Kansas Water Office outlines funding, priorities and risks in state water plan presentation

Vijay Ramaswami of the Kansas Water Office told a legislative committee that the state's water challenges—declining Ogallala aquifer levels, water quality risks, reservoir sedimentation and the need for long‑term planning—require coordinated, measurable investments and better transparency in how the State Water Plan Fund is used.

The presentation: Ramaswami said Kansas water funding rests on three main funds: the State Water Plan Fund, a water projects grant fund and a water technical assistance fund created or augmented by 2023 legislation (House Bill 2302). He described base water funding as roughly $57 million, including about $13.5 million from fees and an $18 million annual infusion created by HB 2302 that sunsets in FY2028.

Why it matters: Ramaswami warned that without continued investment, western Kansas communities dependent on the Ogallala aquifer face economic and population declines. He described specific program needs—irrigation technology and conservation, mapping of aquifer structure, drinking water infrastructure and contamination remediation—and stressed independent evaluation to show return on investment.

Key points from the briefing

- Funding demand: The infrastructure grant program received more than $220 million in requests against about $27 million available last year, illustrating a large unmet need for drinking water and wastewater projects across the state.

- Ogallala aquifer: Ramaswami said some western Kansas communities face insufficient water for the next 25 to 50 years and highlighted a five‑year, $25 million U.S. Department of Agriculture grant secured to support groundwater management districts and irrigation technology adoption.

- Water quality and contamination: He said more than 150 public water systems are either at risk or exceed nitrate levels that threaten infant health (blue baby syndrome). The state also has more than 140 historically contaminated sites that fall to state remediation efforts when private parties no longer exist.

- Reservoirs and sedimentation: Two‑thirds of Kansans rely on reservoirs for drinking water, Ramaswami said, and sedimentation is reducing storage capacity; he cited Tuttle Creek as projected to be 90% full of sediment by 2070 and noted John Redmond and Wolf Creek as other priority sites.

- Implementation framework: The Water Office is reorganizing how it presents the State Water Plan Fund so legislators can see outcomes tied to investments across five categories: aquifer/water quantity, water quality, reservoirs, resiliency/long‑term planning and research/education. Ramaswami said the goal is transparency, accountability and responsiveness.

Governor’s budget and enhancements

Ramaswami outlined enhancements in the governor’s budget aimed at ramping up mapping (AEM mapping), conservation district staffing, reservoir technologies (including hydro‑suction for John Redmond), and independent evaluation funding for program accountability. He said the governor’s plan would use interest from the Budget Stabilization Fund in the short term to finance enhancements and asked legislators to consider longer‑term funding approaches.

Next steps and context

Ramaswami thanked the committee for previous funding actions (including HB 2302) and urged continuing investment to avoid more costly emergency responses later. Committee members were told that agencies will present more detailed project lists and that the Water Office would follow up with materials; the committee deferred remaining water presentations to a subsequent hearing day.

Ending

In closing, Ramaswami said the office will provide detailed project outcomes and independent evaluations so legislators can see the impacts of state investments on water quality and supply.