Nevada Division of Environmental Protection - Office of Financial Assistance

Metropolis Irrigation Restoration Project

BACKGROUND

A New York company, Pacific Reclamations initiated a large land development scheme in 1909 at the mouth of Bishop Creek in Elko County. The original development included approximately 40,000 acres of potentially irrigable land, a new earth-filled dam capable of storing 30,000 acre-feet of water and the townsite of Metropolis. A court decision reduced the available irrigation lands to 4,000 acres rather than the planned 40,000 acres. Some farmers turned to dry-farming in an attempt to salvage the project. The depression of the 1930s finally dismantled the town.

Later, the Pacific Reclamation Water Company was organized specially for the management of the remaining irrigation project. The water company maintained a viable irrigation project for approximately 2,000 acres until 1979. Bishop Creek Dam was the key element in the project.

The Bishop Creek Dam was constructed in 1912. The dam served as a viable component of the original irrigation project for 30 years. In May 1943, the State Engineer imposed a water gauge height limitation on the structure of 55 feet. A dam safety inspection was prepared by the Corps of Engineers for the structure in May 1979 as part of the National Program for Inspection of Dams. The dam was classified as intermediate in size (80 feet high) with a "high hazard" classification. The dam was described as an "unsafe structure" as a result of the dam safety inspection in 1979 and it was recommended that the dam not be filled above the level previously recommended by the State Engineer. Because of the lack of storage, the facility eventually ceased to be a viable for the irrigation project. The dam continued to function as a flood control structure, in that it detained the peak runoff during storm events.

The outlet gate became bound and inoperable, partially open, early in 1984 because of limited used and deterioration. With the gate partially open, the runoff events of 1984 ponded water to a depth of about 57 feet. As a result, the dam developed a leak through the embankment. The primary area of the leak was at a height of about 42 feet. The dam eventually drained down without catastrophic failure.

The water delivery system is more than 90 years old. It has exceeded its useful design life. All concrete structures associated with it have experienced excessive weathering. Portions of the canal system never have water in them and, as a result, they have not been maintained. The existing system would not be capable of handling the available water if the dam were functioning and releasing water. It appears that the present system is not capable of delivering the quantity of water for which there are water rights.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Metropolis Water Irrigation District submitted a Letter of Intent to apply for a grant under the AB 237 program to assist with an irrigation system improvement project. The scope of the complete project includes a new dam and irrigation conveyance system improvements. The Board for Financing Water Projects approved proceeding to the grant application with six conditions:
1. Metropolis Irrigation District should apply for the grant in two phases: Phase 1 for engineering and permitting and Phase 2 for construction. The applicant will not apply for a Phase 2 grant until permitting is complete or nearly complete;
2. Before applying for a grant for the engineering and permitting phase, the Metropolis Water Irrigation district must have their "match funding" in place;
3. Before applying for a grant for the construction phase, the Metropolis Water Irrigation district must have their "match funding" in place or supply details on how they plan to use in-kind labor for the match;
4. Before applying for a grant for the construction phase, the Metropolis Water Irrigation District must have established a water rate for their irrigation water that is sufficient to pay for the operation and continued maintenance of and capital replacement fund (depreciation account) for the irrigation system;
5. Metropolis Water Irrigation District must apply for a grant for Phase 1 engineering and permitting within one year of the approval of this Letter of Intent;
6. The project must be given approval by the Division of Water Resources Dam Safety

PROJECT STATUS

The Metropolis Water Irrigation District applied for a grant under the AB 198 program for Phase 1 - engineering and permitting. The grant was approved by the Board for Financing Water Projects on January 25, 2006, for $489,467.40 (85% of the total eligible project cost of $575,844).

The scope of Phase 1 of the project includes:

the final design of the earthfill Bishop Creek embankment dam, including the associated spillway, foundation treatment, and construction drawings and specifications; and the final drilling program to refine the foundation design
the final design of the diversion and conveyance structures for irrigation restoration
the design of the ~6.5-mile construction access road to the dam site

Engineering design and permitting are currently in progress. Included in the staff report to the Board at the September 10, 2009, Board meeting, the general items that staff consider outstanding related to this project include:

Dam Permit from the Division of Water Resources and clarification of water rights. The design is still under review by NDWR. In addition, the District noted in their letter dated February 22, 2008 that the Pacific Reclamation Water Company has the certificated permits for water on Bishop Creek. It is unclear if NDWR requires that these rights be in the name of the Metropolis Water Irrigation District.

Permits, easements, rights-of-way, etc., as required by the BLM, US Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, for removal of the old dam, construction of the new dam and construction of the recreation facilities. There are uncertainties about federal land status. While BLM's predecessor, the General Land Office, issued a Right of Way (ROW) to the Metropolis Land Company in perpetuity, BLM has no record of authorizing the existing dam. BLM also has no record showing a change in name for the ROW to the Metropolis Water Irrigation District. In addition, research provided by the BLM office in Elko indicates the public land upon which the dam sits has been withdrawn by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). This withdrawal was completed in April 2001. It is currently shown as withdrawn land based on the application by Wells Rural Electric for feasibility studies in developing a hydroelectric project.

Regarding environmental work, at this point, the level of NEPA analysis required to analyze the impacts of a new dam, reservoir, and recreation facility is uncertain (Environmental Assessment (EA), Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), other). Note that a significant cultural finding during an EA could potentially trigger an EIS. This would be determined by the lead agency. A resolution needs to be reached regarding the jurisdictional issue between FERC and BLM. Project scoping must still be done between the District and the lead agency in order to determine the level of NEPA analysis necessary.

In addition to the dam permit from NDWR, the US Army Corps of Engineers will require a Section 404 Permit prior to contruction of the dam. The Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) also noted that a Nation Wide Permit #36 and 42 will be required to build the boat ramp and recreational facilities. Our office has not received a complete list of interested parties, and therefore, there may be other requirements we have not been alerted to from entities like the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), American Indian Tribes, etc.

Installation of flow gauges on the inlet and outlet of the reservoir for monitoring purposes. Downstream users holding water rights that are senior to the Metropolis Water Irrigation District have previously expressed concern that flows are inadequate to support irrigation uses and upstream storage, particularly a minimum pool needed for a fishery. In addition, NDOW has required, as a condition of providing recreational facility funding, that gauges be installed to verify the inflow and outflow. There has been discussion over the possibility of an increase in flow since the earthquake in 2008; however, the subsurface hydrology can be difficult to predict. This increase may be long term or may be due to only a finite lens of water that the shift in the earth structure is releasing from storage and the flows could diminish at any time. Since the gauges have not, yet, been installed and there is no history of the flows into and out of the reservoir, it is a guess as to how much water is flowing today, and future flows are equally as hard to predict.

Commitment of water rights or other mechanism to assure a minimum pool for the creation of a reservoir that may be used for recreation (boating, fishing, etc.). In a letter dated August 26, 2009, NDOW indicates that a minimum pool to support a fishery would be 20 feet deep, approximately 1,700 acre-feet. NDOW indicates a binding agreement would be necessary. To date, no written agreement with NDOW to assure a minimum pool has been secured.

Obtaining of match funding for the construction of the dam and funding for construction of the recreation facilities. The District has previously stated that NDOW would participate in the funding of a boat ramp, in funding for the dam structure, in a possible fishery and on-going maintenance of the dam. After reviewing this issue with NDOW, it is staff's understanding that without a binding agreement to a minimum pool, NDOW will not be in a position to offer funding toward the recreation facilities. Note that, should an agreement ultimately be reached with NDOW, there is a required match in funding that the District would have to provide. Match funding for recreation facilities cannot come from the capital improvements grant program.

The District has also made note of possible funding from the Nevada Division of State Parks (State Parks) for hiking trails. This funding has not been confirmed and the inclusion of hiking trails in the region extends the area that would be covered in the environmental assessments that must be made prior to any BLM approval.

When the Board approved funding for the Phase 1 project, they were told that the City of Wells intended to apply for a grant from the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) for engineering design and construction of the road for the dam construction. In addition, Elko County had intended to donate in-kind labor to construct the road with the intent that the City of Wells would have sufficient funds remaining from the NDOT grant to complete the recreational facilities. It is not clear if, in the 3 ½ years since the AB-198 grant was approved for engineering and permitting, this funding and in-kind commitment has been secured.

Demonstration of a revenue source to cover operation and maintenance and to support a capital replacement fund. NRS 359.948 requires that a grantee has sufficient financial resources to place the water project in operation and to continue its operation. This is interpreted to mean that the Metropolis Water Irrigation District must continually fund the needed maintenance and capital reserve fund of the dam and the irrigation system. Required maintenance for the irrigation system will include, at a minimum, controlling vegetation on the dam and in the conveyance structures, controlling rodents, keeping trash out of the system, and maintaining the mechanical equipment. The dam should have a useful life of approximately 80 years according to the DWR. The estimated annual operation and maintenance for the project is $60,000 (letter dated February 22, 2008). This amount appears to be low. An item that has apparently been overlooked is the USGS stream gauges which have an annual O&M cost of $20,800 each. Staff understands that there will be three of these gauges - one upstream on Bishop Creek (below the confluence with Johnson Creek), a second on Bishop Creek below the dam and a third on the irrigation diversion channel. The USGS may be able to assist with up to 50% of the cost of the gauges and their maintenance on Bishop Creek. No financial assistance would be available for the gauge on the irrigation diversion. If the USGS were able to assist with 50% of the eligible maintenance cost, that would still leave the District with $41,600 for the stream gauges alone.

An entity committed to operating/overseeing the recreation facility and fee collection. As made clear in its September 11, 2008, request for a time extension, the District is unable to fund operation of recreation facilities and has not yet identified an entity to assume this responsibility. There has been recent mention of Elko County assuming this responsibility through an R&PP lease from BLM. An R&PP application was apparently filed with the BLM; however, no meeting has yet occurred to review the status/completeness of this application. Staff are unaware if the County is willing to commit any funds toward developing and operating the facilities.

Relevant correspondence and proceedings

To see more photos of District and the old Bishop Creek dam, click here and you will be tranferred to the Board's field trip site with photos and narrative of the area.