A group of economists at Kansas University recently had many interesting insights on the plight of rural Kansas.

But none was more interesting than an observation made in the Journal-World last Sunday by Peter Orazem, a Koch visiting professor of business economics at KU.

The statement about rural Kansas was simple: “Business as usual is a recipe for disaster.”

It is an interesting thought because it brings up the question of what is business as usual when it comes to reviving rural Kansas? What is the state’s strategy for pumping new life back into western Kansas?

The state’s strategy largely seems to be lots of talk but little action. That may seem harsh but consider this: Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and her two predecessors all have commissioned special reports on the downfall of rural Kansas. That’s nearly a 15-year period where the issue has been studied, but how much has really improved in that time?

Many of the large issues that could pump new life into the region are still surrounded by more questions than answers. Issues like: whether we’re truly going to be serious about developing wind energy – and the needed electric transmission lines to make it feasible – in the region; what new crops the state may promote to deal with the decreasing water levels in the Ogallala Aquifer; what untapped industries exist that would find the area’s wide open spaces and low density population attractive; and what, if any role, does school or county consolidation play in revitalization?

In fairness, you will find programs that attempt to address the issue. The Kansas Department of Commerce has several – ranging from agritourism grant programs to efforts to create new economic development organizations for rural parts of the state. Many individual communities also have become aggressive with land give-away programs to attract new residents.

But the depopulation of Western Kansas is a stark problem that demands bolder solutions. Residents of the state’s many fine small towns need to continue to work hard to grow their communities, but this is a problem calling out for a comprehensive, statewide effort.

Of course, saying we’re going to make it a priority is the easy part. Spending the money to make it so will be the difficult task. It will require a champion – the governor, the speaker of the house, a U.S. senator – who has power and a bully pulpit to get the entire state to understand what is at stake.

And make no mistake, the stakes are high for all of us. In the long run, eastern Kansas residents have much to lose by a continuing population decline in western Kansas.

In addition to losing a valuable part of our agricultural heritage, the state will be put in a position of providing services – everything from roads to social services – for a minuscule population that makes an even more minuscule contribution to our tax base. If Kansas hopes to be competitive on a national level, it can not afford to be so inefficient.

It is an expensive problem that will become more expensive if the state doesn’t soon replace talk with action. It has been said that talk is cheap. In this case it certainly isn’t. Good, hard-working Kansans who watch their small communities shrink on a daily basis, can attest that talk without action is costing them dearly.