Water Preservation

Ogallala Aquifer

‘It’s time to deal with this’: Kansas Water Authority wants to save Ogallala Aquifer

State water officials said Kansas has had a ‘de facto’ policy to eventually drain the aquifer

By: Allison Kite - December 15, 2022


COLBY — Kansas should scrap its de facto policy of draining the Ogallala Aquifer, a state board decided Wednesday.


Instead, the board said, the Kansas government should take steps to stop the decline of the aquifer and save it for future generations.


“It has taken decades for this to be said formally in writing by an official state body,” said Connie Owen, director of the Kansas Water Office. “… This is nothing less than historic.”


Saving the water source that supports Western Kansas’ economy and communities may seem like an obvious stance to take, but for about 70 years, the state’s policies and management decisions have reflected the idea that eventually, the Ogallala would dry up, said Earl Lewis, Kansas’ chief engineer. 


The Kansas Water Authority, which is made up of agricultural and industrial water users and utilities, wants to chart a new course. It voted almost unanimously Wednesday to recommend that the state scrap the policy of “planned depletion.”


“It’s time to deal with this while we still have some choices,” said John Bailey, a member of the Kansas Water Authority from Pittsburg. “If we don’t, we’re going to find ourselves in a very bad situation.”


The Ogallala Aquifer, one of the world’s largest underground sources of fresh water, stretches across parts of eight states from South Dakota to Texas. After World War II farmers started pumping water from it to irrigate crops in arid western Kansas, establishing the region as a booming farming economy. For decades, the water was used with little thought of ensuring enough remained for future generations. 


But now, the water is running out. Some parts of the aquifer have half the water they had before irrigation on the aquifer began. Parts of western Kansas have an estimated 10 years of water left. There’s little surface water since streams that reliably flowed through the area in 1961 all but disappeared, according to the Kansas Geological Survey.


Draining the aquifer would fundamentally change life in western Kansas. Farm properties would lose their value if there’s no water to grow a crop. Families could lose their livelihoods and communities could disappear.


But while it’s widely accepted that the Ogallala is essential to western Kansas, Kansas Water Authority chairwoman Dawn Buehler said many farmers have been waiting on the government to tell them it’s time to do something. 


“We’ve heard that over and over from people — that, ‘Well, you know, we’re not at a dangerous zone yet because they’ll let us know when it’s time,’ ” Buehler said.


She continued: “I think the importance of today was saying, ‘It’s time.’ ”


A vote to change course 

The Kansas Water Authority, which meets roughly every two months in different locations around the state, voted Wednesday to place language in the body’s annual report to the governor and legislature saying the “policy of planned depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer is no longer in the best interest of the state of Kansas.”


The report will also recommend the state create a formal process to establish goals and actions to “halt the decline of the Ogallala Aquifer while promoting flexible and innovative management within a timeframe that achieves agricultural productivity, thriving economies and vibrant communities — now and for future generations of Kansans.” 


It had wide support among the authority members. 


“My opinion of this is that it should have been done 15 years ago or 20,” said Lynn Goossen, a farmer from Colby who serves on the Kansas Water Authority and the board of the groundwater management district in northwest Kansas. 


Goossen said there are parts of Kansas where the aquifer still has abundant water left but that people are “sticking their heads in the sand” rather than saving it. 


Some water users have pursued a longshot idea to draw water from the Missouri River via an aqueduct to southwest Kansas. They trucked 6,000 gallons of water from northeast Kansas across the state as a “proof of concept.” 


The goal to “halt” the decline of the aquifer gave pause to one member of the authority who asked that the statement instead say officials should “address” the decline of the aquifer. 


Randy Hayzlett, a farmer and rancher from Lakin who serves on the authority, was the lone vote against the language, though the subsequent vote to send the full annual report to policymakers was unanimous. 


Hayzlett said he couldn’t support establishing the goal without details about what it would mean to “halt” the decline of the aquifer. 


“That’s a pretty strong word, and it’s going to affect a lot of people,” he said.


Hayzlett said he wanted to do everything possible to remedy the decline of the Ogallala but didn’t want to throw a word out there without a plan to achieve it.


“Is it going to halt declining the aquifer? Is it going to halt the economy of western Kansas?” he said. “Just what’s it going to put a cap on and then how are we going to get there?”


Lewis said Kansas has talked about the issue of the Ogallala Aquifer for 50 years. If authority members wait for a plan, he said, they’ll get bogged down in the details. 


“What you’re doing is really setting a course,” Lewis said. “You’re saying, ‘I want to go in that direction. … I don’t know how I’m going to get there and it’s going to take a lot of us working together to get there.’ ”

Frequently asked questions about the Kansas Supreme Court Selection Process

  • How are Supreme Court Justices Selected in Kansas?

    When a vacancy occurs on the Kansas Supreme Court, a nine-member nominating commission selects three finalists from a pool of applicants. The commission includes five attorneys elected by the Kansas Bar Association and four non-attorneys appointed by the Governor .


    The Governor must choose one of the three nominees. If the Governor declines, the Chief Justice of the Kansas Supreme Court makes the appointment .

  • How many other states have this model?

     According to the non-partisan Ballotpedia, Kansas is the only state that uses a bar-controlled commission—where attorneys elected by the state bar hold a majority of seats—to select Supreme Court nominees . 

    However, 20 other states use some form of a nominating commission in their selection process. These commissions vary:

    • 10 states have governor-controlled commissions
    • 12 states use hybrid commissions with no single group in control 

  • What is the most common selection method for State Supreme Court Justices in the United States?

    The most common method is election.

    • 13 states use nonpartisan elections.
    • 8 states use partisan elections.

  • What do supporters of the way Kansas Supreme Court Justices are chosen say?

     Supporters of the current model, which they refer to as “merit selection” argue that lawyers are best equipped to select members to the State’s Highest Court. They also contend that the nomination committee helps insulate justices from political influence, allowing decisions to be based on law rather than politics.

  • What do critics of the way Kansas Supreme Court Justices are chosen say?

    Critics argue that the current system is “undemocratic” because it gives members of the state bar disproportionate influence over the nomination process. They note that Kansas is an outlier in having a “bar-controlled commission”, noting that lawyers make up just 0.03% of the state’s population, yet have the ability to effectively shape an entire branch of the state’s government.  

The Amendment

The measure would amend sections 5, 8, and 15 of Article 3 of the state constitution. The following underlined text would be added, and struck-through text would be deleted:


§ 5. Selection of justices of the supreme court. The citizens of Kansas who are qualified electors shall have the right to elect the justices of the supreme court. The rules applicable for such elections and the designation of position numbers shall be provided by law. Justice positions 1, 2 and 3 shall be elected at the general election in November of 2028, justice positions 4 and 5 in November of 2030 and justice positions 6 and 7 in November of 2032, and every six years thereafter, respectively. Any vacancy occurring on the supreme court for an unexpired term shall be filled at the next even-year election for the remainder of such term by election as provided by law. (a) Any vacancy occurring in the office of any justice of the supreme court and any position to be open thereon as a result of enlargement of the court, or the retirement or failure of an incumbent to file his declaration of candidacy to succeed himself as hereinafter required, or failure of a justice to be elected to succeed himself, shall be filled by appointment by the governor of one of three persons possessing the qualifications of office who shall be nominated and whose names shall be submitted to the governor by the supreme court nominating commission established as hereinafter provided.


(b) In event of the failure of the governor to make the appointment within sixty days from the time the names of the nominees are submitted to him, the chief justice of the supreme court shall make the appointment from such nominees. (c) Each justice of the supreme court appointed pursuant to provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall hold office for an initial term ending on the second Monday in January following the first general election that occurs after the expiration of twelve months in office. Not less than sixty days prior to the holding of the general election next preceding the expiration of his term of office, any justice of the supreme court may file in the office of the secretary of state a declaration of candidacy for election to succeed himself. If a declaration is not so filed, the position held by such justice shall be open from the expiration of his term of office. If such declaration is filed, his name shall be submitted at the next general election to the electors of the state on a separate judicial ballot, without party designation, reading substantially as follows:


"Shall _____________________________________________ (Here insert name of justice.) ___________________________________________________ (Here insert the title of the court.)


be retained in office?"


If a majority of those voting on the question vote against retaining him in office, the position or office which he holds shall be open upon the expiration of his term of office; otherwise he shall, unless removed for cause, remain in office for the regular term of six years from the second Monday in January following such election. At the expiration of each term he shall, unless by law he is compelled to retire, be eligible for retention in office by election in the manner prescribed in this section.


(d) A nonpartisan nominating commission whose duty it shall be to nominate and submit to the governor the names of persons for appointment to fill vacancies in the office of any justice of the supreme court is hereby established, and shall be known as the "supreme court nominating commission." Said commission shall be organized as hereinafter provided.


(e) The supreme court nominating commission shall be composed as follows: One member, who shall be chairman, chosen from among their number by the members of the bar who are residents of and licensed in Kansas; one member from each congressional district chosen from among their number by the resident members of the bar in each such district; and one member, who is not a lawyer, from each congressional district, appointed by the governor from among the residents of each such district.


(f) The terms of office, the procedure for selection and certification of the members of the commission and provision for their compensation or expenses shall be as provided by the legislature.


(g) No member of the supreme court nominating commission shall, while he is a member, hold any other public office by appointment or any official position in a political party or for six months thereafter be eligible for nomination for the office of justice of the supreme court. The commission may act only by the concurrence of a majority of its members.


§ 8. Prohibition of political activity by justices and certain judges. No justice of the supreme court who is appointed or retained under the procedure of section 5 of this article, nor any judge of the district court holding office under a nonpartisan method authorized in subsection (a) of section 6 of this article, shall directly or indirectly make any contribution to or hold any office in a political party or organization or take part in any political campaign, except when such judge is a candidate for election to a position on an appellate court.


§ 15. Removal of justices and judges. Justices of the supreme court may be removed from office by impeachment and conviction as prescribed in article 2 of this constitution. In addition to removal by impeachment and conviction, justices may be retired after appropriate hearing, upon certification to the governor, by the supreme court nominating commission that such justice is so incapacitated as to be unable to perform adequately his duties. Other judges shall be subject to retirement for incapacity, and to discipline, suspension and removal for cause by the supreme court after appropriate hearing.