Committee hears bill to raise state match, cap for Kansas conservation districts

A Kansas House committee opened a hearing on Senate Bill 36, which would increase state support for county conservation districts by changing the state-to-county match to 2-to-1 and raising the per-district cap from $25,000 to $50,000, committee staff and witnesses said.

The bill also would move the annual county-certification deadline from Sept. 1 to Nov. 1 and would take effect upon publication in the statute book, Kyle Hamilton, who gave the committee the bill brief, told the panel. "The $25,000 per district appropriation limit would be increased to $50,000 subject to appropriations. And then lastly, such state appropriations would now be dispersed to each district on a 2 to 1 matching basis, not to exceed $50,000 per district," Hamilton said.

The measure matters because conservation districts are the primary local delivery system for several state and federal conservation programs and provide on-the-ground technical and administrative assistance, Dan Meyerhoff, executive director of the Kansas Association of Conservation Districts, told the committee. "What this does is it changes the match, the county state match from 1 to 1 to a 2 to 1 match, with no more than $50,000 per county, which we put a cap on that," Meyerhoff said.

Under current law the state matches county funding dollar-for-dollar up to $25,000 per district. Senate Bill 36 would increase that cap and alter the match to provide more state dollars per county contribution, subject to future appropriations. The bill does not itself appropriate funds, witnesses and staff emphasized; appropriations would be determined through the normal budget process.

Heather (last name not provided), a fiscal analyst for the Kansas Department of Agriculture, briefed members on recent and proposed fund levels. She reported that a fiscal year 2025 appropriation from the State Water Plan Fund totaled $3,500,000 and that those disbursements, made on July 10, 2024, averaged about $33,359 per district. For fiscal year 2026 she said the governor recommends $4,300,000 from the State Water Plan Fund plus a $1,000,000 transfer from the 2024 House Bill 2302 projects fund in the Kansas Water Office for state aid to conservation districts.

The Kansas Association of Counties told the committee enactment of SB 36 could increase county allocations to conservation districts to meet the higher match but that the fiscal effect on counties could not be estimated, Heather said.

Meyerhoff told the committee there are 105 conservation districts in Kansas, each overseen by a five-member volunteer board elected locally. He described district work that includes administering federal and state programs, education outreach, and providing or renting specialized equipment such as no‑till drills. Meyerhoff said the districts also help administer federal programs: he reported the association assisted with about 837 Environmental Quality Incentives Program contracts totaling about $64 million and roughly 210 Conservation Stewardship Program contracts totaling about $29 million in the prior year.

Several lawmakers described why funding stability matters. Representative Lehi said county districts often supply shared equipment and help fund pond fencing and other practices that reduce runoff and protect water quality, and described staff turnover tied to limited pay and benefits. "We've been long over underfunded," Lehi said, adding higher state support could bring continuity to local offices.

Committee members asked about the relationship between SB 36 and other pending proposals. Representative Minnick noted a related bill he sponsored that would provide a time-limited appropriation and said the two measures would need reconciliation if both move forward; that bill included a sunset in 2028 while SB 36 is drafted to continue in perpetuity, he said.

No vote was taken on SB 36 during the hearing. The committee heard proponent testimony from the Kansas Association of Conservation Districts and accepted written-only testimony from the Department of Agriculture and Jessica Cobb of the Nature Conservancy. The committee chair closed the hearing and announced the panel will consider other bills at future meetings, including a scheduled hearing on Senate Bill 89 and further action on House Bill 2012.

The panel earlier approved a set of committee minutes by motion before taking up SB 36; that procedural motion carried without recorded roll-call detail.