charged at a rate of $6.60 per 1,000 gallons used.

(5) Identify any local conditions that affect water rates (e.g., flow-through for frost prevention, etc.): During the cold weather season, the Town of Upton encourages water users to leave a faucet drip. B. Financial Statement (of Water Utility) (1) Revenues (FY2019) a. Annual Revenues Generated from Water Sales: $ 174,324.00 b. Annual Revenues from Tap Fees: $ 0 c. Annual Revenues from Other Sources: $ 792,239.86 d. Total Annual Revenues: $ 966,563.86 (2) Expenditures a. Annual Budget for Operation and Maintenance Expenses: $ 221,210.67 b. Annual Payments for Debt Retirement: $ 47,611.28 c. Annual Payments to a Repair and Replacement Fund: $ 5,000.00 d. Annual Payments to an Emergency Fund: $ 0 e. Annual Payments for Other Purposes: (grant/loans) $ 891,209.60 f. Total Annual Payments: $ 1,165,031.55 (3) Other a. Balance in Repair and Replacement Fund: $ 49,873.38 b. Balance in Emergency Fund: $ 0 c. Annual Cost of Water Quality Testing: $ 947.19

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 4 OF 8 (4) Is the operation of the water system self-supporting in terms of revenues offsetting costs for operation, maintenance, debt retirement, replacement funds, emergency funds, etc.? Not over three fiscal years. a. If not, how is the difference subsidized? Removing grant and loan expenses for FY2017, FY2018, and FY2019, the Town of Upton water fund is short $25,763.21 per year on average. Rates are adjusted each year after review and increased accordingly. Rates will need to be increased in FY2020 as well. Some of the shortfall has been due to unanticipated expenses spent earlier than expected.

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 5 OF 8

PROJECT AREA MAP

Town of Upton, Wyoming

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 6 OF 8

PHOTOS

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 7 OF 8

RESOLUTION

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 8 OF 8

2021 WATER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS

Project Name: Wheatland Water Master Plan Program: New Development

Project Type: Municipal Water System County: Platte

Sponsor: Town of Wheatland

WWDO Recommendation: Level I Proposed Budget: $125,000

Basis for the Funding Recommendation:

The Town of Wheatland is requesting a Level I reconnaissance-level water master plan study to fully evaluate the infrastructure of the Town’s public water supply system. The study would evaluate the current condition of their water system and provide the tools and guidance needed to assist in the planning, rehabilitating, upgrading, and managing of their system. It would also develop a plan to accommodate future growth of the Town.

Project Manager: Keith Clarey/Mike Robertson

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Town of Wheatland has requested a Level I water master plan to identify the components of their existing system which are deficient and to provide a schedule for improvements. A specific concern to be addressed during the new Level I study would include conducting a life-cycle comparison for resealing the epoxy-lined Black Mountain Tank versus replacing the tank with a new welded tank. This west side tank was installed in the mid-2000s and this tank has experienced multiple leaks during the past few years. The life-cycle comparison between resealing versus replacing the tank will aid the Town in selecting the most cost-effective option. Also, there are several areas of the Town that have small diameter distribution pipelines (2-inch diameter) that need to be investigated for their fire suppression capabilities due to these under-sized pipelines.

Finally, several of the Town’s wells yield groundwater that is high in uranium. Since the last 2010 water master plan, three of the Town’s wells have been replaced by recently drilled wells and the Town is interested in updating their hydraulic model to determine if the addition of the new wells will bring them into compliance with respect to the uranium levels and by what operating procedure they should implement to insure this EPA compliance.

1. Existing and Prior Legislation:

Project Level Chapter Session Account Appropriation Reversion Year Wheatland Water Supply (Rehab) III 2 2001 I $ 222,000 2006 Wheatland – Black Mountain III 69 2003 I $ 100,000 2008 Water Supply Wheatland Black Mountain II III 121 2007 I $ 222,440 2012 Water Supply Project Wheatland Master Plan I 66 2009 I $ 150,000 2012 Wheatland No. 7 Well III 23 2015 I $ 502,500 2020 Wheatland Pipelines III 55 2016 I $ 522,600 2021 Wheatland Wells 2017 III 75 2017 I $ 994,950 2022

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 1 OF 8 2. Describe the location of the project:

The Town of Wheatland is located in Platte County and resides within the North Platte River Basin. The Town has a population of 3,553 people and they are served through 1,920 taps within the corporate limits and 60 taps outside of the corporate limits (1,980 taps total). The Town is supplied with groundwater from seven (7) wells constructed into the Arikaree Formation, plus 2 more new wells to be incorporated during the Summer 2020. The Town stores water in three (3) 1-million-gallon tanks.

The Town’s wells on the east side of I-25 (Wheatland Wells Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, & 7) pump into settling basins where the water is chlorinated and then pumped up into the two (2) twin 1-MG storage tanks. Located on the west side of I-25, the three (3) Black Mountain Wells (Black Mountain Wells Nos. 2, 3, & 4) pump through the Black Mountain #3 well house, where it is chlorinated before it enters the Black Mountain 1-MG storage tank. An isolation valve exists between the east and west sides of the Town’s system that allows the operators to feed water between the two sides during emergency situations. Control of the wells is based on tank elevations. Wheatland’s system is monitored with a SCADA system; however, control and monitoring of the system can only be done from the master terminal units (no remote operation/monitoring is available). A hydraulic model was developed in conjunction with the 2010 master plan. There have been some major modifications to Wheatland’s system and the model needs to be updated to reflect these changes. The hydraulic model was developed from a paper map of the system. An updated map of the Town’s system is needed.

3. Summarize the request:

A Level I water master plan study is requested by the Town of Wheatland to evaluate the current condition of their water system and to provide the tools and guidance necessary to assist in the planning, rehabilitation, upgrading, and managing of their system. The plan would serve as a framework to establish project priorities and to perform financial planning necessary to meet those priorities. The plan would also provide reconnaissance-level information regarding costs and scheduling.

4. Summarize the reasons for the request:

The Town of Wheatland is requesting a Level I water master plan update study to identify the components of the existing system that are deficient and to provide a schedule for improvements. It will also identify system needs and develop a plan to accommodate future growth.

II. WWDC ELIGIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS

1. Is the Sponsor a public entity? Yes 2. Project Priority According to WWDO Criteria: Acct I - Priority 8: LI Reconnaissance Studies

3. Will the project serve at least 15 water taps? Yes A. Number of Taps: 1,920 taps located within limits & 60 taps outside limits; Total of 1,980 taps. 4. Is the Sponsor eligible for funding from other state or federal programs? Yes A. If so, what are they (RUS, SRF, other)? RUS, SRF, and Others 5. Is the Sponsor under any federal (EPA) mandates to improve its system? (e.g., Administrative Orders, violations, actions taken, etc.)? Groundwater from the Town of Wheatland Well No. 3 exceeds the U.S EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for uranium by a substantial margin. EPA has mandated that the Town send letters to all water users explaining that the Town’s water exceeds the MCL for uranium. A plan has been developed and submitted to the EPA, which includes the installation of a variable-frequency drive (VFD) on Well No. 3 so that the pumping rate can be substantially decreased in order to keep the uranium concentration for the blended water from Wells No. 1, 2, and 3 under the EPA MCL for uranium. The drilling of two new wells in areas where the groundwater meets the MCL for uranium is also included in the plan submitted to the EPA. 6. Is the Sponsor currently served by a regionalized water supply system (specify)? Or will the Sponsor consider regional solutions to the purpose and needs of its water supply system? The Town of Wheatland is not part of a regional system, but the Level I study will consider regionalization opportunities, if feasible.

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 2 OF 8 7. What is monthly water bill for 5,000 gallons? $20.00 A. 20,000 Gallons? $25.00 8. Theoretical Monthly Water Bill (Median Household Income X 2.5%/12): $102.32 (Calculation: 2018 MHI $49,115 x 2.5% = $1,227.88/12 = $102.32) 9. Can the project be delayed or staged? Yes A. Should it be? No

III. PERTINENT INFORMATION

1. Existing Water Supply System A. EPA Public Water System (PWS) Identification Number: WY5600187 B. Groundwater (1) Number of Wells: 9 (7 wells currently, plus 2 new wells to be added in Summer 2020) (2) Primary Supply Aquifer(s) or Formation(s): Arikaree Formation (3) Total Average Production Yield of All Wells (GPM): 440 GPM (including 2 new wells) C. Surface Water (1) Source Name(s): No surface water sources. (2) Type of Diversion(s) (Headgate, Infiltration Gallery, Pumps, Etc.): N/A (3) Total Average Diversion Yield (CFS of GPM): N/A D. Springs (1) Name of Spring(s): No springs. (2) Total Average Production Yield of All Springs (CFS or GPM): N/A E. Water Rights (1) For the water source supply (or supplies) described above, does the Sponsor possess valid and/or adjudicated water rights? Yes F. Transmission Pipeline (1) Maximum Capacity of the Transmission Pipeline(s) (Gallons per Day): 2,160,000 GPD (2) Increased Capacity Needed (If Known) (Gallons per Day): N/A (3) Approximate Distance from Source(s) to Distribution System: 4,500 feet (4) Transmission Pipe Diameter(s): 10-inch (5) Type of Transmission Pipe Material(s): PVC (C-900) (6) Age of Transmission Pipeline(s): 1 year (7) Condition of Transmission Pipeline(s): New (8) Does the applicant possess clear title to transmission corridor easements? Yes G. Water Storage (1) Raw (Volume and Tank Description): No raw water storage. (2) Treated (Volume and Tank Description): 1 million gallons each in two twin tanks (combined total 2 million gallons), 1 million gallons in the Black Mountain Storage Tank. H. Treatment (1) Specify Water Treatment (None, Chlorination, Filtration, Etc.): Chlorine

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 3 OF 8 2. Existing Water Distribution System A. Is the water use metered? Yes B. Are billings based on meter readings? Yes C. Identify unmetered usage (e.g., irrigation of parks, cemeteries, fire protection, etc.): No unmetered usage. The Town of Wheatland has a well for irrigation at the cemetery. D. Average Day Demand Water Usage (Gallons per Capita per Day): 322.2 gpcpd E. Maximum Day Demand Water Usage (Gallons per Capita per Day): 719.5 gpcpd F. Peak Hourly Demand Water Usage (Gallons per Capita per Day): ~1,000 gpcpd (estimated) G. Distribution Pipe Diameter(s): ¾”, 1”, 1¼”, 1½”, 2”, 3”, 4”, 6”, 8”, 10”, & 12” H. Type of Distribution Pipe Material(s): Cast Iron, Ductile Iron, Asbestos Cement, & PVC I. Age of Distribution Pipeline(s): Varies, from new to over 50 years old J. Condition of Distribution Pipeline(s): Undersized in some areas, otherwise good condition. K. Estimated System Water Losses (Percentage): 6.5% L. Describe any fire flow protection that the system provides: System provides fire-flow protection throughout the Town limits; due to under-sized pipe diameters in some areas, the fire-flow volume available is less than the desired 1,000 gpm. M. What water conservation measures are employed? Scaled usage rates. N. Is there an independent raw water irrigation system? Yes, the Town of Wheatland has a well for irrigation use at the cemetery. (1) Raw Water System Capacity (Gallons per Day): Unknown (2) Average Annual Raw Water Usage (Gallons per Year): Unknown

3. Demographic Information and Existing Water Service Area A. Population (2010 Census): 3,456 B. Current Population Estimate: 3,553 C. Does the applicant have a comprehensive planning boundary? Yes, town limits (1) If so, what is the estimated additional population that may be served in the future? Unknown D. How many taps are served within the corporate limits/JPB service area? 1,920 E. How many taps are served outside of the corporate limits/JPB service area? 60 F. Identify names of other water system served: None G. Identify any existing planning reports (municipal or county) that address growth management in the project area. Provide titles and how copies of the reports could be obtained: Wester-Wetstein & Associates, Town of Wheatland Water Master Plan, Level I Study, Final Report, November 2010. Report available at: http://library.wrds.uwyo.edu/wwdcrept/wwdcrept.html

4. Financial Information A. Rates (1) Tap Fee(s) – Residential: Per cost of job. (2) Tap Fee(s) – Commercial: Per cost of job. (3) Average Residential Monthly Water Bill and Corresponding Gallons Used: $24.00 per month for 18,000 gallons used. (4) Water Rates (Provide rates for all tiers and categories of use. Attach additional pages as needed.): Residential Use & Sprinklers Use – First 10,000 gal. or any portion thereof $20.00. Next 20,000 gal: $0.50 per 1,000 gal. Next 20,000 gal: $0.75 per 1,000 gal. Next 50,000 gal.: $1.20 per 1,000 gal. Next 200,000

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 4 OF 8 gal: $1.80 per 1,000 gal. Next 700,000 gal.: $2.50 per 1,000 gal. Over 1,000,000 gal: $3.00 per 1,000 gal. Commercial Use – First 2,000 gal. or any portion thereof: $20.00. Anything over 2,000 gal.: $0.70 per 1,000 gal. Industrial Use – First 10,000 gal. or any portion thereof: $20.00. Anything over 10,000 gal.: $1.00 per 1,000 gal. Outside Town Limits Use – 1.5 times residential or commercial rate. (5) Identify any local conditions that affect water rates (e.g., flow-through for frost prevention, etc.): UNK

B. Financial Statement (of Water Utility) (1) Revenues a. Annual Revenues Generated from Water Sales: $ 621,506.42 b. Annual Revenues from Tap Fees: $ 16,017.58 c. Annual Revenues from Other Sources: $ 27,924.36 d. Total Annual Revenues: $ 665,448.36 (2) Expenditures a. Annual Budget for Operation and Maintenance Expenses: $ 280,368.14 b. Annual Payments for Debt Retirement: $ 0.00 c. Annual Payments to a Repair and Replacement Fund: $ 18,000.00 d. Annual Payments to an Emergency Fund: $ 0.00 e. Annual Payments for Other Purposes: $ 0.00 f. Total Annual Payments: $ 298,368.14 (3) Other a. Balance in Repair and Replacement Fund: $ N/A b. Balance in Emergency Fund: $ 73,920.91 c. Annual Cost of Water Quality Testing: $ 5,078.81 (4) Is the operation of the water system self-supporting in terms of revenues offsetting costs for operation, maintenance, debt retirement, replacement funds, emergency funds, etc.? Yes a. If not, how is the difference subsidized? N/A

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 5 OF 8 PROJECT AREA MAP

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 6 OF 8

PHOTOS

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 7 OF 8 RESOLUTION

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 8 OF 8

2021 WATER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS

Project Name: Lake Hattie Reservoir Full Utilization Study Program: New Development

Project Type: Reservoir Utilization County: Albany

Sponsor: Pioneer Canal Lake Hattie Irrigation District

WWDO Recommendation: Level I Proposed Budget: TBD

Basis for the Funding Recommendation:

The Pioneer Canal Lake Hattie Irrigation District (PCLHID) is currently involved in a lawsuit with landowners concerning the elevation of Lake Hattie Reservoir. A ruling by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on December 13, 2019 reversed a decision by a lower court that had previously ruled in favor of PCLHID. The case has been remanded back to the lower court for additional proceedings. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the landowners that the boundary of the water’s edge, (as depicted on the original 1909 map accompanying the application for the reservoir,) defines the right-of-way easement for the reservoir. The elevation of the water surface was not defined on that map, but a surveyor hired by the landowners determined the elevation to be 7,258 ft above mean sea level. This elevation is 20 feet below the full storage capacity of the reservoir (as defined by the 7,278 ft spillway elevation). At 7,258 ft elevation, the storage capacity of the reservoir is significantly reduced and limits the irrigation district’s ability to store and put to use their permitted water rights. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has since declined to reconsider its original ruling and the storage limitations have gone into effect. The sponsor would like to evaluate projects and explore alternatives for reservoir operation that might “mitigate private landowner claims and restore full operational capacity to the reservoir.”

***As of October 28, 2020, the PCLHID has not reached a resolution regarding the lawsuit with the landowners around Lake Hattie. Following the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to remand the case back to the lower court on December 13, 2019, the lower court has not had any additional proceedings. The parties in the lawsuit have attempted mediation, during July and August of 2020, but no resolution has been reached and those efforts have stalled. The PCLHID has indicated that there are no pending actions either in regards to additional mediation efforts or any indication of when the courts will reach a final decision on the lawsuit. ***

The Director’s original recommendation from the May, 2020 WWDC/SWC meeting was to postpone a funding decision on this project until the November meeting and after additional details of the Court’s decisions were determined. If the project is preliminarily approved in November, a draft scope of work and estimated budget would be brought before both the Commission and Select Water Committees at their December meetings for further discussion and potential inclusion in the 2021 Omnibus Water Bill – Planning.

Project Manager: Mike Robertson

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Lake Hattie is a reservoir owned and operated by the PCLHID to divert and store water from the Laramie River and Little Laramie River. There are 46 landowners and 17,920 acres that receive water, delivered via the Pioneer Canal, primarily for irrigating grass hay and alfalfa. The beneficial uses of water stored in the reservoir include: irrigation, municipal, industrial, fish propagation, flood control, power, and domestic use. The total storage capacity in Lake Hattie Reservoir is approximately 95,260 AF at a water surface elevation of 7,278 ft above mean sea level. This includes 30,000 AF of dead (inactive) storage in the reservoir and adjudicated (active) storage rights of 65,260 AF. The permitted storage is comprised of two water rights: a 1908 right for 28,426 AF, and a 1986 right for 36,834 AF.

The initial ruling of the lawsuit between the PCLHID and the plaintiffs, who own property adjacent to the reservoir, was decided in District Court on March 20, 2018. That court found that the right-of-way easement of Lake Hattie Reservoir was defined by the full extent of the reservoir at the spillway (high-water line) elevation of 7,278 feet

2021 RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS PAGE 1 OF 7 above mean sea level. Subsequently, that ruling was reversed by the 10th District Court of Appeals on December 13, 2019 and remanded back to the lower court for additional proceedings. The opinion of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals was that the right-of-way easement of Lake Hattie Reservoir is limited to the boundary shown on a 1909 map approved by the Department of Interior. The elevation of that boundary line is not clearly defined on the map. Survey data collected by a licensed surveyor hired by the plaintiffs indicated that the elevation of the boundary depicted on the 1909 map is 7,258 feet above mean sea level. At this elevation, Lake Hattie Reservoir has a total storage capacity of 42,900 AF, including 30,000 AF of dead storage and 12,900 AF of permitted storage available to the PCLHID. The reduced storage capacity is expected to substantially reduce the ability of the PCLHID to release water into Pioneer Canal to meet demands and fulfill water rights downstream. In addition, historically there have been sedimentation issues that cause problems using the outlet works and this would likely be exacerbated with a reduced storage capacity in the reservoir.

1. Existing and Prior Legislation:

Project Level Chapter Session Account Appropriation Reversion Year Lake Hattie Outlet Works III 118 2004 II $ 163,000 2010 Lake Hattie Dam III 75/14 2008/2012 II $ 282,000 2017 Lake Hattie Dam III 14 2012 II $ 840,000 2017

2. Describe the location of the project:

Lake Hattie is located 15 miles southwest of Laramie in Albany County, Wyoming.

3. Summarize the request:

The sponsor would like to “identify and evaluate projects that will mitigate private landowner claims and restore full operational capacity” to Lake Hattie Reservoir. The application also indicates that the request is to “explore a means of resolving the current conflict with the private landowners and Irrigation District.”

4. Summarize the reasons for the request:

The storage capacity of the reservoir will likely be reduced as a result of legal proceedings that affect the disputed right-of-way easement (high water line) of the reservoir. The current court ruling states that a specific map is to be used to define the high-water line of the reservoir. If this ruling is upheld, it will significantly reduce the storage capacity of the reservoir and substantially reduce the ability of the PCLHID to deliver water downstream.

II. WWDC ELIGIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS

1. Is the Sponsor a public entity? Yes A. If not, is the recommendation for a Level I study or Level I or II study for a dam and reservoir project? N/A 2. Project Priority According to WWDO Criteria: Acct I - Priority 8: LI Reconnaissance Studies

3. Will the project serve at least 1,000 water righted acres? Yes A. Number of Acres: 17,920

4. Is the sponsor eligible for funding from other state or federal programs? No A. If so, what are they? N/A 5. Is the Sponsor currently served by a regionalized water supply system (specify)? Or will the Sponsor consider regional solutions to the purpose and needs of its water supply system? N/A 6. Can the project be delayed or staged? Yes, the project may be delayed. The current status of the lawsuit is for the District Court to revisit its earlier findings in light of the opinion of the 10th District Court of Appeals. Although the current status of the lawsuit favors the landowners, there are specific details yet to be determined, including the

2021 RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS PAGE 2 OF 7 water elevation of the right-of-way easement. The sponsor also indicated there may be additional legal challenges to these court findings. Until the final determination of the storage capacity of the reservoir is made, it may be difficult to fully evaluate the range of alternatives available to the sponsor. A. Should it be? Yes, the study should be delayed until the current litigation is finalized and the results of that litigation can be better evaluated.

III. PERTINENT INFORMATION

1. Existing Water Supply System A. Description of Direct Flow Supply (1) Direct Flow Diversion Right (CFS): 71.43 and 155.14 (2) Direct Flow Source (Name of River, Stream, etc.): Laramie River (3) Type of Diversion (Headgate, Pump, etc.): Headgate (4) Water Transmission System (Canal, Pipeline, etc.): Pioneer Canal B. Description of Stored Water Supply (1) Name(s) of Storage Facility (Reservoir): Lake Hattie (2) Location: Albany County (3) Amount of Stored Water Right (Acre-Feet): 28,426 acre-feet with a 1908 priority and 36,834 acre- feet with a 1986 priority (4) Is any of the stored supply obtained from a federal facility? N/A a. Percent of Total Supply from Federal Facility: 0 b. Amount of Stored Supply from Federal Facility (Acre-Feet): 0 c. Name(s) of Federal Facility: N/A C. Description of Groundwater Supply (1) Number of Wells: N/A (2) Primary Supply Aquifer(s) or Formation(s): N/A (3) Total Average Production Yield of All Wells (GPM): N/A D. Water Rights (1) For the water source supply (or supplies) described above, does the Sponsor possess valid and/or adjudicated water rights? Yes E. System Capacity (1) Maximum Capacity of the Water Supply System (Acre-Feet per Day or CFS): 800-1000 CFS (2) Increased Capacity Needed (If Known) (Acre-Feet per Day or CFS): None F. Water Usage (1) Estimate of Total Water Provided by the System Annually (Acre-Feet per Year): 35,000 (2) Average Day Demand (Acre-Feet per Day or CFS): 48 AF (3) Maximum Day Demand (Acre-Feet per Day or CFS): About 200 AF

2. Existing Service Area and On-Farm Information A. Service Area Information (1) How many total acres are in the district? 17,920 (2) How many acres are assessed? 17,920 (3) How many acres are irrigated? 17,920

2021 RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS PAGE 3 OF 7

(4) What is the annual water delivery assessed (acre-feet per acre)? 2 (5) How many individual land owners receive water? 46 B. On-Farm Information (1) What is the normal irrigation season (e.g., May 1 – Sept. 30)? May to mid-August

(2) What type(s) of on-farm irrigation water applications is used (e.g., center pivot, side roll, flood, etc.)? Flood and Center Pivot (3) Briefly describe the main crops and cropping patterns: Grass Hay and Alfalfa. Typically, one cutting in July. (4) Describe the water measuring devices currently in use: Parshall flumes on main canals and most individual laterals. (5) Percentage of Farm Turnouts with Measuring Devices: 95% (6) Are water deliveries recorded? Yes (7) Estimated System Water Losses (Percentage): 30% (8) What water conservation measures are employed by the Sponsor? Unknown

3. Financial Information A. District Financing (1) Is the assessment based on acres, acre-feet delivered, acre-feet of storage, or other (specify)? Acres (2) How is voting authority delegated to water users (e.g., shares, individuals, number of acres, etc.)? Number of Acres (3) What is the per-unit amount of the current assessment? A&N Shares $4.69/acre; B Shares $3.23/acre; D Shares $1.00/acre; AD Shares $4.69/acre; C & Parker shares $2.82/acre (4) Is there is a basic service charge or first acre assessment in addition to assessments? If so, specify amount: N/A B. Financial Statement (1) Revenues a. Annual Revenues Generated from Assessments: $ 79,355 b. Annual Revenues from Other Sources: $ 1,115 c. Total Annual Revenues: $ 80,470 (2) Expenditures a. Annual Budget for Operation and Maintenance Expenses: $ 4,000 b. Annual Payments for Debt Retirement: $ 39,000 c. Annual Payments to a Repair and Replacement Fund: $ See note B d. Annual Payments to an Emergency Fund: $ None e. Annual Payments for Other Purposes: $ None f. Total Annual Payments: $ 43,000 (3) Other a. Balance in Repair and Replacement Fund: $ As needed b. Balance in Emergency Fund: $ 45,000 c. Explanation (If Needed):

2021 RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS PAGE 4 OF 7

When performing repairs to the system, funds have historically been taken and used from the money market account in which funds are placed, which was plentiful until the recent litigation. Note B: The district does not annually budget specific funds for repairs and replacements, but is required to maintain a sinking fund under the prior WWDC loans. The present amount of the sinking fund is approximately $45,000. (4) Is the operation of the water system self-supporting in terms of revenues offsetting costs for operation, maintenance, debt retirement, replacement funds, emergency funds, etc.? Yes

2021 RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS PAGE 5 OF 7

PROJECT AREA MAP

2021 RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS PAGE 6 OF 7

RESOLUTION

2021 RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS PAGE 7 OF 7

2021 WATER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION WATER RESEARCH PROGRAM PROJECTS

Project Name: UW Water Research Program Program: New Development

Project Type: Multipurpose County: Statewide

Sponsor: WWDC / USGS / UW

WWDO Recommendation: Level I Proposed WWDC Budget: $ 283,454

Project Manager: Jodee Pring

Project Description: Statewide Water Research

The UW Water Research Program (WRP) is a cooperative State-Federal-University water-related research and training program. The primary goals of the WRP are to support and coordinate research relative to important water resource problems of the State and region, support the training of scientists in relevant water resource fields, and promote the dissemination and application of the results of this water-related research. The University of Wyoming’s Office of Water Programs (OWP) annually solicits Wyoming stakeholders to identify areas of needed water research to be conducted by the University. The WRP supports faculty and students through competitive peer reviewed proposals addressing these water related issues upon a favorable recommendation by a WRP Advisory Committee and subsequent approval by both the Wyoming Water Development Commission (WWDC) and Legislative Select Water Committee (SWC). Projects are selected annually for funding, with Wyoming Water Development Commission funds being matched by the University of Wyoming.

Project proposals are evaluated first by the WRP Advisory Committee for scientific merit and applicability to the needs of the State to include a priority ranking of viable projects. This ranking is then presented to both the Water Development Commission and Legislative Select Water Committee for their consideration and formal action at their joint November meeting. Final approval as to which projects are included in the WRP block funding request as part of the Omnibus Water Planning Bill, rests with the WWDC and SWC. The current WRP project selection process ties the pending WRP funding request in the Omnibus Planning Bill to a specific set of projects that have been thoroughly reviewed by not only the WRP Advisory Committee (scientific review) but also by the WWDC and SWC. Specific completed and pending tasks and timelines under the FY21 project proposal selection and approval procedure follow:

WRP Proposal Solicitation and Receipt May 4, 2020 – Solicitation of research topics and drafting of RFP (OWP & WRP Advisory) May 15, 2020 – RFP approved (WWDC & SWC) Aug 2020 – Distribution of RFP (OWP) Oct 1, 2020 – WRP research proposal deadline (OWP)

WRP Proposal Review and Project Selection Oct 2020 – Research proposals peer reviewed (OWP facilitates) Oct 27, 2020 – Research proposals reviewed and ranked (WRP Advisory Committee) Nov 5, 2020 – Rankings reviewed and projects approved (WWDC & SWC) (Selected projects to be listed in the Blue Book for the legislative session)

WWDC/SWC WRP Funding Approval Dec 2020 – Omnibus Water Planning Bill legislation drafted (WWDC & SWC) Jan-Mar 2021 – Planning Bill acted on by Wyoming State Legislature Mar 2021 – WRP MOU approved (WWDC & SWC) Mar 2021 – New WRP projects begin (OWP coordinates activities)

1

Research proposals were accepted by the Office of Water Programs from the campus community during the month of August up until the deadline of October 1, 2020. Seven FY21 proposals were received and were peer reviewed (includes external review), discussed, and ranked by the WRP Advisory Committee at their Oct. 27, 2020 meeting. A listing of the proposals, requested budget amounts, and corresponding statements of relevance follow. Copies of the full proposals are available to members of the Commission and the Legislative Select Water Committee by contacting the WWDO Project Manager.

UW Water Research Program ~ FY21 Proposals

WRP FY21 - Proposal A

Title: Improved Forecasting of Water Content Spatial Distribution and Aquifer Potential Assessment Using Geostatistical and Hydro-Geophysical Methods PI: Dario Grana, Dept. of Geology and Geophysics, UW; Andrew Parsekian, Dept. of Geology and Geophysics and Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, UW Proposed Start Date: 07/01/2021 Proposed End Date: 07/01/2023 Project Funds requested: $97,185 University matching: $76,350

Non-Technical Statement of Relevance: In the Western US, mountain systems capture 70% of the precipitation, while accounting for only 30% of the landscape. In Wyoming, snowmelt in the high country contributes substantially to both surface water flow and aquifer recharge in basins where most of the population lives. The focus of this study is coupling geostatistical and hydro-geophysical methods to improve the prediction and monitoring of the aquifer potential in catchments that are primary recharge areas to municipal water sources. By using time-lapse geophysical observations in conjunction with geostatistical analysis methods, we will develop an innovative methodology to estimate the aquifer potential and to update the model every time new data become available. Improved predictions of the timing and volume of snowmelt input into aquifer recharge zones will improve the ability of State and Federal agencies to manage annual water use, plan for future growth, and mitigate threats to our water security under variable annual precipitation conditions. The new statistical methodology will be applied to three datasets to monitor the water supply of three of Wyoming fastest growing towns. This work will also support water-related training and education through the mentoring of a graduate student and undergraduate students.

Advisory Committee Deliberations This is a two-year project. The Committee felt this project was well written and would prove useful and beneficial to the state of Wyoming. The study areas are in three of the four largest municipalities in Wyoming. The Committee felt the values derived from the study areas could be used to inform the recharge potential for other municipalities in the state. This project will also provide training for two undergraduate students and one graduate student.

WRP FY21 - Proposal B

Title: Economic Impacts of Curtailment and Demand Management in the Wyoming Colorado River Basin PI: Kristiana Hansen, Dept. of Agricultural and Applied Economic, UW; Roger Coupal, Dept. of Agricultural and Applied Economics, UW; Ginger Paige, Dept. of Ecosystem Science and Management, UW; Consultant: Anne MacKinnon, Adjunct Faculty, Haub School of the Environment, UW Proposed Start Date: 07/01/2021 Proposed End Date: 07/01/2024 Project Funds Requested: $137,424 University matching: $100,221

Non-Technical Statement of Relevance The Upper Basin States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming are exploring options for how to meet their obligations under the Colorado River Compact of 1922, in light of the dry hydrology the basin has experienced and may continue to experience moving forward. One possibility is to implement a Demand Management (DM) program. Under a DM program, water users would reduce their consumptive water use,

2 and the saved water would be stored in certain Upper Basin reservoirs (including Flaming Gorge), to provide a “savings account” that could help the Upper Basin assure continued compliance with the 1922 Compact. Participation in a DM program by any water user would be voluntary, temporary, and compensated.

A DM program could reduce the risk of “curtailment,” under which Upper Basin states would be required to regulate post-compact rights to reduce consumptive water use in proportion to their historical consumptive use. Wyoming would meet this obligation by regulating off water rights in the Wyoming portion of the CRB in reverse priority (starting with the most junior and working backwards by priority date) until its obligation was met.

As stakeholders in Wyoming evaluate the feasibility of a DM program, economic considerations are of paramount interest. Which sectors of the economy—agricultural, municipal, industrial—are most impacted from curtailment versus DM? Building on an existing study focused on DM that is nearing completion and on stakeholder input from the DM feasibility outreach work recently conducted by the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office, the proposed study will assess the potential economic impacts of both DM and curtailment in Wyoming.

Advisory Committee Deliberations This is a three-year project. The Committee appreciates the letters of support received for this project. There was some concern about this project truly being a research project and what products would come from this. The Committee understands there is a high need for information proposed to be gained from this project but was concerned about the vagueness of the methods. There was also a question as to whether there are other funding sources available in the Colorado River Basin for this type of project. The Committee also expressed concern over the student involvement only being two graduate students for two of the three years of the project.

WRP FY21 - Proposal C

Title: Robust Low-Cost Snow Depth Measurements and High-Resolution Modelling to Improve Water Supply Forecasting in Wyoming PI: Dr. Bart Geerts, Department of Atmospheric Science, UW Proposed Start Date: 07/01/2021 Proposed End Date: 07/01/2024 Project Funds Requested: $201,795 University matching: $136,151

Non-Technical Statement of Relevance In his 2015 Wyoming Water Strategy document, Governor Mead followed earlier Wyoming leaders in emphasizing the importance of water development to Wyoming’s economy. Accurate forecasting of seasonal streamflow is essential to long-term water development decisions in the State. It has become increasingly evident in recent years that there are some watersheds in Wyoming where seasonal snowfall and snowpack estimates over mountains are systematically in error. These estimates are based on SNOTEL (SNOw TELemetry) measurements, but the SNOTEL network is quite sparse, with only a few sites per mountain range. The snowpack varies tremendously at small scales across Wyoming’s mountains, as we and others have shown in recent years, by means of high-resolution regional climate simulations. There is ample evidence that such numerical simulations can estimate the distribution of cold-season precipitation over mountains better than gridded, gauge-based precipitation estimates such as PRISM, at least over mountains where the SNOTEL network is sparse. PRISM is a widely-used gridded precipitation and snowpack dataset that extrapolates from the gauges in a terrain-sensitive way. Two independent regional climate simulations have shown that in most years the snowpack (as estimated from SNOTEL data and derived gridded products) may be underestimated over the Wind River Range, the Gros Ventre Range, and the northern Bighorn range, while it is overestimated over the Teton Range and Wyoming’s southern mountains. Snowpack uncertainty is the main challenge in the seasonal streamflow prediction by the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office. There is a larger effort afoot, led by NOAA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to move seasonal streamflow prediction from a statistical to a physical approach, one that quantitatively captures the seasonal current evolution of amount of snow water. The PRISM guidance has been proven to be inadequate for this purpose. In line with this larger effort, we propose to deploy a network of robust, yet low-cost snow depth

3 measurements to augment the existing SNOTEL network over select mountain ranges, in data-sparse areas, across the cold season, to examine whether additional measurements can benefit water supply forecasting. Unlike the federal efforts, our effort focuses on the mountains, because that is where almost all seasonal snow water is stored, at least in Wyoming. The additional measurements will be complemented with very-high- resolution time-matched coupled atmospheric and snow model simulations. The working hypothesis will be that our snow depth measurements are closer to the simulated amounts, and that the PRISM estimates depart significantly from both. A graduate student and several undergraduate students will be trained in the design and building of the snow depth sensors, using miniature components, and in field work to deploy these probes and characterize the snow pack. In addition, the graduate student will be trained in the use of complex atmospheric models on Cheyenne at the NCAR Wyoming Supercomputer Center.

Advisory Committee Deliberations This is a three-year project. The Committee agreed, when implemented, the findings from this investigation would provide benefit to water supply forecasting and cloud seeding monitoring. There was some confusion on how improved forecasting translates to water in the stream and how that would be verified. Another concern of the Committee was if the research would be able to show the NRCS where new SNOTEL sites should be located and then convincing the NRCS to tackle the issue of funding and installing the sites. Also, would the NRCS have the ability to place the sensors at the SNOTEL sites without a need for more permitting? This project would provide training for one PhD student.

WRP FY21 - Proposal D

Title: Improving Hydrologic Predictions in Wyoming’s Headwaters Through Detailed Quantification of Snowmelt PI: Fabian Nippgen, Dept. of Ecosystem Science and Management, UW; Ginger Paige, Dept. of Ecosystem Science and Management, UW Proposed Start Date: 07/01/2021 Proposed End Date: 07/01/2024 Project Funds Requested: $186,269 University matching: $132,178

Non-Technical Statement of Relevance Predicting snow melt is critical for an accurate assessment of water resources in this region and important for meeting Wyoming compact obligations. Heterogeneous snow accumulation and ablation patterns in complex terrain complicate our ability to make predictions for spring snow melt and water availability during the summer months. Currently, we mostly rely on a network (SNOTEL) of snow observations where the individual sites are spaced out over long distances, making watershed-level predictions highly inaccurate. We propose a research project that uses observations at three different levels (on the ground, via small unmanned aerial vehicles (aka drones), and from satellites) in conjunction with snow- and water resources models to improve our ability to predict how complex mountainous terrain and watershed characteristics such as vegetation, slope, aspect, and elevation lead to different patterns of snow accumulation and ablation. Within this project, we will address more areas that are of importance to hydrology and water resources management, such as the intermittent nature of smaller headwater streams and changing runoff source areas over the course of the melt and growing season. Our research aims at improving current methods to monitor and model runoff generated from snowmelt in Wyoming’s mountain ranges. We select one core research site in the Snowy Mountain Range, a headwater of the North Platte river and a critical water tower for downstream water users. After optimizing a model for the Snowy Range, our goal is to apply newly gained insights to other basins of interest in Wyoming, for example the Upper North Platte Basin and the Tongue River basin.

Advisory Committee Deliberations This is a three-year project. The Committee felt the project showed good use of basic and applied research. This proposal includes both remote sensed data and on-the-ground measurements. The project site was chosen for its accessibility, data availability and its representativeness to Wyoming’s headwater systems. The Committee felt conducting this project in this watershed, which is close to Laramie, would enhance student involvement (two graduate students) and lead to the potential of these students learning skills that would help with future employment at various state agencies.

4

WRP FY21 - Proposal E

Title: A Screen to Identify How Sublethal Concentration of Several Pharmaceuticals Present in the Laramie River Effluent Affect Neural Development PI: Kara Pratt, Dept. of Zoology and Physiology, UW Proposed Start Date: 07/01/2021 Proposed End Date: 07/01/2024 Project Funds Requested: $87,117 University matching: $61,146

Non-Technical Statement of Relevance The treated wastewater that is discharged from the Laramie Wastewater Treatment Plant into the Laramie River contains a cocktail of pharmaceuticals, recreational drugs, pesticides, plastics, and personal care products. The acutely lethal concentrations for a few of these contaminants have been determined but the effects of sublethal concentrations have not. This gap in information is critical because dilute concentrations of a given drug could be compromising the aquatic life in the river, especially embryonic life which is especially vulnerable to drugs and chemicals. These sublethal effects may appear subtle but could have long-term consequences to fish populations and the entire aquatic ecosystem. The aim of this project is to determine how and at what concentration several different pharmaceuticals in the effluent may affect neural development. For this we designed a screen using a popular developmental model, the Xenopus tadpole visual system. The screen consists of a combination of straight-forward behavioral assays and well- established electrophysiological approaches. Altogether, this screen will determine the lowest concentration of a given drug that alters normal neural circuit formation and function, and will pin-point the precise pathology. We will also screen the undiluted treated wastewater to determine how the entire mixture of drugs and chemicals may affect neural development. Finally, to connect our findings with the Laramie River, we have arranged for the EPA to carry out chemical analyses of pharmaceuticals on water samples from several key points along the Laramie River (including a sample from the wastewater treatment plant). This will provide a current list of all the different contaminants in the river and their concentrations. The data generated by this project will provide a reference for identifying dangerous levels of a given contaminant, which, importantly, may be considerably lower than the acutely lethal concentration. In this way, this work will contribute to keeping the aquatic life not only alive but healthy. This supports maintaining bountiful resources and a contamination-free environment, a mission of Wyoming Water Development and should be of special value to the U.S. EPA, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the Laramie Wastewater Treatment Plant, and the City of Laramie. Furthermore, because effluent from wastewater treatment plants across the nation contain similar “cocktails”, the data generated by this proposal will be of great value to the U.S. EPA, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS).

Advisory Committee Deliberations This is a three-year project. The Committee felt the proposal addressed an important emerging issue. The Committee would like to see the sampling extend over a broader space of time instead of once a year as suggested. The specific target audience was unclear in this proposal. The Committee would like to encourage coordination with the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality to better formulate the objectives of this study. This project would provide training for two graduate students and at least two undergraduate students.

WRP FY21 - Proposal F

Title: Prevention and Mitigation of Heavy Sediment Release at Wyoming Dams PI: Kam Ng, Dept. of Civil and Architectural Engineering, UW; Gang Tan, and Ye Zhang, Dept. of Civil and Architectural Engineering, UW Proposed Start Date: 07/01/2021 Proposed End Date: 07/01/2024 Project Funds Requested: $330,885 University matching: $110,765

5

Non-Technical Statement of Relevance The overall goal of the proposed project is to improve Wyoming dam operation and protect the downstream environment through watershed management. Structural measures using check dams are found to be the most reliable method for reducing sediment yield. Furthermore, vegetation measures will improve the stability and service life of check dams and reduce riparian disturbance from soil erosion. The proposed project, considering both structural and vegetation measures, will benefit Wyoming’s dam operations and functions to provide reliable water supply, sufficient flood water storage capacity and hydropower generation. In addition, the avoidance of heavy sediment release from dams will provide healthy aquatic habitats for the benthic community downstream. This project will benefit the Wyoming Water Development.

The proposed project will generate field measurements of suspended-sediment concentration, flow characteristics, sediment size distribution, bathymetry, soil-vegetation characteristics of the riparian areas of the Shoshone River and Willwood Dam. The assessment of new field data and existing records will improve the understanding of sediment transport and deposition over time. Outcomes of the numerical study using a one-dimensional model and an additional module to account for vertical sediment distribution will determine the effectiveness of structural and vegetation measures on reducing sedimentation upstream. The field survey results and predicted SSC discharged downstream from the numerical simulation will provide valuable data for future studies on ecological and environmental impacts. The research outcomes will provide the basis for developing best recommendations on how to prevent heavy sediment release from Willwood Dam. The research recommendations can be adapted by other government agencies to better manage Wyoming’s water resources.

The research data and outcomes will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and technical presentations at state conferences, such as the Wyoming Water Association annual meeting, and national conferences, such as the annual conference of Association of State Dam Safety Officials. A technical report will be submitted to the Wyoming Water Research Program, and technical presentations will be given by the principal investigators at annual meetings and conferences to support water related training and education.

Advisory Committee Deliberations This is a three-year project. The Committee felt there was little mention in this project of the ongoing work and existing data being developed in this watershed through the Willwood work groups. The Committee highly encourages the proposers to coordinate with the Willwood Irrigation District, the Willwood work groups and the state and federal agencies involved in this issue. These groups could assist the proposers in determining data and modeling gaps as well as what sediment management alternatives have and have not been explored to mitigate adverse impacts to downstream aquatic habitat.

WRP FY21 - Proposal G

Title: Development and Evaluation of an Advanced Septic System for Reduction of Nutrient Loading to Surface Waters and thus Harmful Cyanobacteria Blooms PI: Dr. Maohong Fan, School of Energy Resources in Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, UW Proposed Start Date: 07/01/2021 Proposed End Date: 07/01/2024 Project Funds Requested: $195,000 University matching: $135,416

Non-Technical Statement of Relevance Water is one of the most critical resources in the development of Wyoming’s economy. A number of precious water resources cannot be used due to their adverse health effects. The harmful cyanobacteria blooms (HCBs) in lakes or reservoirs resulting from the presence of the excessive nutrients (N and P) have already negatively affected the ecosystem and lives in Wyoming. The cyanotoxins generated by HCBs could lead to significant health issues for the human being and the death of livestock. The precondition for controlling HCBs is to reduce nutrient loading to surface waters. Many methods have been developed for the removal of nutrients. However, its effectiveness is unsatisfactory. The proposed project aims at changing the situation. Specifically, an advanced septic system will be developed to significantly improve the removals of N and P or reduce nutrient loading to surface waters, which is beneficial to controlling HCBs and their resultant cyanotoxins. Fenton's reagent (FR) consisting of FeSO4 and H2O2 as a green oxidant and polymeric ferric

6 sulfate (PFS) as a high-performance coagulant will be integrated to significantly improve the removals of N and P. FR is used as an environmentally friendly oxidizing method for converting nitrogen bound in organic substances, nitrogen in ammonia (NH3-N) and in ammonium (NH4+-N) into nitrate via nitrification that can be easily removed with highly efficient PFS via coagulation mechanism. The ferric cation in PFS can react with soluble orthophosphate to form an insoluble compound (FePO4) as a precipitate. Thus, the success of the proposed project can be used for significant improvement of nutrient removals via an advanced septic system. Furthermore, the results of this study will be publicly available, disseminated through executive summary bulletins to any interested government agencies, as well as through seminars and presentations by the UW Water Research Program (WRP), academic and industry conferences, and news releases in Wyoming media. One of the two current WRP projects is “Identifying, Predicting and Managing the Occurrence of Harmful Cyanobacterial Blooms in Wyoming Reservoirs”, which is very important to an understanding of the origins of HCBs, while the proposed project is focused on the removal of nutrients and thus control of HCBs. The overall goal is to reduce the concentrations of total N and P (two nutrients) in water to be lower than 3 ppm and 0.1 ppm, respectively.

Advisory Committee Deliberations This is a three-year project. The Committee agreed this proposal begins to address an important issue for the state. While septic systems may be a source of HCBs, this contribution is considered minor. There was some concern over the applicability of this proposal to areas of the state where septic systems do not directly impact surface water. The Committee felt the proposers would benefit from reaching out to counties with sensitive areas (Teton, Sheridan, Albany) to narrow down a good site for field demonstration purposes.

COMMITTEE RANKINGS Each Committee member ranked the proposals 1-7. Those rankings were compiled and three groups resulted, as shown in the table below. The Committee decided to present the rankings as three different tiers, with Tier 1 being the highest-ranking proposals and Tier 3 being the lowest. The proposals are listed highest to lowest within each tier.

The Committee recommends funding proposals A and D.

7

UNIVERSITY WWDC PROPOSAL NAME AND PI(S) MATCHING AMOUNT FUNDS REQUESTED TIER 1 Improved Forecasting of Water Content A Spatial Distribution and Aquifer Potential Assessment Using Geostatistical and $76,350 $97,185 Hydro-Geophysical Methods; Grana and Parsekian Improving Hydrologic Predictions in

D Wyoming’s Headwaters Through $132,178 $186,279 Detailed Quantification of Snowmelt;

Nippgen and Paige TIER 2 Robust Low-Cost Snow Depth C Measurements and High-Resolution Modelling to Improve Water Supply $136,151 $201,795 Forecasting in Wyoming; Geerts A Screen to Identify How Sublethal Concentration of Several E Pharmaceuticals Present in the Laramie $61,146 $87,117 River Effluent Affect Neural Development; Pratt Economic Impacts of Curtailment and B Demand Management in the Wyoming Colorado River Basin; Hansen, Coupal, $100,221 $137,424 Paige, MacKinnon Development and Evaluation of an Advanced Septic System for Reduction G of Nutrient Loading to Surface Waters $135,416 $195,000 and thus Harmful Cyanobacteria Blooms; Fan TIER 3 Prevention and Mitigation of Heavy F Sediment Release at Wyoming Dams; $110,765 $330,885 Ng and Tan

8

2021 WATER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS

Project Name: Clear Creek Storage Program: Dam and Reservoir

Project Type: Multipurpose County: Johnson

Sponsor: Lake DeSmet Conservation District Proposed Budget: $0

Legislative Approved / Existing Budget: $700,000

WWDO Recommendation: Extend the reversion date by three years from July 1, 2021 to July 1, 2024

Project Manager: Jason Mead

Project Description: The Lake DeSmet Conservation District received funding to continue the Clear Creek Storage, Level II Study to further consider the Bull Creek Reservoir site and alternatives to said site. Upon analysis, the Upper Bull Creek Reservoir site has been determined to be the preferred alternative based on technical feasibility and ability to permit. The remaining funding will be utilized to further develop the project and beneficiaries, and if merited, purchase option contracts for easements and land acquisitions. Additional work includes ownership, operation and maintenance plans; beneficiary/stakeholder meetings; and land appraisals and negotiations. Preserving the appropriation will allow the Upper Bull Creek Reservoir alternative to be thoroughly developed and prepared for the scrutiny of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process, thereby minimizing potential delays in project completion.

2021 RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS PAGE 1 OF 1 THE STATE OF WYOMING Water Development Office 6920 YELLOWTAIL ROAD TELEPHONE: (307) 777-7626 CHEYENNE, WY 82002

2021 WATER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS

Project Name: Fontenelle Dam and Outworks Infrastructure Completion Program: New Development

Project Type: Multipurpose County: Lincoln / Sweetwater

Sponsor: WWDC Proposed Budget: $0

Legislative Approved / Existing Budget: $750,000

WWDO Recommendation: Extend the reversion date by three years from July 1, 2021 to July 1, 2024

Project Manager: Jason Mead

Project Description: In 2016, an appropriation for $200,000 was granted by the Legislature to complete a Level II Feasibility study in response to Governor Mead’s 2015 Wyoming Water Strategy initiative for Fontenelle Reservoir. The study analyzed the feasibility of making 80,796 acre-feet of currently inactive capacity usable by investigating armoring alternatives for approximately 52 feet of submerged dam face. Furthermore, the project included investigation of potential environmental impacts and benefits, hydrology, NEPA, scheduling, economic analysis, and interagency coordination. Ultimately, the recommended approach to protecting the submerged dam face was to place traditional riprap material “in the wet” with an estimated implementation cost of $15.3M (~$16.5M estimated 2020 cost). However, toward the conclusion of the Level II Feasibility study in late 2018, Reclamation suggested the potential for an “extreme event alternative”. This alternative proposed that it may be possible to draw down the reservoir with the submerged dam face unprotected as a temporary solution in the event of an extreme drought.

During the 2018 Legislature, an additional $750,000 was appropriated to continue evaluating the WWDC Level II study concepts with Task Orders for Risk Assessment, Design, and NEPA under the existing Reclamation Technical Service Agreement 15-WC-40-599. Since the completion of the WWDC Level II study, Reclamation has been working on the Risk Assessment Task Order analyzing the risks associated with drawing down the reservoir below the riprap elevation. Some of the preliminary results of the Risk Assessment are as follows:

• There are no new potential failure modes (PFMs) and any effects to risk neutrality can be mitigated. • Riprap does not need to be placed prior to drawdown. • One occurrence for 1-year is acceptable with repairs to embankment erosion. • Multiple occurrences or a duration >1-year will require riprap extension. • Any damage to the embankment needs to be repaired or riprap needs to be extended.

Continued evaluations and reviews need to take place to complete the Risk Assessment with results expected by the end of the year. Next steps would include developing standby contracts for the additional capacity, Design, and NEPA. As the details of future Design and NEPA Task Orders are not fully developed yet, additional funding may be required to bring this project to completion with Reclamation. However, an extension of time on the current appropriation would allow this project to continue and potentially provide an additional 80,796 acre-feet of active capacity in Fontenelle Reservoir that could be used in the case of extreme drought, such as a Colorado River Curtailment.

2021 RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS PAGE 1 OF 1 THE STATE OF WYOMING Water Development Office 6920 YELLOWTAIL ROAD TELEPHONE: (307) 777-7626 CHEYENNE, WY 82002

2021 WATER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS

Project Name: Glendo Reservoir Full Utilization Project Program: New Development

Project Type: Multipurpose County: Platte

Sponsor: WWDC Proposed Budget: $0

Legislative Approved / Existing Budget: $750,000

WWDO Recommendation: Extend the reversion date by three years from July 1, 2021 to July 1, 2024

Project Manager: Andrew Linch

Project Description: In 2016, an appropriation for $300,000 was granted by the Legislature to complete a Level II Feasibility study in response to Governor Mead’s 2015 Wyoming Water Strategy initiative for Glendo Reservoir. The study developed a feasible level of flood pool retention that would minimize impacts to State Parks facilities and operations, and optimize the benefits that could be realized from re-timing this release of natural flood flows, temporarily held in the Glendo Reservoir flood pool, in the North Platte River system. The study was completed in 2018 and summarized the next steps anticipated to implement the proposed changes including operational modifications to the Glendo Dam and Reservoir Water Control Manual.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) initially stated they would need to conduct their own scientific analysis of the proposed changes from the WWDC Level II study and complete NEPA requirements. During the 2018 Legislature, an additional $750,000 was appropriated to conduct a Water Control Plan Modification Study (WCPMS) to address the Corps needs. The Corps subsequently expressed uncertainty in their ability to proceed with a WCPMS at Glendo due to a lack of authority. Despite urging the Corps to reconsider their position, the WCPMS did not move forward. Current legislation being considered in the 116th United States Congress and a recent Executive Order on Modernizing America’s Water Resource Management and Water Infrastructure could revive discussions with the Corps and provide a path forward for pursuing the flood flow re-timing concept. Additional time would allow for this legislation to move through Congress and for coordination to continue with the Corps and Reclamation on this project.

2021 RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS PAGE 1 OF 1

2021 WATER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS

Project Name: Nowood River Storage – Alkali Creek Program: Dam and Reservoir

Project Type: Multipurpose County: Big Horn

Sponsor: Nowood River Watershed Improvement District Proposed Budget: $0

Legislative Approved / Existing Budget: $4,000,000

WWDO Recommendation: Extend the reversion date by three years from July 1, 2021 to July 1, 2024

Project Manager: Jason Mead

Project Description: The Nowood River Watershed Improvement District received funding to complete the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process and final design for Alkali Creek Reservoir. The reservoir will have a total capacity of approximately 8,000 acre-feet, of which 6,000 acre-feet will serve as a supplemental irrigation supply, leaving a 2,000 acre-foot conservation pool for habitat, fishing and recreational use. A third party NEPA contractor assisted the U.S. Bureau of Land Management through the completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The consultant who completed the feasibility analysis was retained to assist the third party NEPA contractor in a liaison role by providing information to assist with preparation of the EIS, thereby retaining project knowledge and continuity. Furthermore, a final design consultant has been hired and has begun to complete land acquisition and easements, design data collection, final design, construction plans, specifications, and other documents. Due to the complex nature of dam and reservoir permitting and final design, unforeseen items can arise. Preserving the appropriation would allow such circumstances to be handled in a timely manner and prevent any potential delays in project completion.

2021 RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS PAGE 1 OF 1 2021 RECOMMENDATION-CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Project Name: Interstate Irrigation & Reservoir Irrigation Program: Rehabilitation District Improvements

Project Type: Agricultural Irrigation County: Sweetwater

Sponsor: Interstate Irrigation & Reservoir Irrigation District

WWDO Recommendation: Level III Design and Construction Proposed Budget: $2,827,400 of Interstate Canal Segment #1

WWDC Grant1 (67%) $ 2,827,400 USBOR2 (33%) $ 1,392,600 Total $ 4,220,000

1 Not to exceed 67% of project eligible costs 2 USBOR Salinity Control Funds

Project Manager: Jason Mead

Project Description: The Interstate Irrigation & Reservoir Irrigation District (IIRID) have applied for a project to eliminate seepage losses and associated salt loading by piping the existing earthen Interstate Canal with HDPE pipe materials. The proposed improvements would extend from the diversion at Burnt Fork (in Utah) to the end of the Interstate Canal near Logan Hollow (in Wyoming) and would involve rehabilitation of the entire 13.1 miles of canal. The canal diverts an average of 4,525 acre-feet of water per year. Of that amount, 25 percent or 1,131 acre-feet is lost to seepage. According to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) estimates, this seepage causes 2,295 tons of salt to enter the Green and Colorado Rivers annually. Along with needing to reduce the salt loading, the water lost through seepage needs to be preserved for irrigation use. This lost water could be used by the IIRID and its shareholders to reduce existing shortages and improve crop yields. The Project would allow the IIRID to extend the stored water supply in Beaver Meadow Reservoir and Island Lake and provide a more dependable water supply for the irrigation season. By enclosing the canal and eventually the laterals, the leaching and transmittal of salt into the associated aquifer and drainage system could be significantly reduced. On-farm salt savings will also likely follow as additional land converts to sprinkler irrigation.

The IIRID was approved for a 2019 WWDC appropriation to replace the Burnt Fork Diversion and plan to bid the project in 2021. Though their current application requests piping the entire 13.1 miles of Interstate Canal, they have proposed phasing the project into two segments based on availability of funding and construction windows. Segment #1 spans from the Burnt Fork Diversion to the Birch Creek Flume (Figure A-5), involves approximately 4.7 miles of 34-inch HDPE, and a number of energy dissipation structures to break pressure due to elevation changes in the segment. Segment #2 covers the remainder of the canal length, includes pipe diameters ranging from 34 to 10 inches, as well as 12 turnouts with flow control valves. It is recommended to only proceed with Segment #1 at this time.

The IIRID is a newly created Irrigation District located in southwestern Wyoming, adjacent to the Wyoming-Utah border, near McKinnon, Wyoming. This area is in the Henry’s Fork River Basin whose headwaters primarily originate in Utah on the north slopes of the Uinta Mountains, flowing into Wyoming and then into Flaming Gorge Reservoir. The major tributaries in the project area are Burnt Fork and Beaver Creek. Other streams are ephemeral, with most flows resulting from snowmelt runoff. The lands irrigated by IIRID have been previously administered by the Interstate Irrigation and Reservoir Company. IIRID irrigates 2,035 acres of land for which the principal crop is grass hay, with alfalfa hay and irrigated pasture as other major crops grown. 1,967 acres of the 2,035 irrigated acres are located in Wyoming, with 1 the balance being located in Utah.

1. Describe existing status in the program and previous appropriations. Prior Legislation Year Project Appropriation 2013 L-I, Interstate Canal & Beaver Meadows Reservoir Rehab $ 180,000 2019 L-III, Interstate Diversion Structure Rehabilitation 2019 $ 420,000

2. Describe existing water supply using information in the application. The water supply for IIRID is based on Utah water rights which include direct flow rights and storage rights in the Burnt Fork drainage, a tributary of Henrys Fork. The direct flow rights are junior water rights and provide water to IIRID only during the snowmelt runoff. The Interstate Canal was designed to carry a capacity of 70 cfs. The diversion history of the IIRID’s direct stream flow rights is much less than the 70 cfs amount. In a typical year IIRID runs out of water in early July when their reservoir storage is depleted. This situation has left the IIRID heavily dependent on their storage rights to supply any water for an irrigation season. IIRID has storage in two high mountain reservoirs, Island Lake (778 acre-feet) and Beaver Meadow Reservoir (2,461 acre-feet). Water from these reservoirs is released into Burnt Fork and then diverted into the Interstate Canal.

3. Summarize the request. The request is for a 67% grant to convert 13.1 miles of open canal to a buried HDPE pipeline, and includes pipe diameters ranging from 34 to 10 inches. However, the IIRID has proposed phasing the project into two segments based on availability of funding and construction windows.

4. Summarize the reasons for the request. The Interstate Canal diverts an average of 4,525 acre-feet of water per year. Of that amount, 25 percent or 1,131 acre-feet is lost to seepage. The proposed Project is to eliminate seepage losses and associated salt loading by piping the existing earthen Interstate Canal with HDPE pipe materials.

Estimated Level III WWDC Eligible Costs:

Preparation of Final Designs and Specifications $ 290,000 Pre-Construction Costs (Subtotal # 1) $ 290,000

Cost of Project Components Mobilization, Demob, Insurance and Bonds $ 94,800 Site Preparation $ 212,500 Pipeline $ 2,703,950

Construction Cost (Subtotal #2) $ 3,011,250 Construction Engineering Costs (Subtotal # 2 x 6.5%) $ 195,000 Components and Engineering Costs (Subtotal # 3) $ 3,206,250 Contingency (Subtotal #3 x 15%) $ 480,938 Construction Cost Total (Subtotal #4) $ 3,687,188

Total Project Cost (Subtotal #1 + Subtotal #4) $ 3,977,188 Inflation Costs (3% per year for two years) $ 242,211

Total Project Costs (Interstate Canal Segment #1) $ 4,219,399

Total Project Costs Rounded: $ 4,220,000

Level III Recommended Funding @ 67% Grant: $ 2,827,400

USBOR Salinity Control Funds @ 33% Match: $ 1,392,600 2

PROJECT INFORMATION:

A. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

1. Service Area Information. Pre-Project Post-Project

a. Total acres are in the District? 7,249 7,249

b. Assessed acres? 2,035 2,035

c. Irrigated acres? 2,035 2,035

d. Average annual water delivery (acre-feet/acre assessed)? 1.67 2.40

e. How many individual landowners receive water? 19 19

f. What type(s) of on-farm irrigation water application is used? Pivot, Handline, K-line, and flood irrigation. It is estimated that approximately 945 acres is flood irrigated and 1,090 acres are sprinkler irrigated.

g. Briefly describe the main crops and cropping patterns: Grass hay, alfalfa hay and irrigated pasture.

h. Describe the water measuring devices currently in use: Parshall flumes at major structures and division of flows at turnouts. The division is based on an allocated percentage of weir length at each turnout.

2. Water Usage Pre-Project Post-Project

a. Total water (AF) provided by the system annually: 3,394 4,525

b. Average Day Demand (AF): 45 60

c. Peak Day Demand (AF): 60 70

3. System Capacity: Pre-Project Post-Project

a. Maximum capacity of the water supply system (acre feet per day) 60 70

b. What is the factor (bottleneck) limiting the ability to provide water (supply, canals, etc.): Canal Seepage Water Supply

c. Increased capacity needed (acre feet per day): 0 0

d. Estimated system water losses (percentage): 35 10

4. District Financing

a. Is the assessment based on acres, acre-feet delivered, acre-feet of storage space, or other? Acres

b. How is voting authority delegated to water users? Acres 3

Pre-Project Post-Project c. What is the per unit amount of the current assessment? 34.00 34.00

d. If there is a basic service charge in addition to assessments, how much is it? No No

5. Financial Statement Pre-Project Post-Project

Annual revenues generated from assessments: $ 69,226.86 $ 69,226.86 Annual revenues from other sources: $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 Total annual revenues: $ 79,226.86 $ 79,226.86

Annual budget for operation and maintenance expenses: $ 54,530.00 $ 54,530.00 Annual payments for debt retirement: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Annual payments to a repair and replacement fund: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Annual payments to an emergency fund: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Annual payments for other purposes: $ 24,696.86 $ 24,696.86 Total annual payments: $ 79,226.86 $ 79,226.86

Balance in repair and replacement fund: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Balance in emergency fund: $ 35,690.86 $ 23,103.61

B. COMPARISON WITH OPERATING CRITERIA

1. Project Priority according to the Criteria? 2 - Level III rehabilitation of existing irrigation canals.

2. Will the project serve at least 1,000 water righted acres? Yes Number of acres 1,967 in Wyoming and 68 in Utah.

3. Is the sponsor eligible for funding from other state or federal programs? Yes If so, what are they? BOR Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, and NRCS EQIP

4. What water conservation measures are employed by the sponsor? Converting flood irrigation to sprinkler irrigation and piping existing earthen canal with HDPE pipe.

5. Is the operation of the water supply system self supporting in terms of revenues offsetting costs for operation, maintenance, debt retirement, replacement funds and emergency funds? Currently Yes, however no funds are being put into a Repair and Replacement Fund or to increase the revenues in the Emergency fund. There does not appear to be available funds for a loan, if needed.

6. Can the project be delayed or staged? Yes Should it be? Yes. The request is to rehabilitate the entire 13.1 miles of canal. However, the IIRID has proposed phasing the project into two segments based on availability of funding and construction windows. Based on the size and cost of the project, it should be staged.

7. Basis for the funding recommendation: The Sponsor’s engineer has indicated the Interstate Diversion Structure Rehabilitation 2019 project has been pushed back and will be constructed in summer/fall 2021. They also believe designs for converting the Interstate Canal from open ditch to pipeline can be completed for the 2021 construction season. However, it is unlikely the entire 13.1 miles of canal could be rehabilitated in one season. Therefore, this recommendation is to fund construction of the pipeline from the Burnt Fork Diversion to the Burch Creek Flume (Segment #1 Figure A-5), with a 67% grant of $2,827,400, to be matched with BOR Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program funding. 4

Special Note: The Interstate Canal diversion structure and approximately 8.7 miles of the IIRID’s 13.1 mile canal system are located in Utah to provide irrigation water for lands located in Utah and Wyoming. The majority (1,967 acres or 96.6%) of IIRID’s irrigated lands are located in Wyoming.

5

6

7

8 2021 RECOMMENDATION-CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Project Name: Salt Creek Transmission Pipeline 2021 Program: Rehabilitation

Project Type: Municipal County: Natrona

Sponsor: Salt Creek Joint Powers Board

WWDO Recommendation: Level III Proposed Budget: $7,316,400

WWDC Grant1 (67%) $ 7,316,400 Other Funding Sources2 (37%) $ 3,603,600 Total $10,920,000

1 Not to Exceed 67% of project eligible costs 2 Not to exceed 33% of project eligible costs (DWSRF, SLIB, and USDA funding sources)

Project Manager: Chace Tavelli

Project Description: Salt Creek Joint Powers Board (SCJPB) has a 7 mile stretch of transmission pipeline that needs to be replaced, it has almost constant leaks due to corrosion. This is the sole transmission line supplying water for the towns of Midwest and Edgerton. The Level I Study identified this alternative as the highest priority improvement.

1. Describe existing status in the program and previous appropriations. Prior Legislation Year Project Appropriation 1986 L-II, Edgerton/Midwest Water Supply Investigations $ 565,000 1986 L-III, Midwest Rehabilitation $ 100,000 1991 L-I, Edgerton/Midwest Water Supply $ 60,000 1992 L-III, Edgerton/Midwest Water Supply $ 3,750,000 2019 L-I, Salt Creek-Edgerton-Midwest Master Plan $ 160,000

2. Describe existing water supply using information in the application. The source supply is from the Central Wyoming Regional Water system which gets its water from the North Platte River.

3. Summarize the request. The request is to replace seven miles of their main transmission pipeline and appurtenances.

4. Summarize the reasons for the request. The transmission is very prone to leaks, some very large. This is the only transmission line the SCJPB (Towns of Midwest and Edgerton) has from their source supply to their tanks and distribution system.

Estimated Level III WWDC Eligible Costs:

Preparation of Final Designs and Specifications $ 768,600 Permitting and Mitigation $ 100,000 Title of Opinion $ 10,000 Acquisition of Access and Rights of Way $ 0 Pre-Construction Costs (Subtotal # 1) $ 878,600

Cost of Project Components 1 Mobilization $ 350,000 Bonds $ 150,000 Stormwater Control $ 150,000 Traffic Control $ 10,000 8-Inch CL 350 DI $ 5,550,000 Air release Valves/PRV’s $ 51,000 Bore & Jack Highway $ 50,000 Restoration – Seeding $ 375,000 Gravel Roadways $ 900,000 Connection to the System $ 16,000 8-Inch Gate Valves $ 56,000 8-inch 45-degree Bends $ 28,000

Construction Cost (Subtotal #2) $ 7,686,000 Construction Engineering Costs (Subtotal # 2 x 10%) $ 768,600 Components and Engineering Costs (Subtotal # 3) $ 8,454,600 Contingency (Subtotal #3 x 15%) $ 1,268,190 Construction Cost Total (Subtotal #4) $ 9,722,790

Total Project Cost (Subtotal #1 + Subtotal #4) $10,601,390 Inflation Costs (3% per one year) $ 318,042

Total Project Costs $10,919,432

Total Project Costs Rounded $10,920,000

Level III Recommended Funding @ 67% Grant: $ 7,316,400

Ineligible Expenses

Service Lines to Ranches $ 15,000

Total Ineligible Project Costs $ 15,000

PROJECT INFORMATION:

A. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

1. Service Area Information a. Population (2010 Census) 599 (Current Estimate) 500

b. Does the entity have a comprehensive planning boundary? Yes If so, what is the estimated additional population that could be served in the future? Unknown

Pre-Project Post Project

c. Taps served within the entity boundaries? 300 300

d. Taps outside the entity boundaries? 0 0

e. Names of other water systems served? N/A

2 2. Water Usage (Potable water system only) Pre-Project Post Project

a. Total number of gallons produced by the water sources annually: 363.3MG 363.3MG

b. Gallons used per capita per day:

Average Day: 112.5 gal 120.4 gal Peak Day: 237.9 gal 253.6 gal

3. System capacity (Potable water system only): Pre-Project Post-Project

a. Maximum capacity of the water supply system Gallons per day: 0.4425MGD 0.4505MGD

b. What is the factor (bottleneck) limiting the ability to provide water (supply, canals, etc.): Transmission Transmission

c. Increased capacity needed: Gallons per day 0 0

d. Estimated system water losses (percentage): 5% 4%

4. Does the entity have an independent raw water irrigation system? No

a. Raw water system capacity (acre feet per day & gallons per day): NA

b. Average annual raw water usage (acre feet & gallons): NA

5. Rates Pre-Project Post-Project

a. Tap fees: Residential: $ 0* $ 0* Commercial: $ 0* $ 0* *Taps cannot be added to their lines at this time

b. Average monthly water bill: $ 53.40 $ 70.00

c. Water Rates Tiered

6. Financial Statement Pre-Project Post-Project

Annual revenues generated from water sales: $ 100,000 $ 170,000 Annual revenues from tap fees: $ 0 $ 0 Annual revenues from other sources: $ 0 $ 0 Total annual revenues: $ 100,000 $ 170,000

Annual budget for operation and maintenance expenses: $ 76,350 $ 100,000 Annual payments for debt retirement: $ 0 $ 25,000 Annual payments to a repair and replacement fund: $ 5,000 $ 10,000 Annual payments to an emergency fund: $ 5,000 $ 10,000 Annual payments for other purposes: $ 0 $ 0 Total annual payments: $ 86,350 $ 145,000

3 Balance in repair and replacement fund: $ 25,000 $ 80,000 Balance in emergency fund: $ 25,000 $ 0 Annual cost of water quality testing: $ 0 $ 0

B. COMPARISON WITH OPERATING CRITERIA

1. Project Priority according to the Criteria? 3 - Level III replacement of existing transmission pipelines.

2. Is the project supported by the City Council or County Commission, which has jurisdiction over the project area? Yes

3. Will the project serve at least 15 water taps? Yes Number of taps 300

4. Is the sponsor under any federal (EPA) mandates to improve your system? (eg. Administrative orders, violations, actions taken): No

5. Does anyone in the service area haul water? No

6. Is the sponsor eligible for funding from other state or federal programs? Yes If so, what are they: RUS, SLIB, SRF

7. Is water metered? Yes Are billings based on meter readings? Yes

8. What is monthly water bill for 5,000 gallons? Midwest: $56.80 Edgerton: $ 50.00 20,000 gallons? Midwest: $89.80 Edgerton: $ 84.20

9. Theoretical reasonable monthly water bill:

Midwest: ($50,625 (AMHI) x 2.5%/12) $105.47 Edgerton: ($36,429 (AMHI) x 2.5%/12) $75.89

10. What water conservation measures are employed by the sponsor? None

11. Is the operation of the water supply system self-supporting in terms of revenues offsetting costs for operation, maintenance, debt retirement, replacement funds and emergency funds? No; The Sponsor has spent the last several years looking at how they can become self-supporting, to that end they have revamped their way of billing the two towns, they have increased the rates and have looked into ways to set up an emergency account for unexpected costs.

12. Will the project consider regional solutions? Yes; the system is a regional system including the Towns of Midwest and Edgerton

13. Can the project be delayed or staged? Yes; delayed Should it be? No, the existing transmission pipeline has severe corrosion issues resulting in pipeline leaks and failures.

14. Basis for the funding recommendation: The transmission pipeline is the sole water source supply for both Edgerton and Midwest.

4

5

6 2021 RECOMMENDATION-CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Project Name: Shoshone ID Improvements 2021 Program: Rehabilitation

Project Type: Agricultural Irrigation County: Park

Sponsor: Shoshone Irrigation District

WWDO Recommendation: Level III Proposed Budget: $240,000

WWDC Grant1 (100%) $ 240,000 Sponsor Share2 $ 237,500 Total $ 477,500

1 100% materials only grant 2 Sponsor share is all costs excluding materials

Project Manager: Bryan Clerkin

Project Description: Replacement of transite pipe on Lateral 12-F that was installed in the 1970’s. The transite pipe is failing and the collapses result in water delivery issues to irrigators. This project will also replace Drop Structures #30 and #31 on the Garland Canal which were constructed in 1907.

1. Describe existing status in the program and previous appropriations. Prior Legislation Year Project Appropriation 1982* Level II, Iron Creek Study $ 300,000 1984* Level III, Iron Creek Rehabilitation $ 1,500,000 1992* Level III, Shoshone Rehabilitation $ 7,500,000 2002 Level III, Shoshone Drop Structures $ 570,000 2006 Level II, Shoshone Rehabilitation and GIS $ 300,000 2006 Level III, Shoshone Eagle Nest Creek $ 1,145,700 2009 Level III, Shoshone Rehabilitation 2009 $ 339,000 † 2011 Level III, Shoshone Rehabilitation 2011 $ 585,000 † 2013 Level III, Shoshone Rehabilitation 2013 $ 795,000 † 2015 Level III, Shoshone Irrigation District Rehabilitation 2015 $ 290,000 † 2017 Level III, Shoshone Irrigation District Rehabilitation 2017 $ 234,000 † 2019 Level III, Shoshone Irrigation District Rehabilitation 2019 $ 181,000 † *Additional sponsors were involved in these projects † Materials only project

2. Describe existing water supply using information in the application. Direct flow from the Shoshone River and stored water from Buffalo Bill Reservoir are diverted from the Shoshone River at the Corbett Diversion Dam, through the Corbett Tunnel and canal system to district irrigators.

3. Summarize the request. The request is for 100% grant funding to finance the purchase of invoiced materials to replace two drop structures (#30 and #31) on the Garland Canal with new concrete structures, and to replace existing transite pipe on Lateral 12-F with pipe. The total length of the lateral segment to be piped is approximately 3,980 feet.

1 4. Summarize the reasons for the request. Completion of the project will replace old and deteriorating infrastructures with facilities that are more secure in delivering water. The project will make it easier for the District to control and measure water, reduce seepage losses and will require less annual maintenance and repair.

Estimated Level III WWDC Eligible Costs:

Preparation of Final Designs and Specifications $ 0 Permitting and Mitigation $ 0 Title of Opinion $ 0 Acquisition of Access and Rights of Way $ 0 Pre-Construction Costs (Subtotal # 1) $ 0

Cost of Project Components Concrete and Reinforcement $ 42,400 Gravel $ 1,700 Structure Backfill $ 7,000 Riprap $ 12,253 Lumber $ 1,500 24-inch Pipe $ 4,620 21-inch Pipe $ 28,688 18-inch Pipe $ 61,040 15-inch Pipe $ 3,160 Fittings $ 23,506 Headgates $ 5,950 Air/Vac Assemblies $ 8,030

Construction Cost (Subtotal #2) $ 199,847 Construction Engineering Costs (Subtotal # 2 x 10%) $ 0 Components and Engineering Costs (Subtotal # 3) $ 199,847 Contingency (Subtotal #3 x 15%) $ 29,978 Construction Cost Total (Subtotal #4) $ 229,825

Total Project Cost (Subtotal #1 + Subtotal #4) $ 229,825 Inflation Costs (3% per one year) $ 6,895

Total Project Costs: $ 236,720

Level III Recommended Funding @ 100% Grant: $ 240,000

Level III Recommended Funding @ 0% Loan: $ 0

PROJECT INFORMATION:

A. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

1. Service Area Information. Pre-Project Post-Project

a. Total acres are in the District? 36,009 36,009

b. Assessed acres? 35,784 35,784

c. Irrigated acres? 35,500 35,500

2 d. Average annual water delivery (acre-feet/acre assessed)? 5.25 5.25

e. How many individual landowners receive water? 1,248 1,248

f. What type(s) of on-farm irrigation water application is used? Flood, center pivot

g. Briefly describe the main crops and cropping patterns: Sugar beets, malt barley, dry beans, wheat, alfalfa seed, corn (grain and silage) sunflowers, production hay

h. Describe the water measuring devices currently in use: Rectangular contracted weirs, ramp flumes, Cipolletti weirs, rated canal sections and telemetry

2. Water Usage Pre-Project Post-Project

a. Total water (AF) provided by the system annually: 220,000 220,000

b. Average Day Demand (AF): 1,500 1,500

c. Peak Day Demand (AF): 1,800 1,800

3. System Capacity: Pre-Project Post-Project

a. Maximum capacity of the water supply system (acre feet per day) 1,800 1,800

b. What is the factor (bottleneck) limiting the ability to provide water (supply, canals, etc.): Capacity of Corbett tunnel and Same Garland Canal

c. Increased capacity needed (acre feet per day): 0 0

d. Estimated system water losses (percentage): 15 15

4. District Financing

a. Is the assessment based on acres, acre-feet delivered, acre-feet of storage space, or other? Acres

b. How is voting authority delegated to water users? Number of acres

Pre-Project Post-Project c. What is the per unit amount of the current assessment? $ 24.10 $ 24.10

d. If there is a basic service charge in addition to assessments, how much is it? $ 100 $ 100

5. Financial Statement Pre-Project Post-Project

Annual revenues generated from assessments: $ 1,015,318 $ 1,015,318 Annual revenues from other sources: $ 385,800 $ 385,800 Total annual revenues: $ 1,401,118 $ 1,401,818

Annual budget for operation and maintenance expenses: $ 1,046,780 $ 1,046,780 Annual payments for debt retirement: $ 75,000 $ 75,000 Annual payments to a repair and replacement fund: $ 0 $ 0 3 Annual payments to an emergency fund: $ 0 $ 0 Annual payments for other purposes: $ 279,000 $ 279,000 Total annual payments: $ 1,400,780 $ 1,400,780

Balance in repair and replacement fund: $ 75,000 $ 75,000 Balance in emergency fund: $ 185,000 $ 185,000

B. COMPARISON WITH OPERATING CRITERIA

1. Project Priority according to the Criteria? 2 - Level III rehabilitation of existing irrigation canals.

2. Will the project serve at least 1,000 water righted acres? Yes Number of acres 35,500

3. Is the sponsor eligible for funding from other state or federal programs? Yes If so, what are they? USBOR WaterSMART

4. What water conservation measures are employed by the sponsor? Replacement of leaking and failing pipe, improving water measurement, and proper maintenance of open ditches and canals.

5. Is the operation of the water supply system self-supporting in terms of revenues offsetting costs for operation, maintenance, debt retirement, replacement funds and emergency funds? No.

If not, how is the difference subsidized? Own and operate the Garland Canal Power Plant.

6. Can the project be delayed or staged? Yes. Should it be? No.

7. Basis for the funding recommendation: This sponsor requests materials only funding from WWDC on a regular basis. The work product to date has been good, especially the structural concrete. The sponsor has improvement projects built into its budget and WWDC participation gives the sponsor the ability to leverage their funds to cover larger projects and additional structure replacements. Some of the facilities that deliver water for this rehabilitation project are more than one hundred years old and are realistically at the end of their economic life.

4

5 6

7

8 2021 RECOMMENDATION-CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Project Name: Sidon Irrigation District Rehab 2021 Program: Rehabilitation

Project Type: Agricultural Irrigation County: Big Horn

Sponsor: Sidon Irrigation District

WWDO Recommendation: Level III Proposed Budget: $576,000

WWDC Grant1 (100%) $ 576,000 Sponsor Share2 $ 179,475 Total $ 755,475

1 100% Materials Only Grant 2 Sponsor’s share is all costs excluding materials (construction $212,600, and design engineering)

Project Manager: William Brewer

Project Description: Replace slide gates at the Shoshone River and Bitter Creek Diversion Structures. Install measuring devices to replace aging gates that are not functioning well. Install automated spill gates at two major spills on the system to help control water flow and adequate delivery along the system.

1. Describe existing status in the program and previous appropriations. Prior Legislation Year Project Appropriation 1993 L – II Sidon Canal Rehabilitation Study $ 75,000 1995 L – III Sidon Canal Improvements $ 1,060,000 2002 L – III Sidon Bitter Creek Crossing Rehabilitation $ 217,000 2008, 09 L – III Sidon Rehabilitation $ 295,000 2014 L – III Sidon Irrigation District Rehab 2014 $ 109,000 2016 L – III Sidon Irrigation District Rehab 2016 $ 352,500 2018 L – III Sidon Irrigation District Rehab 2018 $ 823,000 2020 L – III Sidon Irrigation District Rehab 2020 $ 1,060,000

2. Describe existing water supply using information in the application. Direct flow is diverted from the Shoshone River and from Bitter Creek and delivered through the Sidon Canal conveyance system to the Sidon Irrigation District irrigators.

3. Summarize the request. The request is for authorization and appropriation of 100% grant funds to finance the purchase of invoiced materials to replace aging gates within the system. The sponsor will construct the facilities and will finance all of the engineering services, construction costs, land rights, and related project expenses except for invoiced materials.

4. Summarize the reasons for the request. Replace multiple gates (slide, spill and measuring) at diversion structures, spills and turnouts. Further, the sponsor should experience less maintenance and improved water control within the system.

1 Estimated Level III WWDC Eligible Costs:

Pre-Construction Costs (Subtotal # 1) $ 0

Cost of Project Components

12”, 60” & 78” Automated Gates $ 424,000 Structural Concrete / Fill $ 24,000 SCADA/Telemetry and Solar Power units $ 37,500

Construction Cost (Subtotal #2) $ 485,500 Construction Engineering Costs (Subtotal # 2 x 10%) $ 0 Components and Engineering Costs (Subtotal # 3) $ 485,500 Contingency (Subtotal #3 x 15%) $ 72,825 Construction Cost Total (Subtotal #4) $ 558,325

Total Project Cost (Subtotal #1 + Subtotal #4) $ 558,325 Inflation Costs (3% per one year) $ 16,750

Total Project Costs $ 575,075

Level III Recommended Funding @ 100% Grant: $ 576,000

Level III Recommended Funding @ 0% Loan: $ 0

PROJECT INFORMATION:

A. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

1. Service Area Information. Pre-Project Post-Project

a. Total acres are in the District? 13,600 13,600

b. Assessed acres? 13,359 13,359

c. Irrigated acres? 13,232 13,232

d. Average annual water delivery (acre-feet/acre assessed)? 11.4 11.4

e. How many individual landowners receive water? 580 580

f. What type(s) of on-farm irrigation water application is used? Canals, flood and some center pivot.

g. Briefly describe the main crops and cropping patterns: Sugar beets, Corn, Beans, Grain, and Hay

h. Describe the water measuring devices currently in use: Some crested weirs, water meters.

2. Water Usage Pre-Project Post-Project

a. Total water (AF) provided by the system annually: 150,845 150,845

b. Average Day Demand (AF): 668 668 2

c. Peak Day Demand (AF): 670 670

3. System Capacity: Pre-Project Post-Project

a. Maximum capacity of the water supply system (acre feet per day) 1,000 1,000

b. What is the factor (bottleneck) limiting the ability to provide water (supply, canals, etc.): Ditches, silting, eroding and flattening. same

c. Increased capacity needed (acre feet per day): 0 0

d. Estimated system water losses (percentage): 15 15

4. District Financing

a. Is the assessment based on acres, acre-feet delivered, acre-feet of storage space, or other? Acres

b. How is voting authority delegated to water users? Number of acres

Pre-Project Post-Project c. What is the per unit amount of the current assessment? 27 27

d. If there is a basic service charge in addition to assessments, how much is it? 0 0

5. Financial Statement Pre-Project Post-Project

Annual revenues generated from assessments: $ 365,960 $ 365,960 Annual revenues from other sources: $ 335,790 $ 335,790 Total annual revenues: $ 701,750 $ 701,750

Annual budget for operation and maintenance expenses: $ 312,960 $ 312,960 Annual payments for debt retirement: $ 0 $ 0 Annual payments to a repair and replacement fund: $ 40,000 $ 40,000 Annual payments to an emergency fund: $ 13,000 $ 13,000 Annual payments for other purposes: $ 335,790 $ 335,790 Total annual payments: $ 701,750 $ 701,750

Balance in repair and replacement fund: $ 120,000 $ 50,000 Balance in emergency fund: $ 120,000 $ 50,000

B. COMPARISON WITH OPERATING CRITERIA

1. Project Priority according to the Criteria? 1 – Level III rehabilitation of water diversion or control structures.

2. Will the project serve at least 1,000 water righted acres? Yes Number of acres 13,359

3. Is the sponsor eligible for funding from other state or federal programs? Yes If so, what are they? NRCS

4. What water conservation measures are employed by the sponsor? Concrete lined laterals, 3 underground pipe, some center pivots.

5. Is the operation of the water supply system self supporting in terms of revenues offsetting costs for operation, maintenance, debt retirement, replacement funds and emergency funds? Yes

6. Can the project be delayed or staged? Yes Should it be? No. While the project can be broken down into smaller units, such as the diversion structures only, the main benefit would occur when the project is completed in full.

7. Basis for the funding recommendation: The project complies with program criteria, has a relatively high Project Priority rating, and the sponsor has successfully completed earlier projects.

4 5

6 7 2021 RECOMMENDATION-CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS Small Water Projects Program

Project Name: Small Water Project Program Program: Rehabilitation

Project Type: Multipurpose County: Statewide

Sponsor: WWDC

WWDO Recommendation: Level III (continuing) Proposed Budget Increase: $500,000

Rehabilitation (WDA II) Presently available (as of 10/21/20) $193,504 Proposed budget increase $500,000 Revised available $693,504

Project Description: Funding program for small water projects including small reservoirs, wells, pipelines and conveyance facilities, springs, solar platforms, irrigation works, windmills, environmental, rural community fire suppression, recreational, and wetland developments.

1. Description of the existing status in the program and previous appropriations.

EXISTING LEGISLATION-Rehabilitation Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Due Date Small Projects 88 2002 II $500,000 2014 Small Projects 118 2004 II $750,000 2014 Small Projects 114 2005 II $500,000 2014 Small Projects 32 2010 II -$200,000 2014 Small Projects 14 2014 II $300,000 2025 Small Projects 100 2015 II $400,000 2025 Small Projects 100 2016 II $300,000 2025 Small Projects 121 2018 II $100,000 2025 Small Projects 55 2019 II $700,000 2025 Small Projects 113 2020 II $701,795 2025

2. Summary of the request.

The WWDO is recommending that the authorization of the program be ongoing and an additional $500,000 be appropriated to meet project application demands.

3. Summary Statistics:

Current Active Account II Projects: 47 Application History: Year # of Account II Total # of Project Applicants Estimated WWDC Applications (between both accounts) Account II Project Cost 2012 3 5 $ 75,000 2013 10 6 $250,000 2014 19 7 $337,190 2015 14 8 $276,580 2016 11 6 $230,000 2017 11 9 $273,461 2018 19 10 $529,000 2019 18 14 $480,910 2020 33 17 $939,150

1

2021 RECOMMENDATION-CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Project Name: Sponsor’s Contingency Fund – Account II Program: Rehabilitation

Project Type: Multipurpose County: Statewide

Sponsor: WWDC Uncommitted Budget: $ 894,886.75

WWDO Recommendation: Increase Acct. II Funding Requested Funding: $ 1,500,000.00

Description: The WWDC is authorized to consider supplemental funding to complete existing water development program Level III construction projects any time during the calendar year. Funds from the sponsor’s contingency accounts, Account I (new development) and Account II (rehabilitation), cover construction costs exceeding the project appropriation. The funds allocated to projects from these accounts typically have the same grant and loan financing plan as the original project appropriation.

The WWDO anticipates increased use of this fund due to continued growth in the construction sector. In 2020, the Wyoming Water Development Commission (WWDC) has approved $643,000.00 in Account II Contingency Funds for the Casper CY Booster Station Replacement and $520,452.79 in Account II Contingency funds for the Wheatland Irrigation District Tunnel Dam project.

In 2020, there was unforeseen volatility in global and local economies due to the COVID-19 pandemic that has influenced the bidding climate. Further volatility in the economy due to uncertainties of the pandemic will likely influence construction project bids in the future.

Recent increases in steel tariffs on goods and equipment used in the construction industry also accounts for some of the construction cost increases. There was a sharp decline in US steel production in early 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Tariffs and lower US steel production have resulted in an overall increase in steel prices. Some of the WWDO Level III projects that use steel include larger diameter transmission pipelines and water storage tanks.

Additionally, PVC pipe prices can be significantly impacted by hurricanes along the gulf coast states where the majority of PVC pipe is manufactured. As PVC pipe availability decreases, due to manufacturing plants closing from storm damage, pipe prices may increase dramatically.

EXISTING ACCOUNT II CONTINGENCY LEGISLATION

Purpose Chapter Session Account Appropriation Sponsor’s Contingency 105 2006 II $ 500,000 Sponsor’s Contingency 75 2008 II $ 500,000 2 Sponsor’s Contingency1 68 2010 II $ 0 1 Sponsor’s Contingency 14 2012 II $ 300,000 Sponsor’s Contingency 167 2015 II $ 500,000 Sponsor’s Contingency1 75 2017 II $ 0 1 Sponsor’s Contingency 55 2019 II $ 700,000 Sponsor’s Contingency 113 2020 II $ 1,000000

APPROPRIATED TO DATE (SUBTOTAL #1) $ 3,500,000

1 Time Extension Only 2 This appropriation was separate and not linked to the 2006 original appropriation

1

PROJECT APPROPRIATIONS

Project Expended or Encumbered

Ranchester Storage Tank $ 59,581.77 Sheridan Pipeline Rehabilitation $ 196,982.19 Gooseberry Rehabilitation $ 17,766.74 Cody Canal Chute $ 28,243.84 Little Snake Diversions $ 427,502.67 Lake Hattie Dam $ 243,172.21 Kirby Rehabilitation 2011 $ 77,009.94 Shoshone Irrigation District Rehab 2013 $ 32,245.00 Big Horn Canal Underway $ 24,306.10 Dull Knife Reservoir Spillway Rehab $ 73,850.00 Leiter Ditch Rehabilitation 2016 $ 261,000.00 Casper CY Booster Station Replacement $ 643,000.00 Wheatland Irrigation District Tunnel Dam $ 520,452.79

EXPENDED OR ENCUMBERED TO DATE (SUBTOTAL #2): $ 2,605,113.25

1 UNCOMMITTED FUNDS (SUBTOTAL #3, SUBTOTAL #1 – SUBTOTAL #2): $ 894,886.75

SPONSOR’S ACCOUNT II CONTINGENCY FUND REQUEST: $ 1,500,000.00

1 Prior to Piney & Cruse Ditch Company Irrigation District Request

2

2021 WATER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS

Project Name: Lander Ditches Rehabilitation Program: Rehabilitation

Project Type: Municipal Water System County: Fremont

Sponsor: City of Lander

WWDO Recommendation: Level II * Proposed Budget: $242,000

*Contract execution is contingent upon the City of Lander and the Dickinson Creek Ditch Company's concurrence on tasks as defined in the final Scope of Work.

Basis for the Funding Recommendation:

The project will identify options to rehabilitate ditches within an urban setting which were originally constructed to supply irrigation water within and outside of the city limits. The current conveyance systems have issues including leakage, inefficiency, under sizing and fill. System rehabilitation is needed to correct the issues the City of Lander is observing. The city anticipates correcting conveyance issues will increase summer water availability providing benefit to the State, other communities, agricultural communities, and other uses. This project would provide an opportunity to bring together the numerous stakeholders to identify long term, comprehensive rehabilitation solutions.

Project Manager: Mabel Jones

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Lander Ditches were originally constructed and adjudicated as diverting from channels of the Big (or Middle) Popo Agie River including Dickinson Creek to supply irrigation water within and outside of the city limits. The water rights were documented as Dickinson Creek Spring Supply and identify the conveyance as the ditch/ditches that deliver water. The Dickinson Creek Spring has since gone dry and the water source is from a headgate on the Middle Popo Agie River. The City of Lander faces numerous challenges to maintain this urban system where access is not available and water rights are unclear. The system also provides stormwater drainage for the city and this function needs to be maintained. The City is requesting this Level II study to identify cost effective options for rehabilitation of the ditch system, options for improved efficiency of water utilization, and recommendations for clarifying water rights.

1. Existing and Prior Legislation: Project Level Chapter Session Account Appropriation Reversion Year Lander Master Plan I 8 1995 I $ 100,000 1998 Lander Water Supply II 46/81 1997/99 I $ 283,710 2002 Lander Paleozoic Test II 125/75 2002/05 I $ 1,005,000 2008 Lander Master Plan I 33/32 2008/10 I $ 185,000 2009 Lander Water Supply III 14 2012 I $ 3,068,000 2017 Lander Pipeline 2016 III 55 2016 I $ 2,070,970 2021 Lander Test Well Study II 94 2018 I $ 2,340,000 2021 Lander Storage Tanks and III 55 2019 I $ 3,423,700 2024 Pump Station 2019

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 1 OF 8

2. Describe the location of the project:

Lander, the county seat of Fremont County, is located on the southwestern margin of the Wind River Basin on the Middle Popo Agie River within Wind River/Big Horn River watershed. Access is via US HWY 287 and State HWY 789 (42°50’03” N, 108°43’45” W). The project includes the ditches which pass through the City Limits associated with Dickinson Creek.

3. Summarize the request:

Numerous ditches (Lander Ditches) have been constructed in the City of Lander to supply irrigation water to properties both within and outside of the city limits. Overtime, some of the ditches have been consolidated and the city has connected its’ storm drain system into the ditches. The City faces a number of problems with the system including inefficient conveyance, access issues for maintenance, questions on water rights, and storm drainage issues. This Level II Rehabilitation Study will investigate cost effective options to correct issues related to water rights, water conveyance, etc.

4. Summarize the reasons for the request:

The City is requesting a study of the Lander Ditches to identify solutions which address a combination of jurisdictional and infrastructural issues. Water rights associated with the Lander Ditches are held by individual property owners, the City and others. As the City began to provide water to customers, many of the irrigation rights were transferred to municipal rights and the point of diversion was moved to the City of Lander pipeline. Some of the in-town water rights remain as privately held because the City was unable to transfer them. Water rights associated with those people outside the City limits remain and are still used for irrigation. The City has been working with the State Engineer’s Office to understand the water rights associated with the ditches and any discrepancies that might exist. Clarification of water rights will allow the City to conduct maintenance on the ditch and manage the water to provide greater benefit.

The Lander Ditches have undergone numerous changes since their origin as open channel flows crossing private and public property. At street crossings the ditches are piped and over the years portions of the ditches have been lined or converted to pipe. The City has connected the ditches into much of their storm drainage system rather than building a separate system. Some of the open ditches crossing private property have had capacity reduced due to lack of maintenance, intentional filling, or piping into inadequate sized pipe. This creates issues for those using the water and during stormwater run-off events. The City also recognizes, during summer months, there is on average 5 MGD of water which could be better utilized if the conveyance system was more efficient. To address these issues, this rehabilitation study will investigate cost effective improvements such as ditch consolidation and conveyance upgrades (lining, piping, enlargement).

II. WWDC ELIGIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS

1. Is the Sponsor a public entity? Yes A. If not, is the recommendation for a Level I study or Level I or II study for a dam and reservoir project? N/A 2. Project Priority According to WWDO Criteria: Acct II - Priority 7: LII Feasibility Studies

3. Will the project serve at least 15 water taps? Yes A. Number of Taps: 3027 4. Is the sponsor eligible for funding from other state or federal programs? Yes A. If so, what are they (RUS, SRF, other)? RUS, SRF and others 5. Is the Sponsor under any federal (EPA) mandates to improve its system? (e.g., Administrative Orders, violations, actions taken, etc.)? No

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 2 OF 8 6. Is the Sponsor currently served by a regionalized water supply system (specify)? No Or will the Sponsor consider regional solutions to the purpose and needs of its water supply system? Yes, the Sponsor is interested in regional opportunities. 7. What is monthly water bill for 5,000 gallons? $36.85 for 5/8” Meter A. 20,000 Gallons? $79.15 for 5/8” Meter 8. Theoretical Monthly Water Bill (Median Household Income X 2.5%/12): $110.16 9. Can the project be delayed or staged? Yes A. Should it be? No

III. PERTINENT INFORMATION

1. Existing Water Supply System A. EPA Public Water System (PWS) Identification Number: WY5600176C B. Groundwater (1) Number of Wells: N/A (2) Primary Supply Aquifer(s) or Formation(s): N/A (3) Total Average Production Yield of All Wells (GPM): N/A C. Surface Water (1) Source Name(s): Middle Fork of Popo Agie River (2) Type of Diversion(s) (Headgate, Infiltration Gallery, Pumps, Etc.): Headgate (3) Total Average Diversion Yield (CFS or GPM): 3-6 MGD D. Springs (1) Name of Spring(s): N/A (2) Total Average Production Yield of All Springs (CFS or GPM): N/A E. Water Rights (1) For the water source supply (or supplies) described above, does the Sponsor possess valid and/or adjudicated water rights? Yes F. Transmission Pipeline (1) Maximum Capacity of the Transmission Pipeline(s) (Gallons per Day): 8 MGD (2) Increased Capacity Needed (If Known) (Gallons per Day): Unknown (3) Approximate Distance from Source(s) to Distribution System: 5 miles (4) Transmission Pipe Diameter(s): 8” to 24” (5) Type of Transmission Pipe Material(s): PVC, Ductile Iron, HDPE (6) Age of Transmission Pipeline(s): 0 to 50 Years (7) Condition of Transmission Pipeline(s): Poor to Good (8) Does the applicant possess clear title to transmission corridor easements? Yes G. Water Storage (1) Raw (Volume and Tank Description): 1503.6 ac-ft at Worthen Meadow Reservoir (2) Treated (Volume and Tank Description): 7 MG Combined Storage in 3 above ground steel tanks H. Treatment (1) Specify Water Treatment (None, Chlorination, Filtration, Etc.): Chlorination and Filtration

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 3 OF 8 2. Existing Water Distribution System A. Is the water use metered? Yes B. Are billings based on meter readings? Yes C. Identify unmetered usage (e.g., irrigation of parks, cemeteries, fire protection, etc.): Two Parks D. Average Day Demand Water Usage (Gallons per Capita per Day): 110 E. Maximum Day Demand Water Usage (Gallons per Capita per Day): 220 F. Peak Hourly Demand Water Usage (Gallons per Capita per Day): 200 G. Distribution Pipe Diameter(s): 3” to 8” H. Type of Distribution Pipe Material(s): PVC, Ductile Iron, HDPE, Iron I. Age of Distribution Pipeline(s): 0 to 100 Years J. Condition of Distribution Pipeline(s): Poor to Good K. Estimated System Water Losses (Percentage): <10% L. Describe any fire flow protection that the system provides: Water system provides fire flow for the City of Lander and the Wyoming Life Resource Center M. What water conservation measures are employed? Metering, Billing, Replacement, Education N. Is there an independent raw water irrigation system? No (1) Raw Water System Capacity (Gallons per Day): N/A (2) Average Annual Raw Water Usage (Gallons per Year): N/A

3. Demographic Information and Existing Water Service Area A. Population (2010 Census): 7487 B. Current Population Estimate: 7503 C. Does the applicant have a comprehensive planning boundary? No (1) If so, what is the estimated additional population that may be served in the future? N/A D. How many taps are served within the corporate limits/JPB service area? 3027 E. How many taps are served outside of the corporate limits/JPB service area? 30 F. Identify names of other water system served: Wyoming Life Resource Center; Fox Park G. Identify any existing planning reports (municipal or county) that address growth management in the project area. Provide titles and how copies of the reports could be obtained: Lander Master Plan-2012 available at https://www.landerwyoming.org/

4. Financial Information A. Rates (1) Tap Fee(s) – Residential: $410 (3/4” line with 5/8” meter)

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 4 OF 8 (2) Tap Fee(s) – Commercial:

(3) Average Residential Monthly Water Bill and Corresponding Gallons Used: Average Residential Bill= $43.24 at 7000 Gallons Used (4) Water Rates (Provide rates for all tiers and categories of use. Attach additional pages as needed.):

Excess Water Charges for inside city limit users all meter sizes and outside city limit users with 5/8" meters. For water use in excess of the minimum water use included in the minimum charge, charges shall be assessed at the following: • $2.82 per 1,000 gallons over the allotted 4,000 gallons in city limits; Excess Water Charges for outside city limit users with meters: 3/4" to 8" • $4.03 per 1,000 gallons over the allotted 4,000 gallons;

(5) Identify any local conditions that affect water rates (e.g., flow-through for frost prevention, etc.): The city may allow an additional flow through of 2000 gallons in winter month for frost prevention.

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 5 OF 8 B. Financial Statement (of Water Utility) (1) Revenues a. Annual Revenues Generated from Water Sales: $ 2,000,000 b. Annual Revenues from Tap Fees: $ 7,000 c. Annual Revenues from Other Sources: $ 200,000 d. Total Annual Revenues: $ 2,207,000 (2) Expenditures a. Annual Budget for Operation and Maintenance Expenses: $ 240,000 b. Annual Payments for Debt Retirement: $ 285,000 c. Annual Payments to a Repair and Replacement Fund: $ 141,000 d. Annual Payments to an Emergency Fund: $ 0 e. Annual Payments for Other Purposes: $ 0 f. Total Annual Payments: $ 666,000 (3) Other a. Balance in Repair and Replacement Fund: $ 200,000 b. Balance in Emergency Fund: $ 1,500,000 c. Annual Cost of Water Quality Testing: $ 5,500 (4) Is the operation of the water system self-supporting in terms of revenues offsetting costs for operation, maintenance, debt retirement, replacement funds, emergency funds, etc.? Yes a. If not, how is the difference subsidized? N/A

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 6 OF 8

PROJECT AREA MAP

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 7 OF 8

RESOLUTION

2021 RECOMMENDATION MUNICIPAL/JOINT POWERS WATER BOARD WATER SYSTEMS PAGE 8 OF 8

2021 WATER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS

Project Name: LaPrele Irrigation District Rehabilitation, Phase II Program: Rehabilitation

Project Type: Agricultural Irrigation Supply County: Converse

Sponsor: LaPrele Irrigation District

WWDO Recommendation: Level II, Phase II Proposed Budget: TBD

Project Manager: Chace Tavelli

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

In 2018 the LaPrele Irrigation District requested a Level II study identifying rockfall hazards near the LaPrele Dam and development of a mitigation plan, including cost estimates, for such hazards. During the study, structural issues were identified on, and near, one of the Dam’s buttresses. The identified issues led to the Consultant writing a technical memorandum that included recommendations and holding a series of meetings. The result of these led to an amendment to modify the Scope of Work under the Level II study. (See LaPrele Irrigation District Rehabilitation, Level II, Amendment No. 1 and memo). In the 2020 Legislative session, an appropriation of $650,000 was allocated to continue the study to identify plausible alternatives for rehabilitation of the existing dam or for replacement of the existing dam and advance one or two for further analyses. To date, five alternatives have been identified; an infill of the existing dam and a roller compacted concrete replacement dam have been recommended for advancement to a next level of analyses. The Office and the District believe it is important to continue with the study to determine potential funding alternatives and move towards a feasibility level design and cost estimate.

1. Existing and Prior Legislation: Project Level Chapter Session Account Appropriation Reversion Year LaPrele Rehabilitation Project III 25 1984 II $ 1,500,000 1989 LaPrele Irrigation District Master I 65 2017 II $ 190,000 2020 Plan LaPrele Irrigation District II 105 2019 II $ 290,000 2022 Rehabilitation LaPrele Irrigation District II 150 2020 II $ 650,000 2023 Rehabilitation Phase II

2. Describe the location of the project:

The LaPrele Irrigation District is located west and south of Douglas, Wyoming along Interstate 25 in Converse County. The Dam is located on LaPrele Creek approximately 5 miles south of I-25, and upstream of the Natural Bridge.

3. Summarize the request:

The requested appropriation (TBD) would increase the project budget to allow the consultant to be able to further the necessary analyses on the preferred alternatives.

4. Summarize the reasons for the request:

This recommendation is to increase the project’s budget to continue analyzing the preferred alternatives, identify funding opportunities, and develop more refined cost estimates.

2021 RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS PAGE 1 OF 9 II. WWDC ELIGIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS

1. Is the Sponsor a public entity? Yes A. If not, is the recommendation for a Level I study or Level I or II study for a dam and reservoir project? N/A 2. Project Priority According to WWDO Criteria: 7 - Level II Feasibility Studies

3. Will the project serve at least 1,000 water righted acres? Yes A. Number of Acres: 11,462 4. Is the sponsor eligible for funding from other state or federal programs? Yes A. If so, what are they? NRCS 5. Is the Sponsor currently served by a regionalized water supply system (specify)? Or will the Sponsor consider regional solutions to the purpose and needs of its water supply system? N/A 6. Can the project be delayed or staged? Yes A. Should it be? No 7. Basis for the 2019 Funding Recommendation:

The LaPrele Irrigation District is in the process of completing a Level I reconnaissance level Master Plan and would like to advance the study to Level II feasibility status in preparation for Level III construction funding. However, due to lack of available funds in WDA II and this project having a lower priority than other projects, the WWDO is recommending no funding at this time. If the proposed transfer of funds ($5,500,000) from WDA I to WDA II is approved by the Legislature and Governor, the WWDO then recommends funding of this project.

III. PERTINENT INFORMATION

1. Existing Water Supply System A. Description of Direct Flow Supply (1) Direct Flow Diversion Right (CFS): 188.32 (2) Direct Flow Source (Name of River, Stream, etc.): LaPrele Creek (3) Type of Diversion (Headgate, Pump, etc.): Headgate (4) Water Transmission System (Canal, Pipeline, etc.): Canal, tunnels, and siphons B. Description of Stored Water Supply (1) Name(s) of Storage Facility (Reservoir): LaPrele Reservoir (2) Location: Southwest of Douglas on LaPrele Creek (3) Amount of Stored Water Right (Acre-Feet): 20,000 AF (4) Is any of the stored supply obtained from a federal facility? No a. Percent of Total Supply from Federal Facility: N/A b. Amount of Stored Supply from Federal Facility (Acre-Feet): N/A c. Name(s) of Federal Facility: N/A C. Description of Groundwater Supply (1) Number of Wells: N/A (2) Primary Supply Aquifer(s) or Formation(s): N/A (3) Total Average Production Yield of All Wells (GPM): N/A

2021 RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS PAGE 2 OF 9

D. Water Rights (1) For the water source supply (or supplies) described above, does the Sponsor possess valid and/or adjudicated water rights? Yes E. System Capacity (1) Maximum Capacity of the Water Supply System (Acre-Feet per Day or CFS): 175 CFS (2) Increased Capacity Needed (If Known) (Acre-Feet per Day or CFS): 225 CFS F. Water Usage (1) Estimate of Total Water Provided by the System Annually (Acre-Feet per Year): 8,024 (2) Average Day Demand (Acre-Feet per Day or CFS): 75 Acre-Feet per Day (3) Maximum Day Demand (Acre-Feet per Day or CFS): 300 Acre-Feet per Day

2. Existing Service Area and On-Farm Information A. Service Area Information (1) How many total acres are in the district? 31,703 (2) How many acres are assessed? 11,462 (3) How many acres are irrigated? 11,462 (4) What is the annual water delivery assessed (acre-feet per acre)? 1 (5) How many individual land owners receive water? 104 B. On-Farm Information (1) What is the normal irrigation season (e.g., May 1 – Sept. 30)? May 1 - September 30 (2) What type(s) of on-farm irrigation water applications is used (e.g., center pivot, side roll, flood, etc.)? Center pivot, side roll, gated pipe, and flood (3) Briefly describe the main crops and cropping patterns: Perennial wheat/grass hay (4) Describe the water measuring devices currently in use: Cipoletti weirs, parshal flumes, weirs (5) Percentage of Farm Turnouts with Measuring Devices: 100% (6) Are water deliveries recorded? Yes (7) Estimated System Water Losses (Percentage): 40% (8) What water conservation measures are employed by the Sponsor? Sprinklers, water measurement devices, delivery management

3. Financial Information A. District Financing (1) Is the assessment based on acres, acre-feet delivered, acre-feet of storage, or other specify)? Acres (2) How is voting authority delegated to water users (e.g., shares, individuals, number of acres, etc.)? Individuals (3) What is the per-unit amount of the current assessment? $15 per acre (4) Is there is a basic service charge or first acre assessment in addition to assessments? No

2021 RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS PAGE 3 OF 9

B. Financial Statement (1) Revenues a. Annual Revenues Generated from Assessments: $ 171,933 b. Annual Revenues from Other Sources: $ 0 c. Total Annual Revenues: $ 171,933 (2) Expenditures a. Annual Budget for Operation and Maintenance Expenses: $ 171,933 b. Annual Payments for Debt Retirement: $ 0 c. Annual Payments to a Repair and Replacement Fund: $ 0 d. Annual Payments to an Emergency Fund: $ 0 e. Annual Payments for Other Purposes: $ 0 f. Total Annual Payments: $ 171,933 (3) Other a. Balance in Repair and Replacement Fund: $ 24,000 b. Balance in Emergency Fund: $ 0 c. Explanation (If Needed): N/A (4) Is the operation of the water system self-supporting in terms of revenues offsetting costs for operation, maintenance, debt retirement, replacement funds, emergency funds, etc.? Yes

2021 RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS PAGE 4 OF 9

Project Area Map

2021 RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS PAGE 5 OF 9

Photo

LaPrele Reservoir Dam

2021 RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS PAGE 6 OF 9

Resolution

2021 RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS PAGE 7 OF 9

2021 RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS PAGE 8 OF 9

Letter

2021 RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS PAGE 9 OF 9

2021 WATER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS

Project Name: Highland Irrigation District Master Plan Program: Rehabilitation

Project Type: Agricultural Irrigation Supply County: Sublette

Sponsor: Highland Irrigation District

WWDO Recommendation: Level I Proposed Budget: $192,000

Basis for the Funding Recommendation:

The Highland Irrigation District has never had a WWDC Master Plan study done before, and with aging infrastructure of an early 1900’s canal, a Level I Master Plan Study is essential to the rehabilitation of the irrigation system. The study would inventory and assess their canal system, investigate conveyance losses, and identify and prioritize capital improvement projects for financial planning. Cost estimates will be produced to include both a total and phased approach to construction and replacement according to a recommended rehabilitation schedule. The ability to pay for the improvements to the system and needed adjusted rate assessments are included as part of the study.

Project Manager: Julie Gondzar

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1. Existing and Prior Legislation:

Project Level Chapter Session Account Appropriation Reversion Year Fremont Lake Reservoir III 60/28 1982/1992 I $ 420,000 1995

2. Describe the location of the project:

The Highland Irrigation District is located in and around the Town of Pinedale and Sublette County, Wyoming, within the Green River Basin. Control of the Highland Canal was transferred to the Highland Irrigation District in the 1950’s. The canal currently serves and provides irrigation water to approximately 6,627 acres and 250 land owners.

The Highland Canal diverts irrigation water from the dam at Fremont Lake Reservoir on Pine Creek. The canal is approximately 16 to 18 miles long and runs southeast toward the Town of Boulder. The canal has only one ditch rider and flows are not monitored or measured downstream of the diversion.

3. Summarize the request:

The Highland Irrigation District is requesting funding for a Level I Study to inventory and assess the infrastructure and operations of the irrigation system. The irrigation system provides water to approximately 6,627 acres and 250 landowners. The study will investigate conveyance losses, diversion structures, identify and prioritize improvement projects, provide cost estimates for projects, investigate funding opportunities, and include both a total and phased approach to construction, replacement, and upgrades through a recommended rehabilitation schedule. The study will also identify ability to pay, and whether or not the Highland Irrigation District would need to increase their rates. A GIS system will be produced to provide irrigation system and land mapping, and the study will recommend the need for any operational changes.

In addition, the Highland Irrigation District is also requesting the retrieval and consolidation of all relevant historical documents, and a compilation of water rights that cover the District.

2021 RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS PAGE 1 OF 8

4. Summarize the reasons for the request:

The Highland Canal was built in the early 1900’s and has never been studied. Currently, the physical structure of the canal is a concern and efficiency of the entire system is questionable. The geology of the area results in very rocky and porous soil, which is suspected to be the cause of definite conveyance leaks within many areas of the system. Also, many of the individual irrigation turn-outs are in poor repair and need complete redesign and replacement.

II. WWDC ELIGIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS

1. Is the Sponsor a public entity? Yes A. If not, is the recommendation for a Level I study or Level I or II study for a dam and reservoir project? N/A 2. Project Priority According to WWDO Criteria: Acct II - Priority 8: LI Reconnaissance Studies

3. Will the project serve at least 1,000 water righted acres? Yes A. Number of Acres: ~ 6,627 4. Is the sponsor eligible for funding from other state or federal programs? Yes A. If so, what are they? NRCS 5. Is the Sponsor currently served by a regionalized water supply system (specify)? Or will the Sponsor consider regional solutions to the purpose and needs of its water supply system? No 6. Can the project be delayed or staged? Yes A. Should it be? It is not recommended that this project be delayed.

III. PERTINENT INFORMATION

1. Existing Water Supply System A. Description of Direct Flow Supply (1) Direct Flow Diversion Right (CFS): ~ 95 CFS (2) Direct Flow Source (Name of River, Stream, etc.): Pine Creek, tributary to New Fork River (3) Type of Diversion (Headgate, Pump, etc.): Headgate (4) Water Transmission System (Canal, Pipeline, etc.): Canals and laterals B. Description of Stored Water Supply (1) Name(s) of Storage Facility (Reservoir): Fremont Lake Reservoir (2) Location: Sublette County (3) Amount of Stored Water Right (Acre-Feet): ~ 5,000 acre feet (4) Is any of the stored supply obtained from a federal facility? No a. Percent of Total Supply from Federal Facility: N/A b. Amount of Stored Supply from Federal Facility (Acre-Feet): N/A c. Name(s) of Federal Facility: N/A C. Description of Groundwater Supply (1) Number of Wells: None

2021 RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS PAGE 2 OF 8

(2) Primary Supply Aquifer(s) or Formation(s): N/A (3) Total Average Production Yield of All Wells (GPM): N/A D. Water Rights (1) For the water source supply (or supplies) described above, does the Sponsor possess valid and/or adjudicated water rights? Yes, Permit No. 8238 E. System Capacity (1) Maximum Capacity of the Water Supply System (Acre-Feet per Day or CFS): 170 CFS (2) Increased Capacity Needed (If Known) (Acre-Feet per Day or CFS): Unknown F. Water Usage (1) Estimate of Total Water Provided by the System Annually (Acre-Feet per Year): 25,000 acre feet/yr (2) Average Day Demand (Acre-Feet per Day or CFS): 80 CFS (3) Maximum Day Demand (Acre-Feet per Day or CFS): 160 CFS

2. Existing Service Area and On-Farm Information A. Service Area Information (1) How many total acres are in the district? 6,627 (2) How many acres are assessed? 6,627 (3) How many acres are irrigated? Unknown (4) What is the annual water delivery assessed (acre-feet per acre)? 3.77 acre-feet/acre (5) How many individual land owners receive water? 250 B. On-Farm Information (1) What is the normal irrigation season (e.g., May 1 – Sept. 30)? May 1 – Oct 15 (2) What type(s) of on-farm irrigation water applications is used (e.g., center pivot, side roll, flood, etc.)? Flood, side role, center pivot, hand set sprinkler (3) Briefly describe the main crops and cropping patterns: Pasture and natural meadow hay (4) Describe the water measuring devices currently in use: Water is measured at the dam only. There is no lateral or farm turn-out measurement. (5) Percentage of Farm Turnouts with Measuring Devices: 0 (6) Are water deliveries recorded? No (7) Estimated System Water Losses (Percentage): Unknown (8) What water conservation measures are employed by the Sponsor? None

3. Financial Information A. District Financing (1) Is the assessment based on acres, acre-feet delivered, acre-feet of storage, or other (specify)? Acres and parcel (2) How is voting authority delegated to water users (e.g., shares, individuals, number of acres, etc.)? Per acres (3) What is the per-unit amount of the current assessment? $3.00/acre

2021 RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS PAGE 3 OF 8

(4) Is there is a basic service charge or first acre assessment in addition to assessments? If so, specify amount: $25.00/parcel B. Financial Statement (1) Revenues a. Annual Revenues Generated from Assessments: $ 26,607 b. Annual Revenues from Other Sources: $ 8,665 c. Total Annual Revenues: $ 35,272 (2) Expenditures a. Annual Budget for Operation and Maintenance Expenses: $ 25,740 b. Annual Payments for Debt Retirement: $ 0 c. Annual Payments to a Repair and Replacement Fund: $ 0 d. Annual Payments to an Emergency Fund: $ 8,262 e. Annual Payments for Other Purposes: $ 1,271 f. Total Annual Payments: $ 35,273 (3) Other a. Balance in Repair and Replacement Fund: $ 8,262 b. Balance in Emergency Fund: $ 0 c. Explanation (If Needed): N/A

(4) Is the operation of the water system self-supporting in terms of revenues offsetting costs for operation, maintenance, debt retirement, replacement funds, emergency funds, etc.? No a. If not, how is the difference subsidized? There are no subsidies or emergency funds.

2021 RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS PAGE 4 OF 8

PROJECT AREA MAP

The Highland Irrigation District Canal begins at Fremont Lake Dam, and generally follows Pine Creek out of Pinedale, southeast toward the Town of Boulder.

2021 RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS PAGE 5 OF 8

PHOTOS

2021 RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS PAGE 6 OF 8

2021 RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS PAGE 7 OF 8

RESOLUTION

2021 RECOMMENDATION AGRICULTURAL WATER PROJECTS PAGE 8 OF 8