Kansas Department of Agriculture asks lawmakers for State Water Plan fund boosts for dam rehab, irrigation and conservation district aid

The Kansas Department of Agriculture told a legislative budget committee that it needs added State Water Plan and general‑fund support to repair aging dams, expand irrigation modernization, and restore conservation district aid.

Luke Drury, senior fiscal analyst with Legislative Research, said the department requested $2,700,000 from the State Water Plan Fund to assist rehabilitation of roughly 20 high‑hazard and significant‑hazard watershed dams every two years and requested $1,700,000 for aid to conservation districts so the department can resume a 2:1 state match that the 2025 Legislature authorized under Senate Bill 36. Drury said the department estimates the dam funding would support inspections and rehabilitation work for about 10 dams per year.

The request also includes $950,000 in State Water Plan Fund for irrigation‑technology upgrades (raising the line to $3,500,000) tied to a pending federal High Plains Aquifer Regional Conservation Partnership Program opportunity. If the federal application is approved, the state match could help draw down an estimated $25,000,000 in federal funds and upgrade roughly 400 irrigation systems every two years, Drury said.

Drury and department officials flagged that FY2026 totals include a $3,000,000 one‑time appropriation for a Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) operations test range that does not recur in FY2027; they also said all‑funds totals reflect $10,200,000 in State Water Plan Fund reappropriations carried from prior years. The Special Committee on State Budget’s recommendation to lapse reappropriated monies and delete enhancement requests, Drury warned, would leave many requested water projects unfunded.

Secretary of Agriculture Mike Beam said only about 20% of the department’s budget comes from the state general fund and described several reappropriations and multi‑year contracts the department seeks to reinstate, including a $192,000 weights‑and‑measures truck on order and approximately $6,000,000 committed to address a wildlife‑refuge impairment issue. Beam said some reappropriations reflect contracts that could not be completed in the previous fiscal year.

Committee members pressed the department for more detail on how State Water Plan Fund transfers are being used and whether requested increases rely on new general‑fund transfers or existing fund balances. Drury pointed members to the budget “blue sheet,” noting transfers and legislative intent items included in FY2026 and FY2027 estimates and cautioning that adopting all agency enhancement requests would over‑appropriate the State Water Plan Fund by roughly $20,000,000 without additional revenue or policy changes.

Lawmakers also asked what it would mean for local conservation districts if the 2:1 match were not funded. Beam said it would “put a squeeze” on districts that rely on the match and that the committee should consider that operational impact when making budget recommendations. On staffing, Drury attributed higher FY2026 salary totals to the multi‑year legislative pay plan, improved hiring and retention, and cost‑index changes for fringe benefits.

Committee members sought clarity about who bears the cost to rehab watershed dams. Beam said dam owners are generally responsible for a share of costs and that ownership varies — watershed districts, homeowners associations, private owners, and sometimes municipal or county governments — but agreed to supply the committee with an inventory and clearer documentation of responsibilities and contingent liabilities. He warned the committee that the bigger legal risk can be failing to inspect dams regularly, citing an out‑of‑state court matter as an example of liability for lack of inspection.

The committee asked the department to return with more specific information on outstanding reappropriations, the legal and fiscal responsibilities tied to individual watershed dams, and the operational impacts on conservation districts if the match is not funded. The Department of Agriculture said it would provide those details in follow‑up materials. The committee adjourned with the Department of Health and Environment scheduled as the next agenda item.