Sunday, April 21, 2013

Conservation Districts: Grassroots Cornerstone



Grassroots Cornerstone
Conservation Districts
The overlooked Bastion
By Stephen L. Wilmeth



            The Founders had it right.
            They envisioned a government led by independent Americans who were not reliant on the umbilical cord of societal sustenance. Those leaders were intended to be veterans of life who had fought the fight of survival, prevailed and excelled in their individual campaigns, and had come to realize it was their persistence and abilities that delivered their success.
It wasn’t the system that made it happen. It was the summation of their life’s commitment. Their ability to be elected was predicated not on deep pockets and political party support, but their stature amidst their peers who interacted with them in the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The approach was simplistic. It elevated the sovereign individual to the spotlight, but it didn’t allow that spotlight to rule the whole. That spotlight was only one of many who pooled their individual wisdom gleaned by experience. As a result, there was no contrived agenda. Those leaders gathered and offered their counsel and went home to live out their days on the continuing merits of their life’s work.
There is no semblance of such a system today … nor has there been for most of our history.
Conservation Districts
Conservation districts have been around a long time. Their roots are a 20th century phenomenon that doesn’t mirror the bounds of the Founders vision.
They came from the depression era when government had reached full acceleration away from our Constitutional underpinnings. It was then that the first support programs were being installed, altered and then dropped or manipulated. The Dust Bowl was the perfect storm of federal meddling and climatic conditions that left millions of acres of precious soil exposed. It blew …
In its expanded role as monarchs, the federal leadership approached the debacle on the basis of casting blame. They engineered a continued series of grand schemes that would forever insure nothing like the Dust Bowl would happen again. Implicit in the process, the fall guys were the farmers. They were cast as less than bright characters that needed to be held in check by the government.
It was a technique that has been used systematically since.
Ostensibly, conservation districts, subdivisions of state government, were established legislatively to ‘preserve and develop’ soil, water, and other natural resources in order ‘to protect and promote the health and general welfare of the people of the state’. Those bodies were specifically created to control and prevent soil erosion, prevent floodwater and sediment damage, develop the beneficial application of water, and promote the impoundment of water for recreational use. The combination of those factors would ‘develop resources, protect the tax base, and promote the general welfare of the people’.
Sounds good, eh?
If a modern ecotourism program was organized for the purpose of visiting two score and seven conservation district meetings in a month’s period, the informed eco-tourist would come away with a heightened sense of the benefits of government. They would enter into the world of land stewards on an elevated plane. They would see elected officials dealing first hand with local resources. They would be brought up to speed on the grants, the funding, and the projects that are driven out of Washington. The programs, without exception, are still conceptualized on the Dust Bowl mentality of defending the resources against the shortcomings of the stewards. Indeed, the revenue harvests from Washington are being converted into programs that are saving the environment and our resources.
That interpretation could not be further from the truth …
Genius still exists
American Agriculture’s continued success is not because of any program that emanates from Washington. It is successful because of the immensity of our nation’s natural resources, irrigation projects that were constructed before progressive federal impaction, relatively cheap and abundant energy, and … the genius of its participants.
American Agriculture maintains it success on two very basic fronts. The first is remnants of the Founders’ concept of a limited but directed role of government in the wellbeing of our nation. The second is the model of the sovereign individual, projected into the greater system, who can be judged only by the full body of his life’s work.
It is the latter where genius remains in abundance.
It is manifested in green, red, and blue paint. It expands to visions predicted by algorithms, seen only by electron microscopes, and converted into goods and services by the risk taker.
It is that sovereign individual, he of the Founders’ faith, who maintains and perpetuates the system, a system unlike any the world has ever seen.
The unexpected role
The words used to describe the role of conservation districts should make every free and independent man a bit amused, and, underwhelmed. Paraphrased, they read:
To take available technical, financial, and educational resources, whatever their source, and focus or coordinate them so that they meet the needs of the local land user.’
As such, have the laws governing conservation districts worked?
The answer is couched on the basis of what measured value is used. If it is money from Washington, the answer is a resounding yes. Billions of dollars have been transported from the pockets of tax payers to various projects.
What about real success? Is the industry more robust in a more esoteric measure?
In a very critical measurement, the law has failed in terms of assuring the specific terms and conditions of the statute relating to the health and welfare of the stewards.
In Dona Ana County, New Mexico, arguably the highest impact agricultural county in the state, the rate of stewardship perpetuation can be measured. It stands at 17%. Only 17% of the existing, historical farms and ranches have a young steward standing in the wings to perpetuate the very resources that New Mexico statute 73-20-25 through 49 pledges to protect and preserve.
It isn’t because those next generation stewards don’t exist as much as the operations are constrained to create opportunities for those future stewards. Landlocked in a sea of federal land ownership, existing water and land resources are forced to fight it out against the expansion of residential growth. Agriculture is losing that battle in a federally induced constraint and regulation debacle.
Comparing the two factors … money spent and dynamics of the industry as measured by perpetuation of vital stewards … a more appropriate, evolving role of conservation districts, though, may be occurring. Paraphrased similarly, that role is starting to read, albeit in starts and stops, as follows:
‘To provide a firewall against the onslaught and assault of our land stewards by government regardless of source, so that they can survive and perpetuate their vital stewardship.’
That action, however, is not so much a feature of change in the mission as it is realization of our national condition. Reasonable people must wake up. A most central factor in this is the prevailing makeup of the boards themselves. They are still largely populated by members who are not driven by progressive ideals. Unlike too many evolving county commissions and city councils, they are largely industry participants who lean to objective standards that more closely reflect original concepts. They tend to adhere to limited government and the majority of the tenants that made the industry the marvel it is.
If they suffer from federalism, it is in the continuing inclination to participate in programs that cannot be characterized by anything other than welfare.  Rename or classify any program, if it is capitalized through tax payer extractions, it is welfare.
Nonetheless, conservation districts are the overlooked and vital third leg of local government. County commissions and city councils are obvious, but conservation districts, too, are supervised by elected bodies of officials. They are boards who have the authority to deal with the resources that are being ransacked through activist environmental agendas.
New realization
Rural America must defend itself. If it is lost, our country is lost.
It must expand as a bastion of strong leadership, and it must be populated by leaders who recognize local government stands only behind the sovereign individual as the salvation of our nation. Individual success must be heralded.
Stewards must be encouraged to make investments for their future based on reality not government. Strong Americans give rise to strong Americans.
Communities must prevail, similarly. They must defend against federal abuse in their own midst. Customs and cultures are not arbitrary and they won’t remain intact if left undefended.
The Dust Bowl would have been dramatically reduced if government had remained the model of original intent. Conservation districts arose, but their importance has taken a totally unexpected turn. They are becoming last resort defenders of our freedom.
Our Founders might actually approve …

Stephen L. Wilmeth is a rancher from New Mexico. “As annual elections take place, get to know your local conservation district officials. Encourage their stance against factors that threaten your customs and culture. Demand they stand up and make a bigger impact in our communities.”


THE WESTERNER sez:

Here in southern NM, the Dona Ana Soil & Water Conservation District has been a bastion of the type mentioned by Wilmeth.  They have made the case against border area wilderness and national monuments regionally, statewide, to Congress and to the White House itself.

The enviros aren't happy about that and are now running candidates against two of our district's leaders.  If you are a registered voter residing in the district please vote on May 7th (See the flyer below).




No comments: