Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hot Springs‑feasibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select Water committee declines to fund Hot Springs County groundwater exploration; commissioners cite access barriers and cost
Summary
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.
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.
