Southern Wyoming Land Swap and Dam Proposal

[rwc101]

‘Huge’ state-federal land swap could expedite dam approval - WyoFile

State land board votes to analyze an exchange with Forest Service that would facilitate construction of 280-foot-high West Fork Dam above Baggs.

www.wyofile.com

Wyoming’s top five elected officials told the state land office to explore a 24,000-acre land exchange with the Medicine Bow National Forest that could expedite construction of a 280-foot high dam in Carbon County.

 

[Dougfirtree]

Boy, you don't hear about new dam construction very often these days..

 

[ccc23454]

All this just to avoid feds red tape

 

[Steve Petersen]

This is a first I’m hearing about this. This isn’t all that far from me either.

 

[Hammsolo]

I try to see situations through others lenses and ask questions first. Our current debates seem to often be led by emotion over facts.

What are the wins and losses for each group? Why are groups doing what they’re doing? Have down stream groups been considered? You know that water flows all the way to the ocean…

I think I see some red flags. We still have talks over water rights without many understanding and considering the whole system.

I don’t see a lot from outdoor recreation groups in there. How will it effect fish and game?

I would also want to know about dam design.

 

[Steve Petersen]

I try to see situations through others lenses and ask questions first. Our current debates seem to often be led by emotion over facts.

What are the wins and losses for each group? Why are groups doing what they’re doing? Have down stream groups been considered? You know that water flows all the way to the ocean…

I think I see some red flags. We still have talks over water rights without many understanding and considering the whole system.

I don’t see a lot from outdoor recreation groups in there. How will it effect fish and game?

I would also want to know about dam design.

I agree. Be nice to know what expanded recreation opportunities ie hunting, fishing and camping could come of it for this site.

 

[appaloosa]

The financial gymnastics these groups will play to justify the construction cost of these projects is truly amusing.

 

[LuketheDog]

People have lawns and they'll irrationally try to keep them at all costs.

 

[Bighollow]

Losing out on 10,000 acres of huntable land so Colorado ranchers can irrigate with Wyoming water from Wyoming state land. Hmmmmm……….????

”Critics have said the project amounts to a $700,000 subsidy to each involved rancher. Some legislators have said the per-acre foot price is 1,000 times the cost of other water in Wyoming.”

 

[Hechterooskie]

I dont lik

Losing out on 10,000 acres of huntable land so Colorado ranchers can irrigate with Wyoming water from Wyoming state land. Hmmmmm……….????

”Critics have said the project amounts to a $700,000 subsidy to each involved rancher. Some legislators have said the per-acre foot price is 1,000 times the cost of other water in Wyoming.”

an acre is not the same thing as an acre-foot

 

[TOGIE]

it seems that the intent is to build this regardless but the hope would be they could do a land swap to expedite it and perhaps lower costs.

on one side of the coin a 130 acre max surface area reservoir is not exactly going to wipe out critical habitat or food sources for deer and elk or like a migration corridor or anything.

while storing more water can reduce flows, the water is usually stored during the highest flows, i.e. runoff. further, it likely also means more water will be released when flows would typically be lower. can be a net benefit almost for fish.

certainly there could be some problems with this, but i'm not seeing a project that inherently is evil. but i'd also like to hear what some wildlife or sportspersons groups think.

my guess is this is largely a firming type project to make the water rights more reliable. this water is likely not going to anyone else downstream regardless. i'd be interested to learn more on that aspect as well.

 

[Gr8bawana]

With the ongoing drought in the west, I'm wondering how long it would take to fill a new res. like this if it were to actually be approved?

 

[bullbugle]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't this essentially a self enriching pet project for Hicks and his fellow upper snake river producers?

Also, I've hunted a fair bit in that area. I don't wanna lose out on anything up there just to likely gain another put and take trout fishery. I know they've got CRC's up there, but I don't really see where a reservoir is going to help those fish any.

 

[Bighollow]

I dont lik

an acre is not the same thing as an acre-foot

Thanks, missed that acre-foot but another HUGE red flag is the attempt to then transfer the land to Carbon County or some other entity. Many of the water projects in Carbon County are closed to the public and no access for public hunting. They are transferring the land once the dam is built in order to get the state out from any lease payment obligations. The entire project may simply have No trespassing signs around it after the dam is built or perhaps fishing allowed but no hunting.

”Once built, the dam, reservoir and property could be transferred again, this time to the Water Development Office, to Carbon County, or some other entity”

 

[appaloosa]

it seems that the intent is to build this regardless but the hope would be they could do a land swap to expedite it and perhaps lower costs.

on one side of the coin a 130 acre max surface area reservoir is not exactly going to wipe out critical habitat or food sources for deer and elk or like a migration corridor or anything.

while storing more water can reduce flows, the water is usually stored during the highest flows, i.e. runoff. further, it likely also means more water will be released when flows would typically be lower. can be a net benefit almost for fish.

certainly there could be some problems with this, but i'm not seeing a project that inherently is evil. but i'd also like to hear what some wildlife or sportspersons groups think.

my guess is this is largely a firming type project to make the water rights more reliable. this water is likely not going to anyone else downstream regardless. i'd be interested to learn more on that aspect as well.

Are all these "benefits" worth $80 million to Wyoming taxpayers?

 

[shootbrownelk]

A $700,000.00 subsidy for the benefit of 80 ranchers? What's in it for the Taxpayer? Timber sales and livestock grazing lease fees don't amount to diddly squat. This is all for a handful of whiney ranchers. Sounds like a bad deal for those of us footing the bill.

 

[mhungerford]

i worked on this project like 7 years ago. Finally some more news on it.

 

[TOGIE]

Are all these "benefits" worth $80 million to Wyoming taxpayers?

well i'm not really making a judgement call on that. nor am i trying to point out any supposed "benefits"

but i mean no, probably not and on it's face this is most glaringly a fishy project just because of how bad they want to to a land swap to get it done.

i don't want to see a reservoir built there, quite honestly. i can assure people that the wilds of southern wyoming mean just as much to me as anyone.

but for those that have a need for the water the whole picture tends to look very very different.

whether or not the financing makes sense for how many people benefit and what is the dollar value of the benefit? those are questions that need to be answered by wyoming residents. but the claims have to be factual.

 

[BuzzH]

Its hard to believe that anyone would still be considering dams being any kind of good idea in 2021.

Fisheries problems, maintenance forever, dredging, unhealthy riparian areas, lack of point/bar development, cottonwood galleries down the drain, sediment loading, etc.

Here's a novel idea for those wanting subsidized water, how about we subsidize farmers where it rains to give you some hay? I've always wondered how much sense it makes to subsidize people living in a desert to grow crops there? For that matter, why not raise cattle where you don't need 20-50-100 acres per cow and you know, actually rains enough to grow grass?

We pay landowners to pump precious ground water, build dams, divert water all over hell and gone, to grow hay/alfalfa, etc. crops in places they weren't meant to grow. Then every deer, elk, and pronghorn for 100 miles come to the green fields, necessitating damage hunts, GF agencies paying game damage claims, fencing, etc. etc. etc.

Why not subsidize the farmers in places like Illinois that can grow 3-4 crops of alfalfa where we don't need to dam streams, pump groundwater, etc. Give the ranchers out West the hay for a subsidized rate?

Either way, we're going to pay a subsidy, I say do it in a way that disturbs natural systems the least.

 

[Irrelevant]

Its hard to believe that anyone would still be considering dams being any kind of good idea in 2021.

I actually think there's going to be a lot of dams built in our future. For those regions with a Mediterranean climate (no rain all summer) and no glacial storage or extensive aquifers, there will have to be a way to store water for people to drink. Can you reduce Ag in these areas? Sure. But there will come a point when reduction can only go so far, when drought diminishes stream flows down to the point where we're either protecting fish or people, or maybe neither. A lot of people don't think of western OR or WA are dry areas, but they can be. All of the large metropolitan areas of both states rely on large reservoir storage for drinking water.

The key will be improving dam siting and designs to minimize maintenance and environmental impacts.

But none of that means this dam fits that mold.