Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drinking Water Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Task force hears shrinking sources, rising nitrate risk and SRF funding shortfalls threaten small-town drinking water
Summary
KDHE warned that many small public water systems face compliance challenges as sources shrink and nitrate concentrations rise; members were told federal SRF funding uncertainty and congressional earmarks will reduce loan availability, and several small-community grant programs were described.
Leo Henning of KDHE told the task force that small public water systems are the most likely to face health-based violations and infrastructure expense. "Of the 73 PWS systems that ... have violations, 71% of those serve a population of 500 or less," Henning said, and he added that 96.5% of Kansans get drinking water from a public water system.
The agency identified nitrates in groundwater as a major and growing compliance challenge. Henning described the federal MCL of 10 milligrams per liter for nitrates and said EPA conversations point toward a potential future tightening (he cited a hypothetical drop to 5 mg/L), which he warned would put many systems at risk: "If that's true, then every city or every PWS system on this map would be out of compliance." Henning said nitrate problems are hardest for small systems to remedy because treatment (reverse osmosis, ion exchange) is expensive and can take years to implement.
Funding constraints were a recurring theme. Henning said KDHE manages state revolving loan funds (SRF) for drinking-water and wastewater projects and that congressional earmarks reduce the amount available for state loans. KDHE projected it would make dozens of loans this year but that approximately $600 million in ready-to-go projects (six wastewater projects and 68 public-water projects) would lack SRF funding. Henning and other presenters described several small-community support streams: $10 million in ARPA funds used as grants earlier, $3.2 million from the state water plan, $16 million in state general funds, and the new House Bill 2302 allocation to the Kansas Water Office (roughly $5 million for technical assistance and $12 million for water projects for communities of 2,000 or fewer).
Task force members asked about lead-and-copper rule implementation. Henning described the EPA-driven inventory process and said municipalities have assessment obligations and up to five years for inventories and to begin replacement; he said early inventories showed fewer lead service lines than initially forecasted but that galvanized lines remain a concern.
Regionalization and reuse: Henning said regional interconnections and blending are common strategies for small systems. He noted increasing interest in water reuse — both traditional nonpotable reuse (irrigation of golf courses and parks) and more advanced reuse approaches. He cited examples: Caney pursued an interconnect to avoid a supply failure (project cost roughly $24 million) and Wichita invested heavily in a new water-treatment plant (about $500 million) and is considering additional wastewater treatment investments.
Why it matters: Small systems typically lack economies of scale and certified operators; the combination of shrinking raw water supplies in many basins, rising contaminant loads (nitrate, PFAS), and SRF funding pressure could increase public-health risks and monthly water-bill costs for residents unless funding or consolidation options are expanded.
Ending: KDHE and the Kansas Water Office said they will provide more detailed cost estimates for lead-pipe replacement and are exploring options such as state-level revolving funds and technical-assistance expansion to help small communities evaluate regionalization, treatment and other compliance options.
