Topeka — A western Kansas utility's push to build a new coal-fired power plant has already embroiled it in a lengthy public dispute about potential air pollution, and now the project could touch off a battle over water.
Sunflower Electric Power Corp., based in Hays, estimates its new plant in Finney County in southwest Kansas will consume 3.9 billion gallons of water a year. Most of the electricity generated by Sunflower's new plant initially would flow to a partner utility in Colorado, leading critics to suggest Kansas will be, in effect, exporting its water.
But as much water as the plant would consume, local officials calculate that it represents less than 1 percent of the existing annual water use in the state's heavily agricultural southwest corner. Farmers previously held the rights to the water Sunflower would use, and they would have been allowed to consume significantly more.
Water has received relatively little attention as Sunflower pursues an air quality permit from the state Department of Health and Environment. But eventually, the project will need a water-use permit from the Kansas Department of Agriculture.
And, Sierra Club spokeswoman Stephanie Cole said, for some western Kansas residents, "Water is of greater concern than the pollution."
Those in favor of the plant's construction don't see it as an additional strain on the Ogallala Aquifer and note that if farmers retained the water rights, their products most likely would be exported, too.
"We're being good stewards of the water," Sunflower spokeswoman Cindy Hertel said. "We're not using more than would be used for agriculture."
The water rights for Sunflower's project actually are owned by a division of Wheatland Electric Cooperative Inc., one of six western Kansas co-ops that formed Sunflower in the 1950s. Starting in 2005, Wheatland bought thousands of acres of land tied to the rights for more than 17 billion gallons of water a year, leasing the land back to farmers until the plant is built.
Under Kansas law, Wheatland must ask the chief water engineer in the Department of Agriculture to approve a "conversion" of the water rights to industrial use. Under state law, the chief engineer automatically decreases the water use allowed; Wheatland and Sunflower think they will lose 40 percent.
General manager Neil Norman said Wheatland isn't likely to go to the Department of Agriculture until 2014, when the plant is within two years of starting operations, so farmers can keep leasing the land.
Sunflower has been looking to add coal-fired generating capacity since 2001. Its current plan resulted from an agreement with Gov. Mark Parkinson in May 2009 designed to resolve regulatory, legislative and political disputes.
Sunflower's new plant would be 895 megawatts, producing enough electricity to meet the peak demands of 448,000 households. But 78 percent of that capacity, or 695 megawatts, will be owned by Sunflower's partner, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, of Westminster, Colo.
Tri-State's claim on the power remains a sore point for environmentalists. They say Sunflower's planned water use creates an irony because a dispute over the Arkansas River between Kansas and Colorado ended last year, after 24 years of litigation, with Colorado letting more water flow into Kansas and paying $34 million in damages.
"We are essentially proposing to give them that water back," Cole said.
But Mark Rude, executive director of the Southwest Kansas Groundwater Management District, which covers parts of 12 counties, said the same argument could be made about agricultural products. The district uses 554 billion gallons of water a year — less than half of what it could given farmers' water rights.
"Everything we produce as a result of labor and water use has a potential of going out of state," Rude said.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
lounger (anonymous) says…
This is an all around bad Idea. No coal here-It has to be brought in on trains from quite a long way away (wyoming). It will pollute the air. And Now we learn it will take almost four billion gallons of water to run this hog? Not to mention that Kansas doesnt hardly see any of the electricity!
hooligan01 (anonymous) replies…
Quite a long ways away??? Wyoming?? That is 700 miles at most. Let me tell you, they ship coal farther than that. What about Lawrence, that's about 1400 miles, St Louis......
Shipping coal to western KS is quite cheap.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Why blow OUR big government tax dollar building and insuring a pollution propagating device?
Why not blow OUR big government tax dollars on far less expensive cleaner energy = bigger bang for the tax buck = long term jobs throughout the state of Kansas
There is nothing clean or cheap about coal power let's not kid ourselves.
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
Actually, TriState and Sunflower are trying furiously to cobble together a deal to build this plant before the EPA comes out with CO2 emission limits, or congress comes out with some carbon cap program, at which point coal will become quite a bit more expensive, much more expensive than renewables, potentially more expensive than nuclear, even.
Is it responsible? Of course not. Is it forward thinking? Only if you are trying to figure out a way to get out from under loans you cannot pay off, like Sunflower Power currently is with their Holcomb Plant #1. Or if you live in Colorado and want to look like you are committed to renewables while in reality you are quietly building a coal fired plant across the Kansas line and using 75% of the electricity.
sciencegeek (anonymous) replies…
What those 2 companies need to do is work quietly in the background until Saint Sam becomes governor. Old "never met a business he didn't like" Sam will find a way to make it happen; the EPA is just a passing annoyance.
What we should consider is changing the state's name; SUCKER has the same number of letters as KANSAS, so it'll fit fine on all the stationery.
Centerville (anonymous) says…
We're much better off subsidizing out-of-state transmission line companies, over which Kansas will have zero jurisdiction so far as siting or rates. And guess whose campaigns these companies are funding? Just so long as the good little liberals keep saying "Coal is icky! Wind is free!"
ConcernedCynic (anonymous) says…
As far as the water issue is concerned, people in western Kansas will have to sleep in the bed that they made. They wanted two coal plants, each using a s**t-ton of water. That equals less water to irrigate or even drink if the wells are not deep enough. How much water does a wind farm use? - Oh, that's right practically zero.
oneeye_wilbur (anonymous) says…
Why should anyone in Lawrence care? Lawrence is fixated on saving downtown and KU football.
Now there is an idea for water! Ship the porta potties after each game to western Kansas and the water problem is solved.
Lawrence just has no imagination and the Sierra Club neither.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) replies…
"Why should anyone in Lawrence care?"
Lots of reasons. But clearly what bothers you is that not nearly enough people believe that you're the smartest guy in the room.
kernal (anonymous) says…
Wonder why there's been no input from farmers in tx, ok, ne, nm & wy about the aquifer. I assume CO is keeping quiet since they will reap the benefits of the coal powered plant, but their farmers may not in the future.
kernal (anonymous) replies…
Gee thanks, LJW for not letting me do proper caps on the acceptable abbreviations for the states. Bet LJW ends up being lower case, too.
Water (anonymous) says…
Visit this link to see Colorado's response to building a powerplant in Kansas.
http://coloradoindependent.com/59669/...
MacHeath (anonymous) says…
Sounds like we are being suckered on this one.