(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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 financial report 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.
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
Structure of SWCD
Boards
MASWCD believes soil and
water district boards should be comprised of agricultural landowners to conform
to the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
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
25.
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.