(policy continued)
A.
MASWCD
The mission of the Missouri
Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts is to promote the
conservation of soil and water resources, and assume active leadership in
promoting conservation education in the state.
B.
Resolutions
A call for resolutions will
be issued in August each year, with a deadline for submission of September 1.
After categorizing and reviewing for duplicates, a slate of resolutions for the
next Annual Meeting will be sent to all District offices for Board review.
Resolutions submitted after September 1 will be considered from the floor at
the Annual Meeting. All resolutions coming from the floor must receive a 2/3
vote to be considered for discussion. Amendments to the by-laws cannot be
brought from the floor; they must be sent to each District at least 10 days
prior to the meeting. Resolutions that are passed at the Annual Meeting will be
incorporated into MASWCD policy.
C. MASWCD Policy
1.
Animal Waste
The EPA
NPDES permits will require many confined animal and bird operations to
construct or enlarge costly manure storage facilities. Financial assistance
available to producers through NRCS is not sufficient to cover the increased
need. EPA and USDA should make available adequate funds to support the
increased need for alternative manure management systems.
2.
Budgets / Allocations
MASWCD
and the Soil and Water Districts Commission support districts that remain in
their respective county due to USDA office closings as they would any other
district.
Districts
should be funded at sufficient levels to provide a full time technician and
district clerk/manager.
MASWCD
supports changing the method of allocating funds to the district assistance
grants by increasing the grants annually at the same growth rate of the Parks
and Soils Tax. The annual increase would allow the districts more stability in
the annual budget planning process.
3.
Conservation Reserve Program
The
Conservation Reserve Program contracts should be honored to the full extent of
the contract, or encourage the use of alternative methods.
Filter
Strips and Riparian Buffers should allow the option of including the entire
field in the CRP practice, if the buffer takes at least 75% of a field.
The rules
for the continuous CRP signup changed in June 1999 to make existing cover a
part of the overall width of a filter strip or riparian buffer. This rule
change made the continuous CRP signup more undesirable to producers. The old
rule allowed existing cover plus the maximum width of 100 feet for filter
strips and 150 feet for riparian buffers. Existing cover should not be part of
the overall width of the buffer practices.
MASWCD
supports allowing land (cropland or pasture) under an expiring Conservation
Reserve Program contract, which will be brought into cropland production, be
eligible for state cost share funding during the first year out of the CRP
program. Justification will be based upon the calculated erosion rate of
the land while it was cropped prior to being enrolled into CRP. Eligible
land will have a pre-CRP erosion rate greater than T.
4.
Coordinated Resource Management
Policy
was discussed on Coordinated Resource Management. The re-writing of the plan
for northern
5.
Cost-Share
Geographic
Cost-Share Allocation
We
encourage Districts to develop ideas for programs to meet their particular
needs. We also support allowing 10%
flexibility of each District’s annual cost-share allocation. (Example: if a district receives $100,000 cost share
allocation, $10,000 could be moved between resource concerns by the District
Board.)
Cost-Share
Resource Concerns
MASWCD supports districts being allowed to transfer
funds from one resource concern to another if funds are all claimed in one area,
but they have funds in another area not being used.
Cost-Share
Carry Over
We
encourage Districts to claim all their cost-share funds in the fiscal year they
are allocated.
MASWCD
supports requesting the Soil and Water Commission and DNR to use the available
reserve funds to allow continuous operation of the cost-share program.
MASWCD
supports allowing money paid back from a landowner for failing to properly
maintain their practice be put back into that district’s current year
allocations to be reissued for cost-share in that county.
Cost-Share
Docket
MASWCD
supports use of the cost-share items from the State Cost-Share Docket without a
signed request for each item to be used.
Cost-Share
Incentive Program
Those who
try to farm correctly already reduce soil loss and so are often ineligible to
receive cost-share. MASWCD supports the development of programs for those who
are following correct procedures. This would encourage them to continue their
policies of good stewardship.
Maintenance
of Cost-Share Practices
The
county where land is physically located, but administratively carried in an
adjoining county, is responsible for administering the state cost-share moneys
unless the adjoining county agrees to administer the Cost-share Program. The
county who cost-shares should be responsible to handle maintenance issues for
the life of the practice and work with the landowner to resolve the maintenance
problem.
Cost-Share
with Operators
We
support allowing operators to sign and receive cost-share on land of which an
operator has a notarized agreement, which covers the life span of the practice.
Cost-Share
Certification
We
support cost-share certification for payment without additional map evidence,
and that technical certification remains a responsibility of adequately trained
and certified field office staff.
We feel
program policy changes should be worked through the proper Commission channels.
Fencing
Rates
We
support using the county average cost for all fencing rates.
Use Exclusion
We
support cost-sharing on a livestock watering tank and pipe added to an existing
pond being fenced for exclusion, to make livestock water available outside the
excluded area.
Stream
bank Stabilization
Stream
bank erosion is a statewide problem. We encourage the development of practices
for stream bank stabilization applicable statewide, preferably in coordination
with conservation partners. MASWCD supports having the Missouri Soil and Water
Commission and the Missouri Department of Conservation to add to their stream
bank erosion guidelines the removal of gravel and obstructions from the
existing stream channel to prevent stream bank erosion. Further, this material
can be used to repair the eroded stream banks greatly reducing the material
costs of those projects.
We oppose
the deliberate dumping of thousands of tons of soil by the Corps of Engineers
into the
Cost-Share
for Planned Grazing Systems
We
support planned grazing systems with water source development, a $60 per acre
limit, and a requirement of the landowner and 2 SWCD board member’s attendance
at grazing school.
MASWCD
supports policy that does not require landowners to meet the Prescribed Grazing
(528) guidelines contained in the Field Office Technical guide if all other
qualifications are met to qualify to install the DSL-2 practice.
Lime
Cost-Share Practice
Since the
soils on which most of the permanent pastures in Missouri are established are
more acidic than other regions of the state, and the application of ag-lime would improve stands of desirable pasture grasses
and legumes, and the proliferation of the desirable plants would reduce sheet
and rill erosion, the application of ag-lime would
improve the plant's ability to utilize nutrients (chemical fertilizer and
animal waste), thus reducing runoff of these nutrients
causing
related water quality problems. We support a lime only cost-share practice for
acidic soils on which permanent pasture is established.
We
support allowing a 3-6 month range for advance liming. Properly managed
pastureland is a source of long term erosion control and current cost-share
practices do not allow a lime maintenance program for the grazing management
system. We support formulating an incentive practice based on maintaining the
lime requirements needed for a properly managed pasture resource management
system. This practice would address the need for keeping pastureland up to soil
test for lime.
Since
changes in DSP-2 require landowners to put at least half of the limestone on
six months ahead if pH is 5.7 or less and according to MU Guide 9102, pH
requirements for establishment of legumes varies according to species, MASWCD
urges the Commission to adjust the DSP-2 practice policies to minimum pH
requirement according to species.
Landowners
have great difficulty getting limestone applied even by the deadline for their
seeding practices, and cost-share approval will be required for a DSP-2
practice 8 to 10 months ahead of the practice completion. However, this is
impossible with fall seeding when no cost-share obligation can be made to a
landowner until after July 1. MASWCD supports reconsideration of the
requirement of applying half of lime 6 months ahead of planting.
MASWCD
supports allowing landowners to use pelletized lime and to allow pelletized
lime to be cost shared at a county average pelletized lime cost on practices
that do not exceed five acres in size.
MOSWIMS
MASWCD
supports not requiring the use of the MOSWIMS software program until such time
as the complete program has been fully tested by ten districts and seven of
those ten districts certify to the Commission that the MOSWIMS program fully
meets their management needs and expectations.
Waterway
Repair
MASWCD
supports making cost-share funds available on waterways for repairs after the
10 year life span has expired and repairs should be completed to current
standard and specifications.
Ponds
Cost-share
for Cleaning Out Old Ponds--We
support adding as eligible components, earthwork, stock-water pipe, tank and
pad for cleaning out old ponds. These components will promote more exclusion of
livestock from streams and wooded areas thus by preventing soil erosion,
improving water quality, and providing water in a good location for better
grazing distribution.
Ponds in Timber Areas--MASWCD believes the policy of not
building ponds in timber should be eliminated because:
¨
There
is severe erosion in our timber,
¨
Ponds
do provide some flood control,
¨
Ponds
provide for wildlife and recreation,
¨
Ponds
prevent damage to road culverts and water gaps,
¨
Even
though some of these ponds would be built for absentee landowners, they too pay
taxes and vote in the city for the soils and parks tax,
¨
Ponds
are a storage for topsoil,
¨
The
cost of soil saved in a pond would certainly look better if a more realistic
life of the practice was used. Pond life
could easily be extended to 20 years and thus cut the cost per ton of soil
saved in half.
Life of a Pond—MASWCD supports increasing the service
life of a pond to 20 years instead of the present 10 years for calculating the
cost per ton of soil saved.
6.
Demonstration Practices
We
encourage the use of demonstration practices to test the feasibility of a
practice and to gather soil loss and cost data, as well as show the benefits of
a particular practice to landowners.
7.
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
The
Department of Natural Resources, Soil and Water Program, provides invaluable
service to the advancement of the objectives of conservation districts.
Adequate staffing and funding are essential. We will work with DNR to encourage
an ever-increasing role in the development and delivery of high quality
training of conservation district employees and board members.
MASWCD
supports requesting DNR provide an itemized and detailed financial report of
the Program Office administration costs each fiscal year by August 1.
8.
District Operations
We
believe legal representation should be available to the SWCD’s through the
Attorney General's office.
We
believe programs should meet emerging resource and environmental needs and be
directed toward improving the quality of natural resources, local participation
and decision-making, and partnerships between private and public interests at
all levels of government.
We
believe District Boards should not relinquish local control to state or federal
conservation agencies and should continue to provide supervision to SWCD
employees.
We
believe District funding should not be tied to unattainable goals determined by
state agency staff.
We
believe that District Boards should work together with the DNR Program staff and
the Soil & Water Commission and sister agencies or conservation partners to
review proposals before acting on any major changes that would hinder our
combined conservation efforts.
9.
Education and Information
The major
purpose of MASWCD is to stimulate, foster and support effective programs of
natural resource conservation and environmental improvement carried out by
people in every community throughout the state.
MASWCD
and the conservation districts have a major responsibility to help promote both
formal and informal learning opportunities in conservation education for people
of all ages as they relate to natural resources.
Districts
should receive grant monies for established and proven info/ed
programs. Districts should also be encouraged, not discouraged, to
conduct various "hands-on" info/ed programs
to schools within their counties which has been highly supported by tax-payers.
10.
Employee Benefits
Every
conservation district employee should have access to health insurance and
retirement programs.
We
believe the Commission should decide who is/is not a District employee and they
should receive their benefits as was believed to be the case when the search
for better health insurance began.
District
employees, as deemed by the Districts/Commission, should be funded for salaries
and benefits in full, not only the state’s portion for matching grants
in FY-07, as districts were led to believe. Districts should not be given
partial funding because of the long-time problem of under-funding districts in
the first place.
MASWCD
supports Missouri SWCD employees receiving the same percentage of cost of
living or salary increase as State of Missouri employees when one is given by
the State.
11.
Eroding Land
Erosion
has caused serious damage to private property and associated resources.
Conservation is essential for maintaining a resource base to meet our long-term
food and fiber needs, fight inflation, meet environmental goals, maintain a
favorable balance of trade, protect our national security and maintain our
standard of living.
Areas
with excessive erosion and poor water quality, such as abandoned confinement
areas (cattle and hog feed lots), where the landowner wants to put the area
back to a permanent vegetative state should be authorized for treatment through
the critical area seeding practice.
12.
Exotic Plants
The
intent of the Invasive Species Act is to prevent the introduction of invasive
species and provide for their control and to minimize the economic, ecological,
and human health impacts that invasive species cause. We believe the
identification and management of undesirable species should be determined on a
local, state o regional basis by those closest to the situation.
13.
Farm Bill
The
changes in farm programs brought bout by the passage
of the various Farm Bills have and continue to advance the cause of natural
resource concerns. Implementation of the Farm Bill should expand the local
conservation partnership decision-making authority and foster a coordinated
approach that addresses other federal legislation and does not result in
contradictory and onerous regulations that discourage conservation.
14. Forestry
The Board
supports NACD policy on Forestry issues with the addition of support for the
15.
Legislation
We
support renewal of the Parks and Soils Sales Tax in its current form. We
support legislation for placing renewal of the Parks & Soils Sales Tax before
the voters 2 years prior to expiration of the tax. We also support a 10-year
sunset clause.
16.
Local Funds
It is the
responsibility of each SWCD Board to lead the local conservation effort and
discretionary funds are needed to meet certain goals and objectives of the
local conservation effort, local SWCD Boards should be allowed to use locally
generated funds to carry out conservation business.
17.
MASWCD
Cooperative
Agreements with Federal & State Highway Departments
Soil and
water conservation practices are part of natural watersheds and drainage and
runoff concerns and/or issues may involve public roads and right-of-ways.
Conservation practice water conveyance systems may necessitate cooperative
working and maintenance agreements with units of government. MASWCD supports
developing reasonable and workable memos-of-understanding or cooperative
agreements to streamline conservation practice installation and long term
maintenance.
MASWCD supports the work of a long
range planning committee for the purpose of:
· determining what soil erosion and water
quality practices will be needed
· defining the level of funding required to
initiate and maintain these practices
· evaluating the impact of the tax loss on
practices determined to be needed
· developing a plan of activities to prepare
for any new legislation that may need to be enacted, and
· any other action deemed appropriate by the
committee.
18.
MDC
The
Missouri Department of Conservation plays a vital role in the conservation
partnership in
19.
MOPERM
The
Missouri Public Entity Risk Management (MOPERM) program offers low cost
liability insurance coverage to
20.
NACD
The
National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD) is the national voice for
the nation's nearly 3000 conservation districts. Its programs and activities
are aimed at advancing the resource conservation cause of the local district
and the millions of cooperating landowners and land managers served by them.
MASWCD supports this national organization and encourages the
21.
No-Till
MASWCD
and the conservation districts support conservation tillage including
variations such as no-till, ridge-till and mulch-till. These tillage practices
reduce erosion, reduce energy requirements and cut farm costs.
22.
Soil & Water Commission
In order
to serve as a Missouri Soil and Water Districts Commissioner, we believe one
must have had local experience by previously or presently serving on the local
soil and water conservation board.
MASWCD supports legislation to change the statute with this requirement.
MASWCD
supports districts receiving a written copy of the current Soil and Water
Commission policies that govern the operation of the Missouri SWCD’s as per
sections 278.060 to 278.300 RSMo.
23.
Supervisors
MASWCD
supports changing MO Statute Chapter 278, Soil Conservation, Section 278.110.4,
to read: A soil and water supervisor shall receive no compensation for
his services, but he shall be entitled to expenses, including travel expense
and health insurance for self and family through the Missouri DNR provider.
24.
SWCD Boards
Structure
of SWCD Boards
MASWCD
believes soil and water district boards should be comprised of agricultural
landowners to conform to the statutory requirements.
25. Urban
MASWCD
supports the urban work of conservation districts and will provide conservation
education and information materials targeted to urban audiences.
MASWCD
supports developing legislation to protect private property rights of
landowners, provide additional protection from eminent domain, and strengthen
26.
Watersheds
The Board
believes the construction should be completed on what can be finished with the
amount of money available, a few at a time, and don't continue planning until
caught up a little with the construction.
MASWCD
supports funding of the PL-566 Small Watershed Program as they consult with
NACD and elected officials of the state and federal government.