Committee advances CREP expansion to 60,000 acres, declines EV-inspection language

The Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources agreed to move forward with House Bill 2111 to expand the state’s Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) from 40,000 to 60,000 acres, with committee members also agreeing to limit any single county to 20% of the total and to cap annual per-county enrollments at 1,600 acres. The committee said it would not reinsert sections 23 and 24, which would have addressed inspections or testing of electric vehicle charging stations.

The change matters because CREP is focused on targeted conservation acres intended to produce water savings in specified counties, committee members said. One committee member described the language as “a compromise, talking with stakeholders,” and said the expansion is intended to complement federal conservation programs and to address water issues around Quivira and west of Garden City.

Committee members discussed the existing county cap language and arithmetic: under current law the statewide cap was 40,000 acres (25% per county would be 10,000 acres); increasing the statewide cap to 60,000 acres without changing the percentage would raise the per-county maximum to 15,000 acres. The committee’s preference was to lower the percentage to 20%, which would set a per-county maximum at 12,500 acres under the new 60,000-acre cap. A committee speaker said, “That would be our position, mister chairman,” when explaining the preference for 20 percent.

Josh McGahn, Assistant Secretary of the Kansas Department of Agriculture, told the committee the house debate had raised concern that too much acreage could be enrolled in one year. “We agreed to the 1,600 in 1 year in 1 County because I think that gets more to that concern,” McGahn said, describing the amendment that limits the annual increase per county.

On the matter of sections 23 and 24, a committee member said the full committee “learned that the department’s really not ready to go down this road at this time,” and that the committee therefore would “hold the senate position on ’23 and ’24 being stricken.” The committee said it was willing to revisit electric vehicle inspection or testing language in the future if the department indicates it is prepared to address that issue.

Committee members said they would carry House Bill 2111 into the February calendar with the agreed changes and noted that, as a procedural point, house bills will be taken up first. One committee member said, “I appreciate it, mister chairman. I think we’re good to move forward,” indicating agreement to the package of changes.

No formal roll-call vote on the amended language was recorded in the transcript excerpt; committee members described reaching agreement during the discussion and preparing the bill as amended to proceed to the next step.

Questions and clarifications during the discussion included what constitutes a “whole field” enrollment for CREP (a committee member said examples can vary by region and field size) and which line in the bill contains the percentage cap. Committee staff and revisers were asked to confirm where the percentage appears in the bill text.

Next steps identified in the discussion: the committee will carry House Bill 2111 forward with the agreed amendments (60,000-acre statewide cap; 20% county cap; 1,600-acre annual per-county limit) and will not reinsert the EV inspection/testing sections 23 and 24 at this time; the topic of EV inspections may be revisited in a future session if the Kansas Department of Agriculture indicates readiness to pursue it.