The Wakarusa River
The Wakarusa River floodplain was flattened into an inordinately broad drainage area when rushing Independence glacial meltwater breached the banks of the Kansas River west of an ice jam near Wamego.(1) The unusual backswamp phenomenon contributed to the watershed’s diverse soil composition and subsequent ecological mosaic.(2)
Archeological evidence suggests human-land interactions extending back 10,000 years. The Valley’s wide variety of flora and fauna sustained numerous small Native American villages connected by foot trails and the network of streams. (3)
During his 1819-1820 expedition, Steven Long, reported visiting the Indian village “Warreruza.” By the mid-1800’s the Wakarusa Mission was located at the site and it was being referred to as the Wakarusa Fort. Near the fort the Oregon Trail from Westport crossed the Wakarusa at Bluejacket’s ferry (Bluejacket being the grandson of Shawnee Chief Bluejacket). (4)
The Wakarusa River Valley was the site of frequent conflict during the Bleeding Kansas era. Coinciding with the Native American developments in Wakarusa, the free-state activitists were sheparding escaped slaves to freedom. Many of the Underground Railroad sites were located along the Wakarusa River as the earliest settlers made land claims for the richer soils and timbered-lined riverside. Some 300 to 1,000 slaves are estimated to have traveled through the Wakarusa Valley, theorectially making use of the smaller river for more concealed east/west travel than afforded by the Kansas River. (5)
The watershed continues its rich history of agricultural production. An 1878 report to the Kansas Board of Agriculture reports an estimated UWW-DG crop value of $5.1 million when adjusted to the 2005-dollar value.(6) Comparably, 120+ years later, the 2001 UWW-DG area crop value was $7.9 million.(7)
______________________________________________________________________________
Overview of the Situation
Clinton Lake, a federal reservoir in northeastern Kansas, was built in the early 1970’s to control flooding along the Missouri River as well as to reduce future local-level flood damage. A decade earlier the City of Lawrence prepared its first Comprehensive Plan in 1964, citing the economic boom the lake would provide.(8)
Four main benefit strands were studied during a November 1968 community conference led by Douglas County Extension and the Lawrence League of Women Voters:
a) reduced local flood damage,
b) enhanced commercial opportunities tied to recreation and tourism interests,
c) accelerated land speculation gains, and
d) additional community water supply options.
The social and environmental ramifications of the lake were explored and it was clearly recognized that conservation and protection measures would be necessary for sustaining the lake. (9)
Thirty-five years have passed since the workshop outcomes were carefully documented, bound, and distributed. Unfortunately, a plan for preventative action was not mapped out.
The prospective “benefits of the lake” have now become necessities for sustaining the economic health of northeastern Kansas. The lake’s social benefits begat environmental stresses and issues surrounding water quality arose. The 1968 observations are now resoundingly poignant.
Producers east of the dam have protection from the reported annual flooding. Catastrophic damages to Haskell Indian Nation University, residential neighborhoods, and municipal infrastructure have been prevented. However, robust commercial areas have cropped up without natural floodplain constraints.
The Corps of Engineers(COE)estimates visitors spent $17.1 million in 2001.(10) A number of public and private recreational areas and opportunities have been developed near and around the lake. However, the lake’s ability to retain this recreational interest is contingent upon, among other things, user’s perceived aesthetics.
Over the past 120 years the total number of UWW-DG acres cropped has increased an estimated 33%. This closely matches the estimated 35% growth in the total market value of UWW-DG crops.(11) On a smaller time scale, between 1995 and 2000, the county lost 65 farms (or 7.5% of the 1995 total). The average Kansas county percentage farm loss during the same five years was only 3%. (12) From 1997 to 2002, Douglas County lost an estimated 12,000 acres of arable farmland and the market value of production fell by $14 million. (13)
As predicted in Lawrence’s 1964 Comprehensive Plan, the population of Douglas County has exploded – nearly doubling since the building of the Clinton Lake Dam. The county’s rate of growth over the last thirty years is almost triple Kansas’ overall growth rate.(14)
Currently over 100,000 people use the lake for drinking water supply. Population projections for year 2040 indicate a likely doubling of Douglas County area residents and thirst. (15) The ballooning annual water needs for UWW based suppliers will swell to over 8 billion gallons (16) or a 38 square mile area flooded under a foot of water. This is serendipitously similar to Clinton Lake’s 35 square miles area of COE management.
UWW and Clinton Lake have been identified as high priority areas by KDHE for restoration and protection through implementation of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) goals. The watershed has a TMDL for fecal coliform bacteria and the Lake has a TMDL for eutrophication, caused by excess nutrients. A WRAPS was developed by the KVHA and released in February of 2003. The report provides a studied compilation of UWW research and conservation efforts and establishes water quality objectives for the entire watershed. Subwatersheds have been prioritized for goal implementation.
The WRAPS document is a blueprint for action. However, actually achieving the water quality objectives will require coordinating the efforts of diverse public and private sector stakeholders. Retaining the benefits of WRAPS implementation will require ongoing, long-term systems for cooperative watershed management.
****************************
Note: The details used throughout focus on the Douglas County portion of the UWW (UWW-DG) for statistical simplicity and for the sake of a more complete understanding of the current UWW WRAPS priority areas.
Citations
1 – Shortridge, James R. Kaw Valley Landscapes. University of Kansas Press. 1988. pg 183.
2 – Richardson, Dr. Jimmie. North Dakota State University. Statement provided to KDOT’s Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement regarding the South Lawrence Trafficway. 1999. addtl. Pers. Com. March 2005.
3 – Haines, Chuck. “Background on Wakarusa River Valley.” Haskell Indian Nations University. 1996. adtl info pers. com 3/31/05
4 – Root, George A. Ferries in Kansas. February 1937. Kansas State Historical Society. (Vol 6 No1) pg 14-20. trans. Gardner Smith.
5 – Underground Railroad Association of Douglas County, Kansas. 3/31/2005. http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com
6 – First Biennial Report of the State Board if Agriculture to te Legislature of the State of Kansas for the Years 1877-78. transcribed by Tom and Carolyn Ward as part of the KSGenWeb Project. http://skyways.lib.ks.us/genweb/archives/1878/douglas.shtml Visited 3/28/2005.
7 - THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS Kansas Center for Community Economic Development Policy Research Institute TECHNICAL REPORT SERIES Economic Trends Report: Lawrence Prepared by Luke Middleton Research Economist February 2003 Report No. 68 Genna M. Hurd Co-Director, KCCED Steven Maynard-Moody Director, Policy Research Institute.
8 – Bartholomew, Harland and Assoc. The Comprehensive Plan for Lawrence, KS. 1964.
9 – Lawrence League of Women Voters. Clinton Reservoir: Challenge for Douglas County, Proceedings of Conference Held November 20, 1968. pub. DG County Extension, Lawrence League of Women Voters, & League of Women Voters of US Education Fund (under a grant awarded by the FWPCA, Dept. of Interior).
10 – Kaw Valley Heritage Alliance. Upper Wakarusa Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (UWW WRAPS). 2003.
11 – Calculations based on a comparison of an 1878 Report to the Kansas Board of Agriculture regarding Douglas County with the USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service’s 2002 Census of Agriculture County Profile for Douglas County, Kansas.
12 - SITUATION & TRENDS DOUGLAS COUNTY January 2002 Janet L. Griesel, Extension Associate John C. Leatherman, Director Sarah Grant, Research Assistant Rebecca Bishop, Design Assistant Provided as a service of the Douglas County Extension Office.
13 - 2002 Census of Agriculture County Profile for Douglas County, Kansas. USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service.
14 - SITUATION & TRENDS DOUGLAS COUNTY January 2002 Janet L. Griesel, Extension Associate John C. Leatherman, Director Sarah Grant, Research Assistant Rebecca Bishop, Design Assistant Provided as a service of the Douglas County Extension Office.
15 - THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS Kansas Center for Community Economic Development Policy Research Institute TECHNICAL REPORT SERIES Economic Trends Report: Lawrence Prepared by Luke Middleton Research Economist February 2003 Report No. 68 Genna M. Hurd Co-Director, KCCED Steven Maynard-Moody Director, Policy Research Institute.
16 – The Kansas Water Office TABLE 6 PROJECTED WATER DEMAND IN THOUSANDS OF GALLONS BY COUNTY BY PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIER BY SELECTED YEAR 2000, 2010, 2020, 2030 and 2040.
______________________________________________________________
Web citation: Wakarusa WRAPS Grant Proposal 2005, Alison L. Reber
