Kansas House bill would add $20M for State Water Plan projects
A dog keeps watch over an irrigated field in southwest Kansas, where farmers are facing increased pressure from state lawmakers to preserve groundwater in the quickly depleting Ogallala Aquifer. (Kevin Hardy/Stateline)
TOPEKA — A House bill would allocate an additional $20 million annually to the Kansas Water Plan fund to support projects for cities across the state.
House Bill 2113 builds upon new funding from the 2023 session with House Bill 2302. It would increase the current annual allocation of $35 million to $55 million for the Kansas Water Plan, and from that amount an additional $2 million to the Technical Assistance Grant Fund and $6 million to the Water Projects Grants Fund. The money would come from the State General Fund.
The House passed the bill 106-15 on Feb. 20. The Senate Agriculture and National Resources Committee heard the bill Monday.
'House Bill 2302 made a huge difference. This bill basically builds off of house bill 2302,' said Wendi Stark, a legislative liaison with the League of Kansas Municipalities, during Monday's hearing. 'It's helping to address our immediate needs.'
In millions of dollars
In the past two years, Kansas communities have requested more than $600 million for water needs with almost 600 applications. Stark said that of the 219 municipalities who applied in 2024 or 2025, 45.7% were from towns with a population of fewer than 500 people. Current funding allowed for just 11% of requested funding to be approved.
The Ogallala Aquifer, the water source much of western Kansas relies on, is drying fast. The Kansas Geological Survey found that parts of western Kansas have 25 years of water left. Sen. Ron Ryckman Sr., a Republican from Meade, said his southwest Kansas district is 'always hurtin' for water.'
Rep. Jim Minnix, a Republican from Scott City, introduced the bill and testified at the Senate hearing. He said he gets questions about where the money is going, since the state can't 'make' any water.
'It's a finite resource. What we're trying to do is save it for future generations,' Minnix said.
When Gov. Laura Kelly took office in 2019, the state had not funded the water plan for a decade. Both Republicans and Democrats have expressed concerns over the state's water supply issues — Kelly's proposed budget includes another $30 million per year for the water plan, while the Republican-crafted House budget would give $11.7 million to water projects.
Dozens of individuals testified in support of the legislation in both the Senate and House, with no opposition or neutral testimony.
At the House Water Committee hearing on Feb. 11, the public works director for the city of Edgerton, Dan Merkh, said the city had applied and been rejected for both the technical assistance and water project grants.
'Cities across Kansas face many unfunded state and federal mandates,' Merkh wrote in testimony for the House hearing. 'The Technical Assistance (Grants) Fund and Water Project (Grants Fund) help cities like Edgerton address a variety of needs, from emergency connections to water-quality related problems to mitigating the risk of a sanitary sewer overflow.'
Hardy Howard, the city administrator for WaKeeney, said 'it seems deeply obvious' that the water infrastructure around the state needs to be replaced. He said the city needs to replace an aging pipeline, which is the city's only way to get water distributed from the wells. Howard said there have been multiple breaks.
'HB 2113 supports a small increase in funding to assist communities with these critical needs,' Howard said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
4 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Senate to Keep Spectrum Sales in Tax Bill, Key Republican Says
A key Republican said senators have reached an agreement to reauthorize spectrum sales to internet companies that would generate billions of dollars in revenue toward funding US President Donald Trump's sweeping tax cuts and spending bill. Spectrum sales were included in the House version of the reconciliation package but the provision had drawn objections from South Dakota Republican Senator Mike Rounds, who previously said they risked undermining the US military's communications capabilities.
CNN
7 minutes ago
- CNN
Why Tesla now needs the EV tax credit that Musk once said should go away
It wasn't long ago that Tesla CEO Elon Musk was advocating for ending the $7,500 tax credit for buyers of electric vehicles. 'Take away the subsidies. It will only help Tesla,' he said in a post on his social media platform X last year, adding 'Also remove the subsidies from all industries!' But now, with House budget and tax bill known as the 'big, beautiful bill' proposing to end that tax credit, he and Tesla are suddenly arguing for the continuation of those same credits as the Senate debates its own version of the bill. 'Abruptly ending the energy tax credits would threaten America's energy independence and the reliability of our grid' said Tesla's solar power unit in its own post on X late last month. 'There is no change to tax incentives for oil & gas, just EV/solar,' Musk said in a follow-up post. The turnabout may have to do with the recent financial troubles at Tesla. Many experts believed that getting rid of the EV tax credit would hurt legacy automakers, which continue to lose money on their EV operations, more than it would hurt Tesla. But Tesla's sales took a nosedive this year, and it needs the credits to maintain buyer demand. The battle over EV tax credits, and Musk's broader opposition to the Republicans' budget and taxation bill, has caused a major split between President Donald Trump and Musk – a member of the administration's inner circle as recently as last week. The outcome could endanger the key legislative priority of Trump and Republicans. It could also be affect the finances of the beleaguered Tesla. Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson have both suggested that the loss of federal support for EV's is driving Musk's opposition to the bill. 'Elon and I had a great relationship, I don't know if we will anymore,' Trump told reporters Thursday. 'I am very disappointed. Elon knew the inner workings of this bill… all of a sudden he had a problem and he only developed the problem after he found out we had to cut the EV mandate.' Despite Trump's reference to an EV mandate, there has never been a federal rule requiring Americans buy EVs rather than gasoline-powered cars. But the Biden administration did pass the $7,500 EV tax credit in an effort to spur demand for EVs. Musk immediately denied removal of the EV tax credit was the reason for his opposition to the bill. 'Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill,' he posted on X shortly after Trump's remarks. Tesla shares (TSLA) fell 14% following the exchange. Musk has focused most of his criticism on how the domestic policy bill would balloon the deficit. However, he is also no longer is arguing that ending the EV tax credit would be good for Tesla. Tesla did not respond to a request for comment. However, Musk's shift on the EV tax credit likely reflects changes at Tesla since late last year. Backlash to Musk's political activities played a major role in the company's recent sales troubles, including its first drop in annual sales in 2024 and its biggest ever drop in its sales during the first three months of the year. That resulted in a 71% plunge in net income in the first quarter. While the $7,500 EV tax credit goes to car buyers, it indirectly benefits EV makers by increasing demand. When an earlier version was phased out in 2019, Tesla was forced to cut prices to keep buyers interested. It's not just Musk who changed his opinion on the credit's important to Tesla. The same analysts who once believed removing the EV tax credit would help Tesla are now concerned over its loss. In a note to clients the day after the election, Garrett Nelson, an analyst for CFRA Research, wrote that ending the credit 'will widen Tesla's competitive moat by making competing EV models even more uneconomic, as we believe (Tesla) is the only profitable manufacturer of EVs.' But now, Nelson is expressing worry over Tesla's value if the credits go away. 'Our view is the 'Big Beautiful Bill' would be a net negative for Tesla, as tax credits for EVs, energy storage and solar would be going away,' Nelson said in response to questions from CNN. 'That, and ongoing EV market share losses in China and Europe, are some of the primary reasons why we downgraded the stock in April.' Still, despite cutting his price target for Tesla, Nelson still has a buy recommendation on Tesla shares, as does Dan Ives, another Tesla bull. The tech analyst for Wedbush Securities said the change in finances at Tesla make the tax credits more important than in the past. 'Musk has definitely changed his tune from earlier on this,' Ives told CNN. 'The reality is it will hurt Tesla less than other EV makers, but it will still hurt. And Tesla needs all of the demand help it can get.' Under current bill language, the tax credit remains in place for upstart EV makers like Rivian and Lucid but goes away for Tesla and most legacy automakers, said John Murphy, auto analyst at Bank of America. But he said the greatest challenge for Tesla is that demand for EV among American buyers appears to have stalled. 'I think 8% market share might be the high water mark for EV,' he said at a presentation Wedneday, speaking about overall demand for electric vehicles in the US market. Because of that, and the lack of new Tesla models, especially a lower-priced version that had been promised, 'I think (Musk) is going to be challenged to grow volume.'
Fox News
8 minutes ago
- Fox News
GOP bill takes aim at Congress' 'no rules apply' emergency spending
FIRST ON FOX: A House fiscal hawk wants to create a payment plan for congressional emergency spending to create accountability for the "no rules apply" funding stream. Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., is set to introduce the Emergency Spending Accountability Act that would add guardrails to last-minute funding meant for national emergencies, like natural disasters, the COVID-19 pandemic or other spending meant to fill the gaps in the appropriations process. Stutzman told Fox News Digital that lawmakers will go about the usual budgeting process, passing stopgap spending bills or colossal, omnibus spending packages, but that "somewhere in between" there's always extra money pushed out the door for emergencies. "Whenever there's an emergency, Congress always overreacts," he said. "And I believe they pass these big spending bills under the guise of an emergency, national emergency, and spend money that we don't take into consideration through our budget process." He said that when he first came to Washington in 2010, the national debt was $9 trillion. After leaving the House and returning during last year's election cycle, that number has since ballooned to more than $36 trillion. And since the early 1990s, more than $12 trillion in emergency spending has added to the ever-growing deficit. The lawmaker said that the money dedicated for emergency use was rarely ever paid back, and he argued that the taxpayer dollars were sometimes not used for actual emergencies. Stutzman's legislation, which so far has seven House Republican co-sponsors, would require the federal government to pay off the balance of future emergency spending by 20% each year for five years after an emergency following a green-light from lawmakers to open up the cash flow. His bill would also stipulate that any emergency spending would have to comport with the criteria laid out by the Balance Budget and Emergency Control Act of 1985, which laid out a five-point roadmap to justify that emergency spending be necessary, sudden, urgent, unforeseen and not permanent. He understood that there is always a need for emergency spending, giving the examples of the pandemic and of Hurricane Sandy, which blasted through the East Coast more than a decade ago, but he noted there should be offset cuts to account for the spending and better planning on how the taxpayer dollars would be used. "Most companies and family budgets, they always have a rainy-day fund or an emergency fund that they can tap into if they need it for unexpected costs and expenses, but that's not the way Washington works," Stutzman said. "So that's the idea."
