Page images
PDF
EPUB

REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER.

CHAPTER I.

GENERAL REVIEW OF THE WORK OF THE
DEPARTMENT.

APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES.

The legislatures of 1919 and 1921 appropriated the following amounts for the Division of Irrigation for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1921, and June 30, 1922:

For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1921:

Appropriation for the year...

Unexpended balance of previous year.
Fees received during year..

Fee fund from previous year

[blocks in formation]

$10,500.00 4,039.11

384.26

355.20

$15,278.63

$5,000.00 8.32

$5,008.32

1922.

$3,000.00

909.00

370.00

2,351.61

71.66

6,232.81

1,559.34

$12,493.42

$5,001.00

In the midnight hours of the last day of the 1921 legislature, after the regular appropriation for this department had been passed by both the house and the senate, although in different bills, the conference committee arbitrarily reduced the amount to $5,000 per annum-less than fifty per cent of the previous appropriation. This amount has been wholly inadequate to do the work contemplated by the law. In most instances it has been impossible to visit proposed irrigation projects or make surveys and plans as provided for in the law, because the department was unable to supply such help. The gathering of information has also suffered from the decreased appropriation. Such work requires a great deal of time in the field, and the limited funds left very little for traveling expenses.

If the department is to function efficiently and render the service expected of it, more than $5,000 per annum is necessary. It is hardly probable, however, that as much will be required as was available during the fiscal years of 1920 and 1921, since it was during that period that the department was developed and a portion of the expenses in those years was for necessary engineering instruments and field equipment. Most of such equipment is in good

order and will not need to be replaced during the coming biennium. Taking these things into consideration it appears that $8,000 per annum can be made to meet the needs of the department for the next two years, but not less, and it is urged that at least this amount be appropriated.

SALE OF STATE PLANTS.

Bills were passed by the 1921 legislature authorizing this department to sell the personal property at the three state irrigation farms, the improvements and equipment at the Wallace county farm, and sell the Scott county and Wichita county irrigation farms intact with all improvements. In accordance with the provisions of these bills, the personal property was sold at public auction. The other property was advertised in state and county papers and sealed bids opened in the office of the commissioner at Topeka. In this way the buildings, fencing, etc., on the Wallace county farm were sold, but no bids were received for the irrigation pump and engine at that place or for the Wichita county farm. One bid was received for the Scott county farm, but it had to be rejected for the reason that it was below the minimum value fixed according to law by the secretary of state, the attorney-general and the irrigation commissioner.

The following amounts were received for the property sold:

Personal property, Scott county

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

$300.45

Personal property, Wichita county.

194.35

Personal property, Wallace county.

378.78

[blocks in formation]

Expenses incident to advertising the property, conducting the sales, and caring for the unsold property were:

[blocks in formation]

Irrigation commissioner, expense account, arranging for sales and

[blocks in formation]

The net proceeds of these sales, $1,794.91, are being held by the state treasurer until all of the property has been disposed of, after which they will be paid into the general revenue fund of the state.

The fact that the buildings sold at the Wallace county farm included the one used to house the large engine and pump, which were not sold, made it necessary to make some provision to shelter this machinery. This has been done by renting the building of its present owner. In the meantime the department has used every means to dispose of this equipment. Among other things, it sent a mimeographed description of the machinery to every city, mill and elevator in the state in the hope that a purchaser could be found,

since the engine would be suitable for mill or elevator work, or for a small electric-lighting plant, and the pump could be used in either an industrial or a municipal water plant, but not an inquiry was received. It appears from this that there is little probability that the department can sell this equipment in the immediate future, and it seems that in order to eliminate the expense of renting a building, it may be better to turn the equipment over to some state institution, which, while its need for such equipment might not justify the purchase of it, could make some use of it.

The farms which were not sold are being rented as dry-land farms. Real estate has moved very slowly in Scott and Wichita counties during the past two years, and it may be that when conditions there recover buyers can be found. If not, it will be necessary to scale the minimum value down to some lower figure.

INTERSTATE IRRIGATION CONTROVERSY.

A brief summary of the litigation between the states of Kansas and Colorado, and between water users in the two states, over the use of water for irrigation from the Arkansas river was given in chapter III of the 1919-1920 biennial report of this department. At the conclusion of this chapter the irrigation commissioner recommended the appointment of a commission for the purpose of working out a solution of this long-drawn-out conflict. No action was taken on this resolution by the legislature. At about the same time, however, the Colorado legislature passed a bill providing for a commission to work out an interstate agreement or treaty for the division and control of the waters of the Arkansas river between the two states. This action, which is in striking contrast to Colorado's attitude toward interstate irrigation conflicts in the past, is in accordance with the policy of the present water administration of that state, which is trying to settle present and prospective interstate irrigation litigation through compacts or treaties with each of neighboring states. Following the passage of this act the governor of Colorado appointed a commissioner to negotiate with Kansas; and at his request, Gov. Henry J. Allen appointed a commissioner, Mr. C. A. Schneider, of Garden City, to represent Kansas.

Before the officials of Kansas had been notified of this action on the part of Colorado, the irrigation commissioner was making a careful study of the flow of the Arkansas river and the use of water along that stream, with a view of finding some solution of the controversy which would provide a more dependable supply of water for the Kansas ditches. An examination of the stream-flow data available in Colorado indicated that, on the average, more than 200,000 acre feet of water crossed the state line into Kansas annually. This amount, it would appear, should be more than enough to satisfy the needs of the Kansas ditches, but an examination of the daily flow showed that much of this water, either because it came in floods of uncontrollable volume, or out of the irrigating season, was lost, and the Kansas ditches were periodically short of water during the crop-growing season. From this it seemed reasonable to believe that if some method could be worked out whereby much of this waste water could be stored and conserved for summer use, it might prove the solution of the problem. Storage reservoirs, if built, would have to be in Colorado, for the reason that there is little opportunity for storage after

the water reaches Kansas, and any plan of development would require cooperation between the two states. Such a plan, based on coöperation between the two states for the greater utilization of the water supply, would, it seemed, if carried out, provide sufficient water for both the Colorado and the Kansas ditches, and, unlike litigation which would secure a supply for the victorious litigant at the expense of the defeated one, it would provide enough for all through the elimination of waste.

The irrigation commissioner had already made plans to go to Denver and talk these matters over with the state engineer of Colorado when informed that the Colorado legislature had taken steps toward a friendly settlement. Upon reaching Denver he found the officials there were not only kindly disposed toward working out some adjustment of the interstate water question, but they also had been considering the possibilities of reservoir storage.

Since that time Colorado's state engineer has furnished this department with maps of two undeveloped reservoir sites on the Purgatoire river in Colorado, and Colorado has, at her own expense, sent a party of engineers to survey and map out a possible reservoir site north of Medway, which, if developed, would have to be filled through a canal taking water from the river in Colorado. The two commissioners have held conferences at which the question of storage received special consideration, but no complete agreement has been reached. The principal difficulty at this time seems to be the reluctance of some of the Kansas water users to accept storage in Colorado in lieu of their claims on the river, and the reluctance of some of the Colorado ditches to release sufficient of the summer flow on the Purgatoire to make the construction of storage on that stream possible from the standpoint of the Kansas ditches.

STREAM-FLOW MEASUREMENTS.

The need of some accurate information on the amount of water that the Kansas ditches are able to get from the river under conditions such as exist there now made it seem advisable to undertake some measurements on these ditches. This information is of prime importance in connection with the action now under way looking toward a settlement of the interstate irrigation litigation. To secure this information the irrigation commissioner has installed registering gauges on each of the five principal ditches, and on the Arkansas river a short distance below the Kansas-Colorado state line. The measurements made and the records obtained during the past two years are given in another chapter.

CORN IRRIGATION EXPERIMENTS.

During the season of 1920 the irrigation commissioner coöperated with the Union Stockyards at Wichita and the Sedgwick county agent in a series of experiments in the irrigation of corn. The project was planned by the irrigation commissioner, who also applied the irrigation water. The stockyard company furnished land, water and farm labor for the experiment. The county agent had charge of the field work and the harvesting of the crop. In this experiment two varieties of corn-Pride of Saline and Common White-were grown on four adjacent plots. The first plot received no irrigation; the second was irrigated once in July; the third received two irrigations,

one in April and one in July; and the fourth received three irrigations, one each in April, July and August, respectively. The amounts of water applied and the yields obtained are as follows:

[blocks in formation]

The 1920 season at Wichita was very dry, with only six inches of rainfall up to July 1. This, together with the fact that the crops were on land which had been in alfalfa the year before, and where, as a result, there was no subsoil moisture available, contributed to the low yield on the unirrigated plots. Both of these plots dried up before maturity. Notwithstanding this, the results serve to show how corn responds to the application of water in that part of the state.

WICHITA SAND CASE.

In July, 1921, the State Executive Council requested the irrigation commissioner to participate with Mr. H. B. Walker, engineer for the Kansas Water Commission, and Mr. H. B. Kinnison, engineer for the United States Geological Survey, in the investigation of a controversy which arose at Wichita over the removal of sand from the bed of the Arkansas river in the vicinity of the wells of the Wichita Water Company. It was alleged by the water company that the removal of sand from the river had lowered the bed of the stream and was endangering the city's water supply. The engineers making this investigation reached the conclusion that the removal of sand had resulted in lowering the stream-bed elevation, and this in turn had the effect of acting as a drain for the underground water in the sand and gravel adjacent, thereby causing lower ground-water elevations adjacent to the deepened channel. A report was submitted recommending that, while the removal of sand should not be prohibited entirely, it should be regulated to prevent further deepening of the channel.

Later the Executive Council asked the irrigation commissioner to draft an order for the purpose of regulating the removal of sand. This order was made the order of the Council, and the irrigation commissioner was requested to take charge of the matter and administer such regulations, which he is now

« PreviousContinue »