Water committee hears bill to create state conservation fund, boost water-plan transfers

The Committee on Water opened a public hearing on House Bill 2,113 on Feb. 6 to consider creating a state conservation fund, increasing transfers to the State Water Plan Fund and expanding grant and technical assistance funding for municipal and rural water systems.

Supporters said the bill is intended to preserve and expand local conservation-district capacity and to direct more money toward technical assistance and infrastructure grants. "This is a 2-to-1 state match capped at $50,000," said Shawn Miller, representing the Kansas Association of Conservation Districts, describing the bill's proposed match for county conservation-district staffing. "That gets us to a $75,000 total, much more likely that we can keep an office staff up and running."

The bill would create a new state conservation fund in the state treasury and, beginning July 1, 2025 and on July 1 each year thereafter as monies are available, direct $5,000,000 from the state general fund to that new fund. Section 1 would require the Division of Conservation within the Kansas Department of Agriculture to use the fund to provide a match for conservation districts on a basis of $2 of state money to $1 of nonstate or private money and to fund domestic water‑quality sampling. The division would also be required to adopt rules to administer the fund and solicit stakeholder input on those rules.

Section 2 would make enhanced transfers to the State Water Plan Fund on July 1, 2025 and on subsequent years (described in testimony as 2026 and 2027), directing $55,000,000 from the state general fund to the State Water Plan Fund in those years. From that amount each fiscal year $7,000,000 would transfer to the Water Technical Assistance Fund and $18,000,000 to the Water Projects Grant Fund. Testimony indicated the enhanced transfer language in Section 2 is set to expire on July 1, 2028; Section 1 does not include an expiration date.

Fiscal notes and agency testimony described how the money would flow and staff needs. The Department of Health and Environment told the committee enactment would increase expenditures from the State Water Plan Fund by $20,000,000, with $8,000,000 for Kansas Water Office grant programs and $12,000,000 allocated to agencies based on program needs; a precise fiscal effect on KDHE could not be estimated. The Kansas Department of Agriculture estimated it would need one new position to manage the conservation‑fund program at an estimated cost of about $95,000 in year one (approximately $55,000 salary, $25,000 benefits, $10,000 supplies and $5,000 travel).

Witnesses from local and statewide groups urged passage to meet a large and continuing need for water system repairs and capacity in small communities. Wendy Stark of the League of Kansas Municipalities read a list of cities that had applied for prior Water Office grants and said that only roughly 20 percent of the documented need had been met so far. "This is very much needed, to expand that funding," she said. Darren Martin of the Kansas Rural Water Association described projects funded in the first round, including Wakefield (work to reduce lagoon discharges to Milford Reservoir) and Keats (creation of a community sewer to replace failing private septic systems). He added that some projects already built, such as Pretty Prairie's recent $2.2 million nitrate treatment plant, can produce very large per-connection costs for small systems.

Connie Owen, director of the Kansas Water Office, described the Water Office's two grant programs established under House Bill 2302: a technical assistance grant (for engineering, planning and grant writing) and a water projects grant (for infrastructure repairs and construction). Owen said both application forms are intentionally brief and that the Water Office used a consultant and a scoring matrix to evaluate a very large number of applications in the first round. "We developed tiers of recommendations based on the criteria in the statute," Owen said, and the director of the Water Office makes the final award decisions.

Committee members asked how the conservation fund would interact with existing State Water Plan Fund allocations and whether the conservation funding would supplant or supplement current appropriations. Testimony and committee discussion repeatedly stated the bill language intends the conservation fund monies to "supplement, not supplant" existing appropriations. Representative Vaughn and Representative Fairchild asked whether domestic well sampling would be administered by KDHE or a third party; witnesses said the Division of Conservation could fund third parties or partner with KDHE at the division's discretion.

The committee approved the minutes for the committee's Feb. 6 meeting by voice vote at the start of the session. The hearing on House Bill 2,113 was closed after testimony; the chair indicated the committee expected to work the bill at a business meeting on Thursday and noted a potential amendment reducing the initial $5,000,000 transfer to $2.5 million would be offered.

The hearing assembled fiscal detail, stakeholder perspectives and program mechanics but did not produce any committee vote on the bill itself. Committee members and agency staff emphasized the scale of unmet need and the difficulty of fully clearing the backlog of applications without ongoing funding beyond the bill's current sunsets. The Water Office and other agencies offered to meet individually with legislators for additional background as the committee prepares to consider amendments and final action.