Kansas, like many agricultural states orient itself around crops and farmland not just as a matter of living but as a way to think of ourselves as a state. Individuals who live in the cities in Kansas still have friends and family who live in rural communities and we all share in some way a bond with a farm lifestyle.
Many, though have concerns that the farm life of western Kansas may be at risk within our lifetimes.
http://hdnews.net/...
There are also some who believe the main water source for western Kansas, the Ogallala Aquifer, is past the point of no return when it comes to natural recharge. A plan to build a giant aqueduct to transport water from the Missouri River hundreds of miles has been floated, but it would involve tremendous expense and is not formally a part of the 50-year water plan.
Right now, the plan consists of dozens of suggestions for ways the state, and specific regions within it, can conserve water and re-create the Hays success story.
But Phelps, who was a Democratic state legislator from 1997 to 2012, said he doesn't have a lot of hope for quick legislative action in a session with grave and immediate fiscal concerns.
"Given the revenue reports and the education funding lawsuit, I see this being put on the back burner," Phelps said.
Phelps, you see, is concerned about the ability of Kansas to look into the realities of addressing issues facing water rights in Western Kansas.
Other Kansans, however, are concerned about... the ditch.
Donn Teske, president of the Kansas Farmers Union, said his organization would welcome higher overpumping penalties. But the left-leaning group isn't sold on the Brownback administration's commitment to conservation.
Teske said the governor's attempt to focus the state's attention on water issues is "commendable." But he wonders how much of the agenda-setting is meant to whet public appetite for the Missouri River aqueduct, or as Teske calls it, "the big damn ditch across the state."
The feasibility and cost of the aqueduct, which would carry Missouri River floodwater hundreds of miles to western Kansas, is still under study. Streeter said he expects to issue a report soon.
You see, a portion of the Kansas 50 year water plan included evaluating the idea of building a 360 mile ditch which would bring water from the Missouri river in North East Kansas to South West Kansas. It would be the largest project of it's kind. The Army Corp of Engineers estimate it would cost $18B dollars.
And let's face it - when you even start to talk about building a 360 mile man made ditch/river to transport water across a state that will force it uphill in places requiring twelve pumping stations and calculations for loss saturation at that kind of cost, you're going to get some attention.
Today, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon decided now was the time to fire back.
Governor Jay Nixon, touring his state after his state of the state is making time not just to respond to the issues of Missouri - but to point out the very real problems Kansas currently faces, and why it might be important to consider their neighbor states before hatching wild plans.
http://cjonline.com/...
Nixon, in the State of the State speech on Wednesday night in Jefferson City, Mo., said diversion of water from the river separating a section of Kansas and Missouri could leave farmers and shippers in Missouri high and dry.
He singled out the $18 billion Kansas aqueduct concept -- still in the early research phase -- for condemnation.
"Take Kansas," Nixon said. "Their latest harebrained idea is the construction of a 360-mile aqueduct to siphon off more of our Missouri River water. We can't let that happen."
Earl Lewis, assistant director of the Kansas Water Office, took a more conciliatory tone on Thursday.
"We'd rather have a discussion with our sister states, including Missouri, about the management and allocation of the river rather than end up in conflict and litigation," Lewis said.
Governor Nixon has vowed to fight such efforts to syphon off the Missouri river, just another sign of what may be the future of many states, fighting over nearby resources, including clean water.
The plan may not need ridicule from the Missouri governor, though, because the outrageous price tag is clearly out of Kansas reach.
http://abcnews.go.com/...
Building a 360-mile aqueduct to reroute water from the Missouri River to irrigate crops in western Kansas where underwater stores are being exhausted would cost $18 billion and require an additional $1 billion each year to operate, a new draft report shows.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates that building an aqueduct to transport excess water from the river would take 20 years and cost $12.2 billion, plus $5.8 billion in interest. The estimate doesn't include the costs of permits or restoring habitat lost as a result of the project, which could boost the cost "significantly higher," said John Grothaus, chief of the water planning section for the corps' Kansas City district.
The proposed concrete-lined canal and 15 pump stations would start near White Cloud, along the Nebraska border, and end near Utica. A similar 1982 analysis, undertaken at the request of Congress, estimated construction would cost $3.7 billion and interest $4.2 billion.
What is notable about the Army Corp plan isn't the significant price tag, it is that this option had been considered before, in 1982 by the Reagan administration. At that time, the cost - figured around $8B was simply too significant to consider. 33 years later, the project seems as out of date as an LP Record - but that doesn't stop people from considering it.
The proposal which is just reaching the legislature now was already listed as a costly, unlikely possibility.
http://www.khi.org/...
Mark Rude, executive director of Southwest Kansas Groundwater Management District No. 3, is a chief spokesman for the interests trying to revive the Missouri water transfer proposal.
GMD No. 3 and the Kansas Water Office have agreed to foot half the cost of a fresh, $300,000 feasibility study. The U.S. Corps of Engineers has agreed to pay the other half.
Meanwhile, some see in the aqueduct plan an example of the desperation that could become more common as the demands for water, particularly in the nation’s southwest, continue to outpace supply.
“To me (the aqueduct proposal) is a desperation measure. I can’t even imagine the costs of that kind of system.” K-State’s Sherow said.
“The costs will be staggering,” Streeter of the Kansas Water Office said, “and I’ll venture to say it’s a long shot. I think even the staunchest of advocates know it’s a long shot.”
But the interest in spending $300,000 on what is clearly a long shot - a project that in 1982 was estimated at $8B - for a state almost a billion in debt - clearly signals real concern about longstanding water availability in many Kansas communities.
While Governor Nixon may have time to throw cold water on this, Kansas Secretary of Agriculture Jackie McClaskey contends we are still looking for the right solution.
I still find it hard to believe that there is any method to view any form of $18B government project as 'market-based, voluntary incentives', which is why I tend to believe that secretary Jackie McClaskey may not be totally on board with the aqueduct plan.
Unless she's found an entirely new way to define market-based as a money losing sinkhole with a pricetag that makes it unaffordable, and that's before you get to the yearly maintenance cost.
http://cjonline.com/...
The Corps of Engineers indicated the potential cost of operating that kind of water transfer infrastructure could approach $400 million annually. Under this scheme, the 360-mile concrete river would be supplemented with more than a dozen pumping stations to deal with rising elevation moving west.