Water: The Life Sustaining Resource

There have been several articles in various media about the actions of the Kansas Water Authority meeting in Colby, Kan., December 14 and 15, therefore, I am compelled to share my version of the outcome of that meeting.   

First, a little information about the body of the Kansas Water Authority (KWA) itself.  The KWA is made up of 13 voting members from across the State of Kansas, with all but two of those appointed by the sitting Governor at the time.  Of the other two, one is appointed by the Speaker of the Kansas House of Representatives and the other, which is my appointment, is by the President of the Senate of the Kansas legislature.  The membership is supposedly spread geographically across the state, however there are only four members West of Reno County, therefore that makes nine voting members East of a Wichita to Salina line.  In addition to the voting members there are Ex Officio non-voting member made up of the heads of the many States of Kansas agencies.  To be clear, this article I am writing is to explain my vote and opinion and is not necessarily representative of the President of the Senate position.

Some of the duties of the KWA are to look at and recommend funding for various water related needs in the state through the State Water Plan Fund (SWPF), to review the different water projects in the state and to make recommendations and advise the Kansas legislature and the Governor on needs of the state water resources. This is just a brief overview of the duties of KWA, there is more when it comes to interactions with the many state agencies, but for now the topic is the meeting at Colby and the outcome and media release that followed.

There are five guiding principles for the State Water Plan which covers the state from East to West and North to South as a blueprint for the needs of Kansas on water related issues.  For the High Plains Aquifer (HPA), which includes the Ogallala Aquifer, the guiding principle is to Conserve and Extend the life of the resource.  However, the guiding principle for the reservoirs in Eastern Kansas is to Secure, Protect and Restore.

At many meetings of the KWA I have stressed conservation alone would still lead to depletions of Western Kansas most precious resource and the life blood of the region.  I many times suggested at some point in the future a water transfer for fresh water that eventually winds up going to waste in the Gulf of Mexico would be the saving grace for the economy and livelihood for those of us in Western Kansas and the Ogallala Aquifer.   

However, any mention of that type of thinking would throw most of those on the KWA from the Eastern part of our state into a frenzy and they would immediately shun the idea.  As a result of my persistence we should add a word to the guiding principle for the HPA so it could read Conserve, Extend and Restore (or Recharge/Replace/Replenish) a special subcommittee for the Ogallala was created.  I was on that committee along with the Chairwoman, from Eastern Kansas, a member from Manhattan, Kans., a member from LaCrosse, Kans., and a member from Goodland, Kans. 

The following language is what came out of that meeting, which I abstained from voting for.

1. The policy of planned depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer is no longer in the best interest of the State of Kansas.

2. A formal collaborative process is needed to establish data-driven goals, metrics, and actions to halt the decline of the Ogallala Aquifer while promoting flexible and innovative management within a timeframe that achieves agricultural productivity, thriving economies, and vibrant communities – now and for future generations of Kansans.

3. The collaborative process should engage state agencies, regional advisory committees, local stakeholders, groundwater management districts, and the Kansas Water Authority.

The reason I could not support this goal is because of the word halt, which by Webster’s definition is to “stop immediately”.  During the sub-committee meeting I asked for some indication of specifics as to how we would go about developing a plan to halt the decline.  The response was..... “we have to pass the above language and then work on what that means”.  I have concerns getting on a plane with a pilot that doesn’t know where or how he is going to land!

I am not comfortable with an approach where the majority of people working on how to go about halting (stopping immediately) the declines, have no ties to irrigated agriculture or to Western Kansas. There is the perception by many of those in Eastern Kansas that as irrigators we are wasting water, however that is far from true. The economy of Western Kansas, the schools, medical facilities, recreation facilities and city and county operations are all built on agriculture, and irrigation is a huge part of that.  There was somewhat of an insinuation in the many news articles that I was just a greedy irrigation farmer and that was the reason I voted NO, and was the only one to vote that way, at the KWA meeting. 

On the contrary, I am very concerned with the declines in the aquifer and there is no question that we, as stake holders and citizens of Western Kansas, need to come up with a plan that will insure we have water for domestic house wells, municipal water, livestock water, recreation such as golf courses and ball fields and irrigated agriculture as well.  The only two sources of recharge to the aquifer in our region is rainfall, which is very limited and for the most part doesn’t make its way back to the rivers and streams, and the Arkansas River, which is a losing battle with the state of Colorado and their rapid growth.  Conservation plans that have been developed are helping in certain areas, but even in those areas they are still seeing declines in the aquifer and especially during extended years of drought such as we have been experiencing, therefore the word halt could make those with a conservation plan in violation of possible regulations.

In closing, there are some good words in the language that came out of the KWA meeting, but the word halt is not one of them.  I did tell the committee if the word halt was changed to address, I could support the language.  I suggested we, the Kansas Water Authority, could ask for a task force that would give us some deliverables and we could set some timelines with some accountability for those involved, however with the Eastern Kansas influence on the committee my suggestion was quickly disregarded. 

I am available and can be reached fairly easily if anyone wishes to have more conversation with me about this subject and I am planning to work at setting up some town hall meetings to further the conversation on this topic.   

Signed,

Randy Hayzlett

Lakin, Kans.