Western Kansans know the time to conserve what’s left of the Ogallala Aquifer is now. Coming up with ideas on how to do that is simple. But figuring out ways that satisfy the farmers, the conservation districts and the state is difficult.
It’s so difficult that various parts of the state are mired in fights over whether their water saving plans do too much or too little.
A plan that doesn’t do enough to satisfy the state
In 2023 the state passed a law requiring conservation districts in western Kansas to submit plans on how they would conserve water, or else the state would intervene.
Trevor Ahring, a civil engineer for Groundwater Management District 3 which covers southwest Kansas, has spent the last few years developing a plan that would stabilize the aquifer in his region.
“We wanted to create a plan that was actually going to accomplish something. We didn't want to do some grandiose gesture that wasn't supported long term by the data,” Ahring said.
In southwest Kansas, GMD 3 has struggled in the past to slow how much water it loses every year to irrigation. Some places in the region have lost as much as 30 feet of water in just the last ten years.
That wouldn’t be a big deal if the aquifer was thousands of feet thick. But even at its thickest saturation, the Ogallala is just over 300 feet of water depth in Kansas.
Running out of water means fewer crops harvested, less cattle feed, fewer trucks of grain at the mill and overall less money running through the counties. And the value of land on top of that depleted water resource would likely plummet.
“Our top priority is preserving land values for people and keeping them in business, while saving water,” Ahring said.
GMD 3 also asked for $10 million annually from the state to go towards incentivization programs that allow farmers to collect money with water-saving plans. The farmers would essentially lay water savings plans as bids, and the GMD would select the winning plans and pay those landowners.
The state argues the plan was too soft on irrigators, and said it needs to be more aggressive to stabilize the aquifer sooner.
Earl Lewis, the chief engineer for the state’s Department of Water Resources, rejected the plan twice due to some parts of the region not reaching stable aquifer levels for more than 50 years.
“If you look at 40 or 50 years, you're really going to get to the bottom of the aquifer and have very little water left,” Lewis said.
But Ahring and GMD 3 said they feel like they have held up their end of the law and created a forward-thinking plan. They decided not to just focus on areas with only 50 years of life remaining in the aquifer as required by law, but the entire district as a whole.
After holding multiple meetings with farmers throughout the region, GMD 3 developed this — its first district-wide conservation plan — by breaking up the district into subregions. Each region has different aquifer saturations and goals to stabilize, a number the Kansas Geological Survey calls “Q-Stable.”
Farmers for the first time in southwest Kansas were going to face incremental water cuts every five years until they reached stable aquifer levels.
“Frankly, these reductions are very big in a lot of areas. They don't start big, but we're committed to ramping this thing up every five years,” Ahring said
Water would be allocated by whether over the last 10 years you used more or less than most water users across the region. Farmers who have used less water than most would be allocated slightly more water than they have used. Those that were more aggressive in their water use, would face a reduction.
In areas where there are 300 feet of water left, the district gave them a longer runway of 50 years to slow their pumping by at least 30%. Areas that need to stabilize quickly to ensure their future water supply would need to do so in as few as 10 years.
But that’s where the state couldn’t get on board. In an email to the GMD, Lewis with DWR said the plan “does not reasonably address” the water crisis the district faces.
With the plan now being in the state’s hands, Ahring said that the reasons given felt flawed.
“The state was there at every meeting throughout the whole three years, and to wait until right when the thing is due to start voicing criticism, it is not very fair. And it's very ridiculous” Ahring said.
The board of directors for GMD 3 will appeal to the Kansas Secretary of Agriculture. In the meantime, Ahring says the district hopes to implement parts of their plan to start conserving water now.
A plan that does too much to satisfy farmers
While GMD 3 fights with the state, Groundwater Management District 4 in northwest Kansas has run into its own obstacle with a water conservation plan.
Farmers in the region, with the backing of the powerful group the Kansas Farm Bureau, are trying to intervene. They want to scale back that area’s water saving plan before it’s renewed. It’s known as a Local Enhanced Management Area, or LEMA, plan.
The Kansas Farm Bureau is now helping those farmers oppose the conservation plan.
GMD 4 has seen success in conservation by reducing water pumping in some areas by 44%. Members of that program reported sustained profitability due to savings in energy costs and inputs.
But some farmers in the area argue irrigation cuts violate their water rights. Those rights allow them to use an allotted amount of Kansas groundwater. The Kansas Farm Bureau argues this is a property right violation.
As part of a renewal process, GMD 4 told the state in testimony that water declines in the aquifer were significant, and water cuts prolong the life of the aquifer, as well as preserve land values. Property is worth almost twice as much if the landowner has the ability to irrigate.
Terry Holdren, the CEO and general counsel for the KFB, said these conservation plans must prioritize long-time water right holders to preserve their economic viability.
“We would support the ability to conserve and the need to conserve in the aquifer for sure but believe that it needs to happen under the system of priority,” Holdren said.
Holdren and the other farmers said that senior water rights, which are water rights established before 1945, should take a smaller cut than junior water rights that haven’t been in place as long.
“The ability to own land and manage and maintain and do what you want with your own land is sort of fundamental to us as Americans,” Holdren said.
The request from the Farm Bureau has so far been denied by the state’s Division of Water Resources.
The Kansas Farm Bureau is not sure what the next step will be, since this is the first time they have stepped in.
Calen Moore covers western Kansas for High Plains Public Radio and the Kansas News Service. You can email him at cmoore@hppr.org.
The Kansas News Service is a collaboration of KCUR, Kansas Public Radio, KMUW and High Plains Public Radio.
Kansas News Service stories and photos may be republished by news media at no cost with proper attribution and a link to ksnewsservice.org.
