Pawnee Valley Intensive Groundwater Use Control Area Hearing Update 

On March 27, 2007 the initial phase of the Pawnee Valley Intensive Groundwater Use Control Area (IGUCA) proposed expansion hearing concluded after 5 days of testimony in Larned by both those party to the proceedings and the general pubic. 

Now, we await a ruling by David Pope, Chief Engineer of the Division of Water Resources, who also serves as the Hearing Officer for the IGUCA proceedings.  This ruling will indicate whether or not an expansion of the existing Pawnee Valley IGUCA boundaries should occur and if so what those boundaries will be.  If an expansion is deemed necessary by Mr. Pope, then a second set of hearings is scheduled for October in Larned to determine what corrective measures should be implemented.  This could result in water use restrictions. 

The following is the testimony provided by Kansas Farm Bureau Water Resources Specialist Kent Askren during the public comment portion of the first phase of the hearing. 

Kansas Farm Bureau

POLICY STATEMENT 

Pawnee Valley Intensive Groundwater

Use Control Area Proceedings 

March 27, 2007

Submitted by:

Kent Askren

Water Resources Specialist 

On behalf of the members of Kansas Farm Bureau, we would like to thank you Mr. Pope for the opportunity to provide comment. We have monitored these proceedings with great interest and would like to present our perspective as you contemplate the expansion of the Pawnee Valley IGUCA.

Attached you will find an excerpt from our member developed policy book detailing the perspective of KFB on water appropriation. You will notice that our members expect water rights to be held in high regard and administered in accordance with their priority as set forth in the Kansas Water Appropriation Act. Knowing that water rights are real property rights, you can appreciate the concern our members have when there is discussion about possible modification or revocation of those rights. We count on the Chief Engineer to uphold and respect these property rights during the deliberation process of these proceedings.

Our members also recognize that there may be unique circumstances which require a unique response. Reducing water usage through voluntary, incentive based water right conservation programs such as the Water Transition Assistance Program or Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, both of which KFB has been supportive of, could serve in everyone’s best interest in achieving the desired results.

No one can argue the significant social and economic benefits resulting from development of the Pawnee Valley water resources. The landscape is quite different today than it was 50 years ago. In general, water development has greatly improved the lifestyle and prosperity enjoyed by the residents within the Pawnee Valley and beyond.

As you interpret the data presented throughout this hearing, there must be the acknowledgment that groundwater cannot be restored to pre-development levels without enormous negative economic impacts. Additionally, pre-development base flow is unlikely to be restored to past levels due to the changes in hydrologic conditions upstream. Consequently, as you consider what represents "excessive decline" and "the public interest", we encourage you to keep these realities in mind throughout your deliberation.

We believe sustainability of the post-development water table to the standards of use recognized in KSA 82a-711 should be the management goal. Data has been presented during the hearing asserting that water levels are stable with reasonable increases and decreases caused by weather variations. It appears considerable review is still needed to insure that water level data and trends have been properly selected and interpreted. Therefore it is questionable whether there is justification for expanding the IGUCA boundary at this time. Additional analysis of all hydrologic data within the basin may yield alternative conclusions to those found by the basin team. Aquifer stability at the current level of economic development is the right management goal and that goal may already have been met.

Once again we would like to express our appreciation for the opportunity to present these comments tonight and trust that they will be useful in making your ruling.

Excerpt from Kansas Farm Bureau 2007 Policy 

State Water Appropriation                                                                                            CNR-14

             Kansas farmers and ranchers recognize the importance of securing a Kansas water right as provided by law.  We will continue to protect vested and appropriation water rights.

            State laws must provide for the protection, development and administration of water rights to protect individual ground and surface water right holders consistent with their priority. 

            When water shortages occur in any area of the state, water rights should be administered in strict adherence to their priority as set forth in the Kansas Water Appropriation Act.  In over-appropriated areas where voluntary, incentive-based programs and regulatory enforcement are not practical or effective, then stakeholder driven management plans should be developed that can meet groundwater use goals without negatively impacting local economies or disadvantaging senior water right holders. If management plan goals diminish investment backed expectations, then due compensation should be given to those water rights holders.

            In areas considered over-appropriated, we recommend industries and municipalities procure water appropriation rights from willing sellers.  We oppose municipalities using eminent domain actions to acquire appropriation rights.

            We will strongly oppose any attempts to diminish the use of agricultural soil and water conservation practices and structures, such as terraces and grassed waterways, in order to make more water flow in our streams and rivers. 

            We support continued focus by the Division of Water Resources to expedite processing, approval and certification of water appropriation permits.

            Water rights should not be jeopardized even if the water allocation authorized is not fully exercised.

            The funding of the Division of Water Resources should be primarily through a general fund obligation rather than increasing permit fees.