Charles Benjamin, an attorney for the Kansas Sierra Club who served ably as the voice of environmental stewardship in Kansas, is leaving the state for a similar post in Nevada.
In the past decade, Benjamin, a former Harvey County commissioner, was at the center of several high-profile environmental issues facing Kansas, most notably leading the successful fight against corporate hog farm pollution (as a result, plans for a large hog processing plant near Great Bend were abandoned) and filing lawsuits to force the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the Clean Water Act in Kansas, which led to reclassification of state streams and several broad-based efforts to fight nonpoint-source pollution such as farm and urban runoff. In recent years, Benjamin and the Sierra Club have focused on promoting renewable energy and efficiency in Kansas.
Being an environmental lawyer isn’t the surest way to popularity in Kansas, but Benjamin won respect even from many foes for his breadth of knowledge and reasoned, articulate defense of the state’s natural resources. His voice will be missed.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
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
- satatom on Health care reform would save state money
- XXX on Open thread 11/22
- JWink on Health care reform would save state money
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- RightAngle on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on ACORN stole election?
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
32 Comments
One issue Charles has been heavily involved in is enabling legislation to facilitate wind power development. This will be a win-win for Kansas – affordable power plus revenues for landowners in the state. He has also been involved in the water issues ksfarmgirl is concerned about.
One thing I like about Charles is that his environmental zeal is, to at least some extent, tempered by technical reality. He has some technical background and also seeks out technical input.
Just to ruffle feathers! ;)
http://www.misterkitty.org/extras/stupidcovers/stupidcomics58.html
This is sad news for all the Water Watchers in Kansas. I hope someone steps up to fill his shoes. Otherwise…
…better fill yer canteens now!
Randy,You should tell your readers that the hog processing facility Benjamin helped prevent from coming to Great Bend is not in Oklahoma. They are in the process of expanding the plant to include a biodiesel production facility using waste tallow.
There have been zero environmental issues at the plant and the jobs and economic activity in the surrounding area have been good for the region.
Charles Benjamin is a good lobbyist and a genuinely nice man. Nonetheless, I won’t shed a tear for losing another liberal do-gooder who is unaware of their own unintended consequences.
Farmie,You’re a water gal, arentcha? I see you post occasionally on other topics, but this is clearly your baby.
I can appreciate that; I have my pet topics, too.
So, you’re afraid we’re gonna run out?
Sorry for the partial repost here, but I think it is worth repeating.
“interesting that someone in the kansas msm is asking governor leadership to, um, actually lead. Her silence and fence sitting on the coal fired generating plant in Holcomb is telling.
Whatever will governor leadership do? I called it a couple of weeks ago that her ties with Hays and Steve Irsik would win out over doing the right thing. (Sunflower electric is based in Hays, Irsik is the head of the kansas water board and a giant irrigator and subsidy queen.)
But when the only blue city in Kansas is clamboring for her to intervene on their side, I wonder who will get sacrificed? Hays? Or Lawrence? Salina? Garden City? Stay tuned…
On a related note, could governor leadership’s dont rock the boat style finally be catching up with her? Will the people of Kansas demand that she not only lead but be clear about her positions on water resources and on this plant?
Will she be able to dodge the issue? Will less than chatty kathy have to finally get off the fence of water? Of ethanol and corn? Irrigation right in Steve Irsik’s back yard?
Or will she send in Joe Harkins to do the dirty work under cover of night and secret meetings? Kansas’ own Darth Cheney. Or the governor’s jim baker? Mr. Fixit?
It will be interesting now to see the statements she makes, how she avoids taking a stand, and how she sidesteps under the guise of letting KDHE do its work.
She isnt going to want to piss off anyone, and so this time, she may piss off everyone.”
If you are NOT worried about water in Kansas, you are either from Hays or on Governor Leadership’s staff.
Or you have your head in the sand and your ass in the air….
Oh, and by the way…
Sharon Schwartz has a HORRIBLE record of votes on water issues.
Neufeld used his position on the appropriations committee to have an impact on water issues.
Goddess help us all if Schwartz decides to do the same.
It’s all public record. Look it up.
Why do I constantly harp on water issues?
There have been some BAD precidents set in the last four years, and they were set for political reasons, not science or sanity or rule of law. They will come back to haunt you all, not just western Kansas.
IMHO, there is NO.MORE.IMPORTANT.ISSUE.
If we dont get it together on water, none of the rest of the bullshit will matter.
I’m not trying to be condescending here; I’m simply not well-informed on this issue.
Wha tbad precedents have been set?
Golf, I know your question was addressed to kfg, but for myself, I answer it yes; I am afraid we’re going to run out of potable water in at least parts of this state. My concerns on this issue are based upon what I perceive to be a climate change, which will result in less total rainfall occurring in Western Kansas, in particular; and across the entire state, in general. With reduced rainfall, the need for irrigation (which, in many cases, is overused IMHO) increases, draining the aquifers more; the ethanol plants, promoted for economic development, use a great amount of water, again drawn from the aquifers; the proposed coal fired plant at Humboldt will require a sizeable amount of water for its operation, again drawn from the aquifers (on this issue, I don’t have enough knowledge to judge the veracity of the statement that it will use less water than the irrigated fields it will ‘replace’).
Other water issues that concern me is the need for us to have water to drink, often coming from wells drawing from the same aquifers; yes, water for these purposes may be obtained, and is in many cases, from rivers as well, but the level of water in rivers is also affected by the decline in rainfall and runoff; due to feedlots, etc., in the watersheds of these rivers, there is increased pollution of the water running off, which needs to be ameliorated by treatment plants with their ever increasing costs, due to the increased quntity of pollutants to be removed, as well as the increasing number of the individual pollutants; “urban sprawl”, resulting in the paving of ground, removing the natural filtering effect thereof, not to mention increased strain on groundwater for the irrigation of lawns to keep grasses which should not be grown in Kansas green; the need for increased fertilizer use for said lawns, adding to pollution in the runoff; the need for more vehicles on the roads, leaving oil, gasoline, antifreeze residue on the surface, again running off into the water supply; etc., etc.
I’m no scientist; I have no special education or training in these areas. I’m concerned about avaiability of potable water in sufficient quantities so I, and more likely my descendants, can enjoy life in Wichita (or other places) free of concern that when the tap is opened to obtain a drink, there will be something flowing from the faucet; and if there is, it can be drunk without concern for the health of the consumer thereof.
Vaughn: If you are no expert on this water issue, I’m the village idiot when it comes to the subject. So, consider the source of this question and the point of ignorance from which it is asked. As to irrigation water, doesn’t almost all of it find its way back into the aquifers and that part which is consumed or evaporated redistributed back into the aquifers by rainfall? We claim that “there are no stupid questions…”, but this one may be the exception to the rule.
rm – not, in western KS it does not find its way back into the aquifer. Unfortunately, losses through evapotranspiration tend to ‘blow away’ to eprhaps become part of rain elsewhere further east.
The Equus Beds (central KS-Wichita) is a recharging aquiefer; the Ogalalla (west High Plains) is not. When it is mined out it is gone.
Massive irrigation to grow wet type crops (corn, soybeans) in a desert will be short-lived. Better at this point to make the transition to dryland management while there is still water available to get long-term vegetation started back.
I have commented before about possible ‘native vegetation’ land uses. Grazing of cattle. Habitat for game. Sell hunting licenses wholesale to landowners for resale (at a profit). City dwellers are willing to pay for good hunting.
Naw KSFarmgrl, you care more about the arm flailing, we are victims politics of the water issue than the fixing of the water issue. You indicated as much in the posts on water.
Remember? “All you scientific types…” Which means you’d rather fan the fire than find a solution.
No wonder someone wants to leave the state. It’s frought with screaming meemie do-nothings.
OK, Ben, I see. Thanks.
Well, rm, it’s time for me to become the “village idiot”; a short, and totally incomplete response to your question is that what you generally describe is the water cycle, of which I’m sure both of us first learned in elementary school. However, in the case of irrigation and crops, there is water extracted from the cycle, consumed, if you will, in the production of the sugars contained in the grain (herein, deemed to include corn, milo, etc.) which is harvested. This loss, if you will, is not immediately, if ever, returned to the cycle through evaporation; some of it may eventually be returned due to respiration of the living organisms (see, e.g., cattle, humans) consuming the grain, think of the breeze evaporating the sweat on your brow from heavy thinking :D; another part may find its way back by oxidation (burning) of ethanol, e.g., produced from the grain; some of the rain is “trapped” in trees, retained until the tree dies, is cut down, etc.
Generally speaking, the losses to the total water otherwise in the cycle are not immediately replenished by rainfall; and, in times of diminished rainfall, result in net loss to total water available in any given area.
I now yield the floor to those who will be amply able to demonstrate the total oversimplicity and ignorance contained in the above response :).
JM
Your “knowledge” of kfgs position on this issue is clearly quite limited. And other than attacking her, I fail to see how you have added to this thread.
Thank you, Ben; your response to rm is much more succinct and correct than my rather long-winded “bloviation” on the topic.
VT – actually, fairly little water is incorporated into the product; it is more the losses via evapotranspiration. This can be reduced by proper irrigation techniques (i.e. drip irrigation) but is still quite large.
The Ogalalla does not recharge?
My turn to be the idiot.
Why not? Is it the elevation?
Thanks again, Ben; I have learned some more on the overall topic of water, for which I am grateful. Your explanation of evapotranspiration filled in a massive hole in what knowledge I have; makes sense to me, didn’t know the name for the phenomenon.
I join with JR here; is the fact that the Ogalalla does not recharge have anything to do with its subsurface location?
“JM Your “knowledge” of kfgs position on this issue is clearly quite limited. And other than attacking her, I fail to see how you have added to this thread.”Posted by: J R | December 15, 2006 at 10:14 AM
Thanks for making my point for me. KFGS has a position ONLY. Anyone can be complainer, it takes a lot more to actually do something.
Yes, the Ogalalla is deep. There is some small recharge but it is basically a very old water source. We call in mining. The Equus, on the other hand, is shallow and readily recharged. (Unfortunately, it is also more susceptable to contamination)
There are areas in the eastern portions of the Ogalalla that get appreciable recharge but that has little effect on the rest of it.
I think Fetter, CW, has a bit on the High Plains in his text Applied Hydrogeology.
“Thanks for making my point for me. KFGS has a position ONLY. Anyone can be complainer, it takes a lot more to actually do something.”
Actually, she has done more than complain. I will let her clarify that, if she is so inclined.
Is Wichita becoming the Bradford Pear Capital of Kansas? I’m appalled at the city and county parks folks planting this tree on so many of the rights of ways and in our parks, etc.
I did a search on this trees qualitys and problems. It basically has one strength. It can deal with pollution. It’s weakness is that it can’t tolerate wind, ice, and only has a life expectancy of 20 years and needs to be professionally pruned if one is going to avoid some of these predictable problems. I think these “bush on a stick trees” should be taken out of the lineup now!
I asked an employee at a well known Wichita nursery if I could see a Bradford Pear start. He laughed and said they had given up selling them a long time ago. Said they don’t stand up and they have given up trying to guarantee them. Many years ago elm trees were introducted as a great solution for fast shade.
This town has more sad and sickly looking trees than I care for. When will we ever learn? In another 200 years?
Schmidt Happens: Thanks for mentioning that Wichita is “tree challenged” but doesn’t need to be. There are various communities in Kansas that are tree rich and even clusters of neighborhoods here in Wichita that have a proliferation of Oaks, Sycamores, Maples and other more durable trees.
Baldwin, Kansas, for example, actually has a fall “Maple Tree Festival.” Here in Wichita, the Riverside area appears to have a lot of great trees.
Reminds me of the old Kansas story of Eleanor Roosevelt (Mrs. Franklin Delano Roosevelt) coming to Wichita in the 1930’s to plead for planting shelter belt “forests” to slow the dust storms, soil erosion and give wild animals a place to live.
The result of Eleanor R’s crusade is the many shelter belts that still survive along various Kansas highways such as Highways 54 and 50. Along the historic alignment of Highway 54, west of Kingman to Pratt, several miles of these shelter belts still survive against the ravages of the Kansas Highway Department’s tree trimming crews.
Historic markers should be placed near some of these shelter belts to protect the remaining stands of these historic shelter belt “forests.”
But, Schmidt Happens, what are some positive alternatives available to Wichita that would help alleviate our impending water shortage crises?
Speaking of Charles Benjamin, an attorney for many Kansas environmental causes, I knew him slightly when we tried to stop the Harper County landfill in northeast Harper County. This landfill is located on a small tributary that leads directly into the Chikaskia River, one of Kansas’ few free-running comparitively wild Kansas streams.
Unfortunately the liner that was placed in the Harper County landfill was almost immediately punctured in the construction process. Although patched with duct tape, the landfill will probably pollute the portion of the Chikaskia from that point southeastward towards Oklahoma.
The Chikaskia rises in the sparsely settled area south of Cunningham near the fabled little Catholic village in the valley, St. Leo, Kansas. The story is the Chikaskia begins in a jumble of old discarded Budweiser beer kegs in the vicinity of the St. Leo Catholic Church giving the gurgling Chikaskia water a slight taste of Budweiser to fisherman along its banks.
So, Mr. Charles Benjamin, your loss to Kansas is a huge gain for Las Vegas, Nevada. Good luck.
To explain the confusion above: A tree enthusiast friend who feels Kansas could benefit from a better selection of trees, has been wanting to comment on the WE Blog. Because his computer is on the blink and I felt this particular thread was an appropriate subject, I posted his comments from my computer.
This AM, when I followed up with the two postings of my own above — the “Schmidt Happens,” signature was still attached. Sorry for the confusion and hope “Schmidt Happens” does continue to post about the environmentally important tree situation in Wichita and Kansas. JWink
Off the subject, JWink, but did you know that the man who thought up “S**t Happens” lives right here in Wichita? The producers of Forrest Gump had to pay him royalties when they made the movie.
Mary Caruso: I hadn’t heard about the connection of the Forest Gump movie to someone here in Wichita. I will tell “Schmidt Happens” next time I run into him at the Riverside Cafe.
Although his business is similar to yours as I understand it, one of his hobby-type interests seems to be encouraging much better tree cover here in Wichita and southern Kansas generally. Seems like a good idea because tree cover contributes to protecting our water sources from evaporation.
Sounds cool!
The guy who holds the copyright to the phrase “S**t Happens” is now disabled and confined to a wheelchair, but he still loves to reminisce about his 15 minutes of fame!
The President’s budget, delivered to Congress on Monday,presents a vision for America’s public lands that is so out oftouch with America’s conservation values as to be an alteredstate of reality.
It proposes to sell off National Forest and BLM lands; cutdeeply into funding for our National Wildlife Refuges and theNational Landscape Conservation System (National Monuments) andeviscerate funding for endangered species, and land acquisitionprograms. And, oh yes, the budget assumes $7 billion in revenuefrom oil development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
This may be President Bush’s vision for America, but it’s notours. Click here to take immediate action:Like burning the furniture to keep warm
For the second consecutive year, the President’s Forest Servicebudget includes a proposal to sell off up to $800 million ofNational Forest lands and up to 950,000 acres of BLM lands.Similar Forest Service and BLM proposals announced last year metwith strong and widespread opposition from WildAlertsubscribers, anglers, hunters, locally-elected officials,businesses, governors, and both sides of the aisle in Congress.
Wildlife RefugesCut to the bone
Already in a funding crisis that is forcing a shut down ofrefuges, the National Wildlife Refuge System would get just$396 million of the $700 million needed to fully fund thenation’s 545 wildlife refuges.
The President’s meager funding level for our nation’s refugesfails to address the funding crisis that has crippled the RefugeSystem’s ability to manage and restore wildlife habitat, safelymaintain facilities and provide quality education and outdoorrecreation programs for millions of visitors each year.
National Landscape Conservation SystemLowest funding ever for Western Wildlands
The budget once again proposes increased funding for the Bureauof Land Management’s oil and gas program – while simultaneouslycutting funds for sound stewardship of the BLM’s most treasuredlands and waters.
This year, the funding for the BLM’s National LandscapeConservation System is expected to fall to an all time low ofjust $32.5 million. Places like Colorado’s Canyons of theAncients National Monument, which features the highest densityof archeological sites in the nation, are already operating on abarebones budget.
The continued budget shortfall could mean that Canyons of theAncient’s archeological sites will continue to be plagued byvandalism and the area’s public services will continue to failto adequately meet public demand.
The Land and Water Conservation FundPromise unfulfilled
This program has helped protect public lands, create localparks, and protect open space throughout the country. Congressmay authorize up to $900 million annually from offshore oil andgas leases for LWCF, but under the President’s plan, LWCF’sstate program is zeroed out again for the third year in a row,while the Federal program is reduced to only $58 million thisyear. Of that amount, less than half would go to the actualpurchase of land – a 93% decrease from the FY 2002 request.
Furthermore, for the first time in the history of the LWCF thepresident’s budget zeroes out money for the LWCF projects withinlands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. And while stateand local governments struggle to create parks and preserve openspaces that are threatened by sprawling development, theadministration has again proposed to eliminate all LWCFstateside matching grants to assist them.
National treasures from the Everglades in Florida and Denali inAlaska to the parks in our own neighborhoods will suffer fromloss of funds for expanding and consolidating parks, refuges andforests.
National ParksA bright spot in the President’s Budget
On a positive note, the President’s budget for the National ParkSystem suggests an unprecedented $258 million (14.3%) increaseover requested fiscal year 2006 levels. Such a funding levelwould allow the Park Service to add nearly 500 permanentemployees and several thousand seasonal employees, enhancingresource protection and visitor experience.
What you can do
We need make sure Congress understands just how dismal thisbudget proposal is.
http://action.wilderness.org/wilderness/home