2022 POLICY WATCH No. 13,April 1 , 2022

Kansas Rural Center

Legislative Policy Watch

Issue No. 13, April 1, 2022

Legislative Policy Watch is a weekly online publication of the Kansas Rural Center (KRC) during the State of Kansas legislative session. KRC is a private, non-profit organization that promotes the long term health of the land and its people, through education, research and advocacy that advance an ecologically sound, economically viable, and socially just agriculture.

Policy Watch is produced by Paul Johnson, KRC Policy Analyst, pdjohnson@centurylink.net,

and Mary Fund, Editor, ksrc@rainbowtel.net

2022 Co-Sponsors

www.lwvk.org

League of Women Voters of Kansas

Kansas Natural Resource Council

Climate & Energy Project

www.climateandenergy.org

Kansas Farmers Union

www.kansasfarmersunion.com

Audubon of Kansas

www.audubonofkansas.org

Friends of the Kaw

www.kansasriver.org

Learn More about

KRC

www.kansasruralcenter.org

Editor’s Note:

At publication time, the Kansas Legislature is still building to its first adjournment deadline. The taxation bundle of bills and Senate and House budget agreement will most likely be determined later tonight or early Saturday as the Legislature works to meet today’s deadline. After today, they will take a two week break and return April 25 for the veto or wrap-up session.

Committees will return on April 21 and 22 to work on the Omnibus bill to review funding issues, the budget and tax revenue estimates coming out in April, etc. Also, it is good to keep in mind that anything not addressed or completed today can still come up in the wrap-up session.

Prior to the veto session that begins April 25, Policy Watch will have an update on legislation passed and/or stranded by first adjournment, plus analysis of the budget agreement. We will also have more on the key issues left for the Omnibus legislation that picks up loose ends, ties knots, and brings final gavel in May. Policy Watch issues will resume around April 22.

LEGISLATIVE NOTES

Contributed By Mary Fund

Food Sales Tax

A reduction in state food sales tax is still alive, but will not be determined until final tax bills are decided and final budget bill debates are done (likely by late Friday or early Saturday). But Thursday evening, committees agreed to a 3 year stepped down to zero approach beginning January 2023. But this tax issue appears to be at the bottom of a lengthy tax issue list and may change yet again.

Raw Milk Bill Headed to the Governor

SB 346, the raw milk dairy bill is headed to the Governor's desk. The label for raw milk at the farm must now say 'Raw milk and unpasteurized'. This bill covers extending dairy fees and adding fees to imported milk being processed in Kansas. It has KDA taking over dairy related health emergencies with the ability to close down facilities.

http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2021_22/measures/documents/supp_note_sb346_02_0000.pdf

Redistricting House, Senate and BOE

On Wednesday, the Kansas Legislature sent a bundled bill with redistricting maps for the House, Senate and Board of Education to Gov. Laura Kelly. There were questions and dissension on all especially the BOE map and the carve up of Wyandotte county, but not enough to stop the bills. The Governor could veto the legislation, but a legislative override is likely. She may simply decide to allow the bill to become law without her signature. Maps can be reviewed here

http://www.kslegresearch.org/KLRD-web/Redistricting.html

For more see:

https://kansasreflector.com/2022/03/31/legislature-forwards-house-senate-and-board-of-education-maps-to-governor/

Food Assistance Tied to Work or Training

HB 2448, which adds work and training requirements to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients passed on Thursday. This is despite the fact that the only proponent for the bill was a conservative Florida based organization dedicated to state policy reform that essentially cuts benefits to the poor and low income, works against Medicaid expansion, and reduces voter access while claiming to protect election integrity. Opponents to the bill included those working directly with the people who would be most impacted, saying making the requirements mandatory not voluntary will harm an already vulnerable population.

https://kansasreflector.com/2022/03/31/legislature-ties-snap-for-able-bodied-adults-to-job-training-or-part-time-job/

Status of Education /Bills

The Kansas Association of School Boards (KASB) will have an update following the first adjournment of state legislature (before veto session) later today or tomorrow. But for now here is the status and information on education bills as of March 23 found at:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/scschoolfiles/2391/where_we_stand_march_23.pdf

CONFERENCE COMMITTEE MANEUVERS

By Paul Johnson, KRC Policy Analyst

To better understand how the work of three months comes down to a flurry of conference committee meetings between a limited number of legislators, we offer an explanation below of conference committee process.

Toward the end of a legislative session, conference committees – consisting of 3 House members and 3 Senators – are formed to short-circuit, maneuver and further politicize the passage of law. Normal procedure is for a bill to be introduced in one chamber. The bill is assigned to a committee and hearings are held before passage. The bill goes to the chambers floor for possible amendment on General Orders and final passage the next day with recorded votes. This process is than repeated in the other chamber. If amendments are added, the chamber of origin must accept such changes before final passage to the Governor. Both chambers have had the time to fully understand and fine tune the given legislation.

With a conference committee (that has 6 lawmakers consisting of 4 Republican and 2 Democrats), legislation that has just passed one or the other chamber, can be considered as long as the bills deal with the same subject. The Kansas Constitution (Article 2 – Section 16) is precise in mandating that no bill shall contain more than one subject (except appropriation bills) and that the subject of each bill shall be expressed in its title. (The United States Congress has no such protections.) Four bills (or parts of a bill) on a certain subject may be included in a conference committee report (except this rule does not apply to taxation committees). Conference committee members are selected by the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate with the provision that members can be replaced at any time.

When a bill is returned to the house of origin with amendments by the other house, the house of origin can concur in such amendments, refuse to concur in such amendments or refuse to concur in such amendments and request a conference on the bill. If a conference committee is established, the chair of the conference committee comes from the house of origin. It is less clear on the decision of how many bills or parts of a bill will be included in this conference committee.

If all six members agree and sign the conference committee report, then this conference committee report goes to the floor for a final recorded vote (with no option to amend). If conference committee members cannot agree, a request ‘to agree to disagree’ is made to appoint a second conference committee. In the second conference committee, only a majority vote (the four Republicans) is required to send the conference committee report to the floor.

In essence, these conference committee maneuvers provide a mechanism to bundle popular, must pass, non-controversial bills with more debatable, marginal bills or parts of bills. One chamber has not had the opportunity for a complete review/understanding of parts of this combined conference committee report.

Public involvement in tracking this process is a nightmare. Conference committee meetings generally are rather informal. They meet on the call of the chairperson. Only rarely are they scheduled long in advance. These meetings are open to the public. By the end of this regular session on April 1 and the veto session through early May, there will be several bundled conference committee reports considered and passed. The Governor still has veto authority.

STATE WATER PLAN Should be Better Linked to Federal Conservation Programs

On April 20, the Kansas Water Authority will meet in Emporia to finalize and accept the 2022 Kansas Water Plan. This plan will have detailed research on the key issues: the decline in groundwater aquifers, sedimentation in reservoirs limiting public water storage, and water quality impairments across all of Kansas. The 14 Regional Advisory Committees will have recommended plans of action for their watersheds. There will be some general information on federal conservation programs, but no expenditure numbers or acres impacted.

Following the acceptance of this updated water plan, there should be an addendum developed that precisely tracks the scope and potential of the federal conservation programs in Kansas.

Today Kansas has 1.7 million acres in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Over the next three years, 700,000 acres in these 10-year CRP contracts will expire. What impact may these impacted acres have on the State Water Plan and what options to reenroll the key acres in partial field buffer strips?

In 2021, only 18% of the eligible Conservation Stewardship Program (for working farms) applications were funded. Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) had only 23% of qualified applications funded. These three programs (CRP, CSP, EQIP) totaled $200 million compared to the $20 million State Water Plan Fund. Soil health and carbon sequestration are serious subjects at the national level that will impact conservation opportunities in Kansas going forward. (See NSAC Guide below.)

Guide to USDA Sustainable Farming Programs

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) has published a primer on federal farm programs to assist sustainable and organic growers. The subjects covered include land, conservation, infrastructure/operating expenses, markets and risk management. This primer lists the various programs in terms of who’s eligible and eligible program uses. It includes a listing of more information opportunities and the key USDA agency administering that program. There are explanations on loan terms and application requirements. Special funding may well be offered for beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers & ranchers. On page 26 there is a matrix listing of the USDA programs for these growers. You can find it here:

https://sustainableagriculture.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Growing-Opportunity-Guide-2022-Interactive.pdf

CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING NOTES

The two cases in Wyandotte County challenging the Kansas Congressional map will be combined and the hearing starts on April 4. (The presiding judge has denied internet connection for this trial.) The thought is that a ruling will come by mid-April. The verdict will likely be challenged. The Kansas Supreme Court will most likely take the case at that time and schedule expedited hearings for the last week of April. There is also a challenge to the Congressional map in Douglas County that may well be combined with the Wyandotte case.

There are no Kansas Constitution provisions for reviewing Congressional maps as there are for state legislative maps (where if the legislative maps are not judged ‘viable’ by the Court, the Kansas Legislature has 15 days to draw new maps). Defining ‘viable’ for the Congressional map is the question. Public testimony was heavily weighted towards keeping Wyandotte County whole and no public testimony was presented to drop the City of Lawrence into the Big First district.

The redistricting guidelines - adopted by the Kansas House and Kansas Senate - support compact districts and keeping ‘communities of interest’ intact. As the candidate filing deadline nears (June 1 or June 10), will there be time to send the Congressional map back to the Kansas Legislature or will the Kansas Supreme Court – considering the public testimony and legislative guidelines – draw up the map as happened in 2012 by the three federal judges? What - if any role - might the U.S. Supreme Court play in the Kansas Congressional map? Time will tell.

WIND RIGHTS IN KANSAS: An Overview

After a session with no less than eight bills introduced with the intent to stymie wind energy development in Kansas and mostly under the guise of protecting citizens, some background or history is helpful to understand counties and what some have done regarding wind developments.

To this point, the defining decision on wind rights and local control came from a Kansas Supreme Court decision (Zimmerman v. Board of Wabaunsee County Commissioners) on October 30, 2009. The Kansas Supreme Court ruled that County Commissioners can override the recommendations of the county planning commission or adopt the planning commission’s recommendations in part. The Court recognized the reasonableness of the Commissioners’ actions and that the Commission only had to present facts that were reasonably related to its decision.

A governing body can consider aesthetics, along with other factors, when they make zoning decisions. The Wabaunsee County Commissioners made the decision to prohibit commercial scale wind projects while allowing smaller, residential wind systems. The Kansas Supreme Court never conclusively stated that the Wabaunsee Board had to deny or accept the commercial wind zoning request; it merely stated that the Commissioner’s decision was reasonable.

In 2002, a zoning request for a commercial wind system was made to the Wabaunsee County Planning Commission. At that time, the Wabaunsee County Comprehensive Land Use Plan did not address such large-scale wind projects. The Wabaunsee County Commissioners decided to update the County’s Comprehensive Plan to address wind systems.

After a couple years of updating the plan, the Planning Commission - on a vote of 8 to 2 - recommended both domestic wind systems as well as commercial wind systems (requiring a conditional use permit for proper siting). Up until 1991, a governing body such as a county commission did not have the authority to ‘override’ the planning commission’s recommendations. The governing body could only adopt or return such recommendation. The Wabaunsee County Commissioners – on a 2 to 1 vote – accepted the recommendation for the domestic wind systems but prohibited commercial-scale wind systems. The Commissioners consulted the updated county comprehensive plan, which specifically sought to preserve the scenic nature of the Flint Hills.

The Kansas Supreme Court merely stated that the Board of County Commissioners decision was reasonable. This distinction stresses the highly deferential stance courts will take on zoning matters and other legislative actions. Ideally and correctly, the Court would have taken the same view and analyzed the Board’s decision in the same way if it had approved commercial wind systems. This decision vests the power to the people of Wabaunsee County. If residents feel the Board made the wrong zoning decision, they can always express their disfavor through the democratic process and elect commissioners who would allow commercial wind systems. Residents from other counties take notice that zoning board decisions are likely to upheld.

While the Flint Hills region is closed to commercial wind farm development due to a State Moratorium on this region, to the best of our knowledge, Wabaunsee County is the only Kansas county with a complete prohibition of commercial wind systems, A few other counties have placed moratoriums on commercial wind systems for a set period of time which may be extended or not.

Kansas counties are now beginning to go through similar siting and zoning debates over commercial solar farms, such as being discussed in Johnson and Douglas counties.

Source: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jesl/vol18/iss1/7/

Other Misc. articles:

https://governor.kansas.gov/governor-kelly-reaffirms-tallgrass-heartland-wind-moratorium/

https://www.kansascounties.org/news/news-releases/2018ready-to-go-to-war2019-wind-power-grows-in-kansas-and-missouri-why-do-some-oppose-it

FOOD DESERTS IN KANSAS

and One Neighborhood’s Response

Contributed by Mary Fund

A Kansas News Service story this week focused attention on food deserts in Kansas, particularly focusing on Topeka and Shawnee county. A central Topeka neighborhood that lost its grocery store at the intersection of Huntoon and Lane in 2016 is now a federally designated food desert- defined as “low-income and low-access” areas with limited access to healthy food. The article also refers to a recently released report from the Kansas Health Institute on Food Insecurity in Shawnee County.

Closure of grocery stores in large to small sized towns have left half a million Kansans

or one in six with limited or no access to nearby grocery stores. The rise of dollar stores in such communities does little to nothing to offer fresh healthy food choices. But since 2018, the central Topeka neighborhood has organized the Central Topeka Grocery Store Oasis to raise funds and lease land for a new neighborhood market, and is currently researching co-op and non-profit business models.