#ColoradoRiver Year In Review: Peek at 2016

From email from Ground Floor Media (Gil Rudawsky):

Coinciding with the Colorado River Water Users annual conference this week, attached you will find a list of the 2015 highlights for the Colorado River Basin, along with a teaser about what will likely make headlines in 2016. In addition, we included a list of subject matter experts, most of whom are at CRWUA and available for interviews.

The experts are from American Rivers, National Audubon Society, Environmental Defense Fund, The Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited and Western Resource Advocates.

Click here to read about the highlights and look ahead.

Click here to go to the Colorado River Water Users Association website.

The Colorado River Basin is divided into upper and lower portions. It provides water to the Colorado River, a water source that serves 40 million people over seven states in the southwestern United States. Colorado River Commission of Nevada
The Colorado River Basin is divided into upper and lower portions. It provides water to the Colorado River, a water source that serves 40 million people over seven states in the southwestern United States. Colorado River Commission of Nevada

#AnimasRiver: Water monitoring plans may bring Four Corners together — The Durango Herald

From The Durango Herald (Jessica Pace):

Agreeing that collaboration is key, New Mexico environmental officials extended a hand in partnership to La Plata County during a Wednesday meeting about long-term water monitoring plans.

Four months after an Environmental Protection Agency-caused spill at the Gold King Mine in Silverton sent 3 million gallons of acidic wastewater into the Animas and San Juan rivers work continues for entities throughout the Four Corners. They want to establish long-term plans to monitor not only the impacts of the Aug. 5 spill, but the long-standing issue of abandoned mine drainage and other pollutants affecting regional water quality.

On Wednesday, officials with the New Mexico Environment Department shared the state’s plan with La Plata County in an effort to open lines of communication. New Mexico has worked closely with the Navajo Nation and Utah stakeholders in the aftermath of the spill, but communication with Colorado has been minimal.

“Monitoring plans will be separate, but should complement one another,” said Cabinet Secretary Ryan Flynn.

New Mexico met with San Juan County officials in October, when the draft plan was released. It includes identifying the quality of water impounded in Upper Animas Watershed mines as well as mill tailings and waste rock that could discharge into surface water.

A “get well soon” balloon floats in the contaminated waters of the Animas River flowing through Durango on Monday afternoon August 10, 2015 -- photo The Durango Herald, Shane Benjamin
A “get well soon” balloon floats in the contaminated waters of the Animas River flowing through Durango on Monday afternoon August 10, 2015 — photo The Durango Herald, Shane Benjamin

The latest newsletter from the Ruth Powell Hutchins Water Center is hot off the presses

Click here to read the newsletter. Here’s an excerpt:

The Colorado River Research Group recently released the report “A Look at the Interim Guidelines at Their Midpoint: How Are We Doing?” The guidelines include an agreement on how to cut Colorado River water use in the lower basin when Lake Mead hits critical elevations. The report notes that the guidelines have bought time for avoiding crisis but calls for permanent reductions in water use.

Give yourself (or someone on your Christmas list) the gift of The Mountain Town News

Allen Best, a journalist in Colorado for 35 years, publishes an e-zine called Mountain Town News
Allen Best, a journalist in Colorado for 35 years, publishes an e-zine called Mountain Town News

My friend, Allen Best, writes in email earlier this week:

Inside this issue you will find what you’ve come to expect from Mountain Town News: A breezy overview of what’s happening and what’s being reported in mountain resort regions of the West, supplemented by a few, deeper stories.

One of those deeper stories in this issue originally appeared recently in Ski Area Management. The richly researched story examines the vulnerability of ski areas to rising temperatures. As I prepare to distribute this issue, a photo arriving by e-mail shows a fairyland in Aspen. The weather is delightful, especially for skiing. The climate? It’s more uneven but tilting against the economics of snow-based tourism and real estate.

And so it goes, as the late Kurt Vonnegut used to write. In every issue of MTN, you’ll find reporting that is both brief and deep in resort regions of the West. Your subscriptions keep me going. For individual subscribers, it’s about $2.50 per issue, the same as the Wall Street Journal purchased at a newsstand. Most institutional subscribers pay more, but the cost per individual reader is much less, perhaps less than what you throw in the tip jar for Starbucks baristas on your way out the door.

Here’s my problem. To avoid becoming a barista myself, I need more subscribers, more advertisers, or both, to make this work. MTN subscribers have been remarkably loyal, but I lose some every year, and too few new subscribers arrive to replace them.

“But why don’t you just put it on a website and then sell advertising?” Good idea — except who makes money on websites? It’s an expense, not income. I suppose I could start writing about the top 10 celebrities who are skiers or solicit advertising about how to make your skis thicker and longer. That’s not what I do. The logic of a free-access website is the same logic as a ski area that gives away lift tickets, intending to make its money by advertising. Know any of those?

You need MTN because it delivers an easy read that keeps you abreast of what is happening in Colorado and other mountain resort regions. It’s very affordable.

What YOU can do is persuade a friend, acquaintance or business associate that a MTN subscription has great value and delivers great value. And be sure to remind them that quality journalism like this does not come without great time and effort.

Also tell them if they liked this issue, they’ve probably missed a great many issues of value. And again, it’s a bargain — a cup of coffee per issue. Less, if you prefer the foo-foo drinks. Perhaps a former mayor or town manager, a county manager or local environmental non-profit?

I do ask for your assistance.

Allen Best



Allen is a great writer. I’ve linked to many of his water stories here on Coyote Gulch over the years. Please subscribe to The Mountain Town News.

Snowpack news: A beautiful snow for most of #Colorado

Click on a thumbnail graphic to view a gallery of snowpack data from the Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Weekly Climate, Water and Drought Assessment of the Upper #ColoradoRiver Basin

Upper Colorado River Basin month to date precipitation through December 13, 2015 via the Colorado Climate Center
Upper Colorado River Basin month to date precipitation through December 13, 2015 via the Colorado Climate Center

Click here to view the current assessment. Click here to go to the NIDIS website hosted by the Colorado Climate Center.

#COP21: “The Paris pact is the best climate news we’ve had in a very long time” — Paul Krugman

From The New York Times (Paul Krugman):

Did the Paris climate accord save civilization? Maybe. That may not sound like a ringing endorsement, but it’s actually the best climate news we’ve had in a very long time. This agreement could still follow the path of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which seemed like a big deal but ended up being completely ineffectual. But there have been important changes in the world since then, which may finally have created the preconditions for action on global warming before it’s too late.

Until very recently there were two huge roadblocks in the way of any kind of global deal on climate: China’s soaring consumption of coal, and the implacable opposition of America’s Republican Party. The first seemed to mean that global greenhouse emissions would rise inexorably no matter what wealthy countries did, while the second meant that the biggest of those wealthy countries was unable to make credible promises, and hence unable to lead.

But there have been important changes on both fronts.


Still, what reason is there to believe that the accord will really change the world’s trajectory? Nations have agreed both to emission targets and to regular review of their success or failure in meeting those targets; but there are no penalties other than censure for countries that fail to deliver.

And achieving those emission targets would definitely hurt some powerful special interests, since it would mean leaving most of the world’s remaining fossil fuels in the ground, never to be burned. So what will stop the fossil fuel industry from buying enough politicians to turn the accord into a dead letter?

The answer, I’d suggest, is that new technology has fundamentally changed the rules.

Many people still seem to believe that renewable energy is hippie-dippy stuff, not a serious part of our future. Either that, or they have bought into propaganda that portrays it as some kind of liberal boondoggle (Solyndra! Benghazi! Death panels!) The reality, however, is that costs of solar and wind power have fallen dramatically, to the point where they are close to competitive with fossil fuels even without special incentives — and progress on energy storage has made their prospects even better. Renewable energy has also become a big employer, much bigger these days than the coal industry.

This energy revolution has two big implications. The first is that the cost of sharp emission reductions will be much less than even optimists used to assume — dire warnings from the right used to be mostly nonsense, but now they’re complete nonsense. The second is that given a moderate boost — the kind that the Paris accord could provide — renewable energy could quickly give rise to new interest groups with a positive stake in saving the planet, offering an offset to the Kochs and suchlike.

Of course, it could easily go all wrong. President Cruz or President Rubio might scuttle the whole deal, and by the time we get another chance to do something about climate it could be too late.

But it doesn’t have to happen. I don’t think it’s naïve to suggest that what came out of Paris gives us real reason to hope in an area where hope has been all too scarce. Maybe we’re not doomed after all.

State shortens selenium compliance period — The Pueblo Chieftain

Groundwater movement via the USGS
Groundwater movement via the USGS

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

The state has put Pueblo on a shorter leash for dealing with selenium in wastewater discharges.

On Monday, the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission rejected Pueblo’s plea for a 10-year extension of a temporary modification, instead just giving the city a little over two years to develop a discharge specific variance that sets numerical limits and strategies to attain them.

“Everyone, even the EPA, recognizes that selenium is naturally present in the Arkansas River,” said Gene Michael, Pueblo’s wastewater supervisor. “What we’ll have to do in the next two years is come up with an effluent limit and a compliance schedule.”

Pueblo already is implementing a $32 million project to line sewage collection pipes on the West Side to reduce infiltration of groundwater tainted with selenium.

The city’s position is that more of that selenium could reach the Arkansas River because it would not be removed in treatment.

“We still will be in negotiations with the state health department on selenium levels to determine standards,” Michael said. “The potential exists to extend the temporary mods as well.”

Another contaminant, sulfates, is also being looked at. But it may not be an issue, since there are few diversions of surface water for domestic use directly downstream from Pueblo, Michael said.

CFWE: 2016 Water Leaders applications open and Dec 18 Q&A webinar

The Colorado Rockies.
The Colorado Rockies.

From email from the Colorado Foundation for Water Education:

The Colorado Foundation for Water Education is excited to announce that applications for the 2016 Water Leaders Program are open. Make sure your staff and colleagues know about this professional development opportunity and sign up for a free webinar on December 18 to learn more.

Please review important program dates, tuition, scholarship information and application materials online. Water Leaders applications are due by January 15, 2016 and must include two letters of recommendation. Program admission is based on competitive criteria in order to maximize each participant’s experience and ensure program diversity.

Register to join us this Friday, December 18 from 9:00-10:00am when program staff and Water Leaders Alumni will host a webinar to discuss goals and expectations for interested candidates and prospective employers, register here. Contact kristin@yourwatercolorado with any questions.

“We’re going to do everything we can to protect the ag economy in Bent County” — Bill Long

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

Water once destined to be exported to feed growth on the Front Range could fuel economic growth in the Lower Arkansas Valley, but Bent County officials are wary of unforeseen consequences.

“Where is the water going to move to?” asked Bent County Commissioner Lynden Gill after Monday’s presentation by Arkansas River Farms at the Fort Lyon Canal’s annual meeting. “Are they going to double up water on sprinklers near Las Animas or move it somewhere else? I had assumed the water would be staying in Bent County.”

Arkansas River Farms outlined its plans to dry up 6,700 acres on the Fort Lyon while improving another 5,700 acres with surface-fed sprinklers, rather than flood irrigation. The company owns 18,400 shares of Fort Lyon water, about one-fifth of the total.

The water was purchased by High Plains A& M 15 years ago with grand plans to market it statewide. Those were shot down, first in water court and then by the state Supreme Court.

C&A Companies, one of the Arkansas River Farms partners also unveiled its plan to pipe Lamar Canal water to the Front Range in 2011.

But now, the plan is to use the water to open up new farming opportunities in Bent and Prowers counties, said Karl Nyquist, one of the principals in C&A.

“We could be the biggest job creators in this area,” Nyquist said at Monday’s Fort Lyon meeting.
And what about those pipeline plans?

“You haven’t heard me talk about it lately, have you?” Nyquist answered, adding the company will be more open as plans progress.

Bill Grasmick, the largest farmer on the Lamar Canal and a board member of the Lower Arkansas Water Management Association, said wells that have not been used in several years would be operated thanks to the water taken off the Fort Lyon.

They have talked to Bent and Prowers counties about building dairies, feed lots or vegetable farms that would provide an additional boost to the local agricultural economy. But the plans are not specific.

The water from the Fort Lyon would be used in LAWMA well-augmentation plans, which are not limited to historic boundaries for use. “About 22 percent of our local economy comes from agriculture, so any reduction will have a negative impact,” said Bill Long, another Bent County commissioner.

But looking at map of Arkansas River Farms plans, most of the improved farms are located near Las Animas, while dry-ups largely are further east, where farmers are just as likely to trade in Lamar as Las Animas, he said.

“Ultimately, there’s a chance it could be very beneficial,” Long said.

Of more concern to Long is the upcoming water court change case. That would quantify the consumptive use of the Fort Lyon shares and open them up for other uses.

“That’s one step closer to getting it in a pipeline,” said Long, who is president of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, which took the lead role in the legal battle to stop High Plains.

There are too many unanswered questions to pass judgment, Gill said. Tuesday, the commissioners met with conservancy districts that want to supervise revegetation. And the Fort Lyon shareholders have set aside Jan. 28-29 to question the company about its impacts on the canal itself. Primary concerns so far are the revegetation question and the proposal to leave some water behind to cover losses on shared laterals.

Gill, who is also chairman of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, is alarmed that dry-up could begin next year under a substitute water supply plan concurrent to a water court filing.

Long pointed out that in previous cases where revegetation was insufficient and caused problems later with weeds and blowing dust. If the Fort Lyon water is used outside Bent County, 1041 regulations also could be applied, Long said.

“We’re going to do everything we can to protect the ag economy in Bent County, and make sure if anything is done, it is beneficial to the county,” Long said.

Straight line diagram of the Lower Arkansas Valley ditches via Headwaters
Straight line diagram of the Lower Arkansas Valley ditches via Headwaters

USBR: Reclamation Seeks Proposals for Water Treatment Research, Laboratory Studies and Pilot-Scale Projects for Desalination and Water Purification

Salt Works desalination process
Salt Works desalination process

Here’s the release from the US Bureau of Reclamation (Peter Soeth):

As part of an ongoing effort to further technological advances related to imbalances between water supply and demand, the Bureau of Reclamation announced today it will seek proposals for research, laboratory studies and pilot-scale projects that target increasing the usable supply of water in the United States as part of its Desalination and Water Purification Research Program. Today’s announcement occurred as private sector and governmental representatives attended a White House Roundtable on Water Innovation being led by Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell and other senior Administration officials. Participants at the roundtable are discussing how to plan, efficiently use and develop new clean water supplies to ensure our nation’s resilience to water supply shortages.

Reclamation will provide up to $150,000 for the research and laboratory studies. Between five and 15 projects are expected to receive funding. Studies must be completed within one year. All applicants are required to have a minimum of a 50 percent non-federal cost-share except for institutions of higher learning. Institutions of higher learning are encouraged to have some cost-share.

For pilot-scale projects, Reclamation will provide up to $200,000 per year, per project. The pilot-scale projects must be completed within two years. Between one and five projects are expected to receive funding. All applicants must provide at least 50 percent non-federal cost-share.

Individuals, higher education institutions, commercial or industrial organizations, private and public entities (including state and local), non-profit organizations, and Indian Tribal Governments are all eligible to apply for these funding opportunities.

The Desalination and Water Purification Research Program is helping Reclamation and its partners confront widening imbalances between supply and demand in basins throughout the Western United States through testing and development of new advanced water treatment technologies.

The DWPR Program focuses on three main goals: (1) augment the supply of usable water in the United States; (2) understand the environmental impacts of desalination and develop approaches to minimize these impacts relative to other water supply alternatives; (3) develop approaches to lower the financial costs of desalination so that it is an attractive option relative to other alternatives in locations where traditional sources of water are inadequate.

The funding opportunity announcements are available at http://www.grants.gov. For research and laboratory studies, search for announcement number R16-FOA-DO-009. For pilot scale studies, R16-FOA-DO-010. Phase one applications are due by 4 p.m. MST on Feb. 8, 2016. The phase two deadline is 4 p.m. MDT on April 27, 2016.

Visit Reclamation’s Desalination and Water Purification Research Program, please visit: http://www.usbr.gov/research/programs/desalination/ for more information.

Aspinall Unit operations update

From email from Reclamation (Erik Knight):

Releases from Crystal Dam will be increased from 600 cfs to 1100 cfs on Thursday, December 17th. The powerplants at Morrow Point and Crystal have returned to full service. The current content of Blue Mesa Reservoir is 649,000 acre-feet which is 78% full.

Flows in the lower Gunnison River are currently above the baseflow target of 1050 cfs. River flows are expected to stay above the baseflow target for the foreseeable future.

Pursuant to the Aspinall Unit Operations Record of Decision (ROD), the baseflow target in the lower Gunnison River, as measured at the Whitewater gage, is 1050 cfs for the remainder of the year.

Currently, there are no diversions into the Gunnison Tunnel and flows in the Gunnison River through the Black Canyon are around 600 cfs. After this release change Gunnison Tunnel diversions will still be at 0 cfs and flows in the Gunnison River through the Black Canyon should be around 1100 cfs. Current flow information is obtained from provisional data that may undergo revision subsequent to review.

What’s killing the trees in Denver parks? It’s the water — and a lot more — Westword

Smith Ditch Washington Park, Denver
Smith Ditch Washington Park, Denver

From Westword (Alan Prendergast):

Park officials say there are several factors behind the rash of tree removals. Some of the elderly conifers were simply at the end of their lives, they suggest; some had been stressed by drought or attacked by bugs; some apparently never recovered from a couple of vicious cold snaps in recent years, including a 77-degree temperature drop over three days last year. John says she doesn’t doubt that a few individual trees might have fallen victim to such predations, but that doesn’t begin to explain what happened on Evergreen Hill.

“The official line is that there are many things that cause trees to decline and die,” [Sonia John] notes. “Virus. Bacteria. Fungal diseases. Weather. Anthropogenic causes, like compacting the soil with construction equipment. But nobody has come up with a credible potential cause of this die-off that will explain why that cause isn’t operative on trees in neighbors’ yards across the street from the park.”

The primary reason for the die-off, John contends, is much simpler: The healthy trees on private property across the street from the park receive potable water — not the recycled water that’s been used in Washington Park since 2004.

Last June, Denver Water officials agreed to meet with members of Denver INC, short for Inter-Neighborhood Cooperation, a coalition of registered neighborhood associations and other groups. High on the agenda was a discussion of Denver Water’s recycled-water program, which provides wastewater that’s been sufficiently treated for irrigation purposes at a fraction of the cost of drinking water. The meeting was the first opportunity that John and others had to question the program’s boosters about several studies that had been done, mostly at the utility’s request, on the program’s impact on soils, vegetation — and especially trees. Collectively, the studies make a persuasive case that foliage and soils in city parks treated with Denver Water’s recycled product contain high amounts of sodium — which, over time, can be particularly lethal to conifers, since they draw water from their roots most of the year.

Washington Park was one of the first city parks to convert to recycled water; John says it’s no surprise that the ill effects should surface there more rapidly than at other parks. But 20 percent of the department’s irrigated properties are now using recycled water, which involves an entirely separate delivery system from that used for potable water. Park advocates say the high-sodium regimen is beginning to claim evergreens in other parks, too, and John fears it may be only a matter of time before deciduous trees get affected as well; she’s already seen “a lot more leaf scorch” on lindens in Wash Park, a possible indication that the trees are overdosing on salt. The City of Denver now saves a million dollars a year on park watering costs because of recycled water, but the park department’s critics claim that the city hasn’t embarked on any “meaningful remediation” to address a problem it’s known about for years.

Denver Parks deputy manager Scott Gilmore says the situation isn’t as black-and-white as the neighbors want it to be. “When people say it’s reused water, that’s trying to simplify a very complicated situation,” he sighs. “This isn’t Seattle. This isn’t California or back east, where you have lots of natural forest. This is an urban forest that humans created. We’re losing trees because of weather conditions and drought — and reused water. All those things coming together.”

Governor Mead Names Three to Upper #ColoradoRiver Commission Positions

From Governor Mead’s office via Sweetwater Now:

Governor Matt Mead has selected three Wyoming citizens to serve in positions that support Wyoming’s participation in the management of the Colorado River. The three are being named, in part, to fill positions that were previously held by Dan Budd, who passed away in September.

Mr. Randy Bolgiano and Mr. Keith Burron have been named as Alternate Wyoming Commissioners to the Upper Colorado River Commission (UCRC). Where previously Wyoming had two Alternate Commissioners, there now will be three due to the rising importance to Wyoming of water supply and use issues in this basin.

The UCRC is an interstate, administrative agency established by the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948 (Upper Basin Compact). UCRC members consist of a Commissioner representing each of the four Upper Division States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming (Upper Division States) and a Commissioner appointed by the President of the United States who serves as the Chair of the Commission.

The Commission assists the Upper Division States in developing their apportionments of Colorado River water pursuant to the Colorado River Compact of 1922 and the Upper Basin Compact, and has specific responsibilities to assist in implementing the Upper Basin Compact consistent with laws of the Upper Division States.

Benjamin Bracken of Green River continues to serve in the third Alternate Commissioner position.

Mr. Bolgiano is a rancher from Boulder, Wyoming and has been active in the Green River Basin on water and other natural resource activities for more than two decades.

Mr. Burron is an attorney for Crowley Fleck in Cheyenne focusing predominantly on water rights, natural resources, public lands, water quality, oil and gas, and regulatory matters. Mr. Burron has been an active member of the Colorado River Water Users’ Association for almost 20 years. The two will serve on the Commission along with Wyoming’s Commissioner, State Engineer Patrick Tyrrell, and Ben Bracken of Green River, also an Alternate Commissioner.

Governor Mead has also named Mr. Chad Espenscheid of Big Piney to serve as one of three Wyoming representatives on the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum).

Mr. Espenscheid is a rancher and small business owner.

Created in 1973, the Forum is an organization of the seven Colorado River Basin states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.

The purposes of the Forum are to coordinate salinity control efforts among the states, coordinate with federal agencies on the implementation of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, work with Congress on the authorization and funding of the Program, act to disseminate information on salinity control and otherwise promote efforts to reduce the salt loading to the Colorado River.

For questions, please contact Mr. Steve Wolff at 307-777-1942 or at steve.wolff@wyo.gov

The Colorado River Basin. The Upper Colorado River Basin is outlined in black.
The Colorado River Basin. The Upper Colorado River Basin is outlined in black.

Corps of Engineers now see final NISP EIS in 2017

From the Fort Collins Coloradan (Jacy Marmaduke):

The review timeline for the Northern Integrated Supply Project has been extended again. It’s the latest in a series of pushbacks for a proposal to build two new reservoirs in Northern Colorado to supply 40,000 acre feet of water each year to 15 participating communities and water districts.

The final environmental impact statement for the project, which will come in advance of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ ruling on whether Northern Water can build two reservoirs drawing from Poudre and South Platte river water, is now projected to come out in 2017 instead of the previously predicted summer 2016.

The delay comes because the Army Corps needs to complete 13 complex tasks before releasing the final EIS. Some of those tasks include adding more measures to mitigate the project’s environmental impacts, completing analysis of alternatives to NISP and finishing models that predict how the project would affect water quality and temperature.

The Army Corps also wants to take “a hard look” at public comments on the last version of the environmental impact statement that came out in June, project manager John Urbanic wrote in an email. After looking at the comments, the Army Corps may decide to conduct additional analysis of the project.

“Between the anticipated activities and review of comments we do not think that a 2016 release of the Final EIS is realistic and we adjusted the estimated release into 2017,” Urbanic wrote.

Map of the Northern Integrated Supply Project via Northern Water
Map of the Northern Integrated Supply Project via Northern Water

#CleanWaterRules: 22 states ask Supreme Court to review EPA runoff regs — Ag Professional

From AgProfessional.com (Ben Potter):

Are the embattled “Waters of the U.S.” regulations in violation of the Tenth Amendment? A group of 22 State Attorneys General have petitioned the Supreme Court, asking for a review of a lower court’s decision that lets the EPA trump state rights to regulate runoff from farmland and other sources.

These states argue that WOTUS amounts to micromanaging nutrient and sediment runoff, and that the EPA “unilaterally granted itself the power to make thousands of land-use decisions that have traditionally been, and should remain, State decisions.”


The brief was filed in American Farm Bureau Federation, et al., v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al. States joining the brief include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming.