Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Soil Water Conservation Districts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State performance review finds wide variability across Florida soil and water conservation districts
Summary
A consultant’s performance review for OPPAGA told the Senate Committee on Agriculture that many independent soil and water conservation districts lack formal performance measures, regular meeting notices and consistent financial reporting, and that some districts face viability risks.
A performance review of Florida’s 49 independent soil and water conservation districts found substantial variability in activity, revenue and governance practices and recommended sweeping improvements to reporting and performance management, the review’s lead presenter told the Senate Committee on Agriculture.
David Jawaskey, a partner with Mauldin & Jenkins who presented the firm’s findings prepared for the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA), said the review covered 49 independent districts and produced 49 individual reports plus a synthesized summary report. “We were asked to conduct a performance review of the 49 independent soil and water conservation districts in the state,” Jawaskey said, summarizing the engagement and the statutory basis for the review.
Jawaskey told senators the review found large differences tied to funding and staffing: districts with recurring reimbursement contracts with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) or the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) had higher activity and reporting levels, while many smaller, largely volunteer districts had minimal recurring revenue or staff. The review identified roughly 74 staff across all 49 districts (counting both district‑employed staff and staff provided in‑kind by local governments), and estimated that about 65% of districts had one or no staff members.
The review flagged several repeated problems: 39 districts did not consistently provide meeting notices as required under Florida law; more than half had records retention issues; 45 districts lacked formal performance goals or metrics aligned to statute; and 25 districts failed to timely file required financial reports under the filing deadlines the consultants reviewed. Jawaskey said the project covered a four‑year period of records and activity and aggregated almost 400 recommendations across the 49 districts, with roughly half the recommendations in the performance management category.
Jawaskey and senators discussed viability concerns for districts with persistently low revenue and staffing. He said two districts voluntarily voted to dissolve while the review was in progress and that other districts had inquired about dissolution. The review grouped districts into four geographic/activity clusters (group 1: 13 districts in the Panhandle; group 2: 17 districts; group 3: 12 districts in central Florida; group 4: 7 districts in southeast Florida) and excluded 18 districts from the independent‑district review because they did not meet the independent district criteria the team used.
Public comment from a conservation technician and producer underscored the local importance of small district boards: Chris Tooten, speaking for Jefferson County’s Soil and Water board, said local boards provide community trust and local knowledge that make cost‑share programs and technical assistance accessible to producers in rural counties. “Producers just aren't gonna... we have to make it as easy as possible for them, or they're just not gonna do it,” Tooten said, arguing that consolidation or dissolution could push services farther from producers and reduce participation.
Jawaskey presented several options for policymakers, from maintaining the current model with targeted improvements to consolidation or reorganization of districts; he emphasized that policy decisions about restructuring are in the legislature’s purview and that the consultant’s role was to provide data and recommendations. Senators indicated they expect follow‑up work and possible legislation to address governance, reporting, and statutory alignment for the districts.
Ending: The committee did not take final action at the hearing. Members said they will consider the review’s findings during future bill drafting and oversight work and may seek technical assistance or additional testimony regarding consolidation, statutory notice and recordkeeping requirements, and options to support continued local producer participation.
