Water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink — or irrigate, as the case may be.
That is the situation large swaths of Kansas are facing and lawmakers are weighing a sweeping response to ensure the state doesn’t become like its counterparts in the western United States, encumbered by a burdensome drought that threatens its very survival.
In a dramatic departure from the status quo, legislators are considering the creation of a new cabinet level agency to handle water, pulling in offices from a handful of existing state departments to better organize and direct work on conservation, water quality and policy planning.
And part of the equation would also include a more dedicated funding source designed to tackle years of underfunding for water conservation efforts.
The proposal, being considered in the House Water Committee, is the product of over a year of effort and has bipartisan support, as well as buy-in from Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, meaning the shakeup has a viable path forward to transforming the state’s environmental landscape.
Still, agricultural groups take issue with some of the provisions, arguing fee increases could hurt farmers and ranchers and maintaining that legislators should look to those living on the land for solutions.
But advocates believe the bill comes not a moment too soon. Research shows the Ogallala Aquifer, which spans a half-dozen states and at 174,000 square miles is one of the world’s largest aquifers, could run dry in some Kansas counties within the next decade, threatening agriculture in the state’s breadbasket.
Have a question about water in Kansas? It isn’t always clear who to ask.
The agency in question will differ depending on if the question pertains to water rights, flooding impacts or the state’s dams and reservoirs.
Critics say the current setup makes little sense for landowners, conservationists and local officials. All in all, 16 different agencies in Kansas handle water issues in some form.
The Division of Water Resources, housed in the Kansas Department of Agriculture, administers laws governing how water is allocated and used, as well as four interstate river compacts. The Kansas Water Office, meanwhile, is charged with planning and policy on water issues. And the Kansas Water Authority is a panel charged with approving the state’s water plan, as well as proposed administrative regulations on the subject.
Under the legislation, the Kansas Department of Water and Environment would be created by combining these entities, as well as the environmental division from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. It would be led by a cabinet-level secretary, a first in Kansas for water issues.
It is the first time since 2012 that lawmakers have created a new state agency.
Burke Griggs, a professor at the Washburn University School of Law specializing in property and national resource law, noted the current setup has any number of shortcomings.
Kansas is the only western state to make the chief engineer, the head administrator of laws related to water use and management in the state, subordinate to a political appointee, in this case the secretary of agriculture.
“Most Kansans, even those reasonably knowledgeable about water, are confused by state water agencies,” Griggs said.
But legislators say they are focused on potential bigger picture benefits to the change. Currently, proponents of the bill argue the mosaic of agencies mean there is no single voice to advocate for funding for water issues or coordinate with federal partners.
Rep. Doug Blex, R-Independence, a former Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks biologist, pointed to that agency’s creation 2011.
He said the department didn’t have a real voice until it was elevated to “a seat at the table” by being a full-fledged state agency.
“I think this is exactly what this bill will do,” Blex said. “It will put water and environment at a cabinet level that will have the governor’s ear, no matter who that governor is, and be able to get funding.”
Not everyone has objections to the current system. Some argued the structure allows agencies to better specialize on policy areas.
And Aaron Popelka, a lobbyist for the Kansas Livestock Association, pointed to the move to include other departments — including those pertaining to air quality — in an agency intended to focus on water.
“If that is the case, why are we pulling in things that have nothing to do with water?” he asked.
Effort to increase funds for water investments is vital, advocates argue. Securing that funding is also a core element of the bill.
Lawmakers haven’t fully funded the state’s water plan since 2008. Meanwhile, a fee of 3 cents per 1,000 gallons of water consumed by municipal, industrial and stock water users hasn’t risen since it was introduced in 1989.
Kelly’s budget calls for full funding of the state’s water plan for the first time in over a decade. While the move was cheered by stakeholders, there is also a broad acknowledgement that it doesn’t help address a longstanding funding hole.
This makes the state less competitive for getting matching federal funds to tackle new projects and it has delayed innovation that can help speed up conservation efforts, said Highland, the representative from Wamego.
That includes a study to address sediment buildup, a problem plaguing major reservoirs in eastern Kansas, including Perry Lake. A pilot program with the federal government to tackle the issue at Tuttle Creek Lake in Riley County is being explored, but more funds are needed to get it off the ground.
“We have to have some seed money to help those folks move ahead and do the conservation that this requires,” Highland said.
The legislation would increase the user fee to 5 cents per 1,000 gallons of water used and would create a new, sliding scale cost for irrigators.
Opponents of this setup argue the state needs to do more to pay its fair share of the costs. A likely change to the bill would create a dedicated annual payout in the state budget to match the fee revenues, likely between $12 million and $16 million total.
“Farmers continue to pay their full share into the fund while the state was significantly cutting its contribution,” said Brent Rogers, a Hoxie farmer and president of the Kansas Corn Growers Association.
That pot of money would be dedicated solely to water-related projects. “The state has to play a role if we’re going to ask people to increase their fees,” said Rep. Lindsay Vaughn, D-Overland Park, the ranking Democrat on the House Water Committee.
Despite opposition from agricultural groups, bill poised to advance. Perhaps the most controversial element of the bill pertains to a set of regulatory bodies that few outside the world of water policy have ever heard of: groundwater management districts.
The state’s five GMDs, all in western Kansas, handle local water-use planning and administration, primarily with a focus on irrigation. Currently, members are elected by a relatively small pool of landowners who hold a certain amount of land and use a given amount of water in a year.
The legislation would expand that to include any eligible voter in the district, giving a wider swath of individuals a say in the panels’ composition. But GMDs — and some legislators — worry this could make their organizations significantly more political and perhaps give water users too much representation on the boards.
“We’re just people, we want what is best for the water rights, what is best for the land, whether that is conservation stuff or whatever we do,” said Craig Zwick, a member of the Groundwater District 5 board. “We are common people, not politically oriented. We feel like we will be losing those rights in this bill.”
Moreover, GMDs would be required to more regularly submit plans to both the chief engineer and the legislature, outlining how they are tackling conservation issues. If the chief engineer deems the district hasn’t adequately addressed those issues, the state can step in to take action.
Highland noted the broad issue delved into complicated legal issues, particularly in determining who can vote in a given election.
But he said he anticipated some form of compromise being reached, noting the issue was too important to ignore.
“We’re going to find a method where we can have representation by folks that aren’t landowners and have irrigation,” he said. “Because it is their water, too.”
Prominent agriculture groups, including the Kansas Livestock Association and the Kansas Farm Bureau, have urged legislators to go back to the drawing board. Popelka, the KLA lobbyist, called the bill a “solution in search of a problem.”
While the groups acknowledged the importance of water to the state’s economical and agricultural future, they said farmers and ranchers were embracing strategies on their own accord, without the involvement of state policymakers.
“The best solutions we have had have been geared at the local level, not from the Legislature in Topeka,” Popelka said.
But lawmakers and advocates alike appear optimistic about the fate of the bill and its impacts on the state.
The issue is pertinent for much of the state, with the National Drought Mitigation Center classifying much of western Kansas as being in either severe or extreme drought as of mid-February.
“This is, in our view, the most transformational water policy bill that we have seen since maybe the late ’80s,” said Zach Pistora, a lobbyist for the Sierra Club. “You, here today, you championing this across the Legislature this year, will create a legacy for our generation and generations to come in Kansas.”
As reported in the Topeka Capital Journal.
