Kansas Water Office outlines options for roughly $22.5 million in new water funding

J. Ramaswamy of the Kansas Water Office briefed the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on competing options to increase taxpayer funding for water in Kansas, outlining the governor—s enhancements, the House budget position and language in House Bill 2,113.

Ramaswamy said the state—s water funding base is about $60,000,000, made up of various fees and transfers, and described three priorities for new funding: choose projects the state can spend on, prioritize projects with significant demand and fund items stakeholders and legislators requested. "We were very, very intentional on 3 things," he said.

The presentation identified three parallel avenues for new water funding: the supplemental appropriations in the governor—s budget, the House—s budget position and House Bill 2,113. The governor—s enhancements would add a mix of project-development and grant dollars; the House position reduces some of those increases. For one example, the governor proposed a $10,000,000 increase for the House Bill 2302 infrastructure grant program for small communities; the House position trimmed that to a $1,500,000 increase.

Ramaswamy highlighted a governor-backed water-planning and project-development initiative intended to produce basin-level project lists and long-range demand estimates similar to what some other states use for economic development decisions. He described that effort as intentionally front-loaded to create a project list by basin.

House Bill 2,113 was described in the presentation as an extension of the earlier House Bill 2302 program. According to Ramaswamy, HB 2,113 would: - Provide $2,500,000 for a conservation fund (including $1,750,000 to implement Senate Bill 36—s increased conservation-district match); - Add $8,000,000 for the infrastructure grant program; and - Add $12,000,000 for the state water plan generally. Ramaswamy noted the $8,000,000 and $12,000,000 items would sunset after the final transfer on July 1, 2027 (through the end of fiscal 2028) and that the bill as passed the House on Feb. 20 totaled roughly $22,500,000 in new transfers.

Ramaswamy also cited a separate accounting change that yielded roughly $22,000,000 in interest savings tied to federal debt calculations for Milford and Perry Lake; those savings are part of the rationale for proposing a roughly $22 million to $22.5 million increase in water funding this year.

He described other governor-requested items including a sorghum research match intended to attract private investment and a hydro-suction pilot at John Redmond that the presenter said could leverage federal cost-sharing (about $3,000,000 state and $4,000,000 Corps of Engineers contribution, per the presentation).

Committee members asked clarifying questions about line items and how the various documents in members— packets map to the governor and House positions. Ramaswamy and committee staff emphasized the need to reconcile transfer language (in HB 2,113) with appropriation language (the budget) so agencies will have both the authority to receive transferred funds and the appropriation language to spend them.

The committee did not take formal action during the hearing. Ramaswamy said the committee will examine House Bill 2,113 at a future date and welcomed questions at that time.

Ending: The committee will consider HB 2,113 and the budget as separate but related vehicles; staff advised reconciling the transfer language and appropriation totals before finalizing a single position on water funding.