Category: Legislature

Categories
GMD Groundwater Legislature LEMA Ogallala Policy Water Legislation

House Overwhelmingly Passes GMD and Water Funding Bills, on to Senate

Here is a summary of the House’s consideration of two of the most significant water bills to be heard in the last 10 years: one that significantly expands state funding of water infrastructure and a second which requires the state’s groundwater management districts (GMDs) to act to address groundwater declines.

HB 2279, the GMD Bill 

In my last news article a month ago, I reported on the House’s consideration of HB 2279 which would require Groundwater Management District (GMD) to provide annual reporting and to identify areas of concern and to work with their waterusers to develop “action plans” to address the groundwater declines in those areas of concern. The bill included a provision allowing the Chief Engineer to take action if he/she found the action plan inadequate. 

My article also outlined the testimony I planned to offer in support of the bill, but recommending a number of improvements. Link to my final testimony: http://kslegislature.org/li/b2023_24/committees/ctte_h_water_1/misc_documents/download_testimony/ctte_h_water_1_20230209_01_testimony.html    

At the committee’s Feb. 9 hearing, all testified in support of the bill, including Kansas Farm Bureau and the Kansas Livestock Association, except Southwest Kansas GMD No. 3 and Southwest Kansas Irrigators, both whom opposed the bill.  Like mine, much of the supporting testimony provided suggestions for improving the bill, many echoed my suggestions.

The committee leadership put forward an amended version of the bill, which it passed overwhelmingly on February 17. Here is a link to the bill’s supplemental note with an expanded summary of the amended bill’s provisions, a summary of testimony and resulting amendments in committee.  

The amended bill took my specific suggestion for defining “priority areas of concern”, as a minimum, to include areas with less than 50 years of remaining usable life. This will focus initial action where most needed, as significant areas within western Kansas GMDs still have significant remaining life. See the map below from my testimony (and its explanation in there).  In short, the red areas have less than 25 years of water left, the darker orange has 25-50 years remaining. Those are the areas that need focus within southwest Kansas (as northwest and west central Kansas are in LEMAs). About 25% of Southwest Kansas GMD 3 has less than 50 years left (but there are large parts of GMD 3, esp. the southern tier counties that have more than 50 years left with some years over 100 years.  But it is past time to act in the critical areas.  

KGS' Estimated Usable Life Map with Q-stable values 2022

The amended bill did NOT include my suggestion for a clear definition of adequacy. Despite this, I continue to support the bill and believe it a real step forward in requiring GMDs that have not done so to seriously look at the Ogallala problem where action is most urgently needed and engage the waterusers in those areas on how to address the problem.  As I have been telling reporters in recent weeks, the GMD Act has a mission and power, but no specific water management goals. This changes that.

The amended bill was considered by the full House on February 23, and passed on a vote of 116-6. It is now in Senate, waiting to be heard by the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. While no hearing is yet scheduled; hopefully this will occur next week, as all bills need to be out of their respective committee by March 24.

HB 2302, the Water Funding bill

I have not weighed in on this bill as it is not in my area of expertise and it had plenty of conferees supporting the bill. In many ways, this bill is more significant to the State’s future than the GMD bill above.  If passed, it would increase dedicated state fundings to water projects from the current $8 million/year to approximately $50 million/year. 

Once again, the amended bill passed out of committee with overwhelming support as well as the full House (the vote was 119-3). This is quite significant, as a similar effort to expand water funding through a dedicated part of the state sales tax was attempted in 2017 and got nowhere.

Here is a link to the amended bill that passed the committee and full House:  http://kslegislature.org/li/b2023_24/measures/documents/hb2302_01_0000.pdf.  

Here is a link to a supplemental note of the bill with more details:  http://kslegislature.org/li/b2023_24/measures/documents/supp_note_hb2302_01_0000.pdf.

Here is my brief summary of the supplemental note’s summary:  

The note’s “Brief”: “HB 2302, as amended, would establish funding for the State Water Plan and water infrastructure projects, create the Water Technical Assistance Fund and the Water Projects Grant Fund, authorize the Kansas Water Office (KWO) to provide grants and adopt rules and regulations to establish criteria for grants, and authorize distribution to the State Water Plan Fund (SWPF) of a portion of the revenue from the state sales and compensating use tax (sales tax revenue).”

The expanded money for water projects would not come from a tax increase or increased fees but from dedicating 1.231% of the state’s existing sales tax to water projects outlined in the bill (again, boosting dedicated state funding for water projects from approximately $8 million/year to approximately $50 million/year). 

This expanded funding would go toward:

  • Existing State Water Plan Fund priorities 
  • $5 million/year to a Water Technical Assistance Fund
  • $15 million/year to a Water Projects Grant Fund
  • $15 million/year to pay off debt for Milford and Perry Lake reservoirs 
  • To improve salaries of state workers implementing water programs (current salaries are not competitive, resulting in staff shortages, delays in programs, etc).

There are specifics in the bill on where these monies will go, but if passed, there would be significant new money for infrastructure projects for municipalities, with priority to small municipalities. 

This expanded funding would sunset after 5 years, unless the legislature takes action to extend it.

The bill is awaiting consideration by the Senate Agriculture / Natural Resources Committee. Hopefully next week. 

Categories
GMD Groundwater Legislature

House Committee on Water Considers GMD Bill

Before going on to the main subject of this newsletter, one brief aside:

This past week, on Feb. 2, the Chief Engineer held the second hearing required to approve and implement GMD 1’s proposed Four County Local Enhanced Management Area (LEMA). No one spoke against the LEMA. In the coming weeks, based on the hearing, the Chief Engineer will issue first an Order of Decision with respect to whether the LEMA should be established per GMD 1’s LEMA Plan. 

HB 2279, Requiring GMDs to develop plans to address Ogallala declines 

This Thursday, on Feb 9, the House Committee on Water (HCOW) will be hearing testimony on HB 2279. Its short title is “Requiring groundwater management districts to submit annual written reports to the legislature and to provide water conservation and stabilization action plans to the chief engineer.”

The provisions are very similar to requirements of Sections 13 and 14 of last year’s so-called Mega-water bill, HB 2686 (2022).  If you are interested, I created a rough comparison of this current version with last year’s, on my web site at: https://kwrconsulting.com/legislation/, under “Bills” and the discussion on HB 2279.

As the short name implies, the bill has two components: annual reporting of GMDs to the Legislature and, more significantly, requirements that GMDs:

  • By July 1, 2024, the GMDs identify areas of concerns and, 
  • Working with their waterusers, and by July 1, 2026 develop and submit to the Chief Engineer “action plans” to address the groundwater declines in the areas of concern, and 
  • If a GMD fails to develop an adequate plan, the Chief Engineer is authorized to take action. 

In my presentation to the HCOW on Jan. 12, I supported the provision of last year’s bill on GMD reporting and especially these requirements to identifying areas of concern, plans to address, and for the chief engineer to have the ability and duty to deal with their failure to do so.

So I plan to offer testimony in support of the bill. 

However, in reviewing the details of the proposed bill, I find it is overly broad and unfocused.  While all of western Kansas Ogallala is in decline (outside some fringe areas of low use), action is not uniformly needed. On Friday and Saturday, I reviewed the bill in detail and provided the Committee leadership with my suggestions for improving the bill, aimed to focus action where it is most urgently needed, to improve its clarity, and to insure it results in meaningful action.

Specifically, I plan to recommend the bill be modified in the following ways:

  • The bill should exempt areas already in LEMAs from the first round of action plan development.
  • Instead of “areas of concern,” the bill should require the identification of “priority areas of concern” where the need for planning and action is most clear and urgent. 
  • With all the data already available, the GMDs can and should have their priority areas of concern identified by the end of this year, and should submit such to the Legislature and state agencies for review by January 1, 2024. 
  • Action plans be submitted over two years, with half being submitted by July 1, 2025, and the remaining by July 1, 2026, to get started and spread the workload.
  • A clear standard for action plan adequacy should be added. 

With respect to the question of “priority areas of concern,” I plan to submit the latest KGS Estimated Useable Life map below and suggest that all areas with less than 50 years of remaining useable life be in a GMD’s “priority areas of concern” as a minimum. This will focus action where most needed.

KGS' Estimated Usable Life Map with Q-stable values 2022

This year’s bill does not provide a clear statement of what constitutes an adequate plan.  I think this is essential. So here is what I plan to suggest. On the KGS’ Remaining Usable Life Map above, I have added KGS’s draft county “Q-stable values” I obtained from KGS last year.  The Q-Stable values represent the percentage reduction in pumping required to get to stable water levels for the next couple of decades.  As an example, the largest value on the map is Grey County at 53.4. This means the KGS estimates it would take a 53.4% reduction in pumping in Grey County to get Grey County to stable water levels. To halve the rate of decline in Grey County would take a reduction of half of this, or 27%.

In last year’s HB 2686, for failure of a GMD to develop an adequate plan, it authorized the Chief Engineer to “develop a plan to, at a minimum, reduce by 50% the 2000-2019 rate of groundwater declines as determined by the chief engineer…”  Again, to obtain a 50% reduction in the rate of decline, the required percentage reductions in pumping would be half of the values in map. To take a less extreme values, in neighboring Haskell County, the 40.6 would mean a 20% reduction in pumping would be needed to half its rate of decline. 

In my view, the 50% reduction in rate of decline standard is very serious step, especially for the first set of an action plan. I believe an explicate standard is needed for this process to be taken seriously by a GMD that has been resistant to taking action. I am suggesting the committee adopt a value between 25% and 40% as the required reduction in rate of decline for an action plan to be considered adequate in these areas of less than 50 years of remaining useable life. 

Let me know if you have any thoughts, suggestions, or questions. 

For more information from KGS on the High Plains aquifer see:  https://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/pic18/index.html and/or  https://www.kgs.ku.edu/HighPlains/HPA_Atlas/index.html.

Categories
Legislature Ogallala

House Committee on Water Briefed on DWR Duties and Groundwater Management

This issue overviews the past week’s hearings of House Committee on Water (HCOW), what is coming this week, and announces a new KWRC page for Kansas water news stories in the media. Thursday’s (1/12) HCOW hearing featured former Kansas Chief Engineer David Barfield providing an overview of the responsibilities of the state’s Division of Water Resources and the state’s actions to address declines in the Ogallala Aquifer.

Kansas legislature on groundwater management hearing

House Committee on Water: last week’s hearing and the week ahead

The HCOW met on Tuesday, 1/10/2023, for introductions and discussion of committee rules. 

At the Chairman’s invitation, I addressed the committee for its Thursday hearing (1/12/2023). My topics included overviews of the responsibilities of the Division of Water Resources and its Chief Engineer, the Kansas Water Appropriation Act, the State’s Groundwater Management District Act, the status of the Ogallala Aquifer, actions to reduce groundwater declines (LEMAs, WCAs), and overviewing last session’s Mega-Water Bill (HB 2686). 

Link to a video of my 90 minutes presentation to the committee: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcWxCAbHRkA.  

My PowerPoint available on HCOW page at: http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2023_24/committees/ctte_h_water_1/documents/?date_choice=2023-01-12.

As the presentation, with Committee questions, is 90 minutes long, here is an outline of timestamps and topics:

  • 0:00 to 0:40 – Chair opens committee, one bill introduction.
  • 0:40-4:25 – My introduction (a bit about myself; overview of the presentation). 
  • 4:25-6:55 – Kansas water: essential, limited, variable.
  • 6:55-9:50 – Water agencies and coordination. 
  • 9:50-21:45 – Duties of DWR and its Chief Engineer; brief interstate overview; Kansas Water Appropriation Act (KWAA, 1945); subsequent water development, Kansas use of water, resulting reductions in streamflow and groundwater depletion; amendments of the KWAA and other related acts. 
  • 21:45-34:05 – Groundwater management: the 1972 GMD Act and 1978 amendments to the KWAA and GMD Act; IGUCAs; GMD accomplishments (prior to 2012).  
  • 34:05-1:06:30 – Groundwater management, 2012 to current: LEMAs and WCAs. 
    • 35:20-44:10 – Northwest KS GMD 4: the LEMA initiator; Sheridan 6 LEMA and its performance; GMD 4 LEMA. 
    • 44:10-50:15 – non-regulatory options to address declines; WCAs.
    • 50:15-58:20 – Western KS GMD 1; the Wichita County WCA; the Wichita County and Four County LEMAs.
    • 58:20-1:06:30 – Southwest KS GMD 3; Questions on enforcement; MYFAs. 
  • 1:06:30-1:14:40 – HB 2686 of 2022 with an overview and particulars on DWR and it Chief Engineer and groundwater management provisions. 
  • 1:14:40 – Committee questions

House Committee on Water’s Agenda for the week of 1/17/2023

  • 1/17/2023 – Kansas Water Office briefing 
  • 1/19/2022- Briefings by KDA-Division of Water Resources and the Kansas Geological Survey.

KWRC Kansas Water News page

As a result of the acceleration of Kansas water news, we have started a new page to archive key news stories at: https://kwrconsulting.com/blog/kansas-water-news/. It includes 11 stories from 2022 and already has two articles from 2023, the first on action by Western Kansas GMD 1 to reduce wateruse, and a second on the anticipated confrontation ahead as the Legislature considers action to address Ogallala Aquifer declines. 

Categories
Legislature Water Legislation

House Committee on Water begins this week with new leadership 

Note: with increasing media attention to water issues, including this past week’s AP story, “Warning About Aquifer’s Decline Sets up Big Fight in Kansas”, we have created a new page for significant media coverage on Kansas water issues: https://kwrconsulting.com/blog/media-on-kansas-water-issue/

Where we have been:

During the 2021-22 legislative session, the leadership of Kansas House of Representatives agreed to create a special committee to look at the critical state water issues, called the House Committee on Water (HCOW) under the leadership of Representative Ron Highland of Wamego.

Over the course of two years, the HCOW held 50 hearings to gather information about the work of the numerous state and local water agencies involved in the world of water and the state’s water challenges.  The following web link includes an index of each hearing: date, subject, and links to presentations and documents provided at the hearings (as well as key events in the legislative process and media responses).   https://kwrconsulting.com/legislation/hcow2022/. 

On February 14, 2022, the Committee leadership produced the so-called Mega-water bill, due to its size and scope, which included numerous proposals to address the challenges they heard. In short, the bill included:  

  • creation of a consolidating water agency to bring additional focus and coordination, 
  • significant increases in funding for water projects via new fees,
  • modifying election procedures for groundwater management districts (to broaden representation),
  • mandating action in areas of groundwater declines, 
  • authorizing the chief engineer to issue certain orders without review by the secretary, 
  • establishing a civil penalty for obstructions in streams violations and establishing the water structures emergency fund.

Here is a link to my summary of the original bill: https://kwrconsulting.com/legislation/hcow2022/summary-of-hb-2686-the-mega-water-bill/.  See also the Chairman’s proposed edits to the bill after its hearings, summarized on the HCOW link in the paragraph above. 

Rather than debate the Chairman’s revised bill, a legislator proposed a substitute bill which gutted key components of the bill. While it passed out of committee, it was never heard by the full House of Representatives as it no longer had leadership’s support. So, in short, ultimately the mega-water bill went nowhere.  See the media’s response at our new media page.

But the issues remain. Retiring Rep. Highland asked for an 2022 interim committee, seeking to continue the momentum of the HCOW’s work as well as an audit of the states’ Groundwater Management Districts (GMDs), which is to be made public during mid-Feb. 2023

The interim’s “Special Committee on Water”, composed by both Senate and House members was a disappointment. The two days including some valuable briefings from the state water agencies dealing with water issues, but the “committee discussions” that followed were very short and disappointing as they did little to move forward the Legislature’s discussion of these critical water issues. For those interested in the Ogallala aquifer, DWR’s presentation AND the two KGS presentations are worth a listen.  For links to these presentations and more: https://kwrconsulting.com/legislation/special-committee-on-water-2022/. 

Where do we go from here?

The concerns listed above remain unresolved. Several legislators lobbied the new Speaker of House to continue the House Committee on Water. Ultimately, he agreed and appointed a new leadership: Representative Jim Minnix of Scott City as chair and Representative Cyndi Howerton of Wichita as vice-chair. Democratic Rep. Lindsey Vaughn will continue as ranking minority member. 

Once again, we have built a web page to chronicle the HCOW’s work, and any significant water legislation from other House committees or the Senate. See https://kwrconsulting.com/legislation/.

The HCOW meets on Tuesday and Thursday at 9:00 at Room 218-N. The committee’s web page, which includes its membership, agendas & minutes, documents, and testimony, is at: 
http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2023_24/committees/ctte_h_water_1/, 

Of the 17 committee members, 11 are new.  So, the first few weeks will likely include a number of briefings to get new members up-to-speed on water issues generally and last session’s work. 

This coming week’s agenda includes: 

  • Tuesday, January 10, Committee introductions, and discussion of the committee’s purpose, rules, procedures, and such.
  • Thursday, January 12, David Barfield, Retired Kansas Chief Engineer.  Rep. Minnix contacted me at the end of 2022, requesting I provide the committee with a briefing on the duties of the Chief Engineer, and my experiences as Chief Engineer, particularly as it relates to the Ogallala Aquifer and the new tools developed to address groundwater declines during my tenure (LEMAs, WCAs, MYFAs). I will also briefly overview last session’s HB 2686, with a focus on its provisions related to groundwater management. 

You can listen into the hearings via the audio link on the committee’s web page or via the state’s YouTube channel at: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_0NO-Pb96CFABvxDwXAq8A (accessible via a link “Audio/Video” link at the top of the page. 

House Committee on Water (HCOW)
Categories
Legislature

2022 Special Committee on Water, August 29-30, 2022

Introduction: 

After the 2022 legislative session’s mega-water bill went nowhere, the chair of the House Committee on Water, retiring Rep. Ron Highland, requested a 2 two-day interim committee on water issues to continue discussions. Below are a few highlights from these hearings, held on August 29-30 in Topeka, called the “Special Committee on Water”, composed of both Senators and House members and links to documents and presentations. 

The short summary: 

As the Special Committee had new members from the Senate and House, the two days were principally a primer for new members, comprised of key briefings from the state water agencies dealing with water issues. The “committee discussions” held after these briefings on the second day were very short and disappointing as they did little to move forward the Legislature’s discussion of these critical water issues.

The details:  

The rest of this article is mostly an index and links to the presentations made to the committee, with a few concluding comments on the Legislature’s 2021-22 work. For anyone wanting a primer on the major water agencies dealing with water in Kansas, the responsibilities, and current happenings, this is a good place to start. There are links to the YouTube videos of the sessions as well as the presentations.  I have indicated the time stamp on the YouTube video when each presentation starts.

For those interested in the Ogallala aquifer, DWR’s presentation and the two KGS presentations are worth a listen. 

Here is a link to the agenda for the two days of meetings, which includes links to the videos of the sessions: http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2021_22/committees/ctte_spc_2022_water_1/documents/agenda/weeklyinterim/20220829.pdf
Links to the individual presentations are available at: http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2021_22/committees/ctte_spc_2022_water_1/documents/. I have included the specific links to most of them below. 

Day 1 on August 29, 2020 included a few introductory matters and then a series of select state agency updates, providing an overview of state laws and programs to address water issues.   

Introductory matters:

Agency updates (note: I have indicated the time on the video where the presentation starts):

Then two presentations by the Kansas Geological Survey, focusing on the Ogallala aquifer: 

The day concluded with a brief state agency funding overview: http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2021_22/committees/ctte_spc_2022_water_1/documents/testimony/20220829_16.pdf

Day 2 on August 30 started with a presentation by Prof. Burke Griggs, which stressed his opinions on the shortcomings of Kansas state water laws and their administration and his recommendations for rectifying these.  http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2021_22/committees/ctte_spc_2022_water_1/documents/testimony/20220830_03.pdf

This was followed by a presentation by Rep. Joe Newland, entitled “Overview of Financial Plan” which talked about funding recommendations of the 2016 Blue Ribbon Task Force, which focused on a dedication of a 1/10 of one cent of the state’s sales tax to water funding.  See: https://www.kwo.ks.gov/water-plan/blue-ribbon-funding-task-force.

Committee (non-) Discussions

Finally, the Committee’s agenda include a time for Committee discussions, an hour and a half in the morning and two hours in the afternoon. However, it seemed discussions were not encouraged. There was approx. 30 minutes of discussions on funding centered on challenges of securing funding via a portion of the State’s sales tax and the possibility of a small fee on sales of bottled water.

Brief reflections on the Legislative discussions of 2021-22 and current needs

While there seems to be significant consensus among those knowledgeable in water matters that there is a need for change, esp. expanded funding and improvements in state agency structure and/or coordination, there is no consensus on the specifics.  As is noted at the beginning of the article, the committee discussions were disappointing, in that there was no movement toward any consensus on these issues. It seems without strong leadership, consensus on these specifics will be impossible to reach. 

As someone who has worked almost all my career in state government in water, I have never really thought the system was broken. Each agency has its mission, staffing, and programs to carry its duties. I have not observed much conflict and there have always been coordinating mechanism to help agencies work together.

However, Rep. Highland strongly advocated for a single voice for water in the legislature, believing it to be a key in securing additional focus, coordination, and ultimately, more funding needed to address water issues. Over the course of the last legislative session, listening to all the agency reports to address water, I have become convinced that a single voice is needed. 

In addition, it is time to replace the 2016 Blue Ribbon Task Force’s recommendation on funding with an updated look at today’s and tomorrow’s needs and opportunities. 

Categories
GMD Groundwater Legislature Water Legislation

Legislative Next Steps on Water: an Interim Committee and an Audit of the GMDs

As I wrote about regularly this past legislative session, the House Committee on Water had a busy two years. In the end, drafting the so-called “mega-water bill”, which, pun intended, got watered down and ended up going nowhere this past session. 

But the issues considered by the Committee are important and the work will continue. Between now and the 2023 legislative session two things are planned: an interim committee and an audit of the state’s Groundwater Management Districts. Below is what we know about each as of this writing. 

Legislative Interim Committee on Water, August 29-30, Topeka 

As requested by the Chair of the House Committee on Water, the Legislative Coordinating Council, which makes decisions on such matters, approved two days for an interim committee on water issues.  Specifically the approved topics are: “Issues Related to Kansas Aquifers, Dam Storage Capacity, and Funding.”  

The committee will be made up of both Senate and House members and includes: 

Senate:  Sen. Dan Kerschen, Chairperson; Sen. Carolyn McGinn; Sen. Ron Ryckman; Sen. Alicia Straub; Sen. Mary Ware.                
House: Rep. Ron Highland, Vice-chairperson; Rep. Cyndi Howerton; Rep. Jim Minnix; Rep. Joe Newland, Rep. Lindsay Vaughn; Rep. Rui Xu.

The meetings are planned to be in Room 112-N of the Capitol.

Those are all the specifics currently available. Below are two links where more information should be posted as the time gets closer:

The Kansas Legislative Research Departments web page on the interim committee: http://www.kslegresearch.org/KLRD-web/Committees/Committees-Spc-2022-Water.html

The special committee’s web page: http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2021_22/committees/ctte_spc_2022_water_1/.

Evaluating Groundwater Management Districts’ Efforts to Conserve Water

Again, as requested by House Committee on Water Chairman Highland and Rep. Lindsay Vaughn, the Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit has been approved to conduct an audit of the state’s Groundwater Management Districts (GMDs) efforts to conserve water.

The Audit study proposal is available at: https://www.kslpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Evaluating-Groundwater-Management-Districts-Efforts-to-Conserve-Water-Audit-Proposal.pdf.

The State has five GMDs over the Ogallala-High Plains Aquifer, shown in the map below.  According to the GMD Act’s Legislative declaration, their purposes include: “the proper management of the groundwater resources of the state; for the conservation of groundwater resources; for the prevention of economic deterioration; for associated endeavors within the state of Kansas through the stabilization of agriculture; and to secure for Kansas the benefit of its fertile soils and favorable location with respect to national and world markets.” 

Map of Groundwater Management Districts in Kansas

According to the Audit’s study proposal, the audit has three objectives:

  • Objective 1: What programs do Groundwater Management Districts (GMDs) administer and are those programs appropriate? 
  • Objective 2: Have GMDs identified areas of concern within their districts and do their programs effectively address those concerns?
  • Objective 3: How much did GMDs spend in the most recent year and what percentage was for directly addressing their districts’ identified areas of concern?

For each objective, the proposal has tentative methodologies listed, including such things as:

  • reviewing background information on the legislative purposes of GMDs, especially with respect to water conservation; 
  • collecting information from each GMD on their management programs, activities, budget, etc;
  • interviewing GMD staff on the same; 
  • comparing the GMD’s work and priorities with their legislative purposes;  
  • determining whether GMDs are identifying “areas of concern” within their district with respect to declining quantity and quality of groundwater and their programs to address these concerns;
  • and working with GMDs to determine how they are funded; how they make spending decisions and what portions of their funding they are using to address identified areas of concern. 

The Audit is slated to start late August and take approximately 4 months to complete, with a report to the 2023 Legislature. 

More on GMDs:

Upcoming KWRC News articles:

  • Kansas Water Authority Water Policy Discussion, Aug. 10, Salina
  • GMD 1’s Four County LEMA (submitted to the Chief Engineer on July 1; more at: https://www.gmd1.org/)
  • Hays-Russell Change Applications and Water Transfer Process

To subscribe to this Newsletter: https://landing.mailerlite.com/webforms/landing/l4q8w8 (a link is also on the KWRC home page at: https://kwrconsulting.com/).

Categories
Legislature Policy Water Rights

House Committee on Water Passes Substitute Bill Seeking More Water Funding but Rejecting Reorganization 

This morning the House Committee on Water “worked” HB 2628, the Mega Water Bill.

First, the chairman proposed a comprehensive set of amendments, which would have: 

  • removed KDHE’s Division of Environment from the agency consolidation, leaving a Department of Water with its Secretary of Water; 
  • gutted the GMD provisions of the bill (membership, voting for Board members, action by the Chief Engineer if GMDs fail to develop conservation plans), but leaving its reporting requirements on finances and plans to implement water conservation; 
  • removed the water right fee for all water rights paying a GMD assessment and basing the fee on water use rather than authorized quantity; 
  • struck the increase in water protection fees; 
  • raised water funding by approx. $45 million/year via dedicating 1/65 of the current revenues from the state’s current 6.5 cents sales tax; 
  • clarifying provisions related to the water and environment maintenance board which would oversee the new funding; and 
  • amending the dam safety provisions.  

After some clarifying questions, Rep. Newland offered a substitute bill which included only the following:

  • expanded funding for water projects via dedicating 1/10 of one cent of the state’s current sales tax to water funding (approx. $49 million/year), in this case placing the funding in the State’s Water Plan Fund, using the existing processes to determine how the funding should be appropriated; and 
  • including the GMD reporting provisions on finances and planned conservation actions.

The committee amended this Substitute Bill to add a one-time reporting requirement on GMDs from the balloon on p. 24 of the Chairman’s proposed amendments.  Those provisions are as follows:

“Not later than January 15, 2023, the board of each district shall submit to the senate standing committee on agriculture and natural resources, the house of representatives standing committee on agriculture, and the house of representatives standing committee on water a report that includes the following:

(1) An itemized list of each resolution, program established or other action by the board that resulted in measurable conservation of water over the last five years and the total cost of implementation of each item listed;

(2) an itemized list of each resolution, program established or other action by the board that the board believes may have encouraged conservation but did not result in any measurable conservation of water or any other quantifiable data over the last five years and the total costs of implementation of each item listed;

(3) the goals and priorities set by the board for any period over the next 20 years and any actions taken by the board to achieve such goals and priorities; and

(4) a list of the areas within each district that meet the criteria set forth in K.S.A. 82a-1036(a) through (e), and amendments thereto, and any specific actions taken to address the conditions in each area.”

An additional amendment seeking to remove the Secretary of Agriculture’s ability to review orders of the Chief Engineer failed.  

While many expressed dissatisfactions at the failure to include the re-organization provisions of the original HB 2628 in the Substitute Bill, after discussion, the committee approved the amended substitute bill on a 9 to 6 vote, and then passed it favorably out of committee. 

Its fate is now in the hands of the House leadership, which will determine when and if it will be considered by the full House of Representatives.

Categories
Legislature Policy Water Legislation

Mega Water Bill markup coming March 1

As reported February 11, the 283 page “Mega Water” bill, HB 2686, is out. See the following article for my summary of its provisions at: https://kwrconsulting.com/water-legislation/overview-of-hb-2686-the-mega-water-bill/. For a longer read, see the Revisor’s 7 page summary of the bill at http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2021_22/committees/ctte_h_water_1/misc_documents/download_testimony/ctte_h_water_1_20220214_01_testimony.html.

In this article, I will seek to briefly summarize its two days of hearings and two days of committee discussions, and talk about the next step of the bill’s consideration next week.

Overview of the bill as written


In summary, as written, the bill would:
1) Create a new Kansas Department of Water and Environment (KDWE), combining the Kansas Dept. of Agriculture’s Division of Water Resources (DWR) and Division of Conservation (DOC); the Division of Environment from KDHE; and the Kansas Water Office. All of the duties, authorities, officers and employees of each would remain pretty much unchanged, just in this new Department.
2) Increase funding for water projects via two sources: first, an increase the current water protection fees paid by municipal, industrial, and stockwater uses, increasing them from the current $0.03/1000 gallons to $0.05/1000 gallons, and second, by imposing a new annual water right fee of up to $250 on all water right holders not paying the water protection fee.
3) Make significant changes to Groundwater Management Districts (GMDs) including allowing any eligible voter to be a Board member; changing Board member elections to primary and general elections; requiring GMDs to make annual reports to the Legislature on their finances and actions; requiring GMDs to identify areas of concern by 1/1/2024; to conduct outreach to those areas and to develop plans to address the concerns by 1/1/2026; and where GMDs fail to develop such plans, the bill authorizes DWR’s Chief Engineer to initiate IGUCA hearings with the goal to reduce the rate of aquifer decline by 50%.
4) Misc. changes with respect to dam safety and stream obstructions including more enforcement authority. The House Committee on Water’s Chairman, Rep. Ron Highland stated his purpose in all of this: to increase the visibility of water issues critical to state’s future; to increase funding; and to improve coordination and accountability of various parts of government in water.

Hearings on HB 2628

After two days of briefing of the committee on the bill by the Revisor and Chairman, the Committee held two days of hearings, the first for proponents and the second by opponents.

In short, proponents were mostly municipal and environmental interest who agreed with the Chairman’s principle reasoning above. Proponents included: City of Wichita; Alynn Lockner; Burke Griggs of Washburn Law School; Water District No 1 of Johnson County; Friends of the Kaw; Kansas Farmer Union; the Climate + Energy Project; City of Hutchinson; the Regional Economic Area Partnership (REAP) of South Central Kansas; Kay Heley; Kansas Municipal Utilities; Lucas Bessire; Rep. Blex; Nature Conservancy; Sarah Hill-Nelson of the Bowersock Mill & Power Co; William Bradley; and the Kansas Sierra Club.

In short, opponents were principally GMDs and agricultural interests who opposed one or more of the bill’s provisions opposing the GMD electoral provisions, more fees, and removing DWR and DOC out of the Dept. of Agriculture. Opponents included GMD 5, the Kansas Livestock Association; the Kansas Agricultural Alliance; B. Beckman; Kansas Corn; GMD 4; the Kansas Association of Conservation Districts; the Kansas Water Congress; the Kansas Farm Bureau; Water PACK; Southwest Kansas Irrigators; GMD 3; R. Hayzlett; S. Beckman; GMD 2; and T. Jaeger.

There were also three neutral testifiers who offered support with specific, generally narrow recommendation. These included the Kansa Biological Survey; the Kansas Society of Professional Engineers; and City of Garden City.

All testimony is on the Committee’s page or on my page at https://kwrconsulting.com/blog/hcow2022/, which includes links to the videos of the committee’s hearings as well, near the bottom of the first table.

See also the Kansas Reflector article at: https://kansasreflector.com/2022/02/20/we-cant-wait-15-years-legislative-committee-works-to-overhaul-kansas-water-policy/.

Committee discussions

On Friday, 2/11 and Monday, 2/14, the Committee had two days of committee discussions.

After discussion on the GMD provisions, there seems a consensus to remove most of the GMD provisions, except to require reporting on finances and what they have done, are doing, and plan to do on water conservation efforts. In addition, the committee plans to ask for an interim committee to consider the GMD matters more fully and to ask for a post-audit of the GMDs: their Boards composition, voting for Board members, and what GMDs are doing to fulfill their statutory purpose.

It is unclear what will happen with the proposed fees. There was discussion on various amendments on agency restructuring but it is also not clear what the committee will do with these provisions.

The Committee to “work” the bill starting March 1

As the bill is “blessed”, it is not subject to the regular legislative deadlines, e.g. last week’s “turn around” deadline where a bill must be through the chamber of origin. So, the Chair decided to work the bill this coming week, starting on Tuesday, March 1.

From the committee discussion, a number of amendments will be considered, one in turn, and then the final bill we be acted upon, to determine if it will pass out of the committee favorably for the full House to consider.

Stay tuned. I will plan to do my next article after the Committee’s action. I will also do updates on my Twitter account: @kwrconsulting and on my Facebook page @kwrconsultingllc.

Categories
Legislature Water Legislation

Water News: Major Water Legislation Awaits Revisor

House Committee on Water 

As I reported in last week’s KWRC News, there is a lot of talk in the halls of the Capitol about major water legislation coming out of the House Committee on Water soon. Apparently, the chair of the committee had hoped to have it introduced last week, but it is taking time to get it through the Revisor’s Office due, in part, to its magnitude (400+ pages). It is now expected around the end of the week, Feb. 11. No one is revealing specifics, but it is rumored to propose significant re-organization of the state’s water agencies, more fees to pay for water projects, and more. So stay tuned here, on my Twitter account @kwrconsulting, or on Facebook page at  kwrconsulting.  

We have updated our HCOW webpage for the latest news and added links to media on the committee’s work including the following:  

Groundwater Management District (GMD) annual meetings 

During February and March, all five of the state’s GMDs hold their annual meetings where you can learn more about the GMD’s activities, plans, and budgets and where elections for Board members occur. Below are the dates, times, locations, and links the GMD websites for more information. 

Categories
Legislature Meeting Reports Policy

Water News: House Committee, upcoming meetings, and Wichita ASR recommendation

My two-year anniversary of retiring as Chief Engineer of the Kansas Division of Water Resources is only a month away. Over that time, COVID has dominated the news and there has not been much in the way of water news.  That seems to be changing. Below are recent highlights and news of meeting to come. 

The House Committee on Water continues its work. The committee’s agenda for the coming week includes presentations from KDA’s Division of Conservation and the Kansas Assoc. of Conservation District on Monday, 1/24; a hearing on HB 2480 on Tuesday, 1/25; and presentations by Kansas Water Office & Kansas Water Authority on the Kansas Water Plan on Wednesday, 1/26.

Hearing on HB 2480 (definition of “water project”) – On Tuesday the committee will have their first hearing on legislation, HB 2480, which according to the Fiscal note “would remove the prohibition of water supply projects from using the Public Water Supply State Revolving Loan Fund if the projects involved a water transfer as defined by KSA 82a-1501, et seq.”  The bill was introduced by a Hays legislator to allow them to qualify for funding for which they are currently ineligible. 

Media attention – Last week, the Kansas Reflector published an article, reprinted in Kansas newspapers on the Committee’s work, featuring its considerations related to water quality, reservoir sedimentation, groundwater conservation, water funding, and water agency restructuring.  See https://www.kansas.com/…/politics…/article257337627.html.

HCOW webpage improvements – We have improved our index page for the Committee’s work at: https://kwrconsulting.com/blog/hcow2022/. In addition to presentation materials, there are links to videos of each of the hearings. The page also includes a summary of the week’s agenda at the top. For more frequent updates, follow us on twitter at @KWRConsulting.

Upcoming meetings:

The Kansas Water Authority is meeting on Thursday, 1/27, starting at 8:30 at the Ramada Inn in Topeka. At this writing, no materials are available, but it should be available early next week at the following link: https://kwo.ks.gov/admin-pages/events-landing-page/2022/01/27/default-calendar/kansas-water-authority-meeting. Virtual attendance is also provided via a link on the page above.  

The 2022 Winter Water Technology Expo will be taking place at the Finney County Fairgrounds in Garden City, Kansas on Thursday, February 3 from 5-9 p.m.  There will be demonstrations provided throughout the night, along with door prizes, food, and beverages. The Expo is free and open to the public. For more information visit: https://www.kwo.ks.gov/news-events/winter-water-technology-expo.  KWRC will participate as an exhibitor. 

Wichita Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) – The City of Wichita has the state’s only active Aquifer Storage and Recovery project. The project was initially developed and approved in two phases. During 2018, the City requested changes to the conditions associated with its existing permits for Phase II of the project. After a public information phase, the matter was set for a formal hearing in 2019, with the Chief Engineer delegating the hearing to Connie Owen and requesting her recommendation on the matter. On January 14, 2022, Ms. Owen provided her summary and recommendations, recommending the City’s requests be denied.  See the link below for her report and the extensive public record. The matter now goes to the Chief Engineer for a decision. https://agriculture.ks.gov/divisions-programs/dwr/managing-kansas-water-resources/aquifer-storage-and-recovery/wichita-asr