Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Soil And Water Conservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Meigs County Soil and Water Conservation District outlines FY24 projects, asks to protect administrative technician position
Summary
The district reported $532,000 in obligated conservation projects and warned the county it may need to fund the district administrative technician role if state or federal partners reduce support.
Dave Waters, a member of the Meigs County Soil and Water Conservation District board, briefed commissioners on the district’s FY2024 work and funding and emphasized the role of the district administrative technician in coordinating projects and equipment rentals for local landowners.
Waters said the district has helped fund erosion-control, water-quality and habitat projects across farms, woodlands and other properties by working with USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Tennessee Department of Agriculture. “These projects are preventing soil erosion, improving water quality, improving wildlife habitat, soil health ... and also improving the bottom line for the farmers,” Waters said.
Waters provided a funding snapshot during the presentation: he said about $137,000 in USDA funds and roughly $65,000 from the Tennessee Department of Agriculture were completed last year, with additional USDA obligations of about $274,000. Overall, he said, about $532,000 of conservation work was committed for the county with typical producer cost‑shares meaning the projects bring additional private investment into the local economy.
The district operates county-level rental equipment (including a 10‑foot drill and post driver) that Waters said helps small farmers access tools that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive. He also described the funding arrangement for the district’s administrative technician role: current contributions cited were roughly USDA $12,000 per year, TDA $9,000 and the county $7,000. Waters warned that if USDA withdrew its contribution the district would return to the commission seeking local support to maintain the position and programs.
There was no formal vote tied to the briefing. Commissioners asked clarifying questions and were told program agreements and funding levels can span multiple years and that obligated funds may be paid out over the current and following fiscal years.
The district left commissioners a printed FY24 packet and asked the commission to note the program’s contribution to local agricultural operations and to consider sustaining the administrative technician position should external funding decline.
