The Associated Press
nb_bw_WITHER_WATER.jpg
Legislators say support is building for Gov. Sam Brownback's proposals to change Kansas policies to conserve the state's water and extend the life of its aquifers.
Brownback wants to change the laws governing water usage to encourage conservation and ensure there is enough water for agricultural, business and municipal uses.
Legislators aren't certain about the details, but they are receptive to changing the laws during the 2012 session, which begins next week, the Topeka Capital Journal reported Monday.
Brownback unveiled his plans in November after a series of meetings to discuss potential changes.
The changes include eliminating the "use-it-or-lose-it" policy on water rights that applies to areas already closed to new water development. The policy was enacted in the 1940s and requires farmers and ranchers to use a certain amount of water each year or lose their rights.
Senate Majority Leader Jay Emler said he spoke with a constituent who moved to Kansas from California who lost his water rights because he didn't pump enough each year. The loss of the rights had the effect of lowering the value of his farm because it was less productive.
"Those are the kind of things that just need to be taken into consideration, and I think we're going to see some bills come out with the input of the water office on how to take care of this," said Emler, a Lindsborg Republican.
Sen. Allen Schmidt, a Hays Democrat, said details must be worked out during the legislative session that begins Jan. 9, but he's onboard with encouraging conservation.
"Conserving should be incentivized, not penalized and my initial look at this proposal is it takes away the disincentive to conserve," Schmidt said. "You don't want to penalize farmers because agriculture is our biggest industry in Kansas."
Brownback took suggestions from a variety of groups, including the Kansas Farm Bureau, which supports changing the "use-it-or-lose-it" policy.
"Our folks understand that the Ogallala Aquifer is not recharging the way we all wish it would," said KFB President Steve Baccus. "We're pretty supportive of what the governor's come up with. There's a little bit of everything in there for us. A lot of his proposals are voluntary, they're incentive-based and the drivers in many of these are the stakeholders."
Other policies proposals would enable groundwater management districts to implement plans for reducing water usage to help sustain the aquifer, allow for the development of additional water storage and amend the multi-year flex accounts program that would give irrigators expanded capabilities to manage their crops over a five-year period.
State Rep. Eber Phelps said there was a sense of urgency to change water policies to increase conservation. Much of Kansas experienced severe drought in 2011, taking a toll on surface and aquifer supplies.
"You have a situation where there's even some irrigators out in western Kansas who want to kind of regulate themselves," said Phelps, a Hays Democrat. "Hindsight would say, maybe we should have started this many, many years ago."
Tagged: water, Gov. Sam Brownback, Ogallala Aquifer
Comments
blindrabbit 1 year, 5 months ago
If the Governor is so sensitive to water conservation, he should jump on the bandwagon to kill the Holcomb coal burner. Coal burners are tremendous users of water for both make-up water as well as cooling water. Since there is no surface water to speak of in Holcomb, it stands to reason that the aquifer will be the source. The benefits to Colorado and Oklahoma users will come at the expense of Kansas farmers, and air breathers to the East.
none2 1 year, 5 months ago
Believe it or not, there is water in the Arkansas River basin below the surface. Looking at it with your eyes, you would think there had never been water there in one's lifetime. Actually, there was a huge flood there back in the early 1960's.
As to Holcomb's projects,it is my understanding that they bought out other farmer's rights to that Arkansas watershed for the Holcomb plant(s). That doesn't mean that the water is not invaluable. I think that water does VERY SLOWLY trickle into the aquifer -- we'd be talking FRACTIONS of an inch.
Keep in mind that the Ethanol plant they built in that area also takes lots of water as well as irrigation to grow the corn. If I recall, growing corn is very water intensive.
blindrabbit 1 year, 5 months ago
Agree, Really, growing corn on the high plains to produce ethanol may make profit short term, but ethanol production from corn is not a viable long-term solution. Maybe we should grow sugar cane as in Brazil and use the waste bagass for ethanol production or maybe grow hemp!
Commenting has been disabled for this item.