The third meeting of the OAAC was held today in Colby, KS. First up was continuation of discussion on the water right abandonment issue. There were two statutory amendment versions discussed last meeting - a simple change and a more involved change allowing the GMDs to individually address abandonment issues. Still controversial, there was a lot of discussion, but in the end, the simpler version (described here) was adopted - with several votes cast in opposition to the adoption motion.
The developing LEMA statute was discussed next. While a current draft of the proposed language had been provided to the committee, still more recent changes were also covered. In the end, the committee suggested 4 additional changes: 1) the language currently in the proposed regulation describing the minimum standards that any proposal must meet to begin the process should be moved to the statute; 2) the required newspaper legal notice of the LEMA hearings should specify the use of a local County newspaper wherein the LEMA will be designated; 3) the option of the chief engineer to reject the proposal after hearings should include a requirement that the reasons for the rejection be specified and sent to the GMD with the notice of rejection; and 4) more specifics regarding the dual hearing process envisioned should be incorporated in the statutes. These were acceptable suggestions that did not change the concept of the proposal and were to be added to the final draft to be acted on at the next meeting.
The committee next turned to the multi-year flex account (MFA) issues. DWR explained the current MFA and presented several ideas being considered for improvements. The agency was leaning toward the use of net irrigation data to determine the quantity of water to allow in the MFA. DWR asked the committee to support upcoming legislation improving this program when it is developed. The committee indicated that the MFA could be a good tool for producers and they looked forward to considering the final draft of this legislation.
Next was discussion on water banking. The current water banking act and the operations of the only bank organized under them was covered. The committee agreed that some form of water banking would be another good tool for producers and supported the broadening of the water banking opportunities in western Kansas. The Kansas Water Office was asked to put more detail in a proposal.
These were the only decision items taken up by the committee. The next meeting was set for October 13, 2011 in Garden City, KS to begin at 9:00 AM. The location will be announced later.
These meetings are really hard to summarize because so much discussion is held - ranging over many different concepts and ideas. To cover all the discussion would take considerable space, and since 90% of these ideas don't receive any action, it's hard to justify the space - no matter how interesting all this discussion is. So, rather than relying on my limited (lame?) summaries, perhaps you should start attending the meetings yourself. They are open. And another way to track them if you're interested is to read the official minutes and see most of the handout materials, etc., which are all posted on the KWO Website.
Showing posts with label OAAC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label OAAC. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Ogallala Aquifer Advisory Committee Meeting 2
I attended the OAAC second meeting on August 23 in Scott City, Kansas. Another good turnout of committee members and state and local agency folks. Also had at least two members of the press in attendance as well - representing the Hays Daily News and Kansas Public Radio. The major focus of this meeting was slated to be 2012 Farm Bill discussions - How does the current Farm Bill affect water use and how can the next Farm Bill promote water conservation? But first, status reports on the two action issues out of the first meeting were requested: the water right abandonment situation, and a proposed new, local IGUCA.
KDA reported on two draft versions of the abandonment statute amendments. One version was simple and proposed to strike the language of the current bill that required water right owners to maintain their wells in order that their non use would be considered "due and sufficient cause". The second version also included language that would allow the local GMDs to effect abandonments if they chose to. Recall that the discussion last meeting was to consider allowing the GMDs to develop regulations that would direct the chief engineer's abandonment efforts locally. No decision was made.
KDA also reported on a draft statute and regulation that would support the local IGUCA discussed and approved on August 9. The effort was a new statute authorizing a new process for a Local Enhanced Management Area (LEMA). Both DWR and GMD4 indicated that discussions have identified 6-8 changes that were being further contemplated. Moreover, the Revisor's Office has not yet completed their draft work, but it should be available soon.
The committee decided to hold up the next meeting until the IGUCA statute draft language was completed. They indicated they wanted to consider the actual draft language rather than simply support the concept. More later.
KDA reported on two draft versions of the abandonment statute amendments. One version was simple and proposed to strike the language of the current bill that required water right owners to maintain their wells in order that their non use would be considered "due and sufficient cause". The second version also included language that would allow the local GMDs to effect abandonments if they chose to. Recall that the discussion last meeting was to consider allowing the GMDs to develop regulations that would direct the chief engineer's abandonment efforts locally. No decision was made.
KDA also reported on a draft statute and regulation that would support the local IGUCA discussed and approved on August 9. The effort was a new statute authorizing a new process for a Local Enhanced Management Area (LEMA). Both DWR and GMD4 indicated that discussions have identified 6-8 changes that were being further contemplated. Moreover, the Revisor's Office has not yet completed their draft work, but it should be available soon.
The committee decided to hold up the next meeting until the IGUCA statute draft language was completed. They indicated they wanted to consider the actual draft language rather than simply support the concept. More later.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Ogallala Aquifer Advisory Committee Meeting 1
Well, the 21 member OAAC met earlier today in Dodge City, Kansas. It was an impressive beginning with 19 of the 21 appointed members in attendance - along with 4 Kansas Legislators, 2 state agency directors, 4 groundwater management district managers and about a dozen other, interested folks. The agenda was true to form with the two potential statutory changes getting discussed: a) IGUCAs; and b) "use it or lose it" (water right abandonments).
The water right abandonments issue took most of the time as it was clearly the more complex and far-reaching issue. In the end, the committee passed a motion that the current statute KSA 82a-718 (d) be amended such that the requirement of maintaining the diversion works for non-used water rights in closed areas of the state be eliminated. Basically, this means that in closed areas of the state non-use of a water right is lawfully due and sufficient cause for non-use - period. This was done even though everyone understood that it completely eliminated any ability of the state to abandon a water right and forfeit it it back to the public domain. Said another way, the only possibility of any water right abandonment in closed areas of the state would be through voluntary abandonment by the water right owner. The motion passed 16 for and three against. It was also agreed that considering additional GMD authority to address this issue through their management programs should be re-discussed at a later time.
The IGUCA issue was in concept a law change allowing a GMD to submit a complete enhanced management proposal to the chief engineer simultaneously with its IGUCA request. Under these circumstances, the substantive public hearing required by current law would be limited to the GMD/local proposal. Following the hearing, the chief engineer would have only one of 3 options: a) approve the proposal in its entirety and generate the IGUCA order; b) close the hearing and reject the proposal; or c) continue the hearing and return the proposal to the GMD/locals for corrections with cites for every instance where it is not consistent with state law or the GMD management program, or, falls short of the requirements of a minimal management proposal. Following discussion, and questions, a motion was unanimously passed to support this statutory change as presented, with a suggestion that some time constraints be considered for the chief engineer's post-hearing decision.
[UPDATE: The above IGUCA discussion eventually became the Local Enhanced Management Area (LEMA) concept. This was very early discussion before the concept even had a name.]
Discussion next turned to possible issues for the next meeting. One of the issues suggested was the prior appropriation system of water rights itself - the most fundamental concept of Kansas water law. As noted before in this blog, I never heard this mentioned at the Governor's Summit, but because the state characterized several comments into the common topic of: "Examine all water laws and regulations", this and any other law or regulation now seems to be fair game. Was this idea really sported at the Summit, or did the state take too liberal poetic license with the process?
Anyway, the next meeting is set for August 23 - most likely in Scott City. The Farm Bill implications to, and potentials for water conservation in Kansas will be one of the agenda items - in preparation for Senator Pat Roberts' field hearing on the 2012 Farm Bill in Wichita, KS on August 25. More later.
The water right abandonments issue took most of the time as it was clearly the more complex and far-reaching issue. In the end, the committee passed a motion that the current statute KSA 82a-718 (d) be amended such that the requirement of maintaining the diversion works for non-used water rights in closed areas of the state be eliminated. Basically, this means that in closed areas of the state non-use of a water right is lawfully due and sufficient cause for non-use - period. This was done even though everyone understood that it completely eliminated any ability of the state to abandon a water right and forfeit it it back to the public domain. Said another way, the only possibility of any water right abandonment in closed areas of the state would be through voluntary abandonment by the water right owner. The motion passed 16 for and three against. It was also agreed that considering additional GMD authority to address this issue through their management programs should be re-discussed at a later time.
The IGUCA issue was in concept a law change allowing a GMD to submit a complete enhanced management proposal to the chief engineer simultaneously with its IGUCA request. Under these circumstances, the substantive public hearing required by current law would be limited to the GMD/local proposal. Following the hearing, the chief engineer would have only one of 3 options: a) approve the proposal in its entirety and generate the IGUCA order; b) close the hearing and reject the proposal; or c) continue the hearing and return the proposal to the GMD/locals for corrections with cites for every instance where it is not consistent with state law or the GMD management program, or, falls short of the requirements of a minimal management proposal. Following discussion, and questions, a motion was unanimously passed to support this statutory change as presented, with a suggestion that some time constraints be considered for the chief engineer's post-hearing decision.
[UPDATE: The above IGUCA discussion eventually became the Local Enhanced Management Area (LEMA) concept. This was very early discussion before the concept even had a name.]
Discussion next turned to possible issues for the next meeting. One of the issues suggested was the prior appropriation system of water rights itself - the most fundamental concept of Kansas water law. As noted before in this blog, I never heard this mentioned at the Governor's Summit, but because the state characterized several comments into the common topic of: "Examine all water laws and regulations", this and any other law or regulation now seems to be fair game. Was this idea really sported at the Summit, or did the state take too liberal poetic license with the process?
Anyway, the next meeting is set for August 23 - most likely in Scott City. The Farm Bill implications to, and potentials for water conservation in Kansas will be one of the agenda items - in preparation for Senator Pat Roberts' field hearing on the 2012 Farm Bill in Wichita, KS on August 25. More later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)