Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Western States Water Council <br />Water Resources Committee Minutes <br /> <br />Sheridan, Wyoming <br />October 5, 2006 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Ward Staubitz: I have read the draft. The Lower Colorado River Authority costs were similar to the USGS' <br />costs. The average USGS gage costs about $14,000/year, and the Texas Lower Colorado River costs were <br />$14,000. The Washington Department of Ecology costs were $8,000 to $8,200 per gage, and Colorado's <br />costs were $7,200. The salary costs were relatively equivalent. USGS salary costs are higher, primarily <br />because we spend more time with data analysis, etc. Further, administrative costs for USGS were higher. <br />Department ofInterior and Office of Management and Budget requirements include full cost accounting. A <br />portion of the USGS Headquarters, District Offices and QAQC costs must be paid with a portion of the CWP <br />money, and we don't have any control over that. It's about a $3,000 difference. The non-federal programs <br />don't operate under the same kinds of accounting requirements and government regulations. In some cases, <br />we're comparing apples to oranges. Some programs were gaged to only measure low flows. USGS gages <br />are designed to measure the full hydrograph, from high flows to the low end. That is a considerable expense. <br />In some cases, the type and length of record were not equivalent. Some non-federal entities do keep <br />comparable data records. Still, there may be some efficiencies available. <br /> <br />Ken Slattery: "In our state program in Washington, we usually do the streamgages on smaller rivers, whereas <br />the USGS does the larger rivers, which may affect costs." <br /> <br />Ward: States also gage man-made diversions, which require fewer check measurements, compared to natural <br />streams. <br /> <br />Tony Willardson mentioned a group of cooperators planned to meet with USGS Director Mark . <br />Meyers in Washington, D. C. on November 9th. <br /> <br />WYOMING WINTER WEATHER MODIFICATION PROJECT <br /> <br />Barry Lawrence, Project Manager, Wyoming Water Development Commission, and Bruce Boe, with <br />Weather Modification, Inc. addressed the Committee using a powerpoint presentation. The impetus in <br />Wyoming for a weather modification program has been drought, but it is not viewed as a quick fix. It is a <br />long term water management strategy. Many inquiries came from water users about the State's lack of <br />involvement with the technology and asking for a pilot project. This led to a six-month study of the viability <br />of snowpack augmentation in the Wind River and Medicine Bow mountain ranges. This feasibility study <br />found that "significant fractions of cloud water are not converted to precipitation, and the potential exists to <br />increase natural snowpack in the target areas from 10%-15% annually. Also, the cost per acre-foot of water <br />would be less than $10. <br /> <br />In a 2005 Omnibus Water Bill, the State Legislature funded a study of what other states are doing <br />and how weather modification compared to more traditional water development projects. The study will <br />focus on the Sierra Madre and Medicine Bow ranges in southcentral Wyoming. These are our two target <br />areas with the greatest likelihood of success. The scoping process includes looking at the downwind effects, <br />the effects of silver iodide on the environment, streamflow monitoring, consultation for listed species, the <br />flooding potential and other concerns. <br /> <br />Barry summarized the status of project permitting. Ground based generators have been mobilized <br />and should be fully operational by November 15th. This will be a rigorous review with randomized <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />12 <br />