Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 82a-711 (2026)

Permits to appropriate water; standards for approval of use; review of action on application

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

82a-711. Permits to appropriate water; standards for approval of use; review of action on application. (a) If a proposed use neither impairs a use under an existing water right nor prejudicially and unreasonably affects the public interest, the chief engineer shall approve all applications for such use made in good faith in proper form which contemplate the utilization of water for beneficial purpose, within reasonable limitations except that the chief engineer shall not approve any application submitted for the proposed use of fresh water in any case where other waters are available for such proposed use and the use thereof is technologically and economically feasible. Otherwise, the chief engineer shall make an order rejecting such application or requiring its modification to conform to the public interest to the end that the highest public benefit and maximum economical development may result from the use of such water.

(b) In ascertaining whether a proposed use will prejudicially and unreasonably affect the public interest, the chief engineer shall take into consideration:

(1) Established minimum desirable streamflow requirements;

(2) the area, safe yield and recharge rate of the appropriate water supply;

(3) the priority of existing claims of all persons to use the water of the appropriate water supply;

(4) the amount of each claim to use water from the appropriate water supply; and

(5) all other matters pertaining to such question.

(c) With regard to whether a proposed use will impair a use under an existing water right, impairment shall include the unreasonable raising or lowering of the static water level or the unreasonable increase or decrease of the streamflow or the unreasonable deterioration of the water quality at the water user's point of diversion beyond a reasonable economic limit. Any person aggrieved by any order or decision by the chief engineer relating to that person's application for a permit to appropriate water may petition for review thereof in accordance with the provisions of K.S.A. 82a-1901, and amendments thereto.

History: L. 1945, ch. 390, § 11; L. 1957, ch. 539, § 16; L. 1977, ch. 356, § 6; L. 1980, ch. 332, § 3; L. 1986, ch. 392, § 3; L. 1991, ch. 292, § 3; L. 1999, ch. 130, § 5; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1956–2019 · leading case: Cochran v. State, 249 P.3d 434 (Kan. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cochran v. State, 249 P.3d 434 (Kan. 2011). · cites it 9× “The Chief Engineer of the DWR entered an initial order denying the Cochrans' request on March 26, 2008, finding that the Cochrans lacked standing under K.S.A. 82a-711(c) to request a hearing challenging the City's permits.”

Wheatland Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Polansky, 265 P.3d 1194 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “Specifically, K.S.A. 82a-711(a) provides that if an applicant’s proposal “neither impairs a use under an existing water right nor prejudicially and unreasonably affects the public interest, the chief engineer shall approve [it].”

Clawson v. State, Dep't of Agric., Div. of Water Resources, 315 P.3d 896 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 6× “*795 On February 6, 2012, Clawson filed a motion to alter or amend, alleging the district court failed to address “[w]hether unlawful impairment occurs when a junior groundwater right impacts a hydraulically connected senior surface water right, but the impact is not beyond a…”

Garetson Bros. v. Am. Warrior, Inc., 347 P.3d 687 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “82a-717a to mean that some impairment of a senior or vested water right by diversion is acceptable, so long as it is not “beyond a reasonable economic limit”—a phrase found in K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 82a-711(c). In response, FRE contends that it was appropriate for the district court…”

Shipe v. Pub. Wholesale Water Supply Dist. No. 25, 210 P.3d 105 (Kan. 2009). “In addition, the KWAA dedicates water resources to the use of the public, prohibits water rights in excess of the reasonable needs of the appropriators, and subjects water rights to the principle of beneficial use.”

F. Arthur Stone & Sons v. Gibson, 630 P.2d 1164 (Kan. 1981). · cites it 2× “With regard to whether a proposed use will impair a use under an existing water right, impairment shall include the unreasonable raising or lowering of the static water level or the unreasonable increase or decrease of the streamflow or the unreasonable deterioration of the…”

Garetson Bros. v. Am. Warrior, Inc., 435 P.3d 1153 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 6× “Also, [Garetson] asserts that K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 82a-711 does not apply to the circumstances presented in this case.”

Baumann v. Smrha, 145 F. Supp. 617 (D. Kan. 1956). · cites it 2× “Section 82a-711 provides that it shall be the duty of.”

— K.S.A. § 82a-711(a) — 2 cases

Wheatland Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Polansky, 265 P.3d 1194 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). “Specifically, K.S.A. 82a-711(a) provides that if an applicant’s proposal “neither impairs a use under an existing water right nor prejudicially and unreasonably affects the public interest, the chief engineer shall approve [it].”

Clawson v. State, Dep't of Agric., Div. of Water Resources, 315 P.3d 896 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013). “*795 On February 6, 2012, Clawson filed a motion to alter or amend, alleging the district court failed to address “[w]hether unlawful impairment occurs when a junior groundwater right impacts a hydraulically connected senior surface water right, but the impact is not beyond a…”

— K.S.A. § 82a-711(b) — 1 case

— K.S.A. § 82a-711(c) — 3 cases

Cochran v. State, 249 P.3d 434 (Kan. 2011). “The Chief Engineer of the DWR entered an initial order denying the Cochrans' request on March 26, 2008, finding that the Cochrans lacked standing under K.S.A. 82a-711(c) to request a hearing challenging the City's permits.”

Garetson Bros. v. Am. Warrior, Inc., 347 P.3d 687 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015). “82a-717a to mean that some impairment of a senior or vested water right by diversion is acceptable, so long as it is not “beyond a reasonable economic limit”—a phrase found in K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 82a-711(c). In response, FRE contends that it was appropriate for the district court…”

Garetson Bros. v. Am. Warrior, Inc., 435 P.3d 1153 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019). “Also, [Garetson] asserts that K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 82a-711 does not apply to the circumstances presented in this case.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.