Cadillac Desert; 2; Water: Wyoming Speaks Out

This complete the four part documentary series Cadillac Desert. And now once again it's our turn here at Wyoming Public Television to take some of these big issues about the world's water needs without building. And about environmental quality and bring them back to Wyoming. It was here in the arid West that the American approach to water rights and reclamation took shape. And I think you'll find that we talk to our guest tonight here that those ideas are taking new shapes today. Before we introduce this panel I want to remind viewers that this is a call in show a chance to ask any questions that you may have that arise from the documentary that you've just been watching or really any questions that you might have about water and water policy in Wyoming in the West. Well record your question and broadcast it on the air and then we'll do our best to respond. It helps sometimes to write those questions down before you make the call and then try to be as precise and concise as you can as you can make them. And we'll try to be the same

with you tonight. Is the director of the Wyoming Water Development Commission. Mike we're about you're welcome. Also here is his predecessor Mike Purcell who is now a consultant who works for the governor's office and various clients on the water issues. Well how are you tonight. Also here is power tool a rancher and former legislator from the little Snake River area. He's also presently serving on the federal Western Water Policy Advisory Commission. Welcome back. Good to be here. And finally my fourth guest is University of Wyoming law professor Mark Squillaci who specializes in natural resource and environmental law. Good evening. Welcome. Well I think we ought to start this off the way we did the last time we had a panel after one of these documentaries and that's by doing our own little version of Siskel and Ebert asking you to give the thumbs up thumbs down and tell us a little bit about your reaction to the documentary so I'm going to go quickly around the table here and start with you Mike.

I'll give it a half a thumbs up. I think some of the views were a little slanted but basically you know reminds me for those working in the water resources how complex an issue it really is. It also I'm looking at previous programs that maybe the AG in the West and wanted to go out and waste might be were really criticized because it seems to me that that is the real issue might be population growth. When you look at what's happening in China what's happening in India and it in fact that we have hit on maybe a formula to help some of these folks out. You know by looking at some of the political problems that exist in the Mideast. I think they might learn from putting together compacts and treaties similar to what we've done in the west along the Colorado River. The Missouri River Basin and so I think that should that point should be made and finally that

I do agree with Sandra posthole the author of desert dirt the last two races that we have. Engineers do tend to look at demand and come up with a solution. But I think in this day and age at engineers It's a modified approach. It's a lot more detailed. We've learned from. The environmental community we've learned from past mistakes and in fact that we take a more balanced approach to water development and Wyoming. And I think throughout the West. But that was a big half a thumb stuck up there. Mike Purcell what have you got to say about it. I found the program informative. I like Mike so. Thought that parts of it works like that and in particular I think one would Rockaway. The conclusion of. The Thelma's is conservation is the solution all our water problems. Certainly there are places where conservation should be seen as a solution.

But there are quite frankly places in the West where that doesn't work because quite frankly you need something to conserve. And quite what makes conservation work is is having some storage to save. For the benefit of your neighbors and the environment and. People that are living on a stream where there is no control would find water conservation in August a moot point because quite frankly there's nothing to save it. And to a certain extent the documentary talks about some of the water shortage areas particularly. Mexico City Mexico City there's a possibility that conservation has to be a solution. But. In. Some other places where there's no water conservation certainly not the solution. OK I'm going to keep right on going around with our thumbs up thumbs down

commentary. What's what's absolutely accurate about this about the piece was growth is fueling everything on the commission that I'm serving on. We've had a report that indicates you know it's several times during that report they talked about growth in various parts of the world the western part of the United States is the fastest growing place in the world right now because of a combination of people moving in and from other places in the United States from foreign countries. And we have flexibility that they don't have. And we also have the greatest food production engine that's ever been created in the history of the world. And I think what we need to look at is how we utilize that flexibility today and that in the context of tremendous growth and really look at it in the context of what are we going to give up. The thing that really struck me is the two forks decision where the EPA vetoed the two forks dam in Denver which has constantly been used as an example of good long term policy when in fact that did was turn Denver off to buy

water from farmers and from the cities in northern Colorado. I was at a meeting with the mayor of Fort Collins and some of the commissioners from Greeley were involved in a panel on a real concern about what's going to happen with their water system and their infrastructure and the tremendous agricultural production in northern Colorado because Denver expects to double. I think we you know we have to look in the context of what is Los Angeles what does Denver what does Las Vegas really mean to us in terms of their growth versus what we have to trade off. Because so far I think we've got three thumbs somewhat pointing away from the conservation message at least as long as it applies to this area. One more. Mike Squillaci I enjoyed the program I didn't mind the conservation message I thought it was an important one. I guess I agree to some extent with Mike and his comment that perhaps there should have been some focus on some other solutions possible solutions. If I had a criticism of the program it was that the

program seemed to do a good job of setting out some of the problems with overconsumption of water resources but did a less good job I think of describing how our political and legal institutions attempt to deal with those problems and also the extent to which those problems are inherent in the institutions or whether they're in the implementation of that institution that we have in place here in the West and throughout the world and I think that this program might offer us an opportunity to explore some of those issues. I think one element in that that we probably ought to cover just because the composition of the panel tonight is what exactly the Wyoming water development commission is. I think there's a lot of general ignorance about exactly what it does and what it was set up to do before I get to that and ask you to explain a little bit. I'm going to remind viewers we're getting some calls in. We want you to pick up the phone and make some calls. We'll record your questions. We'll bring them to this panel of experts and they will give you the best answers they can. They can be questions about the documentaries that we've

shown over the last few weeks. They can also simply be questions about water in Wyoming and even opinions about where you see things going like best and maybe you can tell us a little bit about the Water Development Commission and what exactly it's there to do. Well the Water Development Commission is a focal point. It's a. Consisted of 10 members to from each division in the state. One at large representative and one member that represents the tribes Wind River Indian Reservation. It's a focal point for the Water Development Program which Wyoming has been lucky enough and had enough force site to take some non-renewable resource revenues and dedicate it to the development of a renewable resource and that's water. And we are charged through with her program is trying to put Wyoming's unappropriated water into beneficial use and keep existing infrastructure existing projects irrigation projects public works projects viable and still be able to serve

future generations of my own. We are also one of the charges one of the goals is that we are the state water planet. And with that I'd like to give a plug for our program. Right now there is a questionnaire being distributed throughout Wyoming. And if you don't get a copy that questionnaire and you'd like to participate give us give Evan green to call it in our office. But that questionnaire does ask those folks throughout Wyoming if they'd like to participate in a water planning feasibility study to help us look at water needs throughout Wyoming and to look at methodologies and solutions and how to configure a more dynamic and compress comprehensive water cleaning process. If we get that for now the commission is is really Wyoming's own state version of a water development agency such as the Bureau of Reclamation on the federal level. And I

guess I'd like a little history. I'd like to kind of know and I think people would like to know how much money has been put into this so far. I mean how long how long is the commission been there and how much have they spent on water development. The program was really set up in 1977. The funding mechanism for how we operate was implemented in 1982 at that time there was something like a hundred and seventeen point six million dollars diverted from the general fund to give us a boost with the water development effort in Wyoming. Since then quite a new development program which is dedicated to put Wyoming's unappropriate of water to beneficial use. We receive a one and a half percent excise tax on coal which generates approximately 30 35 million dollars every year in revenue for water development and we also receive a 1 12th of 2 percent which equates to point 1 6 7 percent

severance tax on oil and gas for water count 2 which is dedicated to the station of the existing projects that have been. Around for 15 years at least. And you have any idea can you give me a rough figure of how much we've invested in water development in that period from the early 80s till now we are approaching in Project expenditures about 500 million. So we've appropriated Well more than that. It's closer to 600 million dollars but funds revert in the program. So they can be reallocated for additional projects as the need arises. So in addition to a number of federal projects that have taken place within the state we have quite a number of state invested dollars as well. We got the sort of dams that we're talking about in these documentaries up or going up in Wyoming. It's Mike you've been I think in 1982 when when the various projects were selected for

review by the commission. There were several dams that the condition was given to charge to evaluate the feasibility and pursue. Some of those that were constructed. So for Crick and for the community Evanston two reservoirs related to this Cheyenne's stage do project. Like Adelaide another. I think that we would have to admit that probably we we haven't met the goals of the some of the visionaries that came up with the program in 1982. The idea in 1982 was that we would in fact store water. As a way to promote use quite frankly. So we came up with the concept of of state projects. We evaluated projects throughout the state that had come to us from. From the original planning reports that were done in the 70s

and looked primarily at storage facilities and what storage facilities would be good state investments. And we came up with we prioritized on the basis. Of economics on the mountain water store to a certain extent need some of the projects of course were sandstone and the little snake or the Middle Fork of the powder. Fork for the Bear River. Then we made a selection of which date project to pursue first. And that was sandstone. And that was based solely on the fact that there was at that time we felt more need for the water and then some other possible state investments. The problem we ran into quite frankly was the changed NEPA review and the wetlands policy that basically we

we got the conclusion when we we did our neighbor radio and did the environmental impact statement that the federal government had now said that you have to show a need for the water before we're going to give you a permit. What we were were forced to do then was of course we appeal that decision to the division commander that a long time and a lot of money trying to give the federal position of sandstone we looked at perhaps some legal remedies and so on. So. What that decision basically told us is that the days of building storage for storage say were over unless we could accomplish some reform in Washington D.C.. So that led to the conclusion that smaller dams in our attention turned to the Buffalo municipal project which is now under construction as well as the Twin Lakes project for the community of

Sheriden. We found that we have to do a little more innovative. Mr. best when the commission is looking at smaller alternatives to supply a water supply for the little snake basin great will rally project which which looks at conservation as well as storage a form of reregulation. So the programs had to be a little more inventive to get the story accomplished and it's probably gone slower than a lot of people would have thought. And that seems to have shifted somewhat in its focus as well by whatever forces were pushing it one way or another. That's true. You've got to understand from from our perspective from the commission's perspective you get a budget for a project and becomes your goal to get it done. You try to work within the system and look at those little nicks and crannies in the federal law to see how you might get your goals accomplished. And we've had to adapt. We've found that in some cases

of. Government employees the third and fourth level quite frankly have quite a bit of cloud to the permitting of water projects we try to work with. If you can't well and you do sometimes have to go to a higher court bring in the congressional delegation. But the permitting process has become a negotiation process and that has in fact affected the accomplishments of the program. We do we do have two dams currently under construction and hacked in and the city itself. One the big one is in the Twin Lakes project which is an argument an existing facility shared. And Mike did mention the Griebel Valley. Project.

We're expecting to get the food for permit sometime in September October time for I know we're going to come back and have more comment on particular projects and on this whole program what I want to start doing right now is working in some of the questions that are coming in from the viewing audience. We're going to start with a question from here in Riverton from Linda before we air it I want to remind viewers that you too should be picking up your phones if you have questions and calling in now and getting a word in here and then letting these folks respond. So the first question will be from Linda in Riverton after watching the show kind of like they're getting a lot raises a question came to mind in Wyoming at the top of one of the major watershed and all Primary Industries downstream are running out of water. Can you tell them the water that flows out of Wyoming. Do we own it and we get it. Some of our other commodity future coal and gas and oil can bring

finances back into the States. That sounds like a question we have to start with a law professor. Yes Linda. The there is at least the prospect of selling water that flows out of state. But it's complicated as you might imagine. I know our state engineer Jeff facit has been very interested in exploring the possibilities of selling Colorado River water downstream. We use only about half of our allocation that is been allocated to us under a series of compacts and various laws that have been enacted by Congress. But there are always people who will find reasons to protest those kinds of sales and exchanges. And it may just be that the so-called transaction cost that is the cost of trying to avoid though the legal battles and the satisfying all the people who would be affected by that kind of transfer maybe more than it's worth in terms of the transaction. I think that there's a possibility here I think it's going to take

some assistance from Congress and perhaps some stronger support from the states that are involved. If we're ever going to see those kinds of transfers. But you're right the water is there. It's our water and potentially it is available to sell. Somebody else want to add something to this but I think one of the concerns you know whether you talk about the state of Wyoming which has significant rights on the Colorado the tribes themselves have talked significantly about marketing water. The concern is can you do it for the short term. Can you lease it. Do you have to make a long term commitment that you can't ever have any control over that water down the road that some of the philosophical arguments that are come to the top the other concern and I think it's one that we're just beginning to reach out to and that's that should we be transferring massive amounts of water for more growth in the Southwest. I know there's a question of sustainability of social sustainability in those cities at the size that they're growing to. And should we change

the uses particularly from agriculture but even the slower development process that Wyoming has been in should we accelerate that process to try to fuel something that maybe doesn't have intrinsic value but we do have a history in the state of selling raw materials to out-of-state places that need coal to burn or need some other material that we've got. And so it's kind of an interesting question. I see the focus of the development commission being primarily on how to generate more economy here within the state. How to make things happen here. But this question does come up and in fact is often phrased as you know were we so non-renewable resources out of state. Why can't we sell one that's renewable. So it's an interesting question. You know you look at Sweetwater County and the amount of water that they have there is a base and it was the base that is you know growing that economic engine. And you know my own perspective is I think a slower thoughtful process where we use our resources in conjunction both natural resources renewable and non-renewable

makes more sense than as I said before fueling something that maybe we're not so sure is the right way to go anyway any more coming. Mike as far as the leasing auction I guess one of the things that there's got to be a market for that. And if you are a big water users want to build that infrastructure to take advantage of some enterprise to make some product that uses a lot of water it's a question of certainty. And if you're going to make million multimillion dollar investments and it's only for a prescribed amount of time there might not be the market there that people may think either. We have another question that I think stems directly from the documentary from the dawn lander. This question touches on the population issues that are connected of course to the growth of water consumption throughout the world and unlimited population growth defined

and progress and achievement and some obvious connection with the and only use of water resources. Why do we refuse to address the issues. My colleagues in Wyoming and you know I think on a world basis that's a good point and why only now spent my life living in Wyoming. And since I can remember we've had a real stable population that fluctuates between four hundred thousand five hundred thousand people. We have not had that kind of growth that really stresses the water development resource where the water resources in Wyoming. I guess I take issue with that to some extent I think Mike is correct in suggesting that we don't have stresses in the sense of people who want water who don't have it available to them. But a concern I've had for a long time about our water

resources program is the lack of focus on the public interest. There is a provision in our Constitution which makes clear and indeed it's a provision in most state laws in the West that makes clear that water resources should not be allocated unless the public interests would be served by those allocations and we've never in this state defined the term public interest. And largely when allocation decisions are made the public interest is not really considered. And so while there may be water available for people who need it there's not really much consideration given to the impacts that water allocation decisions are going to have on the stream environment on hysterics and other kinds of public interest values. And so I think that that it's important in our state that we begin a dialogue on those kinds of issues I think it would be helpful for example if the state were to go through its planning process perhaps develop a rulemaking on the question of the public interest and how to implement the public interest standard that is contained in our Constitution that's included in our state laws so that we

can come to some agreement as a people in the state of Wyoming as to how we want to use that concept and allocating our water resources. But let's talk a little bit about that about that question of what is the public interest in Wyoming. Or does it extend even beyond Wyoming we're making these decisions. I mean I'd like to hear a little bit more about what values we recognize when we make these kinds of investments in water development or are we simply seeking economic improvements are we looking for other other qualities like perseveringly right now what our politics. Is. Based on the competition for the resource whether it's nationwide or statewide from time to time. And right now I guess I guess I'd start by saying I'm a believer in the ad in the old much you overuse saying use it or lose it. But I believe that they that quite frankly. You can talk

about us as a state and our decree and compact allocation so there's competition downstream. For that water. And the best way quite frankly is to demonstrate the use for it. The competition has changed. You have competition from from California to Las Vegas and now you have competition from downstream environmental interests. So quite frankly. That competition to a certain extent takes place in our state. Water right. Holder has a responsibility to exercise that right and exercise it. In a manner that demonstrates that they have a need for exercise that diligently at least once every five years. There is a risk of abandonment and I don't have a problem with that right now given the politics of the region in the West. I'm very comfortable with our all.

Maybe it's just because I understand that part of it but but it's served us well and I'm not dialog's fine but. I'm not really ready for reform given given what's happening in the West. And I remember often the dialogue when when some of these water issues come up is the state saying certainty certainty and some of the folks who are lined up on the other side saying flexibility flexibility we need flexibility. There are other needs and other concerns and I guess that seemed to be two of the polls that this thing goes back and forth between this argument within the state. You know in today's today's world and appropriately there's a series of environmental laws that you know I I spent a lot of time last year going to hearings and hearing people from all over the west talk about the application of those laws. There's two things that that came out of it one is that in terms of the players in the water in the West whether they be from the environmental community through the tribes through the water users in their cities agriculture talked about the gridlock we're in today that the

system isn't working and it isn't that there shouldn't be environmental protections but that they need to be applied equally and what's become apparent if you're a water developer in Wyoming or a tribe and I see a lot of similarities there there's a feeling that the application of the laws has certainly benefited both the downstream and the population centers. And you look at Los Angeles who's looking at a billion dollar project right now and it really has to do with where the population is. And you can buy compliance with environmental laws with enough money as has been done in California recently and I think we're you know we're coming to more sophisticated process and looking at water. I mean obviously every river is allocated every aquifer is being depleted in the west right now. We have some decisions to make but we have a lot of flexibility. We're not bathing with a cup like they are in

East Palestine but we have in my own mind we've come through the phase the big dam building phase that phase is over. We've come to the environmental phase and we've ended up finally at a gridlock phase and I see it now in a third phase where people are going to have to come together with the realization of what growth means and what kind of flexibility we have. And you know I found it interesting that Mark Reisner who wrote Kellock desert met with our commission a month ago in San Francisco and now believes that there is a real place for storage in the West and it's not always traditional. It's not going to be on a huge scale but storage that would mean a lot to Wyoming I think is in the future. Underground storage is another area where Arizona right now is storing the allocation of the Colorado River and their aquifers. There's a lot of techniques developing technology obviously the Israeli technology is being applied stringently in California. There's a lot of Israeli technology and irrigation in California. So there's a real time of

opportunity and maybe a time of burying the hatchet among different interest groups because we're at a point where we have to decide on what kind of quality of life we want to have for for the next generations and this growth phase that we're in we'll make all those decisions for us if we don't start making them for ourselves. But it seems like we were we are also moving between that point of view this need for flexibility the need to look at new things that one can do and the old adage of use it or lose it. I mean we're still in that. And so implicit in your comment Jeff I think is this idea that certainty and flexibility are somehow incompatible and I'm not sure that's right. I think that that we can have some level of certainty in our water rights system I think we certainly do have some level of certainty in that system but we can still have some flexibility. Part of the certainty may be that you won't always have the right to use as much water as you thought you could. Yes you'll have the right to irrigate your crops. Yes you'll have the right to a sufficient amount to do that efficiently and no one can

deny that vested right to the person who's using the water. But there's flexibility built into the system to account for the public interest to account for other needs that may arise other kinds of water needs that may be as Pat mentioned a moment ago that we don't build the large dams like two forks but instead we do look to our neighbors to the north and we seek some reallocation of water from agricultural uses to other kinds of uses. By the way that doesn't necessarily mean taking those agricultural lands out of production it may simply mean making the use of that water for agricultural purposes more efficient and then transferring the water that is saved through that process to other kinds of needs be they municipal industrial or other needs. So I think that we do have an opportunity to use this planning process if one if we if the legislature does approve the resources we need to embark on that process that we do have the opportunity to provide that certainty and that flexibility and to bring

viewpoints of different water users to the table and have a discussion. I think that planning is the right forum for that. Would you like to say something. Yeah. OK. You know I think clearly that. There are opportunities for when we're. To go out and be responsible to the environment to do a proper job of mitigation. And an environmental enhancement. We've talked about conservation. Where there is the opportunity. For conservation of storage partnerships there between agriculture municipalities. Castro called irrigation district in the city of Casper. Through with the Bureau of Reclamation accomplished some of that. Using state municipal dollars water was principalities

and agriculture. People ended up with a more efficient system. Reduce their own em. We've got to understand the mechanism that we're for in fact nuclear power is a rehabilitation program within the water to the ocean. And the thing that quite frankly brings those rehabilitation projects to Valencia is that the farmers see the opportunity to be more efficient and therefore save money and and. Provide limited support or just stretched limited supplies. So you know that there there has to be at this point. In reform and people. My point about the Castro District Project and I agree it's a good example of how we can have a kind of win win where the irrigation district implements water conservation

measures and gives the water that saved to the municipal needs. But under our current legal system that can't that thing can't be done. We need private legislation to get that through and I think one of the issues that we need to address is how we make our laws more amenable to those kinds of water conservation techniques under our water transfer provisions 43 3 1 2 4 2 You just can't do that. I've read that paper mark. There wasn't really any that transfer and everything what was accomplished under the existing law there was no specific new regulations. There was legislation that was passed that looked at the legislation and it was private legislation passed by the state legislature to ensure that that that project could go forward. Because you can't because of the way the water transfer statute works in the state of Wyoming. The restrictions on transfers make that kind of transfer virtually impossible and in order to grease the way for that it was a

private law that was enacted and I don't think this is the place where we diverge also and I think it's really a clear issue. I mean we talked about in the program Imperial Valley they sold 250000 acre feet of water to San Diego just in the last few months. And it's my personal position and there's you know there's the issue where we going to get the water and agriculture uses up to 90 percent first. Much of it returns back into the system. But my position is that we have already with what's in place today gone as far as we should go in terms of making those transfers. We should be looking at conservation and many other factors before we grease the skids any more for agricultural transfer because of this overriding factor and everybody in Wyoming that drives through this state sees what's happening throughout the entire west and that's the break up of our open spaces. I happen to sit on a it it will grow or stockers it

meets with environmental groups greater Yellowstone coalition and others talking about the fact that we've gone much further than anybody feels comfortable with. Whether you take the extreme example of Jackson or the example of virtually any riparian area left in the West that's being subdivided and transferred from agriculture. And I think by facilitating those transfers right now first year you're impacting production. And we certainly produce enough food for America but we also are only positive balance of trade consistently and this country is agriculture and jets. And when we start diminishing the value of our agricultural capacity we talk about a lot more than just whether Wyoming has cows and sheep and crops. It has to do with an entire infrastructure. So I think we have to be very careful especially right now as we get into this decision making phase I talked about and trying to assess where whether we can make those changes. And especially in the open space issue I think we've gone as far as we dare and we're going a lot further. I mean I think in this

route County Colorado which just passed half a mill levy to buy up open space lands around around Steamboat Springs. And my understanding from the county planners that area's already got fifteen hundred plants that we have to be very cognizant of were changing the landscape of a Wyoming that we all have values for. And you know Mark is right that there needs to be an ongoing debate that I'm very leery about facilitating agricultural transfers especially at this time and this is where some people don't realize how often land use issues and water issues are basically come together on these sorts of things. Thank God the water is tied to the land. Not like Colorado. I know everybody wants to come in and we're kind of rolling among the four of you but we also have a lineup of questions here so I'm going to slip on and we're going to hear from Dave in Casper and I do want to remind viewers that the lines are still open. Call in will line up your questions we'll try to get to them and get you some answers. This is Dave and Casper.

My question is I would like to know who owns the right to the water on the North Platte drainage in Wyoming. Why why is are not allowed to use those right. Built up in Casper. Sounds like something you are insult to the state of Wyoming by our Constitution. We do. Are the owners of the water in Wyoming. Sometimes there's a debate with the federal government for reserving rights and such. But in the North Platte. I think that if you look at the water supply and that basin I guess it's an over allocated river. I don't know whether or not that Budweiser was ever that it was a water related decision why they located in Fort Collins rather than Gasper. I'm not sure that any other comment on this question just that that Wyoming does it on all the water in the North Platte River I think Mike

certainly understands that. And there have been well at least one important Supreme Court decision allocating water in the North Platte. There is a case now pending as many people know that will further refine the allocation if you will of the water on the North Platte River. But we share that water with Colorado and Nebraska. And one of the reasons you hear people laughing here is that these guys have been for years struggling over the questions of North Platte and who gets what out of it with our neighboring states. And I think it's another indication of a lot of this very important water business goes on sort of out of the public view. It's complicated. It involves some some complex questions of law and it's hard to explain. So a lot of times it just kind of disappears and it's rolling along a little like the development commission has rolled along doing its work without a whole lot of public attention. With the exception of a couple of the dam projects I'm going to go on to another question here. This is from Dick Kaspar. And again we're still taking calls so I'll remind you to pick up the phone and ask any questions

that you've got. This is Dick and Casper. What efforts are you making to the high water foundry in court you need water quality effort with other agencies. It is in our national forest and Bill and you all heard the question and that was not Dick. My apologies to Dick and also to Vicki of Laramie who actually called in that question. Would anybody like to respond I guess from the perspective of being a permit on BLM and Forest Service lands. I know that it's a big part of our lives and we talk with the NRC our local conservation district. We have a really active one and a little snake river. We're working on some fish habitat projects on Battle Creek and I think if you're involved with federal land management agencies right now you talk about right Parian areas you talk about fisheries. It's an intrinsic part of the process and it's for us it's been a

pretty exciting. The interaction between state and federal government as well as private individuals and the concern over some of the questions are some of the issues that you raise there is something we actually are hearing a lot about on the North Platte and I think it might be worth talking a little bit about what is developing now in terms of the North Platte and wildlife needs that the federal government has raised. After years of work with the issue for 13 years. And recently two or three years ago there became a series of events where all three states were seeking federal approvals or requiring either a permit to try and successfully complete section 7 consultation for example for the federal reservoir's in Wyoming that we hold near and dear Colorado was seeking special use permit which we all require

clearances under GSA. At the same time we were seeing in the documentary to a certain extent to broaden the central plot. We were saying Fish and Wildlife Service making what we felt were outrageous estimates that they needed add additional 470000 acre foot of water per year to recover Ukrainian's flows and we use terms and at that point in time we felt that that we needed to be proactive both for the protection of our water users. And if you will to be a player in the determination and the development of the science here too for I think it was a little politics involved in some of the science was determining the needs of the species. So recently the three

governors and the secretary of interior signed a cooperative agreement whereby we have come up. With a basin wide approach one that had some principles on it that I quite frankly agreed very strongly rather than the federal government playing one state off against another. Each state stepped up and said I will be responsible. We will be responsible for for our impacts because to a certain extent there was some discussions about whose fault was a lot of finger pointing. And to what degree that fault. Remained in Nebraska and Wyoming and quite frankly I'd have to say it's it's one of the reasons that when the Supreme Court one of the many that we saw an opportunity.

So we're taking three years to do an evaluation underneath of a rope program. At the same time there's a lot of tough issues that are going to have to be negotiated in the next three. Well what about the perception that some of these issues environmental issues conservation issues are arising primarily at the instigation of the federal government the federal government's role which we've seen in sandstone and Deer Creek. We're seeing it in the North Platte. And I'd like to throw this question out for everybody I mean I'm wondering if that's ever instigated within Wyoming or if we are simply trying to build and develop these projects and then we bang up against federal rules that require we look at some of these other things. Anybody want to respond to that. That possibility is that perception. Sure it's part of the reason I'm so bruised quite frankly we. Have seen just as the documentary said with Nepa and say the rules of the game have changed. And I think what what our problem gets to be is

is the administration of those laws change without really the laws themselves. It comes down to. Different questions of how they want to use for example weapons. Five or six years ago that became an environmental issue. The west to a certain extent wetland protection. A lot of discussion and debate about even what a wetland was. It was kind of like it was something that was in the eye of the beholder and to a certain extent but that still happens when you're when you're evaluating a way. And for some reason the best wetlands are always the ones where you want to do something. Those are the most valuable. So I think there has do with the laws as has come. Some say changing policies from Washington.

About how to administer those laws of nature and that gets someone like the water development mission or Patrick or anybody who wants to accomplish something it gets very frustrating because to get through the hoops to get something accomplished is the preparation of environmental impact statements evaluations a purpose and need. Those all become come to you from a federal perspective rather than the state perspective. But we have to be careful how we use these words too because accomplishment to some people is the contribution of better habitat for cranes and Nebraskans. Anybody else want to comment on that. You know an interesting point that came up at a meeting on the Colorado River coordination council that Jeff Fassett has its roots in Sweetwater County a couple of times a year it's in the Endangered Species agreement that was made between the upper basin states on the Colorado River Colorado Utah and Wyoming. There's a contribution that each state makes to the recovery

program. And that recovery program was designed so that they will be it would facilitate the permitting process. Now Wyoming has had some permitting problems for a very variety of reasons. But you have to ask yourself over the period of time in that program and I believe it's six to seven years Mike it's my recollection that Wyoming has permit the 200000 acre feet of depletions on the Colorado River that had been permitted. Wyoming is permitted less than 5000. And that depletion to give you an example on sandstone the depletion was 12000 acre feet of a 50 thousand acre foot reservoir. So if there's 200000 acre feet permitted for depletion that's a significant leap bigger amount of water than that. And the federal government is now looking at asking the states in conjunction fish and wildlife service to come up with 104 million dollars for infrastructure costs and I think what we need to do in this next phase is to try and position ourselves as have some of the other states in a

long term process if we're going to play the game of recovery which is an appropriate one to play. There should be an equal amount of permitting capability for the state of Wyoming. I think that's you know what I've tried to do after looking at our our frustration down the little snake river is look at what some of the other states have done and what's been successful and what hasn't. I'm going to entertain another question now from the audience because they are piling up and we're still taking more. If you want to call in. This is from Todd in Laramie. We have a call that's come in. Believe me all and say Hi to Mark squatty the former mastermind and the second of two things that I'd like the Committee to address. The first is on the anchor dam project and I would like to know how much it cost the state of Wyoming and if we are still paying for its development. The second is the committee to address the environmental suitability of water such as mining groundwater to support of course the green lawn.

And on top of crops in an arid climate if we have in the West we don't have that much time. We to every damn close to the accurate and question whether it was at the federal facility. There is no repayment obligation and so I understand that by anybody from Wyoming there interestingly enough there is some benefit being derived by the project in terms of the amount of regulation but it had definitely had a seepage problem showed up right after construction. Let's get let's get onto the more substantive question then of the environmental suitability of some of the things that we're now doing with groundwater. I'd respond to that that we've got enough water here in Wyoming to do all those kinds of things that you're talking about. But I think as the Cadillac Desert program showed earlier this evening it's important that we be sensitive to the other needs that exist both in stream and for other kinds of water

uses. And I think if we approach things like using water for golf courses and mining and the other things that you mentioned if we approach it with a sensitivity to the amount of water that's needed for those purposes if we install efficient irrigation systems if we grow the kind of grasses that don't require as much water it seems to me that we can accommodate all those kinds of needs and more we've got we're blessed with plenty of water here in Wyoming. I think the challenge for us is just to use it more wisely. There's also technology there's been a new development system referred to as aquifer storage and retrieval. And what happens in these areas where the mine is occurring that you go you bring in an alternate water supply and you can actually. Maintain and keep that depletion of that awful food from occurring by injecting that alternate different supply into into the aquifer. And it does have some some promise as far as if you're looking at

sizing water treatment facilities or pipelines you look at the engineers always look at the peak demand the maximum use on a facility to come up with a size if you could in fact inject some of that water during the off peak demand. You may be designing facilities for the average use rather than the peak use and save a significant amount of state resources I want to keep moving along with some of these questions that we've got lined up here we're going to hear from Deacon Kaspar what we call question number five. That's just to help the folks in the studio know who we're talking about. This is Dick from Casper great to deal with of the United States Supreme Court. Three years ago with the case in Nebraska sued Wyoming and Colorado on the right track. We had a case on the allocation of water to fracture your doctrine of prayer be sure to

use ground water in Wyoming your day with respect to the Jeff kids are visiting me. Where is Jeff Fassett when we need him here. Quite frankly I'm assuming the answer is that the Nebraska brought suit against Wyoming in 1986 and some 11 years later we are still waiting to get to court. So the answer to the question is there has not been a decision made. There have been rounds of summary judgment motions and decisions but that quite frankly trial is still a year away. It's going to be those projections that the trial will take a year or two weeks on two weeks off. Complex issues. And the attorney general's office is in the process of reviewing Nebraska's clan coming up with defenses to speak just like

the questioner was referring to the earlier Supreme Court decision I believe it was 45 or thereabouts where the original allocation of the North Platte was made and just to clarify that point there was an allocation of the North Platte River made among Colorado Wyoming and Nebraska. I believe it was 1945. We're now getting some of those issues. And as I said earlier trying to refine some of them is that the decision from forty five is quite complex. It divides the river into three segments just in Wyoming gives a certain chunk of water to Colorado right off the top of the sort of crucial section of the river which is right near the Nebraska border was allocated 80 percent to Nebraska 20 percent to Wyoming and most of the fighting has been over that portion of the river. But as Mike indicated there is litigation ongoing over all of all of this and we'll have to wait and see what the Supreme Court has to say. The actual case is 75 20 25 25 years. That's right. Thank you Mike.

We have another fairly specific question about a particular project. This is from Sue in Casper. Caller from Casper named Sue. Hi. You can go to the Belmont area where there is little water. If you consider the whole revenue for working hard that day it was nearly dry a few years ago. Now nearly two are very different to reallocate that water so that recreational development can enjoy eating more stable future. Again we're we're moving into facets areas some here but I wouldn't be like kind of the the history of keyhole where word worries is that the majority of the water is quite frankly allocated to South Dakota. There was some interest some years ago and in fact there was actually no preparation made where we were going to negotiate a minimum pool

quite frankly for recreation. And then mother nature kicked in the water and some of the local interest in that dropped off but there was a plan on the board to do something for recreation and in terms of reservoir management. So going Mike that we're coming to a conclusion here because in fact we're running out of time. So I want to thank the panel for joining us. We had a lot of us here to get everything you want to say but I appreciate the fact that you did join us and said what you could say in the series of documentaries about water broadcast over the past month on Wyoming Public Television. You may have heard several times that when it comes to water it pays to be upstream. Well that's essentially what we are in Wyoming we're at the top of several watersheds. We're really the first spigot on the pipeline and our water is clean and relatively plentiful but the downstream has a growing hunger for water and it's time for us to think hard about this resource how to conserve it and use it and how to use it wisely. So I'd suggest

to the viewers that we take like basons invitation to get involved in the planning process seriously and become more aware of how we're using our water and what we're going to do with it. Thanks for joining us.