Kansas farmers urge coordinated conservation, propose graduated cuts and market tools to stabilize groundwater

Members of the Kansas Farm Bureau’s water committee and farmers from several counties told the Kansas House Committee on Water on Monday that accelerating groundwater declines and drought require coordinated, measurable conservation across all water uses.

The daylong testimony, introduced by Kent Askren, Public Policy Director for Kansas Farm Bureau, drew producers from Osborne, Wallace, Haskell, Stafford, Sedgwick, Pratt and other counties who described declining aquifer levels, local groundwater management actions and proposals to share cuts across water‑right holders.

The presenters said local tools such as Local Enhanced Management Areas (LEMAs), groundwater management districts (GMDs), flow meters and voluntary market arrangements can help manage declines without abrupt, unilateral enforcement. "The Kansas Farm Bureau policy supports the GMD Act," said Jarvis Gerritsen, a fourth‑generation farmer in Haskell County and member of the Kansas Farm Bureau Water Committee. Gerritsen urged reductions be applied to certificated allotments rather than historical use and proposed graduated cuts by seniority — for example, a senior right reduced by X×25%, a mid‑seniority right by X×50% and the most junior by X×75% — so all users share reductions while preserving the priority system.

Several speakers described the on‑the‑ground consequences of restricted water access and rising costs. Kathleen Schultz of Osborne County said drought left some neighbors hauling water for livestock in 2015, that her household faced an estimated $30,000 cost to tie into a rural water district at roughly 1 mile distance, and that her local district currently caps some household service at 10,000 gallons per month. "House bill 21 13 outlines for funding to be directed towards domestic water supply testing," Schultz told the committee, commending the funding for water‑quality testing.

Producers from western Kansas discussed production and management changes that have reduced irrigation demand. Ryan Janotel, from Wallace County, said his area formed a LEMA that encouraged conservation practices such as no‑till, crop rotation and irrigation timing adjustments; he reported typical pivot applications on his operation averaged 14–18 inches for corn, 8–9 inches for wheat and 10–13 inches after LEMA measures. Janotel described shifts in farmer mindsets toward tighter water budgeting and technology use, including pivot control systems and well efficiency testing.

Several speakers stressed tools to enable flexibility during drought. Justin Vosberg of Stafford County described augmentation and the Central Kansas Water Bank safety‑deposit approach, which allows irrigators to bank water credits for drought years; he asked lawmakers to coordinate economic development, water permitting and local GMDs so new businesses do not inadvertently increase regional historical water use. Bill Karp of Sedgwick and Pratt counties warned against policies that would effectively reallocate water without compensation and cautioned that LEMAs that exempt some beneficial users (for example, a feedlot or municipality) risk choosing "winners and losers." "We can't go down that road," he said.

Testimony also emphasized measurement and enforcement. Gerritsen described GMD 3's longstanding flow‑meter program and annual unannounced inspections, and said the data these meters provide are critical for future reductions and monitoring. Multiple presenters said reductions applied to certificated allotments — the legal quantity tied to a water right — are clearer to administer and avoid penalizing early conservers if historical use is used as the baseline.

Committee members asked detailed questions about local conditions and technologies. Representatives sought figures on rainfall, depths to shale and recent water‑level declines; Gerry Gerritsen and others reported regional variation, with local declines averaging about 2 feet per year in some places and larger single‑year drops historically.

The committee adjourned after the testimony and noted upcoming business on PFAS in drinking water and a planned hearing on Senate Bill 58 (proposed adjustments to MIFA/Multi‑year flex accounts).