SD-6 LEMA Now Underway

With the signing of the final LEMA action - the Order of Designation - the Kansas Chief Engineer on April 17 set the SD-6 LEMA a-sail.  Over the next 5 years these intrepid water users will do what is necessary to reduce total water use by some 20% in order to slow the decline rate and extend the economic longevity of their local groundwater supplies.  They are to be congratulated, in my opinion.

But we're not setting them a-sail without any oars.  The federal Risk Management Agency (RMA) has authorized a brand new, only in SD-6, limited irrigation insurance program whereby these producers can insure their limited irrigation corn and soybeans starting this year.  Wow, who thought that'd happen?  The local proposal also provides ample water use flexibility by: 1) converting each water right to a 5-year allocation; 2) allowing multiple water rights to combine allocations; and 3) providing instant transfers of water between allocations.  Our GMD has developed a special newsletter (the SD-6 LEMA Ledger - shown above) to keep everyone up to date with the process and identify potential pitfalls.  Finally, Governor Sam Brownback has fast-tracked a special task force charged to develop strategies whereby limited irrigation producers can maintain or even increase their ag production - again, focused primarily in this LEMA.

All in all, I think this is local control at its best, and not likely to get any better.  So if unused, or poorly used, or (worst of all) summarily rejected, the only likely alternative will be enhanced state control.  I've discussed this before, and still see this as the number one potential problem.  I'll cover more on this topic, from other perspectives, as the process continues to unfold.

Western States Water Council & Local Control

The Western States Water Council (WSWC) is the "water" committee of the Western Governors' Association (WGA) - an affiliation of 19 western states of the US and 3 Pacific islands under the US flag. 

The WSWC has been busy of late dealing with the issue of water needs and strategies for a sustainable future in the western US.  I found it interesting that their 2008 report on this very subject focuses pretty heavy on the issue of local control and an appropriate state posture to facilitate local actions.  More specifically the report says:

1)  States should not overtake local planning, but should set state policies that facilitate information flow from the state to the local entities and which also require local governments to adopt comprehensive plans that include water resources.  Wait a minute. States are not to overtake local plans - but require comprehensive water resource planning?

2)  States should offer technical/financial support for groups dealing with growth-related water issues.  Wait another minute. How can many local groups achieve sustainable use in the face of growth patterns and policies?

3)  States should work with locals to find innovative ways of allowing ag water transfers to urban uses while avoiding economic damage to the ag economies or the environment.  Sounds good where both uses exist, but what about in agricultural rural areas where urban uses are so insignificant as to be non-existant?

Then we find out that the WSWC is also working with 11 federal agencies on issues of better integration of land use and water supply planning - a group they call WestFAST (Western States Federal Agency Support Team).  Wonder if there are any local stakeholders on this team?

Local Control with State Oversight?

I have been asked before how Kansas manages local control provided by the Kansas Legislature.  The local Groundwater Management Districts were newcomers to the water scene in the state when authorized in 1976, which had been managed and regulated by the division of water resources under the state engineer.


It begins with the Legislative Declaration contained in the GMD Act, which says:  

It is the policy of this act to preserve basic water use doctrine and to establish the right of local water users to determine their destiny with respect to the use of the groundwater insofar as it does not conflict with the basic laws and policies of the state of Kansas. It is, therefore, declared that in the public interest it is necessary and advisable to permit the establishment of groundwater management districts.

The GMD Act also says:

Before undertaking active management of the district the board shall prepare a management program. Upon completion of the management program the board shall transmit a copy to the chief engineer with a request for his or her approval. 

This would appear that the Chief Engineer has significant control over the local management programs.  But, this section of the act goes on to say:

The chief engineer shall examine and study the management program and, if he or she finds that it is compatible with article 7 of chapter 82a of the Kansas Statutes Annotated, and all acts amendatory thereof or supplemental thereto and any other state laws or policies, he or she shall approve it and notify the board of his or her action.

This added wording changes a lot in that the chief engineer's review of the local GMD's management plan is just to insure its consistency with the Kansas water appropriation act and other state laws.  Regardless of what the chief engineer feels about the plans of a GMD, as long as it's legal, he or she pretty much has to go along with it.


So, in a nutshell, this is how Kansas has structured its local control with state oversight - at least as far as the Management Plan goes.  As far as other influences the chief engineer can have over a GMD and its activities, I'd be lying if I said there were none.  The technical support the state can provide, or not provide, and many other subtle working items do factor in.  For these, it's the old fashioned "build a working relationship of trust and cooperation over years" and these will take care of themselves.

Geography & Politics of Solutions

Why is it that so many seek federal solutions to problems the state and locals can't seem to fix?

S. 787 is supported by many arguing that their states are ineffective in safeguarding surface water quality. Rather than jack up their state and local water quality management institutions and roll up their collective sleeves - they choose to support federal regulatory expansion over every bit of surface water in their state. What if the feds can't solve the problem, or worse yet, work at solving it in ways the supporters object to? The regulated stakeholders are toast.

The working draft of the Sustainable Watershed Planning Act is another example. Let's give POTUS and EPA the authority and funding to achieve sustainability in our top ten poster-watersheds. The public in these areas better hope they do it the way the locals think it should be done, or they're maybe going to wish they stayed more involved.

Deferring these solutions to the federal government simply insures that someone is eventually going to have to "fight city hall" or try to "turn the battleship on a dime". The regulated stakeholders will almost invariably be better off directly involving themselves in the problems and solutions. The federal role should be restricted to technical and funding support - ONLY when asked by the state and local folks working on the problem. This is especially true in water issues.

The harder these problems and solutions are, the more complex they are, and the less you want the federal government fixing them. There, I've said it.