As a kid, Casey Darr would hop in the truck with his father for the drive up the narrow canyon to LaPrele Dam to check outflow gauges and the water level behind the hulking concrete structure.
His family’s ranch relied on that storage water, and these excursions were a welcomed break from tending to livestock on the open prairie a few miles away.
During spring runoff, when water gushed from the overflow tunnel near the top of the structure and shot out of the dam’s lower outlet, the spray cast richly colored rainbows between the canyon walls and over lush, green flora below. The mist combined with the roar of moving water tamed by early 20th-century ingenuity created a weirdly tranquil atmosphere. It was an exclusive experience: The reservoir, dam and stretch of canyon leading to them are private property, accessible only to the landowners and irrigators who hold title to the dam.
“It was almost like going into Jurassic Park,” Darr said, noting the oddity of such a space hidden in what appears, from a distance, to be dull foothills of the Laramie Range. “It was just mind-blowing. It was just really, really beautiful to see, and you felt honored to be one of the few individuals that got to see it.”
But in January, when Darr, who serves as treasurer on the LaPrele Irrigation District Board, and District Vice President Philip Dziardziel drove up the canyon with two journalists, they had to stop at a temporary, mobile office to ask permission to approach the dam. It’s now a condemned structure because it poses a catastrophic risk to humans and everything below it — including, according to engineers, Ayres Natural Bridge Park, several ranch homes and other structures, two bridges on Interstate 25 and, potentially, anything or anyone along the North Platte River banks all the way through Douglas, a town with 6,400 people 20 miles to the east.
In fact, it’s a wonder the dam has stood this long, engineers who have studied it say. Completed in 1909, it’s the last standing Ambursen-style flat-slab and fin-buttress dam in the U.S. — a design that was determined to be a bad idea decades later. With so many individual concrete slabs, there’s more potential for flaws and erosion, and there’s little redundancy to hold if there’s a failure in one piece. If any of the multiple concrete slabs fail while holding back a full reservoir, it wouldn’t merely leak, according to engineers. It would immediately crumble like a house of cards.
Under a full reservoir scenario, the torrent of water would rip through about 1.5 miles of narrow canyon before it overcomes Ayres Natural Bridge while shredding old stands of cottonwood and boxelder trees and filling the natural bowl with flotsam before boiling over to continue its path of destruction.
‘Got to suck it up’
Darr and thousands of others who have relied on the LaPrele Dam for their livelihoods for more than a century have always carried with them a sense of nausea understanding their concrete savior that bestowed an unusually prolific agricultural economy to otherwise high-and-dry plains wouldn’t last forever. Now, with crews setting up to breach, then take down Darr’s Jurassic Park concrete wall, he and others are preparing for what will feel like a “funeral.”
“It’s been a part of our lives and these communities for over 100 years,” Dziardziel said, hands in his pockets, while standing next to Darr just below the dam.
“It’s been very emotional for a lot of people — ourselves included,” Darr agreed. “But at the same time, you’ve got to take your own personal feelings, thoughts, opinions aside and do what’s right for the safety of others.”
Not all irrigators reliant on the dam share the sentiment. Some suppose that engineers’ warnings and estimations of worst-case failure and destruction models amount to hyperbole, and insist the dam will hold until a replacement is constructed in about five years.
“It’s not necessary at all to destroy the old one and to open up all those people, all that land and everything else, to destruction [from potential flooding],” said Leonard Chamberlain, who grew up in the irrigation district and whose family business still has a stake in it. “I would like to see it in place to make sure all the funding, permitting and lawsuits are done, and it’s up before you take out the structure that’s protecting everybody.”
Dziardziel said he’d felt the same way and, for a long time, was dead set against taking the dam down before a replacement was built.
“But once I was up there with the engineers and actually put my hands on the surface of that dam, and they showed me the cracks, it was obvious that, just for safety reasons, we could not store water in that dam,” he said. “It would just put people at risk. There was absolutely no way we could do that.”
Though design plans are in the works for a new dam — estimated at $182 million — not all of the funding pieces have fallen into place. Nor is there unanimous support for how much or whether the state and federal government should pitch in.
There is one thing for certain: The dam will be mechanically breached before spring runoff — enough to ensure that LaPrele Creek free-flows through the structure without any water backing up behind it, according to state officials. Until a replacement is completed, LaPrele irrigators will be entirely at the whims of Mother Nature, which rarely provides enough natural flow for late-season irrigation. With the dam cracked open to the point of free flow, Mother Nature might also serve up floods in an agricultural community that, for the past 116 years, has built up an infrastructure without much consideration for a deluge.
“We just got to suck it up and deal with it for a few years in exchange for the safety of the community,” Darr said. “It’s been a hard decision. None of us are happy about this. But at the same time, the right decision isn’t always the easy one.”
Patchwork, boulder fall and a change of plans
Construction of the original dam was funded via the federal Carey Act of 1894, a measure pushed by Wyoming’s U.S. Sens. Francis E. Warren and Joseph M. Carey to help arid western states develop more water for irrigation. Completed in 1909 with an expected lifespan of about 50 years, the dam enabled a prosperous little agricultural community of 104 different family businesses that, in turn, became an integral part of the economy for the broader region.
Irrigators were aware of concerns surrounding the dam’s Ambursen buttress-style design, but held a sort of cross-that-bridge-when hope for its longevity, which was first tested in 1970s when it was first determined to have reached the end of its safely useful life. Cost estimates for a replacement then seemed insurmountable for members of the LaPrele Irrigation District.
But the district received an offer from a private company that it couldn’t refuse.
The Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. was gunning to develop a coal-gasification project nearby, and it needed water. In return for a slice of storage water rights, the company agreed to finance major patching and concrete refurbishing. The work was completed, but Panhandle’s coal-gasification project never came to fruition. LaPrele irrigators retained all their storage rights — and a gussied-up dam, to boot — and carried on with their operations that continued to inject dollars into the economies of Glenrock, Douglas and beyond.
Until somebody noticed a boulder that had apparently tumbled — in 2016 — from the western side of the limestone-walled canyon just below the dam. It struck a dirt mound on the way down and, by luck, rolled away from the dam’s concrete fins instead of toward them, according to engineers’ accounts. Had it landed on the other side of the mound, it would have rolled toward the dam.
The boulder aroused curiosity about the state of the dam.
Migrating cracks, observed from usual vantage points, were apparent. Engineers took a closer look by rappelling down the structure. Crack measurement devices were installed, and in November 2019 the data led to a state order to maintain the reservoir behind the dam at a lower level — to ease pressure on the structure — resulting in a 45% squeeze on available storage water for irrigation.
The dam continued to crumble and crack, and in August 2021 a tour was organized to begin underscoring the dam’s inevitable demise, setting into motion plans for a replacement and how to fund it. The plan, until recently, was to maintain the aging dam while constructing a new one just below, allowing for mostly uninterrupted irrigation. But cracks continued to widen, alarming state officials, and in November, State Engineer Brandon Gebhart issued a breach order, declaring the dam at risk of “catastrophic failure.”
“This dam has significant structural deficiencies and has exceeded its useful life,” Gebhart said in issuing the order.
Funding, legislation and criticism
When Darr and Dziardziel guided a pair of journalists to the dam on a recent, breezy January day, they had to remain at a distance from the structure. Cold water gurgled under a bridge and beneath crusts of ice at the creek’s edges.
“I’ve been coming here for 50 years, and every time I come around that bend [and the dam comes into view],” Dziardziel said, “it always reminds me of what they accomplished back in the early 1900s. I mean it was just amazing, and it makes you proud to be an American, really.”
Self-described “hermits” who prefer the solitude of ditch riding and tending to their ranches (WyoFile had to twist their arms for an in-person interview), Darr and Dziardziel lamented their forced entrance into the bureaucracy and politics of government needed to negotiate a tangle of demolition and reconstruction matters.
“We were all petrified of having to go deal with all this stuff that we’re not experienced with,” Darr said. “But it’s been remarkable how members from both sides of the table see a problem and have come together with us to help work through it. It’s taken a lot of fear out of politics for me, to be honest.”
But the work isn’t over.
As LaPrele irrigators prepare for a spring of free-flowing water and a late season without storage, lawmakers are in Cheyenne debating how much money to provide, which pots of money to dip into and whether the state ought to demand public access for fishing and recreation in return for the investment or even, potentially, assume state ownership of the new structure.
The estimate for the dam’s replacement ranges from $116 million to about $182 million, according to state-level discussions. The Wyoming Legislature, in 2022, set aside $30 million and is now considering adding another $60 million.
“It’s been very emotional for a lot of people — ourselves included. But at the same time, you’ve got to take your own personal feelings, thoughts, opinions aside and do what’s right for the safety of others.”
Casey Darr, LaPrele irrigator
So far, the state has secured a total $63 million in federal grants for the project via the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to help cover both demolition and replacement costs.
With Wyoming potentially kicking in a total $90 million — which faces some opposition — lawmakers have said they’re hopeful the federal government will kick in an additional $34 million. Though LaPrele irrigators and state officials have received assurances of supplemental federal funding for the project in recent years, the picture has become less clear under the Trump administration.
The primary funding proposal for Wyoming’s potential $60 million appropriation lies within House Bill 117, “Omnibus water bill-construction.” The majority of that funding comes from redirecting $50 million away from the Alkali Reservoir. A prudent move, proponents say, because that project doesn’t have the easements needed to start construction.
A “backup” measure, of sorts, House Bill 143, “LaPrele dam rebuilding,” would provide the same level of funding without shifting dollars from the Alkali project.
Meantime, HB 117 has been amended to include a $1 million grant to the LaPrele Irrigation District to assess the feasibility of drilling one or more water wells to supplement water supplies during the expected five-year period between demolition and replacement. The amendments would also provide a loan of $19 million to construct the wells.
The funding proposals — like many water infrastructure construction projects — face criticism from many who see them as spending taxpayer money for the benefit of a limited number of irrigation operations. Such appropriations amount to “picking winners and losers,” Lander Republican Rep. Lloyd Larsen of Lander said during a recent committee discussion regarding one portion of the funding proposals. “Government can’t just step in and take care of things for everybody,” he added.
Regarding such criticism, Darr said, yes, the LaPrele Irrigation District and the family businesses it supports would be prime beneficiaries of the investment. But, he pointed out, this would be the first major state investment in an irrigation district that provides economic support to the broader communities in the area, including businesses in Glenrock, Douglas and beyond.
“This district took a dam that had a lifespan of 50 years, and we got 116 years out of it with no state help,” Darr said. “The economic impact that this dam has provided for this community far exceeds the amount of money that we’re getting from the state. And we are extremely grateful for their help, because we honestly can’t do it without them.”
If the LaPrele Irrigation District were to lose the old dam without replacing it, the economic repercussions would be felt far beyond the tiny irrigation community, Dziardziel said.
“I buy equipment from Torrington clear to Riverton,” he said. “I buy fertilizer from Rock Springs. I even buy equipment from Cody. So, I mean, this affects the whole state.”
Not only would the state and federal investment help keep younger generations in the business of irrigated agriculture at LaPrele, Dziardziel added, it will help maintain a broader agricultural community in the state.
“When oil and gas play out, we’ll still have agriculture,” he said. “It’s a great long-term investment for the state.”
I can think of a lot of things our tax money supports that I consider less important than food. Are even smooth roads more important than food? Unfortunately food producers have generally remained in the back ground. I’m sure they do receive tax dollars for various reasons and also pay taxes. Frankly of all of the things/groups that get our tax dollars, it seems to me keeping the food suppliers at the top of the list is of utmost importance.
I put food and energy producers ahead of any recreational use I can think of….even including NPs.
The 100 or so families and regional businesses affected by closing and not rebuilding the dam will adjust. They are in business, and times change. If you can’t adjust, then you close your business and go do something else. This is the way of the market.
Compared to the need of Rawlins and other communities for water systems that work, the need here has to be put in perspective. It’s really, really low on the scale of priorities for how to spend public money.
There seems to be emotion coursing through this narrative – the emotion of nostalgia. This is not a rational reason to spend a couple hundred million dollars to subsidize another hay cutting and ancillary services.
The State needs to bite the bullet, provide transitional relief to affected businesses, if it’s needed, and move on to more important projects.
Ah, the LaPrele Dam—a sentinel of our past, now succumbing to time’s relentless march. Its mechanical breach, though a prudent measure to safeguard lives, heralds a cascade of challenges for our agrarian community. As we navigate these turbulent waters, let us summon our collective resolve, ensuring that from this adversity, a more resilient future may emerge.
Just curious has anyone looked into using a cofferdam either in front or behind the current dam? This could be used until a new dam is built. My understanding is that the coffer dam can be rented according to the team on “Oak Island”
Won’t the dam reconstruction expense far outweigh the cleanup expenses of not doing it? If so, it would seem other government departments might have reason for involvement
Has anyone run the figures to determine how much it would cost to buy out the 104 families and eliminate the need for the water supply for irrigation?
Bureaucrats and officials are not always correct. And neither is the local person. 55% of storage was removed to only a 45% level. Okay, lower it 10 to 15% more over the next 5 years to 35% or 30% of capacity. Be sure of a replacement before full demolition, know of the permitting and funding, who is going to control it. Is it going to be the state and involving recreational access and use!? There could be catastrophic natural flooding at any time. Reduce that catastrophe by controlling a portion of the potential flooding that could occur. But MAINTAIN IT AT A REDUCED LEVEL until the new one is constructed and ready. Amen. Don’t just men speak, let God speak to men as He did 116 years ago! This comment was not just ‘my’ own thoughts. Does He speak to you? Have a reduced flood over the next 5 to 6 years while the new dam is being constructed. Continue this agricultural areas contributions to the local and general economies over the 5 to 6 years and CONTINUE TO FEED THE WORLD! Man’s decisions are not as wise as God’s plans!
Brilliant,Bob, as always
The projected costs will involve expenditures of between 1.12 and 1.75 million for each of the families. I’m not sure why our state (and the federal government) continue to provide such enormous subsidies to an industry that has proven only marginally profitable. Most ranch families have one or more members who work outside the ranch, to stay solvent.
Cliff Wieser here from thehkera.org. I strongly believe that there is a good opportunity here to look at the benefits of non tidal river hydro Kinetic energy. Restoring the natural flow and still providing energy for irrigation pumping and 24/7 electricity. Any passive free flowing river can be interfaced. Enjoy
Don’t replace the dam, instead use that money to help all the small communities in the state update and improve their aging infrastructure and water systems. That would help many more people and do more good. I’d rather the state spent tax dollars doing the most good for the most people.
There is some irony in the cadre of Conservative Republican Ranchers — you know, the same ones that hate Medicare expansion and think everyone should pay their own way, no matter their financial circumstances — you know, the ones that rail against Socialism — stumbling around with their hands out, begging for tax dollars from the Federal and State government. It’s okay in this situation, though, because they have a financial hardship.
Taxpayers will contribute over $100 million to this private dam. Those that benefit the most financially from the dam will contribute $0.
with the projected 50 year lifespan of this dam, the irrigators got 65 bonus years of use. Now the poor ‘wittle ole’ me welfare farmer crowd wants the american and state taxpayers to heavily subsidize them again. Not quite the independent rugged individualists that they claim to be, no?!
Hey and you could stop eating beef! I don’t think that Plump and Muskrat are going to pop for the millions that Wyoming doesn’t have for this dam. But this article was great. A sympathetic yet reasonable analysis of a big problem
When the dam is replaced there is likely hydroelectric power available. Installing hydropower will help pay for O&M costs and maybe some capital for the irrigation District. Contact Mark We9nckus, President, wenckushydroengineering.com
Does anyone seriously think there will be Federal grants to help with this? In November most of Wyoming voted to make sure that sort of thing doesn’t happen any more.
Indeed public money public access! At least until trespass and trash become such a problem as to make access untenable. Tailwater access should be allowed also.
Helping one another and recognizing how actions of people in one small area actually affect lives of people far across WY is an important part of government at local and state levels. I commend those who have spent years studying this issue and made the difficult decision to remove the dam and seek to replace it—just be careful of private companies that usually only wish to benefit themselves.
Water management is a must for the United States regardless if your a farmer or a city apartment dweller. We all need water and we all cannot afford it on our own or be held responsible for the health of others because of it. Trump administration has already identified enough savings from waste in our government budget that these types of projects should be fast tracked to the front for immediate completion. Go bigger go better go public. This should of been done 50-60 years ago.
Any money ‘identified’ as waste will go into the billionaires pockets via tax cuts.
Not to disagree about the need for public works, but the Trump administration has identified zero dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse, and has, instead, taken a sledgehammer to federal government functions (if they had data, they’d present it, but rely on anecdotes instead). If you’re interested in waste, fraud, and abuse, contact Florida senior Senator, Rick Scott.
Agreed! Trump and Elon are finding wasted monies that can be used for the general good. Instead of feeding the wallets of a few freeloaders over demonic projects!
No legal or scientific reason to remove any dam. When this is rebuilt be certain to include fish ladders. Salmonprotectiondevice.com and Thelawisyourattorney.com
I don’t believe there are salmon east of the divide coming up the North Platte.
Why aren’t the irrigators paying for the replacement of this dam? Another case of welfare agriculture in Wyoming. Why should the state of Wyoming and Wyoming taxpayers be on the hook to pay tens of millions of dollars, if not a hundred million dollars for a dam that provides water to a handful of welfare farmers and ranchers growing nothing but hay to feed their cows.
I see Bruce that you have no idea how hard it is to raise a hay crop in Wyoming, If the so call “welfare farmers and ranchers” were paying for the dam, there is no way someone like yourself would be allowed near it. Open your eyes, ranchers/farmers are not as rich as you think, you wouldn’t make it
You eat the beef!
We don’t need Wyoming beef. This state is inhospitable to crops, livestock and humans. Wyoming accounts for a tiny fraction of the beef cattle in this country. Not using public money to benefit a few private interests on this dam would have zero effect on the American beef industry. The cattle would appreciate a move south, even just down to Colorado, where the climate is much better for ranching. Yes, that liberal state we all love to hate that has more cows than us.
Quit eating beef years ago. Before you reply, consider that my Dad’s family started rancing in the West in 1848, and if they hadn’t sold up, I’d be the 6th generation. But I’ve also done work on water resources, watershed management, stream channel damage, plant communities, erosion, soil depletion, and desertification. Raising beef cattle, especially combined with public-land grazing, is probably the most destructive form af agriculture.
If public money is used to replace this dam, it should be accessible to the public.
Yes
What happens to natural bridge? We have gone there when we were young, and now we take our great grandkids there, to picnic, and play in he water. Will it be open this summer ? Thank you for the information.