|
For the past year, Watershed Specialists has
kept a listing of questions that have risen over
the
formulation of
the
Cowskin Basin
(CBP) project. These questions are being presented
to help
readers understand the complexities that are involved when combining multiple
watersheds into a single
managerial entity. Some of the questions have financial
considerations and the monetary aspects will
be discussed during their presentation.
How does the CBP plan to coordinate three independent watersheds?
The three watersheds actually form one large
watershed called the Cowskin Creek basin.
The combining of
the
three separate
but neighboring watersheds is a logical progress of
putting them collectively under one
watershed or basin unit. The geographic aspects of
the watersheds
are the easy part of the coordinated effort. The litmus test of the process
is to
bring the three into one single managerial unit. This is to be accomplished with
the
formulation of a single managerial board, comprised of three board members from
each of
the
watersheds, for a total of nine members. Since the constituents range from urban
to
agricultural to real estate backgrounds the individual board members will be
selected
because of
their standing in the community with respect to the various interest that they
may
serve.
Initially a steering committee will
be formed that represents the various interest from each of the watersheds. The
Andale Area Chamber of Commerce is proposing that a financial
representative, agricultural spokes person and an individual from the municipal
community
within each
watershed be assigned to the steering committee. These members would form
the nine
member board that would provide direction for the Cowskin project. The board
members would hold three
years terms and no more than one member from each
watershed and one member from any interest
group would be up for election at any given time. The positions would be filled
by the electorates within each watershed as the terms expire. The system
would insure that at all times the three watersheds would be
represented equally and that the stakeholders
would represent the constituents they were
elected to
serve. Are there similarities among the individual watersheds and conversely what are the differences? The similarities exist in the fact that the three areas are largely agricultural in nature, all are experiencing flooding problems, all have various layers of jurisdictional boundaries to deal with and none have the ability to resolve the flooding on their own. All three areas are experiencing tremendous transition pressure from agricultural to urban uses and none have the financial resources to act alone to resolve their problems.
The major difference is that some
municipalities have more financial resources to attempt
to manage flood waters while others
from the community do not. Ironically, those
institutions with the most financial resources lack the ability to resolve the
flooding issues at the source
and
are
forced
to "over spend" monies to handle the water as
it
reaches them
rather
than slow the water and
reduce its amount
before
it
reaches
their boundaries.
First of all it is important that each
individual watershed realize that it cannot act alone to resolve their flooding
issues. Equally important is the fact that each watershed within its own
boundaries still cannot resolve the flooding problems by using the resources of
their
own constituents. For
the
project to work all must realize that it can be accomplished
only through a
team effort. The compensation issue will resolve itself once the team
concept has
been accepted.
The
urbanizing
areas will pay more in dollars toward the
overall resolution of the flooding issues
but their savings will come with the lessening of
flooding problems and the saving
they can
save by reducing the size of their capital improvement projects
to handle the smaller amounts of runoff waters that they will
receive. The agricultural areas will have
monies to install practices that will reduce the
runoff volumes and the transitional areas such as commercial, industrial
and residential areas will have funds
to help reduce or eliminate runoff from their areas as they are being
developed. No one entity or group is strapped with the costs of the flood
reduction concerns while all can gain
support from the others is solving a common problem. What are the common priorities among the three individual watersheds?
All three areas have problems with
flooding. All three areas are under a state of rapid
transition
from agricultural to non-agricultural uses. None of the three areas can do
anything to curb the transition and flooding issues on their own. This
commonality of issues is the driving force behind the CBP process. All three
watersheds are forced to work as a team if they want to resolve the rainfall
issues that face them. This does not
mean that the individual watersheds are going to oppose the transition
that is occurring in
their area. Instead it is the intention of each of the
watersheds to work collectively to better manage the
transition
experience so as to not compound the flooding issues that
already exist.
Fragmented pools of monies do exist
that can be used to reduce the flooding problems.
The problem
lies in the feet that no single pool of monies can resolve the flooding issues
due to the jurisdictional nature that currently exist in the basin area. For
example, federal
monies do exist to install tillage practices and riparian areas that
would reduce the amount
of runoff that reaches a stream. The federal monies do not
cover 100 percent of the
installation costs and are designated under the Natural
Resource Conservation Service and
Farm Service center for implementation. Due
to national and local priorities some of the
programs that are needed to control
flooding issues may receive little or no attention
during the
ranking process. The creation of the CBP will help to supplement the existing
monies
and will help to extend the programs into areas that may not fit into the
national or
local ranking
process.
In addition to extending the
abilities of currently funded programs, the CBP will allow for
the creation
of a funding source that can serve as "match dollars" for other state and
federal
programs that can reduce waters related concerns. The new funds can be uses as
"seed
monies" for public and private grants as they become available. Will the old Andale Watershed Project be included in the Cowskin Basin Project?
The answer is spelled out in the laws
of the State of Kansas. Quite simply, the old Andale
Watershed
District is already a recognized watershed district. Its boundaries have been
accepted and recognized by the Department of Water Resources as a legal
watershed entity and as such
cannot be superimposed by a new watershed or basin district.
Complications arise with the formulation of the old watershed district
boundaries since it does not fit into
the guidelines for acceptance into the basin program as its original
boundaries extend beyond the Cowskin Basin
boundaries. In addition to the boundary
issues, the old watershed has the same tax levy authority to raise funds
to resolve their flooding concerns but
have chosen not to do so. Placement of the old watershed under
the new basin would in effect allow for a
"double taxation" process that certainly would
not fare well with the constituents of the
older district. The latter concern over taxation would be better left for the
legal profession to unravel rather than to try to answer it as
part of the above formulated question.
Initially, the Andale Area Chamber of Commerce (AACC)
filed for a grant from the
Environmental Protection Agency for monies to do a see if
it was possible to combine the individual watersheds into a single entity. The
goal was to find a way to develop a way to
fund and coordinate efforts among
the three watersheds to control flooding problems
along the
Cowskin Creek. As the process unfolded there were two ways to set up a
watershed
project. One way was to go to the electorate in a petition and vote while the
other way was to work with the local county commissioners to set up the process.
The
later way was chosen due to its simplistic format. In addition to creating a
managerial unit
the AACC must
file an application with the State Department of Water Resources to
define the
legal boundaries of the new basin. Nearly a hundred watershed districts are
currently formed in the State of Kansas. Several of the districts contain more
than one
watershed.
The concept of forming a watershed is not a new process, however, in the
past most of
the watersheds were formed primarily with a focus on agricultural interests.
The CBP is the first basin
to be formed under the tutorage of a local chamber of
commerce. Currently the managing jurisdictional boundaries are the Cities of Maize, Goddard, Andale, Colwich, Wichita and Sedgwick County is the flood water managers for their own respective areas. Since no one entity controls the head waters of their own flood waters and due to the fact that there is no provisional way to coordinate the planning and flood control costs, each entity is at the mercy of the other regarding waters it discharges downstream. In most case the water is merely passed on to the neighboring entity with only the sole thought of how to get water from the upper parts of the managing entity to the lower end of the project are in as fast and cost effective way possible. The end result is often a "pass through" system that does little to retard the flood waters as they flow downstream toward the neighboring jurisdiction.
Under the CBP system, flood waters
will be treated as a common problem on a basin
basis. The new process will allow
the entities to work collectively to identify places where
storm waters
can be reduced or managed effectively with out having to deal with the
current
uncontrolled runoff situation. Flood control structures, flood reduction
practices,
run off control measures, and other water features of common interest
can be planned and
located within the basin where they will be most effective
and least expensive to build.
The end result will be a program that will
be more effective, less expensive and more beneficial to the constituents within
the basin regardless of where they actually reside
within the
watershed.
Under normal circumstances the
incorporated entities can vote to become part of the basin
project. Due
to the complexity of the political climate and the jurisdictional issues that
may
arise, the CBP system will propose a second way to include the incorporated
areas
within the project. The proposal is for each of the incorporated entities to
sign a inter-local
agreement to join the basin project. Under this mechanism each can retain their
own flood control measures but can work collectively under a basin concept to
better manage the waters outside their own jurisdictional boundary. Each
incorporated system will share
in the over all costs of the basin on an equal footing and
each will be able to make input
into the expenditure of funds regarding the
reduction of flood waters that originate within
the basin.
The participants can work
collectively to view the flooding collectively rather than one of an individual
issue. One of the best ways to tackle problems is to look at each of the three
watersheds and begin to define ways to control flood waters within each region.
This is
only a start
up measure, secondly it would be beneficial to conduct a study of the basin to
determine how existing programs can be enhanced to reduce runoff, find ways to
control
flood waters
that are currently left uncontrolled and to locate areas where the programs
can be
retrofitted into the existing landscape. In an effort to make the program most
efficient it may be necessary to commission a hydrologic study that will define
the areas of
implementation and evaluate the cost effectiveness of each practice to control
the runoff
and flooding
concerns within the basin. Is flooding the only water related issue that can be addressed with the CBP framework? Although flooding is a major concern, it does not have to be the only concern of the project. First of all some measures such as wildlife enhancement programs may serve not only to provide for habitat but also significantly slow the rate of runoff from areas next to a stream corridor. Such measures can be supported if they aid in the reduction of runoff to the stream. Another measure that may not initially be thought of as having an effect on flooding issues is the use of "rain gardens" within subdivisions to reduce or eliminate the rain water as it fells upon and passes through the housing development. Such practices can also be tailored to fit commercial or industrial sites. In some cases water can be returned to the underlying aquifer rather than being discharged into a stream, thus causing problems for some downstream landowner.
Water quality is a logical inclusion
into the CBP proposal. It is important to recognize
that the CBP
will not become water quality officials for the area. They will only focus on
water
quality issues if the measures proposed will somehow change the rate of runoff
from
the basin and make it more manageable for downstream owners. Since much federal
and
state funding is tied to water quality issues, ft would be logical to consider
the inclusion of
water quality
monies if they can serve a secondary benefit of flood control
Under the current system no collective
monies are raised to control flood waters. Each
entity stands alone with regard to
handling the flood waters that reach their boundaries.
The formation
of the CBP would allow for all to raise monies to resolve issues on a
collective
basis. Agricultural lands would benefit by having monies to install practices
that
would prevent runoff while urban lands would benefit from having flood reduction
practices installed in areas that will reduce the runoff before it reaches the
urban sites. In
addition to allowing the basin to better manage its financial resources
by spending them in
areas where they would do the most good, the new monies
could be used to extend, compliment existing programs or to create new flood
management tools that are not
currently in place. Currently flood reductions are operating on a volunteer basis. Monies are being spent to enhance riparian areas, provide for no till farming operations and to create watershed lakes in the upper reaches of the watershed. Still flooding is increasing and the engineers are predicting that it will take well over 100 million dollars to manage the waters with capital improvement projects. All of this has been accomplished on a volunteer basis. Volunteer programs are fine for certain ventures but they do not provide a revenue stream to keep existing programs going. The Cheney Lake project works with a funding agreement with the City of Wichita to supply monies to keep the agricultural practices in place that will reduce water quality problems. The City of Wichita used a levy and fee program to fund the operations and the implementation is on a voluntary basis. The Lake Afton project is managed with the assistance of the Sedgwick County Conservation District that is funded via tax monies given to the Conservation District. Again the participation at the local level is accomplished with a voluntary process.
The main objective behind the
formation of the CBP is two fold. First of all it provides a
funding source
for the implementation of flood control practices. Secondly, the program
will allow
the watersheds to work collectively to resolve a problem than no one entity can
resolve
on its own. Volunteerism is great but all require some monies to keep themselves
going.
All of the jurisdictional entities are spending tax monies to manage flood
control issues; the CBP system will allow them to target the monies in a more
effective manner
and to resolve
the flooding issues once and for all.
The premise behind most capital
improvement projects is to control flood waters within
the jurisdictional boundary of the
entity funding the project. In many cases the
jurisdictional boundaries do not encompass
the origin of the floodwaters. The end result
is that the projects handle the symptom of
the problem without having any impact on the
reduction or elimination of the flooding source. Therefore, under normal
circumstances the capital improvement project is merely an attempt to resolve a
projected rate of runoff without any
control over the amount of water that can be discharged. As the upland areas
urbanize the rate of runoff increased
and the capital improvement projects become
outdated. In addition to the lack of upland
control, all capital improvement projects come
with an expected life of usefulness. In many
cases the capital improvement projects need to be updated or replaced every 20
years or so as they become obsolete.
Having the ability to spend monies on the upland areas will help to reduce the
size and need for many capital
improvement projects. No dollar amount can be attributed to the
size reduction aspects of a CBP system
without performing a detailed engineering study.
It would seem logical that the capital
improvements costs could be reduced if measures
were implemented upstream that would reduce the amount of waters that
would need to be handled during a
flood event. What type of monies can the funds from a basin levy be used to attract?
The type of monies that can be
attracted is endless. First of all the monies can be used as
a local match
for federal and state grant or loan programs. The monies can also be used
for seed
monies for local programs as well as match monies for private and foundation
grants. Although many of the programs will have to promote some sort of flooding
control endeavor, the possibilities are again endless. Monies can be used for
developing programs to reduce runoff from subdivisions, to aid commercial sites
to incorporate rain
gardens into
their facilities, to installing infiltration ponds over aquifer areas, to
creating run off trenches along riparian areas, to providing cover crops during
winter months, to
installing wildlife areas along water courses, to
promoting educational opportunities
among schools and to even develop
curriculums to promote sound water management
principles in the watershed. Only
the limits of mans mind can curtain the opportunities
that may exist
with the utilization of basin monies to control flood control problems.
Existing systems will stay in place
and under the management of the entities that house them within their borders.
In the future it may be more beneficial to manage all of the
flood control
activities under one management system, however at the present time there
are no plans to do so. The creation
of the CBP system would allow for better
coordination of flood control activities
within basin and create a way to install practices on
each entity's
boundaries thus lessening the strain on any one entity to control the flooding
problems. For example, it may be feasible to install a flood control dam above a
city
boundary rather than to allow for the water to flow through the municipality
before it is
captured. The
installation of a watershed dam above the municipality would control the flood
water before it reached the city and allow for a lessening of flood control
problems
for the residential citizens of the area.
A basin wide flood control plan would be a
good investment for the community in order to
pinpoint areas where flood control
measures should be installed. The program could also
take into
consideration existing flood control structures within each jurisdiction and
incorporate them into the over all plan when ever it is feasible to do so. The
plan does not
have to be
accomplished as the first order of business but should be completed within a
reasonable amount of time in order to serve as a guide in the expenditure of
monies.
The best way to avoid the
duplication of flood control activities is to develop a basin wide
water control
plan. This plan should incorporate all of the needs of the urban, rural and
transition areas into one program. It should also identify key areas within each
watershed
where flood
control activities should be targeted. The plan could also devise a way to
evaluate the overall effectiveness of each activity regarding its ability to
control runoff and its cost/benefit ratio within the entire project area.
Flood control structures should be
incorporated throughout the entire basin area as a way
to reduce the
flood impacts on the lowland areas. Since much of the lowland areas are
already in
urban uses, the cost of installing practices in the built up areas would be far
more
expensive than placing them on upland sites. Upland sites would require less
storage
capacity than
those in the lowland areas.
The possibility does exist but each
existing structure will have to be analyzed on a case by
case basis to
make sure it is applicable to the overall needs of the basin.
Many of the older watershed lakes
were installed by the federal government as part of
their PL 566
flood control program. As the areas began to urbanize and funds dwindled
much of the
existing Cowskin basin would not qualify for the limited monies that are
remaining. In
some cases the Kansas State Conservation Commission (SCC) help in the funding of
watershed lakes. Their funds too are limited. The establishment of the basin
project would allow for the local citizens to participate in a cost share
program and
compete more
effectively for the SCC monies. The basin could also design a program to
help
developers provide flood control measure in ponds that they would normally build
as community lakes within their developments. Without the creation of the basin
project no
funds would exist to attract outside monies or to help developing lands
to serve in a flood
control capacity. How can the creation of a CBP system aid local jurisdictions with their flood control efforts ?
The CBP can help local flood control
jurisdictions in a variety of ways. It can help to
assign
projects that can reduce the amount of flood waters that a municipality
receives. It
can also
target areas above a municipality for a variety of flood control measures that
will
slow down the rate of runoff that an entity receives. While doing a master flood
control plan the CBP can identify existing and proposed structures and relay the
information to
the
individual jurisdictions for their input. If the municipalities become part of
the CBP
management
team, they may desire to incorporate some of their activities into the CBP
system
and opt for a joint management program for their existing or proposed
facilities. It
would be
beneficial for smaller municipalities to combine their programs under the CBP
umbrella in an effort to streamline their flood control efforts.
No. The statute under which CBP is
formed does allow them some leeway in developing
complimenting programs but to take
on the role of the federal and state water quality
agents does
not fall into the guiding principles of the statute. The key here is flood
control. CBP is designed to manage flood control activities. Water quality is
not a flood
control
program. If measures that aid in water quality, such as wider stream corridor
buffers, also contribute to slowing runoff down before it reaches a stream then
the practice
may be adopted
as part of a flood control solution. To stretch the program to do water
quality
measures without providing some sort of flood control protection is not an
acceptable part of the CBP program. Will the CBP system be able to promote activities that provide for wildlife habitat?
It can but the stipulation would follow
that each component must provide some sort of
flood control protection. For
example, a wetland may need to be created to solve a
sediment
problem in a flood prone area. In this scenario the wetland would serve the
primary function of removing sediment which in turn would reduce the maintenance
efforts
of the stream channel Indirectly the wetland could provide habitat for some
species
of waterfowl that use the area.
Yes. The system can provide educational
opportunities regarding the structures they
manage and the lands they may own. For
example, if a flood control lake is formed and
the landowner gives permission,
schools can use the site for a multitude of educational
opportunities.
Biology classes can do wildlife assessments, perform water tests, conduct
sediment
experiments, measure water flows and etcetera. The goal is flood control but
if
the measure allows them to be used for educational opportunities then it would
be a wise
use of public
monies to help the schools and local youth develop programs that could
foster good
will and understanding of common goals using the flood control program.
Currently the CBP can do two things.
First of all ft can work with landowners to conserve
land and
preserve the agricultural nature of the area. This does not mean that it will
oppose
the transition of land to home sites, instead it will show landowners how they
can
achieve their housing density and conserve farmland. In essence the landowner
can "have his cake and eat it too". For example a section of land may be zoned
for 64 housing units.
The CBP can work with local regulatory agencies and land
trust to see that the same
housing density is allowed on 130 acres of land with the
remaining land be placed in a
conservancy and farmed in perpetuity. Secondly, the CBP
can work with the developer of
the 130 acres to insure that the new subdivision will not
create a flooding problem for the
community. CBP can help to install flood
control pond, wider buffers along the streams and even aid in the placement of
rain gardens in the subdivision that will recharge water
into the
ground rather than allowing it to run downstream to cause problems elsewhere.
No program is in existence that can
do what the CBP system can. Volunteer programs are
limited,
governmental programs have other priorities and the community is rapidly
changing into
a system with unlimited flood control problems. The CBP package allows
for local landowners to make
choices about their community. It gives them the
opportunity to work collectively in an
effort to resolve flooding issues. The proposed system allows them the choice of
how much money to raise, what to spend it on, local control of the flood control
activities and the ability to design a program that will meet
the needs of the constituents of the basin.
The CBP system is a logical solution to a
problem that has gone unanswered for
decades. If the proposed system is not adopted
then all the planning efforts and monies
that have gone into the project at this point will be
for naught. The CBP program can allow for
local control of a localized flood control
program. Nearly 100 flood control districts
exist in the State of Kansas. The CBP
proposal is to merely establish a similar
program in the Cowskin Basin so the local
landowners can manage the flood control
issues with their own resources. |
| Send mail to webmaster@andalechamber.com with questions or comments about this web site. Copyright (c) Andale Area Chamber of Commerce. All rights reserved. Last Update: August 9, 2008 |