SUBJECT TO REVISION

Wyoming Water Development Commission/Select Water Committee Joint Workshop/Meeting Washakie Museum & Cultural Center 2200 Big Horn Ave, Worland, WY August 19-21, 2015

August 19, 2015 1:30 p.m. Workshop Agenda:

1. Memo re: Exemption for Non-Public Entities for Level I Studies (A)

2. Charts for: 10 years of revenues (WDA I, II, III) (B) 10 years of project appropriations (WDA I, II, III)

3. Consultant selection questionnaire (C)  Draft standard questions . Conflict of Interest . Record on Time of performance  Statute 9-2-1031 - Requires timely performance

4. Investigation of Irrigation Assessments (D)

5. WWDC Survey Results (E)

6. Results from the Public Purpose Investment Evaluation by the LSO (F)

7. LSO Scoping Paper on the WWDC (G)  Management Audit Committee action: Proceed with full evaluation

8. Executive Session to consider confidential information

August 20, 2015 8:00 a.m. – Summer Tour (H)  Leavitt Reservoir  Alkali Creek Reservoir Site  Lunch @ Medicine Lodge State Park  Lower Nowood I&S District  South Circle Estates I&S District  Meadowlark Lake  Dinner in Ten Sleep

SUBJECT TO REVISION

Wyoming Water Development Commission/Select Water Committee Joint Workshop/Meeting Washakie Museum & Cultural Center 2200 Big Horn Ave, Worland, WY August 19-21, 2015

August 21, 2015 8:30 a.m. Joint Meeting Agenda

1. Call to Order

2. Recognition of Members present to establish quorum

3. Approval of Agenda

4. Approval of Minutes (I)  June 4, 2015  June 3, 2015 Executive Session

5. Audience Introductions

6. Authorize public notice for comments for  Small Water Projects Program Operating Criteria (SWPP) (J)  Basin States Program (BSP) (K)  Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) (L)

7. State Grazing Lease #3-7503 (High Savery Reservoir)  Mutual consent to terminate Jon’s Sublease (M)  Approval of Matt Myers Sublease (Mc)

8. Small Water Program Amendment  Hazen Draw Project, Amendment No. 2 (N)

9. Discussion  Financial Status of Funds (O)  2017-18 Biennium Budget Submittal (P)  Commission Project Assignments (hand out)

10. Future Meetings Schedule  Next 2015 meeting – November 4-6, 2015, Casper, WY  2016 WWDC/SWC Calendar (Q) Matthew H. Mead Governor WYOMING WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Commissioners Nick Bettas Sheridan Little 6920 Yellowtail Road, Cheyenne, WY 82002 Travis C. Brockie, I William Resor Karen Budd-Falen Jeanette Sekan Phone: (307) 777-7626 Floyd Canfield Rodney Wagner Fax: (307) 777-6819 David Evans Todd Werbelow http://wwdc.state.wy.us

Harry C. LaBonde, Jr., P.E. Director

Date: August 5, 2015

To: Wyoming Water Development Commission

From: Harry LaBonde

Subject: Planning Studies for Non-Public Entities

In light of recent discussions at commission meetings and the fact that the LSO will take up this topic in the upcoming program evaluation, I have prepared this memo regarding the practice of funding planning studies when the applicant/sponsor is not an organized public entity. In all of these situations, the WWDC retains the services of a consulting engineering firm to conduct the Level I study. The WWDC develops the scope of work and administers the contract during its completion. The sponsor does not receive any form of direct financial assistance in this process.

Generally, the WWDC Operating Criteria requires that the sponsor be a public entity. However, within the Operating Criteria there are two situations when the WWDC may fund planning studies without the benefit of a public sponsor. They are as follows:

1. Operating Criteria, Applications - Page 8 – “The WWDC may waive the requirement that the project sponsor be a public entity for Level I studies. This will allow the applicant to know if there is a viable project prior to becoming a public entity. However, the applicant must be a public entity before applying for a Level II study. Under these circumstances, the Level I process will have a two- year duration with the study being completed the first year and the sponsor forming a public entity the second year. If the WWDC is to consider waiving this requirement, a representative of the applicant shall be required to appear before the WWDC to make a formal presentation on the project and to answer questions regarding the application.”

2. Operating Criteria, Dams and Reservoirs, Page 22 – “The WWDC may accept applications related to the construction of dams and reservoirs from applicants that are not public entities. As the evaluations of the feasibility of new dams are complex, this will allow the applicant to know if the proposed reservoir is feasible prior to becoming a public entity. However, the applicant must be a public entity before applying for Level II, Phase III funding.”

As indicated in both of these Operating Criteria sections, the general intent is to provide information to the sponsor so they can determine if the project is “viable” or “feasible” before they incur the cost to form a district. In speaking with an attorney who specializes in special district formation in Wyoming, one can expect legal fees to run a minimum of $10,000 to form a simple Improvement and Service District and $30,000 to form a simple Water District. If multiple counties are involved or the proposal is complex, the fees go up.

In the case of Level I water system master plans, the sponsor is always a public water system by EPA’s definition, i.e. 15 taps or serving more than 25 people on a daily basis. The system may be privately owned but it must comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) which is a federal law. Additionally, modifications or improvements to these systems must obtain a permit to construct from DEQ and comply with their regulations for potable water systems.

In reviewing the state statutes regarding the formation of Water Districts, the following information is required as part of the petition to establish the district which is filed with the respective County Commission:  Source of the water to be used  Amount of water to used  A determination that the source of supply is adequate to meet the forecast demand  A description of the water service mains, pumps, and treatment facilities  If the proposed district is within two miles of a city or town, the proposed improvements will meet municipal standards  The boundaries and land area to be included in the district

In the development of new reservoirs, the purpose and need for the facility is generally irrigation water shortages and the benefitting landowners are typically not organized into an irrigation district. As such, most landowners would like answers to such questions as what is the overall project cost, how much water will the project yield, what lands will benefit, what is the anticipated per acre assessment, etc. before they move forward with district formation.

Level I studies capture all of the basic information listed above plus develop capital improvement plans and cost estimates. This information is critical when the residents of an area contemplate the formation of a district. For that reason, I believe past Commissions have created the two exemptions allowing for the WWDC to work with non-public entities in the early planning stages of a project, thereby increasing the success rate in bringing projects to fruition.

Water Development Account I

Revenues by Fiscal Year Appropriations by Session Law Year

$50,000,000.00

$45,000,000.00

$40,000,000.00

$35,000,000.00

$30,000,000.00

$25,000,000.00

$20,000,000.00

$15,000,000.00

$10,000,000.00

$5,000,000.00

$- 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 Water Development Account II

Revenues by Fiscal Year Appropriations by Session Law Year

$20,000,000.00

$18,000,000.00

$16,000,000.00

$14,000,000.00

$12,000,000.00

$10,000,000.00

$8,000,000.00

$6,000,000.00

$4,000,000.00

$2,000,000.00

$- 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 Water Development Account III

Revenues by Fiscal Year Appropriations by Session Law Year

$70,000,000

$60,000,000

$50,000,000

$40,000,000

$30,000,000

$20,000,000

$10,000,000

$0 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

-$10,000,000

-$20,000,000 Governot WYOMING WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Commissioners Nick Bettas Sheridan Little 6920 YeLlowtail Road, Cheyenne, WY 82002 Travis C. Brockie, I William Resor Karen Budd-Falen Jeanette Sekan Phone: (307) 777-7626 Floyd Canfield Rodney Wagner Fax: (307) 777-6819 David Evani' Todd Werbelow http: / /wwdc.state.wy.us Harry C. LaBonde, ?r., P.E. Director

Date: August s, 2015 To: Harry LaBonde, WWDO Director -'? From: E3arry Lawrence, Planning Division Deputy Director

Subject: Standard Requirements and Information Requested during WWDC Consultant Selection Process

A brief summary of the standard requirements and information requested of consultants during the Wyoming Water Development Commission's consultant selection process follows:

Qualifications

* Must show firm's capability for performing the project. Must Iist project team members and identify the Project Manager. * Must include a certification that the work conducted will be supervised by a * professional engineer licensed in Wyoming as required by the provisions of WS 33-29-114 through WS 33-29-139 and a professional geologist licensed in Wyoming as required by the provisions of WS 33-41-101 through 33-41-121 . Must be registered with the State of Wyoming. * Must state which offices will be peforming the project work. Must provide a resume for each key project member. @ Must Identify all proposed subconsultants, list the work to be performed by the * proposed subconsultants, and provide statements of project specific qualifications * for each subconsultant.

Other Requirements

* Must provide listing of current clients whose interests may compete or conflict with the project as described. * Shall furnish all materials, equipment and labor necessary to complete the study. @ Shall be fully insured to include commercial general liability insurance, business automobile liability insurance, worker's compensation or employers' liability insurance, and professional liability or errors and omissions liability insurance. * Shall be familiar with all applicable state Iaws. The attention of prospective proposers is called to the requirements as to the conditions of employment to be Page li2 observed and to all applicable laws affecting the work, particularly to the procurement procedures required by Section 9-2-1016 and Section 9-2-1027 through 9-2-1033, Wyoming Statutes. * Shall not discriminate against any person who performs work thereunder because of age, race, religion, color, sex, national origin or ancestry.

Contractor Selection Procedures (from WWDC RFP):

The Commission will conduct the selection process in accordance with Sections 9-2-1016 and 9-2-1027 through 9-2-1033, Wyoming Statutes.

For those firms requesting consideration, the Commission has evaluated current statements of qualifications and performance data on file with the Office together with any applications submitted, and has selected not less than three (3) firms (if available) considered qualified to perform the required professional services to submit proposals. Consideration in the selection process by the Commission is based upon the ability of professional personnel, past performance, willingness to meet time requirements, location, current and projected workloads, the volume of work previously awarded to the firm by the Commission, and the equitable distribution of contracts among qualified firms.

The Commission will evaluate proposals submitted by the short listed firms and, based upon these proposals, select those firms that will be interviewed. The qualifications, experience, and expertise of the project team and contents of the work proposal will be considered in selecting firms to be interviewed. Price will not be considered in determining consultants invited to the interview process.

The Commission will interview not less than three (3) firms, if possible, selected from those that have submitted proposals to do the work. The interview shall be recorded and include discussion of each firm's approaches to the project, projections of project costs, qualifications, ability to furnish required professional services, use of alternative methods for furnishing required professional services, and an estimated fee based on the Commission's description of the work. The estimated fee and other information provided throughout this process may be used as a basis for selection by the Commission of the most appropriate firm for contract negotiations.

Page 2i2

9-2-1027. Short title.

This act is known and may be cited as the "Professional Architectural, Engineering and Land Surveying Services Procurement Act".

9-2-1028. Definitions.

(a) As used in this act:

(i) "Agency" means any state office, department, board, commission, institution or other operating entity of the state excluding the University of Wyoming, community college districts, school districts, the Wyoming business council and the Wyoming department of transportation;

(ii) "Department" means the state department of administration and information;

(iii) "Firm" means an individual, corporation, partnership, business trust, association, firm or any other legal entity permitted by law to practice in a specified profession;

(iv) "Principal representative" means the governing board of a department, institution or agency or its designated representative, or, if there is no governing board, the executive head of a department, institution or agency;

(v) "Professional services" means:

(A) The practice of architecture pursuant to W.S. 33-4-101 through 33-4-117;

(B) The practice of professional engineering or professional land surveying pursuant to W.S. 33-29-201 through 33-29-801.

(vi) "This act" means W.S. 9-2-1027 through 9-2-1033.

9-2-1029. Duties of department.

(a) The department shall:

(i) Develop and maintain approved lists of qualified architects, engineers and land surveyors for selection under this act; and

(ii) Develop and administer notification procedures for obtaining professional services under this act.

9-2-1030. Qualification procedures.

(a) Any firm desiring to provide professional services to an agency, shall annually submit to the department and [or] the agency a detailed statement of qualifications and performance data, and any other information required by the department or the agency. The department or the agency may request the firm to update its statement before submission in order to reflect changed conditions in the status of the firm.

(b) If professional services in an amount exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) are required, the department or the agency shall notify all qualified architects, engineers and land surveyors of record who have submitted an annual statement of qualifications and performance data. In addition, the agency or the department shall give statewide notice in a newspaper of statewide circulation at least once each week for four (4) consecutive weeks prior to initiation of selection procedures in accordance with W.S. 9-2-1031. Notification shall contain a general description of the proposed project, and shall indicate the procedures by which interested firms may apply for consideration for a contract to provide professional services for the proposed project.

9-2-1031. Selection procedures.

(a) For each proposed project, the principal representative of the agency for which the project is proposed shall evaluate current statements of qualifications and performance data of firms on file with the department or the agency, together with any applications submitted by other qualified firms, and shall select not less than three (3) firms considered qualified to perform the required professional services. Consideration in each selection process by the principal representative shall be based upon the ability of professional personnel, past performance, willingness to meet time requirements, location, residency, current and projected work loads, the volume of work previously awarded to the firm by the agency, and the equitable distribution of contracts among qualified firms. The agency shall provide a complete description of the work to the firms selected. These firms shall submit an unpriced proposal to do the work. For purposes of this subsection, residency does not require satisfaction of the elements contained in W.S. 16-6-101(a)(i).

(b) In addition to the requirements of subsection (a) of this section, for any professional services fee estimated by the agency to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) or, for any project the total cost of which is estimated to exceed one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00), the principal representative shall interview not less than three (3) firms selected from those which have submitted proposals to do the work. The interview shall be recorded and include discussion of each firm's projections of project costs, qualifications, approaches to the project, ability to furnish required professional services, use of alternative methods for furnishing required professional services and an estimated fee based on the agency's description of the work. The estimated fee may be used as a basis, along with the qualifications listed in subsection (a) of this section, for selection by the principal representative of the most qualified firm for contract negotiations. If unsatisfied with the results of such interviews, the principal representative may select not less than three (3) additional firms for interviews as provided by subsection (a) of this section.

(c) In addition to the requirements of subsection (a) of this section, for any professional services fee estimated by the agency to be twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) or less, or for any project the total cost of which is estimated to be one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) or less, the principal representative shall select three (3) firms from which a project specific submittal shall be requested. The information provided by the firm shall include an estimated fee and preliminary scope of services based on the agency's description of the work. The estimated fee may be used as a basis along with the qualifications listed in subsection (a) of this section, for selection by the principal representative of the most qualified firm for contract negotiations.

(d) Nothing in this section prohibits a principal representative from determining that fewer than three (3) firms with current statements on file or which have submitted applications before selection are qualified to perform the required professional services. If a principal representative makes that determination, subsections (b) and (c) of this section apply with respect to the firms the principal representative considers qualified.

(e) The department, in conjunction with the agencies, shall adopt rules and regulations necessary to implement the selection process provided by this section.

9-2-1032. Contract procedure.

(a) After completing the selection process, the principal representative shall negotiate a written contract with the selected firm as determined by W.S. 9-2-1031 for the provision of services. The principal representative shall consider the estimated value, scope, complexity and professional nature of the services to be rendered when determining a reasonable compensation.

(b) If the principal representative is unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the selected firm at a price he determines fair and reasonable, negotiations with that firm shall be terminated. The principal representative shall then begin negotiations with the firm ranked second in order of preference pursuant to W.S. 9-2-1031. If the principal representative fails to negotiate a contract with the second ranked firm, he shall terminate negotiations. The principal representative shall then begin negotiations with the firm ranked third in order of preference.

(c) If the principal representative is unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with any of the selected firms, he shall:

(i) Select additional firms in order of their competence and qualifications and continue negotiations in accordance with this section and W.S. 9-2-1031, until a contract is reached; or

(ii) Review the contract under negotiation to determine the possible cause for failure to achieve a negotiated contract.

(d) Each contract for professional services entered into by the principal representative shall contain a prohibition against gratuities, kickbacks and contingent fees. The architect, registered land surveyor or professional engineer shall certify under oath that he has not in any way been involved in any gratuities, kickbacks, or contingent fees in connection with his selection or ultimate performance of this contract.

(e) Each contract for professional services entered into by the principal representative shall contain a prohibition against payment based upon a percentage of the construction cost.

(f) This act shall not prohibit continuing contracts between any person providing professional services and any agency.

9-2-1033. Prohibited acts; civil penalty; initiation of action.

(a) No person, including any agency official or employee, shall:

(i) In any way be involved in any gratuities, kickbacks, or contingent fees in connection with the selection procedure set forth in this act;

(ii) If providing professional services, pay any fee, commission, gift or other consideration contingent upon the award of a contract for professional services pursuant to this act.

(b) Any person violating subsection (a) of this section or subsection (d) of W.S. 9-2-1032 is liable for a penalty not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000.00). The penalty may be recovered in a civil action and damages shall be assessed by the court.

(c) Any action pursuant to this section shall be initiated in Laramie county by the attorney general.

Investigation of Irrigation Assessments Using the State of Wyoming 2015 Irrigation System Survey Report

INTRODUCTION The Water Resources Data System (WRDS) at the University of Wyoming on a regular basis compiles and publishes the Irrigation System Survey Report (ISSR) on behalf of the Wyoming Water Development Commission (WWDC). Various ditch or reservoir companies, irrigation districts, conservancy districts, associations, and water purveying organizations provide survey responses for items including source of water, diversion and conveyance capacity, presence of storage, amount of storage, acres irrigated, number of users, annual budget, basis and amount of assessment, number of employees, debt repayment, conservation measures, operational issues, and maintenance needs. The 2015 ISSR has 132 organizations listed with the most current survey responses shown for each, even if some responses were to an earlier survey.

The ISSR is interesting and useful in its own right, however there is much data from many organizations for the reader to digest. Accompanying this narrative is the 2015 ISSR plus a spreadsheet with some additions and modifications. The additions are columns that might be considered derivative because they use survey responses to allow us to create comparative relationships between systems to add to our understanding. To facilitate visualization columns are color coded where within a given column the bigger numbers are red, the smaller numbers are green, and the medium numbers are progressively shades of yellow between red and green. The spreadsheet is sorted by the third column from the right (Column Q) with the heading in yellow titled “Budget/Irrigated Acre” with the largest $/acre value at the top; note the red to yellow color of the first pages and the more green colors on the last pages. Information regarding each column follows the Summary section.

It should be noted that the survey responses provided have been used “as is”, with few changes by WWDC. In compiling the data it is our understanding that WRDS does communicate directly with some respondents in order to receive a higher response rate and better data. However, as with the proverbial square peg, these water purveying entities do not all perform their service uniformly. Some use natural drainages and therefore have essentially no conveyance to maintain, while others have miles of conveyance to maintain. For some entities the facilities to divert water to each irrigator are the irrigator’s expense and responsibility. In other organizations the irrigator is assessed such that the entity controls the facilities to the point of delivery to the irrigator. Another important difference is that it appears, for example, that the entities that have access to Bureau of Reclamation storage generally bill the stored water through the water assessment and apparently pay as a group. For private storage the purchase of stored water may not always be billed through the direct flow entity. In those cases the individual irrigator may pay the direct flow entity for direct flow water and the stored water entity for stored water, thus having two assessments. This leads to the appearance of lower water assessment rates and the irrigated acres being counted twice. In short there are many variations in how these organizations are operated and financed.

SUMMARY Based on the information provided, the following characteristics coincide with higher assessment rates: a. Ability of irrigators to grow higher value crops. b. More miles of conveyance facilities. c. Organizational acceptance of responsibility for longer conveyance per irrigated acre. d. More water users. e. Smaller land parcels. f. More full time and seasonal full time employees. g. Debt. h. Singular assessment for both direct flow and stored water.

Lower assessment rates are related to: i. Due to what could be a myriad of factors, irrigators limited to forage crops instead of higher value cash crops. j. Use of natural channels for water delivery. k. Individual rather than organizational responsibility for a larger share of diversion, conveyance and delivery cost and functionality. l. Fewer water users. m. Larger land parcels. n. Less labor expense accepted by the organization. o. Absence of debt. p. Individual irrigator payment of assessments to more than one organization for water.

Median values for numbers in columns: q. 100 cfs, Conveyance capacity rev (“rev” designates revised responses resulting in numbers; see the Column Information section). r. 1.9 cfs/70 acres, Conveyance capacity per 70 irrigated acres. s. 12 mi, Miles of conveyance rev. t. 0.6 mi/160 acres, Miles per 160 irrigated acres. u. 3,451 acres, Irrigated acres rev. v. 30 users, Number of individual operators or water users rev. w. 1.5 users/160 acres, Number of water users per 160 irrigated acres. x. $17,500/yr, Budget rev. y. $6.23/acre, Budget per irrigated acre. z. 0.5 employees, Full time employees plus seasonal full time employees.

There are 105 of the 132 survey respondents who answered all three of the three questions regarding Irrigated Acres, Number of Individual Operators or Water Users, and Budget. The median value of those respondents for the Budget per Irrigated Acre is $6.23/ac. If the entities with a value equal to or less than the median $6.23 are summed, they represent 50% of the entities, 37% of the Irrigated Acres and 18% of the Water Users. It is likely that some of the Irrigated Acres and Water Users are counted more than once due to separate stored water-direct flow water assessments.

COLUMN INFORMATION Budget/Irrigated Acre Column, $/acre, Column Q: This column heading is highlighted in yellow and is located three columns from the right side of the page. The entire survey is sorted such that the highest $/acre is at the top of the list and the organizations that submitted incomplete responses are at the bottom of the list. Further, this column is color coded with red being the largest value working through shades of orange, yellow, and light green to dark green being the smallest. Below the last shaded cell in Column Q the entries with inconclusive values are sorted first by the amount of the annual budget, then by the number of users, and finally alphabetically by entity name.

We are interested in the amount per irrigated acre assessed by the organizations responding to the survey. The ISSR has information for Irrigated Acres and for the Annual Budget. Those columns are revised as described in the following paragraph and shown in the color-coded printout as Column L, Irrigated Acres rev and Column P, Annual Budget rev. The “rev” on these and other columns is a marker to show that the column is not the direct column from the survey, but is revised to make calculations. Our first derivative column is a calculation of dividing the Annual Budget by the Irrigated Acres to give us a $/acre amount.

In order to make the calculation for the derivative column, the entry for the Annual Budget must be a number. The survey responses have been changed where necessary to result in a number. Ranges are modified to the maximum number and phrases are modified to a number if one is indicated. Not every response can be converted to a number, these are subsequently sorted to the bottom of the list. In those cases, the entity’s position in the sorted list should be ignored because the data was not available to calculate a meaningful position in the list. Like the Annual Budget, the entry for the Irrigated Acres must also be a number, which has been resolved as described for the Annual Budget (i.e. phrases to a number and ranges to the maximum number).

Crop Restrictions Column, Column M, B=Sugar Beets, R=Row Crops, SG=Small Grains and Alfalfa, and P=Pasture, Grass, and Grass Hay, B or R indicate crop choice is not limited and SG or P indicate crop choices are limited, perhaps by water, elevation, soil, etc.: Another important dataset deals with Crop Restrictions. The survey respondents were asked to list up to four important crops grown by their users. For our use the least restrictive crop, or possibly the highest value crop, of the four potentially listed was used to represent the crop group for the entity. For the purposes of this derivative column it is assumed that if sugar beets (B=Sugar Beets) can be grown there are no restrictions on the crops that can be grown. Water supply is adequate, soil and climate are not restrictive, and a market exists for sugar beets. Likewise if sugar beets can be grown so can row crops, small grains, alfalfa, and irrigated pasture. The next least restrictive crop group is R=Row Crops. The row crop group has all the attributes of the sugar beet group except possibly the absence of a feasible sugar beet market. The most restrictive crop group is P=Pasture, Grass, and Grass Hay. Often the water supply is short or seasonal, the soils not conducive to farming, and high elevation may result in a climate with a short growing season. By process of elimination this leaves the SG=Small Grains and Alfalfa group of crops that might represent reduced water supply, shortened growing season, crops for forage rather than cash, and similar situations that aren’t as restrictive as the straight grass crop group but not as intensively farmed as indicated in the row crop or sugar beet crop groups. In some areas of Wyoming small grains and alfalfa-grass mix hay are grown as dryland crops. In those areas limited irrigation may serve to boost yields and quality to an incremental degree. These four groups are color coded by crop value into two groups, B and R crops are red and SG and P are green.

This column seems to most closely reflect the Budget $/Acre column. Fourteen of the top sixteen organizations grow sugar beets and row crops. One of the other two indicated pasture as a crop but may be more of a residential organization than one that delivers to primarily agricultural producers. The less expensive end of the scale is dominated by pasture and small grain crop limitations.

The remaining color coded columns from left to right on the page are:

Storage? Column, Yes or No, Column G: The survey has information related to Surface Source, Name of Reservoir with Account, Amount of Storage, and Type of Diversion. The responses for these columns indicate whether the entity has stored water and therefore whether to enter Yes or No in the Storage? Column. This column is color coded with Yes being red and No being green.

Capacity of Conveyance rev Column, in cfs, Column H: The survey also has information related to Diversion Capacity, another column for Conveyance Capacity, and another column for a Range of Conveyance Capacity if given. For the purpose of Column H the number for Conveyance Capacity was used first, if unavailable the high number of the Range Of Conveyance Capacity was used, and if unavailable the Diversion Capacity was used. Column H is color coded red to green, high to low.

It should be noted that entities that use a natural drainage to convey irrigation water may have a very large value. Use of the natural drainage also indicates reduced maintenance costs and therefore likely a relatively low water assessment rate. Several stored water purveyors in the survey fit this general description.

Conveyance capacity per 70 Acres Irrigated Column, in cfs, Column I: This derivative column is intended to reflect the historic water supply, particularly for a short supply. A direct flow water right is allowed to divert 1 cfs per 70 acres irrigated. Administrative circumstances may allow 2 cfs per 70 acres irrigated. If a water supply is limited it is not unusual for the diversion and conveyance facilities to have a capacity of less than 1 cfs per 70 acres irrigated, usually due to the economics of constructing and maintaining facilities that are rarely fully utilized. A limited water supply may also limit the water assessment rate that can be supported.

It should be noted that without storage, larger diversion and conveyance facilities might be used to divert spring high flow water to the maximum extent allowed even if for the full irrigation season the water supply is insufficient. This is especially true higher in drainages. These irrigation methods tend to be relatively low cost and involve lower value crop groups. As such this exception indicating a lower water assessment rate might have a relatively large capacity per 70 acres irrigated.

To calculate these numbers the Capacity of Conveyance rev (Column H) value was divided by, the Irrigated Acres rev (Column L) divided by 70. Column I is color coded high to low, red to green.

Miles rev Column, in miles, Column J: The survey has a response for miles of conveyance facilities. Column J represents those values for calculation purposes. Respondents appear to show miles of natural drainage, main canal, laterals and various combinations of the same in response to this question. Column J is color coded red to green, high to low. The longer conveyances tend to be nearer the top of the list which is in the higher assessment rates.

Miles per 160 irrigated acres Column, in miles/160 acres, Column K: This derivative column is intended to show how close together the irrigated acres are located. This number was determined by dividing the Miles of conveyance rev (Column J) by, the Irrigated Acres rev (Column L) divided by 160. Column K is color coded high to low, red to green. It is assumed that the less densely packed the irrigated acres are, the more infrastructure there is to construct and maintain, and therefore a larger water assessment rate is required. The column color coding indicates the stored water purveyors utilizing natural drainages (no conveyance canal) have the zero and low values regardless of where the irrigated acres are.

Another way to evaluate this column is that the irrigated acres may not be a lot more densely located, but the organization’s responsibility for the conveyance may be shifted to the irrigator, thus giving the appearance of more density. Those organizations assuming more responsibility appear as having more conveyance per irrigated acre and tend to be higher on the list for assessment rate.

Irrigated Acres rev Column, in acres, Column L: The ISSR has data for Total Acres and for Irrigated Acres. The latter and on occasion the former were entered in this revised column for calculation purposes. Column L is color coded red to green, high to low.

Number of individual operators (water users) rev Column, Column N: The survey has data related to the number of individual operators and/or water users which was edited to numbers wherever possible. Column N is color coded red to green, high to low. It appears that generally the organizations serving more users have higher assessment rates.

Water users per 160 irrigated acres Column, in number of water users, Column O: This column was created to see if assessment rate might be influenced by the size of land parcels served. It was calculated by dividing the Number of Individual Operators (Water Users) rev (Column N) by, the Irrigated Acres rev (Column L) divided by 160. A higher number indicates more users on a given 160 acre parcel. There are a few high number outliers that make the column difficult to evaluate, but the data indicates that there is less expense to serve larger parcels. Column O is color coded red to green, high to low.

Annual Budget rev Column, in $, Column P: The ISSR information for the Annual Budget has been revised to use numbers where possible, again for calculation purposes. Column P is color coded red to green, high to low.

Full Time + Seasonal Employees rev Column, in estimated year-long FTE’s, Column R: The survey has information for Full Time Employees and for Seasonal Full Time Employees. The range for the latter was from zero to five. Rather than using another column on the printout, the Seasonal Employees were counted as 0.5 each and added to the Full Time Employees counted as 1.0 each, resulting in the column shown. Column R is color coded red to green, high to low. Generally it shows that the organizations with more employees tend to have higher assessment rates.

Do You Have Any Existing Debt Column, Yes or No, Column S: This column is a Yes/No column color coded red/green. There are more “Yes” entries higher on the list and more “No” entries lower on the list.

Additional statistics: Yes No Not Determined Storage? 74 37 21 Existing Debt? 38 82 12

Capacity of Conveyance, cfs <70 35 70-150 35 >150 36

Agenda Figure 1 Distribution of Cost of Water 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15

Number Entitiesof 10 5 0 $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 $45 $50 $55 $60 Budget/Irrigated Acres, $/acre. Average is $9.99/acre. Median is $6.23/acre.

Figure 2 Range of Cost of Water $70.00

$60.00

$50.00

$40.00

$30.00

$20.00

$10.00 Budget/Irrigated Acre, $/ac $0.00 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 52 57 62 67 72 77 82 87 92 97 102 107 Each Entity

Agenda ______

STATE OF WYOMING

2015

IRRIGATION SYSTEM SURVEY REPORT ______

Wyoming Water Development Commission 6920 Yellowtail Rd. Cheyenne, WY 82002 307-777-7626 http://wwdc.state.wy.us

Wyoming Water Development Commission Irrigation System Survey

The Wyoming Water Development Commission (WWDC) maintains a database of irrigation districts and companies in the State of Wyoming. A survey is conducted approximately every two years and the results are used to update the database. This survey provides valuable information to state agencies, irrigation districts and the public. It aids the Water Development Office in prioritizing Water Development Account funds available for feasibility studies and project construction. In addition, this information allows irrigation districts and companies to compare operational issues, financial data, and general information with others around the state.

From the responses received, the WWDC divides the information into six sub-reports including a mailing list, conveyances, usage and storage, systems operations, and general information. This report also contains a list of entities that are in the database but have never responded to the survey or wish exclusion from the survey distribution. This survey can be accessed online or a copy can be requested from the WWDC.

REPORT OVERVIEW & KEY TO IRRIGATION SYSTEMS SURVEY REPORTS

Report #1: Mailing Information: This report contains the status, division, contact person, mailing address, and date of last survey received for each entity. Entities that did not respond to the 2015 survey may have incorrect contact information.

Report #2: Diversion/Conveyance: This data refers to the entity’s water supply, diversions, conveyances, and return flows. The individual fields are defined as follows:

Surface Source The surface source of an entity’s water supply. Type of Diversion How the surface source is diverted. Capacity of Diversion Capacity in cubic feet per second (cfs) for the diversion. Type of Conveyance Primary conveyance system used by the entity. Capacity of Conveyance Capacity of the conveyance system in cubic feet per second (cfs). Length (miles) Length in miles of the primary conveyance system. Conveyance Loss (%) Estimated percentage loss of the system.

Report #3: Usage and Storage: This report contains information pertaining to water usage, storage, and the size in acres of the irrigation company or district. The individual fields are defined as follows:

Total # of Acres Number of acres in the irrigation district or canal company. # Acres Irrigated Number of acres irrigated in the district or company. # of Users Number of individual irrigators in the irrigation district or canal company. Others Indicates if users outside of the district/company are served by the entity. Who/Amount Users served outside of the entity. Storage Amount of storage owned by the entity. Storage Reservoir Name of storage facility.

Report #4: Operations: This report consists of the entity’s budget and other data relating to the system’s operation. The individual fields are defined as follows:

Assessment Unit How the water users are assessed for the entity’s services. Budget Approximate value of the entity’s budget in dollars. Other Income Indicates if the entity has another source of income. Full Time Employees Indicates the number of full time employees. Seasonal Employees Indicates the number of seasonal employees. Debt Payment Amount the entity owes in existing debt. Date Debt Retirement Date the debt will be retired if applicable. Board of Directors Indicates if a Board of Directors governs the entity.

Report #5: General Information: This report contains information pertaining to the entity’s participation in conservation and any problems the entity has encountered. The individual fields are defined as follows:

Yes, No, NA (not applicable), or no answer if the entity provides Habitat Benefits habitat or other beneficial factors to the wildlife in the immediate area. Yes, No, NA (not applicable), or no answer if the entity has water Conservation Measures conservation measures in place. Operational Issues Problems encountered by the entity.

Report #6: Entities that have not responded/requested removal from mailing list This report contains the status, contact person, mailing address, and division for those entities who have never responded to this survey or that have requested exclusion from the survey distribution.

Irrigation System Survey General Statistics:

A total of 176 Irrigation Districts and Canal Companies are listed in the WWDC database. Entity contact information was updated with assistance from active survey entities, Conservation Districts, Conservancy Districts, the Water User Organization Roster (http://www.usbr.gov/gp/water_user_roster.pdf, 4/22/2014), and the State of Wyoming Business Division Database (https://wyobiz.wy.gov/Business/Database.aspx, 10/21/2014). After eliminating duplicate listings (due to name change or entity split), entities no longer in business, those requesting removal from the survey mailing, and those entities without contact information, the 2015 Irrigation Survey was distributed to 152 entities with a total of 75 (49%) entities responding. Of those 75 entities, an additional three (3) entities were either a duplication, out of business or wished to be removed from the mailing and were therefore excluded from the summary statistics seen in the tables below. In comparison, the 2012 survey distributed 127 surveys and had a return of 65 (51%); the 2010 survey distributed 134 surveys and received 67 (50%) responses; the 2008 survey had 60 (32%) responses out of 189 surveys distributed.

The current survey was distributed by a variety of methods: ninety-five (95) entities were sent a hardcopy in the mail; forty-four (44) were sent emails to take the survey online, seven (7) requested the survey be sent by a combination of regular mail/online/email methods, four (4) surveys were completed by telephone, and two (2) were sent by email. In addition to the four (4) surveys completed by telephone, three (3) entities per telephone conversation required exclusion from summary statistics due to reasons previously mentioned, twenty-eight (28) surveys were returned by regular mail, thirty-seven (37) surveys were conducted online; and (3) three surveys were a combination of regular mail and the online survey. Combined with input from the 2008, 2010 and 2012 surveys, 108 out of 132 viable entities (82%) have responded to the survey within the past seven (7) years.

The tables below summarize of some of the data from this survey. Data from the surveys were filtered and unexplained outliers removed.

Total Amount of Reported Irrigated Acres and Irrigated Acres by Reported Crop Type (Only a portion of the entities reported crop type and related acreages) Total Reported Irrigated Acres 670,602

Crop Type Total Acres Alfalfa 25,945 Beans 8,536 Beets 11,040 Corn 24,513 Ornamental Lawn 55 Grains include: Barley 8,000 Grains, Small Grains 6,196 Malt Barley 700 Oats 150 Sorghum 680 Sunflowers 2,040 Native/Wild Hay* 181,565 (Alfalfa Seed, Beans, Beets, Miscellaneous Combinations Corn, Hay, Row Crops, 61,300 Small Grains, Other) Total Reported Crop Acreage 329,820 *Includes: Brome Grass, Grass, Grass/Alfalfa Mix, Grass/Alfalfa Hay, Meadow, Native Hay, Native Improved Pasture, Pasture, Irrigated Pasture, Pasture Alfalfa/Grass Mix, and Wild Hay. Total irrigated acreage from the 2007 Statewide Framework Water Plan was 1,947,100 acres.

Total Reported Budgets and Number of Employees Total Budgeted $12,796,772 Total Full Time Employees 101 Total Full Time Seasonal 54 Employees

Averages for Reported Conveyance Losses and Capacities of Conveyances (cfs = cubic feet per second) Average Conveyance Losses 22.06% Conveyance Capacity 463

Reservoir Storage Reported (af = acre feet) Total Amount of Reservoir Storage 1,907,922.5 # of Entities with Storage 35

General Operation Responses NA, No Answer, Yes No Unknown Provide Habitat to Wildlife 54 13 5 Have Conservation Measures 48 9 15 Have Return Flow 23 46 3 Have a Board of Directors 62 8 2

Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#1: Mailing List Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given. Date Entity Status Division Contact Address City State Zip Received Alliance Ditch Company Company 2 John Araas PO Box 6288 Sheridan WY 82801 9/11/2003 Alto Canal Sprinkler Company Company 4 Sherie Warren - PO Box 806 Thayne WY 83127 2/19/2015 Secretary Anita Ditch Company and Gapen Ditch Company 3 Martin Mercer 1926 Hwy 31 Hyattville WY 82428 3/6/2015, 4/23/2015 Austin Wall Irrigation District Canal Company Distict 4 Jud Redden 353 Eagle Lane Lyman WY 82937 2/21/2015 (formerly known as Austin Canal Co, or Uinta NO 3 Canal Company) Baggs Ditch Company Corporation 1 Glynda Sheehan PO Box 60 Baggs WY 82321 8/5/2005 Baldwin/Peralta Ditch Company (aka Peralta Ditch Ditch Group 2 Gordon Nebeker 11 Mary Ann Drive Lander WY 82520 4/8/2015 Company or as Popo Agie Ranch) Bates Creek Reservoir Company Company 1 Andy Anderson 13930 State HWY 487 Casper WY 82604 1/4/2015 Bear Canal Ditch Company Company 4 Brent Barker 15740 HWY 150 South Evanston WY 82930 5/7/2012 Beckwith Quin Canal Company Company 4 James Willis PO Box 281 Cokeville WY 83114 11/26/2014 Bench Canal Company Corporation 3 Sandi House PO Box 48 Emblem WY 82411 11/21/2014 Big Cottonwood Ditch Co. Corporation 3 Michael Hornecker 4015 HWY 287 Lander WY 82520 2/13/2015

Big Goose and Beaver Ditch Company Company 2 Jim Ankney 532 Beaver Creek Rd. Sheridan WY 82801 8/3/2005 Big Horn Canal Irrigation District District 3 Richard Russell PO Box 348 Basin WY 82432 1/13/2015 Blacks Fork Canal Company Company 4 Vearl W. Bird 542 Co Rd 219 Ft. Bridger WY 82933 11/20/2014 Blue Bell Canal Company Company 4 Douglas C. Jarvie (Bad Address) PO Box 2881 McKinnon WY 82938 1/9/2001 Bluff Irrigation District Irrigation District 3 Sandy Richard, PO Box 923 Worland WY 82401 3/3/2015 Damon Weber Boulder Irrigation District District 4 Kathy Sandmeier PO Box 73 Boulder WY 82923 2/27/2015 Bridger Valley Water Conservancy District Conservancy District 4 Kenneth Fackrell, PO Box 177 Mountain View WY 82939 2/17/2015 Mngr Burbank Ditch District 1Kayo Smith 3060 Monte Vista Torrington WY 82240 3/13/2012 Burn Cleuch Ditch Co Company 2 Julie Gerlach 2624 Heartland Drive Sheridan WY 82801 5/24/2012 (Sec/Treas) Butte Ditch Association 3 Allen Hogg 13 Rd 5WT Meeteetse WY 82433 8/11/2005 Canyon Canal, Inc. Private Non-Profit 4 Michele Hinderliter, PO Box 1139 Pinedale WY 82941 5/14/2012 Company (Sec/Treas)

Casper-Alcova Irrigation District District 1 Herman Strand PO Box 849 Mills WY 82644 3/9/2010 Cemetery Ditch Company Company 3 Ivan Laird PO Box 778 Lander WY 82520 1/23/2015 Chalmers Fogg Ditch Company 3 Unknown no info Lander WY 82520 4/30/2010 Chapman Canal Company Private Company 4 James Sewell PO Box 250 Woodruff UT 84086 3/6/2008 Cody Canal Irrigation District District 3 Mary Helen Reed PO Box 1418 Cody WY 82414 4/16/2012 Cottonwood Irrigation District District 4 Kelly Johnson 76219 HWY 89 Smoot WY 83126 5/9/2012 Crook County Irrigation District District 2 Vince Waters 643 McKean Road Moorcroft WY 82721 3/18/2008 Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#1: Mailing List Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given. Date Entity Status Division Contact Address City State Zip Received Davis & Company Ditch Company 4 Kendell Potter General Delivery Mountain View WY 82939 3/30/2010 Deaver Irrigation District Irrigation District 3 Siina Swanson, 13 1st Ave E; PO Box 205 Deaver WY 82421 2/16/2015 Jerry Dart Deseret Land and Livestock Business NA James Sewell PO Box 250 Woodruff UT 84086 2/11/2010 Eastside Irrigation District District 4 Lance Bateman PO Box 5042 Etna WY 83118 3/11/2008 Eden Valley Irrigation & Drainage District District 4 Brandon Long PO Box 174 Farson WY 82932 3/7/2015 Elk Water User's Association (formerly part of Elk- Association 3 Fred Hopkin 217 Lane 10 1/2 Powell WY 82435 11/21/2014 Lovell ID, aka Elk Lovell Canal) Enterprise Irrigation and Power Company Company 3 Barbara Speyer PO Box 815 Lander WY 82520 12/2/2014 Etna Irrigation District District 4 Kendall Jenkins PO Box 167 Freedom WY 83120 12/16/2014 Fairview Irrigation District District 3 Garry M. Crook 2637 Bittercreek Rd Afton WY 83110 2/12/2015 Farmers Protective (Globe Canal) Corporation 3 Jim Walker 1255 Road 8 1/2 Lovell WY 82431 3/23/2012 First Mesa Ditch Company Company 1Glynda Sheehan PO Box 60 Baggs WY 82321 8/17/2005 Gooseberry Creek Irrigation District District 3 David Slover 4162 Gooseberry Rd Worland WY 82401 11/17/2014 Goshen Hole Water Users Association Association 1 Earl Alps 4149 State Highway 161 Yoder WY 82244 6/6/2005 Goshen Irrigation District Irrigation District 1 Rob Posten PO Box 717; 2912 West E St Torrington WY 82240 12/15/2014 Goshen Mutual Reservoir and Ditch Co. Company 1Joyce Kirchhefer 4686 Road 37 Yoder WY 82244 6/13/2005 Green River Irrigation District District 4 John Andrikopoulos PO Box 1953 Pinedale WY 82941 2/27/2015

Greybull Valley Irrigation District Irrigation District 3 Tom Laidlaw, PO Box 44 Emblem WY 82422 2/10/2015 Manager Gunbarrel Lateral Ditch Company Company 1 Terry R. Jones 254 Hightower Rd Wheatland WY 82201 4/26/2012 Hamsfork Water Users Association Association 4 Steven Peternal, PO Box 843 Kemmerer WY 83101 11/26/2014 Don Lamborn, Alice Sears Hanover Irrigation District, Upper Hanover Irrigation Irrigation District 3 John Scheurman, PO Box 965 Worland WY 82401 1/14/2015 District (aka Upper Hanover Canal) Sandy Richard Heart Mountain Irrigation District District 3 Gary Kellogg 1206 Road 18 Powell WY 82435 2/20/2015 Highland Hanover Irrigation District Irrigation District 3 Dan Madden, Sandy PO Box 982 Worland WY 82401 2/4/2015 Richard Highland Irrigation District District 4 Jack Roberts, Latner PO Box 913/PO Box 1232 Pinedale WY 82941 12/3/2014, Straley 2/17/2015 Hill Irrigation District District 1 Steve Feagler PO Box 50 Torrington WY 82240 9/11/2003 Hilliard East Fork Canal Company Company 4 Dan Martin 12826 HWY 150 Evanston WY 82930 2/14/2015 Hilliard West Side Ditch Company Company 4Lynn Hutchinson 14372 HWY 150 South Evanston WY 82930 1/16/2015 Hoops Lake Reservoir Company Company 4 Wade Stephens HC 67 Box 3 Lonetree WY 82936 4/13/2012 Horse Creek Conservation District District 1 Diana Guest or PO Box 68 Hawk Springs WY 82217 11/10/2014 Gary Kirchhefer Hunt Canal Irrigation District District 3 Elsie Martens PO Box 243 Lovell WY 82431 11/20/2014 Interstate Irrigation & Reservoir Company Company 4Bryon R. Thomas HCR 65 Box 777 McKinnon WY 82938 2/26/2015 Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#1: Mailing List Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given. Date Entity Status Division Contact Address City State Zip Received Kidman and Wall Ditch Company Company 4 Stuart Hickman PO Box 66 Robertson WY 82944 12/2/2014 Kirby Ditch Irrigation Distict (formerly Kirby Ditch Irrigation District 3 Delbert Daniels 1167 Cowboy Mine Rd Thermopolis WY 82443 12/2/2014 Co.) Ladder Ditch Company Company 1 Sharon S. O'Toole PO Box 42 Savery WY 82332 9/15/2003 Lake DeSmet Ditch Company (formerly listed as Lake Corporation 2 Kathleen McPhee 11 N Main St Buffalo WY 82834 11/18/2014 DeSmet Reservoir Co.) Lakeview Irrigation District Irrigation District 3 J. Travis Smith PO Box 880 Cody WY 82414 3/16/2015 Lamb Supply Canal Company Company 4 LeeAnn Barton PO Box 1034 Mountain View WY 82939 4/18/2015 Lander Ditch Company Private Company 3 Cale Case 787 S. 4th St. Lander WY 82520 6/26/2008 LaPrele Irrigation District District 1 Anna McClure PO Box 115 Douglas WY 82633 4/26/2012 Laramie Valley Municipal Irrigation District Irrigation District 1 C.M. Aron 221 E. Ivinson St. Laramie WY 82070 3/15/2015 LeClair Irrigation District District 3 Attn: Business PO Box 568 Riverton WY 82501 4/30/2012 Manager Lingle Water User's Association Association 1 Clay Peterson 3960 Buttermilk Rd Torrington WY 82240 12/3/2014 Little Popo Agie Irrigation District District 3 Rick L. Sollars, 277 Lincoln St Lander WY 82520 11/24/2014 District's Attorney Little Snake River Conservation District District 1 Larry Hicks, Kelly PO Box 355 Baggs WY 82321 3/2/2015 Kudera Lovell Irrigation District (formerly part of Elk-Lovell District 3 Stan Asay 1148 Road 18 Lovell WY 82431 7/22/2005 ID or aka Elk Lovell Canal) Lower Clear Creek Irrigation District District 2 Steve Mitzel Box 167 Leiter WY 82837 12/15/2000 Lower Hanover Canal 3 Lial Sinn PO Box 885 Worland WY 82401 9/26/2003 Lucerne Pumping Plant Canal Company (formerly District 1 Rose Watkins PO Box 241 Thermopolis WY 82443 3/1/2010 known as Lucerne Irrigation District) McDonald Ditch Company 3 Fred Barnett, 3236 Rd 34/889 US HWY 14 Greybull WY 82426 2/17/2015 (Corporation) Carolyn Walton Meade Creek Ditch Corporation 2 Bill Babione 3466 US Hwy 87 Sheridan WY 82801 10/9/2000 Midvale Irrigation District Irrigation District 3 Jon Howell, PO Box 128; 305 3rd Street Pavillion WY 82523 11/3/2014 Manager; Pat Rorabaugh, Office Manager Milich Ditch Company Company 4 Mark Walker 2490 Hwy 414 Lyman WY 82937 8/8/2005 Neff Ditch Irrigation Association Association 3 John Schulz PO Box 1135 Cody WY 82414 12/11/2014 New Fork Irrigation District (formerly submitted as District 4 Tina Nelson PO Box 91 Cora WY 82925 2/17/2015 New Fork Lake Irrigation District) New Grattan Ditch Company Company 1Bryan Greenwald PO Box 84 Lingle WY 82223 5/9/2012 New North Platte Irrigation & Ditch Co. Irrigation Company 1 Shawn Madden PO Box 670 Torrington WY 82240 5/1/2012 Nez Perce Irrigation Association Association 3 Kevin Kincheloe 11 Nez Perce Dr Cody WY 82414 4/10/2012 Nicol & Table Mountain Ditch Private Company 3 Ken Persson 7676 Hwy 789 Lander WY 82520 2/12/2015 North Fork Irrigation District Irrigation District 2 Kathleen McPhee 145 Patch Road Buffalo WY 82834 11/11/2014 Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#1: Mailing List Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given. Date Entity Status Division Contact Address City State Zip Received North Fork Valley Ditch Company Company 3 Bill Landwer, Linda 25 Bradford Drive/PO Box Cody/Wapiti WY 82414/ 2/18/2015 Putney 108 82450 North Strawberry Canal Co. Private Company 4 Dean Merrit 1547 Thayne Bedford Rd Thayne WY 83127 3/19/2008 Owl Creek Irrigation District (Dempsey Canal now District 3 Rose Watkins PO Box 509 Thermopolis WY 82443 3/1/2010 incorporated into Owl Crk) Parker McBride Private Company 3 Ken Persson 7676 Hwy 789 Lander WY 82520 2/12/2015 Peoples Canal Company Company NA Jim R. Wilson PO Box 627 Manila UT 84046 11/21/2014 Pine Creek Ditch Association, Incorporated Association 4 Leslie Hagenstein PO Box E Pinedale WY 82941 2/28/2015 Piney and Cruse Creek Ditch Company Company 2 Dave Clarendon 113 Fish Hatchery Rd Banner WY 82832 4/30/2012 Pioneer Canal - Lake Hattie Irrigation District District 1 Greg Weisz - Pence 501 Garfield; PO Box 1285 Laramie WY 82073 5/15/2012 and MacMillan LLC Porto Irrigation District District 4 Val Dee Pendleton 1620 Muddy String Road Thayne WY 83127 7/7/2003 Powder River Irrigation District (formerly Sussex District 2 Ken Koch 1561 Sussex RD Kaycee WY 82639 3/10/2010 Irrigation Co.) Pratte-Ferris Irrigation District District 1Jay Middleswarth PO Box 998 Torrington WY 82240 6/24/2010 Reservoir Ranch (formerly Sixty-Seven Reservoir Private Company 4 Jay Downs PO Box 516 Big Piney WY 83113 4/19/2010 Project) Riverton Valley Irrigation District Irrigation District 3 Hannah Thoman- 420 E. Washington Riverton WY 82501 11/4/2014 Bookkeeper, Mark J. White-Attorney, Wayne Neil- Manager Rock Creek Water Users Association Association 1 Scott Sims 1991 Co Rd 1 Unit B McFadden WY 82083 2/12/2015 Rock Ranch Ditch Company Company 1 Steve Schmick 7009 State Highway 156 Torrington WY 82240 7/7/2003 Salt River Irrigation District District 4 Unknown no contact information Afton WY 83110 7/9/2003 Sandstone Ditch Company Company 3 Lee E. Adams PO Box 622 Basin WY 82410 2/25/2015 Savery Creek Ditch Company Company 1 Jack Cobb PO Box 68 Savery WY 82332 2/26/2015 Savery-Little Snake River Water Conservancy District District 1 Glynda Sheehan PO Box 60 Baggs WY 82321 8/5/2005

Shell Canal Company Company 3Ray Weese 284 US HWY 14 Greybull WY 82426 4/5/2010 Shell Valley Watershed Improvement District District 3 John Ed Anderson 2745 Beaver Creek Rd Shell WY 82441 7/7/2003 Shoshone Irrigation District District 3Bryant Startin 337 East First St. Powell WY 82435 2/11/2015 Sidon Irrigation District District 3 Marilyn Hennrich PO Box 133 Cowley WY 82420 12/12/2014 Smiths Fork Irrigation District District 4 Stephanie Haderlie PO Box 101 Cokeville WY 83114 2/27/2015 Snavely/Grant Young Ditch (2012 submitted survey as Ditch Group 3 David Killebrew PO Box 51 Lander WY 82520 4/8/2015 Killebrew Irrigation) Spring Draw Ditch Company (formerly entered as Company 2 Mike Winterholler 150 Upper Rd Sheridan WY 82801 12/2/2014 Spring Draw Irrigation) Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#1: Mailing List Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given. Date Entity Status Division Contact Address City State Zip Received Stewart Creek Irrigation Company Non Profit 4 Jeff Cummings, PO Box 13534 Jackson WY 83002 12/3/2014 Paul Moynihan Sulphur Creek Reservoir Company (and City of Company 4 James Crompton 2361 HWY 89 N Evanston WY 82930 2/23/2015 Evanston) Taylor Ditch Company (formerly Dutch Flat/Taylor Company 3 Bill Hamilton 551 Lyons Valley Rd Lander WY 82520 7/2/2012 Ditch) Tillard Canal Company 3 Frank Stulc Jr. PO Box 909 Basin WY 82410 3/12/2015 Toltec Watershed Improvement District District 1 Donald Robbins 550 Garrett Rd. Garrett WY 82058 2/27/2015 Torrington Irrigation District District 1 Linda Keeran- PO Box 179 Torrington WY 82240 3/2/2010 Sec/Tres, Marty Yorges-Pres. Trowel Ditch Company Company 1 Keith Lankister (Bad Address) PO Box 375 Baggs WY 82321 6/3/2005 Twin Butte Land and Irrigation Co. Corporation 4 Jim Eyre 5984 State HWY 414 North Lyman WY 82937 2/16/2010 Twin Creeks (formerly known as Twin Creek Ditch NA 4 Kenny Petersen PO Box 422 Cokeville WY 83114 2/3/2015 Company) Victoria Ditch Co. Company 3 Gary Rice 2946 E. US HWY 16, Unit A Ten Sleep WY 82442 8/3/2005 Wagonhound Land & Livestock (aka Cannon Land & Company 1 Dustin Ewing, 1061 Poison Lake Rd. Douglas WY 82633 5/9/2012 Livestock) General Manager West Side Canal Company Company 1 Steve Adams PO Box 301 Baggs WY 82321 2/6/2015 Whaley Ditch Company 3 Mike Whaley, Greg 3167 Beaver Creek Rd/PO Greybull/Shell WY 82426/ 2/26/2015 Flitner Box 8 82441 Wheatland Irrigation District District 1 Kay Jenkins, Office PO Box 727 Wheatland WY 82201 2/23/2015 Manager Whitney Reservoir 4 Sam Lowham 279 Bates Canyon Rd. Erda Utah 84074 7/24/2003 Willwood Irrigation District District 3 Tom Walker- 1306 Road 9 Powell WY 82435 1/26/2015 Manager, Marjorie White-Sec/Treas Wise Ditch Company (aka Rodgers and Gregg (Wise Company 3 Ernie Phinney 9541 WY HWY 789 Riverton WY 82501 2/23/2015 Ditch)) Wright & Murphy Ditch Company Company 1 Harold or Shirley 9483 Road 3 Ft. Laramie WY 82212 9/9/2003 Thomas Wyoming Game and Fish Commission State agency 3 Steve Ronne 2820 Highway 120 Cody WY 82414 3/26/2008 Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#2: Diversion/Conveyance Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given. Type of Capacity of Type of Capacity of Entity Surface Source Diversion Diversion (cfs) Conveyance Conveyance (cfs) Miles Conveyance Losses % Alliance Ditch Company NA Ditch variable Ditch variable >10 no answer Alto Canal Sprinkler Company Alto Canal Headgate Varies yearly; Ditch Annually variable; 3 Approx. 10% depends on dependant on snowpack snow & rainfall

Anita Ditch Company and Gapen Ditch Paint Rock and Medicine Headgate 50 Anita Ditch, 30 Ditch 60 7 Anita 25% Lodge (check in Gapen Ditch Ditch, 5 creek) Gapen Ditch Austin Wall Irrigation District Canal Company Blacks Fork River Headgate 90 Ditch 80 17 60% (formerly known as Austin Canal Co, or Uinta NO 3 Canal Company) Baggs Ditch Company Little Snake River canal Diversion 3 NA 3 1.5 NA system structure and headgate

Baldwin/Peralta Ditch Company (aka Peralta Ditch Popo Agie River Headgate 34 Ditch goes to 26.4 3 15% Company or as Popo Agie Ranch) right out of (3) laterals Popo Agie River Bates Creek Reservoir Company Bates Creek Dam and ~20 Creek Bates Creek to 4 miles 10-50% headgate many headgates of second- ary supply to reser- voir Bear Canal Ditch Company Bear River - Bear Canal Headgate 165 Ditch 165 20 NA Ditch Beckwith Quin Canal Company Beckwith Quin Dam Dam 350 Ditches, 120 7 no answer pumps Bench Canal Company Bench Canal Co. Dams, 600' Ditches 300' 65 15% headgates Big Cottonwood Ditch Co. Big Cottonwood Ditch Dam Unknown Ditch 70 cfs 5 Unknown Big Goose and Beaver Ditch Company East Fork of Big Goose Cement 100 Open ditch NA 12 25% structure Big Horn Canal Irrigation District Big Horn River Headgate 700 Ditch 600 60 10% Blacks Fork Canal Company Blacks Fork River Dam with 375 cfs Canal 375 cfs 12 miles 15% headgate Blue Bell Canal Company stream Gravity flow 12.16 Ditch 12.16 NA NA Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#2: Diversion/Conveyance Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given. Type of Capacity of Type of Capacity of Entity Surface Source Diversion Diversion (cfs) Conveyance Conveyance (cfs) Miles Conveyance Losses % Bluff Irrigation District Big Horn River - Dam/headgat 150 cfs Ditch 100 - 150 cfs 17 miles NA through Hanover es Irrigation District Boulder Irrigation District Boulder Canal off of Headgate 400 Ditch 360 standard 400 estimate 25% Boulder Creek fed by the max capacity 25 miles Boulder Lake Reservoir

Bridger Valley Water Conservancy District Blacks Fork River and No diversion NA Canals and NA We only 10% Smiths Fork River dam; only ditches by operate storage dams private storage and reservoirs owners dams and not conveya nce systems

Burbank Ditch North Platte River Pump 5.14 Ditch (dirt & 5.14 5 20-30% concrete (pipe)) Burn Cleuch Ditch Co Stream: Little Goose, Dam in Little 20 Ditch Varies 4.5 NA Trib to Tongue River Goose Creek Butte Ditch Greybull River Native stone 70 Ditch 40 6 20% diversion Canyon Canal, Inc. Green River Headgates 120 Canal ditch 120 18.2 35% miles Casper-Alcova Irrigation District Seminoe Reservoir/ Headgate NA NA 600 150 20% North Platte River Cemetery Ditch Company Big or Middle Fork Popo Concrete 25 Open ditch 25 6 20% Agie River, Tributary head wall with some Little Wind River with headgate concrete lined, ads and pvc piped

Chalmers Fogg Ditch Ditch Headgate NA NA NA NA NA Chapman Canal Company Bear River Dam, 250 Ditch 250 20 15% headgate Cody Canal Irrigation District Southfork Shoshone Headgate NA NA 250 72 20% River Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#2: Diversion/Conveyance Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given. Type of Capacity of Type of Capacity of Entity Surface Source Diversion Diversion (cfs) Conveyance Conveyance (cfs) Miles Conveyance Losses % Cottonwood Irrigation District Cottonwood Creek Headgate 100 Pipeline 60 35 miles NA of buried pip.

Crook County Irrigation District Keyhole Reservoir Pump Varies Belle Fourche Varies 0 varies River

Davis & Company Ditch Smiths Fork River Headgate 25.5 Ditch 25.5 5 5% Deaver Irrigation District Ditch, reservoir Dam, Unknown Ditch, pipe 400 cfs 300 As diverse as our headgate system is, some places have very low loss (2- 10%) and some as high as 30%. Deseret Land and Livestock Chapman Canal - out of Dam & NA NA 300 cfs 15 30% Bear River headgate Eastside Irrigation District Strawberry Creek Headgate Unknown Ditch NA 18 20% Eden Valley Irrigation & Drainage District Big Sandy River Dam 600 Ditch 470 121 20% Elk Water User's Association (formerly part of Elk- Shoshone River Dam 300 Ditch 500 12 20% Lovell ID, aka Elk Lovell Canal) Enterprise Irrigation and Power Company Enterprise Ditch, Frye Headgate 24 Ditch 24 18 50% Lake Etna Irrigation District Stream dam 5600 Ditch 5600 10 ? Fairview Irrigation District Salt River Headgate 80 cfs Canal 80 to 10 cfs 8 1/2 Variable from 10% to miles 50% Farmers Protective (Globe Canal) Shoshone River Headgate at 150 (approx) Cement ditch, 95 (approx) 10 NA river buried, dist (approx) ditch. First Mesa Ditch Company Little Snake River - First no answer no answer Ditch no answer 11 no answer Mesa Ditch Gooseberry Creek Irrigation District Gooseberry Creek Dam with NA Ditch NA NA 30% headgate Goshen Hole Water Users Association Horse Creek Old concrete 250 no answer no answer no 30% answer Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#2: Diversion/Conveyance Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given. Type of Capacity of Type of Capacity of Entity Surface Source Diversion Diversion (cfs) Conveyance Conveyance (cfs) Miles Conveyance Losses % Goshen Irrigation District North Platte River Dam 1530 Ditch 1530 Main 40% canal 85.3 miles, open Laterals 70+ miles, and Tilelines 380+ miles. Goshen Mutual Reservoir and Ditch Co. Horse Creek Gravity on 50 Ditch 30 4 60% creek channel diversion dam

Green River Irrigation District Green River/Cottonwood Headgates 100 +/- single cfs no answer 200 +/- cfs 55 miles Contact Eddie Bow @ Creek SEO

Greybull Valley Irrigation District Greybull River, Wood Diversion NA Canal 2,450 20 10% River dams Gunbarrel Lateral Ditch Company Wheatland Irrigation Headgate 35 Pipe, ditch 35 10 0% District (lined) Hamsfork Water Users Association Hamsfork River Headgates NA Hams Fork NA NA 10% River Hanover Irrigation District, Upper Hanover Irrigation Boysen Reservoir, Big Dam, NA NA 550 cfs 40 10% due seepage District (aka Upper Hanover Canal) Horn River headgate Heart Mountain Irrigation District Reservoir Dam 900 Ditch, lined 850 168 30% ditch Highland Hanover Irrigation District Big Horn River Dam, 145 cfs Ditch 96.75 cfs (50-100 24 15% headgate cfs) Highland Irrigation District Fremont Lake-Highland Dam and ~ 180 cfs Open ~ 180 cfs about 25 10% Canal headgates canal/ditch miles Hill Irrigation District Glendo, Guernsey no answer no answer Lined ditch no answer 6-8 no answer Hilliard East Fork Canal Company Stream and Reservoirs Headgate 28 Ditch 28 15 NA (East Fork of Bear River; Sulphur Creek Reservoir, Whitney Reservoir) Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#2: Diversion/Conveyance Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given. Type of Capacity of Type of Capacity of Entity Surface Source Diversion Diversion (cfs) Conveyance Conveyance (cfs) Miles Conveyance Losses % Hilliard West Side Ditch Company Bear River Cement 80 Ditch 80 18 Unknown headgate Hoops Lake Reservoir Company Thompson Creek Dam 125 Ditch NA6No Horse Creek Conservation District Hawk Springs Reservoir Dam 125-150 cfs Concrete, dirt, 150 cfs 40 miles 30% pipeline Hunt Canal Irrigation District Shoshone River, Coffer Headgate 150 cfs Ditch 150 cfs 13 miles None Dam Interstate Irrigation & Reservoir Company Beaver Meadows Dam & 70 cfs Ditch 100 cfs Approx. 35-45% Shrink Reservoir & Burntfork headgate 20 miles, Creek (High Water approx. Right) & Island Lake 16 miles in Utah and approx. 4 in WY. 95% of water is used in WY.

Kidman and Wall Ditch Company Smiths Fork River Headgate NA Ditch NA2NA Kirby Ditch Irrigation Distict (formerly Kirby Ditch Big Horn River Headgate 90 cfs Ditch 90 cfs 6 10% Co.) Ladder Ditch Company Battle Creek Rock weir 9 Open ditch, 9 no no answer pipe answer Lake DeSmet Ditch Company (formerly listed as Lake Rock Creek Headgate 70 Ditch Appropriated 70; 3 (esti- 15% DeSmet Reservoir Co.) usual 45 mate) Lakeview Irrigation District Shoshone River (south Dam 270 +/- Ditch 100 - 500 28 +/- 70% +/- fork) headgate Lamb Supply Canal Company Ditch Ditch 40 Ditch 35 4 no answer Lander Ditch Company Popo Agie River, Middle Dam, no answer Ditch Unknown 5 no answer Fork, Dickenson Spring, headgate Dickenson Creek

LaPrele Irrigation District Reservoir Dam , NA NA 100 cfs 32 miles 6% Laramie Valley Municipal Irrigation District Oasis Ditch, Laramie Dam 128 cfs Ditch 150 cfs 20 miles 20% River est LeClair Irrigation District Ditch Headgate NA NA 300 cfs +/- 33 miles NA Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#2: Diversion/Conveyance Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given. Type of Capacity of Type of Capacity of Entity Surface Source Diversion Diversion (cfs) Conveyance Conveyance (cfs) Miles Conveyance Losses % Lingle Water User's Association North Platte River Dam no answer Canal 1900 None-we 17-19% (Whalen) pay Path- finder Irriga- tion for mainten- ance.

Little Popo Agie Irrigation District Christina Lake Dam and 33.4 Ditch 33.40 roughly 25% headgate 30 miles or slightly more Little Snake River Conservation District no answer no answer no answer no answer no answer no no answer answer Lovell Irrigation District (formerly part of Elk-Lovell Shoshone River Diversion 350-400 Open ditch 350-400 45 no answer ID or aka Elk Lovell Canal) dam across Shoshone River, no storage Lower Clear Creek Irrigation District Lake Desmet Dam no answer Ditch 40 no no answer answer Lower Hanover Canal Boysen-Big Horn River Concrete 300 Earth 235 24 no answer metal screw gate Lucerne Pumping Plant Canal Company (formerly Big Horn River Dam 70 Ditch 70 36 25% known as Lucerne Irrigation District) McDonald Ditch Shell Creek Headgate approx 30 cfs Ditch approx 125 cfs* approx. Not available 8 miles, approx 35-37 miles w/shell canal Meade Creek Ditch Piney Creek Drop gate 50 Ditch 37 9 no answer Midvale Irrigation District Bull Lake Reservoir, Diversion 1,800 Concrete lined 1,800 1075+/- 25-39% Pilot Butte Reservoir dam canals, ditches and pipelines. Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#2: Diversion/Conveyance Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given. Type of Capacity of Type of Capacity of Entity Surface Source Diversion Diversion (cfs) Conveyance Conveyance (cfs) Miles Conveyance Losses % Milich Ditch Company East Fork, Smith fork Headgate on 90 Ditch 90 13 20% river Neff Ditch Irrigation Association South Fork Shoshone Headgate 10.0 Ditch 10.0 cfs 7 miles no answer River New Fork Irrigation District (formerly submitted as Stream Reservoir Dam NA Natural NA 15 miles Unknown New Fork Lake Irrigation District) Channel New Grattan Ditch Company North Platte River Dam 50 Ditch 20 5 50% New North Platte Irrigation & Ditch Co. surface water, North Dam, 53 Ditch, pipe 55 12 30% Platte River headgate Nez Perce Irrigation Association Heart Mountain NA NA NA NA 2 15% Irrigation District Nicol & Table Mountain Ditch Popo Agie River Headgate 100 Open ditch 95 cfs 7 30% North Fork Irrigation District North Fork of Crazy Headgate 70 cfs for Res. Ditch 70 cfs for Res No. 2 mile 10% Woman Creek and No. 2; 10 cfs for 2; 10 cfs for Res. for Res. Muddy Creek Res. No. 1 No. 1 No. 2; 1/2 mile for Res. No. 1 North Fork Valley Ditch Company River - North Fork of Headgate 100 CFS Ditch 50-100 4.75 10% Shoshone miles North Strawberry Canal Co. Ditch Headgate, no answer Ditch no answer 14 50% pump Owl Creek Irrigation District (Dempsey Canal now no answer Dam 350 & 70 Ditch Unknown 70 25% incorporated into Owl Crk) Parker McBride Popo Agie River from Headgate 75 Ditch & pipe Varies 5 25% Nicol Table Mountain Ditch Peoples Canal Company Stream Dam 55 cfs Pipe 55 cfs 9 2% Pine Creek Ditch Association, Incorporated Headgate on Pine Creek Dam 7125 Ditch 125 6.5 Unknown (Stream); Pine Creek Canal No 1, Extension of the Lee Piney and Cruse Creek Ditch Company North and South Piney Dam/ NA Earth ditch 20-25 cfs 8 miles+ 10% Creek headgate Pioneer Canal - Lake Hattie Irrigation District Big Laramie River, Little Gravity NA NA 800 approx 30% Laramie River, Lake headgate 75 Hattie Porto Irrigation District Cedar Creek Concrete 35 Pipe 35 5 no answer headgates and pond Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#2: Diversion/Conveyance Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given. Type of Capacity of Type of Capacity of Entity Surface Source Diversion Diversion (cfs) Conveyance Conveyance (cfs) Miles Conveyance Losses % Powder River Irrigation District (formerly Sussex Powder River Dam 160-200 Ditch 160 26 20% Irrigation Co.) Pratte-Ferris Irrigation District n platte headgate 22 csf Ditch no answer 10 no answer Reservoir Ranch (formerly Sixty-Seven Reservoir Spring Creek Dam no answer Ditch & Canal no answer 2 1% Project) Riverton Valley Irrigation District Stream and Reservoir Manual gates/ 185 Ditch, lined 185 28 0 headgate canal, and pipe Rock Creek Water Users Association Rock Creek Headgate 3,000 cfs Natural 3,000 cfs 4 miles Unknown stream Rock Ranch Ditch Company Rock Ranch Irrigation Divert from 100 Ditch 100 14.5 no answer Ditch North Platte to Rock Ranch Salt River Irrigation District no answer Concrete 120 Ditch 120 8 no answer headgate Sandstone Ditch Company Greybull River Headgate, 120 Ditch 80 cfs 16 10% Greybull River Savery Creek Ditch Company Savery Creek Concrete, 20 Ditch 15 4 no answer sheet piling diversion Savery-Little Snake River Water Conservancy District no answer no answer no answer no answer no answer no no answer answer Shell Canal Company Shell Creek, Shell Dam 70 Ditch, lined variable 38 Unknown Reservoir, Adelaide ditch, pipe Reservoir Shell Valley Watershed Improvement District Shell Creek Screw 90 Creek 150 0 no headgate & conduit Shoshone Irrigation District Shoshone River Dam and 900 Ditch 900 260 15% headgate Sidon Irrigation District Shoshone River & Dam? 400 ? 1,000 39 25% Bittercreek Smiths Fork Irrigation District May Canal, Covey Canal Headgate Unknown Ditch Unknown 8 miles - Unknown 20 miles Snavely/Grant Young Ditch (2012 submitted survey as Middle Fork, Northfork Headgate on 20 Ditch 20 5 50% Killebrew Irrigation) Popo Agie point of diversion on river. Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#2: Diversion/Conveyance Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given. Type of Capacity of Type of Capacity of Entity Surface Source Diversion Diversion (cfs) Conveyance Conveyance (cfs) Miles Conveyance Losses % Spring Draw Ditch Company (formerly entered as Little Goose Headgate 9 cfs Pipe 120 cfs approx. NA Spring Draw Irrigation) 3.5 Stewart Creek Irrigation Company Stewart Creek Headgate no answer Pipe no answer 3 mi. ? no answer Sulphur Creek Reservoir Company (and City of Reservoir Dam with 80 cfs Ditch to Bear 50-100 0 10% Evanston) headgate River Taylor Ditch Company (formerly Dutch Flat/Taylor Taylor NA NA Ditch NA 5 Unknown Ditch) Tillard Canal Big Horn River Pump 21 Ditch 20 Approx Unknown 9 Toltec Watershed Improvement District North Laramie River Reservoir NA River NA 0 Unknown headgate Torrington Irrigation District North Platte River, Dam NA NA 40 25 15-20% Rawhide creek Trowel Ditch Company Little Snake River Four culverts 90 Ditch 90 6 no answer with watermain gates and dam with slide in boards

Twin Butte Land and Irrigation Co. Blacksfork River Ditch 50 Ditch 50 7.5 10% Twin Creeks (formerly known as Twin Creek Ditch Twin Creeks Headgate 100 cfs Ditch 100 cfs 4 miles 10% Company) Victoria Ditch Co. Ten Sleep Creek Headgate no answer Ditch, pipe no answer 3 Unknown through town

Wagonhound Land & Livestock (aka Cannon Land & NA Pumps 25.2571 Pumps NA NA NA Livestock) West Side Canal Company Little Snake River Dam From river 180 cfs Ditch 180 cfs +/- 20 +/- 20% (just a guess) +/- varies /weather/amt of water Whaley Ditch Shell Creek Headgate Unknown Ditch Unknown Unknow Unknown n Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#2: Diversion/Conveyance Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given. Type of Capacity of Type of Capacity of Entity Surface Source Diversion Diversion (cfs) Conveyance Conveyance (cfs) Miles Conveyance Losses % Wheatland Irrigation District Sybille Crk, Laramie R, Headgates 631 Ditch Upper #1 - 490 approxi 25% Dutton Crk, Three Mile cfx, #3 Canal - mately Crk, Seepage Crk, One 120 cfs 120 Mile, Rock Crk, miles Canal#1, Deep Creek, Little Laramie R, Transbasin water from Rock Creek Drainage. (sent additional attached sheets ) Whitney Reservoir West Fork Bear River Mechanical 100 + Canal & River no answer River no answer Front Gate Use Willwood Irrigation District Shoshone River, Buffalo Dam 400 Canal & 400 82 20% Bill Reservoir laterals Wise Ditch Company (aka Rodgers and Gregg (Wise Little Popo Agie River Headgate 44 Ditch 44 12 50-60% Ditch)) Wright & Murphy Ditch Company Glendo, Platte River GID canal no answer Ditch 4 1 no answer Wyoming Game and Fish Commission Shoshone River Headgate no answer Ditch 450 12 no answer Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#3: Usage and Storage Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given. Number of Individual Provide Operators/Water Water to Who/Amount Name of Reservoir Amount of Storage Entity Total Acres Irrigated Acres Users Others (cfs) with Account (af) Alliance Ditch Company Unknown NA 25 Yes Alliance NA NA Lateral (occasional) Alto Canal Sprinkler Company 680.55 681 19 No NA Strawberry None Anita Ditch Company and Gapen Ditch NA NA 5 Anita Ditch, 2 No NA 00 Gapen Ditch Austin Wall Irrigation District Canal Company Unknown 4,001 12 No NA Meeks Cabin Dam NA (formerly known as Austin Canal Co, or Uinta NO 3 Canal Company) Baggs Ditch Company 903 903 5 No NA NA NA Baldwin/Peralta Ditch Company (aka Peralta Ditch 924 924 30 (varies) No NA NA NA Company or as Popo Agie Ranch) Bates Creek Reservoir Company 7,000 + 4,000 + 7 NA NA Bates Creek 3,112 Reservoir Bear Canal Ditch Company 4,900 4,900 33 No NA Whitney 1,102.50 Beckwith Quin Canal Company 10,000 All (10,000) 6 Users No no answer Woodruff Narrows 5,600 Reservoir Bench Canal Company 16,500 16,500 71 No 145, 000 Sunshine Upper and 145,000 Lower-Roach Gulch

Big Cottonwood Ditch Co. Unknown 2,167 98 Yes Unknown Shoshone Lake 9,372 Big Goose and Beaver Ditch Company NA 6,160 46 No NA0 0 Big Horn Canal Irrigation District 23,500 20,000 250 No NA Boysen 3,000 Blacks Fork Canal Company Approx. 20,020.124 60 No 286 cfs Meeks Cabin NA 25,000 Reservoir Blue Bell Canal Company NA 852 3 No NA NA NA Bluff Irrigation District 3,762 3,762 47 No NABoysen Reservoir NA Boulder Irrigation District 10,567 less than 10,567, 66 No NA Boulder Lake 22,280 very rough estimate would be 8500+ acres Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#3: Usage and Storage Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given. Number of Individual Provide Operators/Water Water to Who/Amount Name of Reservoir Amount of Storage Entity Total Acres Irrigated Acres Users Others (cfs) with Account (af) Bridger Valley Water Conservancy District 154,600 acres 79,500 approx 300 Yes. We 1,500 acre-feet Meeks Cabin Dam (Meeks Cabin provide per year and reservoir and Reservoir) 33,571 AF water for Stateline Dam and and (Stateline municipal reservoir Reservoir) 14,000 AF use for Bridger Valley Joint Powers Board

Burbank Ditch 400 391 1 No Self & all Glendo 200 Burn Cleuch Ditch Co 898 898 69 NA NA NA NA Butte Ditch Unknown 2,180 6 No NA Upper Flower 1,000 Sunshine, Roach Gulch Canyon Canal, Inc. 6,300 6,300 217 No NA NA NA Casper-Alcova Irrigation District 24,419 24,419 511 No NA Seminoe 1,200,000 Cemetery Ditch Company 1,400 905 76 No NA NA NA Chalmers Fogg Ditch NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Chapman Canal Company NA 9,300 20 No NA NA0 Cody Canal Irrigation District 12,000 11,423 2,000 No NA Beck Lake Reservoir NA

Cottonwood Irrigation District 5,000 5,000 290 No NA NA0 Crook County Irrigation District 4287 2,160 NA No NA SAA 17,708 Davis & Company Ditch 1,766 1,766 13 No NA NA NA Deaver Irrigation District 90,000 15,545 194 NA NA Buffalo Bill Unknown Reservoir Deseret Land and Livestock 9,139 9,139 15 No private reservoir - 7,600 Neponset Eastside Irrigation District 1,645 1,300 15 No no answer NA0 Eden Valley Irrigation & Drainage District Unknown 16,849.82 127 No NA Big Sandy Reservoir 39,700

Elk Water User's Association (formerly part of Elk- no answer 4,250 13 Yes Lovell Canal, no answer no answer Lovell ID, aka Elk Lovell Canal) 350 cfs Enterprise Irrigation and Power Company 2,450 2,200 85 No cfs Frye Lake 1,698ac Etna Irrigation District 3,000 3,000 140 No ? no answer no answer Fairview Irrigation District 23,000 acres 1,800 acres 105 No NA NA NA Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#3: Usage and Storage Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given. Number of Individual Provide Operators/Water Water to Who/Amount Name of Reservoir Amount of Storage Entity Total Acres Irrigated Acres Users Others (cfs) with Account (af) Farmers Protective (Globe Canal) 5,000 3,300 (approx) approx 50+ No NA NA NA (approx) First Mesa Ditch Company 3,196 3,196 31 No no answer no answer no answer Gooseberry Creek Irrigation District Unknown Unknown 11 No NA NA NA Goshen Hole Water Users Association no answer 2,516 5 No no answer Springer 2,515.90 Goshen Irrigation District 52,484 49,353 421 Yes Gering Ft. Pathfinder Whatever is available Laramie Irrigation District 51% or 765 cfs Goshen Mutual Reservoir and Ditch Co. 4,500 641 9 No no answer no answer 1,929 Green River Irrigation District 6,900 +/- 6,900 +/- 47 +/- "6" main Yes Contact NA NA plus subdivision Sublette Co. Assessor's Office Greybull Valley Irrigation District 80,000 64,000 435 Yes Farmers Canal Upper Sunshine, 146,000 325 cfs, Bench Lower Sunshine, Canal 300 cfs. Roach Gulch Gunbarrel Lateral Ditch Company 2,601 2,601 16 No Varies NA NA Hamsfork Water Users Association Unknown Unknown Approximately 30 Yes The Hamsfork Viva Naughton NA river system Reservoir also provides water to the town of Kemmerer/Dia mondville, golf course, cemetry, and industrial uses: Quantity unknown. Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#3: Usage and Storage Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given. Number of Individual Provide Operators/Water Water to Who/Amount Name of Reservoir Amount of Storage Entity Total Acres Irrigated Acres Users Others (cfs) with Account (af) Hanover Irrigation District, Upper Hanover Irrigation 14,000 13,251.04 404 Yes Highland Boysen Reservoir 7,200 af District (aka Upper Hanover Canal) Hanover, Bluff and Upper Bluff Irrgation Districts - 255 cfs total

Heart Mountain Irrigation District 33,778 31,148 691 No NA Buffalo Bill 320,000 Reservoir Highland Hanover Irrigation District 7,074 6,992 125 No 41.42 acre-feet Boysen Reservoir 36,000 acre feet Highland Irrigation District 6,660.38 Unknown 218 Yes Lee Ditch picks Fremont Lake 3,851 ? Ac ft assessed up wastewater/ Lot sizes vary from 2 acre parcels to several hundred acres

Hill Irrigation District no answer 3,845 79 No no answer Glendo, Guernsey no answer Hilliard East Fork Canal Company 2,644 2,644 14 No NA Sulphur Creek Sulphur Creek---960 Reservoir (in WY) & acre feet Whitney Reservoir (in UT). Hilliard West Side Ditch Company 2,260 2,260 22 No no answer Whitney 508 Hoops Lake Reservoir Company 4,500 4,500 8 No NA NA 4,000 Horse Creek Conservation District 10,544.13 10,544.13 62 No 10,544.13 Sinnard Reservoir, 14,957 receiving Various Hawk Springs water individuals Reservoir Hunt Canal Irrigation District 8,398 4,030 50 No no answer no answer no answer Interstate Irrigation & Reservoir Company NA 2,035.52 25 Shareholders= NA NA Beaver Meadows 2,461 ac-ft capacity 5,442 Total Shares Kidman and Wall Ditch Company NA 1,858 8 No NA State Line Dam NA Kirby Ditch Irrigation Distict (formerly Kirby Ditch 5,400 3,200 51 No NA Boysen 3,000 temporary Co.) contract Ladder Ditch Company 180 180 1 No no answer no answer no answer Lake DeSmet Ditch Company (formerly listed as Lake 5,929 5,500 (estimate) 24 NA NA Lake DeSmet 875 DeSmet Reservoir Co.) Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#3: Usage and Storage Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given. Number of Individual Provide Operators/Water Water to Who/Amount Name of Reservoir Amount of Storage Entity Total Acres Irrigated Acres Users Others (cfs) with Account (af) Lakeview Irrigation District 9,779 9,779 494 Yes Cooperate with NA NA Cody Canal for efficiency, 20 acre-feet +/-

Lamb Supply Canal Company 2,233 2,234 24 No See list NA NA Lander Ditch Company 1,800 no answer 120 No no answer no answer no answer LaPrele Irrigation District 31,703 11,462 103 No NA LaPrele 21,000 AF Laramie Valley Municipal Irrigation District 9,321 9,321 13 No NA NA0 LeClair Irrigation District NA 13,500 1,500 Yes NA NA NA Lingle Water User's Association 11,288 11,288 100 No Most info on Pathfinder no answer file at WWDO.

Little Popo Agie Irrigation District 2,342.23 2,487.47 24 No NA Christina Lake 1,200 Little Snake River Conservation District no answer no answer no answer no answer no answer no answer no answer Lovell Irrigation District (formerly part of Elk-Lovell 11,000 11,000 11,000 Yes Elk Water no answer no answer ID or aka Elk Lovell Canal) users Lower Clear Creek Irrigation District no answer no answer 16 No no answer Lake Desmet 11,800 Lower Hanover Canal 13,516 12,500 75 No no answer no answer no answer Lucerne Pumping Plant Canal Company (formerly no answer 4,080 93 No no answer Boysen Reservoir 12,000 known as Lucerne Irrigation District) McDonald Ditch 1,865 1,865 30 + Shell Canal Check State Adelaide Info not available to Records, that me info should be on file Meade Creek Ditch 2,500 2,600 6 No no answer Carnegie Lake, 1985 Willow Park Res. Midvale Irrigation District 200,000+ 73,000 approximately 930 No NA Bull Lake & Pilot 186,551 af Reservoir Milich Ditch Company no answer 4,400 13 No no answer State line no answer Neff Ditch Irrigation Association no answer 315 17 No 1 cfs/70 acres no answer no answer New Fork Irrigation District (formerly submitted as 14,612.72 14,612 91 No 2 cfs/acre New Fork dam (New 20,340 AF New Fork Lake Irrigation District) Fork Lake) New Grattan Ditch Company 1,323 930 6 No 2,000 af Guernsey Glendo 900 New North Platte Irrigation & Ditch Co. 4,000 3,000 18 No NA NA0 Nez Perce Irrigation Association 120 100 22 No NA NA NA Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#3: Usage and Storage Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given. Number of Individual Provide Operators/Water Water to Who/Amount Name of Reservoir Amount of Storage Entity Total Acres Irrigated Acres Users Others (cfs) with Account (af) Nicol & Table Mountain Ditch 4,000 3,340 63 Yes Parker- None NA McBride and North Lateral Ditch Company (75 cfs total)

North Fork Irrigation District Estimate Estimate 5,000 15 No NA Muddy Guard 1,826 + 500 af owned 10,000 Reservoir No. 1 and by State of Wyoming Muddy Guard Reservoir No. 2 North Fork Valley Ditch Company 5,000 - North 1,065 90 No NA NA - Divert from 1,000 AF Fork river Shoshone River Valley North Strawberry Canal Co. 1,200 no answer no answer no answer no answer NA no answer Owl Creek Irrigation District (Dempsey Canal now 13,000 13,000 153 No no answer Anchchor Dam, AD = 6,000; BD = incorporated into Owl Crk) Boysen Reservoir 12,000 Parker McBride 1,800 1,300 12 Yes North Lateral, NA NA 36.2 cfs. Peoples Canal Company 3,000+ 2,290 ac 14 No? NA NA Pine Creek Ditch Association, Incorporated 3,002 acres 2,885 34 No NA Fremont Lake 3,237 with attached rights

Piney and Cruse Creek Ditch Company approx 4,500 NA 100+ No NA Kearney Reservoir approx. 150 Pioneer Canal - Lake Hattie Irrigation District 17,920 17,920 49 Yes Wyoming Sodagreen Lake, Sodagreen Lake-443 Game and Fish, Lake Hattie a.f.; Lake Hattie- 300 acre-feet 65,265 a.f. for Twin Buttes Reservoir.

Porto Irrigation District 900.6 901 24 No no answer no answer no answer Powder River Irrigation District (formerly Sussex 5,115 5,115 28 No no answer NA 0 Irrigation Co.) Pratte-Ferris Irrigation District no answer 600 2 No no answer na no answer Reservoir Ranch (formerly Sixty-Seven Reservoir no answer 1,600 2 Yes 800 af 67 Reservoir 5,200 Project) Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#3: Usage and Storage Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given. Number of Individual Provide Operators/Water Water to Who/Amount Name of Reservoir Amount of Storage Entity Total Acres Irrigated Acres Users Others (cfs) with Account (af) Riverton Valley Irrigation District 13,000 8,311.62 acres 774 Yes Bureau of Boysen Unknown Indian Affairs; 172.75 acres of land. Unknown how much water.

Rock Creek Water Users Association Unknown 21,860 18 No no answer NA 0 (NA) Rock Ranch Ditch Company 3,561 3,561 22 No no answer Path Finder, Unknown Guernsey Glendo Salt River Irrigation District 2,500 2,300 50 No no answer none no answer Sandstone Ditch Company 4,000 +- 2,656 19 No na Upper and Lower 4,244.49 Sunshine and Roach Gulch Savery Creek Ditch Company 2,000 1,274 10 No no answer no answer no answer (NA) Savery-Little Snake River Water Conservancy District 12,000 12,000 no answer no answer no answer High Savery Dam 12,000

Shell Canal Company no answer 5,800 125 Yes McDonald Shell Reservoir, Shell 375, Adelaide Ditch; 30 cfs Adelaide Reservoir 30 Shell Valley Watershed Improvement District 15,000 10,500 250 No no answer Adelaide 4,550 Shoshone Irrigation District 36,009 35,500 1,207 Yes Deaver Buffalo Bill 330,710 for the Irrigation Reservoir Shoshone Project District, 265 cfs Sidon Irrigation District 13,600 13,181.16 580 No70 No storage. Don't own storage Smiths Fork Irrigation District 4,980 4,980 27 No Unknown NA NA Snavely/Grant Young Ditch (2012 submitted survey as 1,200 1,200 25 Yes Varies NA NA Killebrew Irrigation) Spring Draw Ditch Company (formerly entered as 640 600 30 No no answer Big Horn, Park 1352 447 Spring Draw Irrigation) R Stewart Creek Irrigation Company 400 no answer 190 No no answer NA NA Sulphur Creek Reservoir Company (and City of Unknown Unknown 55 Shareholders Yes City of Sulphur Reservoir 7,110 Shareholders- Evanston) Evanston. (19,744) Irrigators 7,110 af Taylor Ditch Company (formerly Dutch Flat/Taylor NA 2,100 10 No Unknown none NA Ditch) Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#3: Usage and Storage Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given. Number of Individual Provide Operators/Water Water to Who/Amount Name of Reservoir Amount of Storage Entity Total Acres Irrigated Acres Users Others (cfs) with Account (af) Tillard Canal Approx 1,400 Approx 1,400 11 No NA NA NA

Toltec Watershed Improvement District not available 1,720 8 No % available: Toltec Water Shed 2450 Brenner 40%; Improvement MJ Ranches District 31.6%; Dunlap 11.4%; Garrett 5.8%; Sturgeon 4.5%; Benton 2.2%; Goodrich 2%; Twig Land Co.1.5%

Torrington Irrigation District no answer 2,400 Unknown No Glendo 1,000 Trowel Ditch Company no answer no answer 3 No no answer no answer no answer Twin Butte Land and Irrigation Co. no answer no answer 12 No no answer Meeks cabin. Bureau owned by individual of Rec. using water Twin Creeks (formerly known as Twin Creek Ditch 2,000 acres 1,200 acres 6 No NA NA NA Company) Victoria Ditch Co. 200 200 no answer No no answer no answer no answer Wagonhound Land & Livestock (aka Cannon Land & 7,000 1,760 1 No NA NA NA Livestock) West Side Canal Company MNG 5,000 +/- 28 No no answer High Savery 12,000 + 2,008 2,000/10,000 Reservoir Conveyance Whaley Ditch 1,424 Unknown 18 Yes Howard Adelaide Unknown Enlgmt Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#3: Usage and Storage Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given. Number of Individual Provide Operators/Water Water to Who/Amount Name of Reservoir Amount of Storage Entity Total Acres Irrigated Acres Users Others (cfs) with Account (af) Wheatland Irrigation District 58,000 acres enough to use all 825 Not Landowners Reservoirs: Approximately of our supply currently 631 cfs Wheatland Nos# 1, 190,000 acre feet most years 2,3; Dutton Creek, McFadden No#3, Seepage, Rainey, King, Rock Lake, Sand Lake. Canals/Ditches: Canon, Tunnel Canal Nos# 1&2, Wheatland Industrial Co., Enl Canals 1, 2 3, One Mile Crk, Three Mile Crk, Lower Dutton, Laramie R (see attached sheets).

Whitney Reservoir 16,000 no answer no answer No no answer Whitney Resevoir 4,300 Willwood Irrigation District 11,623.90 11,623.90 178 No NA Buffalo Bill 330,710 acre feet Reservoir (Shoshone Project) Wise Ditch Company (aka Rodgers and Gregg (Wise 993 993 19 No no answer Christina 2,452 Ditch)) Wright & Murphy Ditch Company 245 245 1 No no answer Glendo 300 Wyoming Game and Fish Commission 600 600 2 Yes Tippetts Ranch no answer no answer Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#4: Operations Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given.

Other Source Full-Time Debt of Full-Time Seasonal Debt Retire- Brd of Entity How Are Users Assessed Budget Income Amount Employees Employees Payment ment Dir Alliance Ditch Company Annual Assessment by $10,000.00 NA NA NA 1 NA NA Yes Shares Alto Canal Sprinkler Company Annual Assessment Per $3,200.00 No NA 0 0 NA NA Presi- Acre (sprinkler/ditch) dent, elected mem- bers Anita Ditch Company and Gapen Ditch /Acre NA No NA 00NA NA No Austin Wall Irrigation District Canal Company By Acre $8,000-$10,000 No NA 00NA NA Yes (formerly known as Austin Canal Co, or Uinta NO 3 Canal Company) Baggs Ditch Company Annual Assessment by $2,500.00 No 0 0 0 $1,958.06 2030 Yes Shares Baldwin/Peralta Ditch Company (aka Peralta Ditch Annual Assessment by none None NA 0 0 NA NA No Company or as Popo Agie Ranch) Acreage Bates Creek Reservoir Company NA $20,000.00 No No (NA) 00NA NA Yes Bear Canal Ditch Company Annual Assessment by NA No 0 0 0 NA NA Yes Shares Beckwith Quin Canal Company Shares $10.00 No NA0 0 NA NA No Bench Canal Company Annual Assessment by $215,000.00 No no answer 2 1 $40,000.00 Jun 2016 Yes Share/Acre (NA) Big Cottonwood Ditch Co. Annual Assessment $3,000.00 No No answer 0 1 0 (NA) NA Yes (NA) Big Goose and Beaver Ditch Company Annual assessment by acres $7,000.00 No NA 0 1 None NA Yes

Big Horn Canal Irrigation District Annual Assessment Per $250,000.00 No NA 3 0 $400,000.00 Varies Yes Acre Blacks Fork Canal Company Annual Assessment by $25,000.00 No NA NA 1 NA NA Yes Shares Blue Bell Canal Company Annual Assessment by NA NA NA NA NA None NA Yes Shares Bluff Irrigation District Annual Assessment per $124,000.00 No NA 1 1 NA NA Yes Acre Boulder Irrigation District Individual assessment per $42,000.00 No NA 0 0 0 (NA) NA Yes landowner and per acre Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#4: Operations Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given.

Other Source Full-Time Debt of Full-Time Seasonal Debt Retire- Brd of Entity How Are Users Assessed Budget Income Amount Employees Employees Payment ment Dir Bridger Valley Water Conservancy District Water users are assessed per approx. We one mil - one two $1,591,920.00 2037 Yes Acre-foot per year $195,000 have a generates one Mil about Adva- $70,000 per lorem year Tax on District area

Burbank Ditch None As needed Yes Variable 1 1 NA NA Yes Burn Cleuch Ditch Co Annual Assessment Per $8,600.00 No NA NA 1 NA NA Yes Share Butte Ditch Annual Assessment Per $5,000.00 No 0 0 0 None NA No Acre Canyon Canal, Inc. Annual Assessment by Acre $25,000.00 No NA 0 2 NA NA Yes

Casper-Alcova Irrigation District Annual Assessment per acre $556,000.00 Yes 55,000 5 1 NA Yes

Cemetery Ditch Company Annually; per acre (2014) $13,800 No NA0 3 NA NA Yes Chalmers Fogg Ditch NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Chapman Canal Company Direct Billing $0.00 No NA0 0 NA NA No Cody Canal Irrigation District Unit $360,000.00 No NA4 NA $275,970.00 2030 Yes Cottonwood Irrigation District Annual Assessment Per $60,000.00 No NA NA 2 $170,000.00 2024 Yes Acre Crook County Irrigation District Annual Assessment by $16,000.00 No NA 0 0 $84,024.00 2025 Yes Shares Davis & Company Ditch Annual Assessment Per $300.00 No NA 0 1 NA NA Yes Acre Deaver Irrigation District Annual Assessment per $460,000.00 Grants $200,000 6 no answer ~ $1,000,578 Yes Acre $1,860,000.00 - 2151; $820,280 - 2039 Deseret Land and Livestock NA NAno 00 No Eastside Irrigation District Annual Assessment Per $6,500.00 No 0 1 no answer no answer Yes Acre Eden Valley Irrigation & Drainage District Annual Assessment by the $248,000.00 Rent 18,000 2 1 $335,000.00 NA Yes Acre Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#4: Operations Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given.

Other Source Full-Time Debt of Full-Time Seasonal Debt Retire- Brd of Entity How Are Users Assessed Budget Income Amount Employees Employees Payment ment Dir Elk Water User's Association (formerly part of Elk- Per Acre $14,000.00 No NA 0 0 NA NA Yes Lovell ID, aka Elk Lovell Canal) Enterprise Irrigation and Power Company Annual Assessment by $28,000.00 No NA 0 1 NA NA Yes Shares Etna Irrigation District Per Acre $2,300.00 No NA no answer 1 NA NA Yes Fairview Irrigation District Assessed by Acres $4,500 per year No NA 0 0 NA NA Yes

Farmers Protective (Globe Canal) NA approx No NA NA 1 NA NA Yes, 5 $20,000.00 mem- bers First Mesa Ditch Company Annual Assessments by $17,000.00 No no answer no answer 1 $5,605.00 2030 Yes shares Gooseberry Creek Irrigation District Percentage of project cost $30,000.00 No NA 00NA 2042 Yes Goshen Hole Water Users Association Annual Assessment Per no answer No no answer 0 1 no answer NA Yes Acre Goshen Irrigation District Annual Assessment + User $2,200,000.00 No NA 17 NA NA NA Yes Account fee Goshen Mutual Reservoir and Ditch Co. Annual Assessment Per $6,410.00 No no answer no answer 1 no answer no answer no Acre answer Green River Irrigation District Per Acre and Per Tract $9,500 +/- NA NA no answer contract $100,000 +/- 18 years Yes "one" WWDC Greybull Valley Irrigation District Assessed by Acre Foot of Annual O&M No NA 4 0 Roach Gulch Roach Yes Storage Budget Dam $7.2 Gulch - $450,000 million, 2050, Upper Upper Sunshine Sunshine Diversion $1.2 million, Lower Sunshine hydro feasibility study $124,000 Gunbarrel Lateral Ditch Company Annual Assessment by $4,000.00 No NA NA 1 NA NA No Shares Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#4: Operations Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given.

Other Source Full-Time Debt of Full-Time Seasonal Debt Retire- Brd of Entity How Are Users Assessed Budget Income Amount Employees Employees Payment ment Dir Hamsfork Water Users Association All users have water rights. Less than $100 No 0 (NA) 0 0 0 (NA) NA Yes Most years there is no charge for water. An assessment has to be passed by the board for a particular water year. Hanover Irrigation District, Upper Hanover Irrigation Annual Assessment Per $300,000.00 Oil $10,000.00 1 1 $259,058.00 2019 Yes District (aka Upper Hanover Canal) Acre royalty Heart Mountain Irrigation District Per Acre and per 1.8 million Yes 400,000 7 1 5,200,000 2065 Yes Landowner million Highland Hanover Irrigation District Annual Assessment Per $179,000.00 No NA 1 0 NA NA Yes Acre Highland Irrigation District Annual assessment by ~$17,000.00 No NA 0 2 (1 NA Made last Yes parcel plus per Acre ditchrider dam & 1 payment secretary/b 2014 ook- keeper) Hill Irrigation District Annual Assessment Per $61,000.00 No 0 1 no answer None no answer Yes Acre Hilliard East Fork Canal Company Annual Assessment by $11,550.00 No NA NA NA NA NA Yes Shares Hilliard West Side Ditch Company Annual Assessment by $5,000.00 No NA 00NANAYes Shares Hoops Lake Reservoir Company Annual Assessment by $2,000.00 No NA 0 0 $0.00 NA Yes Share Horse Creek Conservation District Annual Assessment by $292,000.00 No NA 3 NA $2,050,419.00 2037 Yes Shares Hunt Canal Irrigation District Annual Assessment Per $36,000.00 No NA no answer 1 $178,333.00 2035 Yes Acre Interstate Irrigation & Reservoir Company Users are assessed both in $40,000.00 NA NA no answer 5 NA NA Yes the spring and fall. Kidman and Wall Ditch Company Annual assessment by $900.00 No NA no answer 1 NA NA Yes Shares Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#4: Operations Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given.

Other Source Full-Time Debt of Full-Time Seasonal Debt Retire- Brd of Entity How Are Users Assessed Budget Income Amount Employees Employees Payment ment Dir Kirby Ditch Irrigation Distict (formerly Kirby Ditch Annual Assessment per $45,000.00 No NA no answer 1 $32,000.00 2020 No Co.) Acre (have Comm- ission- ers) Ladder Ditch Company Actual cost of O&M no answer no no answer 1 1 no answer no answer no answer answer Lake DeSmet Ditch Company (formerly listed as Lake Per Acre $6,000.00 No NA 1 (part- no answer NA NA Yes DeSmet Reservoir Co.) time) Lakeview Irrigation District Per Acre $186,000.00 Yes- Minimal 2 1 NA NA Yes interest income

Lamb Supply Canal Company General assessment be share no answer No NA no answer 1 NA NA Yes owned Lander Ditch Company Dues $1,000.00 Yes SCS Grants 0 0 no answer 0 Yes vary

LaPrele Irrigation District Annual assessment by $172,915.99 no NA 1 1 $205,190.26 2014 & Yes shares 2019 Laramie Valley Municipal Irrigation District Assessment by Irrigated $18,000.00 No NA 0 0 $12,000.00 Jul 2016 Yes Acre. LeClair Irrigation District NA NA NA NA3 NA NA NA Yes Lingle Water User's Association Assessed by Shares Were a pass No 0 (NA) 0 0 0 (NA) 0 (NA) Yes thru-assessment s= billing

Little Popo Agie Irrigation District Per Irrigable Acre $500.00 No NA0 0 NA NA Yes Little Snake River Conservation District no answer no answer no no answer no answer no answer no answer no answer no answer answer Lovell Irrigation District (formerly part of Elk-Lovell annual assessment by acres $100,000.00 No no answer no answer 2 $20,000.00 no answer Yes ID or aka Elk Lovell Canal) Lower Clear Creek Irrigation District Annual Assessment by $50,000.00 No 0 0 0 $44,000.00 2015 Yes Shares Lower Hanover Canal Annual Assessment Per $80,000.00 Yes 500 no answer no answer no answer no answer Yes Acre Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#4: Operations Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given.

Other Source Full-Time Debt of Full-Time Seasonal Debt Retire- Brd of Entity How Are Users Assessed Budget Income Amount Employees Employees Payment ment Dir Lucerne Pumping Plant Canal Company (formerly Annual Assessment Per $44,220.00 No no answer 2 1 no answer no answer Yes known as Lucerne Irrigation District) Acre McDonald Ditch By Shares $18,000.00 No no answer no answer 1 no answer no answer Yes (NA) (NA) (NA) Meade Creek Ditch Annual Assessment by $5,400.00 No 0 1 0 no answer no answer Yes Shares Midvale Irrigation District First Acre Charge, then per 1.8 mill No NA 16 2 2.6 mill 2021 Yes remaining irrigable acres

Milich Ditch Company Annual Assessment by $3,500.00 No no answer no answer 1 None no answer Yes Shares Neff Ditch Irrigation Association Annually by the Acre no answer No NA no answer None NA NA Yes New Fork Irrigation District (formerly submitted as Annual assessment per Acre $7,000.00 No NA 0 0 NA NA Yes New Fork Lake Irrigation District) New Grattan Ditch Company Annual Assessment Per $8,000.00 No NA NA 1 NA NA Yes Acre New North Platte Irrigation & Ditch Co. Annual Assessment by $25,000 - No NA NA 2 NA NA Yes Shares $30,000 Nez Perce Irrigation Association Annual Assessment per $2,500.00 No NA 0 NA NA NA Yes Acre + excess by amount. Nicol & Table Mountain Ditch Annual Assessment by Normal budget Yes NRCS 01NANAYes Shares without special monies, projects 5,000- varies and $8,000 Popo Agie Conserva- tion District

North Fork Irrigation District Annual assessment by acre $22,552 No NA 1 pt-time 2 pt-time $10,272 to Farm Loan Yes foot of storage capacity Farm Loan Board: owned; O&M Assessment - Board to be 12/1/2014; $6 - $8; paid off Crazy 12/1/2014; Woman $47,088 to Watershed Crazy Imp. Woman District: Watershed 12/1 2034 Imp. District Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#4: Operations Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given.

Other Source Full-Time Debt of Full-Time Seasonal Debt Retire- Brd of Entity How Are Users Assessed Budget Income Amount Employees Employees Payment ment Dir North Fork Valley Ditch Company Per Acre $12,000.00 Yes Member- 00NANAYes ship Dues, $125 per year North Strawberry Canal Co. Annual Assessment Per $1,200.00 No no answer 0 1 no answer no answer Yes Acre Owl Creek Irrigation District (Dempsey Canal now Annual Assessment Per $79,000.00 No no answer 3 2 $11,250.00 2032 Yes incorporated into Owl Crk) Acre Parker McBride Annual Assessment by $5,000- Yes NRCS, 01NANAYes Shares $10,000, varies varies and by year Popo Agie Conserva- tion District

Peoples Canal Company Shares $4,000.00 No NA1 1 NA NA Yes Pine Creek Ditch Association, Incorporated Association Dues $45.00 / $25,000.00 No NA no answer Two NA NA Yes entity PLUS assessment per acre. 2014 ~ $5.00 / acre.

Piney and Cruse Creek Ditch Company Annual Assessment by approx. 10,000 No NA NA 1 NA NA Yes Shares Pioneer Canal - Lake Hattie Irrigation District Annual assessment by $96,000- Yes City of 1 1 WWDC #1- WWDC #1- Yes Shares income Laramie- $270,000 2044 $85,000- $1166.66 WWDC#2- WWDC #2- exspenses per mon; $70,000 2040 36. Game & Fish Dept- $2448.00 per yr. Porto Irrigation District Annual Assessment Per $19,861.20 No no answer no answer no answer $18,690.89 no answer Yes Acre Powder River Irrigation District (formerly Sussex Annual Assessment Per $28,137.00 No no answer 1 1 $355,177.00 2039 Yes Irrigation Co.) Acre Pratte-Ferris Irrigation District no answer $16,000.00 no no answer 0 0 no answer no answer yes answer Reservoir Ranch (formerly Sixty-Seven Reservoir None no answer no no answer 0 0 no answer no answer No Project) answer Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#4: Operations Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given.

Other Source Full-Time Debt of Full-Time Seasonal Debt Retire- Brd of Entity How Are Users Assessed Budget Income Amount Employees Employees Payment ment Dir Riverton Valley Irrigation District Per Acre $203,000.00 No, 0 (NA) 1 1-5, $73,999.92 2012 Yes none. depends Rock Creek Water Users Association Assessed per Acre as $500.00 No NA 00NA NA Yes needed, not annually Rock Ranch Ditch Company Annual Assessment Per $33,000.00 no no answer no answer 1 no answer no answer Yes Acre answer Salt River Irrigation District Annual Assessment Per $1,500.00 No 0 0 2 None no answer Yes Acre Sandstone Ditch Company Assessed Per Acre $16,560 varies No na 0 1 na na Yes per year Savery Creek Ditch Company Annual Assessment Per $100.00 No no answer 0 0 $3,900.00 2025 Yes Acre (NA) Savery-Little Snake River Water Conservancy District Annual assessments and $12,400.00 Yes 1500 0 0 $31,400.00 2030 Yes mill levy Shell Canal Company Annual Assessment Per $54,000.00 No no answer 1 0 None no answer Yes Acre Shell Valley Watershed Improvement District Water amount $35,000.00 No 0 0 0 no answer 2040 Yes Shoshone Irrigation District Annual Assessment Per $1,500,000.00 Yes $425,00.00 12 4 $1,682,717.00 2040 Yes Acre Sidon Irrigation District Annual Assessment Per $366,500.00 No NA 3 2 $9,645.00 6/21/15 Yes, 3 Acre board mem- bers Smiths Fork Irrigation District Per Acre $22,000.00 No NA 1 2 $87,000.00 2026 Yes Snavely/Grant Young Ditch (2012 submitted survey as Per Acre, Water Volume $1,600.00 No NA NA NA NA NA No Killebrew Irrigation) Spring Draw Ditch Company (formerly entered as Annual/Acre $5,000.00 No NA 0 1 $0.00 no answer Yes Spring Draw Irrigation) Stewart Creek Irrigation Company Per Acre $20,000.00 No NA no answer 2 NA NA NA Sulphur Creek Reservoir Company (and City of No assessment at this time $600.00 No 0 (NA) 010 (NA) 0 (NA) Yes Evanston) Taylor Ditch Company (formerly Dutch Flat/Taylor Annual Assessment by NA No NA None NA NA NA Yes Ditch) Shares Tillard Canal Per Acre $22,000.00 No NA0 2 NA NA Yes Toltec Watershed Improvement District County Assessor. $18,000 0 (No) 0 (NA) 0 0 $185,782.00 2034 Yes Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#4: Operations Entities in red font did not respond to current survey, most recent data given.

Other Source Full-Time Debt of Full-Time Seasonal Debt Retire- Brd of Entity How Are Users Assessed Budget Income Amount Employees Employees Payment ment Dir Torrington Irrigation District Tax roll. small acres are Approximately no 1 0 Yes assessed a rate different $30-35,000 from large working acres Trowel Ditch Company Annual Assessment by no answer No 0 0 0 $8,253.00 no answer No Shares Twin Butte Land and Irrigation Co. Annual Assessment by $250.00 No 0 0 0 None no answer Yes Shares Twin Creeks (formerly known as Twin Creek Ditch Not Assessed $0.00 No NA NA NA $0.00 (NA) NA No Company) Victoria Ditch Co. Percent of total acres Varies No no answer 0 0 no answer no answer No Wagonhound Land & Livestock (aka Cannon Land & NA NA NA NA 6 0 NA NA No Livestock) West Side Canal Company By Share $50,000.00 No NA 0 2 $88,766.26 33% Loans Yes WWDC

Whaley Ditch Per Acre $8,000.00 No no answer none 1 no answer no answer No (NA) (NA) (NA) Wheatland Irrigation District Per Acre Normal budget No NA 11 no answer NA 2009 Yes is about 1 million dollars

Whitney Reservoir Annual Assessment by no answer no no answer no answer 2 no answer no answer Yes Shares answer Willwood Irrigation District 178 users $31.50 per Acre $367,000.00 Yes $3,000 6 2 600K WWDC- Yes 2016; JPB 2039 Wise Ditch Company (aka Rodgers and Gregg (Wise Assessment is per Acre $10,000.00 No NA 0 1 contract NA NA Yes Ditch)) Wright & Murphy Ditch Company Direct Billing $300.00 No0 0 0 None no answer No Wyoming Game and Fish Commission no answer no answer no no answer 3 no answer no answer no answer No answer Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#5: General Information Entities in red font did not respond to the current survey, most recent data given.

Entity Habitat Conservation Problems Other Problems Alliance Ditch Company Yes Yes Irregular and unpredictable use by other NA appropriators. Alto Canal Sprinkler Company Yes Yes Cleaning out ditch: fix washed-out areas, Cleaning out beaver dams and fixing washed-out constantly fixing ditch wall was needed. areas. Anita Ditch Company and Gapen Ditch Yes Yes Old headgates and drop structures. Leakage. NA Austin Wall Irrigation District Canal Company Yes Yes Water losses through leaky canal; Low priority NA (formerly known as Austin Canal Co, or Uinta NO 3 water right. Canal Company) Baggs Ditch Company Yes No NA NA Baldwin/Peralta Ditch Company (aka Peralta Ditch Yes Yes No NA Company or as Popo Agie Ranch) Bates Creek Reservoir Company Yes No Fix and maintenance old dam. Relocate the dam to a better site. Bear Canal Ditch Company Yes Yes Needed improvements, inadequate water source, NA state and federal requirements, unwritten easements, maintenance through subdivisions, legal problems, subdivided land, water rights, assessments. Beckwith Quin Canal Company Yes Yes In need of headgates on our ditches. NA Bench Canal Company Yes Yes Several major structures need replaced. Headgates System needs to be placed underground (pipe). & drops need replaced-major seepage issues;

Big Cottonwood Ditch Co. No No Subdivided land; Being able to keep up with the sale of lots and the owners so we know who to contact for the assessments. Big Goose and Beaver Ditch Company No No Loss of water due to terrain that has a lot of gravel NA on top of clay which causes sliding. Big Horn Canal Irrigation District No Yes Unwritten easements. NA Blacks Fork Canal Company Yes Yes Our canal is well maintained and is in good shape. NA We are able to manage and maintain our canal with the assesssment we receive. Blue Bell Canal Company No No None NA Bluff Irrigation District NA NA NA NA Boulder Irrigation District NA No The Boulder Lake Dam needs some repairs to the NA headgates. There are several places along the canal that have seepage issues. Bridger Valley Water Conservancy District Yes Yes The need for more storage as all water users are We have to comply with many Federal not served or inadequately served. We need all requirements which have unintended water users to be served to avoid project- consequences. nonproject issues. Burbank Ditch Yes Yes Inadequate water sources; dependable supply. NA Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#5: General Information Entities in red font did not respond to the current survey, most recent data given.

Entity Habitat Conservation Problems Other Problems Burn Cleuch Ditch Co Yes Yes Ditch maintenance-old concrete lined areas are in Urban development sprawl. disrepair. Subdivision maintenance & related liability. Butte Ditch Yes Yes Shrinkage and constant up keep, late water rights NA when river flow is inadequate, low reservoir level.

Canyon Canal, Inc. Yes No 1.Maintenance of personal ditches, 2.State Water 3. Ability of land owners to get along. Commissioners do not ticket abusers (those who steal water); Casper-Alcova Irrigation District No Yes NA NA Cemetery Ditch Company Yes Yes Maintenance access through city, culverts under Urban sprawl. the streets are too small to handle all the adjudicated water. Chalmers Fogg Ditch NA NA NA NA Chapman Canal Company No No Needed improvement, Subdivided Land. Getting minority owners to pay fair share Cody Canal Irrigation District No No Aging structures, Subdivision of lands, Easement NA encroachment. Cottonwood Irrigation District No Yes Our system is close to 40 yrs old with about 1/2 of We are also in the final stages of a water storage it in steel pipe-we are seeing more maintenance on study through the WWDC. the steel pipe now. Crook County Irrigation District Yes Yes Needed improvements, Maintenance requirements; Need more storage.

Davis & Company Ditch No NA NA NA Deaver Irrigation District Yes Yes Continual ongoing replacement of old structures, Conversion of open ditches into pipelines. loss of hydropower money; Deseret Land and Livestock Yes no none Cleaning on 15-20 year interval. Eastside Irrigation District No Yes Maintenance requirements. NA Eden Valley Irrigation & Drainage District Yes Yes Water rights, some improvements NA Elk Water User's Association (formerly part of Elk- Yes Yes The canal is old and operates on a shoestring When direct flows are low in the Shoshone River, Lovell ID, aka Elk Lovell Canal) budget. We do maintenance as needed, but water can be tight; especially on the lower end, and structures & headgates are old; rationing & conservation become common practice. Enterprise Irrigation and Power Company Yes Yes Needed improvements, inadequate water source, Conveyance loss. state & federal requirements, unwritten easements, maintenance through subdivisions, legal problems, subdivided land, water rights, assessments ("All of the above"); Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#5: General Information Entities in red font did not respond to the current survey, most recent data given.

Entity Habitat Conservation Problems Other Problems Etna Irrigation District No Yes Needed improvements, inadequate water source, Depends on the event which is more important. state & federal requirements, unwritten easements, maintenance through subdivisions, legal problems, subdivided land, water rights, assessments ("All of the above"); Fairview Irrigation District Yes Yes 1.Willow and tree removal; 2.Water distribution to 3.Conveyance water losses - diversions small subdivided landowners; improvements; 4.Assessments not being paid causing insufficient operating funds Farmers Protective (Globe Canal) Some Yes Desire to bury more of the canal. Replace some of the cement ditches that are cracking. First Mesa Ditch Company Yes no answer no answer NA Gooseberry Creek Irrigation District No NA Unknown Unknown Goshen Hole Water Users Association Yes No No improvements made for 40+ years, entire Interested in help, but debt is not an option system needs an upgrade. Goshen Irrigation District Yes Yes Canal was established in 1920's and is in need of Assessments are higher due to increasing costs of several improvements. Seepage problems, Federal materials. EDSA, subdivisions, deliveries to and transfers to other lands in our district. Goshen Mutual Reservoir and Ditch Co. Yes Yes drought, excessive water loss, state and federal NA requirements Green River Irrigation District Yes no answer Some of "needed improvements, state and federal Constant maintenance in sandy/clay soils. requirements, unwritten easements, maintenance through subdivisions, legal problems, subdivided land, and water rights. Greybull Valley Irrigation District Yes Yes NA NA Gunbarrel Lateral Ditch Company No Yes Dirt & rubbish blows into open ditch. NA Hamsfork Water Users Association Yes Yes A unique arrangement with the owner of Viva NA Naughton Reservoir provides water for the Association. This arrangement has worked well for both parties. However additional storage of water would be very beneficial. Dam feasibility studies have been done in the past.

Hanover Irrigation District, Upper Hanover Irrigation Yes Yes Flumes and liners will eventually need repaired or How to handle the situation when pivots cross the District (aka Upper Hanover Canal) replaced. canal and water the canal road due to this becoming more of a problem. Heart Mountain Irrigation District Yes Yes Deteriorating structures; unstable ground under Subdivision waste, waste management. canal liner at Rattle Snake Mtn; Highland Hanover Irrigation District Yes Yes Unknown NA Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#5: General Information Entities in red font did not respond to the current survey, most recent data given.

Entity Habitat Conservation Problems Other Problems Highland Irrigation District Yes No Unwritten easements, maintenance through System was originally designed with 6 to 8 water subdivisions, subdivided land. On drought years it users. It relies heavily on laterals which pick up is instream flows and aesthetics in Pine Creek; and transfer water that have now been criss- Lack of people willing to serve on the Board. crossed with hundreds of different lots. Those at the ends of these laterals are wanting a "direct" flow. Hill Irrigation District Yes Yes none NA Hilliard East Fork Canal Company No NA NA NA Hilliard West Side Ditch Company Unknow Unknown Unwritten easements, subdivided lands, inadequate Maintenance and age of shareholders. n water source. Hoops Lake Reservoir Company Yes No None None Horse Creek Conservation District Yes Yes Keeping the Horse Creek Basin Order in place to NA allow Hawk Springs Reservoir to fill thus giving our shareholders an adequate water supply.

Hunt Canal Irrigation District Yes no answer no answer NA Interstate Irrigation & Reservoir Company No Yes Many of our problems that we face with our NA current system is the erosion to the canal and the amount of water loss due to the evaporation and/or losses through the ground. Kidman and Wall Ditch Company No NA NA NA Kirby Ditch Irrigation Distict (formerly Kirby Ditch Yes Yes Working with WWD on canal rehab. NA Co.) Ladder Ditch Company Yes Yes no answer NA Lake DeSmet Ditch Company (formerly listed as Lake Yes Yes Tree and brush removal; Falling rock into diversion. DeSmet Reservoir Co.) Lakeview Irrigation District Yes Yes Repair & replacement of older structures per our NA Level II Study. Lamb Supply Canal Company Yes NA NA NA Lander Ditch Company Yes No Municipal area fragmented, voluntary NA contributions, water quality, instream flow in river.

LaPrele Irrigation District Yes We place it on Repairs to Dams and Canals; Backhoe, shop, pipe. Laramie Valley Municipal Irrigation District Yes Yes Unpredictability of water source for lower priority Expenses of maintaining measuring devices users; and LeClair Irrigation District Yes NA NA NA Lingle Water User's Association UK No Subdivded Land - water right transfers. NA Little Popo Agie Irrigation District Yes Yes Ditch maintenance. NA Little Snake River Conservation District no no answer no answer no answer answer Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#5: General Information Entities in red font did not respond to the current survey, most recent data given.

Entity Habitat Conservation Problems Other Problems Lovell Irrigation District (formerly part of Elk-Lovell Yes Yes water at the head varies sometimes inadequate, NA ID or aka Elk Lovell Canal) distribution, water loss. Lower Clear Creek Irrigation District Yes No Assessment Collection, Maintenance. NA Lower Hanover Canal Yes No Assessment collection, loss of easement or row, NA federal. Lucerne Pumping Plant Canal Company (formerly Yes Yes Seepage along canal system NA known as Lucerne Irrigation District) McDonald Ditch No Not aware of Moss control & its costs; seepage erosion; silt. NA any Meade Creek Ditch Yes No no answer NA Midvale Irrigation District Yes Yes Due to the age of our infrastructure, we have NA prioritized rehabilitation efforts to make improvements. Milich Ditch Company No No no answer NA Neff Ditch Irrigation Association Yes no answer Yearly maintenance. NA New Fork Irrigation District (formerly submitted as Yes NA Headgates are old, in need of replacement. High Water shortage in dry year. Difficult to find New Fork Lake Irrigation District) cost of construction creates financial problems. qualified Ditch Rider to measure water.

New Grattan Ditch Company NA No NA NA New North Platte Irrigation & Ditch Co. Yes Yes Needed improvements, Maintenance requirements. Diversion dam on river

Nez Perce Irrigation Association No Yes Expense from Heart Mountain Irrigation District. NA

Nicol & Table Mountain Ditch Yes Yes Improvements and maintenance. Storage and adequate water source. North Fork Irrigation District Yes Yes Maintenance of outlet weir on Res No. 1; maintenance of conveyance ditch on Res. No. 2; maintenance of headgate on Res. No. 1; inadequate water source in dry years. North Fork Valley Ditch Company Yes Yes Need more ditch lining. NA North Strawberry Canal Co. No no answer Subdivided land. NA Owl Creek Irrigation District (Dempsey Canal now Yes Yes Seepage from dam; seepage in canyon below Dam. NA incorporated into Owl Crk) Parker McBride Yes Yes Inadequate water supply, annual maintenance, Add second spillway at end of ditch. annual improvements. Peoples Canal Company Yes Yes Being the last diversion off Henry's Fork, at times "Trash" washed into stream from storms plugs inlet results in water shortages when up-stream users "Trash" rack. take more water than they are entitled to; Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#5: General Information Entities in red font did not respond to the current survey, most recent data given.

Entity Habitat Conservation Problems Other Problems Pine Creek Ditch Association, Incorporated Yes No 1) Pine Creek Canal No 1, extension of the Lee 3) Encroachment on the canal has increased yearly runs through the Town of Pinedale and the illegal and maintaining the ditch easement is difficult with taking of water from the canal especially through private land owners. the Shelter Park section of town is a major problem for the association. 2) There is a desire to pipe the canal through the municipality however the association is a private entity and does not qualify for funds to construct such a pipeline.

Piney and Cruse Creek Ditch Company NA NA Improvement at drop just after diversion in Story, Delivery to subdivided lands. WY. Pioneer Canal - Lake Hattie Irrigation District Yes Yes 1.Improvements at Lake Hattie outlet structure, 3.Minimize ditch loss on the entire system. 2.Major erosion control on supply canal from Big Laramie River, Porto Irrigation District No Yes Pond fills with gravel and debris in pipeline. NA Powder River Irrigation District (formerly Sussex Yes Yes Russian olives along ditch & inadequate water NA Irrigation Co.) sources Pratte-Ferris Irrigation District No NoImprovements for conveyance loss NA Reservoir Ranch (formerly Sixty-Seven Reservoir Yes No no answer NA Project) Riverton Valley Irrigation District No Yes To my knowledge, (Bookkeeper), we are currently NA repairing/replacing our main headgate. But other than this issue, and our usual continued maintenance, we have no major issues at this point in time. Rock Creek Water Users Association No No The purpose of our organization is to maintain one Permitting can be a problem and meeting the diversion structure where Rock Creek and Dry requirements of the permits. Funding is also a Creek divide. In the approximate 4 miles of stream concern. above and below this structure it is important to remove beaver dams and trash so as to properly divide the water between the two streams. A major overhaul is needed to this structure and the stream just above it to safely and efficiently divide the streams to supply the appropriators downstream.

Rock Ranch Ditch Company Yes Yes The diversion in the North Platte. NA Salt River Irrigation District No Yes Replacement of diversion headgates, inadequate NA water sources, no storage. Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#5: General Information Entities in red font did not respond to the current survey, most recent data given.

Entity Habitat Conservation Problems Other Problems Sandstone Ditch Company Yes Some Headgate at Albert Wardell reservior, diversion Add another dam with headgate in same draw as structure with headgate and pipe on Dorsey Creek; Gould Reservoir.

Savery Creek Ditch Company Yes Yes Diversion dams installed in 1995 are completely NA ineffective, poor design. Savery-Little Snake River Water Conservancy District no no answer no answer NA answer Shell Canal Company Yes Yes 100 yr old concrete tunnel in need of NA repair/replacement; need for additional early season storage; erosion issues; continual annual maintenance. Shell Valley Watershed Improvement District Yes No Property sales and water rights NA Shoshone Irrigation District Yes Yes Aging Infrastructure, urbanization, subdivisions, NA easements. Sidon Irrigation District Yes Yes Tunnel area-bottleneck-have to blast to widen; Rebuild emergency fund. Smiths Fork Irrigation District No Yes None NA Snavely/Grant Young Ditch (2012 submitted survey as Yes Yes New headgate and spillway, lined or piped ditch, NA Killebrew Irrigation) only have perpetual easements, recent subdivisions, future subdividing. Spring Draw Ditch Company (formerly entered as Yes Yes Continuing maintenance, subdividing. NA Spring Draw Irrigation) Stewart Creek Irrigation Company No no answer Pipe is outdated and being replaced. NA Sulphur Creek Reservoir Company (and City of Yes No None None Evanston) Taylor Ditch Company (formerly Dutch Flat/Taylor Yes NA More water storage NA Ditch) Tillard Canal Yes NA Needed improvements, mainly new pumps, the NA problem being the price of new pumps far exceeds what the land owners can afford. Will need outside funding somehow. Toltec Watershed Improvement District Yes No Inadequate water source on some years. NA Torrington Irrigation District No NA Trowel Ditch Company Yes Yes Seepage along steep bank. NA Twin Butte Land and Irrigation Co. no Yes Maintenance through subdivisions. NA answer Twin Creeks (formerly known as Twin Creek Ditch Yes Yes No major problems at this time. NA Company) Victoria Ditch Co. No No no answer NA Wagonhound Land & Livestock (aka Cannon Land & Yes Yes NA NA Livestock) Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#5: General Information Entities in red font did not respond to the current survey, most recent data given.

Entity Habitat Conservation Problems Other Problems West Side Canal Company Yes Yes No big problems. NA Whaley Ditch Yes Unknown Moss treatments ineffective; Upper end users take more water than they're entitled to leaving lower end users who have earlier water permits chasing water for most of the summer. Wheatland Irrigation District Yes Yes See WWDC/WID Master Plan. NA Whitney Reservoir Yes no answer High elevation, late melt off, spill way is not the NA best. Willwood Irrigation District No Yes Aging infrastructure, lack of accurate water Lack of additional revenue source. monitoring and control. Wise Ditch Company (aka Rodgers and Gregg (Wise Yes Yes Major problem is ditch seepage & loss to NA Ditch)) evaporation due to slow speed of ditch. Wright & Murphy Ditch Company Yes Yes no answer NA Wyoming Game and Fish Commission Yes Yes no answer NA Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#6: Entites that have not responded or that have requested exclusion from survey distribution

Divi- Entity Status Contact sion Address City State Zip

Agrarian Irrigation Corporation Unknown Unknown 3 PO Box 910 Newcastle WY Unknown Joe Franks (deceased) Tried to contact Angel Draw Irrigation District Unknown Dennis Eisenbarth, left msg) 1 none Torrington WY Unknown Bertrom Ditch Company Unknown Unknown 4 Unknown Boulder WY Unknown Bridger Butte Unknown Jesse Overy 4 1281 Co Rd 217 Ft Bridger WY 82933 Entity split-no Castle Rock-Neff Ditch Irrigation Association) contact for Castle (Entity Split/Duplicate see Neff Ditch entry) Rock Unknown 3 Unknown Cody WY Unknown Central Bedford Sprinkler Co. Unknown Reed Stokes 4 Unknown Bedford WY Unknown Clarks Fork Irrigation District District Bill Omara 3 106 Road 1ab Powell WY 82435 Cook Canal Company Company Evan Pope 4 137 Snyder Springs Ln Cokeville WY 83114 Crow Creek Canal Company Company Rick Hillstead 4 5996 Bitter Creek Co Rd Afton WY 83110 Dana Ditch or Sprinkler Group Unknown c/o Crook Farms Inc. 4 103078 US Hwy 89 Freedom WY 83120 Deeben & Heinz Ditch Company Company Spencer Eyre 4 90 Co Rd 238 Lyman WY 82937 Dempsey Canal Company (Dissolved, now No longer in incorporated into Owl Creek) business NA 3 none Thermopolis WY Unknown Diversion Water Company (formerly known as Farmers and Bench Diversion) Company Sandi House 3 PO Box 48 Emblem WY 82411 Douglas Water Users Unknown Baker 1 Unknown Douglas WY 82633 Box 608/862 State HWY Dry Creek Irrigation District District Rollin Gardner 4 236 Afton WY 83110 No longer in East Fork Canal Company business Joel Bousman 4 1346 State Hwy 353 Boulder WY 82923 Fayette Canal Association Association Roy Wolaver 4 441 Fayette Pole Crk Rd Pinedale WY 82941 Fremont Irrigation Company Company John Harbor 4 85 HWY 353 Boulder WY 82923 Ft Bridger Canal Company Company Ron Micheli 4 PO Box 15 Ft Bridger WY 82933 No longer in Gaylor and Warnock business Jack Nicholas 3 417 South 3rd St. Lander WY 82520 Gibson-Blair Ditch Company Company James Chant 1 Box 275 (bad address) Baggs WY 82321 Grand Teton Canal Company Company Yvonne Nuttle 4 PO Box 1099 Driggs ID 83422 Grant Young (aka Snavely/Grant Young Ditch, 2015 survey submitted as Killebrew Irrigation) Duplicate David Killebrew 3 PO Box 51 Lander WY 82520 Gray Bluff Ditch Company Unknown Unknown 4 Unknown Ft. Bridger WY Unknown Highline Ditch Irrigation District District Greg Benzel 2 PO Box 153 Dayton WY 82836 Last Chance Ditch Company Company Yonkee & Toner, LLP 2 PO Box 6288 Sheridan WY 82801 Lucerne Irrigation District (aka Lucerne Pumping Plant Canal Company) Duplicate Rose Watkins 1 PO Box 241 Thermopolis WY 82443 Medicine Bow Conservation District District Justin Garrison 1 510 Utah St.; PO Box 6 Medicine Bow WY 82324 Wyoming Water Development Commission 2015 Wyoming Irrigation Systems Report Report#6: Entites that have not responded or that have requested exclusion from survey distribution

Divi- Entity Status Contact sion Address City State Zip No longer in Nield String Sprinkler Company (Dissolved) business L. Dee Nield (deceased) 4 none Afton WY none North Lateral Ditch Co. Company William W. Schneider 3 7735 State HWY 789 Lander WY 82520 Paradise Canal Association Association Chris Sullivan 4 PO Box 55 Boulder WY 82923 Park Reservoir Irrigation District Unknown Unknown 2 251 Upper Road Sheridan WY Unknown Pine Hill Sprinkler Company Unknown Reed Stokes 4 Unknown Bedford WY Unknown Pixley Canal Company Company Evan Pope 4 137 Snyder Springs Ln Cokeville WY 83114 Porter Ditch Unknown Fred Barnett 3 3236 Rd 34 Greybull WY 82426 Prairie Dog Water Supply Company Unknown Unknown 2 Unknown Sheridan WY 82801 Silver Lake Irrigation District Unknown Frosty Hittle 4 Box 2 Boulder WY 82932 Strawberry South Canal Company Unknown Unknown 4 (Bad Address) Bedford WY Unknown Strawberry Upper Canal Company Company Blair Ericson 4 1903 Turnerville Rd Bedford WY 83112 Upper Hanover Canal (now named "Hanover Irrigation District, Upper Hanover" (aka Upper Hanover Canal) Duplicate NA 3 PO Box 965 Worland WY 82401 West Cedar Creek Pipeline Company Company Jerry Humphreys 4 1595 Perkind Rd Thayne WY 83127 Wilson McNalley Ditch Company Company Z Ranch c/o Bettie Johnson 3 PO Box 324 Meeteetse WY 82433 Summary Table Using 2015 Irrigation System Survey Data Conveyance Miles/160 Crop Restrictions, Number of Water Full Time + capacity per 70 irrigated Irrigated B,R=not limited. individual users/160 Budget/ Seasonal Do you have Capacity of acres irrigated, Miles rev, acres, mi/160 acres rev, SG,P=elevation, operators (water irrigated Annual Irrigated Acre, Employees any existing Entity Date Received Status Division City Major Basin Storage? Conveyance rev, cfs cfs/70 ac miles irr ac. ac water, soil limits. users) rev acres Budget rev, $ $/ac rev debt (col J ÷ (col L ÷ (col N ÷ (col (col H ÷ (col L ÷ 70)) 160)) L ÷ 160)) (col P ÷ col L) A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S

1 Heart Mountain Irrigation District 2/20/2015 District 3 Powell Wind-Bighorn Yes 850 1.91 168 0.9 31,148 B 691 3.55 $1,800,000 $57.79 7.5 Yes Irrigation 2 Goshen Irrigation District 12/15/2014 District 1 Torrington Platte Yes 1530 2.17 155 0.5 49,353 R 421 1.36 $2,200,000 $44.58 17 No

3 Shoshone Irrigation District 2/11/2015 District 3 Powell Wind-Bighorn Yes 900 1.77 260 1.2 35,500 B 1,207 5.44 $1,500,000 $42.25 14 Yes Irrigation 4 Bluff Irrigation District 3/3/2015 District 3 Worland Wind-Bighorn Yes 150 2.79 17 0.7 3,762 B 47 2.00 $124,000 $32.96 1.5 No

5 Willwood Irrigation District 1/26/2015 District 3 Powell Wind-Bighorn Yes 400 2.41 82 1.1 11,623.90 B 178 2.45 $367,000 $31.57 7 Yes

6 Cody Canal Irrigation District 4/16/2012 District 3 Cody Wind-Bighorn Yes 250 1.53 72 1.0 11,423 B 2,000 28.01 $360,000 $31.52 4 Yes Irrigation 7 Deaver Irrigation District 2/16/2015 District 3 Deaver Wind-Bighorn Yes 400 1.80 300 3.1 15,545 B 194 2.00 $460,000 $29.59 6 Yes

8 Sidon Irrigation District 12/12/2014 District 3 Cowley Wind-Bighorn No 1,000 5.31 39 0.5 13,181.16 B 580 7.04 $366,500 $27.80 4 Yes

9 Horse Creek Conservation District 11/10/2014 District 1 Hawk Springs Platte Yes 150 1.00 40 0.6 10,544.13 R 62 0.94 $292,000 $27.69 3 Yes

10 Pratte-Ferris Irrigation District 6/24/2010 District 1 Torrington Platte No 22 2.57 10 2.7 600 R 2 0.53 $16,000 $26.67 0 unknown Irrigation 11 Highland Hanover Irrigation District 2/4/2015 District 3 Worland Wind-Bighorn Yes 96.75 0.97 24 0.5 6,992 B 125 2.86 $179,000 $25.60 1 No

12 Nez Perce Irrigation Association 4/10/2012 Association 3 Cody Wind-Bighorn ?? NA #VALUE! 2 3.2 100 P 22 35.20 $2,500 $25.00 0 No Irrigation 13 Midvale Irrigation District 11/3/2014 District 3 Pavillion Wind-Bighorn Yes 1,800 1.73 1,075 2.4 73,000 B 930 2.04 $1,800,000 $24.66 17 Yes Irrigation 14 Riverton Valley Irrigation District 11/4/2014 District 3 Riverton Wind-Bighorn Yes 185 1.56 28 0.5 8,312 B 774 14.90 $203,000 $24.42 3.5 Yes

15 Casper-Alcova Irrigation District 3/9/2010 District 1 Mills Platte Yes 600 1.72 150 1.0 24,419 SG 511 3.35 $556,000 $22.77 5.5 No Hanover Irrigation District, Upper Hanover Irrigation 16 Irrigation District (aka Upper Hanover Canal) 1/14/2015 District 3 Worland Wind-Bighorn Yes 550 2.91 40 0.5 13,251.04 B 404 4.88 $300,000 $22.64 1.5 Yes

17 Porto Irrigation District 7/7/2003 District 4 Thayne Snake-Salt unknown 35 2.72 5 0.9 901 unknown 24 4.26 $19,861 $22.05 unknown Yes

18 Interstate Irrigation & Reservoir Company 2/26/2015 Company 4 McKinnon Green Yes 100 3.44 20 1.6 2,035.52 SG 25 1.97 $40,000 $19.65 2.5 NA

19 Stewart Creek Irrigation Company 12/3/2014 Non Profit 4 Jackson Snake-Salt No no answer #VALUE! 3 0.5 1,050 no answer 190 28.95 $20,000 $19.05 1 NA Irrigation 20 Lakeview Irrigation District 3/16/2015 District 3 Cody Wind-Bighorn No 500 3.58 28 0.5 9,779 SG 494 8.08 $186,000 $19.02 2.5 No

21 Wheatland Irrigation District 2/23/2015 District 1 Wheatland Platte Yes 610 0.74 120 0.3 58,000 B 825 2.28 $1,000,000 $17.24 11 No

22 Hill Irrigation District 9/11/2003 District 1 Torrington Platte Yes unknown #VALUE! 8 0.3 3,845 unknown 79 3.29 $61,000 $15.87 1 No

23 Tillard Canal 3/12/2015 Company 3 Basin Wind-Bighorn No 20 1.00 9 1.0 1,400 R 11 1.26 $22,000 $15.71 1 No

24 Cemetery Ditch Company 1/23/2015 Company 3 Lander Wind-Bighorn No 25 1.93 6 1.1 905 P 76 13.44 $13,800 $15.25 1.5 No

25 LaPrele Irrigation District 4/26/2012 District 1 Douglas Platte Yes 100 0.61 32 0.4 11,462 SG 103 1.44 $172,916 $15.09 1.5 Yes

26 Gooseberry Creek Irrigation District 11/17/2014 District 3 Worland Wind-Bighorn No NA #VALUE! NA #VALUE! 2,000 SG 11 0.88 $30,000 $15.00 0 Yes

27 Eden Valley Irrigation & Drainage District 3/7/2015 District 4 Farson Green Yes 470 1.95 121 1.1 16,849.82 SG 127 1.21 $248,000 $14.72 2.5 Yes

28 Torrington Irrigation District 3/2/2010 District 1 Torrington Platte Yes 40 1.17 25 1.7 2,400 R Unknown #VALUE! $35,000 $14.58 1 No Kirby Ditch Irrigation Distict (formerly Kirby Irrigation 29 Ditch Co.) 12/2/2014 District 3 Thermopolis Wind-Bighorn Yes 90 1.97 6 0.3 3,200 R 51 2.55 $45,000 $14.06 0.5 Yes

Page 1 of 5 Summary Table Using 2015 Irrigation System Survey Data Conveyance Miles/160 Crop Restrictions, Number of Water Full Time + capacity per 70 irrigated Irrigated B,R=not limited. individual users/160 Budget/ Seasonal Do you have Capacity of acres irrigated, Miles rev, acres, mi/160 acres rev, SG,P=elevation, operators (water irrigated Annual Irrigated Acre, Employees any existing Entity Date Received Status Division City Major Basin Storage? Conveyance rev, cfs cfs/70 ac miles irr ac. ac water, soil limits. users) rev acres Budget rev, $ $/ac rev debt (col J ÷ (col L ÷ (col N ÷ (col (col H ÷ (col L ÷ 70)) 160)) L ÷ 160)) (col P ÷ col L) A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S

30 Bench Canal Company 11/21/2014 Corporation 3 Emblem Wind-Bighorn Yes 300 1.27 65 0.6 16,500 B 71 0.69 $215,000 $13.03 2.5 Yes

31 Enterprise Irrigation and Power Company 12/2/2014 Company 3 Lander Wind-Bighorn Yes 24 0.76 18 1.3 2,200 SG 85 6.18 $28,000 $12.73 0.5 No

32 Big Horn Canal Irrigation District 1/13/2015 District 3 Basin Wind-Bighorn Yes 600 2.10 60 0.5 20,000 B 250 2.00 $250,000 $12.50 3 Yes

33 Cottonwood Irrigation District 5/9/2012 District 4 Smoot Snake-Salt No 60 0.84 35 1.1 5,000 SG 290 9.28 $60,000 $12.00 1 Yes

34 North Fork Valley Ditch Company 2/18/2015 Company 3 Cody/Wapiti Wind-Bighorn ?? 100 6.57 5 0.7 1,065 SG 90 13.52 $12,000 $11.27 0 No

35 Lingle Water User's Association 12/3/2014 Association 1 Torrington Platte Yes 1900 11.78 0 0.0 11,288 no answer 100 1.42 $124,168 $11.00 0 No Lucerene Pumping Plant Canal Company 36 (formerly known as Lucerne Irrigation District) 3/1/2010 District 1 Thermopolis Wind-Bighorn Yes 70 1.20 36 1.4 4,080 R 93 3.65 $44,220 $10.84 2.5 No

37 Toltec Watershed Improvement District 2/27/2015 District 1 Garrett Platte Yes NA #VALUE! 0 0.0 1,720 P 8 0.74 $18,000 $10.47 0 Yes

38 Wise Ditch Company 2/23/2015 Company 3 Riverton Wind-Bighorn Yes 44 3.10 12 1.9 993 P 19 3.06 $10,000 $10.07 0.5 No

39 Goshen Mutual Reservoir and Ditch Co. 6/13/2005 Company 1 Yoder Platte Yes 30 3.28 4 1.0 641 unknown 9 2.25 $6,410 $10.00 0.5 unknown Irrigation 40 New North Platte Irrigation & Ditch Co. 5/1/2012 Company 1 Torrington Platte No 55 1.28 12 0.6 3,000 NA 18 0.96 $30,000 $10.00 1 No

41 West Side Canal Company 2/6/2015 Company 1 Baggs Green Yes 180 2.52 20 0.6 5,000 P 28 0.90 $50,000 $10.00 1 Yes Company 42 McDonald Ditch 2/17/2015 (Corporation) 3 Greybull Wind-Bighorn Yes 125 4.69 8 0.7 1865.42 R 30 2.57 $18,000 $9.65 0.5 No

43 Burn Cleuch Ditch Co 5/24/2012 Company 2 Sheridan Powder-Tongue No 20 1.56 5 0.8 898 SG 69 12.29 $8,600 $9.58 0.5 No

44 Shell Canal Company 4/5/2010 Company 3 Greybull Wind-Bighorn Yes 70 0.84 38 1.0 5,800 R 125 3.45 $54,000 $9.31 1 No

45 Rock Ranch Ditch Company 7/7/2003 Company 1 Torrington Platte Yes 100 1.97 15 0.7 3,561 unknown 22 0.99 $33,000 $9.27 0.5 unknown Lovell Irrigation District (formerly part of Elk- 46 Lovell ID or aka Elk Lovell Canal) 7/22/2005 District 3 Lovell Wind-Bighorn unknown 400 2.55 45 0.7 11,000 unknown 266 3.87 $100,000 $9.09 1 Yes

47 Hunt Canal Irrigation District 11/20/2014 District 3 Lovell Wind-Bighorn unknown 150 2.61 13 0.5 4,030 no answer 50 1.99 $36,000 $8.93 0.5 Yes

48 Pine Creek Ditch Association, Incorportated 2/28/2015 Association 4 Pinedale Green Yes 125 3.03 7 0.4 2,885 P 34 1.89 $25,000 $8.67 1 No

49 New Grattan Ditch Company 5/9/2012 Company 1 Lingle Platte Yes 20 1.51 5 0.9 930 R 6 1.03 $8,000 $8.60 0.5 No Spring Draw Ditch Company (formerly entered 50 as Spring Draw Irrigation) 12/2/2014 Company 2 Sheridan Powder-Tongue Yes 10 1.17 4 0.9 600 SG 30 8.00 $5,000 $8.33 0.5 No Private 51 Parker McBride 2/12/2015 Company 3 Lander Wind-Bighorn No 75 4.04 5 0.6 1,300 P 12 1.48 $10,000 $7.69 0.5 No

52 Crook County Irrigation District 3/18/2008 District 2 Moorcroft Northeast Yes Varies #VALUE! 0 0.0 2,160 NA NA #VALUE! $16,000 $7.41 0 Yes Irrigation 53 Greybull Valley Irrigation District 2/10/2015 District 3 Emblem Wind-Bighorn Yes 2,450 2.68 20 0.1 64,000 B 435 1.09 $450,000 $7.03 4 Yes

54 Lower Hanover Canal 9/26/2003 unknown 3 Worland Wind-Bighorn unknown 235 1.32 24 0.3 12,500 unknown 75 0.96 $80,000 $6.40 unknown unknown

55 Sandstone Ditch Company 2/25/2015 Company 3 Basin Wind-Bighorn Yes 80 2.11 16 1.0 2656.22 B 19 1.14 $16,560 $6.23 0.5 No Owl Creek Irrigation District (Dempsey Canal 56 now incorporated into Owl Crk) 3/1/2010 District 3 Thermopolis Wind-Bighorn Yes 420 2.26 70 0.9 13,000 R 153 1.88 $79,000 $6.08 4 Yes

57 Farmers Protective (Globe Canal) 3/23/2012 Corporation 3 Lovell Wind-Bighorn No 95 2.02 10 0.5 3,300 B 50 2.42 $20,000 $6.06 0.5 No Greybull, 58 Whaley Ditch 2/26/2015 Company 3 WY/Shell, WY Wind-Bighorn Yes Unknown #VALUE! Unknown #VALUE! 1,424 R 18 2.02 $8,000 $5.62 0.5 No

Page 2 of 5 Summary Table Using 2015 Irrigation System Survey Data Conveyance Miles/160 Crop Restrictions, Number of Water Full Time + capacity per 70 irrigated Irrigated B,R=not limited. individual users/160 Budget/ Seasonal Do you have Capacity of acres irrigated, Miles rev, acres, mi/160 acres rev, SG,P=elevation, operators (water irrigated Annual Irrigated Acre, Employees any existing Entity Date Received Status Division City Major Basin Storage? Conveyance rev, cfs cfs/70 ac miles irr ac. ac water, soil limits. users) rev acres Budget rev, $ $/ac rev debt (col J ÷ (col L ÷ (col N ÷ (col (col H ÷ (col L ÷ 70)) 160)) L ÷ 160)) (col P ÷ col L) A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S Powder River Irrigation District (formerly 59 Sussex Irrigation Co.) 3/10/2010 District 2 Kaycee Powder-Tongue No 160 2.19 26 0.8 5,115 R 28 0.88 $28,137 $5.50 1.5 Yes

60 Pioneer Canal - Lake Hattie Irrigation District 5/15/2012 District 1 Laramie Platte Yes 800 3.13 75 0.7 17,920 P 49 0.44 $96,000 $5.36 1.5 Yes

61 First Mesa Ditch Company 8/17/2005 Company 1 Baggs Green unknown unknown #VALUE! 11 0.6 3,196 unknown 31 1.55 $17,000 $5.32 0.5 Yes

62 Eastside Irrigation District 3/11/2008 District 4 Etna Snake-Salt No NA #VALUE! 18 2.2 1,300 unknown 15 1.85 $6,500 $5.00 0.5 No Bates Creek to 63 Bates Creek Reservoir Company 1/4/2015 Company 1 Casper Platte Yes many headgates #VALUE! 4 0.2 4,000 SG 7 0.28 $20,000 $5.00 0 No

64 Boulder Irrigation District 2/27/2015 District 4 Boulder Green Yes 400 3.29 25 0.5 8,500 P 66 1.24 $42,000 $4.94 0 No Annually variable; dependant on snow 65 Alto Canal Sprinkler Company 2/19/2015 Company 4 Thayne Snake-Salt Yes & rainfall #VALUE! 3 0.7 681 SG 19 4.47 $3,200 $4.70 0 No Irrigation 66 North Fork Irrigation District 11/11/2014 District 2 Buffalo Powder-Tongue Yes 80 1.12 5 0.1 5,000 R 15 0.48 $22,552 $4.51 1.5 yes

67 Smiths Fork Irrigation District 2/27/2015 District 4 Cokeville Bear No Unknown #VALUE! 20 0.6 4,980 SG 27 0.87 $22,000 $4.42 2 Yes

68 Hilliard East Fork Canal Company 2/14/2015 Company 4 Evanston Bear Yes 28 0.74 15 0.9 2,644 P 14 0.85 $11,550 $4.37 NA No Private Non- Profit 69 Canyon Canal, Inc. 5/14/2012 Company 4 Pinedale Green No 120 1.33 18 0.5 6,300 P 217 5.51 $25,000 $3.97 1 No

70 Shell Valley Watershed Improvement District 7/7/2003 District 3 Shell Wind-Bighorn Yes 150 1.00 0 0.0 10,500 unknown 250 3.81 $35,000 $3.33 0 No Elk Water User's Association (formerly part of 71 Elk-Lovell ID, aka Elk Lovell Canal) 11/21/2014 Association 3 Powell Wind-Bighorn unknown 500 8.24 12 0.5 4,250 B 13 0.49 $14,000 $3.29 0 No

72 Baggs Ditch Company 8/5/2005 Corporation 1 Baggs Green ?? 3 0.23 2 0.3 903 NA 5 0.89 $2,500 $2.77 0 Yes 12/3/2014, 73 Highland Irrigation District 2/17/2015 District 4 Pinedale Green Yes 180 1.90 25 0.6 6,630 P 218 5.26 $17,000 $2.56 1 No

74 Fairview Irrigation District 2/12/2015 District 3 Afton Snake-Salt No 80 3.11 9 0.8 1,800 SG 105 9.33 $4,500 $2.50 0 No Austin Wall Irrigation District Canal Company (formerly known as Austin Canal Co, or Uinta 75 NO 3 Canal Company) 2/21/2015 Distict 4 Lyman Green Yes 80 1.40 17 0.7 4,001 SG 12 0.48 $10,000 $2.50 0 No Conservancy 76 Bridger Valley Water Conservancy District 2/17/2015 District 4 Mountain View Green Yes NA #VALUE! 0 0.0 79,500 SG 300 0.60 $195,000 $2.45 2 Yes Private 77 Nicol & Table Mountain Ditch 2/12/2015 Company 3 Lander Wind-Bighorn No 95 1.99 7 0.3 3,340 SG 63 3.02 $8,000 $2.40 0.5 No

78 Butte Ditch 8/11/2005 Association 3 Meeteetse Wind-Bighorn Yes 40 1.28 6 0.4 2,180 NA 6 0.44 $5,000 $2.29 0 No

79 Piney and Cruse Creek Ditch Company 4/30/2012 Company 2 Banner Powder-Tongue Yes 25 0.39 8 0.3 4,500 SG 100 3.56 $10,000 $2.22 0.5 No

80 Hilliard West Side Ditch Company 1/16/2015 Company 4 Evanston Bear Yes 80 2.48 18 1.3 2,260 P 22 1.56 $5,000 $2.21 0 NA

81 Meade Creek Ditch 10/9/2000 Corporation 2 Sheridan Powder-Tongue Yes 37 1.00 9 0.6 2,600 unknown 6 0.37 $5,400 $2.08 1 No Irrigation 82 Laramie Valley Municipal Irrigation District 3/15/2015 District 1 Laramie Platte No 150 1.13 20 0.3 9321 P 13 0.22 $18,000 $1.93 0 Yes

83 Peoples Canal Company 11/21/2014 Company unknown Manila out of state No 55 1.68 9 0.6 2,290 SG 14 0.98 $4,000 $1.75 1.5 No

84 Gunbarrel Lateral Ditch Company 4/26/2012 Company 1 Wheatland Platte ?? 35 0.94 10 0.6 2,601 R 16 0.98 $4,000 $1.54 0.5 No Baldwin/Peralta Ditch Company (aka Peralta 85 Ditch Company or as Popo Agie Ranch) 4/8/2015 Ditch Group 2 Lander Wind-Bighorn No 26.4 2.00 3 0.5 924 P 30 5.19 $1,320 $1.43 0 No

Page 3 of 5 Summary Table Using 2015 Irrigation System Survey Data Conveyance Miles/160 Crop Restrictions, Number of Water Full Time + capacity per 70 irrigated Irrigated B,R=not limited. individual users/160 Budget/ Seasonal Do you have Capacity of acres irrigated, Miles rev, acres, mi/160 acres rev, SG,P=elevation, operators (water irrigated Annual Irrigated Acre, Employees any existing Entity Date Received Status Division City Major Basin Storage? Conveyance rev, cfs cfs/70 ac miles irr ac. ac water, soil limits. users) rev acres Budget rev, $ $/ac rev debt (col J ÷ (col L ÷ (col N ÷ (col (col H ÷ (col L ÷ 70)) 160)) L ÷ 160)) (col P ÷ col L) A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S

86 Big Cottonwood Ditch Co. 2/13/2015 Corporation 3 Lander Wind-Bighorn Yes 70 2.26 5 0.4 2,167 P 98 7.24 $3,000 $1.38 0.5 No

87 Green River Irrigation District 2/27/2015 District 4 Pinedale Green No 200 2.03 55 1.3 6900 P 47 1.09 $9,500 $1.38 0.5 Yes Snavely/Grant Young Ditch (2012 submitted 88 survey as Killebrew Irrigation) 4/8/2015 Ditch Group 3 Lander Wind-Bighorn No 20 1.17 5 0.7 1,200 P 25 3.33 $1,600 $1.33 NA No

89 Blacks Fork Canal Company 11/20/2014 Company 4 Ft. Bridger Green Yes 375 1.31 12 0.1 20,020.124 SG 60 0.48 $25,000 $1.25 0.5 No

90 Wright & Murphy Ditch Company 9/9/2003 Company 1 Ft. Laramie Platte Yes 4 1.14 1 0.7 245 unknown 1 0.65 $300 $1.22 0 No

91 Big Goose and Beaver Ditch Company 8/3/2005 Company 2 Sheridan Powder-Tongue No 100 1.14 12 0.3 6,160 NA 46 1.19 $7,000 $1.14 0.5 No Lake DeSmet Ditch Company (formerly listed as 92 Lake DeSmet Reservoir Co.) 11/18/2014 Corporation 2 Buffalo Powder-Tongue Yes 70 0.89 3 0.1 5,500 SG 24 0.70 $6,000 $1.09 0.5 No Savery-Little Snake River Water Conservancy 93 District 8/5/2005 District 1 Baggs Green Yes unknown #VALUE! unknown #VALUE! 12,000 unknown unknown #VALUE! $12,400 $1.03 0 Yes Private 94 North Strawberry Canal Co. 3/19/2008 Company 4 Thayne Snake-Salt No unknown #VALUE! 14 1.9 1200 unknown unknown #VALUE! $1,200 $1.00 0.5 No Anita Ditch Co. (formerly known as Anita Ditch 3/6/2015, 95 Company and Gapen Ditch) 4/23/2015 Company 3 Hyattville Wind-Bighorn No 60 1.68 12 0.8 2,500 NA 7 0.45 $2,000 $0.80 0 No

96 Milich Ditch Company 8/8/2005 Company 4 Lyman Green Yes 90 1.43 13 0.5 4,400 unknown 13 0.47 $3,500 $0.80 0.5 No

97 Etna Irrigation District 12/16/2014 District 4 Freedom Snake-Salt unknown 86 2.00 10 0.5 3,000 SG 140 7.47 $2,300 $0.77 0.5 No

98 Salt River Irrigation District 7/9/2003 District 4 Afton Snake-Salt No 120 3.65 8 0.6 2,300 unknown 50 3.48 $1,500 $0.65 1 No

99 Kidman and Wall Ditch Company 12/2/2014 Company 4 Robertson Green Yes NA #VALUE! 2 0.2 1,858 P 8 0.69 $900 $0.48 0.5 No New Fork Irrigation District (formerly submitted 100 as New Fork Lake Irrigation District) 2/17/2015 District 4 Cora Green Yes NA #VALUE! 15 0.2 14,612 P 91 1.00 $7,000 $0.48 0 No

101 Hoops Lake Reservoir Company 4/13/2012 Company 4 Lonetree Green ?? 125 1.94 6 0.2 4,500 P 8 0.28 $2,000 $0.44 0 No

102 Little Popo Agie Irrigation District 11/24/2014 District 3 Lander Wind-Bighorn Yes 33.40 0.94 30 1.9 2,487.47 P 24 1.54 $500 $0.20 0 No

103 Davis & Company Ditch 3/30/2010 Company 4 Mountain View Green No 25.5 1.01 5 0.5 1,766 P 13 1.18 $300 $0.17 0.5 No Sulphur Creek Reservoir Company (and City of 104 Evanston) 2/23/2015 Company 4 Evanston Bear Yes 100 1.40 0 0.0 5,000 P 55 1.76 $600 $0.12 0.5 No

105 Savery Creek Ditch Company 2/26/2015 Company 1 Savery Green unknown 15 0.82 4 0.5 1,274 no answer 10 1.26 $100 $0.08 0 Yes

106 Rock Creek Water Users Association 2/12/2015 Association 1 McFadden Platte No 3000 9.61 4 0.0 21,860 P 18 0.13 $500 $0.02 0 No

107 Beckwith Quin Canal Company 11/26/2014 Company 4 Cokeville Bear Yes 120 0.84 7 0.1 10,000 SG 6 0.10 $10 $0.00 0 No Private 108 Chapman Canal Company 3/6/2008 Company 4 Woodruff out of state No 250 1.88 20 0.3 9,300 NA 20 0.34 $0 $0.00 0 No Twin Creeks (formerly known as Twin Creek 109 Ditch Company) 2/3/2015 NA 4 Cokeville Bear No 100 5.83 4 0.5 1,200 SG 6 0.80 $0 $0.00 NA No

Page 4 of 5 Summary Table Using 2015 Irrigation System Survey Data Conveyance Miles/160 Crop Restrictions, Number of Water Full Time + capacity per 70 irrigated Irrigated B,R=not limited. individual users/160 Budget/ Seasonal Do you have Capacity of acres irrigated, Miles rev, acres, mi/160 acres rev, SG,P=elevation, operators (water irrigated Annual Irrigated Acre, Employees any existing Entity Date Received Status Division City Major Basin Storage? Conveyance rev, cfs cfs/70 ac miles irr ac. ac water, soil limits. users) rev acres Budget rev, $ $/ac rev debt (col J ÷ (col L ÷ (col N ÷ (col (col H ÷ (col L ÷ 70)) 160)) L ÷ 160)) (col P ÷ col L) A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S

110 Lower Clear Creek Irrigation District 12/15/2000 District 2 Leiter Powder-Tongue Yes 40 #VALUE! unknown #VALUE! unknown unknown 16 #VALUE! $50,000 #VALUE! 0 Yes

111 Alliance Ditch Company 9/11/2003 Company 2 Sheridan Powder-Tongue No variable #VALUE! 10 #VALUE! NA NA 25 #VALUE! $10,000 #VALUE! 0.5 NA Private 112 Lander Ditch Company 6/26/2008 Company 3 Lander Wind-Bighorn unknown Unknown #VALUE! 5 #VALUE! unknown unknown 120 #VALUE! $1,000 #VALUE! 0 No

113 Twin Butte Land and Irrigation Co. 2/16/2010 Corporation 4 Lyman Green Yes 50 #VALUE! 8 #VALUE! unknown unknown 12 #VALUE! $250 #VALUE! 0 No

114 Hamsfork Water Users Association 11/26/2014 Association 4 Kemmerer Green Yes NA #VALUE! NA #VALUE! Unknown SG 30 #VALUE! $100 #VALUE! 0 No

115 LeClair Irrigation District 4/30/2012 District 3 Riverton Wind-Bighorn No 300 1.56 33 0.4 13,500 R 1,500 17.78 NA #VALUE! 3 NA

116 Bear Canal Ditch Company 5/7/2012 Company 4 Evanston Bear Yes 165 2.36 20 0.7 4,900 NA 33 1.08 NA #VALUE! 0 No

117 Lamb Supply Canal Company 4/18/2015 Company 4 Mountain View Green unknown 35 1.10 4 0.3 2234 no answer 24 1.72 no answer #VALUE! 0.5 No

118 Neff Ditch Irrigation Association 12/11/2014 Association 3 Cody Wind-Bighorn unknown 10.0 2.22 7 3.6 315 P 17 8.63 no answer #VALUE! no answer No

119 Deseret Land and Livestock 2/11/2010 Business NA Woodruff out of state Yes 300 2.30 15 0.3 9,139 P 15 0.26 NA #VALUE! 0 No Taylor Ditch Company (formerly Dutch 120 Flat/Taylor Ditch) 7/2/2012 Company 3 Lander Wind-Bighorn No NA #VALUE! 5 0.4 2,100 SG 10 0.76 NA #VALUE! 0 No

121 Goshen Hole Water Users Association 6/6/2005 Association 1 Yoder Platte Yes 250 6.96 unknown #VALUE! 2,516 unknown 5 0.32 unknown #VALUE! 0.5 No

122 Victoria Ditch Co. 8/3/2005 Company 3 Ten Sleep Wind-Bighorn ?? unknown #VALUE! 3 2.4 200 unknown 5 4.00 unknown #VALUE! 0 No

123 Blue Bell Canal Company 1/9/2001 Company 4 McKinnon Green No 12.16 1.00 NA #VALUE! 852 NA 3 0.56 NA #VALUE! NA No

124 Trowel Ditch Company 6/3/2005 Company 1 Baggs Green unknown 90 #VALUE! 6 #VALUE! unknown unknown 3 #VALUE! unknown #VALUE! 0 Yes Reservoir Ranch (formerly Sixty-Seven Private 125 Reservoir Project) 4/19/2010 Company 4 Big Piney Green Yes unknown #VALUE! 2 0.2 1,600 SG 2 0.20 unknown #VALUE! 0 No

126 Wyoming Game and Fish Commission 3/26/2008 State agency 3 Cody Wind-Bighorn unknown 450 52.50 12 3.2 600 unknown 2 0.53 unknown #VALUE! 3 No

127 Wagonhound Land & Livestock 5/9/2012 Company 1 Douglas Platte No 25.2571 1.00 NA #VALUE! 1,760 NA 1 0.09 NA #VALUE! 6 No

128 Burbank Ditch 3/13/2012 District 1 Torrington Platte Yes 5.14 0.92 5 2.0 391 R 1 0.41 As needed #VALUE! 1.5 No

129 Ladder Ditch Company 9/15/2003 Company 1 Savery Green unknown 9 3.50 unknown #VALUE! 180 unknown 1 0.89 unknown #VALUE! 1.5 No

130 Chalmers Fogg Ditch 4/30/2010 Company 3 Lander Wind-Bighorn No NA #VALUE! NA #VALUE! NA NA NA #VALUE! NA #VALUE! NA NA

131 Little Snake River Conservation District 3/2/2015 District 1 Baggs Green unknown no answer #VALUE! no answer #VALUE! no answer no answer no answer #VALUE! no answer #VALUE! no answer no answer

132 Whitney Reservoir 7/24/2003 unknown 4 Evanston out of state Yes unknown #VALUE! NA #VALUE! 16,000 0 unknown #VALUE! unknown #VALUE! 1 unknown

Page 5 of 5 2015 WWDC Sponsor Survey Strongly Strongly Response Yes No SA% Agree A% Disagree D% SD% NA NA% Agree Disagree Total 1 Have you had an opportunity to visit the WWDC's website? 34 20 0 54

2 The WWDC website is easy to use and contains useful information. 10 21% 24 50% 0 0% 0 0% 14 29% 48 At the November meeting of the WWDC, adequate time was allowed for the sponsors to provide 3 13 27% 18 38% 0 0% 0 0% 17 35% 48 information on their projects and answer questions Has your entity ever applied for and received approval for a Level I WWDC reconnaissance 4 35 14 0 49 study? 5 Has your entity ever applied for and received approval for a Level II WWDC feasibility study? 28 21 0 49

6 The Level I and/or Level II project application is easy to complete. 9 20% 22 50% 1 2% 0 0% 12 27% 44 Your Level I/II Planning study analyzed your project adequately, provided appropriate alterna- 7 11 25% 22 50% 0 0% 0 0% 11 25% 44 tives, and viable conclusions. I found the WWDC staff working on my planning study to be knowledgeable, helpful and dedicat- 8 20 45% 17 39% 0 0% 0 0% 7 16% 44 ed to completing a comprehensive study. 9 Did you make a request to the WWDC to advance your Planning project to Level III Construction? 21 23 0 44 Have you participated in the WWDC consultant selection process for new Level I or Level II stud- 10 25 19 0 44 ies? 11 I am familiar with the River Basin Planning Program. 17 28 0 45 The annual Basin Advisory Group Meetings are useful and productive as they offer a forum for 12 3 8% 14 38% 0 0% 0 0% 20 54% 37 water users and agency personnel to discuss contemporary water issues. 14 River Basin Planning is an inclusive process regarding the public, agencies, and other groups. 3 8% 14 38% 1 3% 0 0% 19 51% 37

15 Has your entity ever applied for and received a Level III WWDC construction grant and/or loan? 25 19 0 44 16 The WWDC Level III project application is easy to understand and complete. 10 24% 15 37% 1 2% 0 0% 15 37% 41 17 The review of the Level III Project Agreement with the WWDC construction staff is beneficial. 10 24% 14 34% 0 0% 0 0% 17 41% 41

18 The WWDC Level III pay request forms are easy to understand and complete. 8 20% 16 39% 0 0% 0 0% 17 41% 41 The Sponsor Acknowledgement Attachment outlining WWDC requirements at various phases in 19 7 18% 15 38% 1 3% 0 0% 16 41% 39 the construction process is beneficial. The WWDC staff has adequately explained the Dams and Reservoir planning process with its 20 5 13% 11 28% 1 3% 0 0% 23 58% 40 multiple Levels and Phases. During the multi-year Dams and Reservoir planning process, the WWDC staff have kept me up to 21 5 13% 10 25% 1 3% 0 0% 24 60% 40 date on project progress. The WWDC Dam and Reservoir planning process is collaborative with the local Community/ 22 3 8% 10 25% 1 3% 0 0% 26 65% 40 Sponsor in developing reservoir alternatives. 23 The WWDC is responsive to my questions or concerns about receipt of payments. 12 30% 16 40% 0 0% 0 0% 12 30% 40 Project payments for reimbursement of Level III construction expenditures are received within a 24 9 23% 15 38% 0 0% 0 0% 15 38% 39 reasonable time frame. 25 Overall, I am satisfied with WWDC's stewardship of the Wyoming Water Development Program. 16 38% 23 55% 0 0% 0 0% 3 7% 42 The Wyoming Water Development Program is primarily funded with state severance taxes. This 26 program includes planning, design, and construction of water infrastructure projects. In the case 43 0 0 43 of your project, do you think this was a worthwhile investment of the State's resources? Number of respondents who answered each question 60

55

50

45 Number of Respondents

40

35

30 12345678910111214151617181920212223242526

Question Number Percent of respondents who answered NA by each question 70%

60%

50%

40%

30% Percent of Respondents of Percent

20%

10%

0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111214151617181920212223242526 Question Number Percent of respondents who anwswered Strongly Agree, Agree, or NA (Questions 1, 4-5, 9-11, 15, and 26 were Yes/No) 100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

Percent of Respondents Percent 40%

30%

20%

10%

0% 12345678910111214151617181920212223242526 Question Number

Strongly Agree or Agree NA mmm mma n € ,j [i tm[[j] * PmUl a r'La* Y 4 i m m m l I s 11 m n n 7 !'. [!aJ q5Vi Ll nVes % m9niLl

August 7, 2015 %? I

Rl M a rs !; [1J!JrJC [J U l 6 [1J jfi m:,l il l@ O[j J ] i][ 1g m l m Mm m s i l mmm m ss s m i m l m m I l m (' l mim m l mf ! W mm m m s m f l 5 l m I l m i iii is I { ! v!2 !J l !i M!!I 1 l !l!ll!! E !l !iga (] v m (! l l ] n y i !a l 7 7% v l eegq l tsn sW l ! mt m Pfs T r l l r f lrn w l I w i nu(1] d Vg 5ffl !!II J J !n!8 !U!il ll d. ?, l i4 i

affias !jevn 4 i & i l & ai g g m i m m mm m m mm l ff i j mm s s l m I W l mi l ,5e l (i[ !D l a! 2i l !g !a n J m l !!!l l I l S l (E/ !a a m l m m l I m m i s i l !! !! !! Is!! W 5 m l !a g I t l n S!2 ! ffla lm mm r sim l m si r m lse !!!1, !! ! !! ! !l Wl i !!l!!l l fii!;!

?l m !aTh !! (i Z / / l ![6 7 !] Da !l M im ii s i hi (W l l 2 v !5 3 / / !J !!! !!W :!i !! i !a !2 ! e!! m s i m*s m a i si l mm s m mmr m mm ii m r r ? W 2 ngi'l % ]9mf m (l!I fl 7 ! i i Jffmd/ !7 s i l ii i i r 11 r m'a si, imiiii I I i.m s iiiis 5115 t s l J? ', l? i ! J W )M M U 1 l Q l l! N (Al)j p, IC! 441 W im ss i i m n 1I y % 2 2 !! Wm v

Prepared by l @Mic:hael Swank, Pro

Si

! J

Q i Program Evaluation Staff

Michael Swank Program Evaluation Manager

Joy Hill Program Evaluator

Samantha Mills Associate Program Evaluator

Kathy Misener Associate Program Evaluator

Elizabeth Martineau Associate Program Evaluator

Marla Smith Associate Program Evaluator

Technical Assistance and Graphics:

Anthony Sara Legislative Information Officer n-Al, Wyoming Legislative Service Office a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Wyoming Public Purpose Investments

Program Evaluation Section August 7, 2015

r*w igssm cvaiua tion Purpose In December 2014, the Management Audit Committee (Committee) directed the Legislative Service Office (LSO) to conduct a program evaluation of Wyoming public purpose investments (PPIs). The Committee's concerns focused on the efficient administration of these investments, possible opportunity costs (including valuing public benefits), and the applicability and use of the Uniforrn Prudent Investment Act (UPIA). PPIs were previously evaluated by LSO in 1997. Background

In Chapters l and 2, the report provides For example, some PPIs are required to be background information on where PP?s fit executed while others are more into the State's investment array as well as discretionary. Also, some have strict identifies common themes in trying to interest rates while others' rates may float distinctly define or group PPIs. Key based on a statutory or rules-based formula. highlights include that for most investments made with State funds, the State Trcasurer Figure ES.l General Areas Impacting How PPIs May be Defined or Assessed and the State Loan and Investment Board (SLIB) oversee the State's investment PWMTF Investment Portfolio p portfolio. The entire portfolio, separated 7-l I into ten separate funds, cutrently has a l Legislatively Required i' Leg:slat'ivelyA:.:thoiized -?'i,l market value of approximately $19.7 billion, Investment 1 -L Investment ; I with the Perrnanent Wyoming Mineral Trust :)? '€'-' -Publi;?PWrp:;se'l'nv;s'trnents-'- ' ) Fund (PWMTF) accounting for the largest l single fund at $7.2 billion. Most PPIs are I State Entities, Political Subdivisions, Cities, Municipalities, made from the PWMTF. &a 4 Counties, Special Districts, JPB, and State Instrumentalities l However, PPIs are investments specifically chosen and made under the direct Y Y authorization of the Legislature. These Recipient: Public I Recipient : Private I investments are typically not related to one E.g. Municipali}y. Counky. oy loim E4. Individual lFatm Loaiis) ot %wers tloard L lndus(ry lUranium Mineil I another except for the use of public entities l l (political subdivisions) to or through which Anticipated Benefits the investments are made and the desire to achieve various public purposes or benefits for the State and its citizens; see Figure ES. l at right. The distinct nature of each Investment Return "Public" Benefit E.g. Monekaty rehim E.g. lob tteasion/teienr:on individual PPI makes it challenging to define, group, and evaluate them together. Note: The full graphic can be found on page 26. Due to these challenges, LSO looked at PP?s under the unifying theme that they are investments. LSO used professional Figure ES.2 Understanding standards like the State Master Investment Opportunity Cost Policy (MIP) goals and objectives as well as m the UPIA on which to base its review. 8

1 Therefore, this report highlights when and m ji!'QQl i... .., . il l s ! l how PPIs diverge from these standards and ? ms l provide recommendations to both the Legislature and executive agencies. The lrDi-7ersific:oH'l' j Investmen't -?--syu?ell{ l report seeks to help the State better connect 9bj?eclives ,' l l both the financial return and public purpose Opportumty Costs l

goals, see Figure ES.2 at right, through r clearer statutes and more efficient and W transparent executive administration. Note: The original graphic can be found on page 29.

Report, Finding and Recommendation Summary

This report advises the Legislature and could consider changing the funding source executive branch administering agencies for for investments where private entities may PPIs on several issues. In Chapter 3, the receive funds and uncertain public benefits report notes that PPIs have generally appear to outweigh financial returns. returned less financial income to the In Chapter 4, LSO found that the current PWMTF than could be expected if the PPI reporting on PPIs to the Legislature is funds were invested in the regular incomplete, inconsistent, and fragmented. diversified portfolio (potential opportunity Since the Legislature designates PPIs cost). Therefore, the Legislature could outside the regular portfolio investment consider modifying how PPI interest rates process, the consistency and thoroughness of are set. LSO also found that as an reporting to the Legislature can be investment gets further away from market- improved. Identifying and reporting on based investing (focused on financial rate of these investments' use, lending, and return) it is more difficult to assess repayment trends as well as potential investment risk. The inability to properly assess Figure ES.3 risk in turn also makes it State {iivestment of Public Funds Continuum difficult to value both N 1 financial returns and public Conventional l Public Private l i l benefits to reveal if the State Focmed on finmdal l Focused on pmvkling Focused mi p*He : ?S being reasonably r€u€rtlS Da!Efil 011 rllarkel l publicbemfilsand- l bentfibthmughdirectly l raIes finmcial returns fir Ihe l and indirectly see i v lending to j compensated; Figure State prIVate entItLeS l I l ES.3, at right. Risk I r1 Mmrket Rate of Return Puhlic Benents Economic Development assessment is most important 11 l 11 JPALoans IDBs l when the ultimate recipient % No Current PP?s l of invested State funds is a Water Projectm Farni Loans l il il l J private, rather than public, ? entity. The Legislature No(c: 'rlic origiiial graphic c;iii bc fi+tiiiil (111 piigc 36 ?if tlic rcpor{. delinquencies and defaults, can be reviewed the 1997 LSO evaluation. The report and acted upon by the Legislature, as recommends possible statutory changes to necessary, in a timely manner. eliminate unused or potentially unnecessary In Chapter s, LSO found that the Office of program authorizations. State Lands and Investments (OSLI) can In total the report contains twelve update several of its administrative recommendations. Five recommendations responsibilities to increase PPI program are for the Legislature to consider and seven efficiencies and transparency. Finally, in are directed toward the PPI administering Chapter 6, LSO identified many PPI agencies. programs that have gone unused, most since

Agency Response

State Treasurer's Offlce (STO) The STO believes all of the different approaches to PPIs are well-intentioned. The STO notes that occasionally PPI effectiveness varies and their prosecution is uneven. The STO believes its role, where given the responsibility and authority, is to bring the discipline embodied in the Uniforrn Prudent Investor Rule to PP?s, tempered by the proposed source of funding and the Legislature's intent. The STO partially agrees that the Legislature consider establishing a consistent or default interest rate for all PPIs and that the Legislature consider removing the statutory requirement for the WBC to formally recommend the interest rate for each IDB application. The STO agrees that the Legislature consider a funding source, other than permanent funds, for the IDB program. The STO also agrees that PPI reporting could be improved and that it should coordinate and compile information for presentation to the Legislature. Finally, the STO suggests that the Legislature review funding needs before repealing the Local Government and School District Bond Guarantee programs. See page STO-l of the report for the full response.

Office of State Lands and Investment (OSLI) The OSLI notes two general themes in the report. First, the agency believes that measuring and delivering a public purpose through the Farm Loan program is achieved through the establishment of the program and the availability of funds. Second, the OSLI takes delinquencies and defaults seriously and resolution of those issues is dictated by not only SLIB rules, but also the terms of the mortgage contracts. The OSLI agrees that it should conduct a review of the Farrn Loan Program rules and that it will report back to the Management Audit Committee in one year to review the status and progress of the EnABLE data system. It also agrees to study, with the WWDO, the potential overlap in services and program administration of small water development and hydro-power development projects. The Agency partially agrees that it should coordinate with the WBC to provide training and guidance to OSLI staff and prospective Beginning Agricultural Producer borrowers regarding adequate and actionable business plans. The Agency is neutral to the recommendations that it should provide a business plan template or require annual or biennial reporting from Beginning Agricultural Producer borrowers. The OSLI states Farm Loan program statutes appear intended to have the SLIB and OSLI operate as a commercial lender where success of the program is judged by repayments on the loaned funds. See page OSLI-l of the report for the full response.

Wyoming Water Development Office (WWDO) The WWDO states that overall, the report fairly describes the permanent fund loans it administers and agrees that it can work with the OSLI to study areas in which both agencies provide services and program administration related to small water development and hydro-power development projects. However, the WWDO does not believe that there is any current duplication of effort between the agencies. In addition, the WWDO is required to prepare a feasibility study for all hydropower projects, but it does not believe that statute requires consultation between the WWDO and the OSLI for hydropower projects. Finally, the WWDO reiterates that the Gillette-Madison project is still under construction and agrees that no interest has accrued on loaned funds, but the pro3ect is still in compliance with financial conditions. See page WWDO-1 of the report for the full response.

Wyoming Business Council (WBC) The WBC partially agrees that the Legislature consider establishing a consistent or default interest rate for all PPIs, but cautions that an interest rate set in statute would be difficult to adjust and could decrease flexibility and responsiveness. The WBC also partially agrees that the Legislature consider removing the statutory requirement for the WBC to recommend interest rates on IDBs. It states that there is no need for the WBC to recommend a rate for IDBs. However, if the program is viewed as an economic development tool, then there is some merit to the WBC reviewing a range of potential rates based on business financial analyses and projections. See page WBC-l of the report for the full WBC response. Recommendation Locator

Chapter Recommendation Page Party Agency Number Number Recommendation Summary Number Addressed Response STO: Paitially The Legislature could consider setting a consistent or default 3 Agree 3.1 interest rate for all PPIs, which correlates with a multi-year 34 Legislature rolling average of the PWMTF yield. WBC: Partially Agree The Legislature could consider extending appropriated funds STO: Agree 3 3.2 or establishing a separate fund for IDBs rather than using the 40 Legislature PWMTF. WBC: Agree The Legislature could consider amending W.S. 9-4-715(n) to 4 4.1 provide for more comprehensive, standardized, and direct 52 Legislature STO: Agree reporting requirements for all PPI programs and projects.

State 4 4.2 The STO should coordinate and compile information noted under Recommendation 4. 1. 53 Treasurer's STO: Agree Office

Office of s The OSLI and the SLIB should conduct a review of Farrn State Lands 5.1 62 OSLI: Agree Loan program rules to address the timing of repayments. and Investments

The OSLI and the SLIB should provide a business plan Office of template for prospective borrowers to follow when applying State Lands s 5.2 63 OSLI: Neutral for a loan under the Beginning Agricultural Producer sub- and program of the Farm Loan program. Investments The OSLI should coordinate with the WBC to provide s 5.3 63 Office of OSLI: Partially training and/or other guidance to both OSLI staff and State Lands Agree Chapter Recommendation Page Party Agency Number Number Recommendation Summary Number Addressed Response and prospective Beginning Agricultural Producer borrowers on WBC: adequate and actionable business plans. Investments Agree

The OSLI should require annual or biennial repotts from Office of s 5.4 State Lands Beginning Agricultural Producer borrowers on their progress 63 OSLI: Neutral toward meeting business plan expectations and goals. and Investments

The OSLI should report back to the Management Audit Office of s 5.5 State Lands Committee in one year to review the status and progress of 63 OSLt: Agree the EnABLE data system. and Investments

Office of OSLI: Agree State Lands The WWDO and the OSLI should study the areas in which and Investments 6 6.1 both agencies provide services and program administration related to small water development and hydro-power 70 and the development projects. Wyoming WWDO: Agree Water Development Office The Legis4ature could consider the following modifications to PPI program statutes as outlined in this chapter: STO: Partially * Revise relevant statutes under Chapter 34 (State Loan and Agree 6 Investment Board), Title 11 (Agriculture, Livestock and 6.2 Other Animals) to change references from "irrigation 71 Legislature loans? to "water development projects" or ?small water projects,? as applicable, in confoimance with the terminology used for the loan program authorized under WBC: Agree W.S. 11-34-301 and 302 and as presented by the OSLI Chapter Recommendation Page Party Agency Number Number Recommendation Summary Number Addressed Response website.

* Revise w.s. 11-34-306 to provide clarification on whether the $10 million hydro-power funding level is intended to be the program-level funding limit, rather than per-project funding limit. * Repeal the statutory authorizations for the following inactive and/or unused programs: o Local Government Bond Guarantee program: W.S. 9- 4-1002 and 9-4-715(h); o School District Bond Guarantee program: W.S. 9-4- 1001 and w.s. 9-4-715(g); o Area Redevelopment program: W.S. 11-34-303; o Deferred Property Tax program: w.s. 9-4-7 l 5(j); o University of Wyoming Advance Payment Contract program: w.s. 21-16-501 through w.s. 21-16-505; o Student Loan Stand-by program: W.S. 21-16-113 (with conforming amendments to w.s. 21-16-714 for the WHEAA); and o Lamb Processing Facility Loan program: w.s. ll-34- 304 and w.s. 11-34-305.

STO: Pattially The Legislature could consider removing the requirement that Agree 6 6.3 the WBC formally recommend the interest rate for IDB 73 Legislature applications. WBC: Partially Agree nolks%%,,4 r?, A'??faa0a???'-'%alai+-?'?-.i: B ?;I 2 =.J ! TM ThQ1A?r- % ?-? E ( s l S L A T U 1< p? j ['-? J TABLE OF CONTENTS

Wyoming Public Purpose Investments

Introduction, Scope, and Methodology...... 1 Chapter 1: The Legislature Directly Invests State Funds ...... 7 Chapter 2: What is a "Public Purpose Investment?" ...... 21 Chapter 3: Investing in PPIs Diverges from the PWMTF Investment Goals and the Prudent Investor Principles ...... 27 Chapter 4: Most PPI Inforrnation Collected and Reported is not Conducive to Meaningful Legislative Oversight of its Designated Investments ...... 41 Chapter s: Adjustments to the OSLI Practices Would Streamline Administration and Contribute to Better PPI Reporting and Program Transparency ...... 55 Chapter 6: Outmoded and Unclear Statutes could be Modified or Repealed for More Efficient PPI Administration...... 65

Agency Responses ...... 75

State Treasurer's Office ...... STO-1

Office of State Lands and Investments ...... OSLI-1

Wyoming Water Development Office ...... WWDO-l Wyoming Business Council ...... WBC-l Appendices (A) Wyoming Constitution and Statutes (selected excerpts) ...... A-l (B) Wyoming Master Investment Policy (selected excerpts) ...... B-l (C) Summary of Wyoming Public Purpose Investment Programs and Projects...... C-1 (D) Other States' Use and Investment of Permanent Funds ...... D-1 (E) LSO Evaluation Opportunity Cost Methodology...... E-l

Wyoming’s Water Development Program Scoping Paper August 7, 2015 Management Audit Committee Senator Bruce Burns, Chairman Representative David Miller, Vice Chairman

Senator Floyd A. Esquibel Senator Wayne Johnson Senator David Kinskey Senator Charles Scott

Representative Cathy Connolly Representative Dan Kirkbride Representative Thomas Lockhart Representative Michael K. Madden Representative Nathan Winters

Prepared by Michael Swank, Program Evaluation Manager Samantha Mills, Associate Program Evaluator Kathy Misener, Associate Program Evaluator

Anthony Sara, Technical Assistance & Graphics

Notice on Auditing Standards: Scoping papers are not an auditing standards-based research product. Scoping papers are intended to provide the Management Audit Committee with a summary on a potential evaluation topic (including descriptions of basic agency, program, or procedural functions) on which to decide if a full program evaluation is required. This scoping paper was prepared with information obtained from the agency(ies) and staff listed. The information was not independently verified according to governmental auditing and evaluation standards.

If this topic moves forward to a full evaluation, the evaluation will be conducted as much as practicable according to generally accepted governmental auditing standards promulgated by the Comptroller General of the United States, as required by W.S. 28-8-107(e). Information contained in this paper, as well as all subsequent information gathered during the evaluation will be independently verified and reported according to the auditing standards. Introduction

Wyomingites see water as one of the State’s most valuable resources. In the last five years, the State has appropriated almost $269 million toward water development administration and projects, about half of which has been expended to date. In January 2015, Governor Mead announced at his State of the State address that he would be prioritizing water as the State’s most precious resource and would release a water strategy (issued January 2015). That strategy, titled Leading the Charge, includes plans for water management, development, conservation, and protection. Such focus on this natural resource will continue to require that the Executive and Legislative branches work cooperatively to efficiently fund and adequately protect Wyoming’s water. In December 2014, the Management Audit Committee (Committee) directed Legislative Service Office (LSO) staff to conduct a scoping topic review of contract processes, funding amounts, funding allocation, commission membership, statute, policies, and procedures of the Wyoming Water Development Commission (and Water Development Office). LSO staff preliminarily reviewed the assigned areas to determine if the Committee could benefit from a full evaluation. Background Beginning of State Water Development Program Started in 1975 In 1975, the Legislature passed the Water Development Program Act. The Act established a water development program to “foster, promote, and encourage the optimum development of the State’s human, industrial, mineral, agricultural, water and recreational resources.” Prior to passage of the Act, the Legislature authorized water projects in separate bills, which did not allow for public hearings or evaluation in the same way projects are evaluated today. In 1977, the Legislature provided for an excise tax of 1.5% on coal to fund the New Development Program. Two years later (1979) the Legislature reorganized the Water Planning Program of the State Engineers Office and the Interdepartmental Water Conference (IDWC) into a single agency: The Wyoming Water Development Commission (WWDC or Commission). In 1982, Governor Herschler and the Legislature established the Water Development Program to focus water development funds on conducting river basin studies, designing and building new storage facilities, and rehabilitation of older facilities. In addition, that law also created the permanent Select Water Committee of the Legislature. The Wyoming Water Development Office Established in 1991 During the statewide reorganization in 1991, the WWDC staff was formed into a separate office known as the Wyoming Water Development Office (WWDO). The WWDO currently consists of 26 employees with the FY2015/2016 biennial budget of $8 million. This amount is appropriated

1 from the Water Development Account I (WDA I), as the agency does not directly receive State General Funds or federal funds for program administration.1 Currently two annual bills, one for planning and the other for construction, consolidate proposed water development projects for the Legislature to consider. The planning and construction bills are considered separately, outside of the agency’s administrative budget requests and appropriations. The Legislature must appropriate and approve any expenditure of funds from the Water Development Accounts. Further, there are obligated and unobligated funds within each legislative appropriation. For the purposes of this scoping paper, obligated funds are those for which contracts have been executed, while the remaining appropriated funds are unobligated (not officially committed for expenditure). While the WWDC is the primary body responsible for overseeing the water development program, the WWDC and WWDO also regularly interact with other related entities. These entities include the State Engineer’s Office, the Department of Environmental Quality, the Office of State Lands and Investments (OSLI), the Department of Agriculture, Wildlife and Natural Resource Trust, and the Department of Game and Fish. Each agency is also involved with environmental or agricultural projects that require water use. LSO Evaluated the Water Development Program in 1994 In 1994, LSO conducted an evaluation of the WWDO. At the time of the evaluation, there were two primary components within the water development program: project development, and water development planning. The WWDC was also responsible for duties associated with instream flow, groundwater grant research and water investments. In 2005, the Legislature established a third component for the construction and rehabilitation of dams and reservoirs. The 1994 report provided five findings. They were:  Finding one: Wyoming’s water development program is shifting its funding emphasis to meet municipal needs.  Finding two: The WWDC was operated effectively within a broad statutory framework.  Finding three: The Legislature is using WDA I for purposes not directly related to water development projects.  Finding four: Weak subdivision laws allow land developers to shift the cost of water systems to the WWDC.

1 The Legislature has appropriated State General Funds into Water Development Account I, which was used for agency administration.

2  Finding five: Western states share similar concerns regarding future water policy. The evaluation report contained two recommendations. The first recommendation suggested that the Legislature consider re-evaluating the intent of the Water Development Program, providing policy considerations as well as financing alternatives, such as bonding and using the PWMTF as a source of loans for water projects. The second recommendation suggested that the Legislature consider enacting stronger subdivision laws to more proactively account for water systems with subdivision and community development. Water Development Program Governance and Project Approval Commission Composition The WWDC consists of ten people, appointed by the Governor, and under the following statutory requirements:  Two commissioners from each water division of the State;  At least one with an adjudicated water right;  One commissioner representing the public at large; and  One commissioner who is an enrolled member of the Arapahoe or Shoshone Indian tribes. No more than five members may be from the same political party and terms are limited to four years with no member serving more than two consecutive terms. In addition to the voting members, the University, the Wyoming Business Council, and the State Engineer are non-voting members of the Commission. Wyoming law requires that a commissioner publically disclose if he or she has a personal or private interest in any matter proposed or pending before the Commission. The commissioner cannot vote on any such matter pursuant to W.S. 41-2-121. In addition, within 60 days following an appointment, and annually before January 1st, each commissioner is required to file written disclosures with the Secretary of State’s Office relative to all interests held by the commissioner, or his or her spouse. Disclosures must list any interest as part of a partnership or corporation. Those declarations must include any water rights, permits or applications held, and any interest in engineering or construction firms that will be charged with implementing water projects. According to the WWDO, each new commissioner is provided a copy of the, Protocol and procedures – Wyoming Water Development Commission. The manual specifically states, “Commission members also must be mindful of conflicts of interest or the potential for bias. If a Commission member feels he or she is faced with a conflict of interest, or feels there may be bias in their decision-making ability, Commission

3 member should recuse him or herself.” While it is currently unclear if the commissioners file their disclosures with the Secretary of State, ten commissioners have recused themselves based on personal conflict within the last five years. Project Approval Process Several entities are involved with the oversight of the Water Development Program. Figure 1, below, illustrates the general approval process for projects. Figure 1 Water Development Program Approval Process

WWDO WWDC & Select Water WWDC Receives applications and November Joint Meeting- Develops Preliminary makes funding Project sponsors respond to Funding Recommendation recommendations WWDO recommendations -New project due 8/15 -Existing project due 10/1

Public Hearings Governor WWDO & LSO Controversial Level I and Preliminary Funding Draft preliminary "Omnibus" Level II and all Level III Recommendation and Planning and Construction (see following sections for financial report presented to bills. level descriptions) the Governor for input

WWDC Select Water Committee Legislature December or January meeting Prior to session, votes to During Session, authorizes the to make final sponsor, or not, the proposed allocation of funds from the recommendations. Considers "Omnibus" Planning and water develeopment accounts input from sponsors and Construction bills to projects. public input

Source: Legislative Service Office analysis of Water Development Program documents. The WWDO administers the Water Development Program under WWDC- approved criteria titled The Operating Criteria of the Wyoming Development Program. This manual provides the program philosophy, statutorily based policy, and procedures for how water projects are evaluated and funded. According to the criteria, “[t]he Water Development program was founded on the philosophy of utilizing a portion of the financial resources the state receives from the development and use of it non-renewable resources, such as coal, oil, and gas to develop a renewable resource, water.” The WWDO does not use score sheets or rating systems when recommending projects to the WWDC. The WWDO staff rely on professional expertise and judgement when recommending

4 projects for approval. Table 1, below, summarizes the projects that are and are not considered within the Water Development Program. Table 1 Water Development Program Projects Projects Considered by the WWDC Projects Not considered by the WWDC • Multipurpose; • Refinancing previously completed • Storage projects; improvements; • Irrigation and municipal water supply • Wastewater projects; projects; • Recreation; • Irrigation and municipal water supply • Environmental enhancement; systems; • Flood control; • Rural domestic projects; • Rehabilitation of hydropower projects; • Rural domestic projects with independent • Erosion control; water supplies; • Distribution systems; • Hydropower projects; • Water Treatment Facilities; and, • Purchase of existing storage; and, • Subdivisions. • Municipal and rural domestic raw water projects. Source: Legislative Service Office summary of Wyoming Water Development Commission operating criteria. Statutes regarding the Water Development Program are broad in nature; W.S. 41-2-112 states that the program: “shall encourage development of water facilities for irrigation, for reduction of flood damage, for abatement of pollution, for preservation and development of fish and wildlife resources and for protection and improvement of public lands and shall help make available the waters of this state for all beneficial uses, including but not limited to municipal, domestic, agricultural, industrial, instream flows, hydroelectric power and recreational purposes, conservation of land resources and protection of the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the state of Wyoming.” The WWDC’s promulgation of operating procedures and criteria for recommending, prioritizing, and disqualifying projects are specifically exempt from the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act (W.S. 16-3-114 and 16-3-115), including provisions for judicial review. Level I (Reconnaissance) and Level II (Feasibility) By statute, the WWDC/O classifies project proposals according to three “levels:” Level I projects include planning studies and reconnaissance; Level II projects cover feasibility studies; and Level III is the design and construction phase for projects. Any municipality, irrigation district, joint powers board, or other approved assessment district can apply for funding from Water Development Program. With few exceptions, all Level I and II applicants must be a government entity with taxing and/or assessment authority except

5 applicants for dams and reservoirs. Once an application has been In the most recently approved, the applicants are known as project “sponsors.” Private approved projects (2015 corporations and individuals are not eligible for assistance, but see the SEA69), the Legislature summary at left for recent WWDC concerns. approved a Level I For all three levels, each application requests information about the project for a master plan purpose of the project, about the existing water supply system, financial with a private Property information, and information about the district or water systems Owners Association operations. The WWDC requests rural domestic water system applicants (POA) in Lincoln to provide additional information on the entity status, including whether County. The POA the entity is an approved subdivision(s) or un-platted development and requested the study to whether a local government, such as a water district, exists. identify parts of the Level III (Construction) existing water system The program sponsors for Level III applications must be an entity of local that are deficient and to government with taxing and/or assessment authority. The requested provide a schedule for information in the Level III applications is separated into the following improvements. The three categories: plan will also identify  Financial Plan — Requested amount of funding; the steps needed for the  Existing Water Supply System — Details about existing system; and, POA to become a public entity. The WWDC  Financial Information — Details about system capacity, water usage, financing, and pre- and post-project financial conditions. selected consultants for this project in May W.S. 41-2-114(a)(ii) requires public hearings for Level III projects. 2015, with several According to WWDO staff, hearings are held after the Commission makes its preliminary recommendation at their November meeting. The WWDO commissioners voting advertises the hearings in the Casper Star Tribune newspaper and the local against selection given newspaper within the project area at least three consecutive weeks prior to that the applicant was the hearing. The intent is for the Commission and Select Water not a public entity. Committee to provide an additional opportunity for public comment to consider in the final decision-making process regarding design, permitting, and construction funding. Other Projects/Programs In addition to the three levels listed above for the primary water development program, statute also authorizes the Commission to provide groundwater exploration grants and funding for small water projects. Groundwater exploration grants are limited to $400,000 maximum per project. The sponsor is required to provide 25% of the cost, as well as anything that exceeds the $400,000 project cap. The WWDC also has a role in the authorization of small water projects. For the WWDC to consider a project under this program the total project cost cannot exceed $135,000. Statute caps the Commission’s contributions at $35,000. In order for projects to be prioritized under the Small Water Project Program there must be a Water Development Commission Watershed Study completed where proposed projects are

6 located. In addition, the project must improve watershed condition and function, provide multiple benefits, and meet program criteria. Once the WWDC, the Select Water Committee, and the Legislature approve a project, the WWDO utilizes a formal process for tracking projects from start to finish. Once a project is complete, the WWDO states that it does not experience problems in management and maintenance of projects built through its agency. According to WWDO staff, “[o]ur project agreements require the sponsor to maintain repair and maintenance accounts and require the sponsor to provide for normal maintenance for the life of the project. The project agreements also stipulate that the sponsor is responsible for all operational costs associated with the project.” Program Funding Water Development Accounts Three separate distributions from the Severance Tax Distribution Account fund the Water Development Program. Water Development Accounts (WDA) I, II and III accounts, created under W.S. 41-2-124, receive the distributions. This statute also requires some of that funding to go to the State Drinking Water Revolving Loan Account established under W.S. 16- 1-302, which assists with state matching requirements for the program administered through the OSLI. Statute (W.S. 41-2-124) requires the State Treasurer to invest unexpended WDA balances and credit any interest earned to each respective account. The earned interest provides a large portion of revenue used in funding additional projects. Statute also limits the size and capacity of dams built with WDA III funds and prohibits the diversion of funds in this account without legislative approval. There are annual limitations on the deposits from severance taxes. The annual limitations and account uses are listed in Table 2, below. Table 2 Annual limitations on Severance Tax Distributions by Account Percent of Severance Fund Purpose Annual Cap Tax Collections WDA I New Developments 12.45% $19,297,500 WDA II Rehabilitation 2.1% $3,255,000 WDA III Dam and Reservoir 0.5% $775,000 Source: Legislative Service Office summary. The severance tax distribution appears to be the baseline operation funding source for the Commission and WWDO. However, there are additional revenue sources provided to each account. Past revenue sources have included General Fund appropriations, Budget Reserve Account appropriations, coal lease bonus revenue, and interest from previous loans.

7 The WWDO and Commission consider the additional revenue sources when planning their request for funding. While the type of project (new, rehabilitation or dam/reservoir) determines the funding source, each project, from beginning to end, has the potential to go through every level of project development (planning, feasibility, and construction). WDA Revenues As illustrated in Figure 2, below, revenues from the severance tax have been consistent. WDA I receives continual revenue from severance taxes and total funding per fiscal year ranges between $26 million for FY2014 and $33 million in FY2011. Over half the revenue for WDA I is provided through the severance tax distribution each year.

Figure 2 WDA I Revenue by FY (FY2009-FY2014)

$35

$30 Millions $25

$20

$15

$10

$5

$0 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 Revenue $30,021,792 $31,720,640 $33,092,206 $27,759,976 $32,378,825 $26,205,360

Source: Legislative Service Office analysis of WWDC Legislative Reports. Shown in Figure 3, below, interest earned on the WDA I provides roughly 17% of the total revenue for the account for FY 14. The amount of investment income varies from year-to-year and depends on the amount of funds expended in any given year. According to the WWDO, WDA I is adequately funded for both short and long-term anticipated needs for the New Development Program.

8 Figure 3 WDA I Revenues by Source FY 2014

17%

9% Taxes Interest Loans/Interest 74%

Source: Legislative Service Office analysis of WWDC Legislative Reports. Figure 4 WDA II Revenue by FY (FY2009-FY2014)

$10 $9

$8 Millions $7 $6 $5 $4 $3 $2 $1 $0 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 Revenue $8,658,644 $7,414,935 $7,823,385 $8,650,432 $7,168,103 $6,174,124

Source: Legislative Service Office analysis of WWDC Legislative Reports. For WDA II, Figure 5, below, indicates severance taxes make up just over half of the total revenue for the account. Interest dipped more in FY2014 than in other years, but revenue from loans and interest payments remains fairly consistent. Total revenue for WDA II ranged between $6 million in FY2014 and $8.6 million in FY2009 and FY2012.

9 Figure 5 WDA II Revenue by Source FY 2014

Taxes 41% Interest 53% Loans/Interest Other

6%

Source: Legislative Service Office analysis of WWDC Legislative Reports. According to the WWDO, the WDA II is not adequately funded for short or long-term rehabilitation project needs. The WWDO is anticipating large rehabilitation projects for FY2016 that, coupled with smaller rehabilitation projects, will exceed available funding for projects funded from this account. According to WWDO staff, without additional revenue, future projects will be delayed due to insufficient funding.

Source: Legislative Service Office analysis of WWDC Legislative Reports.

10 WDA III receives $775,000 yearly from severance taxes. WDA III is unique in that intrest earned from the account appears to be the primary source of income, which may become a problem should an increase in projects and spending occur. However, that issue could be offset by the return of loan interest.

Figure 7 WDA III Revenue by Source FY 2014

20%

Taxes Interest

80%

Source: Legislative Service Office analysis of WWDC Legislative Reports. WDA Expenditures As shown in Tables 3-5, below, expenditures out of each account vary from year-to-year. Since FY2009, WDA I expenditures ranged from just over $24 million to over $37 million. The uncommitted balance is the amount available in each account after active appropriations and other obligations are satisfied; a negative uncommitted balance may result in an additional budget request. As noted earlier, that WDA I receives about 10% more of the severance tax distribution annually than WDA II. Table 3 WDA I Historical Expenditures and Balances, FY2009-FY2014 Fiscal WDA I Active WDA I Cash Uncommitted Year Expenditures appropriations Balance Balance FY2009 $30,334,437 $133,349,706 $119,533,795 ($13,815,911) FY2010 $37,491,677 $128,768,565 $110,762,758 ($18,005,807) FY2011 $36,807,850 $116,518,061 $107,047,114 ($9,470,947) FY2012 $30,717,201 $112,017,589 $104,089,889 ($7,927,700) FY2013 $24,594,251 $112,913,515 $111,874,463 ($1,039,052) FY2014 $36,491,351 $95,739,277 $107,438,227 $11,698,950 Source: Wyoming Water Development Commission Annual Legislative Reports.

11

Table 4 WDA II Historical Expenditures and Balances, FY2009-FY2014 Fiscal WDA II Active WDA II Cash Uncommitted Year Expenditures Appropriations Balance Balance FY2009 $7,576,780 $45,043,553 $44,265,824 ($777,729) FY2010 $11,432,901 $39,355,081 $40,247,858 $892,777 FY2011 $11,505,034 $40,062,282 $36,566,209 ($3,496,073) FY2012 $19,509,374 $28,188,027 $25,707,267 ($2,480,760) FY2013 $8,653,694 $24,479,613 $24,221,675 ($257,938) FY2014 $9,408,566 $23,094,670 $18,805,540 ($4,289,130) Source: Wyoming Water Development Commission Annual Legislative Reports. Table 5 WDA III Historical Expenditures and Balance, FY2009-FY2014 WDA III Active WDA III Cash Uncommitted Fiscal Year Expenditures Appropriations Balance Balance FY2009 $825,514 $11,183,710 $131,374,903 $120,191,193 FY2010 $1,268,566 $27,362,380 $135,752,193 $108,389,813 FY2011 $2,950,723 $25,961,892 $143,064,945 $117,103,053 FY2012 $5,197,679 $22,187,893 $127,621,986 $105,434,093 FY2013 $2,018,217 $28,241,677 $150,279,730 $122,038,053 FY2014 $1,265,091 $26,201,291 $153,131,207 $126,929,916 Source: Wyoming Water Development Commission Annual Legislative Reports. As noted previously, the rehabilitation project fund WDA II, has increased funding needs. WDA II receives 2.1% of the severance tax distribution and has a negative uncommitted balance. Water Development Account III maintains consistent cash balances. However, the cash balance is due to what WWDO staff say are the federal requirements and timeframes that go hand-in-hand with dam and reservoir projects. Should the federal government approve all permits for projects, the State would see a significant decrease to the account balance. Project Financing Fiscal staff at the WWDO maintain an Excel spreadsheet to track appropriations and expenditures for the water accounts and water projects at a broad level. Fiscal staff link the Project Report spreadsheet to other spreadsheets maintained and consistently updated by the respective project manager. The Commission can fund Level I and II projects up to 100%. The Commission typically funds Level III projects through a 67% grant, and 33% loan option with an interest rate of 4% for up to 50 years. Sometimes communities will pay for their 33% loan share through other means (grant from another agency, sponsor reserves, or loan from another agency). Even if approved by the Legislature, the WWDO cannot move

12 forward on a project until it secures the entire financial package. The criteria for evaluating loan applications is the same as the project grants with the additional review of the sponsor’s ability to cover debt service costs. Each project appropriation has a reversion date assigned, which is typically July 1st of the fifth year after the appropriation date (not construction date or project approval date). If the sponsor has not secured its 33% cost share by that date, the funds revert and the WWDC cancels the project. In some cases, the WWDO may ask the WWDC to revert funds before the five-year period has elapsed due to insufficient progress by the sponsor to secure the sponsor’s share. The WWDC may also request the Legislature to extend reversion dates. The WWDC has not cancelled any projects in the last five years due to the sponsor not securing its share of project funding. However, according to the WWDO, a few sponsors are still attempting to secure financing prior to their projects moving forward. Those projects include:  2013 Cottonwood Lake Enlargement in Lincoln County -The local share is in the form of a $1,221,000 WWDC loan. The sponsor has not exercised the loan because they consider that amount of debt load too much for their small district.  2013 Jeffery City Water System Improvements in Fremont County – The sponsor pursued Mineral Royalty Grant financing thru OSLI. The sponsor was declared ineligible for the MRG program because it failed to maintain their property tax mill levy the previous year.  2013 Eden Valley Farson Lateral Rehabilitation in Sweetwater County – The sponsor pursued its share of funding from the Basin Wide Salinity Control Program. In 2013, these funds were retracted due to federal budget sequestration. Consultant Selection The WWDC consultant selection process most recently occurred between January and May 2015. The WWDC retains consultants for purposes of conducting Level I and Level II studies. For Level III projects, the project sponsors seeking to construct a facility secure their own contractor through the selection and review process discussed below. The selection process for the WWDC follows W.S 9-2-1030 and W.S 9-2-1031. These statutes provide that “consideration in each selection process by the principal representative shall be based upon the ability of professional personnel, past performance, willingness to meet time requirements, location, residency, current and projected workloads, the volume of work previously awarded to the firm by the agency, and the equitable distribution of contracts among qualified firms.” Figure 8, below, provides a general illustration of the consultant selection and review process.

13 Figure 8 Consultant Section Process

The WWDO releases a Statements of professional services Qualification (SOQ) and WWDC Project announcement calling Statement of Interest Managers review the for request for (SOI) are required by the SOQ's and SOI's qualifications announcement

Interviews by teams Applicants are ranked made up of WWDO, Request for Proposals and chosen for WWDC and the Project interview Sponsor

Contracts awarded by WWDC

Source: Legislative Service Office analysis of WWDO documents and observation of selection process. For Level III projects, the sponsor has three options in hiring a consulting firm. First, with the approval of the Agency Director, the sponsor can hire the consulting firm that completed the Level I/II study, provided they are a Wyoming resident firm. Second, the sponsor can follow the State Project consultant selection process. Or, third, the sponsor can submit a consultant selection plan to the Governor’s Office. Contract Amendments The WWDO considers all contract amendments for consultants. When determined by the WWDO to be appropriate, the director presents the contract amendments to the Commission for approval at one of its regularly scheduled meetings. According to WWDO staff, a common reason for amendments occurs when unforeseeable project conditions dictate a change in scope, which may also include an increase or decrease in the contract amount. The length of reservoir projects also creates the need for contract amendments. Since these projects can occur over many years, additional tasks and budget are added as milestones are achieved and the project advances. According to WWDO staff, the additional tasks often warrant increased rates over time.

14 Recent Legislation and the State Water Strategy During the most recent session, the Legislature cut the WWDC supplemental budget request of $18.6 million in half, and provided alternative funding from the Buffalo Bill Account. However, WWDO staff explained that in effect, this supplemental request took funds eligible for WDA I projects and moved them to WDA II. Additionally, seven projects within the construction bill were contingent upon the supplemental request. WWDO staff explained that with available appropriations for ongoing and expected projects, WDA II is in a deficit of $1.6 million dollars. The WWDO professional and expert staff use their judgment to evaluate projects before, during, and after Levels I and II. When determining if a project is ‘ready’ to progress to the construction phase, the WWDO uses the initial review and analysis of a project application. Contributing questions and considerations include:  Is the feasibility study (Level II report) for the project complete?  Does the sponsor have adequate financial resources to fund their local share?  If the sponsor plans to fund their local share with a loan, are they prepared to increase rates to cover debt service costs? If the WWDO determines that a project is not ready, then the Director recommends against funding a project. To resolve the current issue with the smaller supplemental budget, WWDO staff advised the Commission to postpone one of three projects to satisfy that $1.6 million deficit. However, commissioners expressed concern with how the Commission will ensure future funding, as the WWDO director stated that, “WDA II is in distress.” He also noted that the severance tax would not fund the level of projects that the WWDC has planned. Commissioners and Select Water Committee members discussed a possible need for prioritization of applications. There was also discussion of a possible waitlist to keep projects in the pipeline so that the Commission can maintain funding for projects in the event that the Commission does not receive more funding. One commissioner noted, “we need a plan.” Both the Commission and Select Committee members agreed to further the discussion on project prioritization at a later meeting. Without additional funding, Governor Mead’s recently released water strategy may further strain the water development accounts. While the WWDC believes that statute grants the WWDC authority to implement the Wyoming Water Strategy initiatives, the Legislature has not authorized additional funding. One initiative recommends building ten reservoir projects in the next ten years. Currently the WDA III, from which these projects would be funded, only has enough funding to complete four or five reservoirs.

15 Current Issues Moving funds between projects According to the WWDO, moving funding between projects is rare and only occurs with Level I and II projects that have been previously approved through the Omnibus Planning bill; the WWDO does not have the authority to move funding between construction projects. The WWDO moves funding between planning projects per the following language in the yearly planning bill, and only with approval of the Select Water Committee. “Funds appropriated under this section for a particular project which are in excess of the actual amount necessary to complete the study may, subject to the review of the select water committee, be expended by the commission to complete the reconnaissance/ feasibility study for any other project listed in this section.” In addition, W.S. 41-2-123(e), permits the use of unobligated Level I funds to begin a Level II project if specific requirements are met, and again, only upon approval of the Select Water Committee. Movement of funds between Water Development Accounts The WWDO does not have the authority to move funding between WDA I, II, and III. W.S. 41-2-124 requires approval of the Legislature for appropriations from the water development accounts. The Operating Criteria of the Wyoming Water Development Program manual also reiterates this prohibition. However, the WWDC may move excess funds to meet the obligations of the Fontenelle, Buffalo Bill, Palisades, Miscellaneous, Keyhole Reservoir, and High Savery accounts to WDA I. In addition, W.S. 99-99-1001(e) allows the WWDC to use funds in excess of $500,000 or the amount necessary to meet the obligations of the Buffalo Bill dam project, whichever is greater, to meet the obligations for any of the accounts in W.S. 99-99-1001(a) (reservoir accounts noted above). Moving funds from the Buffalo Bill dam account to another account established by W.S. 99-99-1001 requires the use of the “B-11” interim appropriation modification process. Amending Consultant Contracts When LSO observed the WWDC meetings, some commissioners expressed concern regarding the rate increase for existing contracts. However, WWDO staff explained that when the Commission hires a consultant at the beginning of a project (Level I and II) there is a set amount of work in their contract. Reservoir projects tend to have numerous amendments because the WWDO tries to keep the same consultant for the entire project. After four years, the hired consultant has a wealth of information on a project, but as the WWDO adds additional duties to the scope of a project, prices rise.

16 The WWDC cannot expend any funding until projects are approved by the Select Water Committee and funds are appropriated by the Legislature through the Omnibus bills. Therefore, it is unlikely that any increase to a contract would exceed the approved project costs. In addition, Commission members expressed that rates for consultants should be consistent with the market and staff should ensure they review market pay when bringing contract amendments before the Commission. At the May 2015 Commission meeting, one commissioner made a formal motion to ensure that contract amendments are carefully considered and not automatically approved. That motion passed unanimously. WWDC-Governor-Legislature Relationship When asked about the relationship between the WWDC and the Select Water Committee, WWDO staff explained that while there may be differences of opinion between individuals that serve on the Commission and the Select Water Committee, those differences have not manifested in formal commission actions objecting to Select Water Committee or the Legislature’s actions. WWDO officials explained that while the WWDC serves an advisory role to the Select Water Committee and ultimately, the Legislature, they have requested in the past that the WWDO Director arrange a meeting between the WWDC Chairperson and the Select Water Committee Chairman to further communications related to issues on which the two entities have not entirely agreed. When asked about the relationship between the WWDC and the Governor, WWDO staff stated that the Governor reviews the WWDO Director’s project recommendations in the same period that the WWDC reviews the projects. To date, the WWDO is not aware of any disagreements between the WWDC and the Governor. Likewise, the WWDO is not aware of any projects vetoed by the Governor. The WWDC and the WWDO Loan Denials Based on recent funding issues and some projects’ circumstances, the WWDC has made an administrative choice to deny the loan portion for some projects. The WWDO has directed municipalities to the OSLI and State Loan and Investment Board for State Revolving Fund programs (Drinking Water and Clean Water programs). The WWDO implemented this practice to benefit the State and the OSLI in getting federal dollars expended with the understanding that if unused, the federal government may pull some funding from Wyoming’s programs. Possible Evaluation Questions Should the Management Audit Committee wish to move forward with a full evaluation, possible research questions could include: 1. Are current revenue allocations to the three Water Development Accounts adequate to meet current community/project demand? If not, how could revenue allocations be altered to these accounts?

17 2. How does the WWDC determine the types of projects it will fund and what may be the impact on the timing and amount of funding requests to the Legislature? a. Are projects approved prior to being fully ready to advance? 3. Is funding of Level I studies for private entities within the authority of the Water Development Program? 4. How do WWDC and WWDO authorizing statutes contribute to or hinder program administration and oversight? 5. How does the current governance structure (Governor-Commission- Select Water Committee) function and is this structure conducive to efficient and effective program oversight?

18 Matthew H. Mead Governor WYOMING WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Commissioners Nick Bettas Sheridan Little 6920 Yellowtail Road, Cheyenne, WY 82002 Travis C. Brockie, I William Resor Karen Budd-Falen Jeanette Sekan Phone: (307) 777-7626 Floyd Canfield Rodney Wagner Fax: (307) 777-6819 David Evans Todd Werbelow http://wwdc.state.wy.us

Harry C. LaBonde, Jr., P.E. Director

8:00 am Depart – Comfort Inn, 100 North Road 11, Worland, WY for Leavitt Reservoir

9:30 am Arrive – Leavitt Reservoir – Discussion by Shell Valley WID Chair, John Ed Anderson and Victor Anderson, WENCK (Facilities will be available)

10:00 am Depart – Leavitt Reservoir to proposed Alkali Creek Reservoir site

11:45 am Arrive – Alkali Creek Reservoir site – Discussion by Nowood River WSID, John Joyce and Mark Donner, Trihydro

12:30 pm Depart – Alkali Creek Reservoir to Medicine Lodge State Park for Lunch

12:50 pm Arrive Medicine Lodge State Park

LUNCH @ Medicine Lodge State Park – Facilities available

2:00 pm Depart – Medicine Lodge State Park to Lower Nowood I&S District area

2:45 pm Arrive – Lower Nowood area – Brief discussion by Bill Brewer; WWDO Project Manager

3:15 pm Depart – Lower Nowood area to South Circle Estates I&S District area

3:45 pm Arrive – South Circle Estates – Discussion by Bill Brewer; WWDO Project Manager

4:00 pm Depart – South Circle Estates to Ten Sleep for facility break

4:20 pm Depart for Meadowlark Lake (time permitting)

5:00 pm Arrive Meadowlark Lake – Discussion by Jason Mead, Dams & Reservoir, WWDO

5:30 pm Depart Meadowlark Lake toward Ten Sleep for dinner

6:10 pm Arrive Ten Sleep Saloon for Dinner

DINNER 6:10 pm to 7:30 pm

7:30 pm Depart Ten Sleep toward Worland

8:00 pm Arrive – Comfort Inn, Worland, WY

Wyoming Water Development Commission & Select Water Committee Cheyenne, Wyoming June 4, 2015

1. Chairman Floyd Canfield called the meeting to order at 8:32 a.m.

2. Secretary Nick Bettas called the roll of commissioners:

Commission Attendance: Floyd Canfield, Chairman Sheridan Little, Vice-Chairman Nick Bettas, Secretary Jeanette Sekan Travis Brockie Rodney Wagner Todd Werbelow David Evans Bill Resor (via phone) Karen Budd-Falen (via phone)

Advisors in Attendance: Abigail Boudewyns, Attorney General’s Office Greg Kerr, University of Wyoming, Office of Water Programs

Select Water Committee Attendance: Senator Gerald Geis Senator Stan Cooper Senator Ogden Driskill Senator John Hastert Senator Curt Meier (via phone) Representative Robert McKim Representative Stan Blake Representative John Eklund Representative Hans Hunt

3. Approval of Agenda Rod Wagner made a motion to approve the June 4, 2015 agenda. Sheridan Little seconded the motion, the motion carried unanimously.

Wyoming Water Development Commission Minutes June 4, 2015 Page 1

4. Approval of Minutes Todd Werbelow made a motion to approve the May 8, 2015 minutes; seconded by Jeanette Sekan. The motion carried unanimously.

Jeanette Sekan made a motion to approve the May 8, 2015 Executive Session minutes; seconded by Sheridan Little. The motion carried unanimously.

5. Audience Introductions

6. Planning Amendments Eden Valley (Farson) Master Plan, Level II Study, Amendment No. 1 An interim amendment to the engineering contract with JFC Engineers & Surveyors was presented. The amendment serves to extend the Contract expiration date from June 30, 2015 to December 31, 2015. The Contract amount is not changed by this Amendment. An explanatory memo from the project manager was also provided outlining the cause and need of a contract extension.

Karen Budd-Falen made a motion to approve the amendment, seconded by Jeanette Sekan. The motion carried unanimously.

Interstate Canal and Reservoir, Level I, Final Amendment A final amendment to the engineering contract with Hansen, Allen & Luce, Inc., was presented. The amendment serves to document the WWDC acceptance of the final report, to document the actual cost of each task, and to document the final Contract amount of $157,177.03, a reduction of $5,991.74. Discussion followed.

Todd Werbelow made a motion to approve the final amendment, seconded by Rod Wagner. The motion carried unanimously.

7. Discussion between the WWDC and SWC regarding SWC amendments to the Omnibus Planning and Construction Bills Director LaBonde presented and read the two special conditions in the 2015 Omnibus Water Bill – Construction pertaining to the Weather Modification project and the Midvale Bull Lake Rehabilitation project. In order for the projects to proceed, Director LaBonde presented the following two motions for Commission consideration:

1. Weather Modification Project: I move the Water Development Commission approve the “Weather Modification Big Horn, Laramie, Medicine Bow and Sierra Madre Mountains – 2016” Project contract with the following enhancements: a) Use of a radiometer in the Big Horn and Laramie Ranges for the identification of supercooled liquid water over the target areas; Wyoming Water Development Commission Minutes June 4, 2015 Page 2

b) Determination of a climatology tailored for operational seeding in the Medicine Bow and Sierra Madre Ranges; and c) Completion of a model-based evaluation of the Wyoming Weather Modification Pilot Program Randomized Statistical Experiment. 2. Midvale Bull Lake Rehabilitation: I move the Water Development Commission approve the “Midvale Bull Lake Rehabilitation 2015” project contract with the following enhancements: a. The WWDO staff shall inform the Bureau of Reclamation of the pending WWDC “Big Wind River Storage Study” and the possibility that the WWDC may pursue an enlargement of Bull Lake dam in the near future; and b. The WWDO staff shall coordinate with the Bureau of Reclamation regarding interim dam safety measures that may be required should the spillway rehabilitation project be placed on hold while a reservoir enlargement project is pursued.

Todd Werbelow made a motion to accept the proposed motions as read. Nick Bettas seconded. Discussion followed, the motion carried unanimously.

8. New Planning Contracts  Bear River Watershed Study, Level I An engineering contract with Sunrise Engineering, Inc., of Afton, Wyoming was presented. The budget is $ 365,795.00.

 Broken Wheel Ranch Master Plan, Level I An engineering contract with Sunrise Engineering, Inc., of Afton, Wyoming was presented. The budget is $97,400.00.

 Byron Master Plan, Level I An engineering contract with TREC, Inc., of Casper, Wyoming was presented. The budget is $128,990.00

 Centennial Well and Master Plan, Level I An engineering contract with Camp Creek Engineering, Inc., of Laramie, Wyoming was presented. The budget is $ 174,000.00

 Clearmont Test Well Study, Level II An engineering contract with Weston Engineering, Inc., of Upton, Wyoming was presented. The budget is $ 567,400.00.

Wyoming Water Development Commission Minutes June 4, 2015 Page 3

 Cowley Master Plan, Level I An engineering contract with Morrison-Maierle, Inc., of Cody, Wyoming was presented. The budget is $133,000.00.

 Deaver Irrigation District Master Plan Update, Level I An engineering contract with Sage Civil Engineering of Cody, Wyoming was presented. The budget is $155,000.00

 Dry Creek Irrigation District Master Plan, Level II An engineering contract with Forsgren Associates, Inc., of Evanston, Wyoming was presented. The budget is $143,400.00.

 Green River, Rock Spring, Sweetwater County Joint Powers Water Board Pipeline Feasibility Study, Level II An engineering contract with Hansen, Allen & Luce, Inc., of Midvale, Utah was presented. The budget is $122,030.00.

 Greybull Valley Irrigation District Storage Enlargement, Level II An engineering contract with AECOM Technical Services, Inc., of Denver, Colorado was presented. The budget is $298,000.00

 Heart Mountain Canal Rehabilitation, Level II An engineering contract with Engineering Associates of Cody, Wyoming was presented. The budget is $90,000.00

 High Meadow Ranch, Level II An engineering contract with Jorgensen Associates, P.C., of Jackson, Wyoming was presented. The budget is $ 490,000.00.

 Instream Flow Hydrologic Study, Big Horn Mountains, Level I An engineering contract with Arrow Land and Water, LLC, of Big Piney, Wyoming was presented. The budget is $73,950.00

 LeClair Irrigation District Master Plan, Level I An engineering contract with HDR Engineering, Inc., of Gillette, Wyoming was presented. The budget is $172,960.00.

 Meeks Cabin Dam Enlargement, Level II An engineering contract with Trihydro Corporation of Laramie, Wyoming was presented. The budget is $293,500.00.

Wyoming Water Development Commission Minutes June 4, 2015 Page 4

 Middle North Platte – Glendo Watershed Study, Level I An engineering contract with RESPEC, Inc., of Cheyenne, Wyoming was presented. The budget is $368,900.00.

 New Fork Lake Dam Enlargement, Level II An engineering contract with RJH Consultants, Inc., of Englewood, Colorado was presented. The budget is $296,000.00.

 Newcastle Madison Well, Level II An engineering contract with Wester-Wetstein and Associates, Inc., of Laramie, Wyoming was presented. The budget is $1,175,790.00.

 Opal Master Plan, Level I An engineering contract with Forsgren Associates, Inc., of Evanston, Wyoming was presented. The budget is $75,555.00.

 Powder/Tongue & Northeast River Basin Plan Updates An engineering contract with RESPEC Inc., of Rapid City, South Dakota was presented. The budget is $368,600.00.

 Powder/Tongue & Northeast River Basin Plans Groundwater Update, Interagency Agreement between WWDC and WSGS An engineering contract with Wyoming State Geological Survey of Laramie, Wyoming was presented. The budget is $275,000.00

 Upper Laramie River Watershed Study, Level I An engineering contract with Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc., of Fort Collins, Colorado was presented. The budget is $347,000.00

 Upper Snake River Watershed Study, Level I An engineering contract with Olsson Associates of Lincoln, Nebraska was presented. The budget is $368,000.00

 Weather Modification – Big Horn Range, Siting & Design Study AND Medicine Bow/Sierra Madre Ranges, Final Design & Permitting An engineering contract with University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) of Boulder, Colorado was presented. The budget is $739,878.00

 Weather Modification – Laramie Range – Siting & Design Study An engineering contract with Desert Research Institute of Reno, Nevada was presented. The budget is $323,065.00

Wyoming Water Development Commission Minutes June 4, 2015 Page 5

Jeanette Sekan made a motion to approve all planning contracts with the exceptions of: Broken Wheel Ranch Master Plan, Greybull Valley Irrigation District Storage Enlargement and High Meadow Ranch. Rod Wagner seconded, the motion carried unanimously. Nick Bettas made a motion to approve the Broken Wheel Ranch Master Plan planning contract. Discussion followed. Todd Werbelow seconded the motion. The motion carried with Nick Bettas and Jeanette Sekan opposed.

Rod Wagner made a motion to approve the Greybull Valley Irrigation District Storage Enlargement planning contract. Jeanette Sekan seconded the motion. The motion carried with Todd Werbelow recused.

Jeanette Sekan made a motion to approve the High Meadow Ranch planning contract. Sheridan Little seconded the motion. The motion carried with Nick Bettas and David Evans recused.

9. UW Water Research Program Director LaBonde and Greg Kerr presented the 2016 RFP which was developed directly in line with the Governor’s Water Strategy.

Todd Werbelow made a motion to approve the 2016 RFP. Sheridan Little seconded, the motion carried unanimously.

10. Consideration and ranking of Colorado River Basin MOA applications Director LaBonde presented the projects currently under consideration for the CRB MOA funds as ranked by the WWDO staff.

Jeanette Sekan made a motion to approve the rankings in the following order: 1. Farson Lateral Phase I, 2. Fontenelle Dam Riprap, 3. Wind River Range Operations, 4. CO River basin Weather Mod Coordination. Bill Resor seconded the motion, the motion carried unanimously.

11. Intended Use Plan (IUP) – Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) - SWC Wade Verplancke outlined the program and process to the Select Water Committee. He indicated the priority rankings of the projects didn’t matter at this point in time as the program was adequately funded to cover all project applications. Representative John Eklund made a motion to approve the IUP, Representative Robert McKim seconded the motion, the motion carried unanimously.

Wyoming Water Development Commission Minutes June 4, 2015 Page 6

12. Small Water Project Operating Criteria – recommendation to seek public comments Director LaBonde outlined several proposed changes to the SWP Operating Criteria. Todd Werbelow made a motion to send the criteria out for public comment. Floyd Canfield seconded the motion. Discussion followed. Todd Werbelow rescinded his motion. Jeanette Sekan made a motion to table the issue until the August 2015 meeting. Travis Brockie seconded the motion. The motion to table carried unanimously.

13. Late Small Water Project Application from Saratoga-Encampment Rawlins Conservation District An application for the East Arkansas Pipeline Extensions & Point of Rocks project was presented to the commission. Based on circumstances beyond the sponsor’s control the application was late arriving.

Jeanette Sekan made a motion to accept the application given the unique circumstances. Rod Wagner seconded the motion, the motion carried unanimously.

14. Operating Criteria of the WWDC The WWDC Operating Criteria went out for public comment. No comments were received.

Jeanette Sekan made a motion to approve the revised Operating Criteria. Seconded by Todd Werbelow, the motion carried unanimously.

15. Water Investment Accounts Director LaBonde discussed and outlined each account that was detailed in his memo. Discussion followed.

16. Consulting Engineering Rate Schedules Director LaBonde prepared a memo for the Commission and Select Water Committee outlining standard fees and procedures for engineering firms. Item for discussion only.

17. Any other new business  Liquidated Damages in future contracts Jeanette Sekan suggested this for a workshop topic in August. Nick Bettas supported the idea.

18. Discussion Director LaBonde announced the retirement of Jon Wade after 35 years with the State of Wyoming. Wyoming Water Development Commission Minutes June 4, 2015 Page 7

19. Future Meetings Schedule The next meeting will include the Summer Tour in Worland, Wyoming, August 19-21, 2015

Director LaBonde also informed the group the Customer Satisfaction Survey was issued electronically and responses are due July 10, 2015.

20. Adjournment – Todd Werbelow made a motion to adjourn 11:33 a.m., seconded by Sheridan Little, the motion carried.

Nick Bettas, Secretary

Wyoming Water Development Commission Minutes June 4, 2015 Page 8

Operating Criteria of the Small Water Project Program of the Wyoming Water Development Program

A. Introduction:

The purpose of the Small Water Project Program (SWPP) is to participate with land management agencies and sponsoring entities in providing incentives for improving watershed condition and function. Projects eligible for SWPP grant funding assistance include the construction or rehabilitation of small reservoirs, wells, pipelines and conveyance facilities, springs, solar platforms, irrigation works, windmills and wetland developments. Projects should improve watershed condition and function and provide benefit for wildlife, livestock and the environment. Projects may provide improved water quality, riparian habitat, habitat for fish and wildlife and address environmental concerns by providing water supplies to support plant and animal species or serve to improve natural resource conditions.

These criteria provide the Wyoming Water Development Commission (WWDC) and the Wyoming Water Development Office (WWDO) with general standards for evaluating and prioritizing applications for funding from the SWPP. In addition, the criteria serve as a tool to coordinate with the public and other state and federal agencies.

B. Legal and Institutional Constraints:

1. Sponsoring Entity: Pursuant to W.S. 99-3-703(j)(i) 1903(k)(i)and W.S. 99-3- 704(g)(i)1904(m)(i)1, funding is available only to eligible public entities.

2. Eligible public entities are defined by state statute and include conservation districts, watershed improvement districts, water conservancy districts, irrigation districts, municipalities, the Joint Business Council of the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Indian Tribes, the Business Council of the Eastern Shoshone Indian tribe, the Business Council of the Northern Arapaho Indian tribe, or other approved assessment districts formed in accordance with Wyoming law.

3. Project Description: Pursuant to W.S. 99-3-703(j)(iii) 1903(k)(iii)and W.S. 99-3- 704(g)(iii),1904(m)(iii), the SWPP may provide for construction or rehabilitation and replacement of small dams, windmills, spring development, pipelines, etc., to impound, develop and convey water for livestock, wildlife, irrigation, environmental and recreational purposes.

4. Project Funding: Pursuant to W.S. 99-3-703(j)(vii)1903(k)(vii) and 99-3-704(g)(vii), 1904(m)(vii), a small project is a project where estimated construction or rehabilitation costs, permit procurement, construction engineering and project land procurement are one hundred thirty-five thousand dollars ($100,000.00135,000.00) or less or and where

1 For reference and identification only special statute numbers [appearing in Title “99” of the Wyoming Statutes] have been assigned to selected water projects by the legislative service office. the maximum financial contribution from the commission is twentythirty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.0035,000.00) or less.

C. Small Water Project Program Definitions:

1. Small Reservoir: A small reservoir is any water storage facility up to twenty feet (20’) of dam height and twenty acre-feet (20 AF) of capacity.

2. Well: A well may be eligible for funding depending on the depth of the well and scope of the project. Projects that propose to drill into unproven aquifers, as determined by the WWDC, are not eligible for the SWPP but may be eligible through WWDC conventional water development programs.

3. Solar Platforms: Construction of solar platforms may be eligible for funding through the SWPP.

4. Pipelines and conveyance facilities: Rehabilitation of existing pipelines or conveyance facilities or construction of new pipelines or conveyance facilities may be eligible for funding through the SWPP.

5. Springs: Improving flows of existing springs and installation of collection facilities associated with springs may be eligible for funding through the SWPP.

6. Wetland Development: Development of wetlands where multiple benefits accrue may be eligible for funding through the SWPP.

7. Environmental: Projects that provide for stream bank stability, water quality improvements, or erosion protection may be eligible for funding through the SWPP.

78. Irrigation: Irrigation projects may be eligible for funding through the SWPP.

89. Windmill: Rehabilitation of existing windmills or construction of new windmills may be eligible for funding through the SWPP.

D. Application and Evaluation Process:

1. Planning for small water projects will be generated by a WWDC watershed study or equivalent as determined by the WWDO. A watershed study will incorporate, at a minimum, available technical information describing conditions and assessments of the watershed including hydrology, geology, geomorphology, geography, soils, vegetation, water conveyance infrastructure, and stream system data. A plan outlining the site specific activities that may remediate existing impairments or address opportunities beneficial to the watershed shall also be included. A watershed study may identify one or more projects that may qualify for SWPP funding. A professional engineer and/or geologist, as appropriate, shall certify any analysis submitted unless generated by a federal agency.

2. Applications shall be received by January 1 of each calendar year. Applications Formatted: Tab stops: 0.75", Left meeting criteria requirements will be considered during the regularly scheduled WWDC meeting in March. Applications shall include a project application, sponsor project referral, detailed project description, description of public benefit, outline of financial and technical contributions, project location map, project cost estimates and any letters of authorization or commitment of participation that may be available from other funding sources.

3. Projects that improve watershed condition and function, provide multiple benefits, and meet the funding criteria specified in W.S. 99-3-703(j)(vii)1903(k)(vii) or W.S. 99-3- 704(g)(vii),1904(m)(vii), as described in B.4 herein, are eligible for consideration.

4. The sponsoring entity will be required to address the WWDC and provide testimony and other additional supporting evidence that justifies SWPP funding whenever the public benefit documentation, as required in W.S. 99-3-1903(k)(viii)(c) and W.S. 99- 3-1904(m)(viii)(c), submitted with the application, is deemed to be insufficient by the WWDO. Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0" 5. In order to establish priorities and to utilize available program funds effectively and efficiently, it is necessary to develop priorities. A Pproject's prioritiesy will be assigned based the projects primary purpose, secondary benefits may be considered at the Commission’s discretion. Project priorities in order of preference, are defined as follows.

(1.) Source Water Development Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: (2.) Storage 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: (3.) Pipelines, and Conveyance Facilities, Solar Platforms, and 2" + Indent at: 2.25" Windmills Formatted: Indent: Left: 2", Hanging: 0.38", (4.) Irrigation Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Wildlife and Habitat Improvement Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 2" + Indent (5.) Environmental Improvement at: 2.25", Tab stops: 2.38", Left Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 6. Projects that have completed the following requirements prior to application maywill 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: be classified as “Shovel Ready”, and may be considered ats a funding priority ofat the 2" + Indent at: 2.25" Commission’s discretion.  Certified project design and specifications Formatted: Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 2.29" +  Permit procurement Indent at: 2.54"  State and Federal Agency Notifications  Land procurement, Right of Way, or Easement Acquisition  Have finalized all other financial contributionsagreements Formatted: Indent: First line: 0" To establish completion of the above listed requirements, the project applicant may be asked to submit additional documentation as determined by the Office Commission at the time of application.

7. Due to the limited funding for this program the WWDC may only fund a portion of the applications submitted by any one applicant.

8. The Commission may take into consideration thean applicant’s existing back log of previously funded projects that are not completed, when awarding grants for new projects.

E. Project Development:

1. The sponsoring entity shall adhere to design standards for small water projects that are provided by the NRCS, an appropriate land management agency or a registered Professional Engineer and/or registered Professional Geologist.

2. Project water rights shall be in good standing with the State of Wyoming prior to construction of the project.

3. If the sponsoring entity initiates the construction process without prior written notification by the Commission, the sponsoring entity shall bear all costs resulting from said action.

F. Program Expenditures:

1. Project Description: Projects that develop unused and/or unappropriated water will be considered SWPP New Development Projects and will be funded from SWPP Account I, which is funded by appropriations from Water Development Account I [W.S. 41-2- 124(a)(i)]. Projects that improve completed water projects, decrease operation and maintenance costs, and/or improve efficiency of use of existing water supplies will be considered SWPP Rehabilitation Projects and will be funded from SWPP Account II , which is funded by appropriations from Water Development Account II [W.S. 41-2- 124(a)(ii)].

2. Project Funding: W.S. 99-3-703(j)(vii)1903(k)(vii) and W.S. 99-3-704(g)(vii), 1904(m)(vii)as described in B.4 herein, establish the funding limitations for the SWPP.

3. Activities eligible for SWPP funding include design, permit procurement, project land procurement, construction engineering (design and construction inspections), project materials and invoiced contractor expenses. In-kind contributions are only eligible for installation of project materials that were purchased specifically for the project as documented by invoices.

4. Required permits and clearances shall be obtained prior to construction of the project. Copies of the final permits and clearances must be submitted to the WWDO before the WWDO will issue the notice to proceed for construction. WWDC funds may be used as necessary to secure the technical assistance required to complete permitting activities before construction commences.

5. The sponsoring entity shall provide the WWDO an operation and maintenance plan for the estimated life of the project.

6. SWPP funds shall not be used to refinance projects that have already been completed. SWPP funds shall not be used to augment the operating budget of a sponsor or any other entity. Maintenance costs, as determined by the WWDO, are not eligible expenditures under the SWPP. SWPP funding is limited to a one-time construction of a new project or a single rehabilitation of an existing project.

7. A Project Agreement between the WWDC and the sponsoring entity, which documents the roles and responsibilities of the project participants, must be finalized prior to expenditure of SWPP funds. Changes, modifications, revisions or amendments to the Project Agreement may be granted by the WWDC.

8. Construction contractors shall be selected using a competitive bid process.

9. Upon project completion, WWDC funds will be disbursed when a certified bill is received from the sponsoring entity including statement of completion, before and after photographs, project longitude/latitude coordinates and the affidavit of publication documenting the required notices of final settlement were published pursuant to W.S. 16-6-116.

10. If the sponsoring entity submits a certified bill, WWDC funds can be disbursed for a component of a project upon receipt of a certification by the project engineer that the component provides a beneficial use and functions in the manner intended. Retainage on the cost of the component may be held until conditions described in F.9 are met.

11. Upon receipt of WWDC funds, the sponsoring entity shall promptly pay outstanding obligations.

12. Unexpended funds allocated under the Project Agreement will revert to SWPP Account I or SWPP Account II, as appropriate, upon the expiration date of the Project Agreement. Expiration dates may be extended in writing by the WWDC.

Operating Criteria of the Basin States Program of the Wyoming Water Development Program

A. Introduction:

The purpose of the Wyoming Basin States Program (BSP) is to work with the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to meet the objectives of the Colorado River Basin Water Quality Standards. The BSP will be seeking and funding cost effective projects in Wyoming to reduce salinity in the Colorado River System. The types of eligible BSP Projects include:  reducing salinity from saline springs, leaking wells, irrigation sources, industrial sources, erosion of public and private land, or other sources,  perform studies, planning, and administration of salinity control activities, and  replace incidental fish and wildlife values foregone (habitat replacement).

This criteria provides the Wyoming Water Development Commission (WWDC) and the Wyoming Water Development Office (WWDO) with general standards for evaluating and prioritizing applications for funding from the BSP. In addition, the criteria serve as a tool to coordinate with the public and other state and federal agencies.

B. Colorado River:

The Colorado River flows from the Rocky Mountains in Colorado and Wyoming to its natural outlet in the Gulf of California. The river has a large drainage basin that covers over 244,000 square miles; it is 1,440 miles long and passes through parts of seven states and Mexico.

The seven states comprised of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, are referred to as the Colorado River Basin states. The drainage basin comprises about one-twelfth of the area of the continental United States. The Colorado River ranks sixth among the nation’s rivers in volume of flow with an average annual flow in excess of 17.5 million acre-feet.

The river provides irrigation water to about 4.0 million acres of land. It also has more than 60 million acre- feet of storage capacity, 4,000 megawatts of hydro-electric generating capacity, and provides more than 20 million annual visitor days of outdoor recreation. The Colorado River supplies domestic and industrial water to approximately 27 million people. Through natural and man induced causes, the Colorado River picks up dissolved solids from about 50 mg/L at its source to approximately 850 mg/L (current concentrations) as it passes into Mexico. Natural causes represent approximately 62% of the salt load above Hoover Dam. Studies estimate that the salinity in the Colorado River causes somewhere between $500 million and $750 million per year in damages to crops and municipal water systems. If salinity levels in the Colorado River are not reduced, costs associated with crop and municipal water system damage will continue to escalate.

C. Legal and Institutional Constraints:

1. Recipient Applicant: Pursuant to the 1974 Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, Public Law 93-320 as amended by Public Law 110-246, provides funding available to eligible public and private entities located in the Green River or Little Snake River drainages in Wyoming. Private entities are eligible if they qualify for on-farm federal assistance through the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS).

2. Eligible public entities are defined by state statute and include conservation districts, watershed improvement districts, water conservancy districts, irrigation districts, municipalities, the Joint Business Council of the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribe, the Business Council of the Eastern Shoshone Tribe, the Business Council of the Northern Arapaho Tribe, or other approved assessment districts formed in accordance with Wyoming law.

3. Project Description and Funding: Pursuant to Public Law 93-320, as amended by Public Law 110- 246, Reclamation will provide funding to eligible Wyoming BSP projects. WWDC may use up to 10% of the funds received for WWDO administrative purposes. No less than 90% of the funds shall be used for: i. cost-effective measures and associated works to reduce salinity from saline springs, leaking wells, irrigation sources, industrial sources, erosion of public and private land, or other sources; ii. studies and planning; and iii. habitat replacement measures.

4. Program Budget: Pursuant to Public Law 93-320, as amended by Public Law 110-246, Reclamation will provide WWDC an annual grant award as approved by Reclamation. 100% of the funding for the Wyoming BSP will come from Reclamation. a. There will be no State appropriation to the BSP program.

D. BSP Project Program Definitions:

1. Well: A water well with an identified salinity reduction component may be eligible for funding.

2. Pipelines and conveyance facilities: Rehabilitation of existing pipelines or conveyance facilities or construction of new pipelines or conveyance facilities with an identified salinity reduction component may be eligible for funding through the BSP.

3. Irrigation: Irrigation projects with an identified salinity reduction component (e.g. canal lining, canal to pipe conversion, flood to sprinkler conversion, etc.) may be eligible for funding through the BSP.

4. Habitat: Replacing incidental fish and wildlife values foregone may be eligible for BSP funding.

5. Studies: Studies and planning projects of salinity reduction activities may be eligible for BSP funding.

6. Work Plan: An annual report provided to Reclamation identifying rationale to select studies, salinity control measures, habitat replacement measures, and identifies funds to be used on eligible projects.

E. Application Process:

1. Planning for BSP projects will be generated by a WWDC BSP study or equivalent as determined by the WWDO. A BSP study will incorporate, at minimum, available technical information describing conditions and assessments of the project including hydrology, geography, soils, water conveyance infrastructure, project components and relevant project data. A plan outlining the site specific activities that may remediate existing impairments or address opportunities beneficial to the drainage shall be included. A Study may identify one or more projects that may qualify for BSP funding. A Wyoming registered professional engineer and/or geologist, as appropriate, shall certify any analysis submitted unless generated by a federal agency.

2. Applications shall be received by January 1 of each calendar year. Application materials and forms will be provided and administered by the WWDO. Applications meeting criteria requirements will be considered during the regularly scheduled WWDC meeting in March. Applications shall include a project application, sponsor project referral, project location map, project cost estimates, a resolution or document of support from the applicant’s board or other governing body, and any letters of authorization or commitment of participation that may be available from other funding sources.

3. Projects that improve drainage condition and function, provide multiple benefits, and meet the funding criteria specified in Public Law 93-320, as amended by Public Law 110-246, as described in C.3 herein, are eligible for consideration.

4. The Applicant will be required to address the WWDC and provide testimony and other additional supporting evidence that justifies BSP funding whenever the public benefit documentation, submitted with the application, is deemed to be insufficient by the WWDO.

5. Projects that have successfully completed the NRCS competitive review process are eligible for BSP funding. Applications submitted in the NRCS EQIP competitive selection process for on farm measures and ranked, but not awarded agreements due to EQIP eligibility requirements or insufficient EQIP funding may be awarded agreements executed and funded by WWDC.

6. Projects that have successfully completed the Basinwide Program FOA competitive process are eligible for BSP funding. Applications submitted in a Basinwide Program FOA and ranked in the competitive range, but not awarded agreements due to insufficient Basinwide Program funding, may be awarded agreements executed and funded by WWDC.

F. Application Requirements:

1. WWDC shall use a competitive process open to the public and approved by Reclamation to solicit, rank and select applicants with salinity reduction measures as identified in the Work Plan that: a. Meet technical standards, specifications and cost schedules, approved by Reclamation, and, b. Reduce salinity at a cost effectiveness of less than $150 per ton. The cost effectiveness shall be determined using: i. An annualized cost that shall be determined using the estimated life of the feature, usually 25 or 50 years, and, ii. The current year Federal Plan Formulation and Evaluation Interest Rate, and, iii. Salt load reduction figures for salinity control measures shall be provided by Reclamation.

2. The NRCS EQIP process fulfills the competitive process requirements. Applications submitted through the NRCS EQIP process for on-farm measures and ranked, but not awarded agreements due to EQIP eligibility requirements or insufficient EQIP funding may be awarded agreements to be executed and funded by the WWDC provided that: a. Salt load reduction figures provided by the NRCS to the applicants in the NRCS application process are acceptable to Reclamation. b. Award agreements to such applicants who demonstrate to reduce salinity at a cost effectiveness of less than $150 per ton. c. Such agreements shall follow the requirements of EQIP for the current year including: i. Development of a plan or schedule of operations that specifies the applicable practice and units to be installed as provided in the current EQIP payment schedule. Practices not listed in the payment schedule are not eligible for payment. ii. For irrigation practices, the land to be treated must have been irrigated or considered to have been irrigated two of the last five years. iii. Applicants agree not to use any associated water savings to bring new land under irrigation production, other incidental land needed for efficient operations. 1. Incidental land is land that will be irrigated by the proposed system that does not meet the 2 of 5 year irrigation history requirement. This land will be covered by the proposed system as a result of field realignment or inclusion of miscellaneous acres not irrigated by the current system. Incidental land will not exceed 5% of the acres on which the new system is being proposed. iv. All applicable state water laws shall apply. v. A practice must be initiated within 12 months of enactment of the agreement. vi. Historically, underserved producers may receive an increased incentive consistent with the current EQIP policy. vii. All practices must meet current NRCS standards and specifications and be operated and maintained for the practice life in accordance with the local operation and maintenance requirements. viii. Producers cannot receive more than 100% of the cost of any installations. If other federal fund sources are payable, the BSP payment will be reduced. ix. The grantee must have clear and demonstrable control of the land to be treated in the agreement for a period of time equal to or longer than the agreement period. Loss of control of the land requires the financial interest and liability of the capitalized improvements to be transferred to the succeeding part or the recoverable value of the financial incentives is due to the BSP. d. Such agreements may waive the following EQIP requirements: i. Adjusted Gross Income Limits Cumulative payment cap. ii. Producer eligibility.

3. The Basinwide Program FOA process fulfills the competitive process requirements. Applications submitted in a Basinwide Program FOA and ranked in the competitive range, but not awarded agreements due to insufficient Basinwide Program funding, may be awarded agreements executed and funded by WWDC provided that: a. Reclamation provides the applications to WWDC with approval from the applicants. b. The applications have a cost effectiveness of less than $150 per ton and meet the requirements of C.3 herein.

G. Project Development:

1. The applicant shall adhere to design standards for projects that are provided by the NRCS, an appropriate land management agency or a registered Wyoming registered Professional Engineer and/or registered Professional Geologist.

2. Project water rights shall be in good standing with the State of Wyoming prior to construction of the project.

3. The applicant shall bear any project costs that are incurred without prior written notification by WWDO from said action.

4. The BSP is a federal program administered by the WWDO in conjunction with Reclamation. Any required federal project conditions will be adhered to by the Sponsor.

H. Program Expenditures:

1. Project Eligibility: WWDO shall establish eligibility criteria and administration procedures for development of BSP projects. WWDO will accept and rank applications for BSP funding will all recommendations for funding being submitted to Reclamation for final authority on all funding decisions.

2. Project Funding: BSP awarded projects will receive funds from Reclamation administered through the WWDO. BSP eligible projects could also receive funding from WWDC, Basinwide Program FOA, USDA-RD, and other eligible funding sources.

3. With Reclamation approval, WWDC may award grants to applicants eligible for BSP activities including planning, engineering (project design and construction management), permit procurement, project land procurement, project materials and invoiced contractor expenses.

4. Required permits and clearances shall be obtained prior to construction of the project. Copies of the final permits and clearances must be submitted to the WWDO before the WWDO will issue written notification to initiate the bidding process. BSP funds may be used as necessary to secure the technical assistance required to complete permitting activities before construction commences.

5. The applicant shall provide WWDO a plan for the estimated life of the project documenting the salinity reduction at a cost effectiveness of less than $150 per ton.

6. BSP funds shall not be used to refinance projects that have already been completed. BSP funds shall not be used to augment the operating budget of a sponsor or any other entity. Maintenance costs, as determined by the WWDO, are not eligible expenditures under the BSP.

7. A Project Agreement between the WWDC and the applicant, which documents the roles and responsibilities of the project participants, must be finalized prior to expenditure of BSP funds. Changes, modifications, revisions or amendments to the Project Agreement may be granted by the WWDC.

8. The engineer selection process will need to meet the provisions of W.S. 16-6-1001.b.

9. Construction contractors shall be selected using a competitive bid process.

10. When the applicant submits a pay application, BSP funds can be disbursed for a component of a project upon receipt of a project pay request certified by the project engineer and approved by the owner. Retainage on the cost of the component may be held until conditions described in H.11 are met.

11. Upon project completion, BSP funds will be disbursed when a WWDO pay application is received from the applicant including statement of completion, before and after photographs, project longitude/latitude coordinates and the affidavit of publication documenting the required notices of final settlement were published pursuant to W.S. 16-6-116.

12. Upon receipt of BSP funds, the applicant shall promptly pay outstanding obligations.

13. Unexpended funds allocated under the Project Agreement will revert to the BSP Account as appropriate, upon the expiration date of the Project Agreement. Expiration dates may be extended in writing by the WWDC.

14. The establishment of criteria and administrative procedures for the development of BSP projects under this subsection and decisions of the commission relating to the recommendations, prioritization or disqualification of BSP projects are specifically exempt from the provisions of the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act including judicial review under W.S. 16-3-114 and 16-3-115.

15. No new project shall be authorized under this subsection on or after July 1, 2025.

Operating Criteria of the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund Memorandum of Agreement

A. Introduction:

The passage of SF0051 in the 2015 Legislative Session authorizes the Wyoming Water Development Commission to select projects for the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The MOA was entered into on January 24, 2011 by the states of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming; the Colorado River Energy Distributors (CREDA); the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation); the United States Department of the Interior; and the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA). The MOA provides the framework for the expenditure of a percentage of collected hydropower revenues defined under section 5(e) of the Colorado River Storage Project Act (CRSPA). MOA projects must be located in the Colorado River Basin (Green River or Little Snake Rivers in Wyoming) and benefit CRSPA projects.

This criteria provides the Wyoming Water Development Commission (WWDC) and the Wyoming Water Development Office (WWDO) with general guidelines for evaluating and prioritizing applications for MOA program funding. In addition, the criteria serve as a tool to coordinate with the public and other state and federal agencies.

B. Background:

The Colorado River Storage Project Act (CRSPA), enacted in 1956, provides for the “comprehensive development of the water resources of the Upper Colorado River Basin.” A feature of CRSPA, in section 5(e), is the use of hydroelectric power revenues to aid in the development and repayment of certain irrigation costs of participating projects within the Upper Colorado River basin (aid-to-irrigation) 43 U.S.C. Sec. 620d(e). In 2011, CREDA and the Upper Division States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming entered into the MOA.

The MOA provides a methodology for collecting MOA Revenues for use by Reclamation within the Upper Colorado River Basin for the benefit of the Upper Division States. Under the MOA, CRSP power revenues collected in accordance with the MOA will be used by Reclamation to further the purposes of CRSPA through application of those revenues to the costs of implementation of projects recommended by the Non- Federal Parties.

C. Legal and Institutional Constraints:

1. 2015 Wyoming Session Laws SF0051. a. SF0051 provides WWDC the authority to evaluate, prioritize and recommend projects to Reclamation for MOA funding.

2. Colorado River Storage Project Act (CRSPA). a. Public Law 485, approved by the President of the United States of April 11, 1956, codified at 43 U.S.C Sec. 620 et seq., as amended and supplemented identified as CRSPA. An Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct, operate, and maintain the Colorado River storage project and participating projects, and for other purposes.

3. Memorandum of Agreement Concerning the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund. a. The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) became effective January 24, 2011. The MOA provides the framework for collecting MOA Revenues for use by Reclamation within the Upper Colorado River Basin for the benefit of the Upper Division States. Under the MOA, CRSP power revenues collected in accordance with the MOA will be used by Reclamation to further the purposes of CRSPA through application of those revenues to the costs of implementation of projects recommended by the Non-Federal Parties.

D. MOA Project Program Definitions:

1. MOA Revenues: Power revenues collected pursuant to the MOA and CRSPA, amended and supplemented, that are utilized by Reclamation for the purposes described in Sec. B of the MOA.

2. Colorado River Storage Project: A Bureau project that includes four initial storage units: Glen Canyon, Flaming Gorge, Navajo, and the Wayne N. Aspinall Storage Unit. Authorized along with, but not part of the initial units listed above, are a number of participating projects whose irrigation construction costs are repaid by power revenues. These participating projects are listed in the authorization paragraphs of the Colorado River Storage Project Act and subsequent legislation, identified as CRSP.

CRSP Initial Units: the four initial storage units.

3. Federal Parties: The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration.

4. Non-Federal Parties: The States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming and CREDA.

5. Upper Colorado River Basin: Those areas within and from Wyoming which waters naturally drain into the Colorado River system above Lee Ferry.

6. Upper Colorado River Basin Fund (Basin Fund): A separate fund in the United States Treasury established pursuant to Section 5(a) of CRSPA 43 U.S.C. Sec. 620(d)(a).

7. Upper Colorado River Commission: An interstate water administrative agency composed of one Commissioner representing each of the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming and one Commissioner representing the United States as established pursuant to Article VIII of the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948, 63 Stat. 31.

8. Upper Division States: The States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming as defined in Article II(c) of the Colorado River Compact and Article II(c) of the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact.

E. Application Process:

1. Applications shall be received by April 1 of each calendar year. Application materials and forms will be provided and administered by the WWDO. Applications meeting criteria requirements will be considered during the regularly scheduled WWDC meeting in June. Applications shall include a project application, project location map, project cost estimates, a resolution or document of support from the applicant’s board or other governing body, and any letters of authorization or commitment of participation that may be available from other funding sources.

2. WWDO will accept, review and present applications to the WWDC. The WWDC is responsible for determining the priority of projects within Wyoming. WWDC will then provide a prioritized list of recommended projects to Reclamation along with any comments. Reclamation will have final authority on all funding decisions.

3. The Applicant may be required to address the WWDC and provide testimony and other additional supporting evidence that justifies MOA funding whenever the public benefit documentation, submitted with the application, is deemed to be insufficient by the WWDO.

F. Application Requirements:

1. Applicants will need to submit project application, project location map, project cost estimates, a resolution or document of support from the applicant’s board or other governing body, and any letters of authorization or commitment of participation that may be available from other funding sources.

2. MOA, projects must be located in the Colorado River Basin (Green River or Little Snake Rivers in Wyoming) and benefit CRSPA projects.

3. The MOA is a federal program administered by Reclamation. Any required federal project conditions will be adhered to by the Applicant.

4. The following list of activities may be funded by MOA revenues. The list is not exhaustive and may change to ensure consistency in the application of Basin Fund revenues.

a. Replacements, Additions and Extraordinary Maintenance i. Activities for the continued operation and maintenance of the CRSP Initial Units and participating projects (e.g., snowpack data collection; repair, refurnish and rehabilitate existing facilities; and CRRS modeling).

b. Water Conservation Activities i. Activities that improve the efficiency and operation of CRSP Initial Units and participating projects (e.g., studies for water conservation projects; canal conversion to lining or piping; conserve reservoir storage; flow gaging/water monitoring; and water administration costs).

c. Environmental Compliance Activities i. Costs of environmental compliance for CRSP Initial Units, including biological opinions or programmatic biological opinions associated improvements that are necessary to satisfy compliance for continuation of operation of facilities (e.g., canal lining, diversion structure improvements, efficiency improvements, construction of fish passage structures, or temperature control structures).

d. Stream Gaging i. Installation and operation of gages necessary for the operation of CRSP Units.

e. Consumptive Use and Quality of Water i. Activities that provide more efficient present and future operation of the CRSP system (e.g., consumptive use and loss studies, water quality studies, CRSS model development, modeling, reservoir water quality modeling, and basin studies).

f. Salinity – Upper Colorado River Basin i. Activities that provide new, cost-effective opportunities to control salinity in the basin.

g. Weather Modification i. Activities that provide for nationwide data collection and monitoring activities; relevant research; and activities to increase the efficiency of the use of water in the United States.

H. Program Expenditures:

1. Project Application: WWDO shall establish application criteria and administration procedures for development of MOA projects. WWDO will accept and review applications, WWDC will rank applications for MOA funding, and ranked WWDC recommendations for MOA funding will be submitted to Reclamation for final authority on all funding decisions.

2. Project Funding: MOA awarded projects will receive funds from Reclamation administered through Reclamation.

3. Project Management: MOA awarded projects will be administered through Reclamation.

4. No new project shall be authorized under this subsection on or after July 1, 2025.

5. The MOA shall expire on September 30, 2025 unless modified or extended. Any MOA revenues remaining on September 30, 2025 will continue to be available to fund projects identified by the Non-Federal Parties until September 30, 2030.

,-a,-.1. p--- r, i-':':l P-'- a'i'? "%wl';l EIV' ?

.')=?:!- 2 9 201'= MacPHERSON, KELLY & THOMPSON, LLC Attorneys at Law y'iY WAThFl DhVELC? COMM?SSIO.' - 616 West Buffalo ? William K Mac'Pherson, P.C. p.o. Box 999 John A. MmePherqon, p.c. Thomas A. Thompson, p.c. Rawltns, WY 82301 Catherine MacPherson, p*c; Phillip R. Wulf Telephone (307) 324-4713 Kurt Kelly, P.C. "Also adm}tted in Colorado Faesimile (30 7) 324-'1348 e-mm ?mingJ?g? or [email protected] www.wyomingattorneys.net

July 24, 2015

Harry LaBonde, P.E. Director Wyoming Water Development Commission 6920 Yellowtail Road Cheyenne, WY 82002

Re: Revised Sublease Between Lee Jons and Donna Jons Revocable Trust and the Wyoming Water Development Commission/State Lease #3-7503.

Dear Mr. LaBonde: In regards to the above referenced subject, Donna Jons has given me permission to write this letter on behalf of her and the Jons Trust. As you are aware, the Wyoming Water Development Comrnission (WWDC) approved the assignment (repurchase) of a portion of State Lease #3- 7503 to the Lee and Donna Jons Revocable Tmst (Jons Tmst) in November, 2014. However, since that time mnd upon subsequent conversations with your staff, there appears to be an alternate, more suitable solution that could be more beneficial to all pmties. Donna very much appreciates your mid the WWDC's consideration, as she would like to bring closure to this maffer,

Background. A little background may be helpful for your consideration: Lee and Donna Jons ranched in the Little Snake River Valley their entire ranching careers. The Jons Ranch consists of approximately 440 deeded acres located in the valley just south and west of Baggs. The cattle would winter on the deeded lands, and in the summer the cattle would go to the high country on State Lease #3-7503 and a small BLM pasture [Mexican Meadows] to graze so the deeded acres could be irrigated and hayed. That is how Lee and Donna operated for many decades, and that is the only way the ranch worked as a viable cattle operation. Harry LaBonde, P.E. July 24, 2015 Page 2 of 3

Lee passed away in June, 2009. While Donna is sharp as a tack, she is the first to say that she ?is wearing out.? Donna is going to be 87 years old in October, 2015, but she continues to run the ranch, with the assistance of Matt Myers. Matt Myers worked for and with Lee and Donna Jons for many years while Lee was still alive, having himself grown up in the Little Snake River Valley.

In 2001, the Jons Trust assigned State Lease #3-7503 and the BLM Lease for the Mexican Meadows to the WWDC so the High Savery Dam and Reservoir could be constructed on a portion of that property. The WWDC paid some money for the assignment and then subleased the grazing rights to the Jons Tmst. The current agreement (Revised Sublease Agreement Between Lee Jom and Donna Jons Revocable Trust and Wyoming Water Development Commission) was entered into in September, 2008, and is in effect until March 1, 2018, at which time the Jons Tmst has the option to renew the Sublease for an additional five year term commencing March 1, 2018 and expiring on March 1, 2023. It covers 2,212.88 acres in what is depicted as Pasture 1, on Exhibit B to the Revised Sublease [see attached?.

In 2013, Donna began to contemplate selling the ranch to Matt and Natasha Myers and ultimately entered into an agreement for the sale of the Jons Ranch and holdings, with a scheduled closing in late August, 2014. However, the closing had to be held up as some resolution was sought relative to the state lease and how best to keep it as part of the ranch operation. The ranch sales agreement had to be and has been modified, to allow Matt and Natasha Myers to opt not to purchase the Jons Ranch and its holdings, without penalt)y, if the state lease couldn't somehow be made available for their use. As mentioned, the lease for Pasture l is the heart of the operation and critical [absolutely necessary] to the operation. That is how Lee and Donna operated successfully for many decades, and that is the only way the ranch works as a viable cattle operation. In November, 2014, the WWDC approved the assignment of a portion of State Lease #3-7503 to the Jons Tmst as a conceivable solution. Since that time and upon subsequent conversations wath Jason Mead, Deputy Director of the WWDC Dam and Reservoir Division, there appears to be an alternate, more suitable solution that could be more beneficial to all parties in terms of simplicity, time and money.

Request by Donna Jons, Trustee of the Lee Jons and Donna Jons Revocable Trust. Should the following request be unacceptable to you m'id the WWDC, Donna is very willing to perform and make payment for assignment of that portion of State Lease #3-7503 to the Jons Tmst which the WWDC approved in November, 2014. However, if you and the WWDC are agreeable, she would prefer to terminate the Jons Trust sublease to allow for a new sublease between the WWDC and the buyer of the Jons Ranch (Matt and Natasha Myers). This alternative would be a much simpler and timely process with the Wyoming Office of State Lands and hivestments, allow the WWDC to retain the lease assignment and its initial investment in the lease, provide WWDC more management flexibility with High Savery Reservoir, maintain the value of the Jons Ranch, as well as avoid the Jons Trust from having to procure funds for the repurchase. Hariy LaBonde, P.E. July 24, 2015 Page 3 of 3

As such, Donna is agreeable to an "earlier termination? of the Revised Sublease agreement, should the WWDC mutually consent, as provided for in Paragraph 8 F of the Revised Sublease upon the EXPRESS CONDITIONS that:

A. The WWDC enter into a Sublease Agreement with the Jons Ranch buyer, Matt and Natasha Myers, husband and wife, of Baggs, Wyoming, for the grazing rights in Pasture 1, containing 2,212.88 acres.

B. That such Sublease Agreement be on terms and conditions which are acceptable to both Matt and Natasha Myers and WWDC. C. That all required approvals from the WWDC, Attorney General's Office, Wyoming Board of Land Commissioners, etc. be secured. If said request is acceptable and express conditions are satisfied, the Jons Tmst will sign a formal termination and surrender of Revised Sublease Agreement, effective the date the new Sublease Agreement with Matt and Natasha Myers becomes effective. If the request is considered unacceptable by you and the WWDC or the express conditions cannot be satisfied, then tbe WWDC action approved in November, 2014, should be completed. Donna would only ask that the work which is necessary to complete that assignment be completely immediately if that is the route to be followed, as she is not getting any younger, and time is of the essence. This matter has been pending for some time. Donna would like to have a few years of not having the responsibility of mnning the ranch. However, these subleased lands are the heart of the operation, and without it, the ranch operation won't work. We thank you for your willingness to find a practical solution that will meet everyone's needs. Please feel free to contact me if you have miy questions.

Sincerely, is-a.. (-U4?'? 77?, Catherine MacPherson, Of Counsel

Enclosure: l

CC: Donna Jons Exbibit B l msp Retween the State of Wyomin7 VVater DeveJopment Commission and Peter Lee and Domaa Jons l? f r? ? ? --;?-'-y ? 1 r? J "? "-'!? %1 4 W l I f'! 4 +- r 1 1 j l f 1.d %--? 1 r 1 j t I 1 r l ? !,... l W? 1 l g f. I. 1 W l j 1 %1 '% 17 k v i m kw4 jv l r a-I '% W. l t r i? A P' 1 k r .-ar? ] r- Ilr ? l f 40 } 'j l l [ 'j r ! /,=4%i / t J -==Mi"? (] r -d? (? Q m T r: I 4?l'a'!? l ?l }l Pj JA'%I? '=l? I'm .4 r=-; L lll'l Al r. l l l f? j- r!?fi..- iJ21 fl ff n r: 0 r ' ?.as4i 1 ?l Q8QI'M'iT 1 rl

F k 1.

F :l } b Z r. t 20 li / J t j M! 77 I il I m r K ?i # 11 P.? l / A kl j E ? -l t % 21 kl j "fi i? F. B 7.4 l FJ m'MW")vi'l 'p r / P 4 a ? 7 I / n t d? * ffi 4 /a: "f:; l' t W'ff ! f 'T u waa ? 1 j? ? k J r

N %

s

I r f ? + / d? + iooo 0 1000 2000 Feet l M ffi [ l '!'!'!!!l .!l l Lwrml r- 'a'?l"---'0- I

t l V Subjed Property > % P /%/,Faiodine #i

r-?--' i hdts* i ? I ' BLM Lamd 4 . i ':

l l-..%l ff ffi ris.- I :? j l i b V?- State of Wyomtng gLfflLamd Range 88 %est TERMINATION OF REVISED SUBLEASE BETWEEN LEE JONS AND DONNA JONS REVOCABLE TRUST AND THE WYOMING WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

1. Parties. This Termination Agreement [Agreement], dated ______, 2015, is made between Donna L. Jons, living Trustee of the Lee Jons and Donna Jons Revocable Trust, P.O. Box 235, Baggs, Wyoming 82321 [Trust], and the Wyoming Water Development Commission whose address is 6920 Yellowtail Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 [Commission].

2. Purpose of Termination.

A. The Commission has the leasehold grazing rights per State of Wyoming Board of Land Commissioners Grazing and Agricultural Lease No. 3-7503 (State Lease No. 3-7503), consisting of 2,880 acres. The Commission has a sublease contract for a portion of said State Lease No. 3-7503 with the Lee Jons and Donna Jons Revocable Trust (Revised Sublease Agreement Between Lee Jons and Donna Jons Revocable Trust and Wyoming Water Development Commission), which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A.

B. Pursuant to the termination clause in the Revised Sublease Agreement found in Exhibit A, the Trust and the Commission mutually consent to terminate the Revised Sublease Agreement Between Lee Jons and Donna Jons Revocable Trust and Wyoming Water Development Commission, effective upon signature by the Wyoming Water Development Commission.

3. Entirety of the Agreement. Entirety of Contract. This Agreement, consisting of two (2) pages and Exhibit A, consisting of seven (7) pages, represents the entire and integrated Contract between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and agreements, whether written or oral.

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE SHALL REMAIN BLANK

RN081115/F

SUBLEASE BETWEEN MATTHEW AND NATASHA MYERS AND THE WYOMING WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

1. Parties. This lease contract [Sublease] is made between Matthew and Natasha Myers, P.O. Box 62, Baggs, Wyoming 82321 [Sublessee], and the Wyoming Water Development Commission whose address is 6920 Yellowtail Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 [Commission]. In the event that the addresses listed above change, the party whose address has changed shall immediately notify the other party to the Sublease in writing.

2. Purpose of Sublease.

A. The Commission has the leasehold grazing rights for State of Wyoming Board of Land Commissioners Grazing and Agricultural Lease No. 3-7503 (State Lease No. 3-7503), consisting of 2880 acres located on the lands described in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. The Commission desires to sublease a portion of said State Lease No. 3-7503 to a suitable lessee and retain the right of ingress and egress to High Savery Dam via the existing access road, as described by State Easement No. 6420, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C.

B. The Sublessee desires to sublease a portion of the premises from the Commission for the purpose of grazing cattle.

C. The parties desire to enter a lease contract [Sublease] defining their rights, duties, and liabilities relating to the premises.

D. For consideration, the Commission leases to the Sublessee the Commission’s rights to graze cattle on Pasture 1 described in Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein, under the terms and conditions forth in Section 8 below.

3. Term of Sublease. EXPRESSLY CONTINGENT UPON THE WYOMING BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS’ RENEWAL OF THE COMMISSION’S STATE LAND LEASE NO. 3-7503, the Commission leases the Commission’s rights described in Section 8 below for a term of ten years beginning October 1, 2015 and terminating on March 1, 2025 to the Sublessee. Additionally, the Commission grants to the Sublessee an option to renew this Sublease for an additional five year term commencing March 1, 2025 and expiring on March 1, 2030.

4. Assignment of Lease. If, after December 31, 2020, the Commission determines that portions of the lands under State Lease No. 3-7503 are no longer needed by the Commission for dam, reservoir, mitigation or other related purposes, the Commission will cooperate with the Sublessee and the State of Wyoming Board of Land

SUBLEASE BETWEEN MATTHEW AND NATASHA MYERS AND THE WYOMING WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Page 1 of 7 RN081115/F

Commissioners, and if approved by the State of Wyoming Board of Land Commissioners, shall assign those unneeded portions of State Lease No. 3-7503 to the Sublessee under mutually agreed upon terms and condition. Any such assignment will be contingent upon the statutes, rules, regulations and other laws in effect at that time.

5. Required Approvals. This Sublease is not valid and shall not become effective until it is signed by an authorized representative of the Commission and an authorized representative of the Sublessee, approved by the Wyoming Board of Land Commissioners, approved and signed by an authorized representative of the Department of Administration and Information, the Office of the Wyoming Attorney General, and, if required by Wyo. Stat. § 9-2-1016(b)(IV), by the Governor or his designee. The effective date of the Sublease shall be the last date of signature, and the Sublease shall commence on the last date of signature or on the date specified in the Term of Sublease provision, whichever is later.

6. Rent Payment. The rent to be paid by the Sublessee to the Commission shall be equal to the rent charged by the Board of Land Commissioners plus two dollars and no cents ($2.00) per AUM, to the Commission for the portion of State Lease No. 3- 7503, corresponding to the total acreage of Pasture 1, consisting of 2,222.10 acres less 9.22 acres of land reserved for the access road that crosses Pasture 1, or 2,212.88 acres. All rent payments under this Sublease shall be paid to the Commission at the address specified above. Rent shall be paid in advance, on or before February 1st of each year of this Sublease.

7. Responsibilities of the Commission. The Commission shall pay all assessments or other governmental charges that may be imposed on or arise in connection with the premises during the term of this Sublease not otherwise assumed by the Sublessee by this agreement.

8. Responsibilities of the Sublessee.

A. Obey All Applicable Laws and Regulations. The Sublessee shall observe and follow all applicable state, local and federal laws and regulations.

B. Terms and Conditions of State Lease. The Sublessee shall be fully aware of and shall comply with all the terms and conditions of State Lease No. 3-7503 and State Easement No. 6420, except as explicitly provided in this agreement.

C. Grazing Management. The Commission has established two pastures to assist in development of the High Savery Dam and Reservoir Project and to allow grazing management. The approximate location of the pastures is shown on Exhibit B. Only Pasture 1, less the acreage of the access road may be grazed. The AUMs available for grazing has been reduced with the exclusion of Pasture 2, and the Sublessee’s rental price will be reflective of the AUM reduction for Pasture 1. At the date

SUBLEASE BETWEEN MATTHEW AND NATASHA MYERS AND THE WYOMING WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Page 2 of 7 RN081115/F of execution of this Sublease, the AUMs available for grazing on Pasture 1 is 615. Once wetland mitigation has been deemed successful by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Commission may choose to allow the Sublessee to graze Pasture 2, or portions of Pasture 2, as a vegetative management and objectives tool, rather than for livestock production. Grazing Pasture 2, or portions of Pasture 2 may only occur upon written approval of the Commission. The Commission will make the determination if Pasture 2 can be grazed in cooperation with the appropriate state and federal agencies.

D. Access to Premises. The Sublessee shall permit the Commission or its agents to enter the premises at any time to inspect the premises or for management purposes and as necessary for construction, operation and maintenance of the dam, associated facilities and mitigation sites.

E. Assignment, Mortgage, or Sublease. Neither the Sublessee nor its successors or assigns shall assign, mortgage, pledge, or encumber this Sublease or sublet the premises in whole or in part, or permit the premises to be used or occupied by others, nor shall this Sublease be assigned or transferred.

F. Surrender of Possession. The Sublessee shall, on the last day of the term, or on earlier termination and forfeiture of the Sublease, peaceably and quietly surrender and deliver the premises to the Commission in good condition and repair.

9. Special Provisions.

A. Alterations, Additions, and Improvements. The Sublessee shall not at any time during the Sublease term, make any alterations, additions or improvements on the premises without prior written consent of the Commission, the Wyoming Board of Land Commissioners and the United States Bureau of Land Management.

B. Easements, Contracts, or Encumbrances. The parties shall be bound by all existing easements, contracts, and encumbrances of record relating to the premises.

C. Insurance. During the term of the Sublease and for any further time that the Sublessee shall hold the premises, the Sublessee shall obtain and maintain at its own expense insurance on its personal property located on the premises.

D. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence in all provisions of this Sublease.

E. Unlawful or Dangerous Activity. The Sublessee shall neither use nor occupy the premises or any part thereof for any unlawful, disreputable, or ultra- hazardous purpose nor operate or conduct business in a manner constituting a nuisance of any kind. The Sublessee shall immediately, upon notification of any unlawful, disreputable,

SUBLEASE BETWEEN MATTHEW AND NATASHA MYERS AND THE WYOMING WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Page 3 of 7 RN081115/F or ultrahazardous use, or nuisance, take action to halt such activity. In the event the Sublessee fails to cease any such use or activity, after notice, the Commission may terminate this Sublease.

10. General Provisions

A. Applicable Law/Venue. The construction, interpretation and enforcement of this Sublease shall be governed by the laws of the State of Wyoming. The Courts of the State of Wyoming shall have jurisdiction over this Sublease and the parties, and the venue shall be the First Judicial District, Laramie County, Wyoming.

B. Entirety of Agreement. This Sublease, consisting of seven (7) pages, Exhibit A, consisting of one (1) page, Exhibit B, consisting of one (1) page, and Exhibit C, consisting of twelve (12) pages, represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, leases, or other contracts, either written or oral. This agreement cannot be changed except by a written instrument subsequently executed by the parties.

C. Indemnity. The Sublessee shall release, indemnify, and hold harmless the State, the Commission, and their officers, agents, employees, successors and assignees from any cause of action, or claims or demands arising out of this Sublease and its use of the premises, including specifically any use prohibited by Section 9E above.

D. Notice. All notices to be given with respect to this Sublease shall be in writing. Each notice shall be sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid and return receipt requested, to the party to be notified at the address set forth above.

Every notice shall be deemed to have been given at the time it shall be deposited in the United States mail in the manner prescribed herein. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to preclude personal service of any notice in the manner prescribed for personal service of a summons or other legal process.

E. Sovereign Immunity. The State of Wyoming and the Commission do not waive sovereign immunity by entering into this Sublease, and specifically retain immunity and all defenses available to them as sovereigns pursuant to Wyo. Stat. § 1-39- 104(a) and all other state law. Designations of venue, choice of law, enforcement actions, and similar provisions should not be construed as a waiver of sovereign immunity.

F. Termination.

(i) This Sublease may be terminated immediately for cause if the Sublessee fails to perform in accordance with the terms of this Sublease.

(ii) This Sublease is granted upon the express condition that should the State Land and Investment Office hereafter find it to be in the best interest of the State to exchange the lands embraced in this Sublease for other lands, as provided by law, then

SUBLEASE BETWEEN MATTHEW AND NATASHA MYERS AND THE WYOMING WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Page 4 of 7 RN081115/F this Sublease may be terminated upon giving the Sublessee one year notice, unless by mutual consent of the Commission and the Sublessee, an earlier date of termination may be fixed.

G. Third Party Beneficiary Rights. The parties do not intend to create in any other individual or entity the status of third party beneficiary, and this Sublease shall not be construed so as to create such status. The rights, duties and obligations contained in this Sublease shall operate only between the parties to this Sublease, and shall inure solely to the benefit of the parties to this Sublease. The provisions of this Sublease are intended only to assist the parties in determining and performing their obligations under this Sublease.

H. Waivers. The failure of Commission to insist on a strict performance of any of the terms and conditions hereof shall not be deemed a waiver of the rights or remedies that Commission may have regarding that specific term or condition.

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

SUBLEASE BETWEEN MATTHEW AND NATASHA MYERS AND THE WYOMING WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Page 5 of 7 RN081115/F

11. Signatures. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties to this Sublease through their duly authorized representative have executed this Sublease on the dates set out below, and certify that they have read, understand, and agree to the terms and conditions of this Sublease.

WYOMING WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

______Floyd Canfield, Chairman Date

______Nick J. Bettas, Secretary Date

Attest: ______

STATE OF WYOMING ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ______)

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______day of ______, 2015, by ______.

______Notarial Officer

(Seal, if any)

My Commission expires: ______.

SUBLEASE BETWEEN MATTHEW AND NATASHA MYERS AND THE WYOMING WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Page 6 of 7 RN081115/F

SUBLESSEE

______Matthew Myers Date

______Natasha Myers Date

STATE OF WYOMING ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ______)

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______day of ______, 2015, by ______.

______Notarial Officer (Seal, if any)

My commission expires: ______.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE APPROVAL AS TO FORM

______S. Jane Caton, Date Senior Assistant Attorney General

The Sublease date is the date of the last signature affixed to this page.

SUBLEASE BETWEEN MATTHEW AND NATASHA MYERS AND THE WYOMING WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Page 7 of 7 RN081115/F

Exhibit A Matthew and Natasha Myers Sublease

Resurveyed Tract 89, Section 16, T15N, R88W, 640 Acres

Resurveyed Tract 68, Section 20, T15N, R88W, 640 Acres;

Resurveyed Tract 69, Section 21, T15N, R88W, 640 Acres;

Resurveyed Tract 75, Section 28, T15N, R88W, 640 Acres;

Resurveyed Tract 76, Section 29, T15N, R88W, 320 Acres;

Carbon County, Wyoming.

EXHIBIT “A” SUBLEASE BETWEEN MATTHEW AND NATASHA MYERS AND THE WYOMING WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Page 1 of 1 RN081115/F

Exhibit B Matthew and Natasha Myers Sublease

EXHIBIT “B” SUBLEASE BETWEEN MATTHEW AND NATASHA MYERS AND THE WYOMING WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Page 1 of 1 Exhibit C STATE OF WYOMING GRANT OF EASEMENT

Easement No.6420 High Savery

WHEREAS the Board of Land Commissioners approved this grant of easement on May 16, 2001; THEREFORE, the State of Wyoming, acting through its Board of Land Commissioners (Grantor), for and in consideration of the payment of Two hundred sixty-five thousand ninety-four and 80/ 100 dollars ($265,094.80) hereby grants and conveys to Wyoming Water Development Commission (Grantee), to use for permanent use, in the following described tract of land for a reservoir, access roadways and wetlands purposes only, more particularly described as follows: Parcel l All that portion of the of Tract 89 (Originally Section 16), Tract 69 (Originally Section 21 ) and Tract 68 (Originally Section 20), of T. l5N.,R.88W., of the 6th P.M.,, Carbon County, Wyoming, being described on the attached exhibits A, B & E. The described land contains 657.9 acres, more or less. Parcel 2 All that portion of Tract 76 (Originally Section 29), Tract 75 (Originally Section 28), Tract 69 (Originally Section -21 ) and Tract 89 (Originally Section 16') of T. 15N'.,R.88W.,- of the 6" P.M., Carbon County Wyoming being described on attached exhibits C & D. The described land contains 9.22 acres, more or less.

See attached Exhibits A through E inclusive

These descriptions are based on a survey done by and under the authority of, Paul A. Reid with Wyoming PLS No. 2927 in February of 2006 and Victor E. Anderson with Wyoming PE No. ?471 in December of 2005.

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD this easement across the above-described tract of land for the purpose of locating, constructing, using, maintaining, improving, and repairing the above-described reservoir, roadways and wetlands, subject to the following conditions:

1. The rights granted herein shall forever be subject to the rights of the Grantor, its assigns or lessees to explore for, develop, and extract any and all minerals or other subsurface resources beneath this easement. If required for mineral exploration, development or extraction, the Grantee shall, upon written notice from the Grantor, remove or relocate at its own expense the above-described reservoir, roadways and wetlands.

2. Upon abandonment or discontinuance of use of this easement for the purposes specified above, all of Grantee's rights under this grant of easement shall revert to Grantor or its assigns, the same as if this grant had never been made. Failure to report to Grantor the status of the use of this easement every ten years from the date of this grant shall be evidence of intent by Grantee to abandon this easement. Should this easement be abandoned by Grantee, the above-described tract of land shall be returned to a condition satisfactory to Grantor.

3. This easement may be transferred, however, no transfer may increase the burden on the servient estate in any manner.

4. Any transfer of ownership of this easement, or any change of name or mailing address of the owner of this easement, shall be reported to Grantor within thirly (30) days of the transfer or change.

The State of Wyoming and the Board of Land Commissioners do not waive their sovereign immunity by entering into this agreement and specifically retain immunity and all defenses available to them as sovereigns pursuant to Wyo. Stat. § l-39-104(a) and all other law.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Board of Land Commission) caused ent to be signed by its President and countersigned by its Secretary, and its seal to be on thi day of April,;2006.

,(.Se@l) 1, %%?>%S'. :, s I-li, %a /? / i I a l b %.a 0 'a',* s.@'# l ,I ( cr, %'lcr* Governor, President Board of Land Commissioners

==',,SV Countersigned: '/ '? i *I, 0 r .-.-.,.-"r?' :%}I ot(:o-.?. D,i9oi?r, Secretary (,/ I,,,L:, :I-.,l:}l?16"' Lll Office (of State Lands & Investments

Attorney General's Office Approval @s to Fortn: '?? iniii, gsistant Attorney General z Examined

0 9 l 9 9 'a??l .5 B-1104 P-0164 05/30/2006 11:38AM PG lgfl2. Fee?41.00 Linda A. srnith, CARBON COUNTY CLERK %.

T.15N., R.88W., 6THP.M. State of Wyoming Easement No. 6420 CARBON CO., WYOjk41Wv Exhibit A l of 2 589"57'E 5276.0' l-€ '1

TRACT 89

i Y ':k %sxvopyoxua @ ('11 p o % S 521.2 ACRES (NORTHOF FEAjtE) 51 a34a5 "8 s * S 7

213.8'-1 ii r------"C"---S8r52'W 46857 -" - '-"- - EXIS7TN6 FENCE uNE 1 , '-i[ '=i'm 'l Th l %ln-, YSIp I s58r54s eie.l 'W i i

l AkXl rM. 1."l 8x A€RE5 l,sooosv (NOR TH OF FEME) sCxLE: 1" = 1000' ua.*' '589 .-t% 5 578.4 ' 138. a 6 a

TRACT 69 @ : FOUND 90 BRA55 CAP A€REA&E TMIULA 7TON NOR TH OF FENCE @5 TRMT89 521.2A€RE5 (5HEET10F2) o=sEARCHEDFORNOTFOUND '@ TRMT6rl 1.8ACRES (SHEET10F2) PROTRACTED tuRNER b 'C q TRA T 1 4 ACR (SHEET20F2) k TOTAi.' 657.9 ACRE5 SUR VEY AND ACREAGE DETERMINA TION BY:

J- Xo,,61 Lar) q a ',- ,o,/ q>'4LA-% g'b,

Q ,Dme a.'€fro.Hs# .-

' , .,' r. , ,i.l;, . 7l . -,

J- -r '%. '

?*, ,'::.'}:i!:,i /

-.. JIIW')41a ,

'Th 0919925 B-1104 P-0164 05/30/2006 ll:38AM PG 4 of 12 Fee q 41.00 Linda A. smith, CARBON COUNTY CLERK

H5ACRE4.DRG SHEETjOF2 / 45A CRE ZA K State of Wyoming Easement No. 6420 Exhibit A 2 of 2

l l l l T.15N., R.88W., 6THP.M. l l CARBON CO., VVYOMING l l l l TRACT 89 l I # N89'40E 5284.7' il?? -???.j4a 921.2' )h- / sgrww ? , h - X- /" .4y $1;, 41 f TRACT 69 ';F. &Q/- 134. 9 A€RES (NOR TH OF FENCE) 9/ k4! Pl)!ll! - sTh

] N y6. '#/ .m EXI5 7TA6 FEAJCE LINE % 7 - dl'

%4

TRACT 68 ;lb

SCALE: j" . 1000'

@ : FOUND GLO BRASS CAP O = SEARCHED FOR NOTFOUND PROTRACTED CORNER

ACREA&E TAgULA TION NOR TH OF FEME

TRACT68 .....134.9 ACREs

SUR VEY AND ACREAGE DETERMINA TION aY: 6mh,l'

7.,..! #i& k<: l/ !'ffi#,

0919925 B-1104 P-0164 05/30/2006 11:38AM PG 3ofl2 Fee:741,00 Linda A. Srnith, CARBON COUNTY CLHiRK

HSACRE5 r)RG SHEET 2 oF 2 utJrW74J' .-? %-%. State of Wyoming Easement No. 6420 LEG-AL DESCRIPTION Exhibit B TRACT 89 A portion of land being located northerly of an existing fence line located within TRACT 89 of Township 15 North, Range 88 West, of the 6th Principal Meridian, Carbon County, Wyoming being more particularly described as follows: D Beginning at the Northeast corner of said TRACT 89, said corner being a found standard G.L.O. 0

Brass Cap; Thence SOo02'lV along the east line of said TRACT 89 a distance of 3956.6 feet to S the found standard G.L.O. Brass Cap; Thence continuing along the east line of TRACT 89, W S lo34'E a distance of 213.8 feet to the intersection of the east line of TRACT 89 and an existing a)- fence line; Thence S89o52'W along said fence line a distance of 4685.2 feet; Thence SOo03'W 5 a;I along said fence line a distance of 1175.3 feet to the intersection of the south line of said TRACT b 89; Thence along the south line of TRACT 89, S89o54"JV a distance of 578.1 feet to the southwest corner of said TRACT 89; Thence NOolO'W along the west line of TRACT 89 a (".J distance of 5363.O feet to the Northeast corner of TRACT 89, said corner being a found standard r-l

G.L.O. Brass Cap; Thence S89o57'E along the north line of TRACT 89 a distance of 5276.O feet LH to the Beginning of this description. C: The above described portion of land contains 521.2 acres. 'a' TRACT 69 0 A portion of land being located northerly of an existing fence line located within TRACT 69 of CU

Township 15 North, Range 88 West, of the 6th Principal Meridian, Carbon County, Wyoming a being more parti;ularly described as follows: ;t Beginning at the Northwest corner of said TRACT 69; Thence N89o54'E along the north line of CC{ )Y;1 said TRACT 69 a distance of 578.1 feet to the intersection of a fence line; Thence SOo03'W 1111 t-I along said fence line a distance of 138.6 feet; Thence S89o55'W along said fence line a distance r-I of 578.4 feet to a point on the west line of said TRACT 69; Thence North along the west line of 'D !& said TRACT 69 a distance of 138.4 feet to the Beginning of this description. Da: OW The above described portion of land contains 1.8 acres. r-l J TRACT 68 %,[) 0 C'i:> A portion of land being located northerly of an existing fence line located within TRACT 68 of '%E- 11?> 2 Township 15 North, Range 88 West, of the 6th Principal Meridian, Carbon County, Wyoming 0:) being more particularly described as follows: 0 (I Beginning at the Northeast corner of said TRACT 68; Thence South along the east line of said <;?, TRACT 68 a distance of 138.4 feet to the intersection of a fence line; Thence S89o56'W along IJ) jaj r4g said fence line a distance of 921.2 feet; Thence S49o21'W along said fence line a distance of DW 14 1845.3 feet; Thence S63o31'W along said fence line a distance of 1248.4 feet; Thence CLIU

N70ol6'W along said fence line a distance of 1047.8 feet; Thence 'N76o40?';W along said fence '@'-. 0..C line a distance of 586.8 feet; Thence S52o 12'W along said fence line a distance of 396.2 feet to a r-14J r-l -FI point in the west line of said TRACT 68; Thence NOo06'E a distance of 1605.O feet to the L s Northwest corner of said TRACT 68; Thence N89o40'E along the north line of said TRACT 68 a:l (Ji a distance of 5284.7 feet to the Beginning of this description. iQ d, C%:I The above described portion of land contains 134.9 acres. c'i o M'Ct ra4C ("i ?r-l All of the above described lands of the State of Wyoming contained within fl 69 and 0..J 68 of said Township 15 North, Range 88 West contains 657.9 acres. ? The above described lands are based upon a field survey and described above by Paul A. Reid, Wyoming PLS 2927 !A ; " ' 1??

,Dale 'V?u?: State of Wyoming T. 15 N. R. 88 V. 6th P.M. Easement No. 6420 Exhibit C 1 of 4 CARBON COUNTY, VYOMING TRACT TRACT 69 68 l n

?m aol":ii s b

A / qa e, ?0 / %x / 8e., / / TRACT / / / /

/ 76 / / / TRACT .(l// 'Q' >lCh ')l-i" 75 )/l} .>"L

ll]? 5110 o 10(10 / is / / / SCALE 1' = IG)00' / / / C / ry ? / i / / / /

N34aSTE A .(l// 8x

'iA,?4'S % <9l9 <">k''X 2= AL -LS 544- &'i Q+Tt.+ = rm 'mACT l Ox 76 d?s Oo TRACT , 2,

o CALCLLATED P€llNT (NOTHING FGJ4D. NOTH{NG SET) I)ETAIL "A" 1"=5?O'

iQRV5Y(IRS STATMENT . PAIIL A. RElD, ?REBY STATE THAT l A)l A REGjSTEREn PRCFESSIONAL LAN]) SuRVEYOR N THE STATE OF MY041NG ANn THAT THIS PLiiT REPRES[NTS A F[Eu) SlJ'lVEy PERFCIRME[] IY ME OF THE E)aST[ ROAD CENTER L[ ON THE BASIS OF- MY [NFORMATION. KWLEDGE ? WD BEL[Er. I BELIVE THIS PLAT TO E TRUE ANn (ff!RECT. Y;?, oALL A. REID, PLS iY(:MING PLS Na 29F!7 e4 ,'v ?il

Fee !? 41.00 11:38 AM PG50fl2 0919925 B-1104 P-0164 05/30/2006 Linda A. Smith, CARBON COUNTY CLERK

aaT 1 (F 4 T. 15 N. R. 88 V. 6th P.M. State of Wyoming [ Easement No. 6420 68 CARBON COUNTY, !/YOMING Exhibit C 2 of 4

.y l Ql TR!CT ,r :r 69 84,6s4 , riagas8'iia'w A GLO BRASS CAP W ?'.'6?3+84.5 i / h.l3a26a23- k RADIUS=l651.4' i ARC=387.4' s,,x 9) 7 F# j' 4

.,Cb>. k/!!,4 6,, s,% %/i@ ,7A

j??") 'IJ. )z,Q?' ?>o mACT j- TRACT

/ 76 / 75 , b'

'Xg

0

TRACT LINE CL EXIST?NG RaAD WD CENTEFILINE OF 3t} ' ROAD EASEMENT (l'5' ON EACH SIDE (F CENTERLINE) A TRANSfT?ON POWS * FOUN[l M[)NUMENT AS NOTED

o CALClLATal POINT (NOTHING FCu4D. N[]THING SET)

2Th iml IIX Sf%TYORS[. Pat A REI!1. STATMENT HEREBY STATE THAT [ AM A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SLFIVEYCIR IN THE STATE (F %IYOMING ANn THAT THIS PLAT REPRESENTS A FIELD SURM:Y PEFFORMED BY ME OF THE EXISTING ROAD CENTER L[NE. ON rHE BASIS OF MY l?tDFhATlm KN[]WLE%E AND BELIEF. l ?rVE THIS PIAT TO BE TRUE MD CORRECT. SCALE 1' = lm'

piu? A FEID, PLS WYOMING PL.S NO. a!7 ? ',#

,'V'?h'

0919925 B-1104P-0164 05/30/2006 11:38AM PG 6ofl2 Fee041.00 Linda A. Srnith, cuRBCm COUNTY CLERK a e (F 4

l T. 15 N. R. 88 V. 6th P.M. State of Wyoming Easement No. 6420 CARBON COUNTY, VYOMING Exhibit C 2 of 4

(;LO EIRASS CAP '1 l ' 71 GLO BRASS CAP

/

/

/

/

/

/

/ ,(u . ;/ .% *'"'h 9% ,r.u/ TRACT , TRACT / 59 89 / / i //. //

/ cor'rcccuopo/FENCE// 4 CLNl4l5aW GATE AT lzDAM SITE l33+g3 GLO BRASS CAP .1Q 14Q4 5 126+""" 0 ' "7 I ',:5-j41-7 sSal 3 l

> @21 o.l ""."i ' F 122a :AD":S':=:8':)7.0' ) N8905.T3'JlE...... ( 4 ARC=96.5a

M (,LO BRASS CAP * ,'

TRACT / TRACT / 68 69 ,,@.6J

s ?C k

X ltg TRACT u* '9

CL EXISTING R(]An AND CENTERLINE OF 38 a ROAn EASE)elT

(lal ON EACH SI[ ff CENTERL[NE)

A TRANSIT[ON P01NTS (P[.PC.PT)

* FJJn WNT AS F€3TED

o CALCU?ATJ PO[NT (NOTH[NG FaJiD, NCITH?NG SET)

SURVgYQRS STATMENT I. PAAL A REID. HEREBY STATE THAT l A!'l A REGlSTEREn PKFESSlONk LAND SuRVEyOR [N THE STATE CF WYG4lNG AND THAT THIS PLAT REPRESENTS A r[ELn SLFIVEY PERFORMEn BY )4E (F THE EXISTTNG RaAD CENTER LINE. CN THE BASIS OF MY INFORMAT[)N. KNO!jLEDGE "j) o IIIDO 2? NMD BELIEF, I [LIVE THIS PLAT TO BE TRLE A)a) CORRECT.

SCALE 1' = 1008' PAuL A. REn?. PLS MYOMING PLS N:l. 8927 ? m

's:0 .'V';?h'

Fee '2 41.00 11:38 AM PG7of 12 0919925 B-1104 P-0164 05/ 30/ 2006 Linda A. Srnith, CARBON COUNTY CLERK

SHEET 4 oF 4 T. 15 N. R. 88 !/. 6th P.M. TRACT 59 GLO BRASS CAP CARBON COUNTY, VYOMING State of Wyoming Easement. No. 6420 TRACT pI Exhibit C 4 of 4 ?l 122.92.6 89 -l p.c. sagas.iaxgow 1 I b-45'53'31'a " j380.j ' t2i+96.3 ' l RADluS=807 [1 l '). , ARC=646.4a ,,g-e 5 / S + s ARC=552.7, /& 'l/6li O / ""'9 9 O RADluS=l3955'A=2741'38'/E',c ,O>% t A ' i, r/ Q):.- A/ )'4s3 ,Cn%/ a'X: 'e'o

-"T RACT/

/ .,,,i5-k / .v'v 069 ,:) 91. 'Fk A"a9% 'ak2 ' r9.Cl,4 l 14.o 2N) 0- A2hk l@# ,yi ,'F.: ,'a' a. + 85 36. + 26J J ::@ ':' 51v 4 TRACT l /6.6o., .lull $,iy 5aC) 1 o) 68 '2, iA=2'56a50 - sagaba'tt.'acQ,7' 6<, t89.< yRADIUS=l65l.l i l ARC=a+.g f%,/ , , J

GLO BRASS CAP I1.!0.1 ? /. TRACT / ?RACT A 76 75 l /6 ' sq.. '9) TRACT L[NE

CL EXiSTiNG ROAD AND CENTERLINE CIF 39 ' ROAD EAS€[NT

(15a (al EACH SInE CF [.ENTERL{NE)

A TRANSITION POINTS (F!.PC.PT)

* FOUND )4[)NG[NT AS NOTJ

o CALCuLATED POINT (NCITH?NG FOlNn, NOTH[NG SET)

SURVEYORS STATMENT I. PAlL A. REm. HEREBY STATE Tl-rAT [ AM A FIEG?STERED PROFESSik LAND SU'lV[YOR IN THE STATE OF MYOI?NG AND THAT THIS PLAT R[PRESENTS A F[aD SUIVEY P[RFORMED BY ME (F THE EXISTING ROAn CEfflER LNE. ON T+€ BA!JS OF MY INFOR)4ATiON, KNOVLEDGE sat o 101)0 20110 AND BEuEr. I BELIVE THIS PLAT TCI BE TRLE NID CORRECT. r*

SCALE 1' = 1000' PAJ? A. REm. PLS VYaM[NG PLS Na !F!7 ? ? -l' 4ka M

.'VY?h'

WIT 3 (F 4

a 0919925 B-1104 P-01(=i4 05/30/2006 11:38 AM PG 8 of 12 Fee e%' 41.00 Linda A. Srnith, CARBON COUNTY CLERK .>' - > State of Wyoming Easement No. 6420 Exhibit D l of 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION An easement being located in TRACT 76, TRACT 75, TRACT 69, and TRACT 89 of Township 15 North, Range 88 West, of the 6th Principal Meridian, Carbon County, Wyoming, said easement being 30.00 feet wide, 15.00 feet on each side of the following described road centerline.

TRACT 76 Portion:

Commencing at the Southwest corner of said TRACT 76, said corner being a found 2? aluminum cap monument, stamped ?L.S. 544?; Thence N 89o59'25?E along the south line of said Trad 76, a distance of 402.4 feet to the Beginning of this described easement and road centerline;

thence N34o57'E, a distance of 214.3 feet; thence N33o08'E, a distmice of 637.1 feet; thence N33ol 5'E, a distmice of 3225.9 feet to a point in the east line of TRACT 76, said point being the terminus of this described easement and road centerline and from which the Northeast corner of said TRACT 76 bears N OoOl '40? E, 1,932.4 feet. The above-described easement contains 4,077,3 feet or 247.11 rods, more or less, in length.

TRACT 75 Portion:

Commencing at the Northwest corner of said TRACT 75, thence S OoOl '40? W, 1,932.4 feet to the Beginning of this described easement and road centerline;

thence N33ol5'E, a distance of 292.3 feet; thence N34o05'E, a distance of 457.7 feet; thence N34o49E, a distance of 612.8 feet; thence N33o32'E, a distance of 545.6 feet; thence on a curve to the left, radius 1,651.4 feet, central angle 13o26'23?, a distance of 387.4 feet; to a point on the north line of TRACT 75, said point being the terminus of this described easement and road centerline and from which the Northwest corner of said TRACT 75 bears N 89o58' 11 ? W, 1,230.4 feet.

The above-described easement contains 2,295.8 feet or 139.14 rods, more or less, in length.

TRACT 69 Poition:

Commencing at the Southwest corner of said TRACT 69, thence S 89o58' ll" E, 1,230.4 feet to the Beginning of this described easement and road centerline; thence on a curve to the left, radius 1,651.4 feet, central angle 2o56'50?, a distance of 84.9 feet;

0919925 B-1104P-0164 05/30/2006 11:38AM PG 9 of 12 Fee !? 41.00 Linda A. Sinith, CARBON COUNTY CLERK g?-v

State of Wyoming Easement No. 6420 Exhibit D 2 of 2 thence Nl6o38'E, a distance of 1,190.7 feet;, thence Nl5o51'E, a distance of 478.2 feet; thence Nl4o35'E, a distance of 390.O feet; thence Nl6o00'E, a distance of 385.7 feet thence N20o48'E, a distance of 262.2 feet; thence N24o28'E, a distance of 1,569.1 feet; thence on a curve to the right, radius 1,395.5 feet, central angle 22o41 '38", a distance of 552.7 feet; thence N43ol5'E, a distance of 251.9 feet; thence on a curve to the left, radius 807.O feet, central angle 45o53 '3 l?, a distance of 646.4 feet; to a point on the north line of TRACT 69, said point being the terminus of this described easement and road centerline and from which the Northwest corner of said TRACT 69 bears S 89o53 '39? W, 3,380.4 feet.

The above-described easement contains 5811.8 feet or 352.23 rods, more or less, in length.

TRACT 89 Portion:

Commencing at the Southwest corner of said TRACT 89, thence N 89o53 '39" E, 3,380.4 feet to the Beginning of this described easement and road centerline; thence on a curve to the left, radius 807.O feet, central angle 6o5 l ' 1 7?, a distance of 96. s feet; thence Nl2ol8'W a distance of 406.6 feet; thence N9oOO'W a distance of 549.9 feet; thence Nl4ol5'W a distance of 145.O feet to a point, said point being the terminus of this described easement and the intersection of the existing road centerline and an east-west fence and cattleguard of the southerly fenced Savoy Dam site, and from which the Northeast corner of said TRACT 89 bears N26o40'4 l ?E a distance of 4,673.O feet.

The above-described easement contains 1,198.O feet or 72.61 rods, more or less, in length. All of the above-described easements across the lands of the State of Wyoming contained within TRACTS 76, 75, 69, mid 89 of said Township 15 North, Rm'ige 88 West contains 13,382.9 feet or 811.08 rods, more or less in length.

The above-described easement is based upon a field survey and prepared by Paul A. Reid, Wyoming PLS 2927. Guard ? g%. '. t 'q r Date ? ?'Y?0Mlug

10 of 12 Fee Q 41.00 0919925 B-1104 P-0164 05/30/2006 11:38AM PG Linda A. Smith, CARBON COUNTY CLERK I

?.l

?l ,9%! d E! 'Va'3[ '€,' =,-9=',,4="0s)zn t /

%' . ? ' i

W ,ltk'

ul

?..

W ----.. 0 'lt r-I S-. l l g 7

IQ ('-I ()'i LEGAL DESCR?PTION: N 3/4 ? *& aa 'Aklll 4'Q' o o SE5TION: 16 WETLANDS 9, 10, 11 AND 12 S @, TgWNSHIP: 15N 6AM-Af'4D SF'lLLWAYS D RANGE: P-fil-m61pAL SPILLWAY 88W E*inGENCY SPlLLWAY OUTLET WORKS 60isTR6* GAGING STATION AC(,ESS ROADS

CFRTiFJC61TE QF FN(&jJ ,@;j5? STATt CF %/YaMXNa .'/' COUNTY CF LARAMXt ) SS S wq ? s?m J) un?.wy? pmawauy km{ s@waii? lt%ms ?s ? Pw wh? ,,;/?7) Wr?k?.' / ,2!. lA?l? "?VVYotJll'2 m W I s Wl HIGH SAVERYS>MVLKT DAM umi"i AND rss*y R[SERV[l?R - --.-?. l u ww I l FACILITIES L[]CATE])-"a-" mh* nN r-ravrSTATE i LANDANn SECT?aNS<;rr l f E- S!3-0 - 'm W SECTI€N 16 1 'fDpV 'l

l l' 'Jl ) '-7'7?

@l f

/j

J FENCE LIN I a 7. ,/' k -='y -'S r-

11 * l* 'r

o

l J l t ? -1 7'- r / gT

l!a:i l ('%l 71 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NW (.'i a'! 1/4 ?0piS l(%Q? ltJ SFJJlQtJ 20: r-11 SECTION: 20 WETLAND 2 & 3 C'i -i TOWNSHIP: 15N DlVERSION STRUCTURE 0. RANGE: 88W EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURES WETLAND ACCESS ROAD %

CFWlC6JE QF FNGWFR l? ? STAT€ CF VYClMZNa ss CDuNTY ar LaAM!t: )

I, ? E, J?? ?y o?y ?t %wa pl*ns w? ? *? 'wy kw4 ? -*akss 84 X.k wsask x s? ?y ?, ghfig) 'A * 4bA. .,,?o 74,, ? d.. .[,t.?? ia;51 >p,io.r- @P . P.fflW'l ?'.'7@P'l.,'. ? ' .i.i' .. .i' .'. -. Vvtot&"?,s

vAaawa? H!GH SAVERY DA?4 ANp RE:SjRVf?JR r7 l l r FACI!ITIES L[]CATEp QN S,TATE !AND SiCT?[]NS l w 'nas wi w@a w wawx v 'nei mvwa n * ] W m €JL( SECTI€N ?0 AMENDMENT TWO TO PROJECT AGREEMENT HAZEN DRAW PROJECT PC NO. 05SC0294856

1. Parties. This Amendment is made and entered into by and between the Wyoming Water Development Commission [WWDC], 6920 Yellowtail Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002; and Hot Springs Conservation District [Sponsor], 601 Broadway, Suite A, Thermopolis, Wyoming, 82443.

2. Purpose of Amendment. This Amendment shall constitute the second amendment to the Agreement between the WWDC and the Sponsor which became effective on March 16, 2012. The purpose of this Amendment is to extend the term of the Agreement through December 31, 2016.

The original Project Agreement, dated March 16, 2012, required the Sponsor to complete design and construction of the Hazen Draw Project for a grant of not more than fifty percent (50%) of the total estimated project budget of up to ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000.00), or a maximum of TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00) whichever is less, with an expiration date of December 31, 2014.

Amendment One, dated December 21, 2014, amended the original Project Agreement extending the term of the Agreement through December 31, 2015.

3. Term of the Amendment. This Amendment shall commence immediately upon the last required signature being affixed hereto, and shall remain in full force and effect through the term of this Agreement, unless terminated at an earlier date pursuant to the provisions of the Agreement, or pursuant to federal or state statute or rule or regulation.

4. Amendments. The third sentence of Section 4(D) of the original Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:

“The sponsor shall complete the project no later than December 31, 2016 and shall have settled all claims and paid all project expenses by said date.”

5. Additional Responsibilities of the WWDC. The WWDC has not taken on any additional duties due to this Amendment.

6. Additional Responsibilities of Sponsor. The Sponsor has not taken on any additional duties due to this Amendment.

7. Same Terms and Conditions. With the exception of items explicitly delineated in this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Agreement between the WWDC and the Sponsor, including but not limited to sovereign immunity, including all prior amendments to this Agreement, shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

8. Entirety of Agreement. The original contract consisting of five (5) pages, Amendment One consisting of two (2) pages, and Amendment Two consisting of two (2) pages, represent the entire and integrated Agreement between the parties and supersede all prior negotiations, representations, and agreements, whether written or oral.

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 9. Signatures. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties to this Amendment through their duly authorized representatives have executed this Amendment to the Agreement between the WWDC and the Sponsor, on the days and dates set out below, and certify that they have read, understood, and agreed to the terms and conditions of this Amendment as set forth herein.

This Amendment is not binding on either party until approved by A&I Procurement and the Governor of the State of Wyoming or his designee, if required by Wyo. Stat. § 9-2- 1016(b)(iv).

The effective date of this Amendment is the date of the signature last affixed to this page.

WYOMING WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

______Floyd Canfield, Chairman Date

______Nick Bettas, Secretary Date

Attest: ______Date

HOT SPRINGS CONSERVATION DISTRICT

______Jerry Lake, Chairman Date

Attest: ______

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE APPROVAL AS TO FORM

______S. Jane Caton Date Senior Assistant Attorney General Small Water Project Summary

Project Name: Hazen Draw Watershed Study: Buffalo Creek

Sponsor: Hot Springs County CD Funding Approval Date: 3/16/2012

Estimated Total Project Cost: $33,483.00 Project Expiration Date: 12/31/2015

Approved Grant: 50% up to $25,000.00

Description:

The Hot Springs County Conservation District applied for Small Water Project grant funding for the Hazen Draw Project in December of 2011. The purpose of the project is to take water from an existing spring development and add a solar pump, stock tanks, and 6,000 feet of pipe. The addition of the pipeline will move livestock into an unused area of pasture while providing water to livestock and wildlife.

The project sponsor requested a contract extension in December of 2014 with the intent of completing the project this summer before the contract expires in December. Unfortunately, with this summer’s wet weather the landowner sustained flood damage at a different location of their operation. As a result, the sponsor is now requesting an additional year to complete the project. This request would allow the time necessary to repair the damage from the flood this summer and to install the new pipeline next summer.

Wyoming Water Development Office Projections August 2015

WDA I 2015 Projection 65,699,000 Deduct: 2015 Omnibus Water Bills (32,303,172) Deduct: Non-Project Appropriation Agency Budget (56,137) Deduct: Non-Project Appropriation DWSRF (1,474,527) Subtotal 31,865,164

Income Projected Actual Difference Tax Income 19,300,000 19,297,500 (2,500) Interest Income 2,200,000 2,677,807 477,807 Other 4,000,000 4,056,210 56,210 Subtotal-Income 25,500,000 26,031,517 531,517 Add: Reversions 2,086,763 Deduct: Reduced FY16 Projected Income (1,500,000) Add: FY17 and FY18 Projected Income 48,000,000 2016 Projection 80,983,444

WDA II 2015 Projection 6,510,870 Deduct: 2015 Omnibus Water Bills (15,171,791) Subtotal (8,660,921) Income Projected Actual Buffalo Bill Account - 9,000,000 9,000,000 Tax Income 3,300,000 3,255,000 (45,000) Interest Income 400,000 523,040 123,040 Other 1,700,000 3,101,368 1,401,368 Subtotal-Income 5,400,000 15,879,408 10,479,408 Add: Reversions 813,839 Deduct: Reduced FY16 Projected Income (700,000) Add: FY17 and FY18 Projected Income 9,400,000 2016 Projection 11,332,326

WDA III 2015 Projection 171,594,916 Deduct: 2015 Omnibus Water Bills (18,478,000) Subtotal 153,116,916 Income Projected Actual Tax Income 800,000 775,000 (25,000) Interest Income 2,200,000 3,839,175 1,639,175 Subtotal-Income 3,000,000 4,614,175 1,614,175 Add: Reversions 15,931 Add: FY17 and FY18 Projected Income 6,000,000 2016 Projection 160,747,022 Water Development Account I Preliminary Fiscal Projections as of 8/1/2015

Cash Balance 6/30/14 107,438,276

FY15 Revenues Taxes 19,297,500 Interest 2,677,807 Loans/Interest 3,721,875 General Fund 1,500,000 Other 334,335 Total Revenues 27,531,517

FY15 Expenditures Total Expenditures (30,201,237)

Cash Balance 6/30/15 104,768,556

Outstanding Commitments 7/1/15 Active Appropriations (196,567,527) Expenditures Paid 99,282,415 Total Commitments 7/1/15 (97,285,112)

Total Uncommitted Balance 7/1/15 7,483,444

FY16 Anticipated Revenues General Fund 1,500,000 Taxes 19,300,000 Interest 2,200,000 Other 2,500,000 Total FY16 Anticipated Revenues 25,500,000

FY17 Anticipated Revenues Taxes 19,300,000 Interest 2,200,000 Other 2,500,000 Total FY17 Anticipated Revenues 24,000,000

FY18 Anticipated Revenues Taxes 19,300,000 Interest 2,200,000 Other 2,500,000 Total FY18 Anticipated Revenues 24,000,000

Subtotal Anticipated Revenues 73,500,000

Balance Available for Appropriation 80,983,444 Water Development Account II Preliminary Fiscal Projections as of 8/1/2015

Cash Balance 6/30/14 18,805,540

FY15 Revenues Taxes 3,255,000 Interest 523,040 Loans/Interest 3,101,368 Buffalo Bill Account 9,000,000 Total Revenues 15,879,408

FY15 Expenditures Total Expenditures (6,126,718)

Cash Balance 6/30/15 28,558,230

Outstanding Commitments 7/1/15 Active Appropriations (62,514,141) Expenditures Paid 31,188,237 Total Commitments 7/1/15 (31,325,904)

Total Uncommitted Balance 7/1/15 (2,767,674)

FY16 Anticipated Revenues Taxes 3,300,000 Interest 400,000 Other 1,000,000 Total FY16 Anticipated Revenues 4,700,000

FY17 Anticipated Revenues Taxes 3,300,000 Interest 400,000 Other 1,000,000 Total FY17 Anticipated Revenues 4,700,000

FY18 Anticipated Revenues Taxes 3,300,000 Interest 400,000 Other 1,000,000 Total FY18 Anticipated Revenues 4,700,000

Subtotal Anticipated Revenues 14,100,000

Balance Available for Appropriation 11,332,326 Water Development Account III Preliminary Fiscal Projections as of 8/1/2015

Cash Balance 6/30/14 153,131,207

FY15 Revenues General Fund 19,332,500 Taxes 775,000 Interest 3,839,175 Total Revenues 23,946,675

FY15 Expenditures Total Expenditures (18,314,128)

Cash Balance 6/30/15 158,763,754

Outstanding Commitments 7/1/15 Active Appropriations (49,346,000) Expenditures Paid 22,996,768 Total Commitments 7/1/15 (26,349,232)

Total Uncommitted Balance 7/1/15 132,414,522

FY16 Anticipated Revenues General Fund 19,332,500 Taxes 800,000 Interest 2,200,000 Total FY16 Anticipated Revenues 22,332,500

FY17 Anticipated Revenues Taxes 800,000 Interest 2,200,000 Total FY17 Anticipated Revenues 3,000,000

FY18 Anticipated Revenues Taxes 800,000 Interest 2,200,000 Total FY18 Anticipated Revenues 3,000,000

Subtotal Anticipated Revenues 28,332,500

Balance Available for Appropriation 160,747,022 Wyoming Water Development Office Preliminary Budget for Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018

Series 2015 Biennium 2017 Biennium 100 - Personnel Services 5,527,733 5,827,564 200 - Supportive Services 479,078 479,078 300 - Restrictive Services 226,963 499,806 400 - Central/Data Services 66,003 36,832 500 - Space Rental 658,720 658,720 900 - Contractual Services 1,029,618 1,182,392 Computers 85,484 0 TOTAL 8,073,599 8,684,392

Exception Requests 2015 Biennium 2017 Biennium 1 - Gillette Madison Pipeline Project 25,792,000 0 2 - Computer Equipment 85,484 0 3 - Water Resources Data System (WRDS) (31,189) 152,744

2016 WWDC/SWC MEETING SCHEDULE (Revised – July 2015)

Date Day Program Item

NOVEMBER November 4, 2015 Wed WWDC/SWC Workshop (Casper) November 5-6, 2015 Thurs-Fri WWDC/SWC Joint Meeting (Preliminary Funding recommendations) (Casper)

JANUARY January 6-7, 2016 Wed-Thurs WWDC Workshop/Meeting (Final funding recommendations) (Cheyenne) January 8, 2016 Friday Select Water Committee Meeting (Review draft Omnibus Water Bills) (Cheyenne)

FEBRUARY February 8, 2016 Mon Legislative Session starts

MARCH March 3, 2015 Thurs WWDC Workshop (Cheyenne) March 4, 2015 Friday WWDC Meeting, Scopes & Short List

MAY May 2-5, 2016 Mon-Thur WWDC Consultant Selection Interviews (Cheyenne) May 6, 2016 Friday WWDC Meeting, Selection Approval

JUNE June 1, 2016 Wed WWDC/SWC Workshop (Cheyenne) June 2, 2016 Thurs WWDC/SWC Joint Meeting, Contract Approval

AUGUST August 17-19, 2016 Wed-Fri WWDC/SWC Workshop/Summer Tour/Joint Meeting TBD

NOVEMBER November 2, 2016 Wed WWDC/SWC Workshop (Casper) November 3-4, 2016 Thurs-Fri WWDC/SWC Joint Meeting (Preliminary Funding recommendations) (Casper)