|
|
The Kansas Environmental AlmanacKansas is a magnificent place. We owe it to ourselves, to earlier generations and those yet to come, to take good care of our home. With that goal in mind, the Kansas Environmental Almanac will collect and house.information pertaining to the Kansas environment and its protection. If you think in terms of "lies, damn lies and statistics," this might not be the place for you. But if you love Kansas and believe that environmental well-being and an informed public go hand in hand, welcome aboard! Information about the Kansas environment is organized by topic. Each topic section has a content table and a few comments to stir your thoughts: Last update: 30 January, 1996. DIRECTORYComments, Questions and AdditionsIf you have comments, questions or information you'd like to see added (sources must be included) send a note to chsjones@idir.net, or mail to Charles Jones, 501 Ohio Street, Lawrence, KS 66044. A few words on my background: B.S. in Biology, University of Kansas; Masters in Public Administration, Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University; Certified Hazardous Materials Manager; and Director of Environment, Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 1991-1995. A thousand thanks to my wife, Carol, for her patience and help, and to Dr. Robert Harder and Governor Joan Finney for their guidance and support. Land and Climate
COMMENTSKansas is a place of remarkable diversity. Residents of western Kansas live in a very different world from their counterparts on the eastern edge of the state. Certainly, one of the defining regional characteristics is the relative abundance or dearth of water. Diversity makes the state interesting. It also demonstrates one of the challenges in framing environmental policy. A one-size-fits-all approach to facility siting, design and operation just doesn't work in a place with the breadth and width of Kansas. On the other hand, how do we ensure a "level playing ground" among similar businesses located in different reaches of the state? If you've never seen the out-of-the-way attractions -- the political totems in Mullinville, the washed-out spillway at Tuttle Reservoir, Big Brutus, the Gyp Hills, the Land Institute in Salina, Hell's Half Acre in Galena, pelicans skimming across the rejuvenated Cheyenne Bottoms, the Garden of Eden in Lucas, K-State's experimental agriculture stations, the world's deepest hand-dug well, Rock City on the banks of the Wilson Reservoir, the rolling plains of Rawlins County, the Safari Museum in Chanute, the Brown Opera House in Concordia, the sprawling garage-sale in White Cloud, the bar in Mercer where the owner dances and sings "Snow White Dove," or Monument Rocks in Gove County -- then you just can't know what an interesting and magnificent home we have. THE PLACEKansas National Data Ranking total area (sq mile) 82282 15 land area (sq mi) 81823 13 water area (sq mi) 459 40 highest point (feet) 4039 28 lowest point (feet) 679 41 mean elevation (feet) 2000 14 % land in metropolitan areas 6.9 42 % land in non-metropolitan areas 93.1 9 % land owned by US government 0.8 47 wetlands as % surface area 0.8 44 source: State Rankings 1995 Morgan Quitno LAND USE BY PERCENTAGE, 1987Kansas United States [K acres] percent [K acres] percent cropland 29119 55.9% 422416 30.0% pastureland 2324 4.5% 129021 9.2% rangeland 16660 32.0% 401685 28.6% forest 681 1.3% 393904 28.0% other 808 1.6% 59826 4.3% developed 1876 3.6% 77305 5.5% federal 587 1.1% 404069 28.7% total 52055 1406852 source: 1994 Statistical Abstract of US US Department of Commerce CLIMATE FACTSKansas National category Data Ranking normal mean temperature (F) 56.2 16 percent of sunny days 65% 10 average wind speed (mph) 12.3 5 tornadoes in 1994 42 7 source: State Rankings, 1995 Morgan Quitno Vital Statistics, Demography and Income
COMMENTSThe people of Kansas are as diverse as the land. While the environmental agenda of Kansas and the nation continues to be dominated by middle-class, educated whites, the impacts of environmental problems fall disproportionately on poor, aging and ethnically mixed communities whose voice in such discussions remains very small, indeed. These are the people most at risk from exposure to pollutants, and these are the people who suffer most profoundly when decent jobs are not available. It seems reasonable to question whether efforts to protect the environment can or will mature until a more complete cross-section of Kansas citizens becomes actively involved in the debate. Reviewing Vital Statistics brings to mind some of the many scientific shortcomings we face when trying to frame reasonable environmental policies. In discussing drinking water standards, someone will invariably stand up and ask "Can you document even one real case of somebody getting sick from the water here?" It's a perfectly good question. It's also one we can't answer. Except for a handful of catastrophic events, such as the cryptosporidium outbreak in Milwaukee that sickened four-hundred thousand people and killed one-hundred, information on water-borne illness is not kept in any systematic fashion. For reasons of cost, red-tape, and resistance to governmental intrusion, we do not ask doctors or hospitals to report incidents of water-borne ailments. Even if we tried, the nature of water-borne illness is often indistinguishable from influenza, food poisoning or other causes. Even if we tried, it is often difficult to know whether the bad water came from the tap or some other source. So we make what we hope are reasonable risk estimates and take it from there. Another scientific deficiency involves cancer. Time and again, citizens want the government to investigate a cancer cluster in their neighborhood. Regrettably, it is almost always the case that such investigations are inconclusive. Why? Neighborhood cases generally involve too few samples to provide statistical proof that some adverse trend is at work. Neighborhood cases also often involve different types of cancer among different genders and ages, and we don't know enough about the disease to conclude that an environmental condition has caused both the brain cancer in a child and the breast cancer of the woman down the street. Finally, it is terribly hard to link specific cancer-causing agent to specific cancer cases. The latency period, the transiency of our population, exposure to multiple sources and genetic tendencies are terribly confounding Does all this mean that there are no cancer clusters and nobody ever gets sick from drinking the water? Absolutely not. It means that we're still years away from having perfect science on which to base decisions. It also means that in the absence of perfect science, environmental policy-making is pushed into the realm of politics. KANSAS VITAL STATISTICSKansas ranking among all category KS US states % pop without health insurance,'93 12.7 15.3 29 non-federal physicians/100K pop,'93 205 248 30 community hospitals/100K pop,'93 5.3 2.0 6 live births per 1K population,'93 15.0 15.7 22 low birthweight as % of all births,'92 6.4 7.1 31 births per 1K teenage women,'92 56 61 25 births to unwed mothers/all births,'92 24.3 30.1 39 births to unwed whites/white births,'92 20.2 22.6 26 births to unwed blacks/black births,'92 65.8 68.1 28 mothers lacking prenatal care,'92 3.2 5.2 39 legal abortions per 1K live births,'90 193 345 37 infant mortality per 1K live births,'94 8.2 8.0 20 white infant deaths/1K white births,'92 7.5 6.9 14 black infant deaths/1K black births,'92 21.7 16.8 7 deaths per 1K population,'93 9.2 8.8 20 atherosclerosis deaths/1K pop, '92 12.1 6.6 3 est deaths by cancer/100K pop,'95 219 210.1 19 est new cancer cases/100K pop,'95 501.2 480.9 20 cerebrovascular death/100K pop,'92 64.6 56.4 15 liver disease death/100K pop,1992 6.2 9.9 46 pulmonary disease death/100K,'92 37.8 36.0 24 diabetes death per 100K pop,'92 20.5 19.6 27 heart disease deaths/100K pop,'92 295.1 281.4 21 injury death per 100K pop,'92 53.8 57.1 30 malignant neoplasm deaths/100K,'92 200.1 204.1 35 pneumonia/influenza death/100K,'92 33.9 29.7 13 suicides per 100K pop,'92 12.4 12.0 26 tuberculosis deaths/100K pop,'92 0.2 0.7 46 AIDS deaths per 100K pop,'92 5.1 13.2 32 gallons alcohol consumed/adult,'93 2.0 2.5 47 percent adults who smoke,'93 20.2 22.5 41 persons per household,'93 2.55 2.64 39 married-couple family households,'90 58.5 55.1 12 home ownership rate by percent,'93 69.3 64.5 16 median value of a house.'90 52200 79100 41 source: State Rankings, 1995 Morgan Quitno THE PEOPLEKansas US rank population,'94 2554K 260341K 32 persons per square mile,'94 31.2 73.6 40 percent urban population,'90 69.1 75.2 24 percent rural population,'90 30.9 24.8 27 percent males,'94 50.3 48.8 percent females,'94 49.7 51.2 percent white population,'95 90.9 82.9 19 percent black population,'95 6.2 12.6 27 percent hispanic population,'95 4.5 10.2 20 percent asian population,'95 1.9 3.7 20 percent native american,'95 1.0 0.9 16 median age,'94 34.1 34.0 32 percent population under 18,'94 27.1 26.1 36 percent population over 64,'94 13.9 12.7 14 marriages/1000 population,'93 8.3 9.0 30 divorces/1000 population,'93 4.8 4.6 22 % eligible voters registered,'92 77.1 68.2 10 % registered voters voting,'92 71.9 61.3 5 public high school graduation rate,'93 80.3 71.1 15 % population graduated from high school,'93 87.1 80.2 7 % population graduated from college,'93 24.1 21.9 12 per capita books in public libraries,'91 4.1 2.6 6 source: State Rankings 1995 Morgan Quitno KANSAS PER CAPITA INCOMEPlains year Kansas States U.S. 1983 12192 11542 12223 1984 13114 12969 13332 1985 13847 13410 14155 1986 14472 14093 14906 1987 15017 14762 15638 1988 15748 15351 16610 1989 16399 16462 17690 1990 17639 17519 18667 1991 18259 18103 19199 1992 19219 19158 20131 1993 19874 19645 20781 source: The Governor's Economic and Demographic Report 1994-1995 Kansas Division of Budget KANSAS PERSONAL INCOME FACTStotal percent workers percent personal personaltotal per of income income personal sector total per sector [K] income [K] workers worker farming 1465490 2.9% 50.5 4% 29020 mining 352569 0.7% 8.8 1% 40065 construction 1686981 3.4% 46.5 4% 36279 manufacturing 6391450 12.7% 182.4 14% 35041 trans, pub util* 2818486 5.6% 65.9 5% 42769 wholesale 2386635 4.7% 68.4 5% 34892 retail trade 3513046 7.0% 205.8 16% 17070 fin. ins, re** 2031880 4.0% 58.1 5% 34972 services 7837164 15.6% 269.3 21% 29102 govern*** 6468219 12.9% 229.7 18% 28159 * transportation and public utilities ** finance, insurance and real estate *** government and government enterprises source: The Governor's Economic and Demographic Report 1994-1995 Kansas Division of Budget Agriculture Economy and Subsidies
COMMENTSKansas enjoys a vital and productive farm economy. In 1993, the state ranked first in the nation in wheat flour milled, wheat flour milling capacity, and all wheat produced. We ranked second in cattle slaughtered, sorghum grain produced, cropland, and prime farmland. Kansas ranked third in sorghum silage produced, all cattle and calves or farms, red meat produced by commercial slaughter plants, land in farms, and cattle and calves on grain feed. Kansas remains very true to its historical image as a leader in production of farm products. Needless to say, there is an environmental price to be paid for these high levels of agricultural production. That price is paid in the form of groundwater depletion and contamination of surface and groundwater reserves with farm chemicals, eroded soil, and animal waste. Reconciling the needs of a hungry world with environmental sustainability is a challenge that looms ever larger on the horizon. Fifty-three percent of the Kansas net farm income over the past nineteen years has come from federal farm subsidies, peaking at $784 million in 1993. Looking at subsidy distribution across the state, the Rural Center calculates that subsidies in the years 1989-1993 ranged from 87% of the net income for participating southwest Kansas farmers, to 29% for their northeastern Kansas counterparts. The fate of farm subsidies has come into question as the nation struggles to contain the federal deficit and as we take account of the inefficiency that results from distortion of market-place forces. Red tape, taxpayer burden, administrative overhead, and hidden costs of the current farm subsidy program are clouds looming over what was originally intended to be a temporary program. One of the great promises of free-market dynamics is the most efficient use of resources. Given the high level of support going to farmers in southwest Kansas -- where irrigation rates are the highest -- it is apparent that taxpayer's money is being used to subsidize the "mining" of limited groundwater reserves, causing a very inefficient use of critical resources. Finally, it is sometimes suggested that environmental regulations are responsible for the decline in the number of farms. A quick look at the data clearly indicates that the trend toward fewer and larger farms began just after WWI, long before the current system of environmental regulations were put into effect. The more profound forces affecting agricultural economics include competition from corporate farms and changes in technology. NUMBER AND SIZE OF KANSAS FARMS: 1880-1993total number average farm year farms acreage acreage 1880 139000 155 21400000 1890 167000 181 30200000 1900 173000 241 41700000 1910 178000 244 43400000 1920 167000 272 45400000 1930 166000 283 47000000 1940 159000 303 48200000 1950 135000 374 50500000 1960 110000 456 50200000 1970 87000 574 49900000 1980 75000 644 48300000 1990 69000 694 47900000 1993 65000 735 47800000 source: Kansas Farm Facts, 1994 Kansas State Board of Agriculture KANSAS NET FARM INCOME AND GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES: 1975-1993receipts total government government & other net payment payment income income as % net year [mil $] [mil $] [mil $] income 1975 38.4 718.1 756.5 5% 1976 50.8 435.0 485.8 10% 1977 236.7 228.1 464.8 51% 1978 300.9 143.7 444.6 68% 1979 125.8 693.0 818.8 15% 1980 93.3 -227.7 -134.4 n/a 1981 231.8 12.4 244.2 95% 1982 280.3 506.3 786.6 36% 1983 606.9 -244.7 362.2 168% 1984 573.9 242.0 815.9 70% 1985 482.2 726.1 1208.3 40% 1986 870.8 160.0 1030.8 84% 1987 966.3 314.2 1280.5 75% 1988 848.0 508.7 1356.7 63% 1989 588.4 325.6 914.0 64% 1990 834.7 843.7 1678.4 50% 1991 697.9 610.4 1308.3 53% 1992 592.1 1213.0 1805.1 33% 1993 784.0 795.6 1579.6 50% total 9203.2 8003.5 17206.7 53% source: Kansas Farm Facts,1994 Kansas State Board of Agriculture KANSAS AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDIES BY CATEGORY, 1993subsidy % of category [mil $] total feed grain 245269 31.29% wheat 328468 41.90% cotton 57 0.01% wool 1694 0.22% conservation 157789 20.13% miscellaneous 50686 6.47% total 783963 source: World Alamanac,1995 KANSAS LIVESTOCK NUMBERS AND VALUE: 1870-1994total cattle& milk livestock horses mules hogs calves cows sheep value year [1K] [1K] [1K] [1K] [1K] [1K] [1K] 1870 119 15 410 571 141 178 24956 1880 456 70 1700 1247 351 800 64072 1890 910 97 2600 2880 648 394 129442 1900 970 106 2800 3520 638 300 161536 1910 1150 216 2220 3000 700 250 251821 1920 1083 243 1733 2975 695 285 296683 1930 728 160 2826 3090 780 359 239871 1940 383 63 1519 2770 727 527 145597 1950 195 13 1253 3588 604 342 463662 1960 72 -- 1315 4429 390 494 581046 1970 -- -- 1643 6016 194 272 1121624 1980 -- -- 2090 6200 120 235 2944040 1990 -- -- 1450 5700 98 287 3405056 1994 -- -- 1330 5950 77 175 3951470 source: Kansas Farm Facts,1994 Kansas State Board of Agriculture KANSAS MAJOR CROP YIELDS: 1870-1993bushels bushels bushels bushels wheat sorghum soybean corn year [1K] [1K] [1K] [1K] 1870 2418 -- -- 15960 1880 23400 -- -- 109917 1890 32400 -- -- 39974 1900 78078 -- -- 141968 1910 60475 -- -- 170050 1920 144933 -- -- 120703 1930 186277 7982 52 67488 1940 126553 24128 312 34282 1950 178060 44689 7146 85470 1960 294376 167544 12599 78488 1970 299013 145960 13950 82240 1980 420000 149640 23925 110920 1990 472000 184800 46800 188500 1993 388500 176400 51800 216000 source: Kansas Farm Facts,1994 Kansas State Board of Agriculture KANSAS POULTRY PRODUCTION, 1984-1993number number eggs chickens turkeys produced year [1K] [1K] [1K] 1984 2360 100 466000 1985 2520 275 472000 1986 2370 150 463000 1987 2200 231 489000 1988 2250 227 417000 1989 2140 324 387000 1990 1960 400 404000 1991 1780 560 389000 1992 1790 730 355000 1993 1660 1230 334000 source: Kansas Farm Facts,1994 Kansas State Board of Agriculture Water Use
COMMENTSBetween eighty and ninety percent of Kansas water use goes for irrigation of agricultural crops. In 1992, the state's total water use amounted to 2,064,000,000,000,000 gallons. Of that total, eighty-five percent was groundwater extracted from aquifers. There is an article in the History of Kearny County in which an old-timer by the name of Foster Eskelund tell us volumes about the importance of groundwater in western Kansas:
At a Kansas Water Authority meeting sometime ago, one of the members asked if we were "mining" water in the southwest part of the state. It's referred to as "mining" because the Rocky Mountains -- which filled the High Plains aquifer with thousands of years of run-off -- have been hydrologically cut off by the Rio Grande and Pecos Rivers, reducing natural recharge to a maximum of two inches each year. Are we mining water in western Kansas? The answer is yes, we're "mining" it big time. Especially since the mid-1960's, when widespread use of the center-pivot took root in Kansas. Certainly more people are trying to conserve water, as evidenced by the growing number of dropped-nozzle center-pivot systems which cut down on evaporation losses. Nonetheless, we are extracting groundwater resources at a rate which is not sustainable and which exceeds other Great Plains states. Federal subsidies for irrigated crops have certainly contributed to the depletion process. What are the consequences? We won't run out of water in the absolute sense, but the cost of gathering and treating that water may come dearly to many of the small, poor and aging little towns that dot western Kansas. For farmers, the pumping costs will increase as water is lifted greater heights and the productivity of fields will be compromised as saltier reaches of an aquifer are tapped. We've already seen some marginal irrigators forced to convert back to dry land farming, which can be a difficult process. Looking to the not-so-distant future, we need to start thinking about a post-irrigation economy for much of western Kansas. How quickly we reach this difficult transition depends entirely upon how agressively we conserve water today. KANSAS WATER USE AND SOURCES, VARIOUS YEARS1987 % of all use surface ground total usage irrigation 81771 1321351 1403122 79.7% electricty gen 167712 2949 170661 9.7% municipal 59697 59888 119585 6.8% industrial 2516 28106 30622 1.7% recreation 25677 3032 28709 1.6% stockwatering 89 7857 7946 0.5% total 337462 1423183 1760645 % water used 19.2% 80.8% 1990 irrigation 72793 1455127 1527920 86.8% electricity gen 167712 2949 170661 9.7% municipal 68194 62183 130377 7.4% industrial 24746 31067 55813 3.2% recreation 23851 3242 27093 1.5% stockwatering 69 8532 8601 0.5% total 357365 1563100 1920465 % water used 20.3% 88.8% source: Kansas Water Office STATUS OF THE HIGH PLAINS AQUIFERprior 1980 area-weighted water-level change (feet) to 1980 to 1993 Colorado -4.2 -3.25 KANSAS -9.9 -7.26 Nebraska 0 0.02 New Mexico -9.8 -3.42 Oklahoma -11.3 -0.41 South Dakota 0 -0.90 Texas -33.7 -1.96 Wyoming 0 0.63 High Plains -9.9 -2.09 estimated changes in volume of water (mil acre feet) Colorado -6.0 -4.6 KANSAS -29.0 -21.3 Nebraska 0.0 0.1 New Mexico -9.0 -3.1 Oklahoma -8.0 -0.4 South Dakota 0.0 -0.3 Texas -114.0 -6.6 Wyoming 0.0 4.8 High Plains -166.0 -35.7 average area-weighted saturated thickness pre1980 1980 1993 Colorado 83.2 79.0 75.8 KANSAS 110.9 101.0 93.7 Nebraska 342.0 342.0 342.0 New Mexico 60.8 51.0 47.6 Oklahoma 141.3 130.0 129.6 South Dakota 207.6 207.0 206.1 Texas 143.7 110.0 108.0 Wyoming 182.0 182.0 182.6 High Plains 199.9 190.0 187.9 source: Water level Changes in the High Plains Aquifer Predevelopment to 1993 US Geological Survey WATER WITHDRAWALS AND CONSUMPTION, 1990ground surface water water total per capita state mgd mgd mgd gallons/day alabama 403 7680 8083 2000 alaska 112 529 641 517 arizona 2740 3830 6570 1790 arkansas 4710 3130 7840 3330 california 14900 31900 46800 1180 colorado 2800 9910 12710 3850 connecticut 165 4680 4845 325 delaware 89 1280 1369 1540 washington dc 1 8 9 15 florida 4660 13200 17860 582 georgia 996 4360 5356 816 hawaii 590 2150 2740 1070 idaho 7590 12100 19690 19600 illinois 945 17100 18045 1570 indiana 621 8810 9431 1700 iowa 495 2370 2865 1030 kansas 4360 1720 6080 2460 kentucky 247 4070 4317 1170 louisiana 1340 8010 9350 2200 maine 85 1060 1145 433 maryland 239 6180 6419 307 massachusetts 338 5180 5518 338 michigan 707 10900 11607 1250 minnesota 797 2480 3277 748 mississippi 2670 963 3633 1290 missouri 728 6200 6928 1150 montana 218 9100 9318 11600 nebraska 4800 4150 8950 5660 nevada 1070 2280 3350 2780 new hampshire 64 1250 1314 378 new jersey 566 12200 12766 287 new mexico 1760 1720 3480 2300 new york 840 18100 18940 583 north carolina 435 8510 8945 1350 north dakota 141 2540 2681 4190 ohio 904 10800 11704 1080 oklahoma 905 760 1665 452 oregon 767 7660 8427 2970 pennsylvania 1020 8810 9830 827 rhode island 25 501 526 132 south carolina 282 5720 6002 1720 south dakota 251 341 592 851 tennessee 503 8690 9193 1880 texas 7880 17300 25180 1180 utah 971 3510 4481 2540 vermont 45 587 632 1120 virginia 443 6420 6863 762 washington 1450 6490 7940 1630 west virginia 728 3860 4588 2560 wisconsin 681 5830 6511 1330 wyoming 403 7200 7603 16700 total US 80480 325129 405609 1340 mgd = million gallons per day source: Statistical Abstract of the United States,1994 US Department of Commerce Drawdown Maps of the High Plains AquiferThe following maps show the change, by percent, in the saturated thickness of groundwater underlying various counties in Kansas. Groundwater accumulates in the interstitial spaces of unconsolidated geological formations called aquifers. Like a pail full of gravel, these aquifers can be full of solid material and still hold a surprisingly large volume of water. Saturated thickness measures the depth of the water within an aquifer, and its decline is commonly known as drawdown. As the following maps show, there is widespread drawdown across western Kansas, with the saturated thickness depleted in some areas by more than 50% of their historical volume. As long as we pump water out of the aquifers at a rate which exceeds their recharge, drawdown will continue to worsen. 
  
Surface Water Quality
COMMENTSIf there is a scandal in the condition of the Kansas environment, it is the poor quality of our surface waters. It has been widely reported that Kansas has the poorest surface water quality in the nation. Is that true? We have one of the best water quality monitoring systems in the United States and we report our findings honestly. Some states play games with the numbers to make their water quality look better than it actually is. So while it's difficult to know whether we are or are not the absolute worst in the nation, we do know that eighty-seven percent of Kansas rivers and streams are use-impaired. While none of our river reaches are as dirty as Boston Harbor, we don't have as many pristine streams as Massachusetts does either. The bottom line is that if we're not dead last, we're awfully close to it. Over the years, environmental policy has taken its greatest toll on point sources: facilities with outlet pipes, such as municipal wastewater plants and factories, that are subject to stringent permit requirements. The point sources have responded admirably and put a great deal of money into improving wastewater quality. But we still have problems, problems which can be traced back to non-point sources: those disparate and scattered farm fields, construction sites, parking lots, fertilized lawns, etc. where contaminants lie waiting until rainfall or snowmelt gathers them up and carries them into our rivers, streams and lakes. This non-point source contamination of surface waters has its counterparts in other environmental media. Having beat up long and hard on the large, permitted point sources, we now realize that the cumulative impact of small, non-point sources continues to take a terrible toll on our environment. That's where the battle must be fought if we are to improve our water quality and protect both water suppliers and wastewater permit holders from the costs of compensating for runoff contamination. It's going to be a difficult, politically unpopular process, but a very necessary next step in our journey toward a healthy and sustainable environment. A thought or two on Kansas environmental policy. The fractured authority for managing water resources in Kansas -- involving nine state agencies each with its own constituency -- is an immense obstacle to improving the management of water resources in Kansas. Why is authority so fractured? This anecdote might clarify the picture. Governor Finney empaneled a group to consider the question, they recommended consolidating water agencies to provide improved coordination, greater accountability and the elimination of overlapping bureaucracies. The committee chair presented and explained the recommendations at a public meeting in Topeka. When she finished, three opponents jumped up to defend the status quo. Who were these opponents? The Kansas Independent Oil and Gas Association, the Kansas Farm Bureau, and the Kansas Livestock Association, the political wings of industries which have heavily taxed the Kansas environment. KANSAS SURFACE WATER STATISTICSnumber of major river basins 12 total number of stream miles 134338 border stream miles 120 perennial stream miles 23731 intermittent stream miles 110225 ditch and canal miles 382 number of public lakes/reservoirs/ponds 279 acres of public lakes/reservoirs/ponds 173801 acres of public freshwater wetlands 35527 source: 1994 Kansas Water Quality Report (305(b)report) Kansas Department of Health and Environment DESIGNATED USES AND ATTAINMENT FOR KANSAS STREAM MILESpartial non cannot use support support support attain aquatic life support 2102 2109 18306 0 contact recreat* 4793 0 15671 1936 non-contact rec** 12214 6934 3319 0 drinking water 8873 1558 11922 119 irrigation 9416 1714 11236 89 livestock water 21520 296 430 89 overall*** 561 141 21721 83 * contact recreation = swimming ** non-contact recreation = wading *** miles in each support category (561 miles support all uses) source: 1994 Kansas Water Quality Report (305(b) report) Kansas Department of Health and Environment CONTAMINANTS OF KANSAS STREAM MILESmoderate major & minor impact impact in in contaminant miles miles unknown toxicity 76 214 pesticides 7714 0 nonpriority organics 175 0 metals 9018 0 un-ionized ammonia 568 0 chlorine 72 0 other inorganics 5364 0 pH 1930 342 organic enrichment 1877 1792 salt/solids/chlorides 12416 539 pathogens 16968 492 suspended solids 12111 634 source: 1994 Kansas Water Quality Report (305(b) report) Kansas Department of Health and Environment SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION AFFECTING KANSAS STREAM MILESmoderate major & minor impact impact in in sources miles miles industrial point sources 927 123 municipal point sources 3608 820 combined sewer overflow 152 0 nonirrigated crop production 14851 890 irrigated crop production 9280 898 feedlots 17241 445 urban runoff 2683 0 surface mining 522 0 petroleum activities 5953 1328 septic tanks 104 0 channelization 313 0 flow regulation/modification 0 71 removal of riparian vegetation 11879 634 streambank modification 0 104 natural 12598 503 source unknown 8865 58 source: 1994 Kansas Water Quality Report (305(b) report) Kansas Department of Health and Environment DESIGNATED USES AND ATTAINMENT FOR KANSAS LAKES BY ACREsupport but partial non use threats support support contact recreation 124168 24685 12615 non contact recreation 145940 24734 3127 aquatic life support 28403 33766 111632 drinking water supply 18180 57045 96691 irrigation supply 41800 126342 3098 livestock water supply 58105 110291 3099 overall use support 6600 25088 142113 total by percent 3.8% 14.4% 81.8% source: 1994 Kansas Water Quality Report (305(b) Report) Kansas Department of Health and Environment CONTAMINANTS OF KANSAS LAKES BY ACREmoderate major & minor total impact impact impact in in in contaminant acres acres acres pesticides 27692 79091 106783 metals 9400 76387 85787 other inorganics 11 70 81 nutrients/eutrophication 18152 135845 153997 pH 0 43 43 salinity/solids/chlorides 9040 16202 25242 flow alteration 3872 7807 11679 pathogens 0 11893 11893 excessive aquatic plants 108 962 1070 turbidity/siltation 13707 44890 58597 source: 1994 Kansas Water Quality Report (305(b) report) Kansas Department of Health and Environment SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION AFFECTING KANSAS LAKE BY ACREmoderate major & minor impact impact in in sources acres acres municipal point sources 30180 110413 agriculture 45461 97404 urban point runoff 189 5268 resource extraction 30 20 hydromodification 3446 5822 natural sources/in lake 19281 64751 source unknown 0 1299 source: 1994 Kansas Water Quality Report (305(b) report) Kansas Department of Health and Environment TROPHIC STATUS OF KANSAS LAKESnumber percent acreage percent of of of of status lakes lake lakes acreage improving 9 3.2% 686 0.4% stable 45 16.1% 75678 43.5% degrading 49 17.6% 90281 51.9% trend unknown 176 63.1% 7156 4.1% total 279 173801 source: 1994 Kansas Water Quality Report (305(b) report) Kansas Department of Health and Environment Feedlots
COMMENTSFeedlots are the number one source of water use impairment of Kansas surface waters. More than seventeen thousand miles of our rivers and streams are limited in their usefulness by pollution from confined feeding facilities. The cumulative impact of small feedlots seem to cause the lion's share of the problem. As you drive around the state's backroads, keep your eyes open. See if you can get a sense of just how many small feedlots are sited so they drain into streams. In a properly functioning feedlot, manure is cleaned out of the confined feeding area and applied to farmland as fertilizer. If manure is over-applied, nitrate can exceed the uptake rate of crops and migrate into underlying groundwater. KDHE permit compliance inspections are limited to the confined feeding area and manure collection systems. The agency has never concerned itself with the field application of manure and its potential adverse consequences. KDHE is constantly called in to referee battles between neighbors over feedlots. The recent string of defeats in county votes over corporate hog farms give us some idea of how strongly people feel about feedlots. Feedlot owners cite their private property rights and demand that permits be issued. Neighbors say they have rights, too: the right to enjoy their homes free of the odor, dust, noise and traffic incidental to feedlot operations. These are legitimate concerns which KDHE has little authority to address. Last year a bill was introduced to give county officials -- who really ought to have the final word on aesthetic and land use matters --the first cut at feedlot permitting. It was a good idea. The bill died in the face of industry opposition. Somewhere between fifty and seventy percent of all Kansas feedlot operators have ignored the law requiring them to register with KDHE. Resistance to a new federal mandate? Not at all. The registration requirement was enacted by state officials in 1967. Federal subsidies to Kansas feed grain farmers -- who put the feed in feedlots -- were almost $250 million in 1993. Such subsidies distort free-market efficiencies. There is nothing efficient about using taxpayer's money as an inducement to aggressively "mine" the High Plains aquifer. Don't be drawn in by the "cheap food" argument: there's a difference between cheap food and costs hidden in our federal taxes. The feedlot industry's simultaneous contempt for government intrusion and eager acceptance of government handouts seems more than a little contradictory. The feedlot industry has also battled against paying their fair share of permitting costs. Until a year ago, the entire feedlot industry -- with sales receipts in excess of $6 billion for 1993 -- paid only $22K of the $400K feedlot permitting program costs. Taxpayers were stuck with the remaining $378K. How does that compare with other industries? Air permit costs are entirely industry funded to the tune of several million dollars annually, the petroleum marketeers come up with more than $10 million each year for cleanup projects, drycleaners have set up a similar fund, and the solid waste program receives several million dollars annually in industry tipping fees. As a whole, the Division of Environment is seventy percent fee funded: just about the same percent as is passed through to contractors and local government in the form of contracts and grants. A couple of years ago, the feedlot industry was forced to accept an increase in permitting fees. Now taxpayers foot only 75% of the costs incurred to regulate this multi-billion dollar industry. Why does such widespread non-compliance and feedlot welfare continue to exist? Ask your local legislator. THE LARGEST 400 FARMS BY STATEnumber farms among state top 400 california 72 texas 48 florida 44 kansas 25 nebraska 17 washington 15 arizona 14 pennsylvania 12 ohio 12 minnesota 11 north carolina 11 all other states 281 total sales(billion) $24.6 source: The 400 Largest Successful Farming, April, 1992 KANSAS FACILITIES AMONG THE LARGEST 400 LARGEST FARMS IN THE USrank sales among farm name product [mil $] top 400 pioneer, inc. beef $83.47 60 irsik & doll beef $74.73 74 supreme feeders beef $65.45 81 brookover companies beef $56.30 94 winter feedyard beef $40.00 132 hudson ranch beef $35.00 148 smith cattle beef $28.50 178 beef belt feeders beef $23.94 206 gigot feeders beef,corn $23.10 211 pratt feeders beef $21.00 233 hrc feedyards beef $19.80 251 great bend feeding, inc. beef $18.50 261 whitman feedyard beef $18.50 263 sunbelt feeders beef $16.46 286 rex cranston beef $15.10 305 poky feeders beef $14.10 328 decatur county feedyard beef $12.54 346 circle e feedlot beef $11.60 364 barton county cattle co. beef $11.40 367 crist feedyard beef $11.40 368 sublette feeders beef $11.38 369 cattle empire feedyards beef $10.87 378 black diamond feeders beef $10.80 379 matador cattle company cow-calf $10.50 387 republican valley cattle beef $10.10 396 total $654.54 source: The 400 Largest Successful Farming,April,1992 MANURE PRODUCTION PER ANIMALmanure nitrogen manure nitrogen in in in in size lbs per lbs per lbs per lbs per animal [lbs] day day year year cattle dairy 150 12 0.06 4380 22 250 20 0.10 7300 37 500 41 0.20 14965 73 1000 82 0.41 29930 150 1400 115 0.57 41975 208 beef 500 30 0.17 10950 62 750 45 0.26 16425 95 1000 60 0.34 21900 124 1250 75 0.43 27375 157 swine 35 2.3 0.02 839 6 65 4.2 0.03 1533 11 150 9.8 0.07 3577 26 200 13.0 0.09 4745 33 sheep 100 4.0 0.05 1460 16 poultry layers 4 0.2 0.003 77 1 broilers 2 0.1 0.002 51 1 horse 1000 45 0.27 16425 99 source: Midwest Plan Service Bulletin - 18 Kansas Department of Health and Environment NUMBER OF CATTLE FEEDLOTSless more than 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 than 1000 to to to to to 32000 year head 1999 3999 7999 15999 31999 head total 1989 1626 98 51 34 49 29 13 1900 1990 1616 106 52 32 46 35 13 1900 1991 1607 115 60 26 41 37 14 1900 1992 2065 160 48 32 38 43 14 2400 1993 2065 160 50 34 41 34 16 2400 source: Kansas Farm Facts, 1994 Kansas Board of Agriculture The figures noted above include only registered feedlots. KDHE believes that there is widespread non-compliance with feedlot registration laws which have been in effect since the late 1960's. LIVESTOCK VALUE, 1993produced cash produced marketed value received animal [K lbs] [K lbs] [K $] [K $] cattle and calves 3152535 5676505 2420062 4365297 hogs and pigs 655285 669879 283447 293465 source: Kansas Farm Facts,1994 Kansas Board of Agriculture Public Water Supply and Private Well Contamination
COMMENTSThe many fine water suppliers of Kansas, including municipalities, rural water districts, and quasi-public entities such as Johnson County Water District #1 deserve a great amount of praise. The water they provide is, generally, high quality, plentiful and much cheaper than such a critical commodity really ought to be. In the face of challenges, Kansas water suppliers can be remarkably resourceful. For example, facing shortages in water supplies, the City of Hays worked with the community to reduce per-capita-per-day consumption to fifty gallons, one third of the statewide average. At first, the fellow in charge of supplying water didn't think it could be done. Now he wonders why everybody doesn't pursue water conservation more aggressively. One of the big challenges facing water suppliers in certain parts of the state is finding sufficient supplies. Within the next decade, we're going to see some pretty fierce battles within Kansas over waters. It may have started with the plan for Hays to pump water some seventy miles from Edwards County. One of the forces driving demand for new water sources is that quite a number of public water supply wells have been stricken with contamination. New wells are expensive and in some towns there is no interconnect by which to blend or divert water from one neighborhood to another. The bottom line is that well-head protection ought to be a well-conceived part of every groundwater-reliant community's land-use strategy. Kansas citizens who rely on domestic water wells really need to be careful. Studies consistently show that domestic water wells pose many health risks to their users. Sometimes the water supply isn't of particularly good quality. But far more frequently, water-borne health problems can be traced back to a poorly constructed well. Inadequate wells provide a conduit by which contaminants get into the groundwater. Then when water is pumped, those same contaminants get pulled into the system and show up in your drinking water. Babies, the elderly and anyone with a suppressed immune system -- transplant recipients and AIDS victims -- face the greatest threats from waterborne disease. If you have questions about your well, check with the County Health Department. If they can't help you, they'll know who can. CONTAMINATED PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS: 1993county public water supply system contaminant source southwest district BA kiowa pws well 2 voc/inorganic agriculture FI garden city pws well 18 voc other PR pratt pws voc other PR preston pws pest/inorg/other agriculture ST manter pws 8 voc agriculture WH Leoti PWS well 8 pest/voc other southcentral district BU potwin pws 1 voc agriculture HV sedgwick PWS well 6 pest spill RN turon pws well 3 voc agriculture RN hutchinson pws well 12 voc other/oper RN hutchinson pws 9 voc other/oper SG clearwater pws well 2 voc oper SG park city pws wells voc pipeline northeast district BR morrill pws well 5 voc agriculture BR powhattan public water sup voc abandoned facility BR brown county rwd 1 voc agirculture/abandoned facility DP bendena rwd 2, pws well 1 voc agriculture JF perry pws well 3 voc other JF jefferson rwd 1 voc spill/lust MS axtell pws well 2 voc other MS blue rapids pws pest/inorg agriculture PT St. Mary's pws well 5 voc ast northcentral district CY clay center pws wells 5,8 pest/voc dumping,agriculture/other CD glasco pws well 2 voc agriculture CD miltonvale pws well 5 voc/pest other DK abilene pws, vacublast corp. voc dumping/lust/abandoned facility DK hope pws voc agriculture DK woodbine pws voc lust/agriculture GE grandview plaza pws wells 3, 4 voc other JW randall pws well 2 pest/voc other MP galva pws wells 3, 4 voc agriculture MP mcpherson pws wells 2, 5 voc other/agriculture MP moundridge pws voc/refpetrol agriculture/facility operation RP agenda pws voc other RL manhattan pws wells 12thru15 pest/voc other RL ogden pws wells 2,7 8 voc other SA salina pws wells voc other/lust/abandoned facility SA salina pws well 11 voc lust/facility operation northwest district EL Hays pws well 20 voc lust/other LG oakley pws well 11 voc other OB downs pws well 3 voc other PL agra pws wells 3, 4 voc/inorganics agriculture RO plainville pws 1 voc other none in SE kansas, which is largely reliant on surface water. voc=volatile organic compounds inorg= inorganics, usually salt pest = pesticides refpetrol = refined petroleum oper = facility operations lust = leaking underground storage tank source: Summary of Bureau of Environmental Remediation Sites in Kansas, 1993 Kansas Departmentof Health and Environment WATER QUALITY OF PRIVATE WELLStypes of wells tested number drilled 424 dug 151 sandpoint 196 buried slab 137 other 52 total 960 mean depth of wells 95 feet range in well depth 2-571 feet mean age of wells 33 years range in well age 1-99 years only unsampled county hamilton number samples for other counties 5-15 wells tested positive for number percent total coliform 424 45% e. coli 151 18% nitrates (> 10 mg/L) 196 24% atrazine 137 17% lead (>.015 mg/L) 52 5% source: Kansas 1993-1994 Private Water Well Survey Kansas Department of Health and Environment Air Quality
COMMENTSThe air quality of Kansas is among the best in the nation. We have a small population scattered over a lot of land, our industrial base is relatively light, and the winds which blow across Kansas are strong and constant. So breathe deep and easy and enjoy the fresh clean air. The metropolitan Kansas City area retains the distinction of being the largest municipal area in the nation which is in attainment with national priority-pollutant standards. By being in attainment, the people and businesses of Kansas City avoid many of the high-cost hassles that face the nation's non-attainment areas. Clean air will definitely prove to be an economic development boon as companies abandon the strict regulations and abatement costs common in air pollution capitals such as Los Angeles, Denver and Houston. But we have to be careful: attainment in Kansas City is marginal. People and regulators tend to be overly focused on point sources, factories with big air emission stacks. Air studies indicate that mobile sources, (primarily automobiles) and area sources (small, scattered operations such as drycleaners, construction equipment, gas stations, pesticide applicators, solvent users) have a huge impact on the healthfulness of our air. At a time when we seem to be reducing the death rates of so many types of cancer, lung cancer mortality rates continue to climb. Why? Certainly, smoking is the main culprit. But the increasing lung cancer mortality rate, in combination with growing asthma incidence, particularly among kids, suggest that poor quality air is taking its toll. One of the limits to existing environmental policy is that air quality regulations protect only outdoor air. Most of us have a much greater exposure to indoor air, where weatherizing has often reduced the outdoor/indoor air exchange rate. If you want to do something about air quality, the place to start might well be your own home. TOP KANSAS AIR POLLUTANT EMITTERS, 1993tons permit facility emitted fees kansas power and light 10966 197388 kansas city power and light 8805 158490 kansas power and light 8326 149868 farmland industries 8275 148949 board of public utilities 8244 148389 total petroleum, inc. 8095 145714 kansas power and light 7372 132704 board of public utilities 6810 122574 empire district electric 6587 118558 national cooperative refinery 6389 115000 texaco refining and marketing 6195 111506 sunflower electric power corp. 5835 105030 northern natural gas company 3923 70618 ash grove cement company 3780 68040 northern natural gas company 3497 62941 hercules cement 3263 58738 williams natural gas company 2682 48276 board of public utilities 2567 46206 monarch cement company 2503 45054 northern natural gas company 2305 41497 panhandle eastern pipe line 2292 41263 panhandle eastern pipe line 2204 39674 farmland industries 2186 39348 goodyear tire and rubber 2177 39194 panhandle eastern pipe line 2162 38914 northern natural gas company 2024 36435 * emissions = combination of sulphur oxides nitrogen oxides volatile organic compounds particulate matter hazardous air pollutants source: State of Kansas, Part 70 Air Emission Source Operating Permit Program Kansas Department of Health and Environment AVERAGE ACIDITY OF PRECIPITATION IN 3 KANSAS COUNTIESyear crawford riley scott 1986 5.22 5.21 6.09 1987 4.90 5.11 5.97 1988 5.09 5.71 6.06 1989 4.85 4.99 5.83 1990 4.82 5.05 5.64 source: Implementation of Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 in Kansas Kansas Department of Health and Environment US LUNG CANCER RATES, 1930-1988deaths per 100K year population 1930 4 1935 5 1940 7 1945 9 1950 13 1955 18 1960 21 1965 26 1970 32 1975 37 1980 42 1985 46 1990 52 source: The World Almanac, 1994-1995 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS RELEASED IN JOHNSON AND WYANDOTTE COUNTIES: 1993point area mobile sources sources sources total [KG per [KG per [KG per [KG per summer summer summer summer day] day] day] day] johnson county 989 24029 21849 46867 % total voc emissions 2% 51% 47% wyandotte county 9297 7701 11508 28506 % total voc emissions 33% 27% 40% point sources = permitted stacks area sources = non-permitted stationary sources such as commercial operations (repair shops, printers, etc.) mobile sources = vehicles source: Kansas City State Implementation Plan Kansas Department of Health and Environment Landfills and Contamination
COMMENTSKansans generate just about 1600 pounds of solid waste per person each year, about ten percent more than the national average. Ninety-five percent of our solid waste goes into landfills, making Kansas one of only six states with landfill rates which exceed ninety percent. Internationally, the Swedes, Japanese and Swiss lead the resource conservation effort with landfill rates of forty-five, thirty and twenty-five percent, respectively. We continue to be a very wasteful nation. Not everything we put in landfills stays there. Groundwater investigations in Kansas and across the nation indicate that many of our older landfills leak. Trash compacts and subsides with time, creating surface level catch basins which hold rainfall and melting snow. The water seeps from these catch basins into the ground, percolates through the trash, picks up contaminants and carries them to underlying aquifers. The cost, in terms of investigation, cleanup and lost water resources can be astronomical. In response to this widespread phenomena, federal law pushed the nation toward a new generation of landfills with improved siting, construction and operation. Developing this new generation of improved landfills has been a matter of considerable debate in Kansas. In the more populous areas, where large and concentrated populations allow for low transportation costs and economies of scale, the increased cost of trash disposal hasn't been so much as a blip on the screen. In the rural areas, sparse and distant populations mean a very high per-unit disposal cost. The solid waste dilemma is a variation on a theme all too familiar to environmental policy-makers: not everyone can afford the same level of natural resource protection, but in this country there is an expectation that everyone will be treated equally. Mothers in poor, rural towns demand that their children be protected just as much as the rich kids in the big cities. It is also true that private-sector, eastern Kansas waste management companies demand that there be a level economic playing ground and that all landfills be held to the same rigorous standards. Trying to deliver perfect equity in a very unequal world makes life interesting. Feeling decidedly unequal and set upon by federal and state bureaucrats, a group in the northwest part of the state has fought tooth and nail against the new landfill standards. State officials have bent over backwards to be accommodating, going toe-to-toe with EPA more than once to stretch out deadlines and maximize flexibility. It should also be noted that rural areas have received more than their proportionate share of planning monies collected through landfill tipping fees. Still, there's no denying that the transition to new solid waste management strategies is going to cost money and take work. At the same time, there is plenty of evidence that landfills have contaminated groundwater all across the state, including western Kansas. Long after the debate over landfill regulations has been forgotten, long after the political ring-leaders have faded into the woodwork and their words have vanished in the wind, the fate of western Kansas will still be inextricably linked to its groundwater. LARGEST KANSAS LANDFILLS, 1993tons per name location year johnson county johnson county 677894 brooks wichita 589342 forest view kansas city 350133 wheatland crawford county 108821 rolling meadows topeka 169336 n.r. hamm jefferson county 149875 olathe olathe 76059 salina salina 82539 reno county hutchinson 79123 APAC-KC kansas city 70404 source: Bureau of Waste Management Kansas Department of Health and Environment CONTAMINATED SITES LINKED TO LANDFILLS: 1993county site contaminant southwest district FI finney county landfill voc/inorganics SW liberal landfill voc southcentral district BU mobil oil refinery acid/bn/oil/refinpetrol RN krause plow company heavmet RN obee road voc RN soda-ash-waste disposal inorganics RN village of Yoder voc SG brooks landfill oil SG cessna aircraft, plant 1 heavmet/voc SG chapin landfill voc/heavmet SG NIES voc SG Boeing voc southeast district BB fort scott city dump 1 voc MG sherwin williams heavmet NO chanute landfill voc/heavmet northwest district EL cross manufacturing heavmet northcentral district CD miltonvale landfill pest/oil GE fort riley superfund voc/heavmet/other MP mcpherson city landfill voc RC american salt inorganics RL k-state burial plot pest/voc/other RL riley county landfill voc SA saline county landfill heavmet northeast district DG lawrence city landfill voc/heavmet/inorganics DG former gas plant bn/heavmet/voc JO doepke disposal oil JO KU sunflower landfill voc/other JO olathe city landfill heavmet JO lakeside hills golf course acid/heavmet LV gnb batteries, inc voc/acid/refinpetrol/heavmet/other LV kansas state prison voc/heavmet LV leavenworth sanitary landfill oil SN shawnee county landfill voc SN indian hills landfill heavmet SN e.i.dupont/flexel voc WY model landfill voc/heavmet WY national guard armory acid WY southwest steel fabric other WY kc structural steel acid/bn/voc/heavmet/refinpetrol voc = volatile organic compounds bn = base-neutral chemicals refinpetrol = refined petroleum heavmet = heavy metals source: Summary of Bureau of Environmental Remediation Sites in Kansas, 1993 Kansas Department of Health and Environment UNITED STATES SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACTS, 1990us solid waste generation m tons percent paper and paperboard 74 37.6% yard waste 35 17.9% metals 16 8.3% plastics 16 8.3% food waste 13 6.7% glass 13 6.7% other 29 14.6% total 196 constuction/demolition waste percent steel 7.3% paper and paperboard 7.8% building material 16.6% plastic 2.5% fines and miscellaneous 3.7% wood 34.8% glass, ceramic, rubble, aggregate 26.9% recycling rate by percent generated auto batteries 96% motor oil 67% aluminum packaging 58% steel cans 41% paper and paperboard 38% glass containers 38% yard waste 12% tires 12% plastics 3% source: MSW Fact Book US Environmental Protection Agency Contaminated Sites and Spills
COMMENTSOur industrial economy has left Kansas with a legacy of contaminated sites. Fortunately, the legislature, the petroleum marketers, the dry-cleaning industry, and a lot of responsible owners of contaminated property have set the state on a course toward resolving the problem. It's going to take a while to clean them up, but then it took nearly one-hundred years to create them all. If there is a gap in funding the clean-up of contaminated sites, it's in the area of abandoned oil and gas leases. Hopefully, that gap will be plugged in coming years. Rule of thumb is that it costs about ten times more to clean up a contaminated site than it does to prevent contamination in the first place. Looking toward the future, it's critical that we have sufficient protection in place to prevent even more sites from being added to the list. Such protection should address the chronic day-to-day releases of contaminants as well as catastrophic events such as spills. The issue of fairness is often discussed when it comes to responsibility for cleaning up contaminated sites. I think most people would agree that someone whose behavior is reckless should be held liable for clean-up costs. What about someone who obeyed the rules and still ended up with a contaminated site or someone who bought or inherited a contaminated site? Some might argue that these people are innocents who should not suffer the cost of remediation. But if they don't pay the costs, who should? Current policy is based on the linkage between problems, responsibility and benefit and holds site owners liable for cleanup costs, even if their past polluting practices complied with the law. The argument is that those former owners benefitted from the business and from the low-cost disposal practices that led to contamination. People who purchase contaminated property are often forced to pay cleanup costs because they had the responsibility to look carefully before making the purchase. Moreover, the new owners will enjoy the increased value of cleaned up property. Are these tough, draconian policies? Maybe so. But the only option is to shift the cost to the general taxpayer, who had absolutely no control nor responsibility, and who will not benefit at all from the cleanup of contamination. From a pragmatic standpoint, there is an advantage to the heavy handed liability provisions of Superfund. Smart businesses are so wary of EPA that when contamination is found, they rush to State regulators to get a voluntary cleanup going. For each compelled cleanup going, KDHE enters into literally scores of voluntary cleanups. It's too bad we need such tough laws, but there is ample evidence that some small proportion of polluters would shuffle ownership and play other games to distance themselves from environmental liability, leaving neighbors to struggle with the contamination and taxpayers stuck with the remediation costs. CONTAMINANTS BY SITE: 1993number percent of total contaminant sites sites acid 15 3% base-neutral 22 4% pesticide 37 6% volatile organic compounds 215 37% heavy metals 96 16% inorganics 73 12% crude oil 33 6% refined petroleum 49 8% other 49 8% total 589 note: KDHE lists 403 total sites, some involve multiple contaminants. source: Summary of Bureau of Environmental Remediation Sites in Kansas, 1993 Kansas Department of Health and Environment CONTAMINATED MEDIA BY SITE: 1993number percent of total media sites sites groundwater 299 43.6% surface water 40 5.8% soil 237 34.6% public water supply 51 7.4% private well 55 8.0% air 3 0.4% total 685 note: KDHE lists 403 total sites, some involve more than one medium. source: Summary of Bureau of Environmental Remediation Sites in Kansas, 1993 Kansas Department of Health and Environment KDHE REMEDIATION SITES: 1993number percent of total district sites sites southwest 38 9% southcentral 111 28% southeast 57 14% northeast 82 20% northcentral 76 19% northwest 39 10% total 403 note: In addition to KDHE sites, the Kansas Corporation Commission lists 63 abandoned oil and gas sites source: Summary of Bureau of Environmental Remediation Sites in Kansas, 1993 Kansas Department of Health and Environment QUANTITY OF MATERIALS SPILLED: OCTOBER 1, 1992 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1993gallons material [x1000] brine 1447.5 crude oil 889.2 diesel fuel 64.5 fertilizer 43.8 gasoline 24.8 other oil-related material 22.6 other fuels 9.6 pcb 1.9 herbicides 0.6 note: KDHE records a total of 1310 spills,some involved more than one material. source: Summary of Bureau of Environmental Remediation Sites in Kansas, 1993 Kansas Department of Health and Environment Chemical Releases, Fertilizer and Pesticides
COMMENTSHazardous materials are defined by being: ignitable (having a flashpoint of 140F), reactive (capable of reacting with other materials or air to create an explosion, fire or toxic gases), (poisonous or otherwise adversely impacting the health of humans or other organisms), or corrosive (strongly acidic with pH less than 2.0, or strongly alkaline with pH greater than 12.5). In the not-so-distant past, hazardous wastes were frequently disposed of in improper, environmentally harmful ways such as dumping them down abandoned wells, pouring them onto the ground, letting them vent into the air, or releasing them into rivers and sewers. Today we use disposal methods which either break these materials down to their non-hazardous constituents, or isolate them in ways that prevent damage to the environment. One of the things that the state and local governments have done in partnership is create a number of household hazardous waste programs across the state. Through these programs, Kansas citizens can remove dangerous materials from their homes and be sure that they will be disposed of properly. Kansas has scored rather high in national hazardous waste rankings. For the most part, that high ranking has been attributable to one facility: the Vulcan Chemical Company of Wichita. Vulcan alone generated forty percent of the State's total hazardous waste volume. A few years ago, Vulcan set to work on lowering its generation rate. But using hydrochloric acid to make road salt, instead of pumping into injection wells, Vulcan will reduce its hazardous waste generation dramatically. Future toxic release inventory studies promise to bring a much better reflection on Kansas and its industries. Someone once said that pollution is a resource in the wrong place at the wrong time. By better understanding our hazardous waste generation dynamics we can better ensure that resources go toward productive purposes, rather than becoming an environmental liability. TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY, 1990-1992K lbs released to 1992 1991 1990 fugitive emissions 9276 8780 9799 air stacks 15547 20025 20654 surface water 733 936 1045 injection wells 59640 44922 58706 land 1301 1232 1322 K lbs transferred* 63435 46675 14049 *to wastewater plants, incinerators, off-site facilities source: Toxics Release Inventory, 1992 US Environmental Protection Agency TOP TEN FACILITIES FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES, 1992percent total of release state facility location [K lbs] total vulcan chemicals wichita 59974 40.0% boeing wichita 4482 3.0% farmland lawrence 2457 1.6% farmland coffeyville 1943 1.3% texaco refining el dorado 1491 1.0% procter & gamble kansas city 1359 0.9% general motors kansas city 1166 0.8% flexel tecumseh 998 0.7% excel dodge city 875 0.6% farmland dodge city 814 0.5% total 75559 50.4% source: Toxics Release Inventory, 1992 US Environmental Protection Agency TOP FIVE CHEMICALS FOR TOTAL RELEASE, 1993surface under air water ground releases total chemical emiss dischrg inject to land releases hydrocholoric acid 42289 755 44402800 270 44446144 sulfuric acid 63234 10 13385600 930 13449774 ammonia 4524299 46099 37000 813224 5420622 methanol 2186026 612 1431030 432 3600100 toluene 1939288 523 485 189 1940485 source: Toxic Release Inventory Kansas Department of Health and Environment US FARM FERTILIZER AND PESTICIDE USE, 1964-1992fertil herbic insect fungi use in use in use in use in year m tons m lbs* m lbs* m lbs 1964 10.5 76 143 72 1966 12.4 112 138 79 1971 17.2 207 127 130 1976 20.8 374 130 146 1982 21.4 451 71 30 1986 19.7 410 59 6 1987 19.1 365 57 7 1988 19.6 372 60 8 1989 19.6 394 61 8 1990 20.6 392 63 8 1991 20.3 403 66 9 1992 20.9 412 67 8 * active ingredient source: Environmental Quality, 23rd Annual Report Council on Environmental Quality Energy Production and Use
COMMENTSKansans used 1,030 trillion Btu's (British Thermal Units) of energy in 1990. The per capita usage rate for that year was 420 million Btu's, about one third more than the national per capita average of 320 million Btu's. There may be a number of reasons for the comparatively high energy usage in Kansas. Unique elements in our economy may cause a high level of energy usage, and the fact that we enjoy low per-unit energy costs makes a higher level of consumption less painful than might be the case in many other areas of the nation. But while Kansas energy prices may be low, the total amount we pay for energy -- units consumed multiplied by the per unit cost -- was just over two thousand dollar per person in 1989, seventh highest in the nation. In terms of Btu per dollar of gross State domestic product, Kansas ranked 10th highest in the United States. The utilities of Kansas keep the juice flowing and make it possible for us to do our work and better enjoy our lives. The heroic response of utility field technicians and management in the face of ice-storms, floods and fires represents the very best of America's corporate culture. Still, we must recognize that the linkage between energy and the environment is strong and, unfortunately, not often correlated in a positive sense. Extraction, transportation, refining and consumption of petroleum products poses environmental threats throughout each step in the process. Natural gas is a great, clean burning fuel, but the million-gallon brine ponds used in moving supplies into and out of underground caverns requires vigilant maintenance, and natural gas providers are among the State's largest emitters of air pollutants. Problems involved in the mining of coal and the generation of electricity are well documented, and the management of radioactive waste products from nuclear plants is a long way from being resolved. So let's be thankful to the energy providers of Kansas for their fine service. At the same time, a prudent level of energy conservation would benefit the environment and help us hang on to a little bit of the money currently dedicated to paying the monthly energy bill. KANSAS ENERGY FACTSper capita energy expenditures in 1989 2,014 rank among fifty states 7 BTU used for each dollar of gross state product 20000 rank among fifty states 10 BTU used for dollar in gross domestic product Japan 5000 Germany 9000 Great Britain 10000 energy production as % of in-state consumption natural gas 163% petroleum 68% coal 3% all forms of energy 33% source: Energy for Kansas, 1992 Kansas Corporation Commission KANSAS ENERGY PRODUCTION, 19901990 historical proven estimated production energy source and units production reserve reserves rate petroleum (bil barrels) 5.17 0.7 5.5 0.055 natural gas (tril cu ft)28.2 4.6 38.7 0.59 coal (mil tons) unknown 977 53534 0.72 source: Energy for Kansans, 1992 Kansas Corporation Commission KANSAS ENERGY CONSUMPTION: 1970-19901970 1990 tril tril percent sector BTU BTU change residential 178.9 179.2 0.2% commercial 104.4 163.2 56.3% industrial 341.2 405.8 18.9% transportation 250.7 282.1 12.5% total 875.2 1030.3 17.7% source: Energy for Kansas, 1992 Kansas Corporation Commission LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTElow level radioactive waste generated in 1993 central interstate compact commission (cu ft) 24741 state of kansas (cu ft) 2726 kansas as % CIC 11 wolf creek nuclear operation station (cu ft) 2428 wolf creek as % of kansas llrw 89 status of CIC disposal facility original projected cost (mil) 30 current projected cost (mil) 147 original projected opening year 1993 current projected opening year 1999 percent of project cost borne by wolf creek 16 source: Bureau of Air and Radiation Kansas Department of Health and Environment AGRICULTURAL ENERGY USEfield bushels BTU per work* fertilizer pesticide /acre bushel dryland crop wheat 745000 1490000 2600 35.7 62700 corn 860000 2800000 291000 78.8 50140 grain sorghum 724000 1730000 208000 60.7 43850 soybeans 751000 550000 99000 24.6 56900 irrigated crop corn 153.6 214000 grain sorghum 94.8 245000 * field work includes tilling, planting, harvesting, etc. source: Energy for Kansas, 1992 Kansas Corporation Commission Government Revenues and Spending
COMMENTSMoney fuels the engine of government work and is still very much the mother's milk of politics. If you have even a fleeting interest in discussing public policy, the price of admission is some awareness of where government monies come from and go to. Moreover, a passing knowledge of taxing and expenditures is key to understanding the loud public debate over such matters as reforming health care, welfare and other government programs. Take a look and do a little reality checking. Did you know that only about one percent of the nation's budget goes to foreign aid? What budget items are a growing share of the taxpayer burden (take a look at Medicare, health and interest on the debt), and what is being downsized (try military)? Where do state water plan monies come from and who benefits from their expenditure? How much has government grown in proportion to expanding economies? How much federal money does Kansas get for each tax dollar submitted to Uncle Sam? The questions go on an on. The most important question is how closely the nation's and state's spending priorities track with your personal values. A word about the State Water Fund. There is an imbalance in the amount of money collected from urban sources and the expenditure of that money for improvements that primarily benefit the agricultural sector. Why? At a time when municipalities are struggling under the burden of unfunded mandates, it may be appropriate to reassess Water Plan Fund priorities, considering whether both taxpayer equity and water quality might not be improved by better supporting mutually-beneficial rural/urban efforts to address water quality problems in the most polluted rivers and lakes of Kansas. US ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE EXPENDITURES, FY91e & nr per outlay e & nr capita as % expend e & nr state per mfg state expend budget facil alabama $22.43 1.02 $9,756 alaska $519.83 5.79 $234,349 arizona $15.63 0.73 $8,039 arkansas $25.66 1.29 $12,943 california $68.44 2.38 $27,538 colorado $68.41 3.22 $24,803 connecticut $20.98 0.62 $7,237 delaware $63.70 1.83 $41,238 florida $29.29 1.51 $13,536 georgia $21.69 1.06 $10,346 hawaii $34.00 0.84 $15,872 idaho $81.22 3.55 $32,028 illinois $35.17 1.63 $13,568 indiana $13.98 0.67 $5,699 iowa $23.74 0.97 $9,359 KANSAS $23.16 1.12 $9,486 kentucky $28.38 1.16 $15,563 louisiana $49.16 1.97 $28,972 maine $47.35 1.66 $20,525 maryland $31.98 1.22 $24,347 massachusetts $39.08 1.16 $16,741 michigan $23.56 0.91 $8,959 minnesota $50.50 1.74 $16,982 mississippi $30.41 1.51 $15,888 missouri $50.31 2.78 $20,998 montana $72.32 2.42 $33,194 nebraska $27.89 1.35 $13,300 nevada $46.17 1.61 $25,040 new hampshire $39.50 2.05 $12,959 new jersey $51.85 1.70 $21,039 new mexico $35.62 1.19 $18,344 new york $32.08 0.90 $16,731 north carolina $16.96 0.75 $7,449 north dakota $79.48 2.83 $40,456 ohio $16.26 0.64 $6,184 oklahoma $19.00 0.83 $8,140 oregon $60.79 2.28 $16,685 pennsylvania $24.13 1.07 $11,945 rhode island $40.38 1.17 $11,306 south carolina $32.63 1.27 $18,163 south dakota $45.02 2.21 $22,272 tennessee $22.04 0.88 $10,092 texas $18.36 1.06 $8,130 utah $43.95 1.84 $18,964 vermont $89.60 2.90 $32,014 virginia $29.27 1.31 $18,911 washington $78.45 1.58 $36,358 west virginia $21.01 0.79 $17,085 wisconsin $36.75 1.44 $12,866 wyoming $221.10 5.53 $95,554 national average $52.37 1.68 $23,558 national average (w/out AK,WY) $39.12 1.51 $17,667 kansas rank 39 41 34 source: State Environmental & Natural Resource Expenditures Resource Guide to Environmental Management, 3rd Ed Council of State Governments KANSAS STATE WATER PLAN RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES: FY1990-94percent receipts total collecting agency receipts receipts department of revenue municipal 15083652 23% industrial 5005939 8% stockwater 1141930 2% board of agriculture fertilizer fee 9825930 15% pesticide fee 3779600 6% health and environment fines 350155 1% edif (lottery receipts) 7980000 12% state general funds 23415000 35% total receipts 66582206 percent receipts total receiving agency/fund outlays outlays state general fund 381250 1% dept health and environ 13332038 20% dept wildlife and parks 5275730 8% board of agriculture 1211919 2% k-state ag extension 100000 0% water office 4855111 7% conservation commission 39678407 60% kansas university 800000 1% carry-over funds 947751 1% total expenditures 66582206 source: Kansas Water Office GOVERNMENT FINANCE FACTSkansas ranking among all category kansas us states federal government per capita fed gov expenditures, 1994 4897 4996 25 ave 1993 fed indiv income tax liability 4972 5405 22 ave 1993 fed corp income tax collection 19925 28643 30 ave 1993 fed indiv income tax refund 882 1033 38 ave 1993 fed corp income tax refund 15229 28285 26 state government per capita state gov revenue, 1993 2655 3121 41 per capita state ind inc tax rev, 1993 410 437 30 per capita state corp inc tax rev, 1993 86 94 18 per capita state sales tax rev, 1993 462 446 16 per capita mtr fuel sales tax rev, 1993 104 91 25 state tax rate per gal of gasoline,1993 0.1800 0.1834 31 per capita driver's license rev, 1993 48 49 24 per capita tobacco sales tax rev, 1993 21 24 29 per capita alcohol sales tax rev, 1993 20 14 11 per capita lottery net income, 1993 20 47 33 per capita state gov expenditures, 1992 2265 2882 45 per capita state gov debt, 1993 369 1504 50 state employees/10K population, 1992 223 181 19 local government per capita local gov revenues,1992 2176 2540 22 per capita local tax revenue, 1992 849 890 17 per capita local gov expenditures, 1992 2210 2570 24 per capita local gov debt, 1992 2650 2345 13 local employees/10K population,1992 551 435 4 state and local government ave wage of state/localworkers, 1992 24875 29785 33 ave state/local tax/acre ag land, 1992 2 6 40 source: State Ranking 1995 Morgan Quitno STATE GOVERNMENT FINANCES IN KANSAS, FY96state general fund expenditures by function mil $ % total general government 245.0 7.1% human resources 646.9 18.6% education 2217.0 63.9% public safety 234.3 6.8% agricult/natural resources 30.8 0.9% highways and transportation 94.9 2.7% total 3468.9 state full-time employees by function general government 5468.5 12.3% human resources 10724 24.2% education 18589 41.9% public safety 4933.6 11.1% agricult/natural resources 1363.8 3.1% highways and transportation 3304.5 7.4% total 44384.3 state general fund revenue sources (mil $) individual income tax 1363 40.2% sales tax 1337.2 39.4% corporate income tax 245.7 7.2% insurance premium tax 99.3 2.9% severance tax 69.7 2.1% inheritance tax 60 1.8% tobacco tax 54.9 1.6% alcohol tax 45.3 1.3% other tax 27.1 0.8% other income 91.6 2.7% total 3393.8 distribution of state funds (mil $) state general fund local aid 1905.1 54.9% other assistance 418.5 12.1% capital improvements 92.3 2.7% state operations 1052.9 30.4% total 3468.8 all funds (state, federal, etc) local aid 2362.9 30.4% other assistance 2028.3 26.1% capital improvements 810.7 10.4% state operations 2577.7 33.1% total 7779.6 source: Kansas Fiscal Facts 2nd Ed. July, 1995 Kansas Legislative Research Department UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT REVENUES, 1980-19931980 1993 percent percent amount total amount total [mil $] revenue [mil $] revenue individual income tax 244069 47.2% 509680 44.2% corporate income tax 64600 12.5% 117520 10.2% social security tax 157803 30.5% 428300 37.1% excise taxes 24329 4.7% 48057 4.2% estate and gift tax 6389 1.2% 12577 1.1% customs duties 7174 1.4% 18802 1.6% deposits: fed resrv 11767 2.3% 14908 1.3% other 981 0.2% 3691 0.3% total fed revenue 517112 1153535 source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1994 US Department of Commerce FEDERAL OUTLAYS, 1980-19931980 1993 percent percent amount total amount total [mil $] outlays [mil $] outlays national defense 133995 22.7% 291086 20.7 international affairs 12714 2.2% 16826 1.2% welfare 86540 14.6% 207257 14.7% health 23169 3.9% 99415 7.1% medicare 32090 5.4% 130552 9.3% social security 118547 20.1% 304585 21.6% veterans benefits 21185 3.6% 35720 2.5% education/training 31843 5.4% 50012 3.6% commerce/housing 9390 1.6% -22725 -1.6% transportation 21329 3.6% 35004 2.5% nat res/environ 13858 2.3% 20239 1.4% energy 10156 1.7% 4319 0.3% comm/reg devo 11252 1.9% 9051 0.6% agriculture 8839 1.5% 20443 1.5% interest/US debt 52538 8.9% 198811 14.1% science/space tech 5832 1.0% 17030 1.2% general govern 13028 2.2% 13009 0.9% admin of justice 4584 0.8% 14955 1.1% offsetting receipts -19942 -3.4% -37386 -2.7% total 590947 1408203 source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1994 US Department of Commerce FEDERAL OUTLAYS AS PERCENT OF GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT, 1973-1993gross federal fed domest outlays outlay product as % year [mil $] [mil $] gdp 1973 245707 1273093 19.3 1974 269359 1402911 19.2 1975 332332 1510600 22.0 1976 371792 1682317 22.1 1977 409218 1921211 21.3 1978 458746 2153737 21.3 1979 503485 2432294 20.7 1980 590947 2649986 22.3 1981 678249 2961786 22.9 1982 745755 3120313 23.9 1983 808380 3313032 24.4 1984 851846 3687645 23.1 1985 946391 3959794 23.9 1986 990336 4214195 23.5 1987 1003911 4461826 22.5 1988 1064140 4815113 22.1 1989 1143172 5172723 22.1 1990 1252705 5470327 22.9 1991 1323793 5681515 23.3 1992 1380856 5926420 23.3 1993 1408205 6286629 22.4 source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1994 US Department of Commerce THE DEFICIT AND GROSS FEDERAL DEBTgross fed fed deficit debt year [mil $] [mil $] 1973 -14908 -466291 1974 -6315 -483893 1975 -53242 -541925 1976 -73732 -628970 1977 -53659 -706398 1978 -59186 -776602 1979 -40183 -828923 1980 -73835 -908503 1981 -78976 -994298 1982 -127989 -1136798 1983 -207818 -1371164 1984 -185388 -1564110 1985 -212334 -1816974 1986 -221245 -2120082 1987 -149769 -2345578 1988 -155187 -2600760 1989 -152481 -2867538 1990 -221384 -3206207 1991 -269521 -3598303 1992 -290403 -4001941 1993 -254670 -4351223 source: Statistical Abstract of the United States US Department of Commerce Threatened and Endangered Species
COMMENTSThere are twenty-four state parks in Kansas, covering a total of just over thirty-two thousand acres. More than four million people visited Kansas parks in 1990. There were four-hundred and thirty-five thousand park permits sold. No doubt, many of them went to the State's more than four-hundred thousand anglers and two-hundred and forty-one thousand hunters. Kansas has no natural lakes. We do, however, have twenty-four federal reservoirs which serve to manage floods, store water and provide recreational opportunities. If you haven't made yourself familiar with the state parks, Cheyenne Bottoms, the Quivera National Wildlife Reserve, the Marais de Cygnes Wildlife Area, the Mined Land Wildlife Area, and the Maxwell Game Preserve -- where buffalo, deer and elk wander beautiful rolling hills -- you're really missing something. And if you haven't seen some of these places from the unique vantage point afforded by bicycle, canoe, horseback or foot, you'll never know what it means to be truly in touch with nature. Kansas stretches across seven different habitat types and has, as a result, a remarkably complex and varied ecology. Kansas is home to eighty-seven species of mammals, four-hundred and twenty-nine types of birds, sixty-four different kinds of reptiles, thirty amphibian species, and over twenty-thousand kinds of invertebrates (critters without backbones such as insects, spiders, worms, crawdads, clams, etc.). While the mountains may be dramatic and beaches fascinating, there is a rich and subtle beauty to Kansas that makes the heart sing. Discussion of ecology inevitably lead to a very controversial subject: threatened and endangered species. Why have we lost so many of the animals once native to Kansas? There may be some effect from pollution. Hunting may have taken its toll. But the main cause of species loss has been and continues to be habitat destruction. Urbanization, mining, and agricultural practices have profoundly altered the landscape and waterways. Because Kansas has so little public land -- less than one percent of Kansas land is held by the federal government, compared with a national average of thirty percent -- there are precious few islands of preservation for our threatened and endangered species. Why should we care about black-capped vireo, the elktoe mussel or the broadhead skink? Different people have different reasons. Some people think that humankind should simply respect the right for other species to exist. Some people value these species for their beauty and majesty, and think they ought to be protected for aesthetic reasons. Some people see threatened and endangered species as the "canary in the coal mine:" the early indications of a collapsing ecosystem which will at some point take its toll in human suffering. Perhaps that last point is most intriguing. The endangerment of species signals the overtaxing of natural resources. Wiping out all our threatened and endangered species might extend a few jobs a few years, but it isn't going to reverse the effects of overharvesting. It isn't going to create sustainability or ensure permanent employment. The price we pay to push the unemployment back a few years can be a very deep, ugly and permanent scar in the fragile fabric of our ecology. If you don't believe it, drive down to southeast Kansas sometime. Look at the strip mines. Learn how long-ago efforts to scrape the last increment of minerals from underground mines around Galena still cause catastrophic subsidences (sinkhole formation) every two years or so. Look at these places and ask yourself, whether that world would have been a better place had some indicator, such as threatened and endangered species, been used to limit environmental damage. Also included is data about the decline in mussel diversity. While mussels had a meaningful role in the State's economic history -- supporting button-making factories in southeast Kansas -- they may seem of little importance to many of today's Kansans. But consider the fact that mussels make their "living" filtering water for food sources: organic particles and microorganisms. This intimacy with water puts mussels first in line to suffer the consequences of water quality deterioration and habitat destruction, and makes them an important "canary in the coal mine" of Kansas environmental conditions. KANSAS THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIESendangered invertebrates american burying beetle bleedingtooth mussel elktoe mussel flat floater mussel neosho mucket mussel rabbitsfoot mussel scott riffle beetle slender walker snail western fanshell mussel fish arkansas river shiner pallid sturgeon sicklefin chub speckled chub amphibians cave salamander graybelly salamander grotto salamander birds bald eagle black-capped vireo eskimo curlew least tern peregrine falcon whooping crane mammals black-footed ferret gray myotis threatened invertebrates butterfly mussel fluted shell mussel ouachita kidneyshell mussel rock pocketbook mussel fish arkansas darter blackside darter chestnut lamprey flathead chub hornyhead chub noesho madtom redspot chub silverband shiner sturgeon chub western silvery minnow amphibians central newt dark-sided salamander eastern narrowmouth toad green frog northern spring peeper strecker's chorus frog western green toad reptiles broadhead skink checkered garter snake common map turtle new mexico blind snake northern redbelly snake texas longnose snake texas night snake western earth snake birds piping plover snowy plover white-faced ibis mammals eastern spotted skunk source: Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks DECLINE IN MUSSEL DIVERSITY, 1900-1990number of species species river 1900 1990 lost chikaskia 19 11 8 grouse 19 18 1 little arkansas 19 10 9 neosho 34 32 2 cottonwood 29 22 7 spring 34 31 3 ninnescah 19 7 12 verdigris 33 27 6 caney 24 21 3 elk 25 20 5 fall 31 24 7 walnut 22 18 4 pottawatomie 34 29 5 source: Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks |
