Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Kansas panel hears why State Water Plan funds were carried into next fiscal year
Loading...
Summary
State agencies told the House Agriculture Committee that multi-year projects, federal contracting delays and program startup times explain millions in State Water Plan Fund carryovers, including a $7 million set-aside for Rattlesnake Creek work and multi-year commitments for High Plains and Milford Lake partnerships.
At a legislative committee hearing, state water officials detailed why millions in State Water Plan Fund appropriations were carried forward into the next fiscal year, citing multi‑year projects, federal contracting timelines and new program startup needs.
Luke Drury, senior fiscal analyst with Legislative Research, opened the discussion by presenting a multi‑year table of State Water Plan Fund reappropriations, showing totals for the three agencies that receive the largest annual state water plan appropriations.
The largest single carryover discussed was a roughly $7 million one‑time dedication tied to efforts in Rattlesnake Creek, officials said. Earl Lewis, chief engineer with the Kansas Department of Agriculture’s Division of Water Resources, told the committee that most of that $7 million was set aside to work with local stakeholders on resolving competing water uses around Rattlesnake Creek and a senior federal water right held by a national wildlife refuge. Lewis said the state used the funds to support an augmentation plan, studies and short‑term leasing arrangements.
Lewis and other agency speakers described how $4 million of the $7 million was placed in a water transition and CREP (Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program) line to lease water rights over a multi‑year period. Through a state arrangement with a local water bank and an ag organization, officials reported $2.8 million of that $4 million had been committed so far; local stakeholders also contributed about $1.5 million in matching local funds, the agencies said.
Agencies also described other programmatic carryovers. The Division of Water Resources has increased funding requests for water‑use database modernization from roughly $100,000 to $250,000 to support an online application and permitting system, the presenters said. The division also noted it maintains contracts and staff funded by the State Water Plan to support interstate compact work and subbasin water management; turnover and contracting timelines contribute to slower spending.
Josh McGinn, speaking for the Division of Conservation, said conservation contracts with producers often span growing seasons and can lag state fiscal years, leaving money committed but not yet paid. He told the committee that in fiscal 2025 the division had about $5.9 million with roughly 90 percent committed but only about $2.0 million paid out because projects remain under contract or await contractor completion. He also highlighted a High Plains Aquifer regional conservation partnership project (RCPP) that will provide approximately $5 million per year over five years and said state funds are being used to meet the federal cost‑share requirement for early enrollment.
Victoria Asbury of the Kansas Water Office said the office carried over funds to meet anticipated partnership obligations, to account for federal contracting timelines, and to stand up a new grant program created by House Bill 2302. Asbury said the Water Office’s obligation for a pilot water‑injection dredging project at Tuttle Creek Lake is $2.0 million and that federal acceptance procedures delayed the transfer of those funds for more than a year. The office also noted a $2.0 million per‑year obligation (five years) for the High Plains RCPP and a $1.0 million obligation for a Milford Lake RCPP focused on water‑quality practices in that watershed.
Representatives asked technical questions during the hearing. Members raised concerns about how large groundwater withdrawals would be evaluated and whether nearby well owners would be notified. Agency staff said evaluations of proposed high‑capacity wells are performed through the Division of Water Resources and that the process includes notification of nearby water users so potential impacts can be identified and addressed. Committee members pressed for follow‑up briefings for specific constituent complaints.
Kate (last name not specified), representing the Kansas Department of Health and Environment’s Division of Environment, described reappropriations tied to weather‑dependent conservation work and to new or scaled‑up programs. KDHE flagged a drinking‑water protection program aimed at municipal wells with nitrate impacts and said a recently funded small‑town infrastructure program has moved toward contracting for two Riley County municipalities; KDHE expects most of those checks to be mailed soon and reported the small‑town infrastructure carryover had materially declined from earlier in the year.
Across the agencies, officials said common causes of carryover include: (1) large, multi‑year projects and partnerships; (2) federal contracting and cost‑share processes that add months to obligation timelines; (3) programs that take time to staff and set up; and (4) state contracting and seasonal rhythms for agricultural producers that do not align with the July‑to‑June fiscal year.
No committee votes were taken on the material presented. Agency officials told the committee they would continue to obligate funds, bring updates as projects progress and follow up on constituent concerns about groundwater impacts.
The committee adjourned after hearing the reports.
