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.”
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:
Post a Comment