Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Pro-con on Obama’s China visit
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
Open thread on water policy
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted Yesterday at 5:21 p.m.
- Filed under Uncategorized
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
75 Comments
Hah! Water, who needs it! I got beer!
Hank
ummm…. Beeeerrr……..
Yes! Oh Yes!!!
Some ground water statistics and facts…
Farming accounts for 94 percent of the groundwater use.
Two keys to stabilizing aquifers are raising water prices and stabilizing population.
Prices of underground water can be raised by installing meters on pumps and charging for water as Mexico has done or by auctioning permits to operate wells.
Groundwater depletion problems could be forestalled if this presently nonrecoverable water could be forced to the saturated zone. One experimental means of accomplishing this is by injecting air into the unsaturated zone, which breaks down capillary action and permits the movement of water down to the saturated zone.
Not all ares of the aquifer are equal, some groundwater levels connect to river basins and use affects the rise and fall of the river.
Unsaturated water zones in the aquifer is described as ‘water in a non pliable sponge. It exists, but is non-obtainable for the most part because of the equilibrium of the water level with the saturated ground water surrounding it and the ‘consistency’ of the geological formations. (non-porous formations divert water; porous formations retain water)
A question popped up about a coal fired plant utilizing water utilizing water at a rate higher than normal use by a concentrated population. The so-called expected result is that rivers fed by adjacent groundwater resevoirs would not be sufficient to support the coal-fire plants and the concentrated population. Thus a decrease in the river basin and its subsequent water levels.
The question would be is to study the amount of saturated and non-saturated aquifer areas near the proposed coal-fire plant. Tests could be done to study water table levels to determine rate/flow and usage.
Also, if the coal-fire plant is not a 100 percent depleter of water, at what return rate of water would the plant allow back into general use. (intake of water and outtake of water after use.)
I have not seen any data on the coal-fire plant usage and re-use of water.
That might be interesting to look at.
If the Circle K Ranch could be purchased by the Dept. of Wildlife & Parks, 43 water wells could be retired. With the federal government reimbursing 75% of the purchase price, it is perplexing why the legislature won’t authorize the purchase.
Ah good. We asked for a water thread and got one.
They could have written us a header though,
I know very little about this subject other than it is obvious that we have not practiced wise use of water in Kansas and that this must change.
If new generation nuclear plants were to be built, most fossil fuel plants could be closed. The added benefit of the new generation plant is they don’t need water for cooling. Win-win.
JR,
Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth. *grin*
Not to interject my relative stupidity into the equation (slow down Ian) but how does the on-going Colorado v. Kansas Arkansas River debate enter into this situation.
It is my understanding that water is already in scarce supply in Western Kansas and a new power plant using thousands of acres of water would merely tip the equation into a downward spiral.
The question is – if water is already a limited resource in Western Kansas, why is it (a new power plant)even being considered?
I am not the most effective lure in the tackle box, but even I can see that this looks like another governmental disaster.
Am I right or is beer the answer?
Exactly, WSC, why is it? I do know the power grid in this country is about maxed. If some entrepreneurial, ridiculously rich group would start a rapid upgrade of the grid, mega kilo-watts of energy could be saved; meaning less power plants would need building. Or, baring that, older, more polluting plants could be shut down and newer nuclear plants could be built as replacements.
This ain’t rocket science, folks: if you ran out of water, all the oil in the world wouldn’t save you. Sometime, common sense has to take precedence over the bottom line. It ain’t going to happen in my day, though.
I do, however, defer to Hank’s really, really true answer.
Some reference sources:
http://www.kwo.org/Kansas Water Office
http://www.kwo.org/Kansas%20Water%20Plan/Water_management05.pdfwater management
http://www.kwo.org/Kansas%20Water%20Plan/Water_conservation05.pdfwater conservation
http://kansas.sierraclub.org/Wind/Coal%20Moratorium.htmSierra Club’s take on the Coal Plant using Water
http://ks.water.usgs.gov/Kansas/pubs/fact-sheets/fs.090-99.htmlUSGS Water use in Kansas 1990 and 1995
http://www.duke-energy.com/about/energy/generating/coal_fired/how/how coal fire electrical generator plants work
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/press/2005/tl_freshwater_use_awards.htmluse of impaired water in coal fire plants , Department of Energy
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/kogan/Using Cooling Technology in Coal Fire plantsmportantly, in such a thirsty country as Australia, the station will use 90% less water than a conventional power station. Deep bores ensure that the reduced water requirements place no pressure on the fragile Condamine River system. Three groundwater bores and associated pipelines will supply approximately 1,500ML/yr of water to the power station and coal mine. At least 40% of the value of the project will be carried out by Australian contractors.
The Sunflower Coal Fire side of the story. Supposably, the company that owns the Coal Fire plant that will be sucking all that water out of the ground says:
There is no infrastructure in that part of Kansas for power grid lines. Part of this project will include building of power grids and subsequent lines. These lines will also enable alternative power sources such as Wind Farm to have a method to transport and sell their energy production.
A few facts: The Ogalalla is, for all practible purposes, non-replenishing. So, once we ‘mine’ it dry it’s gone. So, we not only shouldn’t add new uses but we need to be reducing existing ones.
The problem in Hays is that brackish water is infiltrating from below (the Dakota I think).
Wind power will use no water.
New generation nuke will use little – some cooling perhaps and of course for steam. That should be able to be ‘closed’
At least some of the lawsuit money from Colorado is slated to be used to fund a CREP program along the upper Ark. This will remove wells from operation and return at least some land to habitat.
Hunting can be a money-making operation. If land is returned to habitat it can support more game of various kinds. Allow land owners to buy permits ‘wholesale’ and resell them. Chicago lawyers have more money than brains. They also will spend money in town on beer, hotels, etc.
Alternatively, we can just continue as we are now for a few more years; then when the wells run dry …
Again, I am far from an expert on this topic, but it is my understanding that nearly all of the energy produce by the proposed power plant is not going to go to Kansas, but instead, is going to Texas, Nebraska and Colorado.
In other words, our resources are being used for the benefit of the surrounding states.
If all that is true, would it not be more reasonable to locate the proposed plant in a location that had greater access to water resources, such as Louisiana or East Texas?
Taking the point a little further, would it not be a reasonable possibility to put the plant in a position to use ocean water. Desalination would be required, of course, but that would be far better than draining a limited aquafier.
Am I being logical or is logic not a valid consideration for our government?
To counter my own point – I realize that jobs would be lost if the plant is not located in Western Kansas, but jobs can be replaced – aquifiers cannot be refilled.
Thank you WE opinion editors for giving us this “Open thread on Water Policy.” Ksfarmgrrl, et al, have raised the issue a number of times about the dangers lurking out there to our Kansas water sources.
Most recently WE Bloggers commented on water issues in perhaps 25 posts on the “OPEN THREAD” dated November 15, 2006. I wish those comments could be transfered to this specific “water policy” thread to save them as part of this record. Some comments there were by Ksfarmgrrl, J R, Vaughn Tolle, hmmm, Will, Rage and myself.
As I have said before, Kansans have a drinking problem — they want to continue to take a cool, refreshing drink of water from their kitchen fawcett.
Sunday afternoon, as I was driving back to Wichita from Pratt, I stopped near one of the bridges over the Ninnescah River (south branch) between Kingman and Cunningham, and watched that beautiful stream of gurgling water flowing rapidly eastward. In that section, the Ninnescah looks for all the world like a cool mountain stream.
But its endangered by the proposed development of ethanol plants, more irrigation for corn for ethanol, and the proposed new coal fed power plant in western Kansas — all of which will pump even more water from the ancient underground Ogallala aquifer.
The Ogallala aquifer once hidden away in the sands under western Kansas and Nebraska and Oklahoma was said to contain as much water as Lake Superior. But for many years it has been drawn down for municipal drinking water, farm use and irrigation. Now, nobody seems to know how much remains.
This water, of course, is still needed for drinking water by the communities in western Kansas. And, I believe, the Ogallala indirectly furnishes the drinking water for WICHITA.
So I suggest you start storing bottles of drinking water in your basement!
Another factor they don’t want to talk about is the pollution – particularly mercury. I’ll leave it to some of our medical types to discuss the neuro-toxicity of that, particularly with children in whom the blood-brain barrier is not fully developed.
Ben Huie: To add to your comment about chemical polution of our rivers, at a library, I happened upon a relatively new book (perhaps written since 2000) by a former head of the old Kansas Water Resources Board and I believe later a staff member of the K.U. civil engineering department. His book discussed the Kansas water situation.
I noticed he stressed that the flowing central Kansas rivers, such as the Arkansas River, the two branches of the Ninnescah River and the Chikaskia River, all now contain a quantity of NaCl, sodium chloride or common salt. I presume this salt somehow leeches up from the salt layers that are well known in Hutchinson but also underlay a much larger area.
I presume our municipal water treatment facilities are able to remove this salt and hopefully, the mercury you mentioned.
Salt and Mercury are very difficult to remove. Also, mercury is an inhalation toxin.
Then we add the brine plume in the Equus from the oil industry.
I hope we get lots of posts to this thread. This may be the one issue where all political stripes can agree that there is a problem and begin to brainstorm as to solutions.
Just in case there IS anyone who does not see this as a problem?
I remember an exibit I saw at the Great Palins Nature Center. It said that the water used in one washer load is greater than the use of water for a day for an entire pioneer family!
There are alot more of us than there were pioneers.
“Then we add the brine plume in the Equus from the oil industry.”
I fully understand the mercury issue and that it is a nearly unsolvable problem once mercury gets beyond containment.
Desalination, I believe, is a viable option – not cheap – but viable nonetheless.
The brine question is something I am not aware of. What is happening and how do we address it?
Again, I am trying to get up to speed on this issue, so be patient with my lack of knowledge.
The Google (?) is not real helpful on this topic – and even though I am incredibly intelligent (ouch!)I do not have all the facts.
Thank you, in advance…..
desalinization – huge amount of energy.
Brine – when oil is produced there is several times as much brine as oil. All too often that brine was just dumped – thus the plume. Proper disposal is injection back into the oil-producing formation.
Re-use of treated grey water is a good option. I would like to see it ‘polished’ through an artificial wetland. That way we can ‘harvest’ sample of aquatic life for analysis. Then recharge back to the aquifer.
One – haven’t there been advances in desalination operations to produce potable water that are more efficent and less energy consuming? If not, where are we with the technology – potable water is a major issue in many areas, particularly in the Third World nations.
Two – can oil production brine be salvaged or is the byproduct completely unusable? In other words, will the brine always be contaminated? Yes, I agree that it should be reused/recycled, but is it always toxic?
Thanks for your help, Ben.
Environmetal issues are complex and do not have the “sex” appeal of war or social issues, but they are going to be the death of us all (no pun) unless we all take the time to educate ourselves.
Thanks, again!
Water can be desalinated and new technologies are less energy-intensive; however they still take quite a bit of energy. Nuclear might be a source for some of that energy.
There might be uses for oil brines but generally the most practical is to put it back. In fact, that can help in production as brine displaces oil. The general idea is to return the brine to the formation from which it came.
Brackish water (such as that in the Hays area) is more easily dealt with then fully salt water.
For coastal cities wrapping an iceberg with plastic and dragging it to the city is an idea.
Thank YOU WS
For your willingness to get educated on this issue. I hope we see lots of that.
Small steps?
Front load washers use FAR less water than the much more common top load machines. Their agitation is also easier on laundry.
Unfortunately the machines are also far more costly than the more common top loaders.
A tax credit for front load washing machines maybe?
The problem with trying to use “the Google” to get answers to environmental questions is that the results are either three sentences long or eighteen pages of technical info that requires a master’s degree in chemistry to understand.
I know that I am simplistic, but there needs to be a concerted effort to “simplify” these issues so that the average dingbat (like me) can digest the facts and make a reasonable contribution to a solution.
The War on Iraq is too complex for the average American to understand. The last figure I saw indicated that 85% of the American Armed Forces in Iraq thought we were there Iraq to avenge 9/11. These guys are no idiots, so that is a very frightening statistic.
Given the complexity of environmental issues, it is no small wonder that so many of us do not have a clue regarding the facts and possible solutions for issues.
I choose to educate myself – okay, I choose to ask Ben to educate me – but the vast majority of the populous doesn’t even know that there is an issue.
I don’t mean to try to be funny – but I first learned of this issue on this blog.
That’s sad.
http://www.kcactive.com/Enviros/enviros2006_03.htmexcellent article on mercury, its effects and what happens when itis emitted from coal fire plants
http://kansas.sierraclub.org/Wind/Coal-MercuryFactSheet.htm
mercury from kansas coal fire plants
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/pollutioncontrols/overview_mercurycontrols.html
Department of Energy on Mercury in the U.S. (mad hatter’s syndrome)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylmercury
Don’t eat that largemouth bass!
Harmful effects of coal burning
Combustion of coal, like any other compound containing carbon, produces carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) along with varying amounts of sulfur dioxide (SO2) depending on where it was mined. Sulfur dioxide reacts with oxygen to form sulfur trioxide (SO3), which then reacts with water to form sulfuric acid. The sulfuric acid is returned to the Earth as acid rain.
Emissions from coal-fired power plants represent the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions, which are a primary cause of global warming. Coal mining and abandoned mines also emit methane, another cause of global warming. Since the carbon content of coal is much higher than oil, burning coal is a more serious threat to the stability of the global climate. Many other pollutants are present in coal power station emissions. A study commissioned by environmental groups claims that coal power plant emissions are responsible for tens of thousands of premature deaths annually in the United States alone.[11] Modern power plants utilize a variety of techniques to limit the harmfulness of their waste products and improve the efficiency of burning, though these techniques are not subject to standard testing or regulation in the U.S. and are not widely implemented in some countries, as they add to the capital cost of the power plant. To eliminate CO2 emissions from coal plants, carbon capture and storage has been proposed but has yet to be commercially used.
Coal and coal waste products including fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue gas desulferization contain many heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, mercury, nickel, vanadium, beryllium, cadmium, barium, chromium, copper, molybdenum, zinc, selenium and radium, which are dangerous if released into the environment. Coal also contains low levels of uranium, thorium, and other naturally-occurring radioactive isotopes whose release into the environment may lead to radioactive contamination.[12][13] While these substances are trace impurities, enough coal is burned that significant amounts of these substances are released, paradoxically resulting in more radioactive waste than nuclear power plants.[14]
Due to its scientifically accepted connection with climate change [1], the world’s reliance on coal as an energy source, and health concerns in areas with poor air pollution controls, The Economist recently labeled the burning of coal “Environmental Enemy No. 1.”[15]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal
It is good to see interest in the topic. There are a number of steps – the washer is one for example. Drip irrigation instead is broadcast. Israel has pioneered in low-water agriculture.
Reuse of water – I visited a plant in Payson AZ with a golf course next to it – watered with effluent. In the office they had fish tanks filled with waste water – and healthy fish. I only detected odor once – a small whiff when I was on a catwalk over a flow. I also visited a plant in a small town in France that produces potable water as its effluent. The effluent was cleaner than the water in the Rhine.
The sewage plants in Wichita do a good job. Also, if you are doing your landscaping I think their “Doo-Dah Dirt” (AKA Tush’s Topsoil) is still free.
Good additional points JM. I suspect the current drought is no longer a drought. Instead, it is just the way it is. The shift of the boundary between th Ferrell and Hadley Cells to higher latitudes shifts the dry belts to higher latitudes. Expect a system with rain ‘all-at-once’ with more interspersed severe dry periods.
But, this topic has been beaten to death a lot already.
WS – there are a few good courses available at Wichita State – even telecourses. They give a decent overview for the lay person who wants to become informed.
When I taught freshman geology I had a standing bonus on all assignments for a news article involving the course and the reference in the text that helps understand it. Not loking for science articles but news – Eagle, USA Today, the student’s hometown paper, etc. Water, climate, earthqukes, tsunamis, etc etc etc.
“Don’t eat that largemouth bass!”
Damn, JM, I told you that I wasn’t the most effective lure in the tackle box!
I SAW a large mouth bass – once.
For me to catch one would be akin to a miracle.
Sorry, guys, the jokes are free and you get what you pay for!
But seriously, once again, how can some of these critical issues be brought to the public’s attention in such a manner that they are not viewed as environmental wackoism or too technical for the average Joe Six Pack to understand?
I kid a bit, but I am actually fairly knowledgeable about environemtal issues and these are news to me, at least, so far.
No insult or crit intended, but how do you take the issue from tech to front page?
WSC – unfortunately that is damn near impossible. I find it somewhat ironic that MIT required me to take courses like comparative religion, literature, etc., even though I was a science major. Something about educating the complete citizen. It’s too bad we don’t have similar science requirements for non-science students in our universities.
http://www.krwa.net/lifeline/currentissue/0611_030.pdf
http://www.krwa.net/lifeline/currentissue/0611_030.pdf
Thanks for the info, Ben, actually, thanks again.
This is my late night thought – we all have talents to contribute to these issues. You and JM have the obvious technical skills. People like me have other skills – mine is with the written word – not critcizing your skills – but that is my contribution. The trick is to “sex up” the issue for the common reader.
I don’t mean to suggest that the average Joe is too dumb to understand, but we live in a eight second sound bite era.
Whatever I can do, what ever I can contribute – my “talents” are available.
You know, I wish that the majority of our citizen did not have to get their news via a CNN banner that ran along the bottom of the screen during a story about O J Simpson or the Spears – Federline Divorce.
If I can help with this issue in any way, please let me know. No BS – I really would like to contribute to this issue in one way or another – wind me up and point me in the right direction!
Hey, I write a mean letter to the editor!
Good night and thanks again for all your assistance!
http://www.krwa.net/lifeline/currentissue/0611_034.pdf
Jwink, here’s a link to the previous discussion, from the first post (KFG’s) on.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/11/open_thread_15.html#comment-25576173
I may comment later, but I need to do some research first. . .
Oh wait, there was an earlier one, too. . .anyone remember which thread?
There WAS an earlier thread devoted to water issues. Don’t remember the title or when it was. Lots of good ideas there.
Hey ya don’t gotta go look Rage. We can all bring those ideas again. We have new posters now to share with.
For instance? Ben and I and others discussed how cities devote their infrastructure to getting rid of flood water as fast as possible. We discussed ways to capture and hold and return that flood water to the aquifer.
I leave the floor for ksfarmgrrl. I’ll take a farmers word on water over any politician.
NOTE: The “Open Thread” dated 11/15/06, towards the bottom, contained some 25 comments about water problems, several good ones from Ksfarmgrrl.
I join with Hank, noting, however, that to have beer, there must be water….
Thanks, Jwink!
You’re right, JR, but for those interested in reviewing. . .
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/11/open_thread_11.html#comment-25357123
Gotta go.
Now, for a bit more serious post.
I am in the conservation camp on water usage. Thus, it is incumbent upon all of us, private or public sector, to look into ways to conserve water, which in Kansas is a definitely scarce resource. For purposes of this post, and all others, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, my use of the word “water” is deemed to mean potable water.
Means of conserving water; front loading washers; drip irrigation; use of effluent for landscape (e.g., golf course, road median) irrigation; not washing cars as often; using “drought resistant” plantings in home gardens, yards; not allowing water-hungry grasses in lawns; capturing storm runoff for future uses, such as recharging aquifers; quantifying the real costs of use of water for agricultural irrigation, industrial usage.These are a few that come to mind after reading others’ who have posted ideas, and other resources.
President Bush: “ Regarding the water problem in Kansas, I see two faucets- an decrease in the available water and an increase in the amount of dehydrated water. I propose a Blue Ribbon panel to problemate this situation, and devise a solvent to cure it. This will result in a unredehyrolization and everyone wins!”
I assume that in order to re-hydrate dehydrated water, you just add water? Is this a novel bush concept again?
As a Russell resident, this water “problem” is a little too real for me. The city council declared a “water emergency” in early summer of this year and has yet to repeal it. Our city uses a little less than 1 million gallons of water per day. About half of this goes to the ethanol plant and half is used by the citizens of the city. The rural areas of the county are supplied by Post Rock rural water.
I have a few possible solutions or at least measures that might be worth consideration.
First, change the way that consumers pay for water. The charge for water service for residential customers here is about $19 per month + $0.425 per 100 gallons up to 5,000 gallons per month. My monthly water use is normally about 1,000 gallons so my total cost for water is about $23. If I use twice as much water, my cost would be $27. This is hardly an incentive to reduce water usage.
Perhaps a better model would be to reduce the monthly charge for having a water meter and increase the cost for water substantially. Surely a graduated formula could be developed that would cultivate the motivation for conservation while maintaining fiscal responsibility.
Second, perhaps we should concentrate less on poking more holes in the ground in our search for water and looking inward instead. It is my understanding that all sewage effluent is currently treated a certain amount before it is released into the rivers. I know that more arid communities (in Australia for example) will rigorously treat the effluent and essentially recycle it into the potable water treatment system for use as drinking water. Perhaps the extra equipment to treat this waste water enough so that a large fraction of it can be re-used instead of simply discarded would be more cost effective than buying more land and drilling more wells.
And last but not least, perhaps we should look skyward for part of the solution. Collecting rainwater for irrigation purposes is an easy way to reduce or eliminate the use of municipally treated water outside the home. For every 1,000 sq ft of roofing on which water can be captured, about 600 gallons can be obtained from each inch of rainfall. On average, we receive about 25 inches of precipitation here annually. Even during a drought it still rains. This year to date, we’ve received about 18-1/2 inches of precipitation which to me is about 15,000 gallons. And it’s cheaper than drilling a well.
So kelly, is there any reason why mikey hayden and governor leadership, along with joe harkins and henchmen, NEED to purchase the Circle K ranch at more than ONE MILLION dollars over it’s appraised value?
I mean, couldnt Hays and Russell simply retire the wells themselves, since they have no morals to stop them from raping the Smoky Hill River Basin?
Couldnt the ONE MILLION dollars over the appraised value be used to just buy the water rights from Hays and Russell?
They bought it in a FIT of stupidity without even knowing that Kansas water law doesnt allow them to transfer water from one basin (ark) to another (smoky)!
And now, governor leadership and company want to REWARD the phuckers for sucking all the water out of the smoky AND holding the state hostage on water rights in the ark basin?
Oh yeah, I forgot. Hays ALWAYS votes democrat and governor leadership kicked off BOTH of her campaigns in Hays under the watchful eye of her buddy, Ed Hammond, president of dear old Ft. Hays State!
No ties there, uh hum, no siree.
No political payback there, no siree. Not when John Bird, you know former chair of the Clinton Gore campaign in Kansas and whose wife was recently nominated (and then withdrew) from a statewide judicial position.
Not when John Bird was the architect of the purchase of the Circle C. With Ed Hammond’s blessings.
Not when Mikey Hayden REALLY wants more walk in hunting land. If he was interested in WATER for god’s sake he wouldnt be allowing the rape of Cedar Bluff.
Come on. Give me a reason to post more political inside scoop on how less than chatty kathy, joe (darth cheney) harkens, mikey hayden, et al kissed Hays and Russell’s asses in closed door sessions to sign a contract giving Hays and Russell WAYYYYYYY more water from the basin BELOW Cedar Bluff than they had rights to have.
Oh yeah, and they called it “artificial recharge” not RAPE like it was.
Dont forget what Rex Buchanan of the Kansas Geological Survey said on the front page of the Salina Journal a few months ago.
“What happens in Trego county affects what happens in the rest of the state”…
Whatsamatter kelly? Do you hear the sound of chickens coming home to roost?
Why dont you explain why governor leadership’s position on Clinton Reservoir is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to her position on Cedar Bluff?
Dont bother. I can name that tune in one word.
VOTES.
Bring it on.
Conservation, continued: Don’t build additional ethanol plants relying on irrigated corn for feedstock; don’t allow development, be it commercial or residential, around reservoirs that serve as current/future sources of water for municipalities(well, this is a bit more from the antipollution side); prohibit (my personal choice) or at least restrict private wells that are used to water private lawns and gardens, again trying to quantify the real cost of the groundwater depletion and make appropriate changes to permitting fees. For those who object to the last thought, while you may think your property rights include the groundwater below the surface, groundwater is owned by the State of Kansas. I will post the statutory citation later. Encourage the use of cisterns on private property to catch and hold storm runoff, for use in irrigation of gardens, etc.Implement settling ponds, artificial wetlands, etc., on a municipal basis for the same thing, i.e., storm runoff, with the (hopefully) cleaned up water supply then used for aquifer recharge or released in rivers and streams for downstream use.
PYFIS, you have my sympathy for living in Russell and feeling the sharp end of the stick on how ethanol plants suck up all the water then whine that the city is without “drinking” water.
Why dont you talk with Arlyn about Russell’s water policies and how little help Russell is gonna get from it’s own region now that it has made enemies of EVERYONE in the west?
I see the stick is starting to poke in Ellsworth county and Salina too. Even Macpherson wanted to put their straw in Kanopolis. All that is on hold now, thanks to the ETHANOL plant being governor leadership’s first priority.
Hmmmm. Could someone, maybe kelly or another dem shill, possibly post Josh Svaty’s position on all this. heheheheh
I have all his water votes regardiong the Smokey Basin carefully recorded. I was present for most of them.
Seems like those damn chickens just keep insisting on coming home to roost, eh? I wonder how the good folks in his distric will react when they find out he has never, repeat NEVER cast a vote against hays or russell or their attempts to suck the smoky dry.
I guess he never thought the drought would last this long? Heheh. And he is a FARM boy? heheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheh
I remember MANY party line votes. The dems ALWAYS supported hays and russell in sucking up more than their fair share of the water in the smoky. Wanns see a record of them posted here?
Nawwwwwww. Too much bandwidth. I’ll try to link to them. But they fall down party lines every single damn time.
Gee. You dont think governor leadership, janis lee, john bird, eber phelps, etc. had ANYTHING to do with those party line votes do ya?
And I wonder if Johnny Bird is gonna start frettin’ ’cause he based his whole arguement about raping Cedar Bluff on the “first in time, first in right” aspect of kansas water law.
So… who has MORE senior rights on the Smoky? Salina? Ellsworth? Russell? Or HAYS? heheheheheheheh..
Take a wild guess………. Karma is just a damn bitch, isnt she?
I think the democrats are gonnna have some ’splainin’ to do about their inconsistent and blatently political votes regarding water. Both their faces are gonnna have to come to some agreement. heheheh
When they were just phucking with Trego county it was no big deal. Now their dirty deeds, since TWO WEEKS after governor leadership are gonna be exposed. I bet they NEVER counted on that, did they?
Hear me now, believe me later. What is done in the dark will eventually come to light.
Or as Rex says, “what happens in Trego county…”
You scientific types go right ahead here. We need some REAL information, not the politically spun kind.
But I’m warning ya. The kansas water office has hydrologists and water studies and pseudo experts lined up for DAAAAYYYYYSSSSS to give their home”spun” testimony whenever it is needed.
Little towns cant compete with those hired guns. Where do WE get the money to lobby full time in Topeka or to hire the Univerity of Texas or high profile engineering firms to support our postitions?
SO you go boys. Make the scientific and FACTUAL information available for anyone who wants to see deeper than the political spin.
But I gotta warn ya. After four years of this crap, water policy in kansas, at the end of the day, is determined by politics and voting patterns, not science or justice. Good luck.
As axl rose would say “welcome to the jungle…”
…and by the way, I am forgetting my manners here, even though my “thin veneer of middle class civility” is getting thinner by the day…..
THANK YOU editors for giving us this specific water thread. Too bad most of the great comments were made on an earlier thread that us water nuts hijacked.
This is a really important topic, and burying heads in the sand isnt going to make it go away. It needs all the public awareness it can get. The problem may not be yours in Wichita yet, but it is heading your way. Better to be prepared.
So thanks for the thread.
As promised: K.S.A. 82a-702 states: “All water within the state of Kansas is hereby dedicated to the use of the people of the state, subject to the control and regulation of the state in the manner herein prescribed.” This was enacted in 1945. The pre-1945 users with vested rights (as defined) were allowed to continue the use (Constitutional law, and all that), as determined by the chief engineer upon proper application. K.S.A. 82a-704a provides for a cutoff date for determination of those rights as of July 1, 1980. The “chief engineer” is defined at K.S.A. 82a-701(b) as being the chief engineer of the division of water resources.
For those interested, reading of subsequent enactments under Chapter 82a of the Kansas Statutes Annotated clearly state that no private person or entity has any ownership rights in water, except by those vested pre-1945, and event those are subject to regulation.
Thanks vaughn. I cant quote the law like you, but my understanding is that the STATE owns ALL of the water in Kansas.
The overall problem is that ALL of the water has been overappropriated for years. That means the state promised more water rights than we had water.
THAT is the crux of the problem. David Pope, the chief engineer for some 20 years, has been in denial about it, and just kept overappropriating.
Water in Kansas makes such nice political payoff.
But now the bill is due, and some of those water rights are going to be lost. Someone has to make those hard decisions and take the political fallout.
The state is NOT required to pay irrigators or anyone else for the loss of water rights due to overappropriation.
That is just the damn CORN industry and the irrigation industry talking.
They can shut those irrigators off at any time. They can shut off the ehtanol plants and recreational water any time they chose. Just ask the patrons of Cedar Bluff reservoir.
Dont worry about where to get the money to pay irrigators. If the state wanted to, it could shut off the Circle C irrigations wells with no payment.
A little thing called “beneficial use” has been ignored and denied for years. Long before governor leadership took office.
So? Will she show some leadership and revive the concept of beneficial use? Will the kansas water office get some balls and shut off over appropriated rights without political blackmail payments (other wise known as bribes)? Stay tuned….
Vaughn, can you expound on the concept of beneficial use and how it plays out in determining water rights in kansas?
ksfg, I’ll do my best, but it will need to be a bit later; for those who wonder, beneficial use is a statutory requirement for determining appropriation of water in Kansas.
Thanks vaughn.
And “beneficial use” while a statutory requirement, has been TOTALLY ignored. By the Kansas Water Office, the Kansas Water Board, and governor leadership.
They dont want you all to know about beneficial use.
Public awareness of “beneficial use” would make it SO MUCH harder to keep their dirty water dealings quiet.
Before I go to lunch, ksfg is 100% correct in her assertion that the state can “shut off” the irrigation uses, e.g., without compensation; remember, those holding a water right only hold a license for use; not an ownership interest in the water (vested rights pre-1945 excepted).
Vaughn, I am not certain, but
“(vested rights pre-1945 excepted).”
I dont even think that is true anymore. I think the state owns it ALL, even the pre-1945 rights. I cant prove it, but maybe when you have time, you can?
Thanks for your help. Glad to know I am correct on a few things. I guess it is true that even a stopped clock is right twice a day…
heheheheheh
And on a purely petty, childish and personal note….
I wonder if the kansas democrats in general and tim peterson in particular will ever rue the day they unceremoniously tossed me out of the party leadership instead of listening to me about the long term political folly of letting hays and russell rape the smoky?
Naw. Probably not. hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee
I think I told them “hear me now, believe me later…”
… hee hee hee hee.
That was fun.
More pettiness….
It is so much EASIER to ignore the folks in the west than to listen to them.
Or as the gov’s former chief of staff said “there arent enough votes out there to matter”.
But… what if what happens out here affects votes in OTHER parts of the state?
Ignore western kansas at your own peril. We are married to you for better or worse.
Why always try to make it worse for us? Cant we make it better for both?
Not when we play zero sum political games with our dwindling water supply.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Or something like that.
“Two keys to stabilizing aquifers are raising water prices and stabilizing population.”
Hey JM, that may be true in many cases, but population is HARDLY the problem in western kansas.
It is the irrigators. Like Steve Irsik, sebelius campaign donor and head of the kansas water board. Appointed to that position by governor leadership.
Nope. Population isnt the problem with kansas water. The problem is another “p”.
Politics.
HI KFG.I’m gonna send ya’ a short note.
Oh, and could someone please ask john bird, joe harkins, tracy streeter, et al how many irrigators suck up water between Cedar Bluff and Russell?
Maybe they could also ask why the water is released at Cedar Bluff but measured at RUSSELL’s wells some 40+ miles from the gates at Cedar Bluff?
AFTER hays and the irrigators fill their canteens? Hays has NO water rights in Cedar Bluff. Russell does. So they made a devil’s deal to get Russell to call for water, but most of it gets sucked up, unmeasured by the city of hays and irrigators both east and west of hays before the water is ever MEASURED at Russell’s wells.
Their super double secret contract says it doesnt matter how much water LEAVES Cedar Bluff. It only matters how much water REACHES Russell’s wells.
So that allows for lots of straws to suck it up before it ever reaches the final measurement.
If russell has rights to 2000 acre feet of water in Cedar Bluff, why does their dam contract not measure 2000 acre feet leaving the lake, but measures 2000 acre feet that reaches their wells?
Six impossible things before breakfast? Nope. The contract between hays, russell and the kansas water office would require an even BIGGER suspension of disbelief.
Unfortunatly, it isnt fiction. It is the truth. Do you want these bozos managing YOUR water?
See what I mean by dirty dealings?
And the contract that allows all this raping and side stepping of water law?
it was done with no notice in a session that was closed to the public.
So much for open meetings laws. See why such meetings need to be recorded”
Damn, if the WE doesnt care about water in western kansas, they should at least care about violations of the open meetings laws and how THAT affects water in kansas.
Looks like Salina is gearing up to protest the coal plant in southwest kansas.
http://www.kansasprairie.net/blog1/blogindex.htm
“beneficial use n. the right to enjoy the use of something (particularly such pleasant qualities as light, air, view, access, water in a stream) even though the title to the property in which the use exists is held by another.”
The above is the legal definition of the term “beneficial use”; interestingly, I have found no Kansas appellate court decision which defines the term as used in the Kansas Statutes, Chapter 82a, Article 7, “Appropriation of Water for Beneficial Use”.From reading the recent case of Hawley v. Kansas Department of Agriculture, (Kansas Supreme Court; April 28, 2006) and the citations therein contained, it appears that a beneficial use is any lawful use of water; it does not include waste, pollution (really, a modern term for a condition included in the common law meaning of “waste”); I would direct all interested to the provisions of K.S.A. 82a-707(b), first sentence, which seems to give a list of uses which would be included within “beneficial use”, and the respective priorities thereof.
ksfg is correct in her assertion that “first in time, first in right” applies to Kansas water law; see K.S.A. 82a-707(c); see K.S.A. 82a-701(c) for the definition of “Domestic Uses”. The 707(b) priority scheme applies where the water supply is insufficient to satisfy all water rights that attach to it. However, note that a “junior priority” rights holder does not lose his or her use of the water so long as proper use thereof is being made under the water right, other than through condemnation. id.
It seems to me that the use of the term “beneficial use” was to make clear that a water right granted under the act was not a right of ownership in and to the water, but instead, a right to use the water in a lawful manner.
This is likely more than most will want to know, but is offered for information.
ksfg, I have no knowledge of that (pre-1945 vested rights now owned by the State). I have to think from my reading of the various statutes that so long as there has not been “nonuse” of the rights, the “heirs, devisees and lawful assigns” of the individual/entity having such rights still would have ownership of the right, and appropriation of water covered thereby would have to be made in light of the vested right, assuming the provisions of K.S.A. 82a-704a were followed, i.e., a verified claim thereto having been filed with the chief engineer by July 1, 1980. If no such claim was filed, then the vested right was extinguished, except for domestic use after such date. One of my earlier posts needs clarification, the pre-1945 vested rights is just that; a vested water right (to use the water), not ownership of the water itself. I “shorthanded” this in that post, and wanted to clarify here.
A bit more on “beneficial use”; exploiting the power of “The Google”, I find that this term is being used in the environmental area in a manner different from its accepted legal definition. The use in the environmental area more closely approaches what I would consider a “non legal” usage, colored by the idea of reducing pollution, etc. I can appreciate reading the statutes and applying that usage/definitiion, but in statutory matters, especially when dealing with statutes of older vintage, it is necessary to look to the accepted legal definition.
A relatively new program, acronymn of LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), has caught my attention. From limited reading, this is a program that rewards innovative usage of construction design and materials which save energy and do not impact the environment as adversely as traditional methods and materials. Concepts such as use of geothermal heating and cooling, reuse of materials for such mundane items as the panels between restroom stalls, use of gray water to flush stools, etc. are involved.
It seems to me that one potential drawback to these methods is a higher initial cost in the design and construction; but, I am led to believe, these higher initial costs are more than made up by savings in water usage, electricity usage, fewer materials in landfills due to reuse thereof, lower natural gas or heating oil usages, etc., over the expected life of the building. I place this discussion in the water policy thread, as the potential savings in water (by use of grey water, e.g.), combined with lower electrical usage (minimizing need for new plants which need cooling water and other water to generate steam) seem to fit.
For those interested in the Ogallala Aquifer, as mentioned in the Wichita EAGLE a few days ago — a new booklet about the Ogallala is available for $15.00 from the Kansas Geological Survey.
It’s entitled, “Enhancement of the Bedrock-Surface-Elevation Map Beneath the Ogallala Portion of the High Plains Aquifer, Western Kansas.” It contains a lot of geological terminology but does contain a lot of colorful maps and statistics.
Here in Wichita, the Kansas Geological Survey is located at 4150 West Monroe. This is about three blocks south of Kellogg and perhaps two blocks west of West Street.
While there, I learned the entire aquifer underlying several states, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, is called the “High Plains Aquifer.” In Kansas, this aquifer is divided into three sub aquifers: Ogallala in western Kansas, Big Bend aquifer in the Pratt-Great Bend area and the Equus Beds near Halstead. Its from the Equus Beds that Wichita gets perhaps 50% of its drinking water with the remaining portion coming from Cheney Lake. (Don’t know the exact percentages.)
I was disappointed to learn the artisan wells that existed in the 1950’s in the Meade County Lake valley … now no longer jump out of the ground because of the drop in the Ogallala. I was amazed in those days to see artisan springs here in Kansas especially out there in the “dry” southwestern corner of Kansas.
I’ve seen stuff like that as I was growing up Jwink.
Remember Watson park lake where the 2nd meet up was held? Not far from where we had our dinner, there is a little bridge over part of the lake. When I was 5 or 6 I fell in there and could have drowned. The water at that time was about 6 or 7 feet deep. These days it is less than a foot deep there. And that lake is right by the Arkansas river. Clear evidence of a significant drop of the water table just the last 30 years.
This has been suggested in “water threads” before. But I keep thinking about the “big ditch”. I was out that way the other day. It is bone dry.
Now the “big ditch” was designed to divert flood water out of the river and around Wichita as quickly as possible.
Does anyone know? Could the channel be modified to hold that flood water or at least release it more slowly? Say a dam at the south end?
Our thinking has to reverse. For the last 150 years we have been taking water out of the ground or getting rid of water when we had too much. We need strategies to put the water back IN the ground.
JR – yes, it could be modified. Inflatable dams can be used to temporarily detain water for recharge. They can then be lowered for severe flood periods to allow maximum flow. I have addressed tie Council on a number of occassions on the folly of spending millions to get rid of water when we will then spend millions looking for water.
Actually, rather than focusing on the ditch for recharge I would be doing that in the upper reaches of tributaries. That would do two things: (a) save water into the aquifer and (b) reduce peak flow and relieve pressure on the Ditch and River system.
One of these days Arkansas City will realize that our Ditch exacerbates THEIR flooding. This has been observed all over the place – levees and channels simply transfer the flooding problem downstream and make it worse.
BTW – there is some good news as we work to use excess flow in the Little Ark to recharge the Equus beds north of town.
Ben, any “guesstimate” as to how much recharge has occurred?
Prior appropriation makes sense in a medieval, “I’ve got land and its resources (including water from the sky) so I’m rich,” costruct. As a region populates, it doesn’t work. People need water. If you deny this, then people will move elsewhere.
In addition, when this doctrin was established, the effects of pollution were not known. If downstream peoples contracted coliform diseases, and dysentery, and got sick and died, so what? Land was more valuable than people.
Laws should be considered for what they work effectively for. Laws passed for the interests of one generation, that are not unreasonable when they affect a given population at the time, may not be suitable for subsequent generations’ needs.
Suppose that Kansas prior appropriation construct, which served well the generation it was written for, hurts today’s majority of Kansans. Are you going to saddle today’s Kansans with the laws that served the settler generation? Only if you want to support the 1 million or less population of that era. The settlers WORKED HARD. Their enjoyment of hard-work reward does not imply that third-generation descendents deserve the reward, does it? It may, but only in an ideology that repudiates progress, which is to say, a draw-bridge ideology. Medieval.
heart, interestingly it appears from the old cases that Kansas was, at one time, more of a riparian water rights state rather than a prior appropriation state. Don’t have any citations, etc. to provide, just noticed this when responding a few days ago to ksfg’s requests. I suspect the change, which came through various statutes over time, occurred as the Western part of the state became more populated. The riparian rights model doesn’t work well in arid areas, especially when the concept of irrigation becomes involved.