The Wyoming Water Development Commission on Oct. 28 accepted final reports and closed consultant contracts on several water master plans and level‑2 studies, and in most cases recommended that sponsors pursue the next stage of project development by submitting funding applications.

The office recommended acceptance of final reports for the Alpine Water master plan, the Bighorn Canal Irrigation District level‑1 study, the Elk Canal master plan, the Grama Water Systems Improvements level‑2 study, the Hot Springs County supply evaluation level‑2 study and the Powder River Irrigation District level‑1 study. Commissioners moved, seconded and approved acceptance motions for each report during the meeting.

The master plans identify aging infrastructure, prioritize rehabilitation, and estimate preliminary costs. For example, Lonnie Olson of the Water Development Office said the Alpine master plan identified 11 proposed improvements including a recommended connection between two Alpine water systems to bring a northern supply online; the office recommended acceptance and contract closure, and commissioners approved the recommendation. Mabel Jones summarized the Bighorn Canal master plan, noting an inventory and rehabilitation priority index that identified about 16 projects with costs in the $10–$11 million range depending on replacement vs. rehabilitation; commissioners accepted the report and recommended the district seek level‑3 funding for top priorities.

George Moser presented the Grama Water Systems report, flagging a 14‑inch asbestos cement transmission line dating to the 1970s and a 1966 tank recommended for replacement. The report recommended phasing replacement and, where feasible, using existing corridors to minimize costs. The commission accepted the report and recommended the sponsor pursue level‑3 funding when ready.

For Hot Springs County, the office reported the study evaluated sources for a regional system and concluded the existing treatment plant is at capacity and that a new surface‑water treatment plant at the existing site is the preferred path if groundwater access cannot be secured; commissioners accepted the report and recommended proceeding when a sponsor submits a funding application.

The Powder River and Elk Canal studies identified prioritized structure replacements and multi‑million‑dollar rehabilitation programs; the commission accepted both final reports and encouraged sponsors to pursue appropriate funding applications.

Commissioners emphasized that acceptance of a study does not itself obligate construction funding. Several speakers noted that subsequent funding requests will require more detailed design, easement acquisition and sponsor applications. The office provided proposed motions for acceptance in each closeout memo and commissioners approved them after limited discussion.

The commission’s approvals mean the consultants’ contracts will be formally closed and sponsors may proceed toward the next stage of project development, including applying for level‑3 construction funding when they have completed required preconstruction work and secured necessary property interests.

Several commissioners and staff stressed the need to align follow‑up level‑3 funding with available program balances and with the commission’s prioritization rules. The volume of study closeouts accepted at this meeting added to the queue of potential construction requests the office and commission will evaluate during the upcoming legislative session and during the commission’s January review.