Kansas Water Office funding review exposes projected shortfall in state water plan fund

Legislative fiscal staff told the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources on May 20 that the Kansas Water Office requested $74,400,000 for fiscal 2025, including $1,400,000 from the general fund and 24 FTE positions, and that changes to state water plan fund transfers and EDIF reductions could leave the fund over-appropriated for FY2026.

"The agency's request is $74,400,000 that includes $1,400,000 general fund and 24 FTE positions," Luke Drury, senior fiscal analyst with the Legislative Research Department, said during the hearing. He said most of the requested increase reflects large balances carried into 2025 in the water projects grant fund and the water technical assistance fund.

Why it matters: Committee members raised concerns that the state water plan fund could end fiscal 2026 with a substantial negative balance unless transfers or general fund actions address the shortfall, and they pressed staff for a clearer project-level accounting of new and legacy appropriations.

Key points and committee questions

- Projected shortfall: Drury presented House committee materials showing a projected negative ending balance in the state water plan fund for FY2026 of about $12,200,000 under the House position; he said Senate Ways and Means changes (deleting EDIF monies and transfers) would increase that projected shortfall to about $14,200,000.

- Drivers of increases: The agency’s request and House action include larger appropriations for the water projects grant fund and the water technical assistance fund. Drury said the agency spent relatively little from those funds in FY2024 and therefore carried forward substantial balances into FY2025, producing larger recommended appropriations in 2025.

- Line-item structure and transfer authority: The Kansas Water Office had proposed collapsing many traditional line items into five new "buckets" aligned with guiding principles; the House recommended restoring more discrete legacy line items and added transfer authority to allow the Water Office to move funds across lines and to other state water plan-funded agencies. Drury noted that the transfer authority mirrors language adopted by the legislature previously.

- Specific projects and clarity requests: Committee members asked whether particular projects — for example hydro-suction work at John Redmond Reservoir — remained funded in House Bill 2,007. Drury said tracking became difficult because of the agency’s proposed buckets, and he committed to provide a clearer tabular list identifying funding by specific project. He also agreed to follow up on whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a funding role for particular dredging or hydro-suction projects.

Follow-up and next steps

No formal action was taken; members asked fiscal staff to obtain more granular information from the Kansas Water Office about project-level funding, the composition of the new buckets versus legacy line items, the list of technical studies and State of the Resource reports cited in the agency’s performance measures, current FTE vacancy counts, and an itemized list of projects included in any House additions to the budget.

The committee planned a follow-up presentation from Vijay Ramaswamy on water funding the next morning to provide additional context and to answer outstanding questions.

Ending note

Fiscal staff said they will return with a tabular breakdown mapping new buckets back to legacy line items and with agency responses to requests for lists of completed technical studies, report counts and vacancy figures so the committee can better assess the state water plan fund’s fiscal posture before further appropriation decisions.