Vermont conservation districts ask House committee for $3 million in base funding to stabilize operations and expand staff

Representatives of Vermontconservation districts asked the House Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry committee on the record to include $3,000,000 in base state funding to cover ongoing operational costs, support staff and meet statutory obligations.

The request, presented by Emily Finnegan, district manager for the Caledonia County Natural Resources Conservation District, and other district leaders, seeks stable, recurring funding to ensure consistent district services across Vermontand to increase the districtscapacity to manage competitive federal and state grants.

Conservation districts are local, democratically elected entities established under the Soil Conservation Act of 1939 that act as the stateconservation delivery system, speakers said. They provide technical assistance to towns, landowners and farmers, help producers apply for and manage competitive grant programs, and deliver on-the-ground projects such as stream restoration, dam removal and farm best-management practices tied to Clean Water Act goals and the Lake Champlain phosphorus TMDL.

"We are often the project manager for a lot of these projects," Lauren Watson, manager of the Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District, said in testimony describing how districts write grant applications, secure landowner agreements and oversee construction and deliverables for clean-water projects. Watson and other presenters said that funding for staff, office space, training and outreach cannot reliably come from project-based grants alone.

Speakers provided several figures to illustrate the gap between current core support and their request: districts currently receive about $612,000 in core state funding (roughly $35,500 per district this year), plus a one-time $100,000 the previous year, and the governor's proposed budget showed a reduction to about $500,000 for the coming year, Emily Finnegan said. The districts asked the committee to include a $3,000,000 base appropriation that would be split among the 14 districts and the State Natural Resources Conservation Council (NRCC) to maintain operations, hire at least one full-time-equivalent position in each district, and expand council capacity for oversight and training.

Jill Araci, executive director of the Vermont Association of Conservation Districts (VACD), described how the requested funds would be distributed in broad terms: districts submitted proposals and the request was designed to support at least one full-time district manager (or an equivalent mix of positions) and additional essential needs, with roughly $300,000 to $400,000 of the $3,000,000 proposed to support council staff and oversight functions, she said.

District leaders argued the base funding would yield outsized returns by enabling districts to pursue and manage larger pools of competitive grants. "For the Franklin, Grand Isle, and [another] districts last year ... we were able to work through a process with NRCS to implement a pool of $1,500,000 for those three counties for farmers," Finnegan said, illustrating how modest operational support can unlock federal funds. VACD staff said conservation districts and the association together write dozens of grant proposals annually; Araci estimated districts bring in about $4 million to $5 million in competitive grant funding in a typical year, much of which pays for contractors, construction and pass-through project costs rather than staff.

Speakers also described operational pressures: many districts share limited office space in USDA facilities and lack technology, stable payroll support and consistent staff capacity. They said some federal funding streams do not pay for salaries and benefits, and that interruptions in federal programs (testifiers mentioned temporary freezes or uncertainty around Inflation Reduction Act and other federal funds) can strain district operations. Emily Finnegan noted that districts perform nonregulatory, voluntary work on farms and act as intermediaries between landowners and programs such as NRCS planning and state agricultural grant programs.

Franklin County District Soil Conservation Board chair Richard J. Noelle, a long-serving supervisor, appealed directly for funding tied to deliverables: "Give us the project. Give us the funds. We'll do the work," he said, describing districts as the "boots on the ground" that implement projects the state wants completed.

Committee members asked for specifics about current funding flows and the requested allocation. Araci said the $612,000 in core funding this year equates to roughly $35,500 per district; she said districts proposed budgets that would amount to roughly $180,000 per district in some plans (to support a manager plus other needs) and that approximately $300,000 to $400,000 of the $3,000,000 request would support council operations and oversight. Testimony also noted that some districts operate equipment-rental and technical-assistance programs, provide manure-injectors and no-till drills for farmers, and help small and certified small farms with soil and manure sampling.

The presenters emphasized legal and organizational context: conservation districts were established under the Soil Conservation Act of 1939; districts operate under memoranda of understanding and unfunded cooperative agreements with federal partners; the State Natural Resources Conservation Council provides oversight; and districts work on Clean Water Act implementation such as Lake Champlain's phosphorus TMDL.

The hearing concluded without a formal vote. Emily Finnegan and other presenters formally requested that the committee include the districts' $3,000,000 base funding request in its budget memo to House Appropriations; committee members said they would consider the request and might follow up for more detail.

The committee paused for lunch and indicated it may return with additional questions; no committee decision on the funding request was recorded at the hearing.