Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 82a-718 (2026)

Abandonment of water rights; notices; hearing; review of action; exceptions

✓ current as of May 2026

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

82a-718. Abandonment of water rights; notices; hearing; review of action; exceptions. (a) All appropriations of water must be for some beneficial purpose. Every water right of every kind shall be deemed abandoned and shall terminate when without due and sufficient cause no lawful, beneficial use is henceforth made of water under such right for five successive years. Before any water right shall be declared abandoned and terminated the chief engineer shall conduct a hearing thereon. Notice shall be served on the user at least 30 days before the date of the hearing. The determination of the chief engineer pursuant to this section shall be subject to review in accordance with the provisions of K.S.A. 82a-1901, and amendments thereto.

The verified report of the chief engineer or such engineer's authorized representative shall be prima facie evidence of the abandonment and termination of any water right.

(b) Except as provided in subsection (e), when no lawful, beneficial use of water under a water right has been reported for three successive years, the chief engineer shall notify the user, by certified mail, return receipt requested, that: (1) No lawful, beneficial use of the water has been reported for three successive years; (2) if no lawful, beneficial use is made of the water for five successive years, the right may be terminated; and (3) the right will not be terminated if the user shows that for one or more of the five consecutive years the beneficial use of the water was prevented or made unnecessary by circumstances that are due and sufficient cause for nonuse, which circumstances shall be included in the notice.

(c) The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to a water right that has not been declared abandoned and terminated before the effective date of this act if the five years of successive nonuse occurred exclusively and entirely before January 1, 1990. However, the provisions of subsection (a) shall apply if the period of five successive years of nonuse began before January 1, 1990, and continued after that date.

(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), an eligible water right enrolled in and continually in compliance with the water rights conservation program, pursuant to K.S.A. 82a-741, and amendments thereto, shall be deemed to have due and sufficient cause for nonuse and shall not be deemed abandoned.

(e) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a groundwater right, which has as its local supply an aquifer area that has been closed to new appropriations by rule, regulation or order of the chief engineer shall be deemed to have due and sufficient cause for nonuse and shall not be deemed abandoned.

History: L. 1945, ch. 390, § 19; L. 1957, ch. 539, § 23; L. 1988, ch. 356, § 350; L. 1999, ch. 122, § 1; L. 1999, ch. 149, § 13; L. 2010, ch. 59, § 1; L. 2011, ch. 89, § 26; L. 2012, ch. 6, § 1; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2006–2022 · leading case: Hawley v. Kansas Dep't of Agric., 132 P.3d 870 (Kan. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hawley v. Kansas Dep't of Agric., 132 P.3d 870 (Kan. 2006). · cites it 32× “The sole issue is whether DWR erroneously interpreted K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 82a-718 when it concluded that one of the notice provisions of die statute, subsection (b), was not a condition precedent to termination of a water right pursuant to subsection (a).”

Frick Farm Props., L.P. v. State, Dep't of Agric., 216 P.3d 170 (Kan. 2009). · cites it 15× “17,125 should not be declared abandoned and terminated pursuant to K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 82a-718.” This initial order was finalized by the Secretary of Agriculture in accordance with K.”

Wheatland Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Polansky, 265 P.3d 1194 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 7× “The district court examined several specific issues related to the Division’s decision, finding that the Division correctly refused to address various contentions from intervening landowners that Wheatland had abandoned FI 168, as the Division had not conducted formal…”

Shipe v. Pub. Wholesale Water Supply Dist. No. 25, 210 P.3d 105 (Kan. 2009). “82a-707(a), (c), (e); K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 82a-711; K.S.A. 2008 Supp.”

Frick Farm Props., L.P. v. State, Dep't of Agric., 190 P.3d 983 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 5× “The district court affirmed the DWR order and held: (1) the DWR did not erroneously interpret or apply K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 82a-718(a); (2) K.A.R. 5-7-1 does not impermissibly shift the burden of proof; (3) the termination of the water right was supported by substantial competent…”

Clawson v. State, Dep't of Agric., Div. of Water Resources, 315 P.3d 896 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “82a-770; but the chief engineer cannot alter a water right permanendy, except in cases of abandonment under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 82a-718 or when a water user submits a change-of-use application under K.”

Nelson v. State, Dept. of Agric., 242 P.3d 1259 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “Act] to divert from a definite water supply a specific quantity of water at a specific rate of diversion, provided such water is available in excess of the requirements of all vested rights that relate to such supply and all appropriation rights of earlier date that relate to…”

Claeys v. Claeys, 510 P.3d 1166 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “K.S.A. 82a-718(a). Here, the water permit was one key aspect of the improvement—converting dry land to 7 irrigated land—and the value increase associated with the permit is just one consideration when determining whether there is an improvement.”

— K.S.A. § 82a-718(a) — 7 cases

Frick Farm Props., L.P. v. State, Dep't of Agric., 216 P.3d 170 (Kan. 2009). “17,125 should not be declared abandoned and terminated pursuant to K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 82a-718.” This initial order was finalized by the Secretary of Agriculture in accordance with K.”

Hawley v. Kansas Dep't of Agric., 132 P.3d 870 (Kan. 2006). “The sole issue is whether DWR erroneously interpreted K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 82a-718 when it concluded that one of the notice provisions of die statute, subsection (b), was not a condition precedent to termination of a water right pursuant to subsection (a).”

Wheatland Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Polansky, 265 P.3d 1194 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). “The district court examined several specific issues related to the Division’s decision, finding that the Division correctly refused to address various contentions from intervening landowners that Wheatland had abandoned FI 168, as the Division had not conducted formal…”

Frick Farm Props., L.P. v. State, Dep't of Agric., 190 P.3d 983 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). “The district court affirmed the DWR order and held: (1) the DWR did not erroneously interpret or apply K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 82a-718(a); (2) K.A.R. 5-7-1 does not impermissibly shift the burden of proof; (3) the termination of the water right was supported by substantial competent…”

Clawson v. State, Dep't of Agric., Div. of Water Resources, 315 P.3d 896 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013). “82a-770; but the chief engineer cannot alter a water right permanendy, except in cases of abandonment under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 82a-718 or when a water user submits a change-of-use application under K.”

— K.S.A. § 82a-718(b) — 1 case

— K.S.A. § 82a-718(b)(2) — 1 case

— K.S.A. § 82a-718(c) — 2 cases

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.