Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conservation District Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves SB 36 to raise state match and change funding deadline for conservation districts
Summary
The committee gave final approval to Senate Bill 36, which moves the county-certification deadline from Sept. 1 to Nov. 1, raises the per-district state appropriation cap from $25,000 to up to $50,000, and sets a 2-to-1 state–county matching distribution subject to legislative appropriation.
The committee approved Senate Bill 36 on a voice vote, advancing a measure that would change how state aid flows to local conservation districts.
SB 36 would shift the deadline for counties to certify funding for conservation districts from Sept. 1 to Nov. 1, raise the current per-district state appropriation cap from $25,000 to an amount not to exceed $50,000, and provide that state disbursements be made on a 2-to-1 state–county matching basis, subject to legislative appropriation.
Kyle Hamilton, presenting the bill for committee consideration, summarized the changes, including the later certification deadline and the larger potential state share. Heather (fiscal staff) told the committee the Department of Agriculture’s fiscal note indicates the FY2025 appropriation from the state water plan fund produced an average disbursement of 33,359 per district; the fiscal note also referenced a governor-recommended FY2026 package that included a $4,300,000 appropriation from the state water plan fund and a $1,000,000 transfer from a projects fund in the Kansas Water Office. The fiscal staff emphasized any increase in state aid would be contingent on legislative appropriation and the counties’ matching allocations.
Representative Seibert asked whether the $25,000 cap applied per district or per individual applicant; Hamilton confirmed the amount is per district. Hamilton and committee members also discussed that historically many counties have provided varying levels of support to district offices; in some counties that support was at or near $25,000 and districts used that local-plus-state funding to cover manager salaries, office expenses and cost‑share programs. The sponsor said the bill intends to allow districts to reach higher state support so they can better sustain staff and pay competitive wages.
Representative Neely moved to pass SB 36 favorable for passage; Representative Roth seconded. The committee recorded the ayes and approved the bill by voice vote.
The bill will be carried by Representative Rosier. The committee record shows the action was final committee approval; specific recorded roll-call tallies were not provided in the transcript.
Why it matters: County conservation districts deliver technical assistance and cost-share programs for soil, water and related conservation work. The bill changes the timing and potential amount of state assistance, and ties additional state funding to county contributions and to future legislative appropriations. Those fiscal dependencies mean any increase in district revenue will depend on both the Legislature’s budget choices and local county commission decisions.
