An Early Kansas Irrigation Plan

It was the Fall of 1882 and things were dry in SW Kansas.  Two brothers came up from Spearville with a plan to irrigate BIG from the Arkansas River in Gray County.  They dreamed of a large irrigation canal and a series of peripherals that could water quite a stretch of land.  They surely had ideas, but what they lacked was capital.  For the funding, they turned to a millionaire acquaintance from their erstwhile home town of Rochester, NY - one Asa Soule.

Mr Soule was known as the Hops Bitter King who had made his fortune selling a patented syrup made from bitters, hops and alcohol that was guaranteed to cure whatever ailed you.  He was also a man who wanted to grow his fortune, so he moved to Gray County and invested heavily into the brothers' plans, as well as land and city lots. 

The main canal of the Eureka Irrigation Canal Company was 96 miles long and was dug along the North side of the Ark River through both Gray and Ford Counties.  The workers on his canals were mostly farmers working while not farming.  It took two years to complete it, but unfortunately, the project hit major snags upon its completion - including flood damage to the diversion dam, very leaky soils and very undependable river flows.

The whole undertaking was soon known as Soule's Folly, but he managed to sell it to foreign investors.  Over the ensuing years the canal changed hands a number of times but never became a profitable venture. It did, however help lure many settlers into the region on the expectation of irrigation water - most of whom managed to stay on.  It also set the mindset for surface water irrigation that would persist for a long time - at least until groundwater was developed. Vestiges of the canals can still be seen if you know where to look.

Irrigation in SW Kansas today is strongly groundwater based.  For a good look, visit the Southwest Kansas Groundwater Management District No. 3.

The Great Kansas City Flood of 1903

In early May of 1903, a steady rain began to fall across Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Missouri.  For days the rain fell which included severe storms, hail and tornadoes.  By the end of the month, rivers and streams throughout Kansas were flowing to overflowing.  And where did all this water go?  The Kansas water went into the Kansas River while the Nebraska water went into the Missouri River - both of which meet in Kansas City. 

On May 20, 1903, the Missouri River near the West Bottoms in KC was 12 feet, nine inches deep.  Eight days later, a weather forecast printed in the Kansas City Star newspaper predicted "another spell of bad weather" that would "test the patience of the people of Kansas City and its vicinity." A weather observer predicted thunderstorms and stated, "Of course there will be high winds, but not of the kind that wreck towns and kill people."



Keep in mind the West Bottoms at that time was largely an industrial area - home of the rail and stockyards, packing plants, factories, warehouses, and mills.  Hundreds of less wealthy immigrant families lived there.  The Union depot also stood in the Bottoms, and restaurants, cafes, and saloons serviced the entire area.


Well, the forecast rains did come.  Both rivers, already high, continued to rise.  By May 30, the Missouri was 25 feet deep.  The next day it was 35 feet deep.  The Kansas River was between three and five miles wide along its eastern Kansas course.  In the West Bottoms, the rivers ceased to exist altogether and instead formed more of an inland sea.


Work ceased at factories and mills.  Livestock were decimated - either drowned or swept away with the currents.  Trains could not access the city and all but one bridge over the Missouri were gone.  Seven feet of water flowed into the Union depot.  Streetcars were inoperable.  Public utilities such as gas, water, and electricity were out.  Most of the residents did not evacuate for various reasons - some had no place to go, others couldn't bear to leave their homes and the rest were confident that this flood would be no worse than others they had experienced.

As one reporter put it, "The river front population has a way of adapting itself to the temporary inconveniences that arise from the irregularities of the Missouri."  This flood, however, proved to be more than an irregularity.  Many were stranded on rooftops - their only hope of rescue from friends' and neighbors' boats. 

A week later the water receded and clean-up began by the building owners.  J.A. Johnston was one of those intrepid owners whose café (right across the street from the old Union depot) was getting its post-flood attention .  He reported that the water in the cafe reached a depth of seven feet, two inches.  He was lucky enough to find his business' clock, still hanging on the wall, which was stopped on Tuesday, June 3, 1903, at 9:22 A.M.  He had the water line marked on the clock casement to memorialize the incident, and in 1906 donated the clock to the Kansas Historical Society where it remains today.

Now you know a bit more about the great 1903 Kansas City Flood.  What I find incredible was that only 19 people died.  Amazing.  Of course, since the clock has been removed from the wall, the significance of its elevation datum has been lost, but I wouldn't be surprised if each new generation of the Johnstons lay claim to the fact that the clock hung on a higher story than the previous generation.  That'd be embellishment - KC style!

Water and Baseball - Why Not?

The small Kansas town of Muscotah in NE Kansas (Atchinson County) is planning to build a baseball museum inside their old water tower tank.  The museum is sort of focused and will feature Musctoah's native son Joe Tinker who played for the 1908 world series champion Chicago Cubs.  Yep, he's the guy immortalized in the 1910 baseball poem by Frank Adams called "Baseball's Sad Lexicon", which speaks to how effective Joe and two of his teammates were in becoming the most famous double play combination in baseball's history.  The trio was Joe Tinker, Johnny Evers and Frank Chance, who were inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame together in 1946.

"Baseball's Sad Lexicon"

These are the saddest of possible words:
"Tinker to Evers to Chance."
Trio of bear cubs, and fleeter than birds,
Tinker and Evers and Chance.
Ruthlessly pricking our gonfalon bubble,
Making a Giant hit into a double--
Words that are heavy with nothing but trouble:
"Tinker to Evers to Chance."


Anyway, there is a little bit of water in the post so I thought I'd share.  And who knows, Tinker and the Tower may be about the same age, and the tower may even at one time had Joe's name on it.  At least I'm pretty sure Gayle Leonard will like it!  Check out her water tower posts if you Evers gets the Chance to Tinker around in her blog.  Sorry...

Water's Not Complicated - It's Completely Complex

I have always known how complicated water management and water policy was, but this rendition is the straw that broke the camel's back for me.  It's completely off the charts.  Go ahead, take a look at it - I dare you!

If you're not going to bite, that link takes you to an article on UNESCO's Global Water Forum site where the topic is "International Water Politics".  More precisely it's an article by Dr. Daniel Connell, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, that asks the question of how should we even compare water management schemes across political, cultural and legal landscapes.  It's the 11th of 11 articles in a larger series that can be perused here.

I've read the entire article, although I've not read the entire series. Bottom line for Dr. Connell is that there are 20 benchmarks of a mature, auto-adaptive river basin organization to implementing effective integrated river basin management.  This list was first developed by Bruce Hooper, but Dr. Connell agrees with it.  Then he goes on to say that while you need most of these benchmarks to succeed, having all 20 is not a guarantee of success because there is some "it" factor also required - that relates to purely cultural values associated with an outcomes approach (or some such notion).     

I also gather that groundwater management would have a different list of required benchmarks, since all the articles in this series seem to be focused on river systems, but it's not really clear that it would.  And again, I admit to not reading the entire series yet.

Anyway, I'm glad these caliber of folks are discussing and writing about water management, but I have to say their reports and articles are plenty theoretical and I'm guessing they'll never get effectively implemented because they may be the only ones that fully grasp the ideas.

Whole Aquifer Management - The Ogallala

Over the span of my 35 year career the issue of an aquifer-wide Ogallala management plan has come up three times.  The most serious effort was begun in 1995 under the wing of the Great Plains Foundation (GPF) which was formed in 1995 and whose first 5 years in existence was to be dedicated to water.  The director was Lori Triplett from Overland Park, KS and her vision was large, but clearly promoting the development of a multi-state, Master Management Plan for the Ogallala Aquifer.

The first meeting was a large affair held at the University of Missouri-Kansas City on March 2 and 3, 1995.  Thirteen states were represented and just about everyone who was anyone (in the water world of the Ogallala) was there.  It's was the first time (and last time) I had seen most of the state engineers in one place discussing the Ogallala Aquifer.

After two days of fairly direct, moderated conversation, the decision was that there might be a role for a Master Plan, but it would be limited in scope to data and information sharing and research coordination.  There would be no groundwater management and/or regulatory elements even attempted.  And the decision was unanimous by the state representatives.     

I have been against an Ogallala Master Plan each time it's come up, for a number of reasons, a few of which remain:

1)  Each state has drastically different water laws;
2)  The extent and degree of the decline problems vary so widely;
3)  Groundwater movement is slow and more localized attention is required; and
4)  The impending increased Federal presence and role.


Oh, the GPF.  The Foundation went on to conduct four more annual symposia on the Ogallala as planned originally - 1996 at Colby Community College; 1997 at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln; 1998 at Texas Tech University and 1999 in Oklahoma City (hosted by Oklahoma State University).  I attended all the sessions and have copies of the proceedings if anyone is interested.  The Foundation still exists, but I have lost contact with it since their Ogallala groundwater series ended.  The management of the Ogallala Aquifer, whether by local GMD, the state, some cooperative super-entity or the federal government, will remain controversial I'm fairly certain.

A Short Look at the Guarani Aquifer

In our part of the world the Ogallala Aquifer is really important, and has been written about extensively.  It is often touted (sometimes accurately and sometimes not) as the largest, the most heavily developed and/or the most stressed aquifer - in the northern hemisphere, the US and/or the world.

However, when it comes to size and volume of water, it's the Guarani Aquifer that clearly sets the bar.  This expansive aquifer is said to cover 1.2 million square kilometers, but quite a bit of its extent has yet to be verified - it might be even bigger.  It underlies parts of Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Argentina in South America, with Brazil having the lion's share (61.6%) of it.  Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay have 21%, 8% and 3.3% respectively.  According to one published synopsis (Cassuto and Sampaio) at the rate current usage the aquifer will last for another 2,000 years.  Wikipedia is a bit more generous, claiming that at the worlds current population (6.9 billion) the Guarani could supply the worlds drinking water needs for 1,600 years. 


Well, what to do with the Guarani?  Not long ago the 4 countries claimed sovereign ownership of the aquifer and have been working together to develop a transboundary agreement.  The process is called GAS, for Guarani Aquifer System.  While all four countries have signed the GAS agreement, not all of the Countries have ratified it yet.  And not everyone is satisfied with the agreement, which according to some, is more fluff than substance and as such, will be an ineffective development and management directive.  I say not to worry, for if they screw this up, we've developed the LEMA process they can use to correct things later.  Anyway, now you know a bit about the Guarani Aquifer.  

Kansas GMD Water Level Changes, 1997 - 2013

More numbers.  Following are the water level changes in all 5 GMDs between the years 1997 and 2013.  These changes are based on approximately 1200 monitoring wells measured in January of each year in all five of the Kansas GMDs.  The first row would be the water level change between the January 1996 and the January 1997 measurements. Our (GMD 4) numbers are highlighted.

The central Kansas GMDs  (GMD 2 and GMD 5) are supposed to be managed for long term safe yield, so the totals and the average values posted along the bottom are not as comparable to the remaining three western GMDs as most would expect.

The contrast among the western Kansas GMDs is interesting.  GMD 1 is the smallest and oldest and is by far the most advanced along its decline and saturated thickness trends.  Much of this area is projected to have the least remaining aquifer lifetime.  GMD 3, on the other hand, is the largest district, has the most saturated thickness, the most wells, the most irrigated area, the highest water use, and consequently the largest declines.  GMD 4 is smack dab in the middle of these two extremes.

All this to confirm that the GMD 4 annual average decline rate is the .6 feet per year we've been reporting for a number of years now.  Anyway, just thought I should try to keep the data freaks engaged from time to time.  And I am very sorry about the wavy columns - I've not figured out yet how to set tabs in Blogger!

Year     GMD1   GMD2  GMD3  GMD4  GMD5    5 GMDs

96-97          0.90        -0.15         -0.43         -0.14         0.90           0.22

97-98          0.53         1.56           0.04         -0.33         0.91           0.54

98-99         -0.57         0.52         -1.29          -0.26         0.04          -0.31

99-00         -0.38         0.20         -0.89          0.00         -0.15          -0.24  

00-01         -0.44        -0.98         -2.20         -1.16        -0.44          -1.04

01-02         -0.74        -0.97         -1.75         -0.40        -0.70          -0.91  

02-03         -1.37        -0.93         -3.35         -1.51        -1.48          -1.73  

03-04         -0.89        -0.25         -1.81         -1.14        -0.97          -1.01

04-05          0.24         1.09         -0.42         -0.60          0.10           0.08  

05-06         -0.29         0.00         -1.11         -0.57         -0.11          -0.42              

06-07         -0.73        -2.48         -2.45         -0.29        -1.39          -1.47

07-08         -1.15         2.12         -1.99         -0.89          3.34           0.29  

08-09         -0.29         1.63         -3.03         -0.42          0.58          -0.31

09-10         -0.43        -0.26         -1.39          0.10          0.63          -0.27

10-11         -0.72        -0.70         -3.05         -0.50         -0.44          -1.08

11-12         -1.49        -3.06         -4.26         -0.59         -2.95          -2.47

12-13         -1.54        -1.63         -3.56         -1.39        -1.83          -1.99

Totals        -9.36        -4.29         -32.94      -10.09       -3.96         -12.13

GMD A/A   -0.55        -0.25         -1.94         -0.59        -0.23