In Kansas, groundwater is managed by multiple state and local agencies, including the Kansas Water Office, the Department of Agriculture, and groundwater management districts. In 1972, the legislature established the process by which local voters can form groundwater management districts. Local voters have established 5 districts in central and western Kansas. Groundwater management districts provide input but have little independent authority over many important state groundwater policies and actions. State law only requires groundwater management districts to do a few things, including having and reviewing a management program. All 5 groundwater management districts had a management program as required by state law, but we identified a few concerns with how those programs are reviewed and revised. Groundwater management districts currently operate programs related to data collection, research, and public education which appear reasonable for the purposes of groundwater management districts. In 2021, the 5 districts spent a total of $6.1 million, mostly on salaries and benefits and professional services. Overall, an estimated 75% of districts' expenditures were for programs related to an area of concern the district identified. In the last 10 years, 3 of the 5 groundwater management districts experienced overall water level declines but we could not evaluate water quality. Last, we could not determine the impact district programs had on these trends but some research suggest some positive results.
In Kansas, groundwater is managed by multiple state and local agencies, including the Kansas Water Office, the Department of Agriculture, and groundwater management districts. In 1972, the legislature established the process by which local voters can form groundwater management districts. Local voters have established 5 districts in central and western Kansas. Groundwater management districts provide input but have little independent authority over many important state groundwater policies and actions. State law only requires groundwater management districts to do a few things, including having and reviewing a management program. All 5 groundwater management districts had a management program as required by state law, but we identified a few concerns with how those programs are reviewed and revised. Groundwater management districts currently operate programs related to data collection, research, and public education which appear reasonable for the purposes of groundwater management districts. In 2021, the 5 districts spent a total of $6.1 million, mostly on salaries and benefits and professional services. Overall, an estimated 75% of districts' expenditures were for programs related to an area of concern the district identified. In the last 10 years, 3 of the 5 groundwater management districts experienced overall water level declines but we could not evaluate water quality. Last, we could not determine the impact district programs had on these trends but some research suggest some positive results.
Welcome to the Rundown, your source for the latest news and updates from the Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit featuring LPA staff talking about recently released audit reports and discussing their main findings, key takeaways and why it matters. I'm Mori Exline. In February, 2022, legislative post audit released a performance audit that evaluated groundwater management district's efforts to conserve water. I'm with Heidi Zimmerman, principal auditor at Legislative Post Audit, who supervised the audit. Heidi, welcome to the rundown.
Speaker 2:Thanks for having me, Mor.
Speaker 1:So, to get started, can you tell me some background on how groundwater is managed in Kansas?
Speaker 2:Sure. Well, first groundwater in Kansas is defined as water that's located under the surface and held in an aquifer or water that supplies a weller spring, uh, in Kansas, groundwater's used for a number of things like irrigation, drinking water, uh, industrial uses, even recreational purposes. And so managing groundwater is an important task. Uh, in, in Kansas, multiple state and local agencies, uh, are tasked with managing different aspects of groundwater. So there's three primary state agencies, uh, first, uh, the Department of Agriculture, and they primarily regulate, uh, kind of water quantity issues. And so they oversee how water is allocated and used. They issue water permits. Uh, they also administer some conservation programs, uh, and then there's the Department of Health, health and Environment who are primarily tasked with regulating water quality. So they set drinking water standards, test water wells, facilitate cleanup when that, when that's necessary. And then there's the Kansas Water Office, and they are their primary kind of planning and policy, uh, office in the state, and they develop and implement the Kansas Water Plan. And the Kansas Water Plan is really the main planning tool the state uses to address current water issues and to plan for future water needs. Uh, and then additionally, there's a couple of local agencies as well. So there are conservation districts which are responsible for conservation of soil, water, uh, other natural resources as well. And then there are the groundwater management districts. Um, they oversee certain aspects of the groundwater within their district. Um, and this audit focuses on the groundwater management districts.
Speaker 1:So when did the legislature establish groundwater management districts and what is their purpose?
Speaker 2:So the legislature e established a process that allows local voters to create groundwater management districts. Uh, they established that process in 1972. So this is a process that's been around for a little while. Um, since 1972 though, local voters have established five groundwater management districts, and those districts cover a, a portion of Western and central Kansas. So as far as the purposes though, um, they're, they're pretty broad. Uh, statute does lay out several purposes, which includes things like for the management and conservation of groundwater to prevent economic deterioration and stabilize agriculture, uh, also to, you know, secure, uh, world markets. Um, and then last, one of the purposes that's noted in statute is to establish the right of local water users to determine some aspects of how groundwater is used.
Speaker 1:Okay. So with that, what powers do groundwater management districts have, and are they limited in any way?
Speaker 2:So there are a number of things that districts can do. Uh, districts, first of all, they have boards and the districts can determine how many members are on that board, and then they can hold elections, uh, to elect members for that, for that board as well. Um, and then statute allows a number of very specific activities. So districts can acquire land, they can conduct research, they can require, uh, that meters be installed, uh, to monitor, uh, how much water is used. They can also levy, uh, water and land assessments. Uh, they can also do some additional things like recommend regulations to the Department of Ag, and they can also set regs, uh, for their own districts as well. Uh, so obviously there, there's many things that the districts can do, uh, but they still operate within some real limits. Um, and that's because they don't have independent authority over many important, uh, state groundwater policies and actions. Um, and so for example, the districts can provide input on the state water plan, but they don't have a lot of, uh, formal authority to craft those policies. Districts also, uh, can and do offer advice on water permit applications, but it's the Department of Agriculture that approves or denies water permits. Uh, districts also can recommend certain types of conservation measures, like local enhanced management areas or intensive groundwater use control areas. And these are areas that have more stringent water use, uh, rules applied to them. Um, and although the districts can recommend those areas, uh, to the Department of Agriculture, again, it's the Department of Ag that approves or denies them. So there's, there's many things that they can do, uh, but there's still pretty limited in some really important ways.
Speaker 1:So the report mentions that districts are required by state law to have a management program. What is the management program? And did the team find any issues related to these programs?
Speaker 2:The management program is a written document that describes the district. It outlines areas of concern, uh, defines the programs that the district plans to operate. Uh, so, you know, for example, a, a district may note that it has concerns about declines in groundwater and maybe too much water waste from irrigation. And so it then may outline programs such as soil moisture monitoring or public education programs to address those specific concerns. So each district is required by state law to have a management program. Uh, additionally, the law says the district's board must review that program annually. So we checked to see if the districts complied with those two specific provisions in state law. And we found was that first, uh, they all had management programs, uh, but two of them had not reviewed them as the law required. And so we looked at 2020 and 2021. And in both of those years, districts one and District Five had not reviewed, uh, their, their programs in those years. There there is also one other aspect. Um, state law also allows districts to revise their management programs, and that process is, is in state law. Uh, but the law does not require districts to revise their programs on any specific timetable. Uh, but we looked back the last 30 years and found that with one exception, which was District four, uh, districts revise pretty infrequently. So for example, district two had not revised its program since 1995, um, although the district did tell us they are currently working on a revision right now. Um, additionally, district three, uh, revised their program in 2022, but it was their first revision since 2004. And so these aren't compliance issues though, because again, the statute does not say, you know, when the, the districts have to, to revise. It doesn't set them on any particular timetable. Um, but there are still some issues there in terms of, you know, an out of date document might, uh, might, you know, clash with changes in legal, um, legal requirements or regulatory requirements. And perhaps more importantly, it, it may end up describing concerns or programs that no longer reflect the conditions or the needs of that district.
Speaker 1:So your report mentions districts run a variety of programs. What types of programs do they operate and did they appear appropriate?
Speaker 2:We talked with the districts and reviewed various documents to understand what types of programs the districts currently operate. Uh, so all the districts had programs related to things like data collection, conducting research, public education. Uh, a few of them, uh, also provide programs related to providing, uh, water permit assistance to local water users. And then some also had more unique programs related to inspecting or plugging wells, um, or programs related to recharging, uh, groundwater. So there was, there was a lot of variety across the district. So what kinds of programs, uh, they, they offered in terms of whether those programs appeared appropriate? Uh, yes, we, we thought that, uh, they did appear appropriate, mainly because the statutory purposes of the districts are, are pretty broad, and they're largely related to, uh, managing groundwater to support agriculture and the economy. And the district programs do support those purposes through things like public education, research, monitoring. Um, and so we felt like the, they were appropriate, those programs are appropriate to the district's purposes.
Speaker 1:The report also notes that districts have a number of concerns related to groundwater management. What were their concerns and are the districts addressing them?
Speaker 2:So management, management programs, uh, detail the concerns the district has related to groundwater in their district. Um, so we reviewed those and we also talked to the district managers to kind of understand what their, what their concurrent concerns are. Um, and districts had a number of concerns, uh, but groundwater depletion and water quality concerns were the most common. Um, in fact, all of the districts told us they had concerns about groundwater depletion. Um, some other concerns were things like keeping the public informed or, uh, the need for finding alternative sources of water. Uh, so we, we did see a lot of variety kind of in the, in the concerns that they had. Um, and, and did note that the districts do not all have exactly the same concerns. Uh, but we looked to see if the districts had had programs addressing whatever their, their concerns were. And so we looked at the programs that were in operation in 2021, and we found that all five districts operated at least one program that was intended to address, you know, all of their concerns. So, for example, uh, districts addressed groundwater depletion concerns through, you know, programs related to improving irrigation practices or requiring water meters, uh, to be installed so that groundwater use can be better monitored. Um, so overall they address their concerns differently in some situations, but they did have programs meant to address those concerns.
Speaker 1:So how much did districts spend recently and what did they spend their funds on?
Speaker 2:We collected expenditure data from all of the districts for the 2021, uh, calendar year. So across the five districts, uh, they spent a total of 6.1 million in 2021, uh, although there was some variation there. So District four, uh, spent about$470,000. Uh, but district five spent 2.8 million. Um, although district five's, uh, expenditures were largely driven by a single 2 million, uh, land purchase. Um, but we looked at their expenditures in two ways. So one was kind of through a kind of high level categories, looking at things like salaries and professional services, um, administrative costs, that kind of thing. Um, and on that, when we looked at it kind of in that way, uh, we found that most was spent on salaries and benefits. So across the five 41% of their money was, was spent on salaries and benefits. Uh, 21% was on professional services like accountants, lawyers, consultants. 14% were on administrative costs, and that's things like rent, uh, office supplies, vehicle expenses, and then the last 24% were for other expenses. And those were largely expenses related to grants or nonprofit foundations that, that some of the districts operated. So then second, uh, we kind of took that same expenditure data and we cut it in a different way. Um, and we look to see how much the district spent on programs, uh, especially programs that address their areas of concern. And for this work though, we had to estimate, uh, the districts don't keep their expenditure data by program. Uh, so we had to work with the districts to get an estimate of how much they were spending kind of per program. What we found was that overall 75% of their expenditures were for programs, uh, intended to address an area of concern. Um, I think I mentioned before that water depletion was a big concern for all the districts, and we found that every district spent at least 50% of their expenditures on programs that addressed water quantity concerns. Uh, the last thing I I would like to note here though is that most district expenditures are largely funded through local land and water use assessments. Uh, districts may occasionally receive state funds for a specific project or a specific program, um, but they do not regularly receive a state appropriation. Uh, so most of these expenditures were not made with state funds.
Speaker 1:So in terms of effectiveness, what did your team find about current water trends in Kansas and whether district's efforts have made an impact?
Speaker 2:So we reviewed water level, uh, data provided by the Kansas Geological Survey, and we compared, uh, groundwater measurements taken in 2012 to those taken in 2022. And we found that three of the five districts had overall declines in, in groundwater levels over those 10 years. Uh, although the other two had slight increases in water level over that time, uh, we also looked at water quality as well. And that data was provided by the Department of Health and Environment. And we looked again over the last 10 years, uh, and saw that all five districts had experienced at least some water quality issues. Um, most of those issues were related to nitrate contamination. Uh, however, we couldn't determine if those issues really have improved over that 10 years, though. Uh, and that's because when a well is contaminated, uh, sometimes it's abandoned or it's filtered to clean the water, uh, the data may indicate that there's an improvement, uh, even though that well is still actually contaminated. And so our work in that area was a little bit limited. Uh, in terms of the impact of district programs on water quantity trends, uh, we really couldn't determine the impact of district programs. And that was for a couple of reasons. Uh, one is that isolating the effects of one program, uh, operated by one agency and an environment where many programs are being operated by, um, many agencies is actually quite difficult. Um, additionally, environmental factors, uh, such as the amount of rainfall or temperature can influence groundwater levels. Um, and an understanding of those issues is pretty critical, uh, to really understanding, uh, district program effectiveness. And so for us, time, uh, data expertise limitations really meant that we were unable to determine whether district programs really effectively addressed their groundwater quantity concerns. However, uh, we did review some research that was, uh, available and research that was largely conducted by the Department of Ag and K State. And that research looked at the local enhanced management areas, and in the intensive ground use control areas, I mentioned those, uh, a minute ago, those are areas within the districts that have much more stringent conservation efforts. Uh, and so three of the five districts have at least one of those areas in their district. Uh, but when we reviewed, uh, the research, we actually found multiple studies on those very specific efforts. Uh, and those studies, uh, were actually quite positive and found that both of those measures did lead to reductions in groundwater use, uh, in the areas where they, where they were, um, where they were implemented.
Speaker 1:So finally, what was the biggest takeaway from this audit?
Speaker 2:Uh, as we kind of did, did our work and kind of, uh, worked through, um, a number of issues with the districts and, and talked to them and read the statutes and things, A couple of things really stood out to us. Uh, first of all, the districts are not required to operate any particular program, and they don't really receive a lot of, uh, direction from the state. Um, we also noted that their independent authority is, is quite limited, and they are only one of many agencies involved in managing the state's groundwater resources. So, you know, based on our work, uh, the districts do appear to operate, uh, within their current expectations. Uh, but their overall role in addressing the state's water situation, uh, is, is quite limited.
Speaker 1:Heidi is, Emmerman is a principal auditor at Legislative Post Audit. She supervised an audit that evaluated groundwater management district's efforts to conserve water. Heidi, thanks for visiting the Rundown and discussing this audit's findings with me. Thanks for having me, Mor. Thank you for listening to the Rundown. To receive newly released podcasts, subscribe to us on Spotify or Apple Podcast. For more information about legislative post audit and to read our audit reports, visit ks lpa.org. Follow us on Twitter at ks audit or visit our Facebook page.