Southern Elk
Well-known member
I was just about to mention Murdoch’s. Why in the world do they need another one with two on Jack Rabbit and another one in Bozeman?
Canyon Ferry Bozeman Water Pipeline
- Thread starter Big Sky Guy
- Start date
Big Sky Guy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2018
- Messages
- 553
Murdoch’s at Wheat made a lot more sense to me than #2 on Jackrabbit. Wheat location can service north to Townsend, East to Manhattan, West to Whitehall. I drive that everyday so will be convenient for me lol, I think there are a lot of people driving by that everyday now too.
Southern Elk
Well-known member
You’re probably right. I don’t know why they have 2 on Jackrabbit.
Hem
Well-known member
Guy still stands to profit big time.
Murdochs coming. Sad Town and Country pulled out. Traffic has exploded at that junction, the Rest Area will blow things up. Not thrilled.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
The owner/ developer of the 19th property orchestrated the new rest area, conveniently fast tracked the review process and disregarded local public comment for the most part.
So we have a brewery, rest area, Wheat Montana sandwich shop( Sisco products).
Need a DQ and a few taco busses.
Maybe a pipeline too.
Forgot about the strip club and toy store.
And a trailer sales lot. Don’t forget that.
JEL
Well-known member
They are talking Canyon Ferry because of water rights. They can buy contract water out of CF from bureau of rec. The river itself is pretty much closed to new water rights.
Last edited:
I hope that idea goes down the tubes. The Gallatin Valley is a classic example of big money manipulating the elected folks who’ve bought into the “lower housing cost” fallacy that cannot be fixed by building more.
The rest of the state needs to tell Gallatin Valley to stick it in their ear and learn how to live with the resources available nearby. All they are trying to do is push the true costs of development to more rural outlying areas via an effort that will put the profit in the hands is a small group of people/companies.
The “affordable housing” fallacy is never going to get solved until the Gallatin Valley becomes an undesirable shit hole, which to many folks happened ten years ago. Thats what drives this. The demand side is currently so high that we could build on every square foot of this valley and not make a dent in that supply-demand curve.
If the good folks of Jefferson and Broadwater County need money to defeat this idea, I know plenty of Gallatin Valley residents who will contribute. Count me in.
The rest of the state needs to tell Gallatin Valley to stick it in their ear and learn how to live with the resources available nearby. All they are trying to do is push the true costs of development to more rural outlying areas via an effort that will put the profit in the hands is a small group of people/companies.
The “affordable housing” fallacy is never going to get solved until the Gallatin Valley becomes an undesirable shit hole, which to many folks happened ten years ago. Thats what drives this. The demand side is currently so high that we could build on every square foot of this valley and not make a dent in that supply-demand curve.
If the good folks of Jefferson and Broadwater County need money to defeat this idea, I know plenty of Gallatin Valley residents who will contribute. Count me in.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Sounds like it’s shut down.
For a few year stretch, I found myself passing through there every couple weeks for work or kids sports, and that rest area was basically a home for a lot folks without them every time I stopped.
My gut reaction is to think of the hydrologic basin that feeds Bozeman, below in blue lines. Some of Montana’s highest and most snow filled country drains into the Gallatin Valley, and it seems strange that they would pull water over a divide back to Bozeman.
Then again, water rights are at play. This world of prior appropriation, more water allocated than exists on the landscape, and the interplay between an exploding amount of groundwater wells and surface water, certainly makes it complicated. Canyon ferry is probably the most feasible possibility , which doesn’t make it right.
Raisin Bran
Well-known member
They are trying to stay ahead of Tractor Supply. Tractor Supply is on a massive growth curve to grab market share in the small ranch & farm retail arena.
Raisin Bran
Well-known member
Agreed! Bozeman has always half assed the affordable housing issue to make it look and sound like it matters but never really doing anything of substance or that worked. This water pipe idea is just another way to perpetuate the perception of doing something. Smoke & Mirrors for the deeper issues and needs.
JEL
Well-known member
I’ve been out of the game for a few years so not sure what’s current but those irrigation rights could be changed to municipal or used to mitigate new uses such as municipal wells.
4ohSick
Well-known member
Couldn't fit all the dumb Yellowstone branded crap for tourists in 3 stores, needed a 4th. Next one will be right next to the BZN baggage claim.
Big Sky Guy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2018
- Messages
- 553
Helena IR ran an article yesterday. I was unable to read the entire thing due to a paywall. I did download their proposed routes for the pipeline. Seems concerning they have been considering and looking into planning this for over a year and even got as far as to propose routes, maybe this has more traction than I/most gave credit? Or maybe it’s just part of the process to come up with a proposed plan and then completely nix it? From what I read it doesn’t appear Broadwater County has been contacted/involved at all. Please correct me if I didn’t catch that or if someone else can find a non-paywall version of the article feel free to share. I was trying to figure out where that blue line ran as we live pretty near it to the south of 12, but couldn’t find enough detail in the map to do so.
Big Sky Guy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2018
- Messages
- 553
Hem
Well-known member
Thanks for posting this.
Yeah, pretty obvious the possibilities of A to B. None of those routes are surprising I guess.
Someone will tease Broadwater County with a little chicken feed and those commissioners will jump all over it with little thought.
Exactly. I worked in Water Rights for several years and this idea is key, but most "Cities or Towns" don't plan in regards to water rights and water demand. When a town or city grows and expands out into the countryside, Developers should be responsible to purchase water rights of the local farmers/ranchers or ditch companies and turn them over to the city/county. Instead of using water to grow crops, that water can now be used for washing machines, showers, toilets, etc. It's poor planning on the City/County officials and the Developers having free reign.
JEL
Well-known member
This is the IR article.
Faced with monumental growth projections in the coming two decades, the city of Bozeman with the backing of neighboring city Belgrade and Gallatin County are exploring a potential regional water and wastewater authority and available surface water rights, including Canyon Ferry Reservoir.
"We have pretty extreme growth projections in the valley," Gallatin County Commissioner Zach Brown said in an interview Friday. "There is a lot of coordinated planning among our communities happening right now."
Brown said that planning is particularly focused on what he called the infill triangle, an area loosely bounded by the Gallatin River, Interstate 90 and the cities of Belgrade and Bozeman, and the infrastructure needed to support development of the about 25-square mile swath of land.
Bozeman boasted a population according to the 2020 census of slightly more than 53,000.
Between mid-2021 and mid-2022, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates nearly 20,000 moved to Montana. The state absorbed nearly 10,000 new residents between mid-2022 and mid2023.
A memorandum presented to the Bozeman City Commission Jan. 23 states, "(a) long-range population of 450,000 people is projected to fill this geographic planning area by the year 2070 at current urban densities and growth rates. To adequately serve a population of this magnitude, a new and significant municipal water supply source is required."
Bozeman City Manager Jeff Mihelich stressed in an interview Monday that the study commissioned to explore the various options, including a water pipeline from Canyon Ferry serving the Gallatin Valley, is "looking out 50 years."
"This is not the immediate future we're talking about; it's very preliminary," Mihelich said. "Our first question was 'is it (a water pipeline serving Gallatin Valley from Canyon Ferry Reservoir) actually possible from an engineering standpoint?,' and the answer is 'Yes.'"
From there, he said the participating communities are considering establishing a regional water and wastewater authority to administer and help fund the project.
He said they also intend to identify "any and all" communities along the pipeline corridor interested in participating in such a project, meaning those smaller communities would contribute financially and receive water from the pipeline.
Mihelich estimated the earliest construction could possibly begin might be in 10 years, but again noted there is no timeline nor funding sources.
He said the exploratory process is a benefit in that it "helps create awareness of the situation."
"At the very least it's educational," he said.
Following about a year and a half worth of due diligence and research via a third-party consultant, the regional water authority planning committee came up with two options, the Yellowstone River and Canyon Ferry, the closest large volume of available surface water rights.
Canyon Ferry has been determined to be the preferred option, considering the intent of the reservoir is serving municipal growth, the availability and the cost.
Helena-area officials said they were aware of the plans, calling them "very preliminary," and said they would review the proposal at the appropriate time.
Brown said the closed basin of Gallatin Valley has little to no unclaimed surface water rights and purchasing pieced together rights from land owners would be cost prohibitive for the local governments.
"Buying surface water rights around the valley from farmers is very expensive," Brown said. "Canyon Ferry water rights are cheap comparatively."
Montana Bureau of Reclamation Area Manager Ryan Newman, based in Billings, said in an interview Tuesday the Gallatin Valley working group has inquired about the availability of water.
Newman said at first blush, without any actual plans in place, the idea appears to be "an alternative worth exploring and evaluating further."
The reservoir filled up following the construction of Canyon Ferry Dam more than 70 years ago. The reservoir's water is earmarked for a few different uses – irrigation, recreation and support of municipal growth – which presents a balancing act encompassing numerous interests.
But in order to equitably divvy up the finite resource, the bureau needs to know how much water it actually has in the reservoir.
Newman said the bureau is in the early stages of conducting a water availability analysis, which has not been updated in the four years he has held the office and likely "quite a bit longer than that."
He said the bureau would like to complete the analysis within a year, but it could take longer.
He noted the level of involvement of existing Canyon Ferry Reservoir surface water rights holders will depend on the proposal submitted, but that any process would play out in a public manner.
A city of Bozeman presentation on the subject noted 300,000 acre-feet of available water within the reservoir.
Though the water may be relatively inexpensive, the infrastructure required to deliver the water the more than 70 miles as the crow flies is estimated to cost anywhere between $1.5 billion and $5.7 billion. Divided among the 450,000 residential water customers, it works out to about $15,000 per residential connection.
"The cost is so exorbitant, it doesn't really pencil without federal subsidies," Brown said. "It would probably require massive subsidies from the feds to offset the rates."
Brown characterized his county's stance on the proposed district and the consideration of a massive water pipeline as "supportive," calling the city of Bozeman the "main driver."
"The county isn't necessarily pushing for this," Brown said. "We're certainly supportive of hashing out long-term solutions with our partners."
During an interview Thursday, Belgrade City Manager Neil Cardwell characterized his city's involvement in the planning similarly.
Cardwell said Belgrade is anticipating a population growth between 33,000 and 35,000 in the next 10 to 15 years, possibly eclipsing that of Helena.
Yet, he said the city believes it has the water capacity to support that nearly 160% increase.
"We have enough water to support our growth and likely support it for the next 10 to 20 years," Cardwell said.
Belgrade's water supply is entirely ground-based, unlike Bozeman, and Cardwell said the city is interested in exploring longterm water conservation strategies and increasing storage capacity to better meet peak demands before considering entering into a regional water authority that "could encourage more urban sprawl."
"It seems early to Belgrade at this time," he said. "We have some concerns about a regional water authority. ... We are not against collaborative regional efforts and believe in working together, but we need more time to make a better decision."
Mihelich said Bozeman is also implementing water conservation measures to help stem the tide, including a yard watering ordinance passed about a month ago and a landscaping ordinance in the works.
Brown said the authority and pipeline will be a tough sell to the county voters amid "a lot of anti-growth politics."
"It's a challenging position to be in particularly for the city of Bozeman," he said. "The politics are pretty tough at the moment."
Lewis and Clark County spokeswoman Betsy Kirkeby said in an email Thursday "Lewis and Clark County is aware of the Canyon Ferry Pipeline proposal, but have not been involved in any discussion about the project to this point."
Helena Public Works Director Ryan Leland said Friday "the city is sitting very well with water."
"Yes, we are aware of it. It's very preliminary," Leland said. "At a time that is appropriate, we will be brought in to see the proposal."
Helena primarily sources its water from the Ten Mile Water Treatment Plant, but can supplement with or switch over entirely to its Missouri River plant fed by Canyon Ferry water.
"It's a very important water source to the city," Leland said. "We rely on it."
Nolan Lister is a reporter at the Helena Independent Record with an emphasis on local government.
Faced with monumental growth projections in the coming two decades, the city of Bozeman with the backing of neighboring city Belgrade and Gallatin County are exploring a potential regional water and wastewater authority and available surface water rights, including Canyon Ferry Reservoir.
"We have pretty extreme growth projections in the valley," Gallatin County Commissioner Zach Brown said in an interview Friday. "There is a lot of coordinated planning among our communities happening right now."
Brown said that planning is particularly focused on what he called the infill triangle, an area loosely bounded by the Gallatin River, Interstate 90 and the cities of Belgrade and Bozeman, and the infrastructure needed to support development of the about 25-square mile swath of land.
Bozeman boasted a population according to the 2020 census of slightly more than 53,000.
Between mid-2021 and mid-2022, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates nearly 20,000 moved to Montana. The state absorbed nearly 10,000 new residents between mid-2022 and mid2023.
A memorandum presented to the Bozeman City Commission Jan. 23 states, "(a) long-range population of 450,000 people is projected to fill this geographic planning area by the year 2070 at current urban densities and growth rates. To adequately serve a population of this magnitude, a new and significant municipal water supply source is required."
Bozeman City Manager Jeff Mihelich stressed in an interview Monday that the study commissioned to explore the various options, including a water pipeline from Canyon Ferry serving the Gallatin Valley, is "looking out 50 years."
"This is not the immediate future we're talking about; it's very preliminary," Mihelich said. "Our first question was 'is it (a water pipeline serving Gallatin Valley from Canyon Ferry Reservoir) actually possible from an engineering standpoint?,' and the answer is 'Yes.'"
From there, he said the participating communities are considering establishing a regional water and wastewater authority to administer and help fund the project.
He said they also intend to identify "any and all" communities along the pipeline corridor interested in participating in such a project, meaning those smaller communities would contribute financially and receive water from the pipeline.
Mihelich estimated the earliest construction could possibly begin might be in 10 years, but again noted there is no timeline nor funding sources.
He said the exploratory process is a benefit in that it "helps create awareness of the situation."
"At the very least it's educational," he said.
Following about a year and a half worth of due diligence and research via a third-party consultant, the regional water authority planning committee came up with two options, the Yellowstone River and Canyon Ferry, the closest large volume of available surface water rights.
Canyon Ferry has been determined to be the preferred option, considering the intent of the reservoir is serving municipal growth, the availability and the cost.
Helena-area officials said they were aware of the plans, calling them "very preliminary," and said they would review the proposal at the appropriate time.
Brown said the closed basin of Gallatin Valley has little to no unclaimed surface water rights and purchasing pieced together rights from land owners would be cost prohibitive for the local governments.
"Buying surface water rights around the valley from farmers is very expensive," Brown said. "Canyon Ferry water rights are cheap comparatively."
Montana Bureau of Reclamation Area Manager Ryan Newman, based in Billings, said in an interview Tuesday the Gallatin Valley working group has inquired about the availability of water.
Newman said at first blush, without any actual plans in place, the idea appears to be "an alternative worth exploring and evaluating further."
The reservoir filled up following the construction of Canyon Ferry Dam more than 70 years ago. The reservoir's water is earmarked for a few different uses – irrigation, recreation and support of municipal growth – which presents a balancing act encompassing numerous interests.
But in order to equitably divvy up the finite resource, the bureau needs to know how much water it actually has in the reservoir.
Newman said the bureau is in the early stages of conducting a water availability analysis, which has not been updated in the four years he has held the office and likely "quite a bit longer than that."
He said the bureau would like to complete the analysis within a year, but it could take longer.
He noted the level of involvement of existing Canyon Ferry Reservoir surface water rights holders will depend on the proposal submitted, but that any process would play out in a public manner.
A city of Bozeman presentation on the subject noted 300,000 acre-feet of available water within the reservoir.
Though the water may be relatively inexpensive, the infrastructure required to deliver the water the more than 70 miles as the crow flies is estimated to cost anywhere between $1.5 billion and $5.7 billion. Divided among the 450,000 residential water customers, it works out to about $15,000 per residential connection.
"The cost is so exorbitant, it doesn't really pencil without federal subsidies," Brown said. "It would probably require massive subsidies from the feds to offset the rates."
Brown characterized his county's stance on the proposed district and the consideration of a massive water pipeline as "supportive," calling the city of Bozeman the "main driver."
"The county isn't necessarily pushing for this," Brown said. "We're certainly supportive of hashing out long-term solutions with our partners."
During an interview Thursday, Belgrade City Manager Neil Cardwell characterized his city's involvement in the planning similarly.
Cardwell said Belgrade is anticipating a population growth between 33,000 and 35,000 in the next 10 to 15 years, possibly eclipsing that of Helena.
Yet, he said the city believes it has the water capacity to support that nearly 160% increase.
"We have enough water to support our growth and likely support it for the next 10 to 20 years," Cardwell said.
Belgrade's water supply is entirely ground-based, unlike Bozeman, and Cardwell said the city is interested in exploring longterm water conservation strategies and increasing storage capacity to better meet peak demands before considering entering into a regional water authority that "could encourage more urban sprawl."
"It seems early to Belgrade at this time," he said. "We have some concerns about a regional water authority. ... We are not against collaborative regional efforts and believe in working together, but we need more time to make a better decision."
Mihelich said Bozeman is also implementing water conservation measures to help stem the tide, including a yard watering ordinance passed about a month ago and a landscaping ordinance in the works.
Brown said the authority and pipeline will be a tough sell to the county voters amid "a lot of anti-growth politics."
"It's a challenging position to be in particularly for the city of Bozeman," he said. "The politics are pretty tough at the moment."
Lewis and Clark County spokeswoman Betsy Kirkeby said in an email Thursday "Lewis and Clark County is aware of the Canyon Ferry Pipeline proposal, but have not been involved in any discussion about the project to this point."
Helena Public Works Director Ryan Leland said Friday "the city is sitting very well with water."
"Yes, we are aware of it. It's very preliminary," Leland said. "At a time that is appropriate, we will be brought in to see the proposal."
Helena primarily sources its water from the Ten Mile Water Treatment Plant, but can supplement with or switch over entirely to its Missouri River plant fed by Canyon Ferry water.
"It's a very important water source to the city," Leland said. "We rely on it."
Nolan Lister is a reporter at the Helena Independent Record with an emphasis on local government.
Similar threads
