Legislature moves to ease anxiety over river curtailment

CASPER — One the most closely watched water bills in the Wyoming Legislature this session moved decisively through committee this week in a sign of hope for some of the state’s water-dependent industries. 
 
The bill, SF 66, seeks to address heightened anxiety around the Colorado River, whose diminishing flows have set off a scramble by its seven user states to draft new rules and contingency plans ahead of a 2026 deadline from the Bureau of Reclamation, the agency charged with overseeing water management in the west. 
 
In the meantime, the amendments aim to provide a sense of security to junior water rights entities who depend on water transfers, including municipalities, trona mine operators and oil refineries in the Green River Basin. 
 
With river curtailment increasingly probable in the face of prolonged drought, those industries hope to extend exchange contract limits in order to sustain operations in the event of mandatory Colorado River drawdowns. 
 
“If there is no water, there is not gasoline, diesel and jet fuel for the greater Rocky Mountain Region,” said Joshua Jemente, vice president of government affairs for HF Sinclair, Wyoming’s largest refining company, whose water-intensive processes yield a combined average of 124,000 barrels per day at its Carbon and Natrona county refineries. 
 
Representatives raised concern that the new rules could open the door for industry to “buy and dry” existing ranchland. 
 
Instead, proponents say, the amendments would help stave off such outcomes. “Why this [bill] is such a sought-after tool is because it bridges the gap. You don’t have to come in and buy a ranch and ... dry that ranch up to be able to use the water. This provides a middle ground such that only when it’s needed [by industry] would ag have to forgo that use,” said State Engineer Brandon Gebhart, testifying to the House Minerals, Business & Economic Development Committee on Tuesday. 
 
Such dynamics would have little impact in HF Sinclair’s refining practices, Jemente told the committee, as the company intends to predominantly use water exchanges during the non-agricultural months of February to April, and that water is thereafter returned to the system to make waterways whole. 
 
For the state’s trona mining industry — which contributes as much as $100 million to state taxes annually — the implications of water shortfalls cannot be overstated. 
 
“The trona industry must have water for operations. Without water, there is no trona industry,” said Aaron Reichl of Genesis Alkali, one of the biggest soda ash producers in the state. “The likelihood of a curtailment on the Colorado River is a serious threat to the trona industry. ... If we don’t encourage the use of this exchange, the trona industry will be forced to pursue permanent separation of senior water rights from ag lands.” 
 
The committee voted unanimously in support of the amendments. 
 
Yet even as SF 66 is moving forward with little resistance, the same week saw a conceptually kindred bill killed in the House Agriculture, State & Public Lands & Water Resources Committee, underscoring the challenges faced by resource managers seeking to modernize decades-old water policies. 
 
The failed bill, SF 65, which sponsors already say they intend to bring back in the next session, similarly aimed to streamline bureaucratic processes while increasing stability for junior users holding “temporary water rights.” The effort would have extended temporary permits from 2 years to 5 years and left open the ability to renew for up to ten years. 
 
However, in attempting to improve administrative flexibility, some say the bill unduly expanded eligibility and gave too much discretion to the state engineer, stoking fears that the bill could incrementally disrupt the status quo. 
 
Conservation advocates expressed concern that extending temporary use permits may result in detriment to landscapes and natural resources through minimized return flows to lands with critical forage crops. 
 
The diverging paths of the sessions’ two big water bills underscore the hyper-nuanced nature of Wyoming water law, where seemingly simple phrases like “beneficial purposes” can set off major pushback from traditional agricultural users who’d prefer to leave decades old statutes alone. 
 
“In this situation, I feel like gridlock is good. I like gridlock. As an irrigator, that’s my protection, and when Wyoming water law isn’t flexible I take comfort in that ,” said Chris Williams, an irrigator in Saratoga, testifying at the committee hearing. “I feel like temporary uses should be scrutinized and shouldn’t be easy.”
 
This story was published on March 2, 2024.