WE Blog

China as a role model for coal plants and pollution, consider the possibilities Kansas!
What a hoot our legislatures are.

Now back to the subject at hand, the tremendous danger to Kansas by the proposed construction of two additional coal-fired power plants to the existing power plant near Holcomb/Garden City, Kansas.

A well written “letter-to-the-editor” entitled HELP STOP COAL BILL appears on the opinion page of this morning’s WICHITA EAGLE. The writer, Dr. Sarah Johnston of El Dorado, did an excellent job of describing the “negative impacts of these proposed coal-fired power plants on Kansans’ health.”

Dr. Sarah Johnston writes, “It is estimated that 2 to 3 percent of U.S. deaths each year are attributed to air pollution induced respiratory or cardiovascular disease. Not only does coal combustion produce carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases, which cause climate warming, it also produces sulpher dioxides and nitrogen oxides which are significant respiratory irritants. Releases from coal combustion also contain radioactive materials, primarlilly uranium and thorium. It’s a fact that Americans living near coal-fired plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear powered plants that meet government regulations.”

Now would you rather get the facts from a physician or from a few mis-informed right-wing Kansas legislators.

Thank you Sarah Johnston for offering your excellent comments on this subject.

And STILL not much talk about the water sucking aspect of these plants. Seems like the WE bloggers are the only ones who worry about the water.

WHAT can we do to raise this issue? Seems like everyone is hung up on global warming. Even without that manufactured controversy, the plants are a bad idea for how much water they use in a virtual desert.

Can we all in this state at least agree on THAT? Isnt WATER reason enough to nix these plants?

Sebelius only knows how to give water away, not how to save it. Veto that bill governor “leadership”. Maybe obama has cooled on the idea of her as veep and now she’s not so interested in her red state environmental legacy?

What is the holdup? Veto that bill!

My particular concern with the proposed coal fired power plants near Holcomb/Garden City, Kansas, is their potential to drastically draw down our Ogallala underground water aquifer that lies under most of central and western Kansas.

Various industries are gulping up the water from this natural resource of pristine ancient underground water. This water theoretically BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE OF KANSAS. But this aquifer water apparently has no effective protectors against the corporate predators who are frantically trying to withdraw this water for industrial purposes and, get this, WITHOUT PAYING KANSANS FOR DESTROYING THIS NATURAL RESOURCE.

Our underground Ogallala aquifer water is being withdrawn in amazing quantities for power plants, ethanol plants and agricultural irrigation much of which is to grow corn to be sold to ethanol manufacturers.

Kansas had been blessed with this underground water for municipal water supplies and modest mom and pop agricultural uses but its rapidly being taken away.

Soon Kansas drinking water will be relegated to using surface river water. Our surface rivers, such as the Arkansas River are known to contain high quantities of salt leeching upward via petroleum pumps invading our underground salt
stratas in central Kansas. Also sewage treatment plants are disgorging regurgitated, recycled sanitary sewage containing prescription drug residue and other chemicals into our surface rivers. This is unavoidable in many states but here in Kansas, for the time being, we still have the underground relatively pure drinking water available for municipal water supplies.

The deep underground Ogallala aquifer gravel beds were formed millions of years ago from erosion of the newly formed Rocky Mountains back in the dinosaur era. Snow melt and rain water gradually filled the basin formed under the midwestern states. Eventually the stratas above solidified into bedrock separating the underground water stratas from the river bed alluvial (shallow) aquifers.

NOW, AMAZINGLY, THE EXCELLENT DEEP UNDERGROUND OGALLALA AQUIFER WATER IS BEING GIVEN AWAY BY OUR POLITICIANS FREE OF CHARGE FOR INDUSTRIAL USES. THE RECYCLED, REGURGITATED SURFACE RIVER WATER IS BEING “GIVEN” TO THE PEOPLE FOR DRINKING AND BATHING.

Do you wonder why your coffee tastes funny?

A political game is being played in the name of “water rights” to this Kansas water. Based on a false theory of who owns the water, the game plan considers surface land owners to be the owners of the underground water. Industry then purchases these “water rights” to use the water that actually belongs to the people of Kansas. Because there is no official protectors of the underground water, the water is being pumped up in massive quantities until there won’t be any left.

I have found it difficult to obtain good figures on Kansas underground water nor the amount of water being gulped out of the ground for various uses. Its not readily available from government.

I have heard the Holcomb coal-fired electric plant complex including the current plant plus the new plants will take, get this, SIX TO EIGHT BILLION GALLONS OF OGALLALA AQUIFER WATER PER YEAR. This massive draw down will make it more difficult for Kansas municipalities including Wichita to obtain good clean cold drinking water from current sources, both of which are directly or indirectly dependent on the Ogallala aquifer.

Several months ago, I tried to add up water being used for current and soon to go on-line ethanol manufacturing plants in Kansas. I came up with a usage of a billion gallons of Ogallala water per year. And there are many more ethanol plants on the drawing board for Kansas.

Some people claim the wars over water usage will be more desperate than wars over oil production.

Is good drinking water in Kansas going to become a privilege rather than a right? Do want your coffee to be served in chunks rather than with clean pure water?

ksfarmgrrl- do you know anything about water rights in western kansas? As I remember Sunflower bought up existing land (circles) around the site to get those water rights. Those wells are only allowed to pump X gal a year, so the new plant would be using the water that the irrigated circles were/are using for crops, and only be allowed to pump the amount of water dictated by those original water rights. That is how I understand it, and I have not done extensive research on it yet.

Anti-You are correct. They did buy up existing water rights, and they had to reduce those water rights by twenty percent or so, as is done any time ag rights move to industrial rights. However, the fact that these are reduced, existing water rights does NOT make the plant water neutral.

Irrigation, as wasteful as it is, does return some water to the aquifer. These coal plants returns none. So, the THIRTY THOUSAND ACRE FEET of water that will be used EVERY YEAR will NOT recharge the aquifer even as much as irrigation would.

The Sunflower supporters have been touting this “water neutral” stuff all session. And it is a true statement as far as it goes. But if you look closely at the net usage, it isnt true at all.

The reason nobody brings it up, I think, is because of my previous post.

Pivot Well allowed to produce Xgal. is bought by Sunflower and is still only allowed to produce Xgal. Basically this means no additional water being pumped for the coal plant than was being pumped for pivots prior to construction of the plant.

Please explain the “half truth” to the regulations, I would like to know if I am missing something?

TDT-”How can they not know, and if they do know, how in the world can they not care?”

They know. Trust me, they know. And “they” meaning Sunflower, dont care. They and the plant supporters are deliberately trying to downplay the water issue because even THEY know they are vulnerable on it. THAT is why you dont hear much about it except the chorus of “existing rights, water neutral” you hear from supporters.

The reason they dont care? Votes, as in, there arent many out here, and profits, which, there are MANY to be had if these plants are built.

The locals, like neufeld and morris and huelskamp and powell, have their voters locked up. Their voters would follow them over a cliff if they said “gay marriage” or “economic development” loud enough and often enough. Their seats are not in danger.

And because these mossbacks control the legislature, they have the power to make life miserable for members who do NOT toe the party line.

THAT is why we need a voter rebellion and a shake up in the kansas legislature this year. We cant let these mossbacks run the state into the ground.

To quote the great Warren Zevon, you all in the east need to send “lawyers, guns and money” out here to defeat these asswipes.

Now THAT would be “hope and change”.

LJ, the state water law says the State of Kansas owns ALL the water in the state. Surface and underground. That is the law. They can regulate it as they please, and license its use. The land owners do not own the water, they own the RIGHTS to the water. BIG difference.

And ANTI, did you even READ my post? There is NO water returned to the aquifer with the Sunflower usage. Even irrigation recharges the aquifer at least a little.

Nice try at shilling for Sunflower. This plant is ANYTHING but water neutral. And the reason no one wants to talk about it?

Two words. Pandora’s Box. NO ONE wants to open it. NO ONE in elected office wants to face the music about the real situation regarding water in this state. To face the truth would mean action would need to be taken, and most of them hope to be retired and out of office when the shit hits the fan for real on water.

And it will.

ANTI, the more you post, the more you show yourself as a flamer and Sunflower shill.

“ksfarmgrrl, Yes we know YOUR GAY, what does that have to do with the topic? And you have provided zero info on why “existing rights, water neutral” these are false.”

WTF? Please show me where I brought up being gay on this thread?

And I just posted why buying up existing water rights does not make the plant water neutral.

Can you read? Or do you just want to flame me and shill for Sunflower.

Jesus WEPT!

ksfarmgrrl,

Yes I did read your post, my refresh rate is slow today sorry. I agree that there is some recharge with irrigation. However it is Very small. Current pivot practices in general provide for extensive evaporation loss. I would guess the recharge in irrigation is similar to the dewatering of the storage lagoons on the plant site. That is not good. Look, I grew up out there, and know that the aquifer generally will only provide 50-150 years of practical usage if these practices continue. The point I am making is that with the current laws, the plant should have been built. I think it is unfair to not allow the plant based on non-regulation. So change the laws and regulations first!

“I would guess the recharge in irrigation is similar to the dewatering of the storage lagoons on the plant site.”

Well, thanks for admitting that you are GUESSING!

Wanna explain what you mean by the dewatering of the storage lagoons on the plant site?

Very simple supply and demand.

We do not need the plant.

The plant will not be built.

The site is sorrounded by active pivots and sand hills(waste ground). The only possible inactive wells would be for livestock (wind mill). Those wells are generally shallow and rely on the alluvial. To get industial or irrigation gpm out of these wells the would need to be redrilled and would be reclassified.

perhaps you need to blame the state for that rather than Sunflower

I need to leave, but hope to continue this conversation with you later ksfarmgrl.

The water rights do not have to be attached to the plant by geography. It just cant be pumped from one basin to another. This is all in the same basin. The ARK RIVER basin. There are many rights that are unused. You dont SEE them. duh. Again, you are just guessing by idle observation. Do some research for the facts or STFU.

Oh, so Sunflower has no responsibility here? It’s all the state’s fault for approving it? Heheheheh. Nice try. Just dont say that “under the current laws” it is ok. No, it’s not. The Kansas Water Board is headed by Steve Irsik, a Garden City big ag big irrigation guy. And… Bremby did NOT approve the plant. And neither did the ks water office or the ks water board. They just approved the water rights.

And they approve a LOT of crap that should not be approved. WHY the F do you think I keep posting about them?

And LJ, the state not only regulates how much water, but how it is used. Even the existing right holder would have to reduce by at least twenty percent if the right were transfered from ag to business. I have neighbors who used water rights for irrigation, and then started “washing sand” for a local sand company. They had to reduce their right upon change of use. Sunflower had to reduce their right too. It doesnt mean though that it isnt a net water loss to the aquifer. And the alluvial.

Now, for a more technical question. Why could not a coal powered energy plant reuse most of the same water, as in steam recovery? Is there something inherent in the process that keeps them from doing that,or are they just too lazy/cheap?

ksfarmgrrl-
“So, the THIRTY THOUSAND ACRE FEET of water that will be used EVERY YEAR”
Without being nasty, where did you get this number for the plant yearly usage?

I recently obtained several publications by the KANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY including one titled “The High Plains Aquifer.”

A main section, “Managing Water in the (Ogallala)Aquifer,” starts out: BY KANSAS LAW, WATER IS A PUBLIC RESOURCE AND BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE. It goes on to say, “Individuals, companies, municipalities, and other entities can obtain permission to use water for BENEFICIAL PURPOSES if they obtain a water right.” This section also states, “Responsibility for managing water use is spread over several Kansas agencies.”

Some other comments in the publication that jump out at me:

** The High Plains aquifer, which includes the well-known Ogallala aquifer, is the most important water source for much of western and central Kansas.

** However large-volume pumping from this aquifer has led to steadily declining water levels in the western portion of the region and the area faces several critical water-related issues.

** The High Plains/Ogallala aquifer is composed mainly of silt, sand, gravel and clay — rock debris that washed off the face of the Rocky Mountains and other more local sources over the past several millions of years. The aquifer varies greatly from place to place: thick in some places, thin in others; permeable in some places, less so in others. In most areas, the water is of good quality.

The publication mentions the “Equus Beds aquifer” as being an extension of the High-Plains/Ogallala aquifer but in a “younger” sediment deposited during the Ice Ages/Pleistocene Epoch. City of Wichita gets part of its drinking water from the Equus Beds aquifer which is, itself, declining.

** An acre-foot of water contains 325,851 gallons of water. This might be helpful in converting the tremendous waste of water from the aquifers.

Near the end of the publication is a section, “Where do we go from here?” THE MAIN AND MOST LOGICAL PROPOSAL IS TO ADOPT A POLICY OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. “Sustainable development is the concept of limiting the amount of water taken from the aquifer to no more than the amount of recharge and perhaps less, depending on the impact on water quality and minimal streamflows.”

From the “Sustainable Development” point of view, constructing new water gulping industries in central and western Kansas is completely idiotic and MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL.

Publications on water and aquifers are available at the Kansas Geological Survey offices at 4150 Monroe Street, Wichita, or at Equus Beds Groundwater Management office in Halstead, Kansas.

ANTI,

http://www.holcombstation.coop/Environmental/water.cfm
“Each of the new units will require about 8,000 acre-feet of water to meet annual production needs.
…
Wheatland anticipates having about 29,000 acre-feet of water rights available for power plant and other uses.”

Thank you Cosmos

So a little off subject, but not totally. Those living in Wichita that still drink tap water, have you noticed that it tastes awful lately?

ANTI,

I think 3 units, or 24,000 acre feet of water was the original plan.

That suggests about (29k - 24k) 5,000 acre feet for “other uses”.

So the total might be 21,000 acre feet, for 2 units, + “other uses”.

Cosmos and Anti: Presuming your figure of 16,000 acre-feet of water is needed for the two new coal fired power plants PLUS water needed for the existing smaller power plant, say 4,000 acre feet being conservative, gives a total of 20,000 acre
feet of water needed for the complex.

Multiply 20,000 acre feet by 325,851 gallons of water per acre foot per year GIVES 6 1/2 billions of water minimum needed to be drawn from the Ogallala aquifer each year. This figure falls into the range of 6 to 8 billion gallons of water per year that I estimated in my comments near the beginning of this thread.

The Ogallala water creeps slowly eastward and southeastward with very little replenishment from the surface. So taking these 6 1/2 billion gallons out of the ground below western and central Kansas will certainly have a negative effect on the amount of water available to Wichita’s water system.

The Wichita water system, which supplies most of the Wichita metro area, gets about 1/2 its water from Cheney Lake (fed by the north fork of the Ninnescah River) and about 1/2 from withdrawal from the Equus Beds aquifer near Halstead. Both of these sources are directly or indirectly fed from the Ogallala aquifer.

For that matter, the Ogallala and stormwater runoff feed the Kansas (Kaw) River which in turn supplies water to Junction City, Manhattan, Topeka and Lawrence.

Frankly Kansas is not in a position to squander its underground aquifer water for the “iffy” power plant development projects proposed for Holcomb/Garden City to serve Denver and the front range cities of the Rocky Mountains.

Thanks for answering the question guys. Sunflower Electric estimated the 30,000 acre feet usage each year. You have to ask them why. I dont know that you can take that number and divide it by three. You’d have to look at the proposal.

Either way, Colorado gets another bite at the apple of our water. Once, on it’s way east from the Rockies, and they hold it up as long as they can, defying federal court orders in the process.

The second bite is when the water “crosses” the state line and actually makes it into Finney County, where it is used, once again, for the benefit of Colorado residents by generating power that will largely be sold east of the Kansas state line.

Pretty smart of Colorado. Pretty dumb of Kansas. But then, Colorado’s been dealing with the realities of water a long time. Kansas…not so much. We’re still living in la la land when it comes to water.

Dewatering applies primarily to the proposed dairy and possibly the ethonal plant. Every year a produce can dewater his lagoons. The idea is after the waste has been in the lagoon for some time it breaks down and can be used as fertilizer- pumped from the lagoon to a sprinkler and applied to a crop. This makes room available to the lagoon and is useful way to use the waste. It is common in ag-facilities, and municipal sewage lagoons, and some industries. That is the simple version.

ksfarmgrrl- “Sunflower Electric estimated the 30,000 acre feet usage each year. You have to ask them why. I dont know that you can take that number and divide it by three. You’d have to look at the proposal.”

I have, perhaps you should- They have the rights to 29,000 acre feet. That does not equate to 29,000 acre feet of USAGE. It states 8,000 ac.ft. per unit and the remainder can be for “other uses”.

JWink- In my experience industrial, power, cities, are “regularly” monitored…Ag is hit and miss, too many wells and too few people to check them. There is more than one inspector, but there isn’t enough. And yes bottled water would be profitable, as well as corn (irrigated) thanks to ethonal.

“Each of the new units will require about 8,000 acre-feet of water to meet annual production needs.”

8000×2=16000 for the 2 units + undescribed “other usage”

Why do you refuse to see that? First paragragh on the site, second paragragh describes the rights.