N RANCHING
atural Resources During my visit to the Temple offi ce, every member
of the TSSWCB staff stressed how much they appreciate the uncommonly strong local involvement the district boards have in the agency’s work. And the 75-year- old agency has been quietly going about its business of making wise and informed decisions on which conservation projects to fund and getting dollars and expertise out on the land to support those projects and support the efforts of local landowners. This led me to my fi rst question for Rex Isom, the
executive director of TSSWCB. Does TSSWCB want to remain the best-kept secret in natural resources man- agement expertise and work? “No,” he chuckles. Isom, who has been with the
agency for 28 years and has led the agency since 2003, says, “Probably one of the reasons the Soil and Water Conservation Board has always been a well-kept se- cret is because it’s not a regulatory agency. However, as a state, we’re getting more pressure on our natural resources from population growth, so more people are becoming more aware of water quantity, water quality and soil health. As that happens, I think more and more entities and agriculture groups are seeing that there is a vehicle in place for conservation in every county in this state,” he says of the soil and water conserva- tion districts. The nature of local district board leaders also con-
tributes to a low-key culture. “In most counties, our people are quiet leaders,” Isom says. “When they leave a meeting, they go back to their tractors or cows. Our people are cattle raisers, sheep and goat raisers, poultry producers, and cotton producers. They are not blowing their own horn.” But awareness of the TSSWCB is changing, he says.
“In the last 4 to 5 years, I have gotten the sense that some of the legislators are getting more interested in what we do because we deal with water quantity, quality and soil health. We have a story to tell and it’s backed up with a good track record,” he says.
Flood control work The agency administers a multitude of natural
resources management projects — more than can be discussed in a single article. Landowners are encour- aged to visit their soil and water conservation district offi ce, usually co-located with the local USDA NRCS offi ce, to learn more about the services and programs TSSWCB has available. In fact, Isom invites landowners to participate. “We would like to have more produc- ers coming in asking for conservation plans,” he says.
56 The Cattleman December 2014 The State Board
The Texas Soil and Water Conservation Board is governed by a 7-member board of directors. Five of the board members are elected by delegates from each of the 5 regions of the state’s 216 local soil and water conservation districts. Since the conclusion of the 78th Legislative Session, 2 members are to be appointed by
the governor. Area 1 – Scott Buckles, Stratford
Area 2 – Marty H. Graham, Rock Springs Area 3 – José Dodier Jr., Zapata
Area 4 – Jerry D. Nichols, Nacogdoches Area 5 – Barry Mahler, Iowa Park
Appointed – Larry D. Jacobs, Montgomery Appointed – Joe Ward, Telephone
A signifi cant portion of the agency’s budget is dedi-
cated to fl ood control projects. This is a new program area for TSSWCB; fi rst funded in 2010. John Foster, TSSWCB statewide programs offi cer, says, “NRCS had this wonderful program in the 1940s and 1950s called the small watershed program.” Thousands of small fl ood control dams were built to protect people, property and lives, Foster says, and in the ensuing 60 or 70 years the dams may not have been maintained properly. Foster says, “NRCS paid for the design and construc-
tion of the dams and the landowner gave them a spot for the dam, usually getting a lake out of the agreement.” Local governments and the local soil and water con-
servation districts were always involved, and some local entity was to have taxing authority to help raise funds to maintain the structures, keep trees and livestock off and keep good fences around the dams. Foster says, “In 2006 or 2007, the local soil and
water conservation district board members became concerned that they didn’t have the money to maintain the dams. Their tax base wasn’t such that they could raise a lot, or maybe their taxing partner didn’t exist anymore. They realized they had a duty to maintain this dam structure and were facing signifi cant personal and professional liability.” The members of the Texas Legislature understood
the need for funds to maintain the dams, and “because the soil and water conservation district was involved in every case, we were a likely place for the program to be housed. We get funding now and provide grants — matching funds — to local districts to fi nance work to repair and maintain dams.” Foster continues, “For maintenance activities, which
thecattlemanmagazine.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116