Recently, Russell entered the water warning phase of its drought response plan. In 2014, Hays and Russell began their journey to develop water rights on property they own in Edwards County as a long-term water supply. This was in response to the drought of 2011-13. Since then, Russell has been at or above the water warning phase in most years.
Hays and Russell cannot use water like everyone else in Kansas. The only way we are surviving is by implementing the most stringent conservation measures in the state.
I forwarded Russell’s press release to Pat Janssen, head of the Water Protection Association of Central Kansas (Water PACK), a collection of irrigators in central Kansas, as Water PACK and Edwards County are the two entities causing Hays and Russell’s regulatory delay.
Hays and Russell have spent over $11 million navigating the 12-year regulatory process. $8 million of that is because of Water PACK and Edwards County’s involvement. Hays and Russell have experienced $40 million in project inflation as a result of the regulatory delay caused by Water PACK and Edwards County. This hits the pocketbook of every Hays and Russell water customer.
SEE RELATED: LETTER: Water PACK chairman responds to Hays city manager on R9
Mr. Janssen chose to respond via the media, so I am providing this reply.
Mr. Janssen stated Water PACK did not sue Hays and Russell, that they sued the state. This is correct. They sued the state to block Hays and Russell’s legal use of their property in Edwards County. And but for Water PACK and Edwards County’s intervention in the transfer proceedings, they would have been completed by now.
A few weeks back, I drove through Edwards County. It was 103 degrees and the wind was howling. There were irrigation sprinklers running all over the place. While Russell residents can only water their flowers once a week, and Hays residents are not allowed to water their flowers between noon and 7 p.m., there are apparently no such restrictions in Edwards County on irrigating corn for cattle feed.
This truly illustrates the absurdity of the situation.
When converting irrigation water rights to a new use, such as municipal, there is a regulatory process controlled by the state that governs how much water can be available for the new use. It is regularly and routinely applied across the state.
Hays and Russell reduced their legally available water 29% beyond what those regulations require in order to commit to sustainable usage of their water rights. We did not have a legal requirement to do so. If there were a legal requirement for sustainable use, aquifers across the state would not be in decline. This was an agreement between Hays/Russell and the state.
For Water PACK and Edwards County, the 29% reduction was not enough. Even though it is none of their business and no other Water PACK member or water right owner in the county has or is being asked to do the same.
Water PACK members were presented with a similar opportunity to demonstrate stewardship.
According to the Department of Agriculture’s Division of Water Resources, the junior irrigators causing the Quivira Wildlife Refuge impairment (many of them Water PACK members) could remedy the impairment by reducing their usage 30%. This was a non-starter. Rather than reducing their usage, Water PACK irrigators asked Groundwater Management District No. 5 for a costly augmentation scheme so they could continue their unsustainable behavior. And, after refusing to change their behavior in the Quivira matter, Water PACK sued the state advocating they hold Hays and Russell to a different regulatory standard that goes far beyond sustainability. This is the height of hypocrisy.
When faced with limited supply, Hays and Russell implemented strict conservation measures that are permanently in place. When supplies are further stressed, Hays and Russell implement drought response plans which enact further cuts. What do Water PACK members do in a similar situation? Nothing. They either keep pumping without reductions or ask the GMD to bail them out.
In fact, some of our neighbors have over-pumped their water rights when faced with dry conditions all the while claiming we should reduce our rights further.
When determining the sustainable usage amount for our water rights, Hays and Russell used the GMD No. 5 water model and ran several 51-year pumping scenarios. The final scenario was based on the cities pumping every drop of their authorized water from day one, something they do not have the legal right to do, and one that is physically impossible as we are only building half the wells in the first phase.
Nonetheless, in the scenario the aquifer at the southeast border of our property dropped 4 inches due to our pumping. The aquifer is 140 feet thick. The irrigators around us would cause the aquifer to drop 9.9 feet over the same period. Remember, they have no sustainability limitations.
The people who are causing 97% of the future decline are trying to convince the regulators and courts we are the problem. This demonstrates that their hypocrisy has no limit. Luckily the courts and regulators have not bought in to their flawed arguments.
In his letter, Mr. Janssen claims to not be against transfers, just the amount. However, the amount is a floating variable that changes depending on the legal/regulatory proceeding. Mr. Janssen came up with a new, and even lower, number during a Senate Committee hearing this past legislative session. So while it is true WaterPACK and Edwards County do not agree with what science and the state deem is sustainable, they also do not agree with themselves on what the number should be.
Just last year, Water PACK’s own attorney, Micah Schwalb, represented Blue Sky Dairy a few miles up the road from us when they converted irrigation water rights to stock watering. This is the exact same process in which Schwalb and Water PACK fought Hays and Russell’s use. There was no talk of sustainability, no voluntary reduction in use, and no adherence to the arbitrary and unreasonable standards they tried to impose on Hays and Russell, only a demand to the State that the regulations be followed. The process took six months.
Water PACK and Edwards County have argued that Hays and Russell really don’t “need” their water from the Edwards County property, or maybe just a little of it.
This was one of their main arguments during the Transfer Hearing. They have developed this flawed argument based on the fact that Hays and Russell use their current water in such a miserly manner and that we own water rights that are really only valid on paper and cannot be utilized year in and year out.
Their flawed logic completely ignores the devastating effects of drought on Hays and Russell’s water supply, and that we have little room for error. Drought will be devastating for our economy and our residents.
This is the equivalent of a wealthy person telling a poor person, who is doing all they can to survive, “you seem to be surviving, so you don’t need any more money”! I find this argument shocking. It is why I sent the email to Mr. Janssen.
When it comes to water, Water PACK and Edwards County are very wealthy. According to the Division of Water Resources, there are 156k acre feet of water authorized for use in Edwards County. At Hays’ per capita usage, this would provide enough water for 1.8 million people. The water rights Hays and Russell own are but a tiny sliver of the rights in Edwards County.
As the state leader in water conservation, Hays consumes 2,100 acre feet of water in a year.
A Water PACK irrigator in Edwards County can use the same amount of water on one circle of corn as 2,200 Hays residents consume in a year. Many irrigators in Edwards County put more water on corn in a season than Hays and Russell residents use in a year.
The two irrigators immediately south of Hays/Russell’s property, Water PACK leaders and our most vocal opponents, own 3,400 and 3,200 acre feet of water. Our neighbor to the north, also a Water PACK member and vocal opponent, owns 3,400 acre feet. They are using that water mostly to grow corn for cattle feed.
No one tells them whether or not they “need” that water. No one tells them they have to adhere to some arbitrary and unreasonable sustainability number. No one tells them they should be growing milo or wheat instead of corn. In fact, they have zero requirements to use their water in a sustainable manner. And, if the State attempted such a move, they would be the first ones to point out that water rights are property rights as Mr. Janssen has done in prior regulatory proceedings.
I am not being critical of anyone’s irrigation usage, only drawing a comparison. The irrigators are using their legally owned water in a manner allowed by state statute. Water rights are property rights, and I support those rights. Hays and
Russell own the water rights on their property, and they have the right and responsibility to use them like as every other water right owner in the state.
—Toby Dougherty,
Hays city manager