Senate panel hears bill to tighten rules for state water grants, focus on transparency and small towns

Senate Bill 317, presented at a hearing of the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, would require applicants to the Water Technical Assistance Fund and the Water Projects Grant Fund to meet new documentation and scoring criteria and would add legislative intent favoring partial grants combined with other funding sources.

Tamara Lawrence, senior assistant adviser to the committee, summarized the bill’s changes, saying it would require distribution- or supply-related projects to demonstrate a minimum 25-year water supply unless the project adds a new source that extends supply beyond 25 years, impose a Sept. 15 application deadline, allow revocation and repayment of grants under certain circumstances, and direct the Kansas Water Office to adopt a scoring matrix when demand exceeds available funds. Lawrence also noted the bill would require at least half of annual transfers to the technical assistance fund be awarded to municipalities with 8,000 or fewer residents (currently the statute references 2,000), and that some criteria are shown on pages 3–4 and 7–8 of the draft.

Senator Kenny Titus, a proponent who said he worked with municipal and rural water stakeholders while the measure evolved from House Bill 2302, described the bill as a response to inconsistent scoring practices by the Kansas Water Office. “We need clear criteria,” Titus said, arguing published, rule-based criteria will make awards more transparent and predictable for applicants. He said the bill’s matrix is intended to capture multiple dimensions of value—economic development potential, system reliability and responsible resource management—so no single category would be dispositive.

Committee members pressed several practical concerns. Senator Sandra Fagg and others questioned the cost and burden of requiring a “complete preliminary engineering report” for communities that may lack resources to produce one; Titus said conferees might tweak that language and that the technical assistance fund is intended to help communities develop feasible planning documents. Members also asked how the 25-year planning horizon was set; Titus said it was intended as a common planning frame to ensure long-term supply before investing in infrastructure.

Witnesses representing utilities and state agencies generally supported the bill’s intent but offered amendments or cautions. Katie Miller, director of water services for Kansas Municipal Utilities, said KMU supports SB 317 with amendments to align preliminary engineering requirements with state/federal SRF guidelines, to clarify notice timing for applicants, and to allow flexibility when applicants combine multiple funding sources. Victoria Asbury of the Kansas Water Office provided neutral, program-level data: in FY2024 the program received 309 applications totaling $380 million with $18 million available to award; FY2025 had 269 applications totaling $233 million with $27 million available; and the FY2026 application cycle received 281 applications totaling $272 million with $18 million to award—figures she used to illustrate demand far outstrips funding.

The League of Kansas Municipalities supported the bill’s goals but cautioned that categories such as “responsible management of existing resources” must account for legal budget constraints and differing municipal capacities. Committee members repeatedly asked whether application materials and scoring would be posted publicly; proponents said the intent is transparency and that applications and scoring criteria would be posted online as public records, though witnesses agreed to confirm technical details such as electronic return receipts.

The committee closed the hearing on SB 317 with no immediate vote on the bill; the chair said he plans to continue work on the legislation. The hearing record includes stakeholder requests for clearer definitions, changes to preliminary engineering requirements, and explicit public-notice procedures.