Updated 2025
Sponsor: NASCA Policy Committee
Subject: Proposing actions to improve Conservation District performance
Supporting Material &/or Documentation:
Conservations Districts were formed during a time when the conservation movement was young. There were no groups representing the needs of landowners or private lands conservation. They were the sole partner for their Federal partner, the Soil Conservation Service. Through time, many Conservation Districts evolved with the times and changing needs of landowners and continue to be significant conservation partners, locally, by state, regionally and nationally. However, during this time, special interest groups formed and some of them pulled support that was historically held by the Conservation Districts. Further, some Conservation Districts lost stature in the community as landowners lost touch of the services offered by the Conservation Districts. Conservation funding became more competitive and traditional funding mechanisms dissolved. Conservation Districts have a leading role, but must be willing to adapt to a changing world. NASCA must take a broad look at the climatic changes taking place (environmental, political and socio-economic) and be poised to assist state agencies in adapting to these changes and in turn assist Conservation Districts in their mission.
KEY ISSUES:
Due to changing economic forces, regulations, policies, attrition and outside competition, many Conservation Districts are finding it difficult to identify and retain qualified district supervisors, staff and funding. In some areas, the lack of focused staff and supervisor training has resulted in poor governance and allegations of misconduct. Collectively these have led to a decline in conservation district functionality in many regions of the country. Conservation Districts that lack adequate staffing, funding and leadership or those who demonstrate an inability to fulfill their statutory obligations may be considered under-performing.
Ineffective Conservation District Boards:
Which Led To:
In contrast, conservation districts that understand their role, comply with established regulations, policies and guidelines, actively participate in local and statewide issues and utilize multiple media outlets for messaging and marketing are viewed as effective.
Effective Conservation District Boards:
Encourage NASCA members and NACD to work cooperatively to develop a process to aid in the assessment of Conservation District performance/capacity. Conservation District audits alone may be insufficient. There are some processes in place in member states that could be gathered and potentially a template or list of best-practices for members could be put together – aiding all members to continuously improve their own processes.
Date: February 4, 2021
General Observations
The FPAC BC has assumed the role of developing, installing, and monitoring budget formulation, allocation, and execution. NASCA believes this is an overreach, particularly for an entity that is supposedly designed as a support entity. NRCS budget formulation and management should be a function of the Chief’s office. At best, there may be a role for the BC in monitoring budget performance.
The FPAC BC administers FPAC’s core financial management functions, including billing, payment, and collections. There is likely a valid argument for centralizing these functions. However, execution in this arena has been dismal. State conservation agencies conservation districts, and local watershed sponsors are reporting millions of dollars in aged receivables. Many of these payments are delayed up to five months. This is simply unacceptable. NASCA recommends an FPAC BC performance requirement of fully processing payments within 30 days of receiving invoices and/or claims.
Partner experience with NRCS payments was dramatically enhanced when agency financial management personnel work in the state from which the claim originated. Snags and uncertainties with claims were handled much more effectively at the state level. See general comment #2 above.
Approximately 90% of the agreements this unit handles are NRCS agreements. Centralizing this function has been disastrous. We hear countless stories about executing new or renewed agreements with state agencies and agreements that take 6-12 months or more to process. Processing these agreements is a function that should be returned to the agency. In fact, the authority for this function should be returned to the State Conservationist in each state.
Should this function remain centralized, it is imperative to clearly identify the specific responsibilities of NRCS Program staff versus FPAC Grants and Agreements staff. Too often agreements are stalled due to programmatic questions raised by Grants and Agreements staff, when these questions have already been addressed by NRCS Program staff.
Recruitment of qualified candidates that are enthusiastic about working for NRCS is vital to the agency’s long-term success. NASCA understands that centralizing human resource functions may provide some efficiencies. However, there are some functions that should be returned not just to NRCS but to the state office level. For instance, State Conservationists should have the authority to directly recruit, assemble and select from rosters of applicants for further consideration, advertise positions, and hire employees. Additionally, NRCS needs direct hiring authority for all of its positions.
NASCA understands the advantages of consolidating IT functions for FPAC. Certainly there are economies of scale to be realized. However, several issues related to General Comments #1 and #2 above are of particular concern. For instance, we have reports of conservation district employees co-located with NRCS personnel in FPAC-controlled offices that cannot get internet access in the building. This demonstrates the loss of service to core NRCS partners which results when functions are consolidated in the FPAC BC.
Another very common issue is the length of time required for partner staff members to be issued a LincPass from FPAC. Regardless of where this function resides, a LincPass should be issued within 30 days of submitted application barring any unusual concerns, and the IT needs of the conservation partners must be of equal priority to those of NRCS staff.
From NASCA’s perspective, the FPAC BC’s handling of NRCS office space leases has been dismal. The BC has been exceptionally detrimental to co-location between NRCS and conservation districts at the field office level. There is no value placed on this colocation, which is a mistake that will cost the partnership in terms of service to our cooperators for years to come. There must be a formal recognition of the value of co-location between NRCS and conservation districts at field offices built into the lease management protocols.
Prior to the launch of the FPAC BC, NRCS conducted its own training under the purview of the National Employee Development Board. The conservation partners held a seat on this board, which in large part dictated training regimens for NRCS staff and partner technical staff. The BC did away with this Board, and thus any partner input into the agency’s training planning. Conversations with training personnel in the FPAC BC have revealed that the training needs of FSA, RMA, and NRCS are dramatically different. The other agencies employ “off the shelf” training programs, while NRCS requires specialized training programs for their staff and partners.
NRCS has made an attempt to re-create its own National Employee Development Board, but this presents a duplication of effort for training planning in the FPAC Mission Area. There is a simple fix for these issues. Return the responsibility for planning and implementing training programs back to the individual FPAC agencies. Attempting to combine these functions on behalf of the agencies in the BC has been at best counterproductive and at worst an utter failure.
Date: July, 2021
Sponsor: Washington State Conservation Commission
Subject: Opposing the Requirement of Certain Conservation Practices as a
Condition of Program Participation
Background:
The National Conservation Planning Partnership (NCPP) “is making quality conservation planning on America’s private lands a national priority.” This means that a conservation plan is much more than merely a means to execute a government financial assistance contract. It is an innovative strategy for landowners and operators to address the variety of resource concerns on their operations. The conservation plan provides cooperators with options that will lead to desired results. The cooperators can then choose the options that best meet their needs and capabilities.
The conservation plan lies at the heart of voluntary, incentive-based conservation delivery, and NCPP is working to create an environment that allows planners to provide comprehensive strategies to address all of the resource concerns on the property. However, the conservation partnership must continue to offer the elements of a comprehensive conservation plan as options to landowners and operators. Our cooperators’ financial and management capabilities will determine how these options are prioritized, and in what order they can be implemented. These choices should be made by our cooperators, and not the agencies or organizations that administer financial assistance programs. In other words, eligibility for financial assistance to implement conservation practices should not be based on a landowner or operator’s ability to implement other practices, whether they are part of a comprehensive conservation plan or not.
Action requested to be taken by NASCA:
Date: August 2021
Sponsor: Shana Joy, Policy Committee Chair
Subject: Proposing actions to improve services to rural and urban small acreage landowners through increased capacity for technical assistance and recognizing relevant standards and specifications for conservation practices
Supporting material and/or documentation:
Due to changing economic forces, population growth, and urbanization large commercial agriculture and forestry operations are decreasing in many parts of the nation. Thousands of new landowners are purchasing small parcels for residential, agricultural, recreational, and other purposes. Many of these new landowners lack the knowledge or technical expertise to manage natural resources associated with their property causing a cumulative effect in watersheds resulting in degradation of water and soil quality. Small acreage operations are not usually eligible or rank competitively for conservation assistance programs through USDA due to income thresholds, cost effectiveness thresholds, and other criteria. NASCA believes the most efficient method of delivering technical assistance to small acreage landowners is through a close partnership and agreements between NRCS and NASCA members to work with and through the recognized system of conservation districts to distribute and coordinate resources.
Food deserts and food insecurity have become increasingly pressing concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic, causing more people to seek locally produced foods or produce their own foods. The conservation partnership should focus on developing training regimens that will better enable our staff members to deliver quality technical assistance to cooperators interested in community gardens, roof-top gardens, backyard gardening, high tunnel production, urban agriculture, and small acreage agricultural production.
Action requested to be taken by NASCA:
The NASCA Board and staff will provide leadership to improve technical assistance services for rural and urban small acreage landowners by:
Date: October 13, 2022
Sponsor: NASCA Policy Committee
Subject: A Holistic Approach to Urban Agriculture & Conservation
Background:
The National Association of State Conservation Agencies (NASCA) has long been a key proponent of the nine steps of conservation planning and looking at any parcel’s resource concerns on a holistic basis. NASCA believes that moving more into the urban environment and assisting agricultural producers and residents to address the set of resource concerns that exist in the urban landscape should be addressed as holistically as possible as well. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) identified urban agriculture as one of its top three priorities in 2021. In fact, USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) offers assistance for urban growers in the areas of:
There is good reason for this focus on urban agriculture, as these practices can also 1) improve the local economy by creating jobs and increasing property values, 2) provide nutritional health and physical benefits of underserved communities by providing access to nutritional foods, and 3) connect residents to their food supply and their environment by providing greenspace to enjoy. In supporting urban agriculture, we must take a holistic approach and support a broader conservation perspective in urban settings rather than focusing solely on food production. Food production is essential and any urban conservation effort must provide technical and financial assistance to urban producers, of course. Urban conservation in a broader view should also include assistance to private landowners with all aspects of resource concerns existing in the urban environment where gaps are found to exist such as stormwater management and water conservation, energy efficiency, and nutrient and pest management. Many of our nation’s watersheds’ environmental impairments are the cause of all human development and use impacts in that watershed including the urban impacts as well.
Just as we have provided technical and financial assistance for more than 80 years to holistically manage rural natural resources, we must take a similar approach to provide thorough conservation planning and financial assistance for the many resource concerns found in urban environments. Soil and water conservation districts are uniquely positioned to provide technical assistance leadership in the urban environment. The National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD) reports that 70% of conservation districts have been involved in urban and community conservation in recent decades, so this is hardly uncharted waters for conservation districts. Conservation district personnel provide outreach, education, technical assistance, and in some cases inspection and oversight in the urban environment. Additionally, soil and water conservation districts leverage technical and financial resources to further locally-led, voluntary, incentive-based natural resource conservation delivery that benefits all citizens.
Action requested to be taken by NASCA
Date: October 13, 2022
Sponsor: NASCA Policy Committee
Subject: Green Infrastructure
Background:
Growing challenges attributed to climate change (rainfall intensity, sustained heat/drought periods) have further stressed urban and suburban centers and elevated the need for improved green infrastructure. Green infrastructure refers to ecological systems, both natural and engineered, that act as living infrastructure. The 2019 Water Infrastructure Improvement Act defines green infrastructure as “the range of measures that use plant or soil systems, permeable pavement or other permeable surfaces or substrates, stormwater harvest and reuse, or landscaping to store, infiltrate, or evapotranspirate stormwater and reduce flows to sewer systems or to surface waters.1 Green infrastructure elements are planned and managed primarily for stormwater control, but also exhibit social, economic and environmental benefits. Stormwater basin retrofitting, wetland mitigation, installation of dry wells, bio-swales, rain gardens, green roofs, permeable parking lots, and street trees are all forms of green infrastructure used to address these resource concerns.
Green infrastructure uses vegetation, soils, and other landscape features to restore some of the natural processes required to manage and treat water and create healthier environments. Green Infrastructure can be useful across the country where there is a wide range of runoff conditions, soils, quality of receiving waters, and community development. Green infrastructure capitalizes on opportunities to improve infiltration, evapotranspiration and reuse of stormwater runoff; it reduces and treats stormwater at its source, provides health benefits in communities and reduces heat stress.
For more than 80 years an important focus of soil and water conservation districts has been assisting agricultural landowners with conservation practices which prevent soil erosion, protect water quality and improve soil health. Today, many soil and water conservation districts throughout the country are located in urban or urbanizing counties; the National Association of Conservation Districts estimates that close to 70 percent of the nation’s conservation districts are involved in some form of urban and community conservation.
A growing number of soil and water conservation districts are taking a primary role in the effective implementation of green infrastructure best management practices in both agricultural and non-agricultural settings through outreach, education, technical assistance and in some cases inspection and oversight. Soil and water conservation districts can also play a key role in informing policy decisions with respect to green infrastructure initiatives to ensure that they are compatible with current land uses (e.g. are not sited to take agricultural land out of production or promoting infiltration in areas with contaminated soils). Soil and water conservation districts can leverage technical and financial resources to further voluntary, incentive-driven natural resource conservation programs that benefit all citizens. In fact, 23 NASCA members report involvement in urban agriculture programs.2
Action requested to be taken by NASCA
1. https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/what-green-infrastructure
2. 2022 NASCA Membership Survey
Date: October 2025
Sponsor: NASCA Policy Committee
The owners and operators of our nation’s working lands assume a tremendous responsibility for food and fiber production, wildlife habitat management, water and air quality enhancement, soil health, and a number of other environmental elements that benefit the public as a whole. Conservation practices have proven a worthwhile investment in enhancing the long-term viability of these working lands. In the face of significant changes in weather patterns and increased occurrence of erratic and sometimes catastrophic weather events, the value of conservation practices has been verified to an even greater extent.
Soil and water conservation practices serve a greater purpose than mere stewardship. They are a key component to agricultural sustainability and provide resiliency to the landscape in the face of extreme weather events. Thus, conservation practices implemented on our nation’s working lands offer long-term protection, not only to the agricultural industry, but to homes, property, roads, bridges, utilities, and infrastructure of all types.
Many individuals, groups, and organizations have taken an interest in providing conservation assistance to landowners and operators. However, the vast majority of conservation delivery responsibilities still rests squarely on the shoulders of our core conservation partnership: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), state conservation agencies, and conservation districts. This unique partnership of federal, state, and local resources brought us out of the dust bowl 80 years ago, and will see us through any environmental challenges that lie ahead, including changing weather patterns and climate variables.
Environmental impacts to our landscape are not new, but the types of impacts are changing. In the face of more extreme weather events, prolonged droughts, floods, and increasing demands on agricultural markets, our conservation partnership must continue to evolve to meet these challenges. NASCA recommends the following:
Date: October 2025
Sponsor: NASCA Policy Committee
Subject: Proposing actions to emphasize the importance of locally led, voluntary, incentive-based conservation delivery, utilizing existing conservation district expertise and experience
Supporting material and/or documentation:
When the federal government formed the Soil Conservation Service in the 1930’s, it realized that local leadership would be necessary to affect change and modify long-held beliefs. A model conservation district law that emphasized the importance of local action was drafted by President Franklin Roosevelt’s administration and sent to all state and territorial governments. The proposal encouraged the formation of soil and water conservation districts, which would be charged with working with local producers to address local resource concerns and to demonstrate the effectiveness of conservation practices.
The state and territorial governments also recognized the need for local leadership and adopted laws creating local conservation districts. While the laws vary in scope, each holds to the principal that local guidance and direction is crucial for conservation district programs and services. Thus, conservation districts serve as the entity that America’s landowners and producers turn to for local leadership of conservation delivery.
Regulatory programs to mitigate nonpoint source pollution exist at federal, state, and local levels. However, enforcement of this regulatory approach is often challenging over a broad landscape. History has demonstrated that voluntary, incentive-based approaches to conservation delivery have been more readily welcomed, often enthusiastically, by landowners and operators. Additionally, we are also seeing new market-based approaches to conservation implementation. These approaches are also voluntary but can provide substantial financial incentives to implement conservation practices on working lands. Since approximately 70% of the land base in this country is in private ownership, a commitment to locally-led, voluntary, incentive-based conservation delivery is essential to success. USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), state conservation agencies, and conservation districts in every state have made this commitment.
However, making this commitment is just a place to start. We must also commit to collectively creating a workforce capable of meeting the technical assistance needs of every landowner and producer in the country. This will entail investments in training, hiring, and providing resources to staff from every level of the conservation partnership. To help secure many of these resources, we must also become more effective in sharing the needs and benefits of conservation in order to energize our peers, decision-makers, and cooperators.
We must also commit to securing the best available technology and expertise from all available sources. This means that conservation districts must channel all available conservation expertise through the effective leadership of local workgroups. These workgroups can help conservation districts assess natural resource concerns, provide resources for conservation implementation, draft recommendations for federal, state, and local funding mechanisms, and meet statutory requirements.
Action requested to be taken by NASCA:
The NASCA Board and staff will work with partner leadership to:
Date: October 2025
Sponsor: NASCA Policy Committee
Background:
The Watershed Program established through the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (Public Law 83-566) authorizes NRCS to work with local sponsors to install watershed protection and improvement projects. The authorized purposes of the program are flood prevention, water quality or water quantity protection, agricultural water management, municipal water supply management, fish and wildlife habitat protection and public recreation development. Often projects are mutually supportive of more than one purpose.
These projects create and protect vital infrastructure while conserving natural resources and contributing to local economies. The Watershed Flood Prevention and Operations (WFPO) program focuses on planning, design and construction of structural water control and land treatment measures. The program provides a basis for partnering at State and local levels to identify and co-invest in projects reflecting the highest priority needs. This critical infrastructure program protects lives and property, builds community resiliency to extreme weather events, reduces the need for federal disaster assistance, improves water quality and quantity, provides reliable, high quality drinking water, creates and preserves jobs, and broadens the economic base. NRCS also has the Watershed Rehabilitation (Rehab) program that focuses on existing PL-566 dam structures with safety and performance issues and are in need of upgrades to continue to function as planned.
In a recent report to Congress, NRCS estimates that this program, by avoiding and reducing flood damages, annually provides more than $352 million in benefits to agriculture and more than $462 million in benefits to non-agricultural uses, such as roads, bridges, and homes. Other benefits, such as erosion control, water conservation, water quality improvement and irrigation efficiency, exceed $441 million on agricultural lands and over $957 million in recreation, fish and wildlife, rural water supply, and municipal and industrial water supply, annually. In total, as a result of installed watershed projects made possible through the investment from NRCS and local sponsors, the WFPO program provides an estimated $2.2 billion in average annual benefits across the nation. Another way to view these benefits is by the number of people and communities who benefit directly from watershed projects. The existing projects are protecting over 610,000 homes, 46,000 businesses, 180,000 farms and ranches, 61,000 bridges, and 28,000 domestic water supplies. As a result, over 48 million people across the United States benefit from the WFPO program every year. 1
This excerpt from recent testimony of the National Watershed Coalition to the House Appropriations Committee lays the foundation of the importance of the WFPO program to a majority of our member state agencies and many conservation districts as local sponsors of watershed structures. The National Watershed Coalition has acknowledged that areas where the program is most successful are those where State Conservation Agencies are active program partners. For several years, NASCA members have worked with the National Watershed Coalition and other program proponents to build support and funding for the WFO program. Also, there is growing interest in the program among NASCA member states that do not currently have many watershed structures but would like to utilize the program for watershed planning and new project development. In the face of an increasing number of extreme weather events, the WFPO program could provide resources for future water management projects that may otherwise be unachievable.
Request for NASCA Action:
1. Report to Congress, USDA-NRCS, Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program Multi-Year Plan
Approved: NASCA Board of Directors
Date: August 12, 2014
Purpose: The purpose of the NASCA Policy Committee (the “Committee”) is:
Procedures:
Sunset Policy: NASCA policy shall be catalogued by date enacted. Each policy shall be retired five years from the date of enactment unless membership takes action to reaffirm the policy.
Use the resolution template to submit a policy resolution to NASCA.
Join our email list! Subscribe to our newsletter to stay up to date all the latest conservation news, events and resources.