Broadened Demands 

 of SWCD's* 



Synopsis of Speech by Philip Glick, 

 NACD Council, January 18, 1967 



Mr. Glick challenged the supervisors 

 of the Ohio Soil and Water Conserva- 

 tion Districts to broaden their respon- 

 sibilities and to grow with society 

 changes, the population explosion, and 

 urbanization demands. He stated that 

 the time has come when supervisors 

 must speak out boldly, not be afraid of 

 stepping on other people's toes and to 

 push ;).<- Ftueraiiou officers into a 

 broader scope of responsibilities. 



Soil Conservation Districts were 

 formed about 30 years ago in the midst 

 of the greatest farm depression ever 

 known. Founders were energetic and 

 tireless. Hugh Hammond Bennett, often 

 referred to as the "father of conserva- 

 tion," after working through the C.C.C. 

 had come to the conclusion that in 

 order to expedite the development of 

 practices on the land that it was neces- 

 sary to have local participation and 

 government. We have learned that by 

 blending Federal power with its tre- 

 mendous power of taxation, state power 

 with its general powers of regulation 

 and legislation, and local government 

 with its grassroots power and ability to 

 "hear" the people that an organization 

 such as the district movement has tre- 

 mendous power. We don't want the 

 federal government to take over and 

 we don't want the federal government 

 with its tremendous amount of funds 

 to step aside either, so we work out an 

 ingenious method to work together 

 through the Soil Conservation Service. 

 The Soil Conservation Service cannot 

 work alone; likewise the soil conserva- 

 tion districts cannot work alone. 



Some folks say that the soil conserva- 

 tion districts are weak. They are weak 

 in many cases. In the first place they 

 were never designed to stand on their 

 own two feet. At first their full finan- 

 cial support came almost entirely from 

 the federal government. They were told 

 that they would get money from the 

 federal, state and local governments. In 

 some cases where the Soil Conservation 

 Service employee is extremely strong 

 and influential, the supervisors have 

 been satisfied to sit back and allow the 

 federal government to run their district. 

 It was not designed to operate in this 

 manner. 



Many states do not receive much 

 state or local income. In these states 

 the districts do not have offices of their 

 own. They do not have employees or 

 managers of their own. This must 

 change. 



Thirty years ago we thought we 

 were asking supervisors to protect only 

 our soil. Now. we find that supervisors' 

 responsibilities are much broader. A 

 changing society brings new and in- 

 creased demands upon us. Districts' 

 major responsibility is no longer to 

 represent the farmer: but instead to 

 represent society, urban as well as 

 rural. Problems that only recently were 

 considered minor, are now major prob- 



lems. A few are water pollution, water 

 supply, air pollution, urban sprawl, and 

 recreational needs, just to name a few. 



The inadequacy of the districts first 

 became apparent in 1954, when the 

 watershed act was- passed by Congress. 

 The nation looked to the soil conserva- 

 tion districts for leadership, but didn't 

 find it. Why? Because they are not 

 structured adequately. They are able to 

 get the practices on the land, but they 

 do not have the necessary powers of 

 eminent domain or taxation. 



There are those that think districts 

 will fold up and die. Glick does not 

 suT^scribe to this thinking. He in fact 

 feels districts are bordering on tre- 

 mendous growth. 



Glick does not believe that the fed- 

 eral, state, or local gorvemments can 

 continue to place money and responsi- 

 bility in the hands of districts unless 

 they are willing to expand their scope 

 of operations and broaden their respon- 

 sibilities to include all of the public 

 demands. He hastened to say that it is 

 not necessary to completely change 

 over night but that time is shorter than 

 we think. He believes that the dis- 

 tricts will respond to suggested changes 

 such as: 



1. Districts should go to the state 

 legislatures for amendments to the laws 

 that created them. They shottW become 

 the primary local agencies with respon- 

 sibility for all renewable natural re- 

 sources, both rural and urban. 



2. Retain the unpaid supervisors but 

 have the board made of people with 

 varied interests. 



3. A name change might be appropri- 

 ate from soil and water conservation 

 districts to "resource conservation dis- 

 tricts." 



4. Given a specific tax revenue and 

 authority to issue bonds. 



5. They need the power of eminent 

 domain to acquire land for public bene- 

 fit. 



6. Districts should become concerned 

 with city water supply problems and 

 recreational needs. 



7. More flexibility should be granted 

 so that districts could become larger or 

 smaller when needed, or swap land 

 with adjacent districts. 



Glick stated that districts in 14 states 

 now have the right of eminent domain, 

 14 have the power of taxation and the 

 districts in 7 states have the power to 

 issue bonds. 



****** 



SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE FUNDS 



► A synopsis of a speech delivered by Philip 

 Glick, General Coun.selor of the NACD at 

 the 24th Annual Meeting of the Ohio Fed- 

 eration of Soil & Water Conservation Dis- 

 tricts January 10, 1967. 



Congress threatens to make some cuts In 

 Conservation Operation funds. The Senate is 

 presently considering the House bill. Any cuts 

 will, of course, lessen the service districts 

 can give to cooperators, and this in the face 

 of greater workloads. 



There can be no doubt that conservation 

 resource development rates a high priority In 

 providing for the defense of our nation and 

 the welfare of our people. Write to your 

 Representatives and Senators, 



