[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6569919,"mediaKeyId","3233718-6fe6b821d89161e7840f550ef29da5b1","parentId",3233718,"title","Select Water Committee actions: master plans, project approvals and contract items at a glance","audioSeconds",4572,"startMs",249000,"endMs",4821000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3233718-6fe6b821d89161e7840f550ef29da5b1&start=249&end=4821","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3233718-6fe6b821d89161e7840f550ef29da5b1/thumbnail_249000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6569919/Wyoming/Select-Water-Committee-actions-master-plans-project-approvals-and-contract-items-at-a-glance","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6569919-d07f14cd14096542df22a1ba0039af1b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771014260&Signature=U3UCCLZAQ49Nty6e27ZvJi4tQnbyqCo2Wyi7aROXLdNOsIf0KPIzJwnJKn0w0FTHGg6NlquvU3Dc69iQTE-SjU6Son61XJlPZnP3vVSW-5xBNzOLO7clhmzQV8G7K76shdgVTbQpC4JfGNgc02cZH1m6gy9ZDLAMfwP5pJB9Ffn6QjPF7mXtVMNtPXQs-PDWn3s~BQb0obSNtXy9wBO3JfyhTwnNQrx3CCgvqaPC9I3b3BgQTCrCMKemWnuSmigR3ztOmylEMdaGRNlJOeNL7QrjHyJZ4tOoyMWQxIcr3~OPeUMdWZzxH6diwwqqxDjKCLfjWn9KELtYS6otjNJWaA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Wyoming Legislature","date","2025-05-09T06:53:36Z","article","The Select Water Committee and Wyoming Water Development Commission approved a series of planning and funding actions during a multi‑hour session. Key approvals and formal outcomes follow; votes were taken on each agenda item and recorded at the meeting.

Votes at a glance (item — outcome — key detail)
- Grover Water Master Plan — approved — preliminary approval to begin consultant selection.
- Kemmerer/Diamondville Water Master Plan (Kemmerer‑Diamondville Joint Powers Board) — approved — sponsor highlighted major anticipated industrial growth and need to update 17‑year‑old master plan.
- Laramie Water Master Plan — approved — city seeks planning support after 2015 master plan; new water rights acquisitions noted.
- Medicine Bow Water Master Plan — approved — small town (≈240 people) seeking inventory and evaluation of aging wells.
- Pine Bluffs Water Master Plan — approved — town reported $4 million+ in recent upgrades and new well acreage purchases; seeks updated planning.
- Superior Water Master Plan — approved — first comprehensive plan for the town since 1980s work.
- Worland (City of Worland) Water Master Plan — approved — city requested a hydraulic model and financing advice for aging transmission lines.
- Yoder Water Master Plan — approved — small town with school district reliance on town water; sponsors emphasized depth of wells and drought concerns.
- Kemmerer/Diamondville (motion to approve) — approved — commissioners expressed support and discussed industrial siting funds.
- Bedford and Turnerville Level‑2 feasibility study (combined study) — approved — motion to begin consultant selection on a combined study to consider hooking systems together and regionalization interest from Thane.
- Hot Springs County feasibility/drilling project — NOT funded — office recommended not funding after consultant found limited access and high cost; motion to accept recommendation passed with one nay (see separate article for details).
- Shoshone Irrigation District Level‑2 master plan — approved — system serves ~36,000 acres and 1,800 landowners; sponsor explained past study work and ongoing pipe/Corbett Tunnel considerations.
- Alliance Lateral ditch (Goose Creek / Sheridan County) — NOT funded — office recommended do not fund based on ineligible maintenance and erosion control scope and other funding programs being more appropriate; motion passed with one recorded nay.
- Casper Elkova/Aspar Alkova irrigation lateral rehab (level 2) — approved — sponsors seek on‑the‑ground loss measurements to prioritize lateral rehab.
- Wheatland water source and transmission evaluation (level 2) — approved — sponsor will evaluate alternatives for replacing or rehabilitating well #3 and transmission to new tank.
- Riverton regional water master plan (closeout memo accepted) — accepted — commission found the work complete and recommended moving to next level when a sponsor applies; consultant reduced original budget modestly.
- Small Water Program project time extension: Silver Lake restoration — approved (time only extension) — delays due to NRCS coordination and design timing; sponsor confirmed NRCS funding.
- Planning project amendments (time extensions): Alkali Creek NEPA contractor, New Fork Lake dam enlargement (2‑year extension), Silver Lake dam rehab (1‑year extension), Lakeview irrigation rehab (6‑month extension) — all approved — office requested more time to finish environmental analyses and designs.
- University of Wyoming Water Research Program RFP (2026 topics) — recommended by Select Water and approved by the commission — 7 broad topics for research issued for faculty proposals.
- Well purchase / transfer agreements:
- Aladdin Well purchase agreement — approved — agreement to transfer well to Aladdin Water District; office to execute quitclaim deed following signed agreement.
- Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities purchase of Belvoir wells (Belvoir 5 & 6) — approved — BOPU to purchase wells for drilling cost of $218,000 (agreement executed).
- Middle Piney Reservoir water sales contract (to Middle Piney Watershed Improvement District) — approved — contract for up to 3,344 acre‑feet at $10,000/year plus in‑kind operation support.
- Construction project amendment (technical correction to project budget) — approved — staff corrected project budget language to reflect that the commission’s share is 50% (clerical correction to a recently executed construction agreement).
- Sponsor contingency request (Evanston transmission pipeline upsizing) — approved — commission approved a sponsor contingency request to cover cost increases with a 50/50 sponsor match.
- Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) Intended‑Use Plan (fiscal year) — recommended by Select Water and approved by commission — plan includes ~50 projects at an estimated $161.5M in loan/finance needs and a prioritized list for principal forgiveness on the most urgent 15 projects.

Context and next steps
Most votes were unanimous or passed by voice vote; several items include follow‑up tasks for the Water Development Office and sponsors such as consultant selection, reporting, or design completion. The commission approved multiple planning time extensions so staff and federal/state cooperating agencies can finish NEPA, geotechnical and design work. The SRF intended‑use plan now advances to the State Lands and Investment Board for final approvals.

Ending note: The meeting advanced a wide range of municipal and irrigation planning projects while drawing clear lines where the office judged funding inappropriate; two high‑visibility items — Hot Springs County feasibility (denied) and the Cheyenne water‑sales accounting decision (separate article) — attracted the most sustained debate.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Joint Wyoming Water Development Commission/Select Water Committee, May 8, 2025 - AM","oneSentenceSummary","The Select Water Committee approved multiple municipal and irrigation master plans, agreed time extensions for environmental and planning contracts, approved construction‑stage actions including well purchase agreements, and approved the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund intended‑use plan.","taxTitle","Select Water Committee, Select Committees & Task Force, Committees, Legislative, Wyoming","taxId",21036,"location","Wyoming","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6569923,"Select Water committee declines to fund Hot Springs County groundwater exploration; commissioners cite access barriers and cost",2043,2752000,4795000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3233718-6fe6b821d89161e7840f550ef29da5b1&start=2752&end=4795","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3233718-6fe6b821d89161e7840f550ef29da5b1/thumbnail_2752000.jpg","/articles/6569923/Wyoming/Select-Water-committee-declines-to-fund-Hot-Springs-County-groundwater-exploration-commissioners-cite-access-barriers-and-cost","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6569923-98c79d8e4ad43c01b9ca735525ddf15f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771014260&Signature=Wla3E6PYSS6kdXf465fxWbLnNPu0Bf2CTCB9tXCsIm2FbwGnGZmI99vLZInhYh~Dn5ZA7E-OuzAkpS-HuIYI5JZPCtG8WrIURawN8mkDsZIEqi5AxQ4U~0hhpy~0cwfy8VZuuqpeDkfWwKLRgQJ8GRs~D3XcasEqb5ngxBIGr1Zg2ArurF~QcEce1NlcHyUjS64LGk8HL1GdXWgYOsSQslUnm2k9v2SMbib~72~PLP6K35p5zJLRpUZjd8TA0M60uCa7O9Bv3JpKfYzjsNciGZozU3MyefImxTjcxOGSE3Zeab17k5JLgWNb-YLDKz-RSaK6OGzuJlSVBOFu9MpJhw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Wyoming Select Water Committee voted to accept the Water Development Office recommendation not to fund a Hot Springs County feasibility project intended to locate new groundwater sources to reduce dependence on the Big Spring surface supply.

The office’s recommendation followed an internal study that found few locations where landowner access for test drilling could be obtained on acceptable terms and that the likely cost of thorough testing and subsequent transmission infrastructure would be substantial.

Why it mattered: Hot Springs County and the town of Thermopolis have considered groundwater as a more reliable and lower‑cost alternative to treating Bighorn River water. County and town leaders said groundwater could lower long‑term operating costs and reduce perceived surface‑water contamination risks; office staff warned the test‑drilling path had a low probability of success given limited easements and previous experience with the idle Buffalo Creek well.

What the study and sponsors told the committee
- George Moser, an office geologist/project manager, said consultants evaluated over a dozen potential test‑well sites; many landowners declined access and one potentially usable location came with long‑term access terms that the office believed were priced well above fair market value.

- Moser estimated drilling/test‑well costs at roughly $1.8 million to $2.0 million per site and said the program would likely need multiple sites plus several miles of transmission pipeline to deliver water to Thermopolis — costing “in the neighborhood of $6–7 million” in pipeline work alone.

- Tom Ryan, chairman of the Hot Springs County Commission and the county joint powers water board, and Adam Estensen, mayor of Thermopolis, argued groundwater could save the region money over decades. Ryan said groundwater operation costs could be about $438,500 per year versus roughly $716,000 for the current surface‑water treatment, producing multi‑million dollar savings over 30–60 years in the office’s scenarios.

- Estensen told commissioners that groundwater development could enable a more equitable regional governance approach (a joint powers board) because a new groundwater system could be built and owned by a regional entity that provides representation to participating districts; continuing to route treated surface water through Thermopolis complicates governance and rate allocation for the surrounding districts.

Committee discussion and decision
Commissioners questioned the feasibility of securing long‑term easements, recalled the Buffalo Creek well (an earlier test well that remains idle and capped after landowner access lapsed), and weighed community benefits against the cost and access risks. Commissioners also noted tribal land or wilderness sites had been considered but would require lengthy federal processes.

On a motion to accept the office recommendation not to fund the Hot Springs County project, the committee voted to approve the “do not fund” recommendation; the motion passed with one recorded dissent.

Clarifying details and figures
- Estimated test well drilling cost per location: $1.8–$2.0 million (consultant estimate).
- Estimated pipeline/transmission costs to tie wells to Thermopolis: $6–7 million (consultant order‑of‑magnitude).
- Annual operating cost comparison presented by the sponsor: active groundwater supply estimated at ~$438,500/year versus ~$716,000/year for the existing surface‑water treatment plant (sponsors’ figures).

Next steps
The committee’s action closes the current feasibility request to the Water Development Office. County and town officials said they still intend to pursue options, including seeking other funding sources, talking again to landowners, and exploring governance structures if groundwater development becomes practical.

Ending note: The committee emphasized that the office pursued the drilling option seriously and that the “do not fund” recommendation reflects low likelihood of obtaining necessary access and the relatively large upfront cost and follow‑on transmission investments that would be required.","The Select Water Committee voted to accept staff recommendation to not fund a test‑well drilling feasibility project in Hot Springs County, citing landowner access hurdles, high drilling and pipeline costs and regulatory constraints.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6569929,"Wyoming commission orders Cheyenne utility to share revenue from Crystal Reservoir water sales",1171,6423000,7594000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3233718-6fe6b821d89161e7840f550ef29da5b1&start=6423&end=7594","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3233718-6fe6b821d89161e7840f550ef29da5b1/thumbnail_6423000.jpg","/articles/6569929/Wyoming/Wyoming-commission-orders-Cheyenne-utility-to-share-revenue-from-Crystal-Reservoir-water-sales","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6569929-7625151895061ca4b7423952eab8c22c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771014260&Signature=Kr0AN97yrPblAcWX4NDthcnkOAc7Kb7QXPs2iP14h-Ptqt2wr7PGLFjyB4eqhNSuSX5J~m7NITDVQ7fcfav1RKMSaNeiZ1TNTqUW42Mu0JdjXyUZ-mKTGPXxxQpRMF9XZblUuZI8IVwg8TPagE2OAtcE-8L4RR21ZI0MazSp0IU4D4UUdgzt5bBHx07OFTno43HvW9df~9YjB6B3eyAgCTgcSS0OG8gMdXJyERP6eCpFFWtqyJgfarBFN6TIQtYnkO5QMzQUkDqVp2H3L3Mv6Jij~JAxmpazcAmACme6By9QNLNyInoa5ARgRAIiDhK~kI4gSX3-ADnqy~CNOgxoVA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Wyoming Water Development Commission voted to require the Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities (BOPU) to begin sharing net water revenue immediately from sales of water taken from Crystal Reservoir, overriding earlier office guidance that payments should wait until a higher-use threshold was exceeded.

The commission’s action follows days of detailed discussion at the Select Water Committee about when sales to a proposed U.S. Gold mining project should trigger a payment obligation under a 2000 project agreement between the commission and BOPU. The commission’s motion directs the Water Development Office to implement the agreement and to treat BOPU as responsible for sharing net revenue from the sales.

Why it matters: The decision affects how fast the commission (and ultimately state coffers or program accounts) could receive tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars a year if the mine develops a long‑term water purchase. Commissioners debated whether to begin revenue sharing immediately or wait until peak use exceeded a previously discussed threshold linked to the capacity of the 30‑inch transmission line. The vote to require immediate sharing was intended to ensure the state receives compensation when municipal infrastructure supported outside commercial sales.

What the committee heard
- Director Jason Mead summarized the office’s prior recommendation, which had been to delay requiring payments until the mine’s purchases pushed combined system flow above a 21 million gallons‑per‑day threshold tied to use of the 36‑inch pipeline. Mead also told the committee that BOPU had said it planned to charge outside users a base rate of about $3.55 per 1,000 gallons and to charge outside users up to 1.5 times the base rate under its outside‑user policy. Mead and staff characterized the added 1.5 multiplier as the source of what the office considered “net revenue.”

- A Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities representative told the committee the utility sets outside rates to recover its actual costs plus capital needs; the city’s practice is to add a 50 percent premium for customers outside city limits. The representative said that, averaged over the last five years, about 65 percent of the water delivered from Crystal Reservoir to the treatment plant has flowed through the 36‑inch pipeline (the line that the Water Development Commission had helped fund) and the remaining 35 percent through the older 30‑inch line. The BOPU representative described the city’s water‑rate and cost‑of‑service studies used to set the $3.55 starting price and the 1.5 multiplier.

- Commissioners and counsel pressed staff and the utility on how to measure “net revenue,” whether revenue sharing should begin immediately or only after the 21 million gallons‑per‑day threshold, and how any compact or curtailment calls would affect both city customers and a commercial buyer. Legal counsel reminded the group that the commission itself is not party to any contract between BOPU and the mine, and that phrasing of any private sale contract remains between those parties.

The vote and instructions
The commission voted to find that the Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities is responsible for sharing net water revenue under the June 20, 2000 project agreement and directed the Water Development Office to implement the agreement. The commission’s action explicitly requires the utility to begin sharing net revenue immediately when sales begin rather than waiting for the previously discussed system‑capacity threshold.

What remains unsettled
Commissioners and staff discussed several unresolved technical and program questions that the Water Development Office and BOPU will need to finalize as they implement the decision, including:
- The precise accounting method for “net revenue” (the office and BOPU described different but related baselines: BOPU’s stated base charge of about $3.55 per 1,000 gallons and an additional outside‑user multiplier that yields roughly $5.33 per 1,000 gallons under current practice). Director Mead told the committee that the additional multiplier (about $1.78 per 1,000 gallons under the $3.55 base) would be treated as the portion that can be considered net revenue.
- How to handle water curtailments tied to Colorado River compact obligations and whether contractual language will require a commercial buyer to accept curtailment in drought years if the buyer does not develop additional local supply (for example, the Bellbore well field discussed in the meeting).
- Whether the buyer will take water from Crystal Reservoir infrastructure (subject to commission participation) or instead from new local wells (which would not use the state‑funded pipeline) — an outcome that would affect whether revenue sharing applies.

The commission asked the Water Development Office and BOPU to work together to implement the ruling, to calculate net revenue using agreed accounting methods, and to return to the commission with any actions or clarifications needed to finalize implementation.

Ending note: The action resolves the immediate policy question of whether revenue sharing must begin only after a specified peak threshold; the commission chose immediate application of the 2000 agreement. Technical accounting and mitigation language for drought/curtailment were left to the office and the utility to resolve while implementing the directive.","After hours of debate over how and when to count revenue from water sales to a proposed gold mine, the Wyoming Water Development Commission directed staff to implement a 2000 project agreement requiring the Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities to share net water revenue immediately.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Select Water Committee actions: master plans, project approvals and contract items at a glance

Select Water committee declines to fund Hot Springs County groundwater exploration; commissioners cite access barriers and cost

Wyoming commission orders Cheyenne utility to share revenue from Crystal Reservoir water sales