HB 2433: A Water Grab That Puts Big Cities First and Leaves Rural Kansas High and Dry
It flew through the House, but we are saying... WHOA!
As Kansas grapples with its ongoing water crisis, House Bill 2433 has emerged as a contentious piece of legislation that, on the surface, aims to “clarify” authority over water transfers and appropriations. But dig a little deeper, and it’s clear this bill tips the scales heavily in favor of larger cities at the expense of rural counties. By stripping counties of their ability to regulate water movements within their borders, HB 2433 enables urban areas to siphon resources from rural regions without meaningful local oversight. This isn’t just about water—it’s about power, representation, and the potential for unintended consequences that could devastate small communities. Let’s break it down.
The Bill’s Core: Shifting Power from Counties to the State
HB 2433 amends K.S.A. 19-101a, the statute governing county home rule powers, by adding a new restriction: Counties can no longer enact or enforce resolutions that conflict with, duplicate, or exceed state oversight on water transfers or appropriations. This means no local permits, fees, conditions, or charges related to water movement—except for domestic wells regulated via zoning or sanitary codes. The authority shifts entirely to state entities like the Chief Engineer of the Division of Water Resources and the Water Transfer Hearing Panel. Proponents argue this ensures uniformity under state law, but critics see it as a blatant erosion of local control, applying retroactively to nullify existing county measures.
While the bill doesn’t explicitly hand power to cities, it effectively does so by removing barriers that rural counties use to protect their resources. Big cities, with more resources and political clout, can now push through state-approved transfers to pull water from distant counties where they have no stake or representation. This creates a scenario where urban demands override local interests, all without a truly neutral arbiter— the state panel, after all, may prioritize statewide economic growth over rural sustainability.
A Rushed Path Through the House: Slipping Under the Radar
HB 2433 didn’t face the scrutiny it deserved in the Kansas House, where it slipped through in a remarkably rushed final week. Introduced on January 12, 2026, after prefiling on January 9, it was quickly shuffled from the Water Committee to the Local Government Committee by January 13. A hearing was held on January 28, and the committee issued a favorable report just days later on February 3. From there, it accelerated: The Committee of the Whole advanced it on February 9, and final passage came the next day on February 10 with an overwhelming 116-6 vote.
This compressed timeline—especially the sprint from committee report to floor vote in under a week—left little room for deep debate amid a session already packed with divisive issues like culture wars and other fast-tracked bills. Only a handful of really conservative legislators raised concerns during the process, but by then, the inertia was unstoppable. The five GOP nay votes came from Reps. Bradley Barrett, Brett Fairchild, Samantha Poetter Parshall, Rebecca Schmoe, and Gary White—voices from the right who likely saw the bill as an overreach on local control, but their opposition came too late to halt the momentum. In a chamber dominated by party-line pushes, this bill glided through without the amendments or extended floor time it warranted.
The Hays Connection: A Clear Case of City-Driven Legislation
This bill didn’t materialize in a vacuum. It’s deeply tied to the long-running dispute over the R9 Ranch in Edwards County, where the cities of Hays and Russell have been fighting for over a decade to convert irrigation water rights for municipal use. Hays, facing chronic water shortages, purchased the ranch in the 1990’s and has since navigated state approvals, but Edwards County responded with zoning resolutions to protect local impacts like aquifer depletion, construction damages, and economic harm to agriculture.
Enter HB 2433, sponsored by Rep. Barbara Wasinger (R-Hays), chair of the House Local Government Committee. The bill’s timing is no coincidence—it’s designed to override Edwards County’s restrictions, allowing Hays to proceed with pipelines and transfers. Proponent testimony in the House hearing on January 28, 2026, was dominated by Hays interests: local chambers of commerce, businesses, and Hays residents testified in support, emphasizing that counties shouldn’t duplicate state regulations. Opponents were outnumbered, with only the Kansas Natural Resource Coalition (KNRC) speaking against it, calling it an overreach that centralizes power at the state level. Edwards County’s county attorney submitted written opposition, highlighting the bill’s role in ongoing litigation over R9.
If enacted, it could fast-track Hays’ project, setting a precedent for other cities to raid rural water supplies.
Favoring Cities Over Counties: The Rural Disadvantage
Rural counties like Edwards have little say in Topeka compared to urban powerhouses. With populations under 3,000, they lack the lobbyists and legislative muscle that bigger areas wield. HB 2433 exacerbates this by sidelining counties entirely, allowing cities to demand water from afar without addressing local fallout—think depleted aquifers, lost farm jobs, and strained infrastructure. Unintended consequences? Absolutely. What happens when the next drought hits and rural areas are left parched because their water was piped to growing cities? Or when small counties face legal battles they can’t afford against well-funded urban applicants?
The state oversight isn’t as neutral as it sounds. The Chief Engineer and panel focus on statewide metrics, often favoring economic development in population centers. Rural voices get drowned out, especially since the bill presumes any local regulation conflicts with state authority.1
The Silence of the Kansas Association of Counties
One glaring issue is the Kansas Association of Counties (KAC), which represents all counties but hasn’t strongly opposed HB 2433. Their fiscal note mentions potential increased costs for counties to comply but stops short of outright resistance. Why? Loyalties are split—larger counties with urban ties may benefit or stay neutral, while rural ones suffer. This dilutes KAC’s advocacy, leaving small counties without a unified voice in the legislature.
A Potential Game-Changer: Reviewing the Proposed Senate Amendment
As HB 2433 moves to the Senate, a proposed amendment—titled the “Kansas Areas and Activities of State Interest Act”—has surfaced, which could significantly alter the bill’s impact. This amendment, if adopted, would enact a new framework empowering both cities and counties to designate and regulate “projects of statewide importance,” including large-scale water supply systems, energy facilities, transportation projects, and natural resource extractions that cross boundaries or have major local effects.
For rural counties, this proposed change offers several key benefits that could counteract the original bill’s centralization of power:
- Restored Local Control and Permitting Authority: Counties would gain the ability to require permits for big projects like water transfers or pipelines, allowing them to address direct impacts on roads, bridges, emergency services, water quality, and soil conservation. This is a direct win for places like Edwards County, where officials could enforce setbacks, screenings, or mitigation measures to protect aquifers and farmland—tools stripped away by the House version.
- Protection of Infrastructure and Resources: The amendment explicitly recognizes the “distinct local character” of these projects and authorizes regulations to safeguard economic activity, property values, and community character. Rural areas, often bearing the brunt of infrastructure strain from distant urban demands, could demand financial security bonds for site restoration or decommissioning, ensuring they’re not left with depleted resources or environmental damage.
- Balanced Oversight with State Preservation: While preserving the Division of Water Resources’ authority over water appropriations, the amendment clarifies that local regulations are a valid exercise of home rule powers. This creates a more neutral process, requiring public hearings and specific findings for permit denials, which could give rural counties a stronger voice in state-level decisions without fully preempting them.
- Broader Safeguards for Rural Economies: By including exemptions only for true agricultural uses (excluding commercial energy projects on ag land), the amendment helps prevent exploitation of rural landscapes. It could mitigate unintended consequences like job losses in farming by requiring compatibility with local comprehensive plans and impact assessments.
If this amendment is added in the Senate, it could transform HB 2433 from a rural disadvantage into a more equitable system, providing rural counties with the tools to negotiate fair terms and protect their vital resources. However, as of now, it’s just a proposal—its fate depends on the upcoming hearing.
A Path Forward: Insights from Edwards County Citizens
In conversations with Edwards County residents, a potential compromise has surfaced: Amend the bill to include mandatory local impact assessments or veto rights for affected counties in transfers exceeding certain volumes. This could ensure neutral oversight, perhaps through an expanded panel with rural representation, balancing city needs with rural protections. Without such tweaks, HB 2433 remains a raw deal for places like Edwards, Pawnee, or any rural spot eyed for its water.
A Narrow Window in the Senate: Act Now to Protect Rural Water Rights
The House’s rushed approval has left a very small time window before the Senate takes this up. HB 2433 is now in the Senate Committee on Local Government, Transparency and Ethics, with a hearing scheduled for next Thursday, February 26, 2026. This is our chance to push back—citizens need to email the committee members ASAP to voice concerns and demand protections for rural counties’ water rights. Key members include:
- Chair: Sen. Elaine Bowers (R)
- Vice Chair: Sen. Ronald Ryckman (R)
- Sen. Tory Marie Blew (R)
- Sen. Troy Bowser (R)
- Sen. Kenny Titus (R)
Tell them this bill favors big cities over rural interests and needs amendments for fair, neutral oversight, and this bill needs to voted “NO” without clear protections for rural counties.
Time to Act: Stop HB 2433 in Its Current Form
This bill may solve Hays’ problems, but it creates bigger ones for rural Kansas. It’s innovative for cities, sure, but at what cost? Unchecked urban expansion could accelerate the decline of our agricultural heartland. Contact your senators and the committee before the February 26 hearing—demand amendments for fair representation and local safeguards. Rural Kansas deserves better than being a water ATM for the big cities. Let’s rework this into something equitable, or scrap it altogether.
David Schneider - former Hays, KS resident (1992-1996 FHSU Graduate)