Kansas groundwater districts begin drafting action plans under 2023 statute; chief engineer, local managers outline deadlines and public process

A statutory process created by the 2023 legislative package is moving groundwater management from study to planning across Kansas, officials told the Water Task Force on July 21 in Dodge City. The state’s chief engineer said districts were required to identify high‑priority areas by July 1, 2024, and must submit action plans for those areas by July 1, 2026.

Why it matters: the deadlines force local groundwater management districts (GMDs) to translate earlier assessments into concrete measures — from five‑year allocation schedules to longer conservation and recharge plans. State review of those plans will determine whether they meet legal standards, a step that can trigger revisions before any plan becomes effective.

Chief Engineer and director of the Division of Water Resources Earl Lewis said the statute (identified in testimony as “House Bill 22‑79” and cited in the meeting transcript as codified under a numeric reference) requires a two‑step process: initial identification of priority areas and later, district action plans. “By 07/01/2024, each board of the district had to identify high priority areas of concern and then submit those to the chief engineer,” Lewis told the task force. He added that districts have until mid‑2026 to develop concrete action programs for those areas and that the department will review plans within 90 days of submission for legal consistency.

Local districts are already translating statewide direction into regional approaches. Paul Lewis, who opened the GMD briefing, described the statute as a re‑start of a multi‑decade effort: the GMD system began in the 1970s and the recent law clarified legislative expectations for local long‑range management.

GMDs’ sequencing and public process GMD managers said they are dividing large districts into smaller subregions for public outreach and narrower actions. Jason Norquist, managing director of Groundwater Management District 3 (southwest Kansas), told the task force his board declared the whole district a priority area and then subdivided it into 17 regions for outreach and tailored actions. “Our whole district’s part of this,” Norquist said, describing repeated public meetings, meter inspections, and a “Q‑Stable” framework the district is using to set percentage reductions by region and timescale.

Norquist described the district’s outreach as iterative: early meetings produced debate; later sessions focused the public on goals and implementation steps. He said the district is coupling technical modeling and economics research (with partners including K‑State and university institutes) to estimate impacts and design multi‑step plans that often look well beyond a single five‑year allocation cycle.

Timing, content, and state review Lewis explained the legal thresholds embedded in the statute: areas already covered by an intensive groundwater use control area (IGUCA) or by earlier action plans do not need to be re‑identified; any area with less than roughly 50 years of “usable” saturated thickness is presumptively a high‑priority area; and once districts file action plans the chief engineer must determine whether the plan reasonably addresses the identified concerns. He said the state can approve a plan as submitted, deny it, or send it back with required revisions; if a board refuses required revisions the process stops.

Several managers emphasized that the statute preserves local leadership. Norquist and other GMD officials said boards are leading outreach and plan development, with the department in a review and consistency role. “We’re working with the GMDs now to make sure that they don’t submit something that we don’t think is reasonable,” Lewis said.

Implementation examples GMD 3 is using a staged “Q‑Stable” method: regions with relatively small shortfalls are assigned modest near‑term percentage cuts; regions with larger declines are given 10‑ to 20‑year stepped reductions. Norquist said district modeling shows that both aggressive and moderate scenarios produce similar long‑term improvements in key places, but timing matters regionally. GMD 5 (Big Bend) managers described parallel work and emphasized localized priorities including the Rattlesnake Creek study (discussed in a separate task‑force briefing) and a suite of water‑quality issues such as naturally high chloride zones and nitrate concerns.

Public engagement and economics District managers who testified said economic analyses are central to their local discussions: residents ask how reductions affect farm economics, county tax rolls, and town services. Norquist said his district contracted economic impact work to shape compensation, leasing and retirement options and to explain tradeoffs to stakeholders.

Next steps and state role Lewis and district managers urged early, iterative coordination. The department of water resources is preparing to review plans when submitted and expects active engagement to accelerate review timelines. Lewis asked districts to design plans that the state can review quickly; Norquist and others asked for technical collaboration and funding for outreach and modeling.

Ending note The statutory clock set by 2023’s legislative package has moved GMDs from assessment to action. Local managers emphasized stepwise, locally tailored plans informed by metered use data, regional modeling and economics; the state plans a 90‑day consistency review after submissions. The coming months will test whether the legal framework, funding and technical support together can produce plans districts and the state deem reasonable and feasible to stabilize groundwater levels over multi‑decadal timeframes.