A federal agency is requiring Wyoming to update cost estimates for a large proposed dam in Carbon County, which has been under feasibility studies since 2008.

The West Fork Battle Creek Dam, proposed in the Medicine Bow National Forest, would be 700 feet long, about 25 stories tall and would create a 130-acre reservoir. The dam would provide late-season irrigation water to Wyoming and Colorado landowners at a projected cost of $80 million, according to a 2017 estimate.

Gary Wockner, co-founder and executive director of the advocacy group Save the Colorado, thinks it will cost about four times the estimate, partly due to its remote location.

"It'll be hard to get to, it'll be extremely difficult to engineer and build," Wockner contended. "In fact, it's so large and controversial, we believe that permitting and potential court challenges could cost $20 million to $30 million, alone."

The proposal requires a land swap between the U.S. Forest Service and the state, a trade state lawmakers in 2018 allocated nearly $5 million to investigate. The U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service, the federal agency responsible for granting permits, told the State of Wyoming Water Development Office to update the cost estimate for the dam. So far, the analysis itself has cost $1.5 million.

The estimate is a vital part of the cost-benefit analysis and determines who will fund the dam. The National Environmental Policy Act requires both an analysis of the proposed plan and several alternative plans, Wockner pointed out.

"Then, you pick what's called the 'least environmentally damaging practicable alternative,'" Wockner added. "You have to have a reasonable cost estimate in order to do the entire NEPA analysis correctly."

In 2023 scoping comments on the project, Wockner argued the analysis should include an estimate of greenhouse gases the project would emit, and effects on the already over-allocated Colorado River.


get more stories like this via email

Clean drinking water doesn't just come from replacing lead pipes. Solutions also rest on Minnesota's farm fields, and this time of year, some rural acreage has been planted with seeds designed to do winter magic before the next growing season.

Cover crops are typically planted going into in a farmer's offseason and are meant to improve soil health before a main crop, like corn, is prioritized the following spring and summer.

Peter LaFontaine, agricultural policy manager with Friends of the Mississippi River, said newer varieties of winter cover crops have come on the scene, potentially changing the dynamics when it comes to profits. On the sustainability side, protecting waterways is still a benefit.

"If you have crops that are providing some more of that natural cover during winter, you wind up with a more resilient system. These crops do a phenomenal job of addressing things like nitrogen loss," he said.

Traditional plants like cereal rye have been helpful with those water quality efforts. But products like winter camelina are getting more attention these days because they have a bigger potential as a dual benefit. They can be harvested for the sustainable jet fuel market. Overall, the cover crop movement still faces headwinds, with an adoption rate below 3% for Minnesota's farmland.

Agriculture experts say Minnesota's harsh winters can be disruptive to cover crops, and it can take time for a producer to fully realize the economic benefits of improved soil quality, such as less flooding in fields.

Anne Schwagerl, western Minnesota farmer and vice president of the Minnesota Farmers Union, has long planted these seeds and is now experimenting with the "cash cover crops." She predicts they'll help with the momentum issue.

"The old adage in farming is don't plant something you don't have a market for. Well, this is something we actually got a market for," she explained.

Schwagerl noted that the biofuels market has a strong appetite for winter camelina. There are federal conservation programs that provide incentives for using cover crops. It's unclear how much extra support will be provided as Congress debates the next Farm Bill.

Despite Minnesota's low adoption rate, more farms were trying cover crops in 2022 compared to 2017. That's according to the Census of Agriculture, released every five years.

Minnesota is credited for having strong wetland protections. But the research community warns the growing presence of factory farms in the Midwest makes it harder to shield these natural resources.

A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists says 30 million acres of wetlands in the Upper Midwest are at risk of destruction by industrial agriculture and other heavy industries.

The authors said the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision to strip some federal protections from wetlands accelerates the potential loss.

The Research Director for the Union's Food & Environment program Stacy Woods said because of the role wetlands play in flood mitigation, states in this region are likely to have a harder time limiting damage from a major rain event.

"We know that flooding is a significant issue," said Woods. "It's expensive, and it's getting worse as the climate warms."

While Minnesota's laws might help offset some of the federal impact, the report says neighboring states like South Dakota and Iowa are more vulnerable to wetland loss.

It says priorities of the incoming Trump administration could further complicate protections - but if lawmakers can agree, there could be opportunities in the Farm Bill debate to bolster existing conservation programs.

Wetlands can capture and slow flood waters that threaten homes, but Woods pointed out they do so much more.

"They're often called nature's kidneys, because they provide such a service in cleaning our waterways," said Woods. "But when we dump so much pesticide and fertilizer, and other pollutants onto our fields, that can run off into these wetlands and really impact the wetlands' ability to clean our water."

Meanwhile, researchers say one acre of wetlands provides $745 of flood mitigation benefits to residential homes.

Without wetlands, they say homeowners and taxpayers absorb those costs through the National Flood Insurance Program.




get more stories like this via email

The most current study from the Environmental Protection Agency estimated more than 143 million Americans are at risk of drinking water tainted with PFAS chemicals, including in Texas.

Water utility companies across the country tested their drinking water for 29 different PFAS compounds. They are known as "forever chemicals," because they do not break down easily in the environment or the body.

Neil Carman, clean air program director of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, said the man-made chemicals are found in everyday products.

"Nonstick pans like Teflon, also stain-resistant fabrics, like Gore-Tex and waterproof clothing," Carman outlined. "The biggest source is probably from the firefighting foam."

He pointed out when firefighters use the foam to extinguish a fire, it is left on the ground and seeps into nearby water sources.

Some supporters of President-elect Donald Trump have said they want to revoke or weaken water standards for six PFAS chemicals. According to the Environmental Working Group, it would leave nearly 46 million Americans with no protections.

The EPA said its data is not yet complete but it has already identified PFAS contamination at almost 8,900 sites nationwide, including more than 100 in Texas. Carman noted the chemicals have been linked to multiple health problems.

"They could cause cancer, they disrupt the immune system, they could interfere with pregnancies, they can cause all kinds of health effects," Carman explained. "We're still learning about them but they're not good."

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is the state agency charged with PFAS enforcement. Carman added a home water filtration system is one option for curbing some toxic chemicals.