By BECKY KISER
Hays Post
"They just don't like this project."
That's how Hays City Manager Toby Dougherty sums up Monday's complicated legal arguments before the Kansas Supreme Court about whether Hays and Russell can transfer their water rights in Edwards County.
WaterPACK, a group of agricultural irrigators, objects to the 90-mile pipeline project.
SEE RELATED STORY: Kanas Supreme Court examines roiling water dispute between crop irrigators and Hays, Russell
The R9 Ranch southwest of Kinsley was purchased in 1995 by Hays. The city of Russell bought an 18% interest in the R9 in 1996.
"We were very happy with the proceedings," Dougherty said. "We had prepared extensively for the oral argument and potential questions from the judges.
"I think Dan Buller (attorney for Hays and Russell) and Stephanie Kramer (Kansas Department of Agriculture attorney) were very adept in illustrating the key points in a very simplistic manner and reminding the justices that not only does WaterPACK lose on the merits of the case, but because of that, they don't even have standings to be bringing thise case forward."
Now it's just a waiting game until the Supreme Court issues its ruling, which Dougherty expects to be in a few months.
About 10 years ago, Hays and Rusell filed application to change their 32 water rights from irrigation to municipal use. The request was approved by Kansas Department of Agriculture chief engineer Earl Lewis.
Legal wrangling between WaterPACK (Water Protection Association of Central Kansas), the Edwards County Commission and the Edwards County Planning Commission, which oppose the pipeline, and Hays and Russell, has been underway for almost 11 years.
"We see no reason why the Supreme Court would overturn what a judge has already resoundingly upheld," Dougherty said when the oral argument date was first announced.
WaterPACK's attorney, Charles Lee, argued Monday the cities would take too much water from Edwards County, ultimately lowering the aquifer level.
But, said Dougherty, "what they conveniently forget to bring up in their briefs...is they're causing way more lowering of the aquifer than we are."
The southwest corner of the R9 Ranch abuts some WaterPACK members.
"When WaterPack's own members looked at what would happen if we pumped every drop of available water from our property for 51 years, ... we would contribute 2.4 feet of decline in a 140-foot of saturated thickness," Dougherty said.
"But their expert conveniently forgot to include that WaterPACK's members and the irrigators around us, would drop that aquifer by about 20 feet because of their utilization."
To protect the declining aquifer, Hays and Russell's regulatory consumptive use of their water rights in Edwards County is 83.7%, and the towns voluntarily agreed to drop their use another 30%.
"We cannot pump every drop of water available from the property from day one," Dougherty said. "It's not physically possible. We don't have the legal right to do it, and we're only building seven wells to start with."
Even taking all of WaterPACK's claims at face value, it does not demonstrate harm, Dougherty says, and he believes that's what the Supreme Court justices came away with.
"There is no harm that would result in impairment in the future. It just boils down to they don't like the project," he said.
Ellis County is the only county in Kansas with a population of more than 15,000 without an adequate local water supply.