Kansas needs designated funding for conservation or we leave federal resources on the table

What was your experience like the last time you visited a natural area in Kansas?

Did you hike at a state park? Boat or fish at a reservoir? Paddle the Kaw or the Arkansas River National Water Trails? Hunt at a wildlife area? What did you notice while you were there? How did your experience compare with other states or federal natural areas you’ve visited?

Kansas ranks next to last (49 out of 50) in terms of proportion of public lands, just ahead of Rhode Island. This may not come as a shock to folks who have attempted to recreate outdoors in Kansas. Lack of access to public lands often translates to an underappreciation for Kansas’ natural resources and landscapes. These factors likely contributed to our state’s long history of underinvestment in conservation.

Currently, Kansas is among only 15 states with no designated state source for conservation funding (Trust for Public Land, Kansas Conservation Funding Feasibility Study 2023). As a result, Kansas leaves billions of dollars in federal conservation funding on the table, each year.

Conservation funding is maximized when state investments in parks, natural areas, soil and water conservation practices, and the like are leveraged as matching funds for much larger federal grants. For example, a state may only need to invest 25% of the cost to build and establish a local park or boat ramp to bring in 75% matching federal grant funding.

Federal grants allocated to this type of conservation infrastructure are numerous and diverse.

One example, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, appropriates $900 million annually specifically for the acquisition and development of public parks and other outdoor recreation sites throughout the nation. States’ ability to capture these funds is limited by the amount of funding they can supply as non-federal match through their own investments in conservation.

There are few instances of both Oklahoma and Missouri besting our state. Kansas’ failure to invest in parks and recreation areas has put us in last place among neighboring states in both numbers of LWCF projects funded and total funding received throughout the last half century. LWCF represents just one of many federal conservation funding mechanisms that Kansas continually allows to pass us by.

If improvements and expansions to public parks don’t appeal to you, consider the increased funding potential for private and agricultural conservation.

Agricultural conservation programs can increase the efficiency of farming and ranching operations by reducing input costs and producing more stable yields. These projects and practices can also benefit society, as they often improve wildlife habitat, soil health and downstream water quality. While these agricultural conservation practices can benefit a farmer’s bottom line in the long run, they can be expensive to implement.

On-farm projects such as soil and water conservation measures; irrigation efficiency improvements; and grazing land rest, rotation and management require considerable investments by producers that don’t always pencil out financially for their operations. If we ask farmers and ranchers to make these changes to benefit the Kansas landscape and its people, shouldn’t we be willing to invest state funds in the effort?

Numerous agriculture-specific federal funding pools exist that Kansas continually fails to capitalize on. For years, conservation leaders have noted that the USDA in Kansas has not capitalized on all the potential funding for agricultural conservation projects, simply because we have failed to invest state matching funds to capture those dollars. For a state like Kansas that regularly touts its support for farmers and how their operations feed the nation, such minor investments seem like low-hanging fruit.

Increased state investments in conservation could take many forms: parks and recreation infrastructure, water quality and aquatic habitat improvements, soil health and nutrient conservation practices, wildlife and habitat improvements, and so many more. Investments in conservation not only benefit our state’s landscape and the native species that call it home, but contribute to the Kansas economy and improve the livelihoods of all residents.

Whether you hike, birdwatch, hunt, fish or farm, conservation investments benefit you and your loved ones’ quality of life.

Our state Legislature could put our tax dollars to better use and create a state conservation fund in 2024. The longer we wait to act, the more we miss out on. The state would put our money where our hearts are — in the pastures, parks, and preserves that make Kansas great.

Libby Albers is the executive director of the Kansas Alliance for Wetlands and Streams. Andrew Rutter is the group’s Upper Wakarusa Watershed coordinator. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.