Dream Maker Podcast
Dream Maker Podcast
Clay Scott--Kansas Aqueduct
Chris visits with Clay Scott, who farms in Stanton and Grant County, is a member of the Ground Water Management District #3 and is on the Kansas Aqueduct Coalition. We discuss the work the coalition has done on the feasibility of moving water to Western Kansas, Colorado and beyond.
Welcome to DreamMaker, a podcast brought to you by First National Bank of Syracuse at f and b , we strive to make sure that every life we touch is improved. Join us for each episode as we cover a wide range of topics from financial wellness and marketing to mental health and ways to enjoy life overall. We may even teach you a thing or two about cultivating healthy soil. We are here to improve your life, and so glad you've joined us today. Now, here are your host for today's episode of Dream Maker .
Speaker 2:Hi, this is Chris Floyd, president, c e o of the First National Bank, and welcome to episode three of season three of our DreamMaker podcast. You know, these last couple seasons, we've been focused on a lot of ideas and topics, you know, and education on how do we help our communities and our customers thrive? And you know, one of the things we haven't talked about much at all is water. And , uh, especially when , like , historically, you know, you thinking, you know, when you look at all the fights have been over water , uh, and how important water is , uh, to life itself. And it's one of the reasons that our, our logo is a windmill is the really, the thought behind it was like, you know, when you came out here , um, those windmills were dug. That was a source of life. And without water, you know, the people wouldn't survive. And then also, as you fast forward through time, and we have , uh, the, the development of irrigation southwest Kansas, and, you know, when irrigation started and we got feed yards, and we have the packing plants and the dairies, you know, all that would not be here if it wasn't for irrigation. And , uh, you know, a lot more focus too on, you know, the aquifer. And we all know it's depleting and you know, what ways we can do to kind of protect that. And so it's , uh, you know, we're gonna have to get really outside box thinking to do some things because it's really key to the sustainability of our , uh, economics out here in southwest Kansas. So today we're fortunate with US Clay. Scott Clay grew up next to me, and they're in northeast Stan County, or as I guess you know, not too many of us in the neighborhood up there. But , uh, he , uh, has been a served for several years as a member of the groundwater management district, number three here in southwest Kansas as one of the founding members of our Kansas Aqueduct Coalition. So, clay, how about , uh, introduce yourself and tell us a little bit about yourself.
Speaker 3:I'm Clay Scott. I farm and ranch here in southwest Kansas, mostly around Big Bow . I did grow up real close to Chris, and , uh, so we're lifelong friends and , uh, acquaintances , um, live here in Ulysses Farm with a couple of my boys have graduated from college and are back farming with us now. And then I've got one son who'll be headed off to college next year. Um, we grow irrigated wheat and corn and , uh, dry land wheat and corn as well, and serve on a lot of boards. But , uh, on as far as the water goes, I serve on the , uh, Southwest Kansas Groundwater Board. I was a previous advisory member to the Gothenberg Water Learning Center when they built that. And we kind of helped roll out the drought guard corns with that project. And then currently I'm the Kansas Delegate for the Kansas Water Congress. So I serve as a , uh, state board member for the, for Kansas, for the National Water Resource Association. And then just as a fun part, I'm , I'm currently the chair of the Kansas Aduc Coalition, which is an idea in 2011. Uh , we were kind of in the, the throes of the drought that summer of , uh, the, the beginning of the 1112 , uh, drought period. But I was looking in the Missouri River that day was at record high flood stage. I thought , boy, if we could just tap some of that extra water, that high and flood flow stuff and make some use of it, what , what we could do without here in , uh, Western Kansas. So I, I went up to Garden City and talked with Mark Rudd , who's the , uh, general man or the , uh, c e o of , uh, Southwest Groundwater Management District. And talked to him . He said, you know, there's an old study from the eighties that talked about that. And we, so we went through and started looking about the viability of that. And so then in 2015, it took a few years, but in 2015 , uh, the Corps of Engineers , uh, G M D three and the state of Kansas decided to , uh, do a, a preliminary update to the cost and , um, feasibility of bringing that water into southwest Kansas. We didn't make any changes. We just updated the study to kind of get the numbers up from where they were. I think the author originally wrote it in 1979. So we wanted to do that and see if there was the feasibility of that. And so we, we saw that, and then what would happen, and it looks like it would pretty much be a , an exact mirror in terms of length and elevation rise as the Central Arizona project, which is a canal system that pulls water off the Colorado River through Central Arizona all the way to Tucson. And, but it , it crosses a couple mountain ranges and a few other things, but it's the primary reason and primary water source for the city of Phoenix. So if , um, university of Arizona, I believe did a study here a couple years ago on the 20th year of that being in full function. I think they have estimated 2 trillion in state g d had been created because of that. And so that , that , that was encouraging to see that, yeah, it , one, we don't have to reinvent the wheel, but two, and it's does in other places also in California. So, so the math and the logistics of building a canal system to move water like that aren't, aren't impossible. And in fact, they're functioning here in the Western United States today. So now we're starting to move forward and say, okay, now what kind of project would , um, be real, bring enough water out here to do some good, but also be cost effective and pay for itself. And so we looked at a , a tremendous number of , uh, different ideas and thoughts and, and programming issues that we could go with. And kind of what our thoughts were is , um, you know, we don't want to take any water away from anybody else, right? We we're looking for high and flood flows, so, you know, a source of water that's usable and sustainable and, and we're not putting anybody else in a pinch by pulling that extra water. So that was our first thought. And, and , and primarily the Missouri River , uh, system looks, looks pretty , uh, inviting there. The core of engineers estimated about six and a half million acre feet could be harvested in some years. Um, you wouldn't, there's no way you could physically do that, but that's what was available. But it , uh, likely a couple million acre feet a year, which will be fantastic for a large water project like what we're looking at. But we also looked at it too. And so there's a lot of costs and , and moving water uphill and, and that far. And so we looked at just the brute force of it. The , uh, moving that water up here would cost us about $450 an acre foot . So if we do that, one of the concerns was, well, how, how are farmers going to be able to and feed yards and cities and towns and Western Kansas going to be able to pay for that? So we started looking, you know, broader depths, higher water value usages and things like that. And about that same time we were working on , uh, with N W R A on the Western basin, and the Colorado River R became a really big issue with , uh, lake Powell and Lake Mead dropping. Well , interesting enough, there's about a half million acre feet of water that's pulled out of the front range of Colorado , uh, through the mountains to service Denver and, and , uh, those front range cities of Colorado Springs and Pueblo, and I think even maybe Greeley and , and , uh, such like that. So we thought, well, if there was a way we could bring that water west and offset those Intermountain range transfers , uh, and leave that native water in the Colorado basin, which is vastly over appropriated, kind of like we are here in western Kansas, then uh, we could , uh, offset that high value water that would go downstream. We wouldn't, wouldn't take any pumping. We wouldn't pump them up any water over the river. We'd, we would just leave it in the Colorado River, and from there we could , uh, offset those downstream uses. So that said , uh, we started doing the math on that. And what do you know , uh, being a banker, Chris , you'll appreciate this. Some of that water that we would re restore to the Colorado River would be the most expensive water in the nation in terms of water supply. And so the alternative , uh, to desal and, and those higher end costs of water, we could supply this water to the front range, you know, and if, if we could get around $2,000 an acre foot for it, that's a billion dollars a year in revenue, well that, that'll pay for a really nice project or a , or a good portion of it. Plus there's a lot of other issues too there that , uh, environmental , uh, Indian rights, Indian water rights settlements like that need to be accomplished , um, that the federal government would have a hand in. And so by the time you start looking at that, it , it's getting to be where the cost, the value of the water is, is larger than the cost of the build and the , and the lift. And so, and then you start looking at those greater good issues. Yeah, can we restore the rivers? Can we , um, supply the p supply of lakes for the wildlife? And then also long-term put , uh, restoration back to the OAL aquifer, especially the southern portion of it, which is , um, we've lost all of our rivers , um, our sources recharge with like the a Kansas River , um, you know, we just don't have any flow in Kansas anymore. And, but once upon a time, we had a great flow. And so if we can restore all that, I think we can bring things into a balance where overall it makes one long-term sustainable good water policy, but also two, we serve kind of the greater good. You know, there's about 40 million people that live in the Colorado Basin and that drink and irrigate and use that water in the industry. And if we can restore, restore those native flows, wouldn't pump it over the mountains, but just restore it, then uh, we've, we've done a good for that part of the basin. But then also too, if we can harvest some of those high and flood flows and , uh, offset those Intermountain needs, we can, we can do a lot of good here in the High Plains. Um, so then you start looking, well , what does that mean? Well, if you bring sustainability to these aquifers, then it gives the, those higher end uses, like our , uh, feed lots and dairies and municipal , uh, demands, the ability to go ahead and expand or, or make new projects. You know, whether it's a cheese factory and garden city, or excuse me, do city or a milk plant, dehydration plant in Garden City. You see, you start to see those new industries come in, which is valuable for your long term , uh, population based and industry. So that's, that's kind of how the project's setting today. Um, we're, we're working on some of those , uh, those , uh, concepts and proof of concepts to decide, you know, which ways we wanna move forward. But I, I think right now there's enough demand in the west for water. Um, you can see whether it's the, the water budgets in Arizona or California, what they're spending on allocate water, or at least hold onto the water they have that , uh, the interest is real. And , um, when we go to these meetings, we, we are , we are well received . And so that , that's one of the things that's , uh, interesting there that , um, you know, it's, it's, it's moved past the, Hey, what are you guys doing to, Hey, we need to talk to you about it. Um, and so we're, we're actually gonna be traveling to, to , uh, DC here in another month or so. And we've actually, Texas is High Plains , uh, is work . Some of their water districts are gonna start working with us on this project too, because they see the value of it. And even though Texas has a lot of water in it, the, the panhandle's in a pretty sh in a pretty , uh, tough spot as well in terms of , uh, bringing sustainability to the aquifer. But yet, as you know, southwest Kansas, the Texas panhandle, we're one of the few areas that have both the climate and the , uh, infrastructure to handle large , uh, livestock industries. And there's a lot of value in it. And so I think the , uh, impetus is becoming even more so, we, we don't have 20 or 30 years to wait to develop one of these projects that today we have the infrastructure today, we have the workforce and, and the capital and the motivation to do it. But if we, if we drift away and for 20, 30 years, we don't do anything there , it may be too late. So that's one of the reasons why we wanna work on this and press forward today and we'll see what the numbers tell us, but we're liking what we're seeing. Well,
Speaker 2:That's good. As you , it's kind of amazing when you think the value, what water is, and you know, I thought, you know, $2,000 an acre foot in the front range is , you know, when you think about, I guess, you know, when you're farming or it's like, boy , that's a lot of money, but really you think about , um, you know, what, you need to run your house and things like that. It's really probably not very much in the general consumer with their , I mean, they're probably paying it already, I mentioned.
Speaker 3:Yeah. Uh , an interesting story. We were in Sacramento a couple years ago, and they , Sacramento Delta, they have a hard time getting water from northern California to Southern California, even though California is pretty good at moving water when they need to. But that's their, their issue is they kinda like Kansas. They have, they're north and south, we're east and west, and so they move the water from the northern part of the state to the southern part of the state, and they were gonna build two tunnels under the Sacramento Delta because they had some issues with , uh, environmental and, and just having the ability, they just couldn't get the wa right water in the right place at the right time. So they were gonna build these two huge tunnels underneath the, the delta there to basically siphon the water, kind of almost a bridge or a subway kind of thing to transport the water underneath the ground to get it to where they wanted to so they could pump it efficiently. And so I was talking with one of the directors there that was working, that was leaving the project, and I said, $19 billion for two tunnels, that's, that's a lot of money. And he said, yeah, but he said, I , I've got 20 million meters south of here. He said, it's about three bucks a month on their meter. So, you know, to him he wa and he wasn't looking for new water, he was just looking to make sure that he didn't lose the water he had going forward.
Speaker 2:Yeah. So that's like almost nothing really. Oh ,
Speaker 3:Yeah . I mean , it was the cost of doing business, you know, in terms of water security and things like that, because, you know, it , it's hard to believe it, but you know, even still with, with severe droughts, it seems like the population growth in those areas, it just continues to be more and more all the time.
Speaker 2:Yep . Yeah . And I think, you know , good point you mentioned there, I think, you know, here it seems like, well that's, you know, a long way to altitude wise to , to lift that water, but they've been doing that back west for several, several years, haven't they?
Speaker 3:Yeah. Uh , some of these are, some of these are decades old, you know, 40, 50, 70 years old in , in terms of moving water. And, and that's probably one of the biggest concepts, or probably one of the most difficult concepts in Kansas, is you get west of here and it's, it's just a normal way of doing things. You know, you, you have people that live in the valleys or wherever was , is , uh, beneficial alert , but the water's in different places, so they transfer water all the time, you know, even over mountains or through mountains, you know. Um, but in Kansas, you know, it's, other than very few places, you know, there's either a river or a stream or an aquifer to tap on, you know, with , uh, really haze and rustle being kind of the only two cities in Kansas that don't quite have that luxury. So, or if they do, they're very, very shallow or very, very low flow . So , um, you know, it's just a unique thing that , uh, I think some good education too , that , um, you know, we're not trying to do anything crazy or wild . We're, we're , uh, we're actually trying to be more thoughtful of the future going forward to what's real. You know, one of the things here in southwest Kansas is, you know, we've, we've lost our source of recharge, which is the Arc Arc River, and then also the Cimarron . Cimarron River was never a big flow, but it , but it was always fairly consistent. But, but the big one that we lost was the Arc River. And, you know, with, if we had a couple hundred thousand acre feet of historic, what was historical or even a fraction of that flowing per month down the river, you know, Southwest Kansas would be in an excellent place. But the way the Compact was written we're really only entitled to the irrigation rights there in , um, in , uh, Hamilton Kearney and Finney County that are the old 1870s ditch rights . So if you appropriated water after that, you're, you're, you're too junior to get any,
Speaker 2:And that was , uh, a little bit of wells ago too, right? To kinda , yeah . Help a few things today, you know?
Speaker 3:Well, could you imagine how hard those guys work digging those, those big canals with hand and shovel or horse and he and shovel , or horse and wagon? So it just, it's just hard to believe how they did so much work in just a few years to build those canals. But they're still more or less in effect today, right?
Speaker 2:So, like, technically, you know, I think, and two , sometimes you don't realize it and you know, especially as you're driving, cuz it's not a super just, you know, big drop like in the mountains, but you know, there's probably, what, two over 2000 foot rise right from the Missouri River to here?
Speaker 3:You know , I, I've done the , I've , I've wished I could have it off the top of my hand. Yeah , I don't think it's quite that much, but yeah, it's, it's quite a bit. I think it's, I was thinking, you may be right, I was thinking 1500 foot , but it's, it's probably by the time we get it to where we want to, you know, they're to , so to bring that water, it's , uh, the 1982 study, envision bringing that water to about Dayton . And I talked with the author and he said, he goes, I don't know anything about Dayton . He said that was the first place on the map that said it was close to the, to the aquifer. So he said, I found the first basin I could put it in. Um, they were gonna build a dam that was like seven, eight miles long. You know, it just wasn't a good spot. It just, he said it was, it was just the first place he picked on the map because he said, I didn't think we would build it in the 19, late 1970s because of two things. He said, interest rates were screaming higher, he'd never be able to afford it because of interest rates. And then he said also to the price of fuel, he said, I, I thought we would run outta fuel where we wouldn't have any power to to matter anyway. So he said that was right at the energy crisis. So he said, he said, you need to look at those things because some my comparisons are probably way off today. And so we looked at that and got 'em adjusted, kind of where we think they need to be. But, so as we see it today, you know, that water would still follow a similar path. There's a high ridge that comes right through the center of Kansas and drifts towards the southwest a little bit. And so we would bring it there, but that water, we would distribute a long , once you get a certain ways west, you can go a long ways north and a long ways south. And so just say we go close to the state line as a , as an example, once I get that water to the state line, I can almost get it to Lubbock, Texas going south without hardly anymore pumping, you know, because they told just lateral downhill that far, which is , um, probably not exactly Lubbock, but, and probably not exactly far enough west, but it's, it's pretty close in terms of what we can do there. So, but if we can get water to the state line of Kansas, I'm sure we can get a , a couple more miles west if that's what we needed for elevation or something like that. Right? Yeah. You know , but that , that's kind of what we're looking. So it's , it's not gonna be a southwest Kansas project. It'll be, it'll be for the , like I think I mentioned before, the greater good, you know, we'll go a little bit into southeast Colorado, we'll go into Northwest and West central Kansas, probably catch a little bit of northeast Colorado , um, because of some needs they've got up there, but then also go south following that same topographical ridge line I talked about and, and hit the Oklahoma and Texas panhandles and then some maybe.
Speaker 2:So to start with, you know, one of the things you mentioned was, you know, not trying to take water for anyone else and , but it's really, you're taking the flood water that, and you know, we've always seen pictures or you see pictures, I guess when that Missouri River floods. It's really kind of devastating in places back there and , um, kind of destructive. So how would that part work or how, where would you envision doing that at?
Speaker 3:Yeah , um, so we , we've got a few places picked out and there's some, there's some certain areas that work better than others, but as we see it, you know, we would probably have some sort of , uh, probably have multiple harvest stations along the river in places. Um, and, you know, we're , we're really not trying to capture a big gulp out at any one particular place, but probably several. And I , and I kind of envisioned it to be honest as , uh, the way I think it should be anyway, is , uh, kinda like a windmill farm or , uh, something like that. And, you know, you pay a royalty to whoever that location is that's supplying, you know, this'll probably be, this will , well , it won't probably be, this'll be a federal project when we get it going, and why shouldn't they participate, you know, in the harvesting of a resource like, like oil and natural gas or windmills or something like that. So that way that local community is not , um, they, they have some vested interest in the success of the project there. So I , I think that'd be good to do. And then , um, you know, moving west with the water, you know, there's, there's gonna be some opportunities along there to help, you know, do some water support. You know, several of those dams in eastern Kansas, one of their troubles is they're, they're all silting up. And so if we can make some supplies or dump some water in some certain streams or, or head headlands of certain tributaries or drainages, you know , we could hit several of those along the way. And I, I think there'd be some, some nice benefits to that too, that we could do that, that brings value to the entire state, not just to the delivery areas where the water will be applied.
Speaker 2:Because you can see, and I, I guess that would be more of a, almost like a lake reservoir looking thing where you gather 'em at , so, or
Speaker 3:How big , yeah , right there on the river proper, we'd probably be pretty minimalist in terms of, it'll probably be just a , some sort of protective structure with a pumping system. And , uh, and those are, those happen there. These would be a little bigger than, than the norm, but , uh, nothing, nothing crazy big. Um, but, and then they would transfer that, and then what we'd probably, what you'd wanna do is in the east there, you'd probably not want a gathering, basin gathering dam. So you can, you know, you could wrap , you know , when that flood flows are hitting, you could rapidly gather that, but you don't wanna build a, a 400 mile long canal that's designed to handle the massive mud water flows you want kind of a long-term consistent flow of water so you can help one, regulate it. And two, so you don't, when it's, when it's not flood flows, it's dry, and yet when it's, it's brim full when you are flooded. So we're, we're gonna want some sort of gathering , uh, operational lake there to manage it. But then , um, I also see some benefits from that too, because, you know, Kansas has a tremendous amount of wind power right now. One of the troubles is, is a daylight today where the wind's blowing crazy bad outside , um, bad might terms, cuz I don't like wind. Um, but , uh, you know, this would be a perfect day for us if the, if the river was at a high level, we could say, Hey, we , we've got all this extra energy, it's not being pulled on the grid. We'll take all the windmill power you've, you can give us today so we can pump water and we would pump that water, move as much water to that as we could versus those windmills setting idle because it's 62 degrees today and most people aren't running their heaters, but they're also not running their air conditioners. And so you have a kind of a low base load day today . So, you know, in that aspect, we could help bring some more value to that resource, the wind energy side, because instead of them being operational, 40% of the time they're producing wind, maybe we take it up to 90%. And so that makes each windmill twice as valuable in terms of what it can produce. So , um, there's some values there that, you know, you can't see that on the , what the, what the water's worth in, in western Kansas or at the front range, or in San Diego where this water may actually end up laddering water West may end up , uh, evolving to, but , uh, that's a value that could she really hit some of those folks that have invested in , uh, wind power .
Speaker 2:And so when you're pulling that out of that, so you're , cause I've heard different deals would be in a pipe or like an open ditch .
Speaker 3:Okay . Uh , we , we looked at both scenarios , um, construction costs in 2015, and I, I know they're higher today because of inflation, but at that time they were estimated about 12 billion to build a canal. It'd be a cement line canal , um, be about the size of an interstate, it'd be a big one . And , uh, it like 240 feet wide and 30, 40, 50 feet deep, and then maybe a little bigger in spot or two, but , uh, and moved quite a bit of water. But , um, we , we looked at pipelines too, and we, we just couldn't, to be honest, we couldn't find a pipeline big enough to do what we wanted. But, so we thought, well, let's, I think we were gonna build, I , I can't even remember how, how big the pipeline was. Now when we talked about 'em, I wanna say they were like 18 foot pipes, and I think they're probably a ceramic base, but we looked at steel two and the thing, the nice thing about pipelines is one, you can , uh, build a straight line, you know, you just bury 'em underground far enough and you can build 'em in a straight line. So it was a shorter distance versus having to follow the range of the hilltops, so to speak. But , uh, that was about 60 billion, I think 68 billion was the number. So we, we threw out the pipelines pretty quick. Just the , what it comes down to is the friction loss in a pipe. Even that big of a pipe is just too, too much to get around water just doesn't like to compress. So , um, that said, we, we looked at pipelines, but there was just no way we could ever make a pipeline feasible , uh, except for those areas where, where it does work as if , uh, oh , if you were crossing a , like the , a river and you didn't want , you don't wanna co-mingle those waters. So you would build a , a , uh, basically an upside down irrigation tube and you just, same principle, you dump it in on the high side and water comes out the low side . And so those, those kind of work because of gravity's in your favor there, but , um, but still not, not ideal and that are expensive. Those siphons are, but there is some, there's also some opportunity there if you can do it right. You can, if , especially if you come off the top of a hill, dump it into the river valley and then come out, you can do a little bit of , uh, hydroelectric power that way by taking advantage of that gravity drop or that , uh, height drop. So
Speaker 2:Yeah. That's interesting. So it'd be just one big, that's a big ditch really, when you think about it. Yeah,
Speaker 3:It, it , it , yeah . When we, we were looking there at , at a river one day, and I, I want to say it was slowing, oh , it was almost a quarter mile wide there and wasn't very deep, maybe three, four or five feet deep. But what we were looking at would be in terms of water flow, what was slowing there that day, we would be looking at between five and 10,000 cubic feet per second. So it, it'll be a lot of water to move. Yeah .
Speaker 2:And , uh, you said 2 million acre feet be consistent a year out of there. So that's,
Speaker 3:So in southwest Kansas, GMD three, we, we pump about 1.9 a year. So it'd be as equivalent of replacing a hundred percent replacement if that's all we did with it. But , uh, so if you could figure on a , between a two and a half to say three and a half million acre feet , you know, I think 600,000 acre-feet, kind of the working rule of thumb number to get Southwest Kansas sustainable in terms of water supply , um, you know, take at least a half million acre feet to help bring Denver into supply. Um , Denver front range. I don't mean Denver proper. Um, you know, so they're right. There's just, those two would be almost a million acre feet . But then you've got the Texas panhandle needs, New Mexico, Nebraska, Eastern Colorado, and the rest of Kansas. So , uh, it'll actually go pretty quickly, but you know, this , this will be a water term. This will be a game changer in terms of , uh, water supply in the Western High Plains for, you know, the project's probably a hundred year project the way we've got it designed. So, you know, it, it changed generations of , uh, of what would be happening out here infrastructure wise versus what won't happen if the water goes away.
Speaker 2:Right. So would you, so to get it into the aquifer, you just talk ba basically dump it to the rivers ,
Speaker 3:Uh , you know, or how would you Uh , I think both ways. You know, I , to be honest, I haven't worked a whole lot on that, but primarily, you know, I think that the easy play right there, just in my first thinking is, you know, I, I'd like to see it dumped into the streams. You know, that is one of the nice things about here in , uh, far southwest Candace anyway, is, you know, we have a , about every 10, 12 miles, we've got a nice little tributary that runs east and west. And so if you're, if we can get it far enough west, we, we can go south with it and we can go north with it and just drop it into those, and that's a perfect place to recharge. But then I think most of the water that would be available for harvesting is available April through September, which is the growing season. So actually what I would probably see is, yeah, we would see some recharged from those rivers and streams. But I also think too would be a , uh, you know, once you, once you get it here, why put it back in the ground and then pump it back up? So I think the long-term would be to offset that pumping that we're doing today along with long-term recharge projects such as , um, you know, I mean , they do it in Colorado and also in California, where they, they actually have like gravel beds where they set the water on it, let it soak in, you know, and they fill those every day and, and do that. But, but , um, so that , that would, there would be that. But then also too , I think one of the things we really need to look at is , uh, the environmental side of it. You know, it's not all just out here to work and things like that. You know, if we could restore the ply lake system, you know, I think there's a lot of value to that one in tourism, two in the wildlife and habitat, and then also, you know, just the lifestyles of Western Kansas. You know, it's a long ways to go for a lake or a pond out here. And so if you had that, you , you bring a lot of value to the western high plains of Texas and Colorado and Kansas here to , uh, to have some of that , um, available, you know, and act , you know, it's, it's for , I was telling somebody in, in one of the states, maybe its Idaho, we were having a discussion with one day at one of the water meetings, and I said, you know, when I drive over river, it's, it's rare for me to see water in it. You know, when you drive over the arc or the Cimarron or, or the red or, or not the red, excuse me , the Canadian, most of the time, you know, there's just no, no water in there and you , so you don't ever really think about it. Well, in a lot of places in US , that's pretty rare further to not be water in the river. So I , I, that's one of the things I'd like to see is that let's restore the natural stuff first before we start any artificial augmentations.
Speaker 2:Okay. Well that makes sense. So then , um, so then too , would you think about some of that water instead of like letting it go in and pumping it back up , like you said, it actually go to individual farmers at some point, or,
Speaker 3:Well , um, yeah, I, I, to be honest , like I said, I just haven't done a whole lot. That's probably the most common question I get is, Hey, when you ready to or distribute the water out, let me be on that committee, <laugh> <laugh> , which I'm thinking, well, that's, I'm, I'm way more worried on the getting it here side of it then how, I mean, I'm sure we'll figure out a way to use it, but yeah, I , I would see that that , you know, probably there'd be , uh, probably county by county or, or maybe, I don't even know, maybe water basin by water basin or something like that, that those guys would figure it out and they'd say, okay, let's, let's do it this way. Let's run a canal here and let's do a lake here and a , or a playa pond here. And so I, I think that would've eventually happened. But , uh, and then, and then I , but then also too , I think just, just some long-term restoration to the stream beds and creeks and streams, you know, it wouldn't take a whole lot of water to just really help , um, bring that, bring things back into balance. Especially, you know, if it's, if it's winter pumping, you know, when the wells aren't going, it's off season , but, you know, we could bring water into the play lakes and things like that and, and maybe some winter storage, because you know that , I think that's one of the troubles we're seeing now is with , um, you know, it's so dry because we have no relative humidity and things like that. So, you know, we can get some stream beds and things like that. It , it's not gonna help a lot, but it'll helps. Um, and, but in long term it'll, it'll change, you know, going back to having a tree tree line there at the rivers and things like that because you've got consistent flows of water and, and, and a survivable habitat for that kind of stuff. And then you get all the , the , uh, animals and plant species to go along with that , having actual real water there at your rivers.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I always kinda wonder, especially, well, you know, the Cimarron , you know, of course up in here in Syracuse, you know, there's pretty much always water running at Syracuse, but by the time you get Kindle , it's pretty much gone. Um, and then, you know, what would it, what did it look like back a hundred years ago? Sometimes like, you know, with the rivers running and especially like the Simran or even further on the Arkansas River, you know, it's like, you know, it'd been pretty cool to see what it, what it was like, I guess, you know , back then. And, and uh, yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense cuz that would basically just help. That's probably where it all came from originally, the aquifer I mentioned, but
Speaker 3:Yeah. Yeah. You know, and like I said, we, I , we've gotta do some education. I think there's a lot of , uh, people that are against the aqueduct. I don't know if they're against the a aqueduct I or they're just against somebody else having something they have, I I really don't understand the fight against it, you know, if we're talking about, you know, good water policy and things like that. Now that said, we've gotta do a , you know, I, I , uh, I truly do believe in making every drop count and, and guys are gonna have to do a good job , uh, on using that water. It's, it's gonna be way too valuable a resource to, to not put every drop to the best value you can, you know? And so I, I think we'll see that , um, come around as, as more education comes across the state and across the western United States. We're , um, you know, we're, we're not out here wasting this, you know, if, if you would give me back his historical river flows, I would have historical water levels. You know, we're, we're, we're pretty much today in a , in a balance in terms of what that would be. It's just, right now we , we don't have recharge except for that very little quarter on the river where it's like you were talking about at Syracuse. So for instance, so if we were to move 5,000 cfs, I think on the , uh, river there at Syracuse today, it's about 80 cfs.
Speaker 2:Oh wow. Okay .
Speaker 3:So put that in perspective, we would be, what, a hundred and sometimes bigger? No, 400 and some 400 times larger Yeah. In terms of the volume of water removing , which
Speaker 2:You'd notice that <laugh> Yeah.
Speaker 3:You would notice. Yeah, you would notice it that it was flowing, so, yeah.
Speaker 2:Well, and too , you know, you think about all the, you mentioned recreation, I mean, that would make huge difference there too, of what that river would actually do and , and what people could use it for.
Speaker 3:Yeah, well, and you know , and we would, we would have a , probably a couple small, very small little terminal reservoirs here. Um, one thing we do have is we , John Martin in Southeast Colorado is a nice facility. It's , it's got a lot of storage. I think there's about 300,000 acre foot of empty storage in it now getaway that's probably not quite that, about 2 75, 270 5,000 acre foot of storage there , there , that would make a nice distribution hub. But for those waters that we're going to use here locally, we don't need to take it to John Martin and come back here with it. So , um, I, I could see a smaller one or two here in southwest Kansas , um, to help regulate those flows. Cuz you know, it may, it still will rain sometimes. And guys will say, Hey, we, we got a big rain last night, or in the last couple weeks, we really don't need any water right now. Let's, let's save it, or let's, let's let it go to , to another use or something like that. So we won't have that flexibility to do what we need to do with the water long term to put it to where it has the most value or the most, most , uh, benefit. Right. Sometimes that's not even, like I said, sometimes even that's not hard. That's hard to, to , uh, put a price on, you know, what's, what's the price of, you know, actually having ducks on a pond, you know, and, and water out there that all you do is go out and look at it and go, wow, that looks really nice, you know, but you didn't spend any money to do that. You just, you just got to enjoy that. So , um, that's it . I I think there's some values and benefits there that we won't put a price on, but that's okay. That's what we're working for is kind of a greater good
Speaker 2:Drip irrigation, for example, is a very expensive to put in and some people may not put it in because I don't know my water's gonna be here. If that make sense. So things like that is that kinda talk about like, okay, if I know it's going to be there, I can do maximize every drop type of thing. Is that kind of
Speaker 3:Yeah, I, I , I think there's a , I think there's a lot of value to that. If, if you know that there's, that that it makes sense for me to make this , uh, program change or this efficiency upgrade or conservation practice, you know, spend that money to do it, but know that I've got a lifetime to, of , you know, of the project to, to get it for versus the risk of what my well goes dry. I crops prices are bad, where I can't afford to do this, you know, or, or just whatever. Or to even just try a concept and maybe find out that it doesn't work as good as you thought it. But, you know, still moving forward on the, on the, the scale of trying to become more efficient and , and, and do a better job with the water. You know, I, I think there is a tremendous value of that, you know, whether it's feed lots or dairies, you know, they can't build, they can't expand if, if it looks like the, well that's supplying the water for the cattles iffy, you know , and we're, there's really, you can't really drill down any deeper. And so now you're looking at, well , can I find a better spot in the aquifer ? Well, but it still doesn't solve your answer long term . So if we can do that, then I think those investments can start to happen more rapidly in terms of , um, say I'm coming to you as a banker and say, Chris, I, I really think I need to put drip irrigation in. Or I really think I, you know, I , I put a lot of , I did a conservation innovation grant here a couple years ago with NRC s and we were testing out the mobile drip, the dragon lines, and , uh, long and short it was, they, they found it. Yeah, it worked. It saved us water. We saved about 28 gallons a minute on a 300 gallon pivot, installing it the way I, the following the concept I used on the inside towers. And , uh, so 28 gallons a minute doesn't sound like a lot, but it's on a 300 gallon pivot that's almost exactly 10%, you know, real close. And so that's, that's the 10% water change . That was one practice I change . Well then you can, then you can add it on top of that. And then when you start bun lot it together, well maybe soon you're saving 15, 20, 20 5%. And so there , that's where the value is, you know, doing that and extending and preserving our aquifer and the , and the value of that resource. But then also too , you know, if I can grow as good or better crops with less water, less pumping, you know, that's a win for the financial side of it. And so that helps pay for those investments cuz that it , it's not a cheap thing to make those investments. Um, so with that said, it's, it's something I think that a lot of guys are doing. They're experimenting and trying to see what, how can they do a better job,
Speaker 2:You know? And uh, you know, you start thinking about the economics of it, you know, I was , um, oh the other day I was talking with the , uh, economic developer in Finny County and uh, Lana and she , you know, talking about, yep , you , when you go back in history of uh, you know, when they drill the first irrigation wells and be know , okay we got irrigation, then we had feed yards, now we got the packing plants and the dairies and, and so I don't know, it'd be kind of scary to think how big a number this could be. So how much, and maybe it's just, you know, hard to fathom, but it's gonna be huge economic impact to have that stability of that water for our area, I would think.
Speaker 3:Yeah. So , um, I , I've , I've done several talks and speeches over the years on, on the value of water and why I think, you know, why I'm passionate about doing as good a job I can on my farm, but then also too , trying to help, help see what we can do for, let's get all western Kansas in a better spot. Cuz you know, I want the same opportunity my kids that have just graduated in college and going , getting ready to go so they can come back and do what I've done, you know, in terms of having that opportunity to come back to the family farm. So do you take Grant County here where I live in, I live just across the county line from you and , um, on a good year there's a , there's a good amount of irrigation here in Grant County, but not by far no means one of the top ones in , in southwest Kansas, but, but, but a good amount. And we do about 70 to a hundred million a year in grains in Grant County. But we have two large feed lots and one, one good size dairy. And those together do about 1.1 to 1.2 billion in, in , uh, activity. So you take the farming side of it, but then you apply that to the dairy ca and take the feed stuffs to the dairy and to the feed yards and, and convert that over to high value meats and milks and cheeses and things like that. You know, you've got that game. Well then you take that to the processing plants and garden liberal and dodge and the milk plants and the cheese plants in Hugin and , uh, Dodge City now and the dehydration plant in , um, in the pharmaceutical plant there in Garden City. So, and then all those numbers expand again. And so that's, they're , you're exactly right. The number, the number really grows. And I think that's a good part of the reason why I think the last time I saw that ag in Kansas was about 34% of the state G D P , but about 70% of that was in southwest Kansas, you know, and it's because this is where the value is because we, we take it up the chain in terms of those other , uh, elements to feeding the cattle, to milking the cows, to the processing plants and the, and the beef and , and , uh, and even the , the pork now too. Mm-hmm. <affirmative> , I even kind of left them out. Yep .
Speaker 2:So what would be, I guess, I don't know , it's, it's always like, it's like well this kind of makes a lot of sense. What's in the way of getting it actually started do you think? Or that process or what do you
Speaker 3:Oh , uh, you know, it , it's, it's an education point to some part, but then too is , you know, this isn't, this is no small deal, you know, we're gonna spend probably 20 billion to get the majority of this thing built and so we, we've gotta do it right and it's gonna have to last for a hundred years. So you don't want to go 15 years after it's bill go . Good grief . I wish they'd have thought about this or done that. So , um, I I actually said in a meeting the other day, and a guy, he's a law professor , um, threw a bunch of , uh, uh, darts and arrows against it. Uh , you know, why it wouldn't happen. And, and so there's, there's a little bit of concern. Well you can't, you'll never get past the environmental, well it, it's, I'm not, that doesn't scare me hardly at all. Um, we still build roads and bridges and highways and expand them all the time that there is , uh, offsets that we'll work for . But you know, we're also gonna be improving a lot of habitats, you know, if we can do the stream flows and things like that. Um, you know, there's the congressional issue. Well, why would, why would Kansas wanna pick a fight with Missouri by using some of the water? Well, it's, it, you know, I , we don't wanna pick a fight. We actually kind of wanna be a partner and try to help take some of their flood issues. Cuz I think they suffer more from the flood damage than on the Missouri than anybody. But , uh, you know, and we're not wanting to use any water that would affect their river system in terms of navigation or , uh, for the barges and stuff like that, which are key to their economies or their, or their local uses. You know, we're not looking for those kinds of supplies of water that we're taking something of value from them. We're wanting the high and the flood flows to be able to harvest that to , uh, instead of it going out at the end of the gulf that we, we can put it to use here. And so that said , uh, and then , um, can't think of what , oh , one of the other things , well we wouldn't have any political support. Well if, if we're moving water and affecting the Colorado basin, you know, it's on the national news about how, how tough that area is and how dire the situation is. You know, there, there's a lot of people there and there's a lot of states and congressmen and senators there that I, I think have a favorable view on it. And so, and we're, we're seeing those discussions on Capitol Hill and DC from senators and things like that, talking favorably about yeah, we need to be doing something. So I think once we can bring this project to , uh, to where it needs to be in terms of development and concept, and , uh, then we can, and it's gonna happen pretty quick that we can start moving forward on what, let's talk long-term viability with the states, the other partners. Cuz you know, we think we can make it work in Kansas. We , we need to make sure the other states are on board with that too. And, and to be honest, the more we talk with them , the more they're, they, the more they like it and they're, and they're starting to come to us with ideas.
Speaker 2:So like, you know, one of the things I think sometimes, you know, hurts us and cancel a bit is just like, you know, we're down the list of quite this number of people. But so what you're talking about too is like, you know, essentially Denver, we're in the front range is pulling water essentially over the mountain, and so you wouldn't, they could stop doing that. How many people would you potentially impact, you know, if you can get more water to Arizona, California?
Speaker 3:So the Nevada , Colorado River basin serving about 40 million people. But then the California Aqu system I think is even a little larger than that. But , um, we'll just call it from that side of it, just the Colorado basin, about 40. And then if we could hit the Western High Plains , probably a couple more million on top of that. So, you know, it'd be Lubbock to Oklahoma City, to Wichita, to Kansas City, to southern third of Nebraska to the front range . So
Speaker 2:You're talking really significant.
Speaker 3:Yeah , it'd be , it's a big project that's, and that's why , um, you know, it, it's, it's not a small step to, to move forward when we, when we do move, because you've, to make sure you, you're doing your due diligence on a project like this to , to get it right.
Speaker 2:Yeah . And really, the really other cool thing I think sounds like to me is really, it's not like as a federal taxpayer , it won't cost you anything Right. In theory other than the money up front . I mean, it should .
Speaker 3:Yeah . Um, you know, I I , the way the Central Arizona project was constructed , um, there was a, I think most of these projects were based on a 50 year repayment to the government. And then the government has some obligations in, in permanent law that, you know, if this , this water is delivered to let's say an Indian reservation or to a federal project, and they, they'll carry the freight on that, which no , nobody doesn't expect that. So say , say the project was a dollar and 10, 10% of that was to federal projects or federal obligations, well then the federal government would stand the first 10% of that cost , uh, I would assume anyway. And that's how that's worked in other projects. But to get into the who, who would exactly how it would pay on that, it probably a little deep in the weeds to, to get into it . That's a big discussion. But we've done it several times. And , and , uh, but that said , uh, that's how I see it. It'd be the federal project where the federal government would build it, kind of like the Bureau of Reclamation would've done once upon a time core of engineers would've done once time building those dams and things like that. And so, and then, then the local users over time pay it back.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 3:And so I , I would see probably either a water co-op , um, would probably be the ideal way to do that , um, where you would form that, where the users, depending on how much they use and, and what increment of water they were using, because, you know, I I I , the way I see it, there would be probably a , that first six or eight 10 inches would be at a certain price, but then every inch above that would be more expensive to your operation to in , to uh, ensure that you were using that water and the vest value. You know, if that water's gonna cost you more, if you call for one more inch that you needed to have a value for it, not just because you wanted, you know, some vanity in it and pulling a little more water to make things a little prettier, a little greener. Right.
Speaker 2:Yep . That makes sense. So you almost like, you'd have groups of, and maybe it's per county or maybe the groundwater district might be a good kind of a different areas, things like that, or I don't know how big or small, but something like that to kinda take big , uh, allocate, I guess big portions of that water. You do .
Speaker 3:You know, I, we've, we've got a lot of great organizations here in Kansas that are good at, at , uh, helping with that. You know, we have ditched companies, and so I , I could see that we could see that , that being a , um, a vehicle we used to kind of follow copy what they've done over the years. And they, there's a few little things in there that I, I think even they would say, no , that's a little challenge the way we set it up 50, 70, a hundred years ago in some of these , um, 120 , 130 years ago on some of them . And , uh, so on that side of it, I, I think there'd be a little bit of concern how we do it. But I don't, I don't really have a preference on how it's applicated. It could be a county unit, you know, that, you know, or maybe it's a , well , let's just, you , you're familiar with this. Maybe if there's a Bear Creek unit, you know mm-hmm . <affirmative> and the guys that are eat off this water that comes down the Bear Creek , uh, drainage, you know, would, would manage it to what they needed to do and, and , uh, they would pay for it. Uh , one of the things I , I did think was interesting on a project like this was though , you , you do something like this and it brings sustainability to an area. So stay , it's a 2022 and there's, and the Missouri River's just terrible dry, and there's no water to be harvested. But if we've been going through with this project over the years, and we've built our AFA up a little bit, we can bring a sustainability so we can, we can still use that aquifer when we need to, when it's really dry. And the, and the Missouri River fos aren't there. And I, and I'm using Missouri River just as not, that's the only source, but that's just one that we could use. And so, you know, that's where, When, when guys bring in cash flows to the bank and say, Hey, this is my project and I'm gonna use this much of the , uh, aqueduct water, and, but then I've also got this reserve here that we're trying not to use and trying to save for later if it, if it turns out that those deliveries aren't, can't be made, that I can do this. And, and so it brings a lot of viability to, to , uh, projects or, or for guys that want to , to move forward and , uh, develop the resource for higher values. I , I really don't see a whole lot of new water being used just replacing the water we're using today in , with a more sustainable footprint.
Speaker 2:Right. It almost sounds like ti you can almost use, I mean, well, there's two, you know, like the, the ditch rights like you're talking about, they were, you know, back on the river. And actually it's almost similar to , um, the gas pipeline co-ops or NPUs that you see around too , you know, kind of , I guess learning from the good and bad of all those different deals. And you make a pretty consistent , probably, or
Speaker 3:Yeah , I , I had at least get started
Speaker 2:Anyway.
Speaker 3:I hadn't really thought about the nbu , but you're exactly right. That was, that was just a , a solution where neighbors got together and figured out a solution that worked for all of 'em . And so I, I see this as very similar to that other than one you'll ha we've , um, because you'll be dealing with the federal government not putting the money up yourself , um, that , you know, we'd have to be a little more organized and structured so they would know who to write contracts with and things like that. But that said , uh, you know, I , if, if, if, when we get to that point or when I, when I can switch my thinking over to of how we distribute the water and how we pay for it, my, you know, I'm gonna be pretty happy because that means we've solved the big problem of can we move water uphill?
Speaker 2:Yeah . Yeah. It seems like that's kind of just more of a , a want to than can you really, right.
Speaker 3:So this point . Yeah. Yeah. So , uh, you know, we , we looked at it and , and we, so the first thought is, is there wa water available? Yes, there is according to core of engineers. And , uh, there's multiple spots that it's harvestable. So that's, that's the option too . And there's, and there's more spots than just the , than just the Missouri, but , uh, we'll use that as just a primary guess. That was our fundamental number one. If it wasn't available there, then it made all the others more difficult to be u usable long term . And so then you can , can we, can we move the water uphill? Well, the California aqueduct, the Central Arizona project, two large canals that move a lot of water a long ways, showed that yes, it, it can be done and, and can be done in a, in a very , uh, mindful way. So , um, we , we, we know we can get, we know there's water available and now we, we can get it uphill. So then we have to decide how can we pay for it . And so now that's where the concept was, is this isn't just a Southwest can project, but this is a Western United States project. It'll serve a huge territory, but also it'll help bring in to balance some of those issues that, you know, there's not enough water in the front range to support the cities today. So they have to import it. And it's, and it's inter Intermountain transfers. It comes from the other side of the continental divide, so it not as not draining into the same river basin, and it's not even draining in the same ocean in on, on the return flows. So that said, if we can bring some sustainability there, you know, I, I think this, this makes a good water project for the, for United States and as a long term policy, and not just some farmers in southwest Kansas want to irrigate corn,
Speaker 2:Right? Yeah. It seems like, yeah, it is just an extreme win-win for everybody. And, and , uh, you can imagine too, like, you know, you don't have water. It's kind of tough to be, you know, who's gonna stay in the house anywhere, you know, and some of those places are still growing quite a bit and, and uh, yeah, it just makes total sense. But
Speaker 3:Yeah, we were in , uh, Arizona a couple times this winter and , uh, you know, if you've been to the Phoenix area very, very lately, you, you see the rapid growth, or if you're riding in a cab or an Uber and talking with the drivers and they talk about how fast it's growing and, you know, they're, they're wanting their kids to move back, but they can't find a house within 30 miles of where they live. And just the , how many people are moving into that part of the world? It's, it's staggering. And so, but, but there's changes happening too because of that growth. I think Prescott, Arizona was the 16th fastest growing city in the nation, and they quit issuing water permits for new housing. Cause they don't, they don't know that they have the supply to deliver any more water than they can today. And so to take a , a city that's growing rapidly and shut down because of, of lack of resources, it kind of brings us to the forefront that these are huge changes that are happening there. And with the drop of Lake Powell and Lake Me, those consequences are becoming very real.
Speaker 2:Yep . Wow. So what's your, I guess, action plan next step , uh, as far as getting , uh, through the federal process? What do you have to do next or
Speaker 3:So? Um , yeah , we're, we're , we're working with , uh, a , a group out of Washington DC right now. And to be honest, we're, we're gonna start meeting with them, I think in the next month to , uh, to decide what, what, how we wanna move forward on that right now. Um, I think we're, I think one of our key things is we're touching a lot of states right now, because a few of 'em talked to us three, four years ago and said, Hey, that sounds like a great idea. Let me know when, when you get somewhere with it. And now they're starting to reach out to us privately saying, we need to talk with you.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 3:Um , we, we need to know where you're at. And so , um, to be honest, it's, it's starting to travel a little faster than I'm comfortable with. Um, and so my biggest, my biggest fear is private equity or somebody like that comes up and goes, you know what? Let's just build a pipeline right to the front range. We don't need to support anybody in western Kansas or the High Plains. Let's just, all the money's on the front range. Let's just build it right there.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Just skip us, <laugh>,
Speaker 3:Skip us . And then, so here we are, and as the state of Kansas and, and you know, people living here and paying taxes and making this our livelihoods, you know, that we miss out on a fantastic opportunity to, you know, bring a great deal of valuable , um, water and growth to the entire state. You know, this is tax bases , this is kids in schools, this is , um, property tax issues, this, this, this helps all of that. You know, kids in the universities, things like that, that aren't moving away cuz there's a reason to stay here. Um, we, we've got so much opportunity there and to see something go away because we were shortsighted as a state and didn't take advantage of the ability to, to find a real win-win win for us, that , it'd be a shame to see that.
Speaker 2:Yeah . See that go away for sure. Because it's , uh, like you say, it's, well, and part of what you're probably seeing too, a little bit from the, those other Western states is like, if you don't start, like you're talking about you , you know, you gotta start now for, you know, you can't wait 20 years to get going or you're be in the real bind. So they're getting closer to that. I guess they can see the bind coming a little and Yeah . Area gets a little more real. But
Speaker 3:Yeah, so that , that , and that's, that's a good point too is, is so when, when we talk in Kansas , um, especially with some folks in eastern Kansas , um, with the state, we've had a few issues even, you know, there , there's just, there , they just can't believe that why would you want to do this? You guys just need to shut down and conserve, you know, or just shut down. And then we talk to states , west of us to do these water transfers all the time and they're like, that's, we wouldn't even have some of our cities and , and agriculture at all if we didn't transfer why we do it all the time. It's, it's no big deal. But it's, it's just a , uh, a concept change that we just, I , I think we just need to do some education and get it right and then also let them realize that we're not there to take their drinking water or their, their parks and recreation. We're there for the high in flood flows. If, if it, if it's deemed right to harvest them , you know, if it's not, we, we know what it's like to do without, or we know what it's like with the lawsuits Kansas has had with Colorado on not getting our water. You know, that's, it's damaging and tragic and it, and it doesn't go away. So we're, we're not here to make it worse for anybody. In fact, I'd, I'd like to be a partner with those that are worried about it. So, you know, we've got a reserve for them that says, Hey, if you ever get in a pickle, this is what we can do for you .
Speaker 2:Right.
Speaker 3:Because all of them will be down , every one of 'em will be downstream of us. <laugh>.
Speaker 2:Yeah, <laugh> . Exactly.
Speaker 3:So, yeah , but you know, the nice thing, and so you fast forward this 30, 40 years and we're going strong, you know, the nice thing about it is , is you know, your kids and grandkids and, and your families and towns could, they'll have the, the economic viability and the economies of your local , uh, cities and towns and counties, but then also to , you know, the , there hopefully there's rivers and streams and, and play lakes and things like that. Maybe a reservoir too that brings some recreation. That's kind of been a rare thing out here in this part of the world. So, you know, there's a lot of good there that, that makes a lot of sense. You know, it's this , when it's all said and done and this project's been operating, say the history of it for a hundred years, this'll be a better place because of it. And, and I don't really see a whole lot of downside to it on , in terms of the long term impacts.
Speaker 2:Yeah. I'm kinda like you . I don't either, so we just need ,
Speaker 3:We'll get , I'll , I'll, I'll make sure everybody , I told 'em I talked to Chris and they told me that was a good idea,
Speaker 2:So Yeah, yeah, yeah. Let's go for it. Let's see what happens. But <laugh> yeah , and I think sometimes too, they don't realize , or the rest of the state probably realize like if, you know, we lose all this stuff out here, it impacts them too.
Speaker 3:Um , yeah. Uh, Southwest Kansas, we did a docking study here a few years ago and i, I , I can't remember what the, the total amount was, but it, it was , uh, I wanna say 18% of the state g d p would go away if we lost irrigation in western Kansas. Oh really? Wow. That's a huge number. Yeah. Yeah. It was in , it was in the billions of dollars. And so that's, you know, one why we try to extend and preserve the aquifer as long as we can and do a best job watering as we can. But then also too , it also says why there's so much value in this. Um, there's really no other place to go with the livestock except for a little farther north, but then they start getting into issues that, you know, that they have trouble with the livestock in the winters and things like that. So there's, there's some challenges there too. So yeah, hopefully we can make this work where it's long-term viable for everybody. No , to me it makes, makes sense. And we just gotta, yeah, it's a lot of work. I imagine I, you know, appreciate you guys taking the lead , uh, of , uh, thinking outside the box a little bit and trying to figure out how to make this work. So yeah , we , we've got a good team and , uh, we're hopefully we're moving forward now before we can , uh, start seeing some real progress. We're, I'm pretty excited about what the next 18 months is gonna bring us, so. Okay, well good deal. Well we have , one of our values we use here at the bank is everything is figure outable. It's like we can figure it out. So <laugh> , we'll get her somehow some way , um, yeah, basically if there's a will, there's a way and we'll, we'll figure out how to get it done. So. Yep . Sure enough. Well, I appreciate you taking time. Yeah, thanks Clay. I appreciate you taking the time and , uh, appreciate your willingness to serve and kind of come up with some ideas like this, so, well, we're working on it, so. All right . If you have any questions, just give us a holler. All right . Thanks, clay . Hey , thank you.
Speaker 1:Thanks for listening to DreamMaker Making Dreams Come True. We'd love to connect with you. Find us on social media at fnb Windmill and online@fnbwindmill.com. Heard a topic that could enrich someone else's life too . Be sure to share this podcast with friends and family and check back regularly for new episodes or subscribe so you never miss a show. See you soon.