Voice For Liberty

Tag: Featured

  • Wichita water statistics update

    Wichita water statistics update

    With adequate river flow every day, the Wichita ASR water project produced water equivalent to six days design capacity during July 2016.

    Since this article was written, the city has changed the way it determines the availability of water in the river. This may change some of the conclusions made below, but I believe the changes are minor.

    An important part of Wichita’s water supply infrastructure is the Aquifer Storage and Recovery program, or ASR. This is a program whereby water is taken from the Little Arkansas River, treated, and injected in the Equus Beds aquifer.1 2 That water is then available in the future as is other Equus Beds water.

    With a cost so far of $247 million, the city believes that ASR is a proven technology that will provide water and drought protection for many years. In 2014 the city recommended that voters approve $250 million for its expansion, to be paid for by a sales tax.3 Voters rejected the tax in the November 2014 election.

    July 2016 production

    Flow of the Little Arkansas River at Valley Center. The ASR project is able to draw from the river when the flow is above 30 cfs at this measurement station. (Click charts for larger versions.)
    Flow of the Little Arkansas River at Valley Center. The ASR project is able to draw from the river when the flow is above 30 cfs at this measurement station. (Click charts for larger versions.)
    In July 2016, the ASR project recharged 158,770,175 gallons of water.4 The design capacity for ASR is 30,000,000 gallons per day, so production for the entire month of July was about six days design capacity. For other context, in 2015 the Wichita Water Utility produced 18,942 million gallons of water.5 The water recharged in July 2016 is 0.84 percent of this.

    The ASR project is able to draw from the Little Arkansas River when the flow is above 30 cfs. As shown in the chart of the flow of the river, there was adequate river flow for ASR to operate every day of the month for July 2016. This is counting only those days when the flow was above 30 cfs for the entire day.6

    ASR project background and production

    According to city documents, the original capacity of the ASR phase II project to process water and pump it into the ground (the “recharge” process) was given as “Expected volume: 30 MGD for 120 days.” That translates to 3,600,000,000 (3.6 billion or 3,600 million) gallons per year. ASR phase II was completed in 2011.

    Gallons of Water Recharged Through Recharge Basins and Wells during Wichita ASR Phase II, cumulative since July 2013.
    Gallons of Water Recharged Through Recharge Basins and Wells during Wichita ASR Phase II, cumulative since July 2013.
    At a city council workshop in April 2014, Director of Public Works and Utilities Alan King briefed the council on the history of ASR, mentioning the original belief that ASR would recharge 11,000 acre feet of water per year. But he gave a new estimate for production, telling the council that “What we’re finding is, we’re thinking we’re going to actually get 5,800 acre feet. Somewhere close to half of the original estimates.” The new estimate translates to 1,889,935,800 (1.9 billion) gallons per year.7

    Based on experience, the city has produced a revised estimate of ASR production capability. What has been the actual experience of ASR? The U.S. Geological Survey has ASR figures available here. I’ve gathered the data and performed an analysis. (Click charts for larger versions.)

    Gallons of Water Recharged Through Recharge Basins and Wells during Wichita ASR phase II, monthly.
    Gallons of Water Recharged Through Recharge Basins and Wells during Wichita ASR phase II, monthly.
    I’ve produced a chart of the cumulative production of the Wichita ASR project compared with the original projections and the lower revised projections. The lines for projections rise smoothly, although it is expected that actual production is not smooth. The second phase of ASR was completed sometime in 2011, but no water was produced and recharged that year. Further, 2013 was a drought year, so to present ASR in the best possible light, I’ve prepared a chart starting in July 2013. That was when it started raining heavily, and data from USGS shows that the flow in the Little Arkansas River was much greater. Still, the ASR project is not keeping up with projections, even after goals were lowered.

    On the chart of monthly production, the horizontal line represents the revised annual production projection expressed as a constant amount each month. This even rate of production is not likely, as river flow varies. In the three years that ASR phase II has been in production, that monthly target been exceeded in six months.

    ASR days of flow and work through July 2016.
    ASR days of flow and work through July 2016.

    ASR operating efficiency through July 2016.
    ASR operating efficiency through July 2016.
    Two nearby charts give an idea of the efficiency of operation of the ASR project. (Click charts for larger versions.) For each month, I counted how many days had a river flow above 30 cfs at every measurement for the day. (The flow is measured many times each day.) If a day had all measurements above 30 cfs, I counted that as a day of adequate river flow. I then calculated the number of days of work actually accomplished using the water produced each month, the number of days of adequate river flow for the month, and the ASR design capacity.

    As can be seen in the charts, the ASR project is operating far below its design goal.

    At one time the city was proud enough of the ASR project that it maintained an informative website at wichitawaterproject.org. That site no longer exists.
    At one time the city was proud enough of the ASR project that it maintained an informative website at wichitawaterproject.org. That site no longer exists.

    —
    Notes

    1. City of Wichita. Wichita Area Future Water Supply: A Model Program for Other Municipalities. Available at www.wichita.gov/Government/Departments/PWU/UtilitiesDocuments/WICHITA%20AREA%20FUTURE%20WATER%20SUPPLY.pdf. ↩
    2. City of Wichita. Equus Beds Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project. Available at www.wichita.gov/Government/Departments/PWU/Pages/PublicWaterSupply.aspx. ↩
    3. City of Wichita. Plans and Background on Proposed 1 cent Sales Tax. Available at wichitaliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/City-Sales-Tax-Information.pdf. ↩
    4. United States Geological Survey. Equus Beds Water Recharge. Available at ks.water.usgs.gov/water-recharge. ↩
    5. Wichita, City of. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2015. Page J-14. ↩
    6. United States Geological Survey. USGS 07144200 L ARKANSAS R AT VALLEY CENTER, KS. Available at waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv?site_no=07144200. ↩
    7. Wichita City Council Workshop, April 8, 2014. Video available at wichitaks.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=2548. ↩
  • WichitaLiberty.TV: Gidget Southway, or Danedri Herbert

    WichitaLiberty.TV: Gidget Southway, or Danedri Herbert

    This week on WichitaLiberty.TV: Danedri Herbert, also known as Gidget Southway, visits Wichita and WichitaLiberty.TV. Her blog is Kansas GOP Insider. This interview was recorded on July 27, 2016. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 126, broadcast August 7, 2016.

  • Wichita Business Journal editorial missed the news on the Wichita economy

    Wichita Business Journal editorial missed the news on the Wichita economy

    A Wichita business newspaper’s editorial ignores the history of our local economy. Even the history that it reported in its own pages.

    Of the several problems with a Wichita Business Journal editorial, the worst is the author’s view that now, with the result of the David Dennis/Karl Peterjohn election for Sedgwick County Commission, the Wichita area can return to making progress in economic growth. The article is full of phrases like “good news for anyone in Wichita who values the city’s growth” and “We once took pride, in Wichita and in Kansas, in our record of pragmatic, collaborative economic growth.”1

    Chung Report cover image from Facebook 2016-08-08Except: This is not truthful. Making such a claim ignores the evidence. Anyone who pays attention knows economic growth in the Wichita area has lagged for a long time. Even the Wichita Metro Chamber of Commerce belatedly came to this conclusion. Even the Wichita Community Foundation realizes it, having just started a project titled “The Chung Report: Examining Wichita’s Economic Downtown and How We Can Reverse It.”

    None of this should be a secret to the editorial writers at the Wichita Business Journal. Two years ago it reported on, and showed, a chart from the Wichita Chamber that is similar to the chart at the end of this article.2 That chart showed slow job growth in the Wichita area. The Chamber used it to campaign for a new sales tax in Wichita.

    Why don’t Wichita Business Journal editorial writers understand this? Regardless of one’s view on government’s role in economic development, to write as though we’ve had much growth in Wichita is factually incorrect. It’s not responsible.

    An interactive visualization that is the source of the following chart is available here.

    Wichita MSA and other job growth. Click for larger.
    Wichita MSA and other job growth. Click for larger.

    —
    Notes

    1. Wilson, Bill. Kansas, Wichita take a step to the center. Wichita Business Journal, August 5, 2016. Available at www.bizjournals.com/wichita/blog/2016/08/kansas-wichita-take-a-step-to-the-center.html. ↩
    2. Stearns, John. Chamber speakers: Wichita’s red line on jobs recovery a call to action. Wichita Business Journal, February 7, 2014. Available at www.bizjournals.com/wichita/blog/2014/02/chamber-speakers-wichitas-red-line.html. ↩
  • In Wichita, your house numbers may become illegal

    In Wichita, your house numbers may become illegal

    House numbers that may become illegal in Wichita.
    House numbers that may become illegal in Wichita.
    Thousands of Wichita homeowners may soon be lawbreakers if the city council follows its staff’s recommendation.

    An update is at the end of this article.

    This week the Wichita City Council may make your house number illegal, even though those numbers may — literally — be set in stone. This will be the case if the council takes the action recommended by its Department of Public Works and Utilities.

    Current city code requires address numbers three inches high. The proposed ordinance requires numbers four inches tall. The penalty for noncompliance is $500 per day, with each day being “a separate and distinct offence.”

    Existing and proposed ordinances

    The existing city code:1

    Sec. 10.04.190. – Same — Duty of owner or occupant to place; size, etc.

    The owner or occupant of each and every house or building in the city is required to place on the house or building, in a conspicuous place, numbers of at least three inches in height of a type to be selected by the owner or occupant, which numbers shall be in conformity with and according to the provisions of the two preceding sections of this chapter. (Ord. No. 14-491 § 2)

    The proposed code.2

    SECTION 10. Section 10.04.190 of the Code of the City of Wichita, Kansas, is hereby amended to read as follows:

    “Duty of owner or occupant to place; size, etc.”

    The owner or occupant of every house or building in the City is required to conspicuously place on the house or building house numbers of at least four (4) inches in height. Painting house numbers on the Curb alone shall not be sufficient to comply with this Section.

    Such numbers shall be consistent with Sections 10.04.170 and 10.04.180. Such numbers shall be of a sufficient contrast such that police officers and firefighters can read the numbers from the abutting street. Any property owner failing to comply with this Section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed five hundred (500) dollars. Each day house numbers are not properly placed on the house or building is a separate and distinct offence.

    Update
    At its August 9 meeting, the city council deferred this item to September.

    —
    Notes

  • Which Kansas Governor made these proposals?

    Which Kansas Governor made these proposals?

    Cutting spending for higher education, holding K through 12 public school spending steady, sweeping highway money to the general fund, reducing aid to local governments, spending down state reserves, and a huge projected budget gap. Who and when is the following newspaper report referencing?

    Under _____ budget for fiscal _____, public schools would continue to receive $3,863 per student in state aid, and higher education would lose only $5 million in general tax dollars, mostly in the central Board of Regents office.

    But _____ would take $165 million from highway projects and eliminate $86 million in aid to local governments — on top of the $95 million _____ withheld from highway projects and $48 million _____ kept from cities and counties.

    _____ also made a campaign promise to build all projects promised under the state’s 10-year, $13.5 billion transportation program. _____ proposals didn’t say how the Department of Transportation would deal with the loss of funds.

    _____ budget also would allow the Kansas Highway Patrol to hire 70 new troopers, give state employees a 1.5 percent pay raise, and prevent the closings of four minimum-security prison units and two inmate boot camps.

    Under _____ proposals, total spending in fiscal _____ would decrease about $31 million, or 0.4 percent.

    But that figure didn’t convey the seriousness of the state’s budget problems, which some officials have said are the worst since the Great Depression. The gap between expected general tax revenues and spending commitments during the next 18 months is more than $1 billion.

    _____ also proposed to help eliminate the gap by spending some $313 million — all but $500,000 — that otherwise would be set aside as emergency cash reserves.

    This is coverage from John Hanna of the State of the State Address from Governor Kathleen Sebelius in 2003, where she revealed plans for the fiscal 2004 budget. (Except the blank in “on top of the $95 million _____ withheld from highway projects” refers to her predecessor Bill Graves.) The original article is here.

  • WichitaLiberty.TV: The State of Kansas

    WichitaLiberty.TV: The State of Kansas

    In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Jonathan Williams helps us understand what’s right — and wrong — with Kansas. Williams is Vice President for the Center for State Fiscal Reform at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). View below, or click here to view at YouTube.

    Shownotes

    • American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)
    • Rich States, Poor States, ninth edition. This volume holds the most recent state-by-state rankings.
    • Rich States, Poor States, eighth edition. This volume holds Chapter 4, titled “Lessons from Kansas: A Behind the Scenes Look at America’s Most Discussed Tax Reform Effort.”

  • Roger Marshall campaign setting new standards

    Roger Marshall campaign setting new standards

    Attacks on Tim Huelskamp reveal the worst in political campaigning.

    When the campaign of Roger Marshall accuses Tim Huelskamp of being in favor of abortion, you know his campaign is spiraling out of control. Either that, or the Marshall campaign is deliberately lying about a politician’s record.

    Beyond this issue, the Marshall campaign and its surrogates are making arguments that simply have no basis in reality. An example is one radio ad, placed by an independent spending group, that uses the term “Washing-Tim.” The ad tries to persuade voters that Huelskamp has sold out to the Washington establishment. That is a true whopper, as Huelskamp has been anything but an establishment crony.

    As an example, Huelskamp opposed the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank last year. This is an issue that draws a bright line, with progressive Democrats and left-wing Republicans on one side, and free-market, limited government conservatives on the other. The issue truly and precisely sorts politicians into two groups, and Huelskamp is on the right side of this issue. Which is to say, the non-establishment side. Yet, we get “Washing-Tim” from Marshall supporters.

    Part of the problem is that officeholders in legislatures, both state and federal, must often vote on bills that contain hundreds of provisions. This bundling of so many often disparate issues into one vote allows unscrupulous campaigns to label someone as a supporter of an issue. That’s what the Marshall campaign and its surrogates are doing.

    Mark Holden, a top leader of groups that support free-market causes including Americans for Prosperity, told The Hill this:

    I don’t know who is behind [the ESAFund], I’ve heard different rumors about it, but Mr. Singer and the Ricketts family have been good partners of ours in the past and in the present as well. I totally am mystified by Ending Spending and their point of view. I just wonder who could be better [than Huelskamp] on the issues that a group like Ending Spending, I mean their whole name … who could be better on these issues than Tim Huelskamp? If you believe in fiscal responsibility, fiscal conservatism, the proper role of government, particularly on these economic issues that I’m talking about and that our network is focused on; we don’t know of anyone who’s better than Tim Huelskamp.

    Huelskamp’s free-market bona fides are buttressed by his lifetime ratings with groups that focus on fiscal conservatism. Club for Growth rates Huelskamp at 100 percent lifetime. Americans for Prosperity scores him at 98 percent.

    During election season, especially in close campaigns, we’re accustomed to seeing campaigns paint opponents in unflattering light. The Roger Marshall campaign and its surrogates, however, may be establishing a new standard for deceptive behavior and outright lies.

  • In Sedgwick County, special interest politics on display

    In Sedgwick County, special interest politics on display

    Campaign finance reports reveal special interest groups working to elect candidates. Their efforts to mold a candidate’s thinking appear to be working.

    Why do people make political campaign contributions? I try to be optimistic. I’m willing to believe that people have sincerely-held beliefs.

    But when you look under the covers, I find myself in agreement with Lily Tomlin, who quipped “No matter how cynical you become, it’s never enough to keep up.”

    A few days ago I showed how the campaign finance report for David Dennis, a candidate for Sedgwick County Commission, was full of contributions from people who regularly ask government for special favors and subsidy, people who campaigned for the Wichita city sales tax, and Democrats who are ideologically presupposed to higher taxes.1 In other words, people who believe they know better than you how to spend your money, and believe David Dennis will give them more to spend.

    But I didn’t go far enough. The Wichita Eagle’s Daniel Salazar found this: “He [Dennis] received at least $4,814 in direct donations from board members of the Sedgwick County Zoological Society.”2

    This is classic and explicit special interest group behavior. The group members contribute a little bit to a candidate in expectation of reaping big benefits for their special interest.

    Economists call this rent seeking, defined as “An attempt to obtain economic rent (i.e., the portion of income paid to a factor of production in excess of what is needed to keep it employed in its current use) by manipulating the social or political environment in which economic activities occur, rather than by creating new wealth.”3 That obscure term has been partially supplanted by a term more readily understood: cronyism.

    And it appears to be working. Salazar’s article quotes Dennis: “I don’t think it’s (funding) adequate based on what I’ve learned. I think we’re going to have to do a complete review of what’s required to run the zoo.”4

    There it is. I wonder who David Dennis consulted for his research?

    —
    Notes

    1. Weeks, Bob. A look at a David Dennis campaign finance report. Available at wichitaliberty.org/sedgwick-county-government/look-david-dennis-campaign-finance-report/. ↩
    2. Salazar, Daniel. Dennis draws more donations than Peterjohn, including from zoo board members. Wichita Eagle, July 27, 2016. Available at www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/election/article92135002.html. ↩
    3. Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking ↩
    4. ibid. ↩
  • A National Perspective on Kansas Fiscal Policy

    A National Perspective on Kansas Fiscal Policy

    Jonathan Williams, Vice President in charge of the Center for State Fiscal Reform at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), addressed a luncheon gathering of the Wichita Pachyderm Club on July 22, 2016, presenting “A National Perspective on Kansas Fiscal Policy.” View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Videography by Paul Soutar.