Details

Last Updated on Monday, 27 July 2009 10:57

Written by Echo Renner

Worland — “There are third parties actively sampling water on grazing allotments in this state,” says Nephi Cole, Watershed Coordinator for Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts (WACD). “Are they going to find E. coli? Yes, in some cases they certainly will.”
    “E. coli can be found in many streams within the state at any given time. So what can we as land managers and users do?” asks Cole. “You can know what the possible sources of E. coli are, implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address issues, record what you are doing, and do it in good faith. At the end of the day, that’s what’s important.”
    “If you are proactively managing to address non-point source pollution, chances are that people looking for problems will move on to someone who isn’t,” says Cole.
    Western Watersheds Project (WWP), a group that opposes domestic livestock grazing on federal lands, is sampling water with the intention of removing livestock grazing from all federally managed lands. The State of Wyoming accepts water quality information submitted by WWP, if they follow their sampling and analysis plan and pass quality assurance and quality control. There are no specific credentials required of an individual or organization that wishes to have their water quality data accepted by the State of Wyoming, however, they must possess “specialized training and have field experience” as defined by the state’s credible data statutes. In general, anyone with a Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) approved sampling and analysis plan can submit water quality data to the state for review.
    So what is the problem with E. coli? Environmentalists are challenging grazing permit renewals based on water quality, range data, and other factors. A lack of data opens the door for a challenge. That’s why Cole says implementing BMPs and keeping a written record is so important.
    E. coli is a bacteria commonly found in the lower intestine of warm-blooded animals, including humans, livestock and wildlife. Most E. coli strains are harmless, but some, such as serotype 0157:H7, can cause serious illness in humans. Most waterways have some levels of E. coli with the level varying from season to season, day to day and even at different times of day. “In some instances we have seen that depending on the time of day sampled, you had a huge level of variation,” comments Cole.
    Livestock are often blamed, however, waterways like Dry Creek and Johnny Creek in the Big Horn Mountains have tested high for E. coli despite the fact that livestock have not grazed there for three or more years.
    If high levels of E. coli are found the Clean Water Act requires the development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation of that amount to the pollutant’s sources, according to the EPA. Each TMDL is different, depending on the size and nature of each waterbody.
    In 1996, citizen organizations brought 40 legal actions against the EPA in 38 states, seeking listing of waters and development of TMDLs. Under court order or consent decrees in several states, the EPA was required to ensure that TMDLs are established.
    “How does litigation like the Pole Mountain case fit into this picture, and what are the possible ramifications, both good and bad, for the permit holders,” Cole asks. “The Pole Mountain lawsuit was based inpart on the Clean Water Act, and the judge ruled the U.S. Forest Service was in compliance because they were implementing BMPs in good faith, which is what the law requires. The law does not require that you necessarily solve the problem, just that you address it through the best possible management. It is important to keep a record of your actions so that if a question arises, you have that information.”
    He continues, “In a recent EPA presentation, they noted that non-source point source pollution would be a priority for them in the future. They also said that in their estimation, roughly 80 percent of non-point source pollution is related to agriculture. Not all of us agree with that sentiment, but that gives a fairly strong indication of the EPA view of responsible parties. In Wyoming, around 70 percent of our impairments are related to E. coli. Livestock are one of the many contributors, as are all warm-blooded animals.”
    Cole says, “It is a mistake to assume that livestock, or any one use can or should be singled out. When it comes to non-point source pollution, the main culprit is gravity. When rain falls on the earth and flows over land, you will have erosion, and thus, pollution. What can you do about it? There are practices that we can use to minimize our impacts in a given area. These are BMPs, like water gaps, off-site water, and managed grazing. The NRCS and local conservations districts play an integral role in assisting with this E. coli issue by conducting water sampling and analysis, planning and assisting producers in the implementation of BMPs.” Funding is available through a variety of sources, by working with the NRCS, local conservation districts, and others.
    Cole further explains most waters are classified as primary contact recreational waters by default, and held to a standard of 126 colony-forming units (cfu’s) per 100 ml of water. A process exists to petition the DEQ for a change to secondary use classification if a stream is not going to be used for recreational activities like swimming or other full body contact recreation. These “secondary streams” are held to a slightly lower standard of 630 cfu/100 ml.
    Cole addressed about 50 attendees at the Guardians of the Range annual meeting in Worland on Feb. 7. WACD will be host a training on water quality assessment, including stream classification, during the week of March 23 in Riverton. Interested parties should talk to their local conservation district for more information. Echo Renner is a correspondent for the WLR, and can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Details

Last Updated on Monday, 27 July 2009 11:03

Written by Christy Hemken

    According to Colorado entrepreneur Aaron Million, the pipeline that would move water from Flaming Gorge Reservoir in southwest Wyoming to Colorado’s Front Range is moving forward through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.
    The process began September 2008 and is on a 33-month timeline to reach a final decision. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is responsible for investigating, developing and maintaining the nation’s water and related environmental resources, has taken the lead on the project, which will also involve every federal agency with some regulatory interest in the project, including the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation.
    As the EIS applicant, Million will ultimately fund the process, for which the Corps has hired a third-party contractor, AECOM Environment, out of Fort Collins, Colo.
    “A big project like this has to go through an extensive environmental review looking at the diversion of so much water from Flaming Gorge Reservoir,” says Million’s Wyoming consultant Jeff Fassett of HDR Engineering in Cheyenne. The project would take that water across Wyoming, following Interstate 80, before dropping down into Colorado at Cheyenne. “This project has a whole bunch of issues to review, as it crosses a lot of federal ground.”
    However, Fassett says that, at the end of the day, it’s a buried pipeline so many of the project’s effects are temporary and relate to the actual construction of the pipeline, much like in the energy industry. Engineering decisions as to whether the project will consist of one pipe or two are yet to be made. Fassett says if the project consists of a single pipe that pipe would measure around 96 inches in diameter.
    “I think this project has drawn a lot of positive attention because it doesn’t involve big new dams – it’s using the infrastructure at Flaming Gorge – and most of the environmental effects are temporary,” notes Fassett. “It’s had some positive review, but any big water project will draw a lot of attention and face scrutiny.”
    Another process regarding the project that is currently underway is the required permitting from the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office (SEO). Million has submitted two permit applications – one to divert water from the Green River and/or Flaming Gorge Reservoir (there are several alternate points of diversion under consideration) and intermediate storage in Lake Hattie along the pipeline route.
    Wyoming State Engineer Pat Tyrrell says he plans to hold two public hearings, one near Green River and the other in Laramie near Lake Hattie. Hearing dates have not yet been scheduled.  
    “Some of the concerns I’ve been hearing are that this is a large amount of water – 165,000 acre-feet per year – and there are concerns about whether this would hinder Wyoming’s ability to develop their own water rights under the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact,” says Tyrrell.
    He adds, “I think we can look toward some protections in that regard if and when the permits are issued. I also hear environmental concerns because of the removal of so much water, but those will be covered in the EIS process.”
    Tyrrell says the Compact envisions the development of water in one state for use in another. “Colorado has the right to submit this application, and the fact that this is happening is nothing the drafters of the compact didn’t anticipate,” he says, adding the Wyoming permits would be a recognition of their points of diversion for use in Colorado, which would count against their Compact portion.
    “Under Article 9 of the Compact it’s crystal clear the movement of water from any upper basin state into any other is expressly allowed,” says Million, noting this project is similar to Utah’s Lake Powell project that’s moving water from Arizona.
    “This concept is exactly the same as it was in the 1890s,” says Million. “It’s the continued historic development of the Upper Basin’s Compact allocation, which has already been going on for 120 years.”
    “This is a different animal because of the interstate nature,” says Fassett, noting that some Wyoming users may also utilize the pipeline for transbasin delivery.
    Tyrrell says if Wyoming water users use the pipeline for transport they’ll have to apply for a permit on their own points of diversion, which would then be counted against Wyoming’s compact portion.
    “This project offers a huge system built primarily for Colorado, but it wouldn’t take much of a change to also move all the water Wyoming could want,” explains Fassett. “It would be a cost-effective way to move water from the Green to the Platte for our growing communities like Cheyenne, Casper and Laramie.”
    Fassett says Million has advanced the project, in part, to protect the ag base on the Front Range, where water rights for irrigation are being transferred for municipal use.
    “My focus and background is ranching and farming, along with natural resources and environmental issues,” says Million. “Those range from conservation easements to water and various natural resource interests. This project is designed to assist with some of the ag issues in Wyoming and in Colorado, and we’re going to bring in water for agriculture at ag prices.”
    Million notes that a critical aspect of the project is to provide an environmentally sound way to move surplus water from the Green River system. “This project uses water that’s above and beyond the needs of endangered species, recreation and hydropower,” he says.
    “A lot remains to be seen,” says Tyrrell of the project. “There’s still a lot to happen, and the EIS is a big process.”
    Tyrrell says his office will work through the state permit applications, and he’s currently unsure whether those will be granted before or after the EIS is complete.
    Fassett says the Corps of Engineers will schedule public scoping meetings as the EIS progresses.
    Pending the outcome of the EIS, Million says he hopes to start digging dirt after the passage of the 33-month study. “At this point I think we’re 92 percent home,” he says. “But I don’t know what could crop up on the environmental side that would disallow this project from moving forward.”
    Christy Hemken is assistant editor of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup and can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Details

Last Updated on Tuesday, 28 October 2008 07:36

Written by Jennifer Womack

 State Engineer’s Office working to provide more data real time

Cheyenne – Knowledge is power, especially when it comes to protecting Wyoming’s water.
    Technology isn’t new to the administrators of the state’s water, but leaders say it’s time to have more real-time data available in one centralized database. Technological infrastructure in the field in some instances needs an update. In other areas, it’s time to make the swap to a higher tech approach.
    “Historically,” says Deputy State Engineer Harry Labonde, “we had to drive out to the stream gages, take a reading and take it back to the office. That was the basis for water regulation and water decisions.” Over the past 20 years, in an effort spearheaded by the U.S. Geological Survey, Labonde says more data has become available on a shorter turnaround time.
    What hasn’t happened, however, is creation of a centralized database along with updating and expanding the state’s remote water measuring capabilities. Labonde says during the 2008 legislative session his agency requested $1.6 million to meet those needs. Leaving the session with around a million to devote to the project, water managers are improving and expanding the state’s ability to gather water data quickly and remotely at existing gage sites. Next session, he says, the agency will be back to request another half million for new sites and gages.
    With 45 people making up their field staff across the state, Loren Smith of the State Engineer’s Office (SEO) says over the summer, hydrographers and gage readers will travel numerous miles taking thousands of readings. If they’re able to do that work remotely, they can turn their attention to other areas where work is needed.
    “We’re currently operating 176 continuous recording stream gages statewide and 76 continuous recording canal gages,” says Smith. “Of those 252 sights, 65 are transmitting data on someone else’s network providing real-time data.” With readings taken every 15 minutes, Smith says the data is generally transmitted hourly.
    “When we need that data,” says Smith of the daily accounting processes that take place at the SEO, “we’ve got to go to five or six different places to gather the data.” Once the upgrades are complete, all of the data will come into one centralized location that can be used by the SEO and other water management entities around the state in what Smith calls “one stop shopping.”
    Smith says the agency request included $72,000 for a new stream record reduction software package to replace the current DOS-based program. “The package we’re considering is supported by the USGS and is becoming the industry standard.”
    Of the high-tech equipment already in use around the state, Smith says results have been good. “We did a project three years ago on the Big Horn River below Boysen Reservoir with 10 sights in that area,” he says. It’s also been used on the Shoshone River where Smith says the line-of-sight radio technology being used to transfer the data is becoming outdated. “It’s transmitted to the Shoshone Irrigation District and to get it you have to call their office.”
    “When we set up this budget to get this new data,” commented Representative Doug Samuelson, chairman of the House Ag Committee at a recent meeting in Saratoga, “we knew we were going to spend at least the rest of our lives in lawsuits over water.”
    Smith says benefits of the added technology reach far beyond the improved ability to defend the state’s water uses in court if needed. On the Big Horn he says, “Canal managers used to run their canal every day and send 3X5 cards to Riverton with the information on it at the end of the week.” When the data was processed the following week, he says it was a guessing game as to how much water there truly was at any point in time and accounting was done using numbers a week old. “Now we’re able to know how much water there is and where it is at any time.”
    It’s also helped in the area of conservation. “We don’t spill extra water over the dam at Worland anymore,” Smith explains. “Additional benefits are water delivery and timing. We can tell a canal manager when he needs to pick up water we release from the reservoir. We can also track storm events. Following a rain event we can track the water coming downriver and let customers know so they can utilize the rain spike and not waste water.” On smaller streams, Smith says the technology has also helped prevent water theft.
    “A lot of canal districts don’t want to utilize their limited storage early in the year,” says Smith. “With this system they can watch and keep from utilizing storage to ensure they have water for their crops later on. To them it’s significant savings.”
    Smith tells of a situation in Sheridan County where a gage helped emergency responders during a potential flood event. They couldn’t get people into the area to read gages, but were able to retrieve the information remotely. “You can get flood information regardless of conditions,” says Smith.
    Smith sees the program, which also allows irrigation districts to access information during their evening meetings, to continue expanding. “We’re finding the more of this information we put out the hungrier people are getting for it.”
     Jennifer Womack is managing editor of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup. Send comments on this article to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Details

Last Updated on Saturday, 24 September 2011 01:00

Written by Gayle Smith

Glenrock – Not many ranchers can say they haven’t experienced a time when they drove through a pasture to check cows, only to find all of them huddled around the tank fighting over that last drop of water. With thirsty cattle mulling about, trying to find an alternative way to get them water either by hauling it, using a pump jack or moving the cattle takes valuable time.

As an alternative, many producers are looking into solar power as a water source for their livestock.

“These systems have been around 25 to 30 years now,” says Scott Blakeley, owner and certified pump installer of Pronghorn Pump and Repair, which is based in Glenrock. “They have improved these systems every year they have been out. Every element of the system has been improved and made more efficient.”

Blakeley says using a solar powered system for watering livestock can add up to less costs checking water. He points out one ranch, where he switched over the traditional windmill systems and pump jacks to solar-operated watering systems.

“There can be a tremendous savings in man-hours, and pickup and fuel expenses, by using a solar powered watering system. At this particular ranch, they had one man who did nothing for eight hours each day but check windmills. With this new system, he only has to check them once every three days,” he explains.

Blakeley says a big factor in how often the systems need to be checked is how many water sources are in the pasture.

“If it is your sole water source, it needs to be checked fairly frequently,” he says. “In the western states we tend to have a lot of sun, but if you live in an area where there is a lot of fog, you may have some trouble.”

“The solar pumping systems aren’t magic,” cautions Blakeley. “They just seem like they are. The only thing you hear when you walk up to a solar pumping system is the water running into the tank. The solar panel absorbs the sun’s energy, which is diverted through a controller to the solar pump. The pumps throughput is determined by the amount of power. There are a lot of variables involved. It is somewhat a complex calculation, but it always starts with the end result - how much water you need.”

When a producer is interested in a solar watering system Blakeley asks a series of questions to determine what type of system to install. Some important variables include the elevation of the pump location, how much water is needed and when, depth of well and location.

“Animals drink a different amount of water everyday, and a different amount each month,” he adds.

“The solar watering system can pump different amounts of water,” Blakeley says. “When I put in one of these systems I calculate how much water is needed and determine how much water the well can produce. I determine this by how many gallons or tank-fulls can be produced per day, not how many gallons it can pump per minute.”

“Every solar pumping system is job specific,” he adds. “The size of the pump and the size of the solar array is determined by the amount of water needed daily. It is helpful to physically test the water source to determine how much water it can potentially pump. We physically measure the water level while we pump it, so we know what the drawdown level is.”

Blakeley also encourages producers to have a storage system that will hold at least three to four days of water.

“Producers need to have extra storage for the days that are overcast and the panel may not be operating at its full potential,” he says.

Some producers also have a battery backup system to run the pump for some time.

“I think it is more efficient to have some additional water storage rather than a battery backup,” says Blakeley. “It is a key element in this system.”

Most of the storage systems are above-ground steel tanks that vary in size.

“If you are utilizing one of these systems during the winter, you may want to install an underground storage tank to keep the water from freezing,” he says.

“Some of the solar pumps can also be installed with a backup generator,” continues Blakeley. “We have some systems that operate on solar power during the day. Then, in late afternoon, there is an auto start switch on the generator that kicks on to power it through the night. In the early morning it shuts off and reverts back to solar power automatically.”

The solar-powered watering systems can also operate using a float or pressure system. The electronic float is built into the solar control to stop the motor when the water reaches a certain level. If a pipeline will be used, Blakeley says they have to calculate for the additional lift.

“We have one system where water is pumped a mile away to some other tanks,” he explains. “They can lift from different levels, depending upon how many cattle will use the water source at any given time.”

Blakeley says producers may have to consider changing their rotation based on how deep they can pump water from.

“Wells up to 300 feet are very viable. When they are deeper than 300 feet, it gives you a more limited supply,” he explains. “A solar array is about equivalent in price to a 120-foot-deep windmill.”

In addition, Blakeley says producers can also purchase mobile units they can utilize at multiple well sites.

“You can move these from well to well and use the same power source,” he explains. “They also come in different sizes, and you can buy smaller mobile units to supply a whole ranch.”

An advantage of using a solar-powered system is it is a standalone power system that can provide water in remote areas.

“It does not need electricity to operate,” says Blakely. “Because these systems are not connected to electricity, they also tend to not draw a lightening strike. On one of the premium solar panel systems they simulated a hailstone hitting the solar panel at 120 miles per hour. Overall, they hold up well to hail, but they don’t withstand bullet holes very well. It might be something to consider, if you plan to use it on public lands.”

Blakeley encourages producers to insure their systems, which can typically be done through a farm or ranch insurance policy.

“Solar watering systems can also really benefit the environment,” he adds. “There is less use of a pickup or ATV checking them, and there is less pollution. If you use a generator to power your water source, you will have less expense in buying a generator and servicing it.”

For more information about solar watering systems visit pronghornpump.com or call 307-436-8513. Gayle Smith is a correspondent for the Wyoming Livestock Roundup. Send comments on this article to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .