Bill would bar counties from regulating water transfers, supporters say

A Kansas House committee heard competing views on House Bill 24-33 on Jan. 28, a bill that would prevent counties from enacting regulations that conflict with state law governing the appropriation and transfer of water.

Supporters from Hays and Russell said the bill would provide legal clarity for long-running municipal projects and for water-right owners. "All water in the state of Kansas is owned by the state of Kansas," Representative Barb Wasser (District 111) told the Committee, arguing counties should not duplicate state regulation. Todd Luckman, an attorney for the Kansas Rural Water Association, said the bill protects interconnected water systems and long-term contracts that "do not necessarily respect county lines." Mayor Mason Reuter of Hays said Hays and Russell spent 11 years pursuing state regulatory approvals and that Edwards County later amended zoning in a way he said effectively duplicated state law and blocked the R9 Ranch transfer.

The bill, as summarized by the committee reviser, would add an exemption to the county home rule statute (cited in testimony as 19-101a) so that counties could not adopt resolutions, licenses, permits, fees or other local requirements that conflict with state law under chapter 82a related to water appropriation and transfers. The reviser also said the bill would carve out a specific exception allowing counties to use zoning and sanitary codes to regulate the location and use of domestic water wells, and that the bill would take effect upon publication in the Kansas Register and apply retroactively to local rules that conflict with state law.

City managers and municipal leaders framed the bill as protecting regional economic development. Kayla Schneider, city manager of Russell, told the committee that Russell has faced limits on growth because of water supply constraints and described a local business expansion that depends on a transfer supported by the R9 Ranch project. Hays city manager Toby Doherty said the cities had offered payments in lieu of taxes to Edwards County that were not accepted and described the infrastructure needed for the project: "It'd be a 67-mile pipeline to the Hays well field," with an additional roughly 9-mile interconnect for Russell.

Supporters gave cost figures tied to the multiyear regulatory effort. Doherty said the regulatory process and related work have cost the cities about $11 million to date and that construction and regulatory inflation had driven an originally estimated $75 million construction project to roughly $120 million, estimating total program costs nearer $140 million when regulatory expenses are included.

Opponents said the bill would shift local authority to the state in ways that should be considered carefully. Bob Ryan, a Pawnee County commissioner appearing for the Kansas Natural Resources Coalition, said HB 24-33 "can be plainly understood as an expansion of state-level authority" at the expense of county home rule and warned the retroactive effect could have unintended consequences for local governance. In neutral testimony, Joseph Rupenick, chairman of the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, urged consideration of tribal water rights under the Winters doctrine and noted a potential conflict-of-interest issue where a county commissioner also serves on a rural water-district board.

Earl Lewis, chief engineer with the Division of Water Resources, said the Division takes no position on the bill and described the administrative process used for change applications and for the Water Transfer Act hearing. Lewis said the DWR provided public notice and convened hearings during the conversion and transfer processes, and that parties had opportunities to participate in administrative proceedings.

Committee members pressed both sides on legal and factual details: why the change was needed now, how parties had negotiated with Edwards County, whether state processes had been followed, and how local zoning, groundwater management districts and KDHE responsibilities interlock with water-right determinations. On compensation, Doherty said the cities had offered payment arrangements and that the cited property-tax impact figure in testimony was presented as approximately $5 million per year in lost county property tax revenue (the oral record contained an inconsistent rendering of that figure).

The committee closed the hearing on HB 24-33 without taking a recorded vote. The chair noted further action may follow and moved on to approve minutes before adjourning.