Wyoming State Water Plan, Wyoming Water Development Office
Rafting on Snake River Lake Marie, Snowy Mountains Wyoming Wind River Range picture

Powder/Tongue River Basin Water Plan
Final Report

V      Future Water Use Opportunities

A.     Introduction
Previous chapters of this report quantify water resources available for development and use and identify present and future water needs in the Powder/Tongue River Basin. This chapter identifies future water use opportunities that can be implemented to satisfy the water demands in the Little Big Horn River, Tongue River, and Powder River Basins in Wyoming. The list of opportunities presented in this report is intended to be used by individuals and organizations that need to develop a water supply to satisfy their specific needs.

To further assist the users of this list to identify potential opportunities to satisfy their demands, a methodology is presented that can be employed to evaluate a specific opportunity on the list relative to similar and related opportunities. The suggested methodology evaluates opportunities according to the likelihood they are desirable, functional, and capable of receiving the support required for development. By using the list of future water use opportunities and employing the evaluation methodology, individuals and organizations will have "a place to start" in their investigation to develop a water supply to satisfy their specific needs.

The procedure used to complete this task consists of the following four steps which are described in this section of the report:

  1. Develop screening criteria to evaluate future water use opportunities;
  2. Develop a long-list of future water use opportunities;
  3. Develop a short-list of opportunities; and,
  4. Evaluate the opportunities on the short-list.
Following the discussion of future water use opportunities, legal and institutional constraints that need to be addressed in water management and development are described. The final section of this chapter discusses water quality issues in the planning area.
B.     Screening Criteria
A significant component of the river basin planning process is the development of screening criteria and methods for evaluating future water use opportunities identified for the study basins. For the Powder/Tongue River Basin, the screening criteria and evaluation method developed for the Green River Basin Plan were presented to the Basin Advisory Group (BAG) for consideration, modification, and adoption. The criteria adopted by the BAG, and a description of each criterion, is presented below:

Criterion 1: Water Availability

This criterion reflects the general ability of a project to function, given likely bypasses for environmental uses and prior rights. It is not a reflection of the relative size of the project.
Criterion 2: Financial Feasibility
This criterion reflects the effects of the combination of technical feasibility (high or low construction cost) and economic use to which the water would be put (e.g. irrigation of native meadow vs. cultivation of alfalfa or row crops). The intent of this criterion is to indicate the likely ability to afford the project or meet Wyoming Water Development Commission (or other) funding source criteria. A low number represents a project with suspect ability to be repaid, whereas a high number represents a project that should more easily meet funding and repayment requirements.
Criterion 3: Public Acceptance
This criterion reflects the extent to which a project will encounter or create public controversy (low number) versus a project that would likely engender broad public support (high number). For example, on-stream storage in environmentally sensitive areas would be very controversial, while off-channel storage in less sensitive areas would more likely be supported.
Criterion 4: Number of sponsors/beneficiaries/participants
This criterion reflects the desirability, all other things being equal, that a project serving a larger segment of the population should be evaluated higher (higher number) than one serving only a few (lower number).
Criterion 5: Legal/Institutional concerns
This criterion reflects the perceived relative ease (high number) or difficulty (low number) with which a project could be authorized and permitted under existing state and federal law.
Criterion 6: Environmental/Recreation benefits
This criterion reflects the net effect of positive environmental and recreational aspects of a project as offset, to the extent it can be determined, by potential negative impacts on these attributes.

C.     Long-List of Future Water Use Opportunities

Compiling the long-list of future water use opportunities began with a review of published reports available for the planning area. The level of information and data available for the projects identified through the literature review varied from very sketchy to completed conceptual designs. Comments and suggestions received from members of the BAG contributed to the development of the final version of the long-list. The long-list is presented in Table V-1 and on Figure V-1. Additional information on the opportunities is available in the technical memorandum prepared for this topic.

Table V-1
Long-list of Future Water Use Opportunities
Title Map Location Number
Little Big Horn River Basin
Little Big Horn River Export System 1,6
BEPC Sunrise Project 2
Twin Creek Reservoir 2
Fuller No. 1 Reservoir 3
Fuller No. 2 Reservoir 4
Half Ounce Reservoir 5
Tongue River Basin
North Fork Reservoir 7
South Fork Reservoir 8
Rockwood Reservoir 9
Upper State Line Reservoir 10
Prairie Dog Reservoir 11
Lower State Line Reservoir 12
Sheridan Canal System 13
Shutts Flats Reservoir 14
Alliance Lateral Ditch Rehabilitation * 15
Jones Draw Reservoir 16
West Fork Reservoir 17
WTM Reservoir * 18
Clear Creek Basin
Little Sour Dough Reservoir 19
Camp Comfort Reservoir 20
Lake DeSmet and Enlargements 21
Reynolds Shell Creek Reservoir * 22
Reynolds Piney Creek Reservoir * 23
Boxelder Reservoir * 24
B.C.L Reservoir 25
Lower Clear Creek Reservoir 26
Tex Ellis Reservoir 27
South Rock Creek Reservoir 28
Triangle Park Reservoir 29
Canyon Reservoir 30
South Clear Creek Reservoir 31
Lynx Park Reservoir 32
Sour Dough Creek Reservoir 33
Tie Hack Reservoir Enlargement 34
Crazy Woman Creek Basin
Enlargement of Negro Creek Reservoir 35
Crazy Woman Reservoir 36
North Fork Crazy Woman Reservoir 37
Hazelton Watershed Site "A" SCS 38
Hazelton Watershed Site "B" SCS 39
Lower Crazy Woman Creek Reservoir 40
Crazy Woman Watershed Improvement District * 41
Doyle Creek Reservoir 42
Powder River Basin
Middle Fork Powder River Reservoir 43
Pumpkin Reservoir 45
Bass Industrial Reservoir 46
Moorhead Reservoir 47
Arvada Reservoir 48
Fortification Creek Reservoir 49
Fence Creek Reservoir 50
Gibbs Reservoir 51
Morgareidge No. 7 Reservoir 52
Red Fork Powder River Reservoir 53
Buffalo Creek Reservoir 54
Clarks Fork Exchange Not in study area
Little Powder River Basin
Coal Mine Reclamation Reservoirs Not specified
* denotes opportunities not included on the short-list

Figure V-1
Future Water Use Opportunities


click to enlarge

Specific groundwater development projects were not identified and included on the long-list. However, groundwater development was included on the short-list as a generic future water use opportunity for each of the sub-basins and was considered along with the surface water opportunities. Similarly, water conservation was not included on the long-list but was included in the short-list evaluations. Water conservation, resulting from improvements to irrigation practices, provides additional water to satisfy present and projected demands by decreasing the current level of irrigation depletions. This decrease in irrigation depletions can be achieved without reducing the number of acres irrigated by changing the irrigation method from flood to sprinkler and by lining ditches experiencing significant seepage losses.

Groundwater produced in the development of coal bed methane was not included on the long-list of future water use opportunities. Although this resource has the potential to supply small, localized demands over the short-term, the feasibility of developing a significant water supply from this activity is considered to be limited because of the wide geographic dispersion of the wells and the projected short time of operation.

Water right permit applications have been submitted to the State Engineer for many of the projects included on the long-list. Some of the applications have been approved and the State Engineer has granted permits authorizing project development. The majority of the projects, however, have not been elevated to permit status and the applications remain in the pending status.

Water right information was not compiled for the projects nor was water right status considered in the subsequent evaluations of the projects. Each of the projects on the long-list were evaluated under the assumption a water right for the project could be perfected and conflicts with competing water rights could be resolved. Consideration was given to simply compiling the water right status for information only and not for the purpose of evaluation. However, this task proved to be beyond the scope of this river basin planning study and, more important, the information derived from this effort promised to be more confusing than useful.

Another future water use opportunity in the Powder/Tongue River Basin is the establishment of instream flow water rights. These water rights are developed through a specified procedure that begins when the Wyoming Game and Fish Department proposes a stream segment for an instream flow water right. The segment is then studied by the Water Development Commission, and the water right is granted or rejected by the State Engineer. This opportunity is not, however, included on the long-list since the segments that have been proposed are either under investigation, have been granted, or have been rejected. As new segments are nominated they will be advanced through the process.

D.     Short-List of Future Water Use Opportunities
Projects and opportunities on the long-list were reviewed to determine if they should be included on the short-list. Reasons considered to eliminate projects include: 1) the project has already been constructed; 2) the location of project facilities, i.e. within a National Forest or wilderness area, presents major legal, institutional, and permitting constraints; and, 3) the original demand for the project no longer exists and is not expected to appear within the planning period.

As previously noted, water conservation was not included on the long-list but was included in the short-list evaluations. The only water conservation measure considered in this short-list evaluation was ditch lining. The process involved compiling a list of ditches having high seepage losses, estimated to be greater than 30%, and including these ditches in the short-lists as "Misc. canal rehab. (Conservation)". The list was compiled from the Diversion Operation Technical Memorandum prepared for the Powder/Tongue River Basin Plan and the State of Wyoming 2001 Irrigation System Survey Report. The list was then reviewed and modified by the State Board of Control Superintendent of Water Division Number Two. The resulting list included the following nine ditches: Alliance, PK, Burn-Cleuch, Colorado Colony, East Side, Gerdel, Peralta, Interstate (Pennoyer), and South Side. All of these ditches are in the Tongue River Basin.

Comments and suggestions received from BAG members and contributed to the development of the final short-list. Future water use opportunities included on the long-list that were not carried forward to the short-list are identified in Table V-1 and on Figure V-1. Specific reasons for not including the projects on the short-list are provided in Appendix A to the technical memorandum prepared for this topic.

E.     Short-List Evaluation Methodology
The methodology described in this section is intended to assist the user of the short-list of future water use opportunities. The process described can be employed to establish "a place to start" in the quest to match specific water demands to future water use opportunities.

The process begins after the short-list of future water use opportunities has been prepared. The result of the process is an evaluation of opportunities according to their relative likelihood they are desirable, functional, and capable of receiving enough public support to be implemented. In general, the results present an overall picture of the favorability of a future water use opportunity or project.

The first step in the process is to categorize the future water use opportunities into one of the four types described below:

Type 1: Rehabilitation projects that preserve existing uses.

Type 2: Projects that rectify existing shortages.

Type 3: Projects that meet projected future demands.

Type 4: Projects that enhance uses in other Wyoming basins.

By categorizing the short-list projects into one of these four types, projects are evaluated only relative to similar type projects. Furthermore, the projects are grouped by basin to allow planning evaluations by geographic locale.

After the short-list projects have been assigned to a type category, the six evaluation criteria were used to evaluate the projects under each of the types.

The evaluation process entails assigning a weight value to each of the criteria. These values range from a weight of 10 for criteria judged to be very important, to a weight of 1 if the criterion is not considered significant. Different criterion weight values are assigned for each of the four type categories. For example, Criterion 1: Water Availability is not significant for Type 1 projects, since these projects already have an established water supply, and will be assigned a low weight value. Conversely, this criterion is very important for projects categorized under Types 2, 3, and 4, and will be assigned higher weight values.

Each project is then assigned an evaluation score for each of the six criteria. These scores range from a high of 10 if the project is very favorable for that criterion, to a low score of 0 if the project is very unfavorable. Scoring a project under each criterion is accomplished relative to the other projects in the same type category. For example, consider Project X and Project Y that are categorized as Type 2 projects and the evaluation of these two projects concludes Project X will result in more environmental and recreational benefits (Criterion 6). Therefore, Project X will receive a higher score than Project Y under Criterion 6 with the difference in scores reflecting the degree to which Project X provides more environmental and recreational benefits than Project Y.

The total evaluation score for a project is then computed as the sum of the products of the weight value and the evaluation score. Projects achieving a higher total score are considered to be more desirable, more functional, and have a higher capability of receiving enough public support to be implemented, relative to the other projects in the same type category.

As previously stated, the level of information and data available for the projects on the list of future water use opportunities varies significantly from very sketchy to completed conceptual designs. Therefore, the exercise of assigning weights to criterion and evaluation scores to projects is totally subjective and the results of the evaluation process can only be interpreted to reflect the knowledge and judgement of the individual assigning the weights and scores. In order to make the process more objective and less subjective, detailed engineering, legal, and environmental investigations would need to be completed to advance all projects to the same level of information and data.

The suggested evaluation process described above was applied to the short-lists of future water use opportunities to provide an example of the thought process followed in its application. The results of the application of the process are presented in the six tables presented on the following pages for each of the six basins of the planning area.

Table V-2
Evaluated Short-List for the Little Big Horn River Basin

Project Evaluation Criteria
Project Type (see below)
Project Title
Map Location Number Est. Yield (y),
Cap (c) or
Depl (d) (AF)
Water
Availability
Financial
Feasibility
Public
Acceptance
No. of
Sponsors/
Beneficiaries
Legal/
Institutional
Constraints
Environemental/
Recreational
Benefits
Total
Score
Type 1 (None)


















Type 2 (None)


















Type 3

6 5 6 5 8 6
BEPC Sunrise Project 2 82,110 c 6 7 7 5 5 6 214
Little Bighorn River Export System 1 29,600 y 8 7 6 7 3 5 208
Groundwater Development
unk 5 6 8 4 7 4 208
Half Ounce Reservoir 5 10,000 y 8 6 4 5 5 3 185
Twin Creek Reservoir 6 38,588 c 8 6 4 4 4 4 178
Fuller No. 1 Reservoir 3 22,829 c 4 3 5 4 5 5 159
Fuller No. 2 Reservoir 4 1,549 c 4 3 5 4 5 4 153
Type 4 (None)








Notes:
1. Each criteria has a different weighting for each type of project; 10 is most important, 1 is least important
2. Under each project, the criteria are individually scored; 10 means largely favorable, 0 is unfavorable
3. Total scores are the additve results of multiplying each project criteria weighting by the associated project type criteria score

Type 1: Rehabitation projects that preserve exicting uses
Type 2: Projects that rectify existing shortages
Type 3: Projects that meet projected future demands
Type 4: Projects that enchance uses in other Wyoming basins

Table V-3
Evaluated Short-List for the Tongue River Basin

Project Evaluation Criteria
Project Type (see below)
Project Title
Map
Location
Number
Est. Yield (y),
Cap (c) or
Depl (d) (AF)
Water
Availability
Financial
Feasibility
Public
Acceptance
No. of
Sponsors/
Beneficiaries
Legal/
Institutional
Constraints
Environemental/
Recreational
Benefits
Total
Score
Type 1








Misc. Canal Rehab (Conservation)
unk Not ranked, only one project of this type
Type 2








Sheridan Canal System 13 68,500 y Not ranked, only one project of this type
Type 3

6 8 6 7 6 6
Upper State Line Reservoir 10 75,000 y 8 6 7 7 6 7 265
Lower State Line Reservoir 12 88,000 y 8 6 7 7 6 7 265
Jones Draw Reservoir 16 2,500 y 5 5 8 8 7 4 240
West Fork Reservoir 17 2,500 y 5 5 8 8 7 4 240
Prarie Dog Reservoir 11 20,000 y 6 4 7 4 6 6 210
Rockwood Reservoir 9 93,000 y 7 7 4 5 3 5 205
Groundwater Development
unk 4 4 9 4 6 4 198
North Fork Reservoir 7 21,600 y 7 5 5 4 3 5 188
South Fork Reservoir 8 13,200 y 7 5 5 4 3 5 188
Shutts Flats Reservoir 14 7,600 y 7 4 5 4 3 5 180
Type 4 (None)








Notes:
1. Each criteria has a different weighting for each type of project; 10 is most important, 1 is least important
2. Under each project, the criteria are individually scored; 10 means largely favorable, 0 is unfavorable
3. Total scores are the additve results of multiplying each project criteria weighting by the associated project type criteria score

Type 1: Rehabitation projects that preserve exicting uses
Type 2: Projects that rectify existing shortages
Type 3: Projects that meet projected future demands
Type 4: Projects that enchance uses in other Wyoming basins

Table V-4
Evaluated Short-List for the Clear Creek Basin

Project Evaluation Criteria
Project Type (see below)
Project Title
Map
Location
Number
Est. Yield (y),
Cap (c) or
Depl (d) (AF)
Water
Availability
Financial
Feasibility
Public
Acceptance
No. of
Sponsors/
Beneficiaries
Legal/
Institutional
Constraints
Environemental/
Recreational
Benefits
Total
Score
Type 1 (None)


















Type 2 (None)


















Type 3

6 8 6 7 6 6
Lake DeSmet Enlargements 21 239,243 c 8 9 7 5 7 4 263
Lower Clear Creek Reservoir 26 30,300 y 8 5 6 6 6 7 244
B.C.L. Company Reservoir 25 29,300 c 7 5 6 6 6 7 238
Tex Ellis Reservoir 27 17,100 y 7 4 7 6 7 6 236
Tie Hack Reservoir Enlargements 34 7,500 c 4 5 7 8 4 7 228
Groundwater Development
unk 4 3 7 3 6 5 177
Little Sour Dough Reservoir 19 1,642 c 4 3 4 3 3 4 135
Camp Comfort Reservoir 20 11,640 c 4 3 4 3 3 4 135
South Rock Creek Reservoir 28 13,300 c 4 3 4 3 3 4 135
Triangle Park Reservoir 29 3,000 c 4 3 4 3 3 4 135
Canyon Reservoir 30 5,000 c 4 3 4 3 3 4 135
South Clear Creek Reservoir 32 5,000 c 4 3 4 3 3 4 135
Lynx Park Reservoir 32 10,700 c 4 3 4 3 3 4 135
Sour Dough Reservoir 33 4,500 c 4 3 4 3 3 4 135
Type 4 (None)








Notes:
1. Each criteria has a different weighting for each type of project; 10 is most important, 1 is least important
2. Under each project, the criteria are individually scored; 10 means largely favorable, 0 is unfavorable
3. Total scores are the additve results of multiplying each project criteria weighting by the associated project type criteria score

Type 1: Rehabitation projects that preserve exicting uses
Type 2: Projects that rectify existing shortages
Type 3: Projects that meet projected future demands
Type 4: Projects that enchance uses in other Wyoming basins

Table V-5
Evaluated Short-List for the Crazy Woman Creek Basin

Project Evaluation Criteria
Project Type (see below)
Project Title
Map
Location
Number
Est. Yield (y),
Cap (c) or
Depl (d) (AF)
Water
Availability
Financial
Feasibility
Public
Acceptance
No. of
Sponsors/
Beneficiaries
Legal/
Institutional
Constraints
Environemental/
Recreational
Benefits
Total
Score
Type 1 (None)


















Type 2

6 7 5 6 4 3
Hazelton Watershed Site "B" 39 3,000 acres 5 7 5 7 4 4 174
Doyle Creek Reservoir 42 3,000 acres 5 7 5 7 4 4 174
Hazelton Watershed "A" 38 1,580 acres 7 5 6 5 3 3 158
Type 3

6 8 5 6 5 6
Crazy Woman Reservoir 36 10,500 y 7 6 6 6 5 5 211
Lower Crazy Woman Reservoir 40 67,200 y 7 4 6 7 4 6 202
North Fork Crazy Woman Reservoir 37 2,759 c 6 5 5 4 6 4 179
Enl. Negro Creek Reservoir 35 13,900 c 7 5 5 5 3 4 176
Groundwater Development
unk 4 3 7 3 6 5 161
Type 4 (None)








Notes:
1. Each criteria has a different weighting for each type of project; 10 is most important, 1 is least important
2. Under each project, the criteria are individually scored; 10 means largely favorable, 0 is unfavorable
3. Total scores are the additve results of multiplying each project criteria weighting by the associated project type criteria score

Type 1: Rehabitation projects that preserve exicting uses
Type 2: Projects that rectify existing shortages
Type 3: Projects that meet projected future demands
Type 4: Projects that enchance uses in other Wyoming basins

Table V-6
Evaluated Short-List for the Powder River Basin

Project Evaluation Criteria
Project Type (see below)
Project Title
Map
Location
Number
Est. Yield (y),
Cap (c) or
Depl (d) (AF)
Water
Availability
Financial
Feasibility
Public
Acceptance
No. of
Sponsors/
Beneficiaries
Legal/
Institutional
Constraints
Environemental/
Recreational
Benefits
Total
Score
Type 1 (None)


















Type 2

6 7 5 6 4 3
Morgareidge No. 7 Reservoir 52 4,600 acres 5 6 5 7 4 4 167
Red Fork Powder River Reservoir
unk 4 4 5 6 4 4 141
Type 3

6 8 5 6 5 6
Moorhead Reservoir 47 35,000 y 8 7 7 6 5 6 236
Buffalo Creek Reservoir 54 unk 8 3 7 6 7 6 214
Pumpkin Reservoir 45 60,000 y 6 6 6 6 6 5 210
Clarks Fork Exchange
99,700 c 8 6 6 5 3 6 207
Bass Industrial Reservoir 46 123,380 c 6 6 6 5 5 5 199
Arvada Reservoir 48 35,000 y 6 6 6 5 5 6 199
Middle Fork Powder River Reservoir 43 27,000 y 5 5 5 6 7 5 196
Fence Creek Reservoir 50 106,700 c 7 4 7 5 6 4 193
Fortification Creek Reservoir 49 63,300 y 5 4 7 6 6 4 187
Gibbs Reservoir 51 10,800 y 6 5 6 4 5 5 185
Groundwater Development
unk 3 3 7 3 6 5 155
Type 4 (None)








Notes:
1. Each criteria has a different weighting for each type of project; 10 is most important, 1 is least important
2. Under each project, the criteria are individually scored; 10 means largely favorable, 0 is unfavorable
3. Total scores are the additve results of multiplying each project criteria weighting by the associated project type criteria score

Type 1: Rehabitation projects that preserve exicting uses
Type 2: Projects that rectify existing shortages
Type 3: Projects that meet projected future demands
Type 4: Projects that enchance uses in other Wyoming basins

Table V-7
Evaluated Short-List for the Little Powder River Basin

Project Evaluation Criteria
Project Type (see below)
Project Title
Map
Location
Number
Est. Yield (y),
Cap (c) or
Depl (d) (AF)
Water
Availability
Financial
Feasibility
Public
Acceptance
No. of
Sponsors/
Beneficiaries
Legal/
Institutional
Constraints
Environemental/
Recreational
Benefits
Total
Score
Type 1 (None)


















Type 2 (None)


















Type 3

6 8 4 5 4 6
Coal Mine Reclamation Reservoirs
unk 5 7 8 6 6 8 220
Groundwater Development
unk 6 5 7 4 7 5 182
Type 4 (None)








Notes:
1. Each criteria has a different weighting for each type of project; 10 is most important, 1 is least important
2. Under each project, the criteria are individually scored; 10 means largely favorable, 0 is unfavorable
3. Total scores are the additve results of multiplying each project criteria weighting by the associated project type criteria score

Type 1: Rehabitation projects that preserve exicting uses
Type 2: Projects that rectify existing shortages
Type 3: Projects that meet projected future demands
Type 4: Projects that enchance uses in other Wyoming basins

It must be emphasized the six evaluated short-list tables reflect the knowledge and judgement of the individual that performed the exercise. When another individual having different opinions and a different level of knowledge of the projects being evaluated completes the exercise, different total scores will likely result. Variable results will be achieved because different weights will be assigned to the evaluation criteria and different scores will be assigned to the projects.

Given this intrinsic characteristic of the evaluation methodology, it is difficult if not impossible to use the resulting evaluated short-lists for anything other than to establish "a place to start" the required investigations leading to the selection of a future water use opportunity compatible with the specific water demands of the reviewer. The evaluated short-lists simply aren't appropriate to be used by the Wyoming Water Development Commission or any other funding entity to prioritize funding awards.

F.     Legal and Institutional Constraints
Individuals and organizations involved in water resource management and development need to be aware of the federal and state laws, rules, regulations and policies that affect these activities. This section of the report discusses the legal and institutional constraints effecting water resources in the Powder/Tongue River Basin.

Federal Environmental Laws

The following is a list of water development and management actions that can initiate or "trigger" federal environmental laws. A discussion of applicable federal legislation is presented following the list.

Key applicable federal legislation includes the following acts: Federal Lands

A significant portion of the Powder/Tongue River Basin is federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Federal agencies managing these lands must assure that the requirements of the above laws are met before they can issue a special use permit authorizing a proposed action, such as construction of a water project.

Wyoming Environmental Laws

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act provides that the State of Wyoming certify any federally licensed or permitted facility which may result in a discharge into the waters of the state. The 401 certification provides a mechanism for the Wyoming to amend, or perhaps veto, an action that the federal agency might otherwise permit. While the 401 certifications are required for several federal actions, most 401 Certifications relate to Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permits required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Wyoming Water Law

The Wyoming constitution establishes water in the state to be the property of the state, and use of water requires a permit from the State Engineer. Consequently, before a proposed water project can proceed to development the project sponsor must obtain a permit from the State Engineer.

The use of water is administered by the State Engineer and the State Board of Control that consists of the State Engineer and the Superintendent of each of the four water divisions of the state. Water is administered under the prior appropriations doctrine that dictates the water right with a senior or earlier priority date is entitled to receive its full amount before water rights with later, or junior, priority dates receive any of their allocation. The priority date of a water right is established as the date the water right application is filed with the State Engineer. Before water is available for use by a new project all water rights with priority dates senior to the priority of the proposed project need to be satisfied.

River Basin Compacts

The development and use of water from the Tongue River, Powder River, and Little Powder River are subject to the terms of the Yellowstone River Compact of 1950. This compact recognizes existing uses as of the date of the compact, January 1, 1950, then divides the water of the tributaries of the Yellowstone River between the States of Wyoming and Montana as follows:

Article X of the Compact stipulates that no water shall be diverted from the Yellowstone River Basin without the unanimous consent of the three signatory states, Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota.

Wyoming Water Development Program

In 1975, the Wyoming Legislature authorized the Wyoming Water Development Program and defined the program in W.S. 41-2-112(a), which states:

The Wyoming water development program is established to foster, promote, and encourage the optimal development of the state's human, industrial, mineral, agricultural, water and recreation resources. The program shall provide through the commission, procedures and policies for the planning, selection, financing, construction, acquisition and operation of projects and facilities for the conservation, storage, distribution and use of water, necessary in the public interest to develop and preserve Wyoming's water and related land resources. The program shall encourage development of water facilities for irrigation, for reduction of flood damage, for abatement of pollution, for preservation and development of fish and wildlife resources [and] for protection and improvement of public lands and shall help make available the water of this state for all beneficial uses, including but not limited to municipal, domestic, agricultural, industrial, instream flows, hydroelectric power and recreational purposes, conservation of land resources and protection of the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the state of Wyoming.
The Wyoming Water Development Commission (WWDC), which was authorized by the legislation, is responsible for setting priorities under the all-encompassing definition provided in the legislation. The WWDC is made up of ten Wyoming citizens who are appointed by the Governor. The Wyoming Water Development Program is administered by the director and staff of the Wyoming Water Development Office.

The WWDC can invest in water projects as state investments or can provide loans and grants to public entities such as municipalities, irrigation districts and special districts, for the construction of projects specific to their water needs. The WWDC has adopted operating criteria to serve as a general framework for the development of program or project recommendations and generation of information.

G.     Water Quality Issues
Introduction

The success of a water development project is dependent on the ability of the source to meet the water quality needs of the proposed uses. In addition, the project itself must protect existing and potential uses of waters of the state.

The quality of water refers to its physical, chemical, radiological, biological and bacteriological properties. The concentration levels of various constituents within the water dictate the potential uses of a water source. Quality of a water source can be impacted by natural processes or by human actions. The technical memorandum prepared for this topic provides a comprehensive description of the water quality character of the Powder/Tongue River Basin.

As a result of the Environmental Quality Act, the Water Quality Division of the Department of Environmental Quality (WQD/DEQ) developed and implemented surface water quality standards. These standards are detailed in Chapter 1, Wyoming Water Quality Rules and Regulations. Chapter 1 contains numerical and narrative standards to establish effluent limitations for point source discharges, and best management practices (BMPs) for nonpoint sources.

Ongoing Water Quality Programs

Several programs have been initiated to protect and enhance the quality of surface water in the planning area. These programs, listed below, are described in the water quality technical memorandum.

Current Water Quality Issues

Primary issues related to the quality of water in the planning area are detailed in industrial, agricultural, and municipal categories.