Douglas County Commissioner

CHARLES JONES

The Kansas Environmental Almanac

Kansas 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.

DIRECTORY

Comments, Questions and Additions

If 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

Comments

The Place

Land Use by Percentage, 1987

Climate Facts

Return to Directory

COMMENTS

Kansas 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 PLACE

					Kansas	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, 1987

		Kansas				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 FACTS

				Kansas	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

Comments

Kansas Vital Statistics

The People

Kansas Per Capita Income

Kansas Personal Income Facts

Return to Directory

COMMENTS

The 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 STATISTICS

								Kansas
								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 PEOPLE

						Kansas	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 INCOME

		Plains
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 FACTS

			total	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

Comments

Number and Size of Kansas Farms

Kansas Net Farm Income and Government Subsidies, 1975-1993

Kansas Agricultural Subsidies by Category, 1993

Kansas Livestock Numbers and Values, 1870-1993

Kansas Major Crop Yields, 1870-1993

Kansas Poultry Production, 1984-1993

Return to Directory

COMMENTS

Kansas 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: 1880-1993

			total
	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: 1975-1993

				receipts	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, 1993

		subsidy		% 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: 1870-1994

							total
				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: 1870-1993

	bushels	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, 1984-1993

	number		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

Comments

Kansas Water Use and Sources, Various Years

Status of the High Plains Aquifer

Water Withdrawals and Consumption, 1990

Drawdown Maps of the High Plains Aquifer

Return to Directory

COMMENTS

Between 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:

"Even today our grade school children cannot comprehend what water has meant to the early Kearny County pioneers and to the travelers passing through here for centuries -- be they Indians, guides, scouts, trappers, soldiers, or settlers. Nor do they know of the trials and hardships endured by all to get this life-blood known as water.

Future generations will never stop to think of how the early pioneer of the [eighteen] seventies and eighties secured water; never give a thought to how it was secured, probably just assuming it was always like the push button age of today.

The homesteaders knew they could get water if they dug deep enough for it, almost anywhere they chose to dig, and that is what they did. It was a problem getting this water to the surface as the average well was 100 feet deep; as an example, John Samuel Gropp came to his homestead, about 16 miles northwest of Hartland, in 1887. His farming was done primitively with a yoke of oxen. He hauled water from a neighbor, three-quarters of a mile away, for two years; most of the time the water was rolled home in a barrel. After two years he hand-dug a well for a neighbor first, then one for himself, each being 220 feet deep -- a hard way to get the water.

The dug wells usually averaged a hundred feet deep and, as stated above, the Gropp well was 220 feet deep and some others in Kearny County were deeper. They averaged between three and four feet across."

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 YEARS

1987
								% 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 AQUIFER

						prior	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, 1990

			ground	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 Aquifer

The 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.

Anonymous AnonymousAnonymousAnonymous

Surface Water Quality

Comments

Kansas Surface Water Statistics

Designated Uses and Attainment for Kansas Stream Miles

Contaminants of Kansas Stream Miles

Sources of Contamination Affecting Kansas Stream Miles

Contaminants of Lakes by Acre

Designated Uses and Attainment of Kansas Lakes by Acres Contaminants of Kansas Lakes by Acre

Sources of Contamination Affecting Kansas Lakes by Acre

Trophic Status of Kansas Lakes

Return to Directory

COMMENTS

If 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 STATISTICS

number 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 MILES

					partial	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 MILES

					moderate
				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 MILES

					moderate
				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 ACRE

				support
				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 ACRE

					moderate
				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 ACRE

					moderate
				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 LAKES

			number	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

Comments

The Largest 400 Farms By State

Kansas Facilities Among the 400 Largest Farms in the US

Manure Production Per Animal

Number of Cattle Feedlots

Livestock Value, 1993

Return to Directory

COMMENTS

Feedlots 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 STATE

			number
			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 US

							rank
						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 ANIMAL

		manure	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 FEEDLOTS

	less					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, 1993

						produced 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

Comments

Contaminated Public Water Supply Systems, 1993

Water Quality of Private Wells

Return to Directory

COMMENTS

The 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: 1993

county	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 WELLS

types 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

Comments

Top Kansas Air Pollutant Emitters, 1993

Average Acidity of Precipitation in 3 Kansas Counties

US Lung Cancer Rates

Volatile Organic Compounds Released in Wyandotte and Johnson Counties, 1993

Return to Directory

COMMENTS

The 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, 1993

				tons	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 COUNTIES

year	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, 1930-1988

	deaths
	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: 1993

			point	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

Comments

Largest Kansas Landfills, 1993

Contaminated Sites Linked to Landfills, 1993

United States Solid Waste Management Facts

Return to Directory

COMMENTS

Kansans 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, 1993

					tons
					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: 1993

county	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, 1990

us 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

Comments

Contaminants by Site, 1993

Contaminated Media by Site, 1993

KDHE Remediation Sites, 1993

Quantity Materials Spilled, 1993

Return to Directory

COMMENTS

Our 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: 1993

				number	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: 1993

				number	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: 1993

				number	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, 1993

				gallons
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

Comments

Toxic Release Inventory, 1990-1992

Top Ten Facilities for Chemical Releases, 1992

Top Five Chemicals for Total Releases, 1993

US Farm Fertilizer and Pesticide Use, 1964-1992

Return to Directory

COMMENTS

Hazardous 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, 1990-1992

K 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, 1992

						percent
					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, 1993

				surface	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, 1964-1992

	fertil	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

Comments

Kansas Energy Facts

Kansas Energy Production, 1990

Kansas Energy Consumption, 1970-1990

Low Level Radioactive Waste

Agricultural Energy Use

Return to Directory

COMMENTS

Kansans 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 FACTS

per 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, 1990

								1990
			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: 1970-1990

		1970	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 WASTE

low 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 USE

		field					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

Comments

US Environmental and Natural Resource Expenditures, 1991

Kansas State Water Plan Receipts and Expenditures, 1990-1994

Government Finance Facts

State Government Finances in Kansas, FY96

United States Government Revenues, 1980-1993

Federal Outlays, 1980-1993

Federal Outlays as Percent of Gross Domestic Product, 1973-1993

The Deficit and Gross Federal Debt

Return to Directory

COMMENTS

Money 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, FY91

					e & 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: FY1990-94

					percent
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 FACTS

								kansas
								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, FY96

state 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, 1980-1993

			1980		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, 1980-1993

			1980		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, 1973-1993

		gross	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 DEBT

		gross
	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

Comments

Kansas Threatened and Endangered Species

Decline in Mussel Diversity, 1900-1990

Return to Directory

COMMENTS

There 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 SPECIES

endangered
	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, 1900-1990

		number 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