Moving a GMD 4 Water Right

I want it way over there

There are a number of regulations involved in moving a water right in Kansas, and likewise in GMD 4.  Mostly they insure that the new location will not affect other water users; that the historical consumptive water use will not increase, and that the new diversion point is within the same source of supply as the original.  It is the idea of "local source of supply" that this post covers.

Things used to be pretty loose when it came to local source of supply in the early days (1945 - 1970's).  It was somewhere between a nominal 1320 feet (1/4 mile) and 2640 feet (1/2 mile) - depending on where the water right was located.  In the early 1980's GMD 4 felt that the local source of supply should be largely independent of distance, and more related to specific well performance.  When the dust settled on our new regulation it was a combination of the two methods.  By this I mean we have a nominal 1/2 mile maximum move distance that everyone gets access to.  However, if the well owner wants to move farther than this, the GMD can use a Theis analysis to estimate the cone of influence developed by his or her well over a pumping season that equals the time it takes to pump the authorized water right quantity at the current tested rate of diversion.  The radial distance from the well where its cone of influence is .5 feet or more drawn down is now considered it's local source of supply.  To make sure these calculations are as accurate as possible, we require a well log from within 300 feet of the original well location from which the aquifer parameters (transmissivity and storage coefficient) are determined, or, a time drawdown aquifer pump test to estimate these same parameters.

The state of Kansas has never been a fan of long water right moves, so on top of all this they insisted on a maximum move distance of 3960 feet (3/4 mile) - regardless of what the Theis analysis reveals.  And the new location must meet well spacing from all other wells, too.

All in all, this regulation has worked out well for us.  There have been a number of people use the regulation to move a well over the 1/2 mile limit, but there have also been cases where the longer move they wanted has not been supported.  Our GMD is the only area in the state at this time where a well can be moved farther than 1/2 mile - if supported by the area hydrology.  For the larger wells that influence wider areas, this new regulation seems more fair than a guesstimated distance.

They Call Me "Institutional Memory" Now

Had to chuckle today when I got a call from my colleague in SW Kansas asking to access my institutional memory reserves.  Seems he has a case where an Oklahoma irrigator has filed for a new water right in Oklahoma just up against the Oklahoma / Kansas border.  The problem is that there is a municipal well and water right just a couple of hundred feet away in Kansas.  He wanted to know if I had ever run into this situation since our GMD extends to the Kansas / Colorado border (and of course since I've been doing this for 34 years now).

I pondered.  And I responded:  Back in about 1980 I suggested to the KS chief engineer that Kansas and Colorado and NW Kansas GMD 4 and Colorado Plains GMD work on a mutual well spacing agreement specifically to avert this kind of situation.  It didn't have to be anything hoity-toity - just a signed, 1-page agreement saying that each state would honor some well spacing distance from each others wells along the border.

WOW!  Word came back that such an agreement would be unconstitutional (U.S. Constitution - Article 1, Section 10:  No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ..., enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State).  No, we weren't going there.

A few weeks later the Plains GMD and our GMD plotted all our wells within 2 miles of the state line and traded this information.  Upon a handshake we agreed to take into consideration each others' wells when processing new applications in each of our districts.  Turns out neither one of us ever had a new water right application close enough to the line to invoke our mutual (common sense) understanding, but I certainly was sincere about it.

But that story didn't help my Kansas friend at this point in time.  For his case, I suggested he contact the Oklahoma Water Resources Board and express as much concern as possible, as I was aware of no Kansas law that offers this kind of protection.  Turns out this was the exact advice he received from the Kansas Division of Water Resources.  Too bad states don't have a little latitude in cases like these - short of an interstate compact, that is.  And yes, I'm still chuckling as I hadn't thought of that escapade in many years.  Don't even know if today I could find the mapped wells they provided me so long ago.  Institutional memory my butt!

BTW - don't forget to join the 4 intrepid folks who have voted in my poll thus far.  I will remember these votes for at least several weeks!  Thanks.