33338888th annual meeting agendath annual meeting … · 33338888th annual meeting agendath annual...

GMD 4 - 38th Annual Meeting Packet — Page Page Page 111

33338888th Annual Meeting Agendath Annual Meeting Agendath Annual Meeting Agendath Annual Meeting Agenda

Open Meeting ______________________________________ Scott Maurath, President

Welcome Introductions Announcements

37th Annual Meeting Minutes (Page 4) _____________________________ Shane Mann (Motion required to adopt or amend)

2014 Operating Budget - Proposed (Page 6) ________________________ Brent Rogers

(Motion required to adopt for public hearing)

2012 Calendar Year Audit (Page 8 ) __________________________________ Jeff Deeds

(Motion required to adopt or amend)

Election of Board Positions (Ballots) ___________________________ Roger Zweygardt

Position 8: Sheridan County Position 9: Graham County Position 10: Logan County Position 11: Gove County

SD-6 LEMA Order – Questions/Discussion: (Pages 12-23) ____________ Wayne Bossert Unfinished / New Business / Open Session _____________________ Scott Maurath Announcement of Board Election Results (if necessary) _____________ Scott Maurath

Adjournment _______________________________________________ Scott Maurath (Motion required)


Notes


District PersonnelDistrict PersonnelDistrict PersonnelDistrict Personnel

February, 2012 - February, 2013 Board: FIRSTFIRSTFIRSTFIRST SERVESSERVESSERVESSERVES POSITIONPOSITIONPOSITIONPOSITION MEMBERMEMBERMEMBERMEMBER DUTYDUTYDUTYDUTY ARRIVED:ARRIVED:ARRIVED:ARRIVED: TO:TO:TO:TO: Cheyenne #1 RogerRogerRogerRoger ZweygardtZweygardtZweygardtZweygardt 2/05 2/14 Rawlins/Decatur #2 Monty BiggMonty BiggMonty BiggMonty Biggssss 2/97 2/15 Sherman/Wallace #3 JeffJeffJeffJeff DeedsDeedsDeedsDeeds Secretary 2/06 2/15 Sherman/Wallace #4 David RietcheckDavid RietcheckDavid RietcheckDavid Rietcheck Treasurer 2/02 2/14 Thomas # 5 Justin SloanJustin SloanJustin SloanJustin Sloan 2/12 2/15 Thomas # 6 Jon FriesenJon FriesenJon FriesenJon Friesen 6/99 2/14 Sheridan # 7 Brent RogersBrent RogersBrent RogersBrent Rogers 2/09 2/15 Sheridan # 8 Mitch BaalmanMitch BaalmanMitch BaalmanMitch Baalman Vice President 2/98 2/13 Graham # 9 Doug DavidDoug DavidDoug DavidDoug David 2/98 2/13 Logan # 10 Scott MaurathScott MaurathScott MaurathScott Maurath President 2/01 2/13 Gove # 11 ShaneShaneShaneShane MannMannMannMann 2/07 2/13

STAFF:

Wayne Bossert, Manager Ray Luhman, Asst Manager

Dan Simmering, Field Technician Rita Wade, Secretary/Receptionist

OTHERS:

Vignery & Mason, Attorney Brian Staats, Certified Public Accountant

The district's website is always available - for more information go to:

HTTP://www.gmd4.org

Information at this site includes: general district overview, personnel listing, annual meeting info, water

law summary, public records policy, newsletter articles, water quotes, water formulas, metering info and a flow meter calculator, water level data, water-related links, the groundwater management district

act, GMD 4 testimony and more.


33337777thththth Annual Meeting Minutes Annual Meeting Minutes Annual Meeting Minutes Annual Meeting Minutes ———— ColbyColbyColbyColby, KS , KS , KS , KS ———— February February February February 11115555, 20, 20, 20, 2011112222

The 37th annual meeting was opened at 1:20 P.M. CST, February 15, 2012 in the City Limits Convention Center, Colby, Kansas. Board members present were: Scott Maurath Dave Rietcheck Jeff Deeds Roger Zweygardt Monty Biggs Doug David Mitch Baalman Brent Rogers Lon Frahm Shane Mann Board members absent were: Jon Friesen Others present were: Staff: Wayne Bossert, Ray Luhman, Dan Simmering, Rita Wade and Jeff Mason; DWR Scott Ross and Shannon Cain. There were 50 total persons in attendance. The attendance roster is available from the district office. President Scott Maurath opened the meeting with a welcome and introductions of the board, staff, state agency staff, and former board members present. President Maurath then turned over the meeting to Mitch Baalman for presentation of the 36th annual meeting minutes, Goodland, KS, February 16, 2011. Mitch directed attention to the annual meeting minutes printed in the annual meeting packet and gave everyone a chance to review them. There being no questions, it was moved by Allen Quenzer and seconded by Dave Mann that the 36th annual meeting minutes be approved as presented. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Brent Rogers next presented the 2013 proposed operating budget. Brent reported that the 2013 budget included $50,000 for the Foundation and that what ever budget was approved today would be subject to a final public hearing later in the year. Brent then asked the membership reaction to the district seeking a facility to own rather than continuing to rent. The first question was concerned what we were looking for. Brent responded that the current facility was too small and the rent was continuing to climb. The board has also discussed in the past having a larger meeting/education room to better serve the district - possibly even having the capability to hold its annual meetings on site. Another question was the current facility square footage. Manager responded that to his recollection it was approximately 1,975 square feet. Brent indicated that the current options were limited, but several were being looked at - which could range between $300,000 and $500,000 when all was said and done. With no further questions or comments, the proposed 2013 budget of $459,480.00 was approved on a motion by Dick Sterrett and a second from Harold Murphy and a unanimous voice vote. Jeff Deeds next presented the 2011 calendar year audit. Jeff directed attention to the audit report contained in the annual meeting packet at page 8 and asked everyone to review the report. He summarized by reporting that the district had brought in $641,574.64; spent $496,164.56; leaving $145,410.08 that was carried over into the 2012 budget. Moreover, with a few other small cash accounts and the Foundation funds, the district’s total cash worth was $652,446.12. Following review and with no questions or comments, Robin Deeds moved for approval of the 2011 Audit Report. Allen Quenzer seconded the motion which passed unanimously by voice vote. Roger Zweygardt next conducted the board elections. He gave the background rules and indicated each position election would be held separately. Roger opened Position 2 (Rawlins/Decatur County)


announcing that Monty Biggs was the single candidate that had pre-filed. Roger opened the floor for additional nominations for Position 2. With no additional nominations, Ken Palmgren moved that nominations for Position 2 cease and a unanimous ballot be cast for Monty Biggs. Howard Baalman seconded the motion. With no further discussion, the motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Roger opened Position 3 (Sherman/Wallace County) announcing that Jeff Deeds was the single candidate that had pre-filed. Roger opened the floor for additional nominations for Position 3. With no additional nominations, Robin Deeds moved that nominations for Position 3 cease and a unanimous ballot be cast for Jeff Deeds. Steve Zieglemeier seconded the motion. With no further discussion, the motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Roger opened Position 5 (Thomas County) announcing that Justin Sloan was the single candidate that had pre-filed. Roger opened the floor for additional nominations for Position 5. With no additional nominations, Tom Sloan moved that nominations for Position 5 cease and a unanimous ballot be cast for Justin Sloan. Bill Miller seconded the motion. With no further discussion, the motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Roger opened Position 7 (Sheridan County) announcing that Brent Rogers was the single candidate that had pre-filed. Roger opened the floor for additional nominations for Position 7. With no additional nominations, Steve Zieglemeier moved that nominations for Position 7 cease and a unanimous ballot be cast for Brent Rogers. Harold Murphy seconded the motion. With no further discussion, the motion passed unanimously by voice vote. With no contested positions, there was no need to mark ballots. Rex Buchanan and Dave Newell from the Kansas Geological Survey, Lawrence, Kansas were introduced and provided the keynote presentation on Hydraulic Fracturing in Kansas. It was an excellent session with many questions regarding technical issues, state regulation, water use, wastewater disposal and geology. Scott Maurath opened the floor for any “open session” comments, questions or statements. No other comments or questions were offered. Jeff Mason was recognized to make an award presentation to Lon Frahm for 17 years of service to district members by virtue of his Thomas County GMD 4 Board seat. Before adjournment, President Maurath announced that the board will be reconvening its February meeting on site in the City Limits Convention Center, and anyone wishing to attend was welcome. With no objections, President Maurath declared the 37th annual meeting of the Northwest Kansas Groundwater Management District No. 4 adjourned at 3:10 P.M., February 15, 2012. Respectfully submitted Jeff Deeds, Secretary


2020202011114444 Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Operating Operating Operating Operating BudgetBudgetBudgetBudget The 2014 Proposed operating budget is a blend of the 2012 Expended and the 2013 Revised budgets. It is the board’s best guess at what the district’s operational costs are likely to be in 2014. The GMD membership is obligated to consider this budget at the annual meeting and make any recommendations to the board. The GMD 4 board will consider all comments and will adopt a final 2014 budget for public hearing later in the year.

2014 Budgets - All 2014 Proposed

110 POSTAGE $5,600.00

111 Newsletter $4,500.00

112 General $1,100.00

120 PRINTING $6,700.00

121 Newsletter $6,400.00

122 Administrative $300.00

130 DUES $1,500.00

140 SUBSCRIPTIONS $1,500.00

150 INSURANCE $7,500.00

151 Office $1,200.00

152 Public Officials' Liability $600.00

153 Auto $2,700.00

154 Workmans' Comp. $2,500.00

155 Inland Marine $250.00

156 Unemployment $250.00

160 TELEPHONE $6,500.00

170 SALARIES AND BENEFITS $365,500.00

171 Gross Sal, Kpers, SS, Etc. $344,000.00

172 Health Insurance $21,500.00

180 TRAVEL $9,000.00

181 Board $5,750.00

182 Staff $3,250.00

190 VEHICLES $5,400.00

191 Repairs/Maintenance $1,750.00

192 Operation $3,500.00

193 Tags $150.00

194 Purchase/Lease $0.00

200 CONTRACTED SERVICES $28,500.00

201 Accounting $3,500.00

202 Legal $6,000.00

203 Misc. Support $19,000.00

204 Water Sampling $0.00

205 Drilling $0.00

206 Weather Modification $0.00

210 PUBLICATIONS $350.00

211 Legal Notices $350.00

220 COOP PROGRAMS $50,000.00

221 Administrative $50,000.00

222 Equipment $0.00

223 Contracted Studies $0.00

224 Education Program $0.00

230 ADMINISTRATIVE $7,850.00

231 Office Supplies $2,800.00

232 Copy Machine $500.00

233 Computer Maint $3,000.00

234 Postage Meter Lease $750.00

235Bank Charges $50.00

236 Field Supplies $750.00


240 NEW EQUIPMENT $3,750.00

241 Field $750.00

242 Office $3,000.00

250 CONTINGENCY RESERVE $0.00

260 FACILITY $115,400.00

261 Rent $14,400.00

262 Upkeep $1,000.00

263 Remodel/Purchase $100,000.00

REIMBURSED EXPENSES

300 FOUNDATION $580.00

305 Foundation Subscriptions $0.00

Foundation Telephone $30.00

Foundation Accounting $0.00

350 Foundation Legal $300.00

370 Foundation Tech Support $250.00

$615,630.00

The a-typical 2014 proposed budget line items include:

1) $50,000.00 for the Foundation. Between $50,000.00 and $75,000.00 has been dedicated each year to the Foundation for the previous 7 years; 2) $50,000.00 for a new employee — Assistant Manager/Manager Trainee; 3) $100,000.00 for the final new office facility budget — making available a total of $300,000.00 for the new facility over the past 3 years; 4) No budget for Legislative services (Lobbyist)


2020202011112222 Calendar Year Audit ReportCalendar Year Audit ReportCalendar Year Audit ReportCalendar Year Audit Report

STATEMENT OF CASH RECEIPTS AND DISBURESMENTS All Accounts — For the period January 1 - December 31, 2012

Cash on hand — 12/31/12 (All GMD 4 Accounts) ---------------------------- $152,850.73 Post Office Return Postage Account - 12/31/12 ------------------------------------- $14.33 Postage remaining on Postal Meter - 12/31/12 ------------------------------------- $507.56 TOTAL GMD 4 CASH WORTH — 12/31/12 ------------------------------------- $153,372.62 Foundation Cash — All (plus interest) — 12/31/12 ---------------------------- $520,007.00

2012 INCOME (All sources): Cash forward from 2011 (Cash) ----------------------------------- $145,410.08 County Assessments ------------------------------------------------- $492,871.66 Interest Earned (GMD4) -------------------------------------------------- $409.30 State Grant Income -------------------------------------------------------- $0.00 Miscellaneous Income ------------------------------------------------------ $0.00 2012 TOTAL CASH AVAILABLE: $638,691.04

2012 EXPENDITURES: Postage --------------------------------------------------- $5,401.32 Printing --------------------------------------------------- $5,818.20 Dues ------------------------------------------------------- $1,500.00 Subscriptions --------------------------------------------- $2,695.50 Insurance ----------------------------------------------- $10,842.28 Telephone ------------------------------------------------ $6,437.20 Salaries & Benefits ----------------------------------- $301,636.59 Travel ----------------------------------------------------- $9,629.60 Vehicles --------------------------------------------------- $5,295.11 Contracted Services ----------------------------------- $49,976.12 Publications ------------------------------------------------ $617.48 Coop Programs ----------------------------------------- $50,036.00 Administrative ------------------------------------------- $7,817.43 Equipment ---------------------------------------------- $11,478.48 Facility -------------------------------------------------- $16,084.00 Reserve for contingency --------------------------------- $100.00 Foundation ------------------------------------------------- $475.00

TOTAL 2012 EXPENDITURES ------------------------- $485,840.31


Program Program Program Program UpdateUpdateUpdateUpdatessss

1) 1) 1) 1) Enhanced Management Enhanced Management Enhanced Management Enhanced Management for the for the for the for the High Priority AreaHigh Priority AreaHigh Priority AreaHigh Priority Areassss Because the state water plan contains a guideline for the High Plains Aquifer – that of slowing the annual water level decline rate and extending the economic life of the aquifer – a broad stakeholder committee (The Management Advisory Committee (MAC)) in Western Kansas was formed 2001 to craft a management approach. This group recommended that aquifer sub-units (areas of similar hydrology) be designated by the appropriate local entity and that these entities develop an enhanced management process to meet the water plan guideline. The process requires coordination and cooperation between the GMDs and the state and federal players in groundwater, but places the local GMDs (and the division of water resources in areas where no GMD exists) in the lead role. In essence, the process in the Northwest Kansas Groundwater Management District No. 4 (GMD4) was to identify high, medium and low priority areas and then address the declines within these areas appropriately. Starting with the high priority areas, an enhanced management plan was to be developed in conjunction with the local landowners and water users, to slow the groundwater declines and extend the economic life of the local aquifer. The process was to allow non-regulatory approaches (education, voluntary incentive efforts, etc.) initially, but also called for regulatory approaches if these did not work. The GMD 4 board opted to implement this effort through a series of seven Tasks. Tasks 1 and 2 characterized the aquifer and set the high priority areas. The high priority areas within GMD 4 are those ¼-Township areas that have 2 or more sections which have either declined more than 9% between 1996 and 2002, or, have a 2-mile reported water use density of 275 acre feet or more – with sections having less than 15 feet of saturated thickness or 25 acre feet of reported water use density eliminated. These are the red areas on the map below. The board also can designate an area if locals request one. The black, 4-Township area in Thomas County represents such an area.

Task 4 was undertaken next. This task called for public meetings in each HPA to discuss the groundwater conditions and receive recommendations from the land and water right owners as to possible goals and approaches to the goals. At least two meetings were held in each HPA for this purpose. The meetings held thus far have all been posted on the Enhanced Management web page (the link is below). Following is a brief status on each HPA to date:


There is no set timeframe for these areas to consider long-term goals and management approaches. As such, they are in differing stages of discussion and activity. SH-1 (SW Sherman County): Has met 4 times to date. Last meeting (February, 2010) was to agree to be included in the developing AWEP application. The group has indicated a desire to reduce its decline rate to the district-wide, long-term average decline rate, but they want to utilize incentive programs like EQIP and AWEP to do so. SH-2 (central Sherman County): Has met twice, the last time to agree to being included in the developing AWEP proposal. No specific goals or management approaches have been settled on. CN-3 (south central Cheyenne County): Has met 3 times – the last meeting (January, 2010) to also agree to inclusion in the developing AWEP proposal. This group has asked for and been provided a model run showing the expected water table declines over time based on various reduction scenarios. They have organized a bit more formally and have asked staff to allow them to set future meetings. TH-4 (NW Thomas County): Has met twice, the last time to consider inclusion in the developing AWEP proposal. There has not been sufficient participation to go much further. TH-5 (south central Thomas County): Has met twice, but this group has formed a working committee to further explore goals and alternatives on their own. Staff is on hold until they call future meetings. SD-6 (west central Sheridan County): Has met 13 times with the last meeting (May 9, 2012) being to adopt the final working draft of an enhanced management proposal and to ask the GMD 4 board to submit it to the chief engineer on their behalves as a LEMA request. The GMD 4 board submitted the locally developed LEMA proposal to the chief engineer on July 12, 2012. For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that as of the January, 2011 meeting, the only way to implement the adopted proposal was through an Intensive Groundwater Use Control Area (IGUCA). The local stakeholders on March 3, 2012 requested that the IGUCA approach be set aside and instead we all work toward amending the current IGUCA law such that it would be less risk to the regulated community. Most of 2011 was used in honoring this request with the development of a more reliable IGUCA process, which eventually became the Local Enhanced Management Area (LEMA) statute we have today. The LEMA process requires two public hearings held by the chief engineer. The first hearing was held September 13, 2012 in Hoxie and was conducted by an independent hearing officer (IHO) appointed by the chief engineer. The IHO report found that all three questions it was tasked to consider were favorable and recommended that the LEMA process continue. The second hearing was held by the chief engineer on November 28, 2012, also in Hoxie. The chief engineer found that the process met the criteria of state law, and on December 31, 2012 issued an Order of Decision implementing the LEMA as proposed by the GMD board on behalf of the stakeholders. The state’s first LEMA is now in effect. A secondary Order of Designation will follow in the coming weeks and will contain the allocation details and the rest of the corrective control provisions designated. This order will constitute the agency’s final action. Per the local proposal, the LEMA will be reviewed annually by an advisory committee chosen by the GMD 4 board where certain administrative adjustments can be recommended. In 3.5 years the advisory committee will undertake a more detailed evaluation and make recommendations to the chief engineer as to future actions. The existing LEMA will automatically end on December 31, 2017. It will be up to the advisory committee to decide if a new one will be requested, and if so, what the new LEMA will look like.


The Future: Eventually, each HPA is expected to complete or conclude the Task 4 process. Each HPA can have different goals and different approaches, depending on what best suits their groundwater situations and preferred management styles. If a HPA does not complete the Task 4 process, it will be up to the GMD 4 board to decide what enhanced management, if any, should be implemented. For more information, or to comment, contact the district or visit the web page at: www.gmd4.org/EnhancedMgt/protocol.htm. This is the general information page on the process. Please note that each HPA has it’s own page where their local process will be recorded. The board has asked that a special session be provided at this annual meeting to address the SD-6 HPA LEMA request and subsequent DWR Order of Designation. The discussion being provided for is intended to address questions going forward with this process. If there are elements of the process or the order that you don’t understand, this will be an opportunity to discuss these.


Special SD-6 LEMA Session Insert

Provided herein are materials relevant to the SD-6 LEMA designation to facilitate discussion, and/or questions. These materials are: ITEM 1: The LEMA proposal submitted by GMD 4 on behalf of the stakeholders’ working group

ITEM 2: Portions of the DWR LEMA Order of Decision

ITEM 3: The Advisory Committee Process

ITEM 1: The LEMA Proposal Submitted:

SD-6 HPA Stakeholders Proposal to be Recommended to the Northwest Kansas Groundwater

Management District No. 4 Board of Directors Along With A Request That Said Proposal Be Adopted

by the GMD 4 Board and Submitted To the Chief Engineer, Kansas Department of Agriculture,

Division of Water Resources As A LEMA Proposal

June 15, 2012

In order to reduce decline rates and extend the life of the aquifer SD 6 HPA proposes the following five year plan be submitted via the LEMA process contained in SB 310 (not yet assigned a K.S.A. statutory reference). This proposal has been generated through a public consensus process undertaken by the stakeholders of the SD-6 High Priority Area (HPA SD-6) over the course of eleven noticed meetings and two subcommittee working group meetings between November 10, 2008 and May 9, 2012.1 Goal Expression

All water diversions within the SD-6 area are to be collectively restricted per this proposal between the period January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2017 to no more than 114,000 acrefeet total. This LEMA shall exist only for the five year period beginning January 1, 2013 and ending December 31, 2017. The SD-6 HPA shall include all points of diversion that are located in the following sections:

• TWP 7S-28W: Sections 19-21 and 28-33

• TWP 7S-29W: Sections 4-9 and 16-36

• TWP 7S-30W: Sections 19-36



• TWP 8S-31W: Sections 22-27 and 34-36 These sections represent a LEMA boundary that is both clearly identifiable and entirely within the boundaries of the Northwest Kansas Groundwater Management District No. 4.

1 Meeting Notes and attendance sheets that are available are attached as Attachment 1.


The total program diversion amount of 114,000 AF shall represent five (5) times the sum of:

a) Designated legally eligible acres (per section 1)) x 11/12 for irrigation water rights;

b) Maximum permitted head of livestock on December 31, 2010 x 12 GPH/D for stockwater rights; and

c) Ninety percent (90%) of the December 31, 2010 authorized recreational water quantity for recreation rights.

The Northwest Kansas Groundwater Management District No. 4 shall use the following procedures to determine the 5-year allocation for each water right, and specify said values in Section 3). All allocation values shall be expressed in terms of total acrefeet for the 5-year LEMA period. Any notes or remarks necessary to explain the individual allocations shall also be included. 1) Allocations – Irrigation

a) All irrigation water rights shall be limited to no more than 55 acre inches per recently irrigated acre covered by the water right over the 5-year period beginning January 1, 2013 and ending December 31, 2017. b) Wells pumping to a common system or systems shall be provided a single allocation for the total system acres. The total amount pumped by all of the wells involved must remain within the system allocation.

c) For additional producer flexibility, water rights may at the discretion of the owners be combined into a single allocation account with flexibility of pumping the multiple wells within the account as directed by the owner, provided the total account allocation is not exceeded. d) Temporary transfers of allocations between water rights may be made anywhere within the boundaries of SD-6. Said transfers shall be in effect for the balance of the current allocation time period. An Application for Transfer form shall be developed and must be signed by all owners involved in the transfer. No transfer shall result in an allocation that exceeds the authorized amount for the water right receiving the transfer. e) No water right shall receive more than the currently authorized quantity for that right, times five (5). f) No water right within a K.A.R. 5-5-11, 5-year allocation status shall receive an allocation that exceeds its current 5-year allocation limit. g) No water right shall be allowed to pump more than its authorized annual quantity in any single year. h) In all cases the allocation shall be assigned to the point of diversion and shall apply to all water rights and acres involving that point of diversion. Moreover, in all cases the original water right shall be retained. i) On or before October 1, 2013 any irrigation water right owner will have the option of converting a 5-year allocation amount to a Multi-year Flex Account (MYFA) provided the MYFA quantity does not exceed the established 5-year allocation quantity. No other conversions to MYFAs will be authorized. j) For water rights enrolled in EQIP and/or AWEP that will be coming out of either program on or before September 30, 2017, the allocation quantity shall be set at 11 acre-inches per acre for only the remaining years of the 2013-2017 LEMA period.


k) Any water right enrolling into, contracting with or officially participating in a reduced water use program (AWEP, EQIP, Northwest Kansas Groundwater Conservation Foundation, etc.) during the period January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2017 shall not be allowed to trade or market any allocation balance. 2) Allocations – Non-irrigation

a) Livestock uses will be limited to 12 gallons per head per day based on the maximum head supportable by the feedlot permit in effect on December 31, 2010. Each water right shall have the option of having this limited quantity as an annual limit or converted to a 5-year water right at 5 times the assigned allocation. The original water right will be retained. b) Recreation water rights will be limited to 90% of the December 31, 2010 annual authorized water right quantity. Each water right shall have the option of having this limited quantity as an annual limit or converted to a 5-year water right at 5 times the assigned allocation. The original water right will be retained.

3) Individual Allocation Amounts

The 5-year allocations for every water right per Sections 1) a) and 2) above shall be converted to a 5-year acrefeet total, with Attachment 2 containing the assigned eligible allocations for each water right within the SD-6 HPA. Each water right is to be restricted to its total acrefeet allocation within any LEMA order issued through this process. 4) Violations

The LEMA order shall serve as initial notice to all water right owners within HPA SD-6 on its effective date. Violations of the authorized quantities shall be addressed as follows:

(1) Exceeding any total allocation quantity (which shall include any transferred quantities) of less than 4 AF within any allocation period shall result in a $1,000.00 fine for every day the allocation was exceeded. This penalty shall apply to all rights in combined allocation accounts described in sections 1) b) (1) and 1) b) (2). (2) Exceeding any total allocation quantity (which shall include any transferred quantities) of 4 AF or more within any allocation period shall result in an automatic two year suspension of the water right. This penalty shall apply to all rights in combined allocation accounts described in sections 1) b) (1) and 1) b) (2). (3) Exceeding the annual authorized quantity of the water right (not to include any transferred quantities) shall result in a $1,000.00 fine.

5) Metering

a) All water right owners shall be responsible for ensuring their meters are in compliance with state and local law(s). In addition to being in compliance and reporting annually the quantity of water diverted from each point of diversion, all water right owners shall at their discretion do one of the following additional well/meter monitoring procedures:

(1) Inspect, read and record the flow meter at least every two weeks the well is operating. The records of this inspection procedure shall be maintained by the well owner and provided to the district upon request. Should the flow meter reported readings be in question and the bi-weekly records not be available and provided upon request of the district, the well shall be assumed to have pumped its


full annual authorized quantity for the year in question. Following each year’s irrigation season, the person or persons responsible for this data may at their discretion transfer the recorded data to the district for inclusion in the appropriate water right file for future maintenance. (2) Install and maintain an alternative method of determining the time that the well is operating. This information must be sufficient to be used to determine operating time in the event of a meter failure. Should the alternative method fail or be determined inaccurate the well shall be assumed to have pumped its full annual authorized quantity for the year in question. Well owners/operators are encouraged to give the details of the alternative method in advance to GMD 4 in order to insure that the data is sufficient.

b) Any water right owner or authorized designee who finds a flow meter that is inoperable or inaccurate shall within 48 hours contact the district office concerning the matter and provide the following information:

(1) water right file number; (2) legal description of the well; (3) date the problem was discovered; (4) flow meter model, make, registering units and serial number; (5) the meter reading on the date discovered; (6) description of the problem; (7) what alternative method is going to be used to track the quantity of water diverted while the inoperable or inaccurate meter is being repaired/replaced; and (8) the projected date that the meter will be repaired or replaced.

c) Whenever an inoperable or inaccurate meter is repaired or replaced, the owner or authorized designee shall notify the district within seven days and provide the following information:

(1) water right file number; (2) date the meter was replaced or repaired; (3) if the meter was replaced, the make, model, registering units, serial number and meter reading of the new meter before it records any water use; (4) if the meter was repaired, the date of repair and confirmation of the meter reading before it records any water use; (5) provide information to determine the amount of water pumped while the meter was inoperative

c) This metering protocol shall be a specific annual review issue and if discovered to be ineffective, specific adjustments shall be recommended to the chief engineer by the advisory committee. 6) Accounting

a) GMD 4 shall keep records of the annual diversion amounts for each Water Right within the LEMA area, and the total 5 year quantity balances. Annual status reports shall be mailed to each water right owner and provided to DWR. b) DWR shall provide GMD 4 with as timely as possible copies of annual water use reports received in the office of the chief engineer. GMD 4 and DWR shall cooperate on reconciliation and correction of any WUR found to be in error. c) A form similar to the Wet Walnut IGUCA temporary transfer of allocations shall be developed by the chief engineer with input from GMD 4 for the SD-6 LEMA and shall be used to approve and track transfers of water within the SD-6 HPA per Section 1) d) above.


7) Advisory Committee

a) A SD-6 LEMA Advisory Committee shall be appointed and maintained by the GMD 4 Board consisting of an odd number of members between five (5) and nine (9) members as follows: one (1) GMD 4 representative; one (1) representative of the Division of Water Resources, Kansas Department of Agriculture as designated by the chief engineer; and the balance being SD-6 HPA residents/owners/operators – one (1) of which must represent non-irrigation users. One of the SD-6 HPA members shall chair the committee whose direction shall be set to further organize and meet annually to consider:

(1) water use data; (2) water table information; (3) economic data as is available; (4) violations issues – specifically metered data; (5) any new and preferable enhanced management authorities become available; (6) other items deemed pertinent to the advisory committee.

b) The advisory committee shall produce a report after every meeting which shall provide a status for considerations (1) through (6) and any recommended modifications to the current LEMA Order relative to these six items. Said report shall be forwarded to the GMD 4 board and the chief engineer. 8) LEMA Order Reviews

a) In addition to the annual LEMA Order reviews per section 7), the SD-6 LEMA Advisory Committee shall also conduct a more formal LEMA Order review 1.5 years before the ending date of the LEMA Order. Review items will focus on economic impacts to the LEMA area and the local public interest. Water level data may be reviewed. b) The committee shall also produce a report following this review to the chief engineer and the GMD 4 board which contains specific recommendations regarding future LEMA actions. All recommendations shall be supported by reports, data, testimonials, affidavits or other information of record. 9) Impairment Complaints

While this program is being undertaken it is the desire of the SD-6 stakeholders that any impairment complaint filed in the HPA while this management plan is in effect, which is based upon either water supply issues or a regional decline impairment cause, be received by the chief engineer and either: deferred for investigation until the management program is no longer valid; or, be investigated by the chief engineer in consideration to the on-going management activities. 10) Water Level Monitoring

Prior to the this LEMA proposal there were nine recognized observation wells within the SD-6 HPA that have been measured annually by either Division of Water Resources (DWR) or Kansas Geological Survey (KGS) personnel. These wells are located:

SD 7 28W 21 07S28W21

SD 7 29W 5 07S29W05

SD 7 29W 27 07S29W27


SD 7 29W 30 07S29W30

SD 8 29W 1 08S29W01

SD 8 29W 1 08S29W01

SD 8 30W 5 08S30W05

SD 8 30W 11 08S30W11

SD 8 30W 13 08S30W13 For each of these wells there is a long history of annual water level measurements. The stakeholders of HPA SD-6 expressed a desire to increase the number of monitoring wells in support of this proposal. To this end the Northwest Kansas Groundwater Management District No. 4 has agreed to convert one of these wells (08S30W13) to an hourly water level measurement schedule by the installation of a continuous pressure transducer, and to drill three new observation wells and equip them with pressure transducers also recording water levels hourly. These new locations are: 07S29W25; 08S29W05; and 08S31W26. The pressure transducers are the Slimline “G” model with a pressure range of 50 psi, suspended with vented poly cable and connected to the Dynotek Data Manager 700 data logger. Each of these installations will be placed into a sealed electrical box mounted on the observation well protection tubing. All the casing protector tubings and the electrical boxes will be padlocked for security. By choosing to install these transducers early, the 2012 pumping influences and its recovery trends will be captured before the anticipated 2013 LEMA program gets underway. The Kansas Geological Survey has already indicated an interest in receiving all the data and analyzing it in a similar fashion to the Index Well program data.2 It is hoped this additional data collection and analysis will qualify a reduced rate of change (decline) in the annual water levels of the HPA. 11) Coordination

The SD-6 stakeholders and the GMD 4 board expect reasonable coordination between the chief engineer’s office and the GMD 4 board on at least the following four efforts:

a) Development of the LEMA Order resulting from the LEMA process;

b) Setting and accounting for the umbrella accounts authorized by Section 1) c);

c) Authorizing and accounting of water right transfers and bookkeeping authorized by Section 1) d); and

d) Accounting for annual pumpage amounts by LEMA water right owners/operators. 12) General

The core concern of this LEMA is to remain within the allocation quantity after five years of pumping. Any future decisions within this LEMA period which intend to incorporate new or overlooked issues shall be made in deference to this total allocation limit.

2 The Index Well program is a 5-year study by KGS exploring the usefulness of specified, dedicated index wells to describe larger areas of the Ogallala Aquifer. The website for this effort is: http://www.kgs.ku.edu/HighPlains/OHP/index_program/index.shtml


ITEM 2: The LEMA Order of Decision (Findings and Order Only):

BEFORE THE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES, KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

In The Matter of ) the Designation of the Sheridan 6 ) 12 WATER 8366 Local Enhanced Management Area (“LEMA”) ) ________________________________________ )

ORDER OF DECISION ACCEPTING THE SHERIDAN 6 LOCAL ENHANCED MANAGEMENT

PLAN (PURSUANT TO K.S.A. 82a-1041(d)(1))

On the 28th of November, 2012, the above-captioned matter came on for a second and final public hearing before the Chief Engineer. The hearing took place in the Sheridan County Courthouse, 925 9th Street, Hoxie, Kansas, between approximately 10:35 am and approximately 1:00 pm. Written testimony was filed in advance of the hearing, at the hearing, and after the hearing, until the record closed on December 4, 2012. For the reasons set forth below, I order the acceptance of the local enhanced management plan proposed for the Sheridan 6 LEMA pursuant to K.S.A. 82a-1041(d)(1). Consequently, an order of designation shall follow this Order of Decision.

[Background, Testimony and other elements omitted. The complete order is available on the GMD 4 and the DWR websites or from either entity upon request]

V. FINDINGS OF FACT.

1. The geographical boundaries of the Sheridan 6 LEMA Proposal contain the following sections in Sheridan County and Thomas County:

Sheridan County:

TWP 7S-28W: Sections 19-21 and 28-33; TWP 7S-29W: Sections 4-9 and 16-36; TWP 7S-30W: Sections 19-36; TWP 8S-29W: Sections 1-18; TWP 8S-30W: Sections 1-18.

Thomas County:

TWP 8S-R31W: Sections 22-27 and 34-36.

2. Groundwater levels in the area described in Paragraph 1 above are declining, in some cases precipitously; these levels have declined excessively; and the rate of withdrawal of groundwater there exceeds the rate of recharge. 3. The boundaries of the proposed LEMA are entirely within the boundaries of GMD4.


4. These boundaries are clear and reasonable. 5. The overarching goal of the Proposal is to collectively restrict diversions of nondomestic groundwater rights to no more than 114,000 acre-feet total, during the period bounded by January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2017. 6. The corrective control provisions of the Proposal are sufficient to meet this overarching goal. 7. Due to the hydrogeologic features of the aquifer in the area described in Paragraph 1, the reduction in groundwater pumping by water rights owners within the proposed LEMA should inure almost entirely to their future benefit. 8. The irrigators within the proposed LEMA can sustain their irrigated farming operations profitably with the Proposal’s five-year allocation of 55 inches, which is sufficient to meet their needs.

VI. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

1. Notice of the first public hearing in this matter was proper and complied with the requirements of K.S.A. 82a-1041(b). 2. Notice of the second public hearing in this matter was proper and complied with the requirements of K.S.A. 82a-1041(b). 3. The second hearing took place according to the requirements of K.S.A. 82a-1041. 4. K.S.A. 82a-1041(d)(1) allows acceptance of a local enhanced management plan, provided that the Chief Engineer finds the plan to be “sufficient to address” groundwater declines, or “sufficient to address” the disparity between groundwater withdrawals and recharge. K.S.A. 82a-1041(d)(1) (with apposite reference to K.S.A. 82a-1036(a)-(b)). It must be stressed that a finding of such sufficiency does not mean that such a plan is sufficient to resolve such declines and disparity over the long term. 5. The Proposal is “sufficient to address” these problems within the modest confines of K.S.A. 82a-1041(d)(1), because it reduces overall groundwater usage by approximately 20% for a period of five years. 6. The Proposal is consistent with the KWAA and with other Kansas law. 7. The Proposal comports with the public interest of the inhabitants of the State of Kansas pursuant to K.S.A. 82a-1020 and the KWAA.

VII. ORDER OF DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, it is the decision and order of the Chief Engineer that the Proposal is sufficient to address the decline in groundwater levels in the area in question. 1. The geographical boundaries of the Sheridan 6 LEMA shall be as follows and shall contain all points of diversion that are located within the following sections in Sheridan County and Thomas County:

Sheridan County:


TWP 7S-28W: Sections 19-21 and 28-33; TWP 7S-29W: Sections 4-9 and 16-36; TWP 7S-30W: Sections 19-36; TWP 8S-29W: Sections 1-18; TWP 8S-30W: Sections 1-18.

Thomas County:

TWP 8S-R31W: Sections 22-27 and 34-36.

2. This Order shall be in effect immediately, and shall govern all irrigation, stockwatering, and recreational rights within the Sheridan 6 LEMA between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2017. This five-year term shall be known as the “Sheridan 6 LEMA Period.” 3. The total amount of diversions of water within the Sheridan 6 LEMA shall be restricted to no more than 114,000 acre-feet of water, to be diverted during the Sheridan 6 LEMA Period. 4. Each irrigation water right within the Sheridan 6 LEMA shall be limited to a total maximum quantity of 55 inches per irrigated acre for the Sheridan 6 LEMA Period. This five-year quantity of 55 inches shall be known as the “initial irrigation allocation,” and shall be quantified according to the procedure set forth in the Proposal, GMD4 Exh. 1, Appendix 5, p. 35. The initial irrigation allocation may be increased or decreased subject to the terms and limitations set forth below. In the event of such increase or decrease, that allocation shall be known as the “irrigation allocation.” 5. Individual points of diversion pumping to a common irrigation system or systems shall be provided a single allocation for the total system irrigated acres. The total amount of water pumped by all of the points of diversion must remain within that system’s allocation. 6. Multiple irrigation allocations may be combined into an irrigation allocation account, which may be apportioned to the irrigation water rights’ individual points of diversion within that irrigation allocation account, provided the total allocation account is not exceeded. 7. Irrigation allocations may be transferred to a different place of use and/or point of diversion within the Sheridan 6 LEMA, provided that the transferors and transferees of such allocations comply with GMD4 procedures for approving these transfers. All such transfers shall be limited to the Sheridan 6 LEMA Period. No such transfers shall take place until GMD4 develops appropriate procedures and forms that comply with the KWAA, the GMDA, and the terms of this Order and the forthcoming order of designation. 8. Whether through transfer, purchase, lease, or other conveyance, no irrigation allocation within the Sheridan 6 LEMA shall exceed 5 times the annual quantity of water authorized by the irrigation water right or rights that comprise the irrigation allocation. 9. No irrigation allocation shall be allowed to pump more than the annual quantity of water authorized by its constituent irrigation water right or rights in any single year. 10. No irrigation water right within a 5-year allocation status established pursuant to K.A.R. 5-5-11 shall receive an irrigation allocation that exceeds its current allocation limit under that regulation.


11. Each and every irrigation allocation shall be assigned to a specific point or points of diversion, and shall consist of all of the water rights and appurtenant acres related to that point of diversion. 12. Before October 1, 2013, any irrigation allocation may be converted to a Multi-year flex account (“MYFA”) pursuant to K.S.A. 82a-736 and its attendant regulations, provided that such allocation is eligible for a MYFA, and provided further that the MYFA quantity or quantities of water do not exceed the irrigation allocation. After October 1, 2013, no conversions to MYFA’s shall be allowed. 13. For any irrigation water right enrolled in any state or federal conservation program approved pursuant to K.S.A. 82a-741 and/or K.A.R. 5-7-4, whose conservation term expires on or before September 30, 2017, the initial irrigation allocation for such right shall be limited to 11 acre-inches per acre for the remaining years of the Sheridan 6 LEMA period. 14. Any irrigation water right enrolled into, contracting with, or officially participating in a reduced water use program (such as AWEP, EQIP, or the Northwest Kansas Groundwater Conservation Foundation) during the Sheridan 6 LEMA period shall not be allowed to transfer any part of its initial irrigation allocation. 15. All stockwatering water rights within the Sheridan 6 LEMA shall be granted an allocation for use based on 12 gallons per head per day, according to their licensed lot capacity as of December 31, 2010, for the Sheridan 6 LEMA Period. This quantity of 12 gallons per head per day shall include both drinking water and additional quantities for servicing/flushing, as those terms are used in K.A.R. 5-3-22. 16. All stockwatering water rights within the Sheridan 6 LEMA shall be converted to a five-year allocation, to be known as the “initial stockwatering allocation.” 17. The initial stockwatering allocation may be increased or decreased by purchase, sale, transfer, or other conveyance of water rights and water allocations. In the event of any modification in quantity from the initial stockwatering allocation, that subsequent allocation shall be known as the “stockwatering allocation.” 18. Recreational water rights shall be limited to 90% of their annual authorized quantity as of December 31, 2010. 19. GMD4 shall develop procedures by which nondomestic water rights within the Sheridan 6 LEMA are converted to their initial allocations, as well as the procedures by which the initial allocations are subsequently modified, and all such procedures shall be subject to the approval of the Chief Engineer. 20. Pursuant to K.S.A. 82a-1041(f), an order of designation shall be issued within a reasonable time of this Order of Decision, setting forth the complete terms for the Sheridan 6 LEMA, including violations, metering, monitoring and enforcement, accounting, corrective control provisions, an advisory committee, review of LEMA orders, impairment complaints, and other terms as necessary.


ITEM 3: Advisory Committee Process The proposal and the order require the GMD 4 appointment (except for the DWR representative) of an advisory committee to carry out specific annual reviews and make recommendations to the chief engineer and the GMD 4 board regarding adjustments and/or amendments to the LEMA Order(s) . The committee is to be an odd number between 5 and 9 total members as follows:

One (1) GMD 4 representative;

One (1) DWR representative designated by the chief engineer; and

The balance being SD-6 HPA residents/owners/operators – one (1) of which must represent non-irrigation users.

One of the SD-6 HPA members shall chair the committee, whose responsibility will be to meet annually to consider the following 6 issues:

(1) water use data; (2) water table information; (3) economic data as is available; (4) violations issues – specifically metered data; (5) any new and preferable enhanced management authorities become available; (6) other items deemed pertinent to the advisory committee. It is suggested that the first issue undertaken by the committee be the recommendation of a list of acceptable alternative meter monitoring methods and other enforcement issues of concern.

The advisory committee is to produce a report after every meeting which shall provide a status for considerations (1) through (6) and any recommended modifications to the current LEMA Order(s) relative to these six items. Said report shall be forwarded to the GMD 4 board and the chief engineer.

In addition to the annual LEMA Order(s) reviews just discussed, the Advisory Committee shall also conduct a more formal LEMA Order(s) review 1.5 years before the ending date of the LEMA Order(s). Review items will focus on economic impacts to the LEMA area and the local public interest. Water level data may be reviewed. The committee shall also produce a report following this review (to the chief engineer and the GMD 4 board) containing specific recommendations regarding future LEMA actions. All recommendations shall be supported by reports, data, testimonials, affidavits or other information of record. The GMD 4 board has mailed out a fact sheet on this issue and is currently seeking interested individuals willing to be appointed. The deadline for expressions of interest is: 5:00 P.M., MARCH 4, 2013. It is the board’s intent to appoint this committee during their March 7, 2013 regular meeting. All meetings of the board are open meetings.


ITEM 4: Metering Issues It cannot be stressed enough how important it will be to monitor the meters throughout the LEMA period. Any unaccounted for water use in any year will assumed to have been the

full water right’s annual authorized quantity. This amount in most cases will seriously affect your remaining 5-year allocation. To keep everyone straight, the proposal requires a functioning flowmeter that meets state specifications whenever the well is operating. Keep in mind that proper installation is part of the state specs. The proposal says that all water right owners shall at their discretion do one of the following additional well/meter monitoring procedures:

(1) Inspect, read and record the flow meter at least every two weeks the well is operating. The recordings do not have to be submitted anywhere, but must be producible in the case of a broken or questionable meter to avert automatic penalties. This includes meters at the pivots. (2) Install and maintain an alternative method of determining the time that the well is operating. This alternative method is left up to the well owner, but we recommend that it be provided to GMD 4 for comment before it is needed. A list of approved alternatives should be developed soon. Perhaps the advisory committee can help craft this list. The intent of either alternative is to have credible operational data at regular enough time intervals that water use can be reconstructed in the case an inoperable meter is found – avoiding penalties.

If a meter is found inoperable, contact the district office within 48 hours of discovery and provide the following information:

(1) water right file number; (2) legal description of the well; (3) date the problem was discovered; (4) flow meter model, make, registering units and serial number; (5) the meter reading on the date discovered; (6) description of the problem; (7) what alternative method is going to be used to track the quantity of water diverted while the inoperable or inaccurate meter is being repaired/replaced; and (8) the projected date that the meter will be repaired or replaced.

Upon repair or replacement of the inoperable or inaccurate meter, notify the district again within 7 days and provide the following information:

(1) water right file number; (2) date the meter was replaced or repaired; (3) if the meter was replaced, the make, model, registering units, serial number and meter reading of the new meter before it records any water use; (4) if the meter was repaired, the date of repair and confirmation of the meter reading before it records any water use; (5) provide information to determine the amount of water pumped while the meter was inoperative

All the metering issues will be a specific annual review issue and if discovered to be ineffective, specific adjustments can be recommended to the chief engineer by the advisory committee.


2) 2) 2) 2) Republican River Basin Conservation AllianceRepublican River Basin Conservation AllianceRepublican River Basin Conservation AllianceRepublican River Basin Conservation Alliance The GMD 4 board approved an effort to coordinate a conservation projects alliance to seek funds from the Kansas Water Office (KWO) that are designated for conservation in the Republican River Basin. State legislation directs how award funds coming from Colorado or Nebraska (as a result of the Compact Settlement Agreement) will be used within Kansas. The legislation, after replenishing the state’s water compact litigation fund, directs 2/3 of all Colorado award dollars to the Upper Republican Basin for conservation projects. It also earmarks 1/3 of all remaining Nebraska award funds for conservation projects that will keep Kansas in compliance with the compact in the future. The alliance has been formed to make a comprehensive application to the KWO consisting of a coordinated suite of conservation projects that make the best use of the dollars and/or water that will accrue to Kansas from any settlement awards. The Alliance includes 12 members representing: County commissioners; Cities; Irrigation Districts; GMDs; Production Ag; Economic development; RC&Ds; Financial institutions; area Industry; Animal feeding; the Upper Republican Basin Advisory Committee; Farm Bureau's; and the Environment. A list of 9 potential water conservation projects has been developed by the Alliance. A March 3, 2010 meeting with an engineering firm and the Kansas Water Office was held to plan the engineering reconnaissance study – but only on three of the proposals – those involving expected increases of surface water from Colorado on the South Fork of the Republican River. The study was released in July, 2010 and awaits funding into the appropriate state coffers. The remainder of the proposals are still under consideration and may be developed later. At this time everything is still on hold until the Republican River Compact lawsuits are settled and funding is provided to the state-created funds. At that time, the Alliance will reconvene and prepare an application for one or more of the applicable conservation projects. For more information, contact the district or visit: www.gmd4.org/Alliance/alliance.htm. 3) 3) 3) 3) Agricultural Water Enhancement PrAgricultural Water Enhancement PrAgricultural Water Enhancement PrAgricultural Water Enhancement Programogramogramogram (AWEP)(AWEP)(AWEP)(AWEP) A section of EQIP under the 2008 Farm Bill provided funds for water management – specifically including “&the conversion of Agricultural land from irrigated farming to dryland farming”. The NW Kansas Conservation Partnership (GMD 4; Sheridan County Conservation District; Cheyenne County Conservation District; Thomas County Conservation District; Sherman County Conservation District; Sherman County Farm Bureau; Northwest Kansas Groundwater Conservation Foundation and Kansas Water Office) filed a 2010 AWEP application to convert irrigated acres to non-irrigated production in the six, HPAs, which was accepted in June, 2010. Our Partnership was awarded $2.666 million in FY 2010 to fund temporary conversions of irrigated acres within the six HPAs. For these funds, there were 43 eligible applications filed. Fifteen of these were offered contracts and successfully funded – setting aside 2,324 total irrigated acres in five of the six HPAs. In all, $2.494 million was obligated in this first year of our 3-year program. For the second year (FY 2011) NRCS allotted our program $1.243 million based on a 45% reduction in federal funds available. Via a second allotment, our program received about $600,000 more dollars. Virtually all these funds were also used to set aside irrigation acres in the six HPAs.

For the third and final year (FY 2012) NRCS provided a total allotment to Kansas of $3.8 million, with our program receiving $1.825 million. AWEP provided a fair annual payment for converting irrigated acres to dryland production - thus conserving this groundwater for future use. AWEP also provided that initial first step for those interested in permanent water right retirements along with the subsequent use of the Kansas Water Transition Assistance Program (WTAP) and other local funding. The AWEP program has expired so the six GMD 4 HPAs no longer have this tool to reduce their water use to achieve any local goals set.


4) Water Transition and Assistance Program (WTAP)4) Water Transition and Assistance Program (WTAP)4) Water Transition and Assistance Program (WTAP)4) Water Transition and Assistance Program (WTAP) “WTAP provides irrigators an opportunity to stabilize water systems while being compensated at market rates,” Kansas Department of Agriculture Division of Conservation Water Conservation Programs Manager Steve Frost said. “It works well for producers who are interested in estates or trusts, or looking for ways to generate cash flow from one area of a farming operation. Even just portions of water rights can be retired, and dryland farming is allowed after the transition.” WTAP was designed to achieve a significant impact in meeting State Water Plan goals regarding aquifer depletion levels and stream recovery, as well as in maintaining interstate compact obligations and avoiding water right impairment issues. The Kansas Department of Agriculture’s Division of Conservation administers the program and Groundwater Management Districts and the Kansas Department of Agriculture Division of Water Resources assist with the implementation. In 2012 HB 2517 was introduced as one of Governor Brownback’s four water conservation initiatives stemming from his July, 2011 Water Conservation Summit held in Colby. Because WTAP was to sunset on July 1, 2012, this bill made the program permanent and also made some minor tweaks in its administration - eliminating the heretofore specified areas in the current law and allowing the program to more effectively coordinate with the federal programs of EQIP and AWEP. HB 2517 passed and was signed into law. GMD 4 continues to use WTAP as a follow-up program to the Federal Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP) to permanently retire irrigation water rights in the six designated high priority areas (HPAs). AWEP pays the water user five annual payments to not use the water for six years. These individuals can then, if they choose, secure a WTAP contract and a Northwest Kansas Groundwater Conservation Foundation payment on top of the AWEP payments to transition the formerly irrigated acres to dryland production permanently. Even though no new AWEP applications are being processed, WTAP can be used in conjunction with any AWEP contract in any of the six years they exist.

5) Multi-Year Flex Accounts

One of Governor Brownback’s 2012 water legislations was authorization of the Multi-year Flex Account (MYFA) program. This change allows individual water right owners to convert their current annual water right into a 5-year permit allowing the owner to use his or her total allocation in any way they want – so long as the 5-year total is not exceeded. There are two ways to calculate the total allocation and the water right owner gets to choose the calculation method. If approved, the base water right will be set aside and a 5-year term permit will be issued instead. This program is the state’s answer to over pumping water rights in the future. People who over pump a water right are expected to convert their water right, but their over pump year is counted as the first year of the 5-year term permit. In this way, the over pump quantity gets paid back to the state sometime over the ensuing 4 years. The alternative for the water right owner is to forgo a MYFA and accept the over pump penalty. To avoid an over pump penalty, you MUST file for a MYFA conversion ON OR BEFORE October 1 of the over pump year. This is an important filing deadline that cannot be missed if you need to file a MYFA to avoid an over pump penalty. The total amount of a 5-year flex account will generally be the larger of: 5 (X) the average use of the water right from 2000-2009; or 5 (X) the county’s net irrigation requirement for corn (X) the acres irrigated (X) 110%

** MYFA calculations are water right specific and often do not equal 5 times the annual authorized quantity **

Only vested and certified groundwater rights in good standing are eligible;


A separate MYFA shall be required for each point of diversion authorized by the base water right; The applicant is required to install and maintain an acceptable water flowmeter meeting all current specifications; to allow the meter to be sealed; to install anti-reverse components directed by DWR; and to maintain monthly records of water used; MYFAs are available statewide for uses other than irrigation; The entire water right must be placed in the MYFA program. If you wish to include only a portion of a water right, you must first apply for a division of the water right; and MYFAs are available in Intensive Groundwater Use Control Areas (IGUCAs) except for the Walnut Creek IGUCA, the Lower Smoky Hill River IGUCA and Arkansas River IGUCA above Garden City. There is a bill in the current Legislative session (2013) that will amend the MYFA program to allow a 20% carryover of any MYFA account balance if the water right continues the MYFA for another 5-year period. This amendment is attempting to make the MYFA’s more attractive.


GMD 4 Permitted Well and Water Rights Data by County by Well TypeGMD 4 Permitted Well and Water Rights Data by County by Well TypeGMD 4 Permitted Well and Water Rights Data by County by Well TypeGMD 4 Permitted Well and Water Rights Data by County by Well Type

(Figures include wells and water rights within the county within the district)

As of January 11, 2013

Wells/County CN DC GH GO LG RA SD SH TH WA

Domestic 3 1 3

AF 25 8 6

Hyd Dredge

AF

Industrial 1 2 4 1 3 10 10

AF 15 225 483 21 26 1440 990

Irrigation 445 26 112 158 81 148 693 867 774 8

AF 103160 3782 21313 28988 16153 30776 161382 260758 203768 2797

Municipal 10 5 7 7 3 9 15 14

AF 1074 439 698 960 107 738 2286 2592

Recreation 2 1 1 3 1

AF 31 9 15 405 7

Stockwater 6 3 10 1 3 18 7 17

AF 725 96 756 25 111 1019 270 1137

Evaporation 1

AF 25

Total County Wells 465 28 121 179 91 154 729 900 819 8

Total County AF* 105030 4007 21857 30926 17174 30995 163594 264761 208500 2797

GMD Total Wells 3494

GMD Total AF 849639

January 11, 2013 totals = decrease of 19 wells and a decrease of 2,691 Appropriated AF over the January 11, 2012

totals of last year’s report


GMD 4 Selected TrendsGMD 4 Selected TrendsGMD 4 Selected TrendsGMD 4 Selected Trends

This is the newest feature in the annual meeting packet. If there are other annual trends you like to see tracked, let us know.

Water Level Total Total YEAR Budget

1 Change

2 Wells AcreFeet

3

2005 $419,365 -.60 3,546 860,387 2006 $434,250 -.57 3,540 859,582 2007 $411,952 -.29 3,530 857,253 2008 $438,965 -.89 3,526 856,900 2009 $433,455 -.42 3,520 854,673 2010 $454,450 .10 3,516 853,710 2011 $569,125 -.50 3,513 852,330 2012 $490,770 -.61 3,494 849,639 2013 $561,680

1 Assessed for operating budget for the calendar year

2 Average annual change - entire GMD 4 network (January current year measurement (previous years’ decline)) 3 Authorized appropriation quantities – all rights – GMD4 – January of following year – rounded to nearest AF

GMD 4 Comparison of Pumped Water To Appropriated WaterGMD 4 Comparison of Pumped Water To Appropriated WaterGMD 4 Comparison of Pumped Water To Appropriated WaterGMD 4 Comparison of Pumped Water To Appropriated Water

2009 Data (1/1/2009 - 12/31/2009) Area Appropriated Water Pumped Water Irrigated Acres Percent

Sherman County 266,166 100,420 113,579 38% Thomas County 209,512 69,128 98,359 33% Sheridan County 163,300 60,666 77,851 37%





The above Data is from the WIMAS data set. WIMAS does not filter by GMD, so only full county data is available. 2012 data is not yet available in WIMAS.


Regional Water Level Changes: 1996Regional Water Level Changes: 1996Regional Water Level Changes: 1996Regional Water Level Changes: 1996----2012012012013333

AL

L

# 5

# 4

# 3

# 2

# 1

GMD

0.2

3

0.90

-0.14

-0.43

-0.15

0.09

96-97

0.2

7

0.91

-0.33

0.04

1.56

0.53

97-98

-.03

9

0.04

-0.26

-1.29

0.52

-0.57

98-99

-.03

6

-0.15

0.00

-0.89

0.20

-0.38

99-00

-1.1

6

-0.44

-1.16

-2.20

-0.98

-0.44

00-01

-0.9

1

-0.70

-0.41

-1.75

-0.97

-0.74

01-02

-1.9

6

-1.48

-1.51

-3.35

-0.93

-1.37

02-03

-1.1

2

-0.97

-1.14

-1.81

-0.25

-0.89

03-04

-0.1

7

0.10

-0.60

-0.42

1.09

0.24

04-05

-0.5

1

-0.11

-0.57

-1.11

0.00

-0.29

05-06

-1.2

5

-1.39

-0.29

-2.45

-2.48

-0.73

06-07

-0.0

6

3.34

-0.89

-1.99

2.12

-1.15

07-08

-0.7

9

0.58

-0.42

-3.03

1.63

-0.29

08-09

-0.1

8

0.63

0.10

-1.39

-0.26

-0.43

09-10

-1.1

8

-0.44

-0.50

-3.05

-0.70

-0.72

10-11

-2.3

1

-2.95

-0.59

-4.26

-3.06

-1.49

11-12

-2.0

6

-1.83

-1.39

-3.56

-1.63

-1.54

12-13

Average Change in

Depth to

Water –

1996 – 2013, b

y GMD

GMD #1 = W

estern; GMD #2 =

Equus B

eds; GMD #3 =

Southw

est; GMD #4 =

Northw

est; GMD #5 =

Big B

end


District MapDistrict MapDistrict MapDistrict Map


Notes

33338888th annual meeting agendath annual meeting … · 33338888th annual meeting agendath annual...

Documents