It seems that Soil and Water Conservation Districts are a local arm of state government without much oversight?
Anyone on a board, what do you get done?

I was on the local SWCD board for two terms. When it was meeting time, wife and I said I had to go the the Mud meeting (soil + water = mud). Anyway, by the second term, I really asked myself what was being accomplished. By not being a part of it any more you can tell I didn't find much importance so eliminated it from taking time from my day.

Other's mileage may vary and hope it does.

I was on my local board for a few years and asked myself the same question as Mr. Shively. I resigned. It is not only a position but also a board with no authority. One of the most ridiculous things that I encountered was having to approve Erosion and Sediment control plans. The local NRCS official, who went to school for this had to ask me, who had no formal training, to look over and approve the plans. Whenever a builder was found in violation we shook our finger at him and then turned it over to the County Commissioners. In my opinion it is a government program that at one time had a bona fide purpose but that has outlived its usefulness. It may be different in other areas of the country but in my area it is just a waste of taxpayer money.

Here they have surveyed land to improve flood irrigation. Loaned money for developing stock water. Loaned out a no till drill to reseed burns. Loaned money for intertior fence. Help get trees for wind erosion. Got bugs to control invasive weeds.

AND,has anyone found that the most influential farmer/rancher got all the money,took advantage of the programs, and always seemed to know well in advance what was the next available program was before anyone else.When the little guy comes to the office have you ever been told you don't qualify? OR, sorry the money for that program has already been allotted. Google UDSA stats page and see whose getting the money from your area. See any trends in receiptants? Interesting I think.

As Dale said, they've done a lot here. Particularly with irrigation projects.

Conservation boards where set up to set priorities for the local area and to help the NRCS (SCS) determine if a producer would follow through on the commitments proposed in the conservation plan. Just as farming varies throughout the country, so do conservation practices.

In Iowa, commissioners are elected in non-partisan elections and are not paid for their time. Are there poor boards, sure, but there are probably more good boards. In Iowa, the boards also approve applications for state conservation grants, apply for special watershed funding and hire district employees.

Neal

Unfortunately, in my area, what Buffy posted is pretty much how it is. 9 times out of 10 it is the same farms/property owners that are on the receiving end. Each year there is usually 1 or 2 new "beneficiaries", the rest is the same.

The county extension offices WILL loan out cattle scales and various other farm equipment (what they have available) and are very helpful in many areas. Not to mention all they do for the 4-H programs.

4H here is run by the Cooperative Extension, a state level agency. The SWCD has nothing to do with the Extension as far as I've seen and some of their programs are Federal. I imagine different states have different programs.

Buffys point about the same players always seeming to get the funding rings true. But, part of that is being on the boards and mailing lists and being well known to those running the show. Around here it's referred to as "Farming the Gov't". We have a local organic farmer, an organic farmer of the year for NYS IIRC, who doesn't appear to farm at all yet has university students at is farm doing chores and receives grant after grant. Meanwhile the place is weed infested with piles of trash on the front porch. Thats as bad as the big time operator getting all the funding to me.

While I am not on that particular board, I serve on another, the rules and guidelines are usually set up to be arbitrary.
Does the producer meet this or that criteria,etc?
The procedure is usually kind of drawn out.

I've noticed that the function/action of conservation districts varies from place to place. Many have equipment and budgets to assist local farmers whereas others (like here) don't seem to do much at all. The Whitman Co district purchased an oilseed press and allowed one farmer to "borrow it" to crush seed (canola/camelina/rape) with it.

Every time I talk to our district reps they say the same thing "oh, we don't do that here." Not sure what "we do" but I know what we "don't do,"

Excellent. Thanks. So a flexible arm of state government run by farmers that has little beaurocracy and oversight, but actually has real political muscle.
I know our conservation district writes checks to our corrupt drainage and irrigation districts. ( I have them on 10 minute video kicking me out of annual public meeting, not allowing me to cast a vote) When I call them, they bellow "How did you get this number???"
Real servants of the people.....

But my diabolical plan is to sidestep all the local politics, and have the conservation district construct a directive. This directive would state, the truth.

"Pastoral, rhizome root spreading forage based systems are in the common good and effective at increasing soil health, fertility, and water quality. These systems are extremely proactive towards maintaining and increasing soil health and water quality in the future"
The directive is sent to state agencies, with applicable scientific data. Coinciding data will from USGS will show water quality problems due to chemical applications. (our local ground and surface waters are all listed as impaired; this is a local agricultural problem, not industrial)
The idea is to have a list of fixit options. But now, grazing and pastoral systems must be put on the top of the list of arrows in the quiver to remediate fire and weed suppression.
Next, mowing/mechanical applications, then,
chemical remediation.

You see right now our county Weed and Pest only has sprayers for rent. They should have 4h and FFA multi species grazing clubs, or mowers for rent. They only have sprayers.....
Fish and Game spent 2 million on our local habitat. 100k went to goat grazing, 600 k went to mechanical, and the rest was chemical applications.
BLM cheatgrass is $40 per acre and doesn't work. But Colorado studies show that multiyear grazing in the spring is effective.
Forest Service has to encourage multispecies grazing, before spraying.

Its time for public lands to be reopened for agricultural use, including fire and weed control, and we must think to use environmental principles and proactive marketing to push back, to actually preserve soil and water quality in our communities. That's the plan.

Recently a number of us crashed the local NRCS working group. For years they wouldn't tell us when the annual meeting was. We found out. We reconfigured the priority goals to be soil health, water quality, grazing systems. The couple row croppers there wanting pivots on the top of the list were speachless. Who can argue with working towards better soil, water, air as a legacy worth leaving, and spending taxpayers money on that instead of equipment. Poop on the infertile ground, is what we need here. Not imported chemical inputs....

Yet poop is high on the list of no-no's according to the EPA.
Speaking for our area only, haven't seen any great conspiracy or corruption.
Government is so slow to change, but the FSA is trying to encourage some smaller, diverse enterprises.

The way you change things is by getting on the boards, doing the leg work, being part of whatever groups interest you. Change from within is always more effective than screaming at them from outside.

Bill, agreed,
"change from within is always more effective" So, agreed, lets get involved, where we can. Nothing worse than complainers who don't get involved to change for the better.

But lets also look at for instance Ron Paul in recent history, with legal voter numbers backing..... When the games rules are fixed against you, you never get to be "on the boards" :) Don't get to, or are kept from operating, from the inside.
and therefore cannot be effective...

It seems so many tax appropriated boards are so top heavy no real local decisions can be made. It seems maybe conservation districts can do a little, autonomously. That is hopeful for me.

I agree it's frustrating. But you have to start at the grass roots level and work up. finding enough whiners and complainers to actually get up off the couch and do the leg work is the hardest part. That's why I now hold public office, am homeschooling, etc. I complained for years, one day I decided to do something about it. It's a start.