Kansas Water Transfer Act

A water transfer in Kansas means the transportation of 2,000 AF or more per year for use at a point 35 miles or more away.  The act is administered by a Water Transfer Panel made up of the chief engineer, the secreatry of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment and the Director of the Kansas Water Office - 3 state agency heads.  The chief engineer is the chair of the panel. 

Basic tenets are: 

1) No transfer can be approved that would reduce the amount of water required for present or any reasonably foreseeable future needs by users in the source area.  (Of course, there are exceptions, like if the panel thinks the benefits to the state for approving the transfer will outweigh the benefits to the state for not approving it; or, the panel says an emergency exists which affects the public health, safety or welfare; or, the governor declares an emergency affecting the public health, safety or welfare.)  

2)  No water transfer can happen: (1) If such transfer would impair water rights; and (2) if the transfer is for use by a public water supply, unless the panel determines that a conservation plan has been implemented by the applicant that meets state guidelines, has been in effect for a year or more, and implements a rate structure which encourages efficient water use.

3)  No transfer shall happen without an application and a public hearing.

4)  No transfer shall be exempt from complying with:  a) a GMD Management Program (so long as the program does not prohibit transfers out of the district; applies equally to users inside and outside a GMD; and does not discriminate against users outside a GMD); and b) the water appropriation act or the water plan storage act.

There are 9 elements the panel must consider when deciding if the benefits to the state for approving the transfer outweigh a no-transfer decision:  1) All current beneficial use(s) being made of the transferred water; 2) any reasonable future use of the water; 3) the economic, environmental, public health and welfare and other impacts of acting on the transfer; (4) alternative water sources available to the applicant; (5) the applicant's actions to preserve the quality and remediate any water contamination now available; 6) design, construction and operation of any works used to carry the water; 7) effectiveness of conservation plans implemented by the applicant; 8) conservation plans implemented by any persons protesting or potentially affected by the transfer; and 9) any applicable program, standard, policy or rule and regulation of a groundwater management district.

As you can see, there is considerable latitude given to the state panel in approving or disapproving water transfers.  And virtually everything is couched in terms of "what's best for the STATE".  Even the local GMD management plans must go along with transfers - at least they can't preclude them.  With few people, little political representation, relatively little money, an active water marketing system, and very little direct involvement in the process, can you see how skeptical the rural folks with water might be?

 

A common feeling is:  Why should we work at cutting water use back any amount when it's so easy for the state to transfer part or all of what we had been using out of our area for someone else's use?"  In these cases, it seems an active water market and a definitive transfer process become impediments to responsible management decisions.  I don't know if this is right or not, but it appears real.
 

In the process of developing the SD-6 HPA regulatory water use reductions, the first big concern/issue was proving that the water saved would stay local and be available to them or their descendants later.  Otherwise they would never have continued discussions.  There are likely few folks who will purposely scrabble and do with less water when the system can allow (or result) in their savings going somewhere else.  Not knowingly, anyway.  I wonder if this is an issue in other areas considering mandated water use reductions or active water marketing devices designed to re-allocate (reduce) water use?

NAWAPA is Back in the News

The North American Water and Power Alliance (NAWAPA) system for continental water management was first proposed by the Ralph M. Parsons Company in 1964. It was an ambitious proposal to tap the excess flows from the Yukon and McKenzie River systems in Alaska and NW Canada, and through a series of dams, reservoirs, canals, tunnels and pumping stations will transfer this new supply all the way from NW Canada and Alaska to the Great Lakes and Upper Mississippi Valley to the western US and northern Mexico.

In all, the project is slated to control 4.4 billion AF of water annually, 1.5 billion of which is to be distributed and used - the US receiving 80 million AF, Canada 58 million and Mexico 20 million. The accounting is a bit fuzzy, because the printed material shows the US getting 80 million AF, while the interactive map presentation says 72 million. Either way, it’s a bucketful of water.

The collection and transfer facilities proposed are complex to say the least, but what I find most interesting is the use of the Rocky Mountain Trench – a natural gorge – as the main storage feature. The problem? All the water has to be lifted several thousand feet to use this huge bathtub. For more detail on this part of the plan, the interactive map found on the following website is recommended: http://larouchepac.com/nawapa#

Of all this water and infrastructure, Kansas doesn’t fare too well. We end up with a fuzzy 1 million AF and no reservoirs, tunnels or canals (power). Moreover, there is no explanation of how we are to secure this water from the closest NAWAPA terminus in NE Colorado – the Colorado Reservoir - somewhere East of Denver. Of course, the good news is the Colorado reservoir is way handier to NW Kansas than anywhere else in the state – unless they choose to stop at the Ark River crossing and forego Denver.

The website presentation ends with: “Lyndon LaRouche's latest writings on a true science of physical economy, as well as supplementary video material on the LaRouchePAC website, the NAWAPA map is a challenge to the American population to imagine what kind of future is possible, if we can rise above the cultural pessimism of recent decades, in order to make NAWAPA a reality—beginning with the removal of President Obama from office.” NAWAPA won’t be political, will it?