| |
RCA III
State Conservation District Laws:
Development and Variations
Working Paper No. 3
Huong N. Tran and Liu Chuang
Natural Resources Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
July 1996
Contents
Introduction
The Development of Federal Soil and Water Conservation
Law
State Soil and Water Conservation District Laws
Footnotes
Tables
Introduction
This report will examine the laws guiding State and local soil and water
conservation activities for the Third RCA Appraisal. First, the development
of Federal soil and water conservation law will be discussed, and then the
soil and water conservation district laws of all 50 states will be analyzed
and compared.
The Development of Federal Soil and Water Conservation Law
On August 25, 1933, the Soil Erosion Service was created in the U.S. Department
of the Interior. 1 On March 25, 1935, this Service
was transferred to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and it was
later renamed the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 2
On April 27, 1935, after unanimous passage by the House and the Senate,
President Roosevelt signed the Soil Conservation Act of 1935. 3
This Act recognized that "soil erosion is a menace to the national
welfare and that it is hereby declared to be a policy of Congress to provide
permanently for the control and prevention of soil erosion . . . ." 4
Moreover, this Act specifically established the SCS within USDA to develop
programs of soil and water conservation, supplementing the ongoing ones,
for the Nation. 5 In April 1995, SCS was renamed
the Natural Resources Conservation Service and given broadened responsibilities.
In February 1936, Congress amended P.L. 74-46 by enacting P.L. 74-461. 6
Public Law 74-461, also known as the "Soil Conservation and Domestic
Allotment Act," authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to make payments
and grants of aid to support approved soil and water conservation measures. 7
The Soil Conservation Service addressed the challenge by setting up a number
of large-scale demonstration projects around the country. 8
Although these projects were themselves successful, this approach was not
far-reaching enough. It was not only too costly and too slow to achieve
the desired results, but it lacked grass-roots support and participation
and did not provide long-lasting conservation treatment. 9
It was recognized that a local organization was necessary through which con-servation could be accomplished. 10 On June
5, 1935, the Secretary of Agriculture's Committee on Soil Conservation recommended
that "all erosion control work on private lands, including new demonstration
projects would be undertaken by SCS only through legally constituted Soil
Conservation Associations . . . ." 11 From
this recommendation, the soil conservation district was born. In February
1937, a model Soil Conservation District Law was developed for consideration
by each of the states. 12 Along with a letter from
President Roosevelt, this model enabling act was sent to each of the state
governors, suggesting that farmers and ranchers be granted the authority
to establish districts specifically for conservation of soil and water resources. 13
The states responded, but with varying degrees of speed. Twenty-two states
passed enabling legislation within the same year. Ultimately all 50 states,
plus Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, adopted the enabling laws. 14
In the 1950s, most states amended their state conservation district laws
to put more emphasis on water conservation and to confer authority to carry
out watershed projects. 15 Recent amendments granted
authorities to promote district participation in state water quality management
and erosion and sediment control programs, critical area land-use management
programs, and administration of special soil and water conservation funds,
including funds which provide state financial assistance for installing
soil and water conservation practices. 16
State Soil and Water Conservation District Laws
This section will examine the soil and water conservation district laws
of the 50 states. It is divided into two subsections: first, a general discussion
of the state conservation district laws, and second, a comparison between
the standard district law (the model law) and the various state district
laws.
General configuration of state soil and water conservation district laws
As mentioned earlier, in 1937 the President sent a model state act for forming
soil conservation districts to each state governor. All states have enacted
legislation based on this model. These state laws are enabling acts which
provide a mechanism for creating soil conservation districts (SCDs) to conserve
soil, water, and related resources. Each district is governed by a locally
elected or appointed board of officials, usually called directors, commissioners,
or supervisors. Although SCD boundaries generally coincide with county boundaries,
there are SCDs that cover more than one county and SCDs that cover only
part of one county.
Generally, SCDs have the power to plan and carry out programs for soil conservation,
flood prevention, water management, recreation, and other purposes within
their boundaries. Most SCDs have the authority to acquire property, enter
into contracts and agreements, cooperate with other districts and agencies,
conduct surveys, and receive funds. However, due to the fact that most states
modified the model act to some degree, there is a certain amount of diversity
in the authorities and administrative mechanisms under which the districts
operate.
The soil conservation districts cover almost the entire Nation. The SCD
is based on relatively uniform state laws, local initiatives and governance,
and cooperation with federal agencies. It provides a mechanism for delivering
much of the conservation assistance authorized under the federal laws. In
addition, many federal conservation assistance programs that are less formally
tied to SCDs use the local districts as an important part of their delivery
system.
Comparison between the standard model law and the state laws
The model enabling act mainly consists of a number of sections, including
(1) the statement of purpose and policy of the law, (2) the organization
and authorized activities of the state soil conservation committee, (3)
the organization of the conservation district, (4) the functions and powers
of the district, (5) and the conservation district governance. 17
Although most of the state laws follow this general scheme, they vary in
certain areas. Each of these sections shall be discussed in turn.
1. The statement of purpose and policy of the law
The model law makes a legislative declaration about the condition of the
state's lands, the consequences, and the appropriate corrective methods
and a declaration of policy concerning the soil and natural resources and
their conservation. The legislative determination and declaration of policy
both are broadened in scope.
Most of the state laws follow this approach. However, there are some variations.
Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming (a total of 14 states) extend their purpose and policy to include
renewable natural resources. Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, and Michigan give
only a declaration of policy. Moreover, Connecticut, Hawaii, Missouri, Ohio,
and Tennessee do not even have the statement of purpose and the policy of
law section.
2. The organization of the state soil conservation committee
The model law divides the organization of the state soil conservation committee
into four particular subsections. They cover (1) name, (2) position within
state government, (3) membership and cooperation, and (4) authorized activities.
Each of these subsection will be discussed in turn.
The model law suggests that the committee be called the State Soil Conservation
Committee. 18 However, only 10 states--Colorado,
Idaho, Iowa, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Tennessee,
Utah, and West Virginia--keep this particular name. Most other states change
the name to reflect the broadened scope of the law. For example, Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia
a total of 17 states, call the committee the State Soil and Water Conservation
Commission. Eight states--Kansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, South Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming--call the committee the State
Conservation Commission (or committee). Massachusetts calls it the Committee
for Conservation of Soil, Water, and Related Resources.
The model law does not specify the committee's position within the state
government. However, most state laws indicate their committees' position
within the state government. For example, the state soil conservation commission
of Idaho is created in the Department of Lands. 19
For North Carolina, the commission belongs to the Department of Natural
and Economic Resources. Furthermore, for Alaska, California, Colorado, Delaware,
Hawaii, Indiana, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, and Rhode Island, the
committee's position is within the State Department of Conservation or Natural
Resources.
The model law recommends that the committee consist of a chairman and from
3 to 5 members. It also recommends that certain members shall serve in an
ex officio capacity. 20 The total number of members
varies from state to state, ranging between three and thirteen members.
For example, for Georgia, there are five committee members and thirteen
ex officio members; the Virginia committee has only three members, while
Ohio has thirteen. In general, the law of each state requires that the members
be appointed and/or elected. Some state laws also require that the members
be farmers or ranchers, officers of other state agencies, and/or district
supervisors. Most state laws also require that a number of individuals serve
as advisors for the committee.
The model law provides that the committee members receive no compensation
for services other than expenses such as traveling expenses. 21
Although most states follow this standard, 17 states--Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, and Wisconsin
( allow compensation in salaries in addition to expenses. 22
A number of authorized activities are provided for the state soil conservation
committee throughout the model law. The authorized activities are as follows:
(1) assisting districts in preparing and carrying out programs, (2) facilitating
interchange of information between districts, (3) reviewing and coordinating
programs of districts, (4) requesting state appropriations for state agencies
and districts, (5) receiving and distributing funds to districts, (6) enlisting
cooperation of state, federal and other agencies, (7) making information
available to the public, and (8) providing for an annual audit of the accounts
of receipts and disbursements.
In most states, the committee has the authorized activities listed above.
However, a number of states extend their authorized activities to include
reviewing agreements or agreement forms for district use, 23
facilitating arrangements for districts to serve as local operating agencies, 24
cooperating in coordination of other agencies' plans affecting renewable
natural resources, 25 assisting in resolving conflicts
between programs, 26 making studies and analyses
of districts' programs, 27 carrying out state policies
at state level for the conservation of renewable natural resources and representing
the state in matters affecting such resources, 28
assisting districts in obtaining legal assistance, 29
requiring annual reports by districts, 30 and carrying
out the same activities as districts. 31 In 1993,
Mississippi amended the provision listing the general duties and powers
of the commission to include, among other powers, the authority to demonstrate
to landowners and operators within the state the equipment that will demonstrate
energy and soil and water conservation. 32
3. The organization of the conservation district
The model law identifies the district as the Soil Conservation District. 33
Although a number of states maintain this identification, 34
most change the name to Soil and Water Conservation District, 35
Conservation District, 36 Natural Resources District, 37
or Resource Conservation District. 38
The model law defines the district as a governmental subdivision of the
state and a public body corporate and politic. 39
Most of the state enabling acts maintain this definition, but Georgia and
Maine define it as an agency of the state. Only Missouri defines it as a
body corporate.
The model law provides that land occupiers--defined to include both owners
and non-owning operators--may file a petition to the state to request creation
of a conservation district. The state committee must hold hearings and cause
a referendum to be voted on by land occupiers. It only requires a majority
vote (51 percent) in favor to create a district.
Although states generally follow this scheme, there are variations in the
individuals permitted to file a petition, the individuals allowed to vote
in the referendum, and the percentage of vote necessary to permit creation
of a district. Eleven states--Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois,
Indiana, Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina, Utah, and Washington--allow
only landowners to petition and to vote. California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
North Dakota, Oregon, and Washington are even stricter because they allow
only electors, i.e. qualified voters, to vote. For example, North Dakota
law defines a "qualified voter" as a person of the age of 18 or
older who is a U.S. citizen and who has resided in the state and in the
precinct for 30 days before any election, whether or not the person is living
in a rural or urban area. 40 Clearly, this definition
excludes landowners who are not U.S. citizens.
Most states follow the model rule in requiring a simple majority of votes
to create a district. However, Alabama, Arkansas, South Dakota, and Texas
require a two-thirds (67 percent) vote in favor of creation; Arizona, Iowa,
and Ohio require 65 percent in favor, and West Virginia requires 60 percent.
Two states--Arizona and New Jersey--are even stricter in demanding that
voters in the referendum must represent a certain percentage of acreage
in the district. For example, in addition to the 65 percent vote requirement,
Arizona demands that voting landowners must own not less than 50 percent
of privately owned land lying within the proposed district. 41
Four states--California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin--allow the
county governing body to organize conservation districts.
Although the model law does not specify district boundaries, it provides
for inclusion of territory. 42 Most states have
this provision in addition to others which allow change of boundaries, inclusion
of urban areas, and change of the district's name. Furthermore, although
the model law does not require that the boundaries be conterminous with
county lines, Delaware, Indiana, Maryland (except Frederick County), New
Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin do require
this.
The model law allows discontinuance of a district at any time from 5 years
after the organization of the district, if it is done by petition and referendum
and obtains a majority vote (51 percent). 43 Although
most states follow this scheme for discontinuance, there are variations.
Alabama, Colorado, and Illinois require only a minimum of 3 years after
organization; Indiana and Michigan require only 2 years. Instead of the
required petition and referendum, Pennsylvania is unique because its law
allows discontinuance action by the county board. As to the percentage of
vote required for discontinuance, Florida, Kentucky, and Oregon require
a 67 percent vote, while Arizona, Iowa, and Ohio require 65 percent.
4. The functions and powers of the conservation district
The model law lists the following as district functions: (1) soil conservation,
(2) flood prevention, (3) drainage, (4) water supply, (5) irrigation, and
(6) sediment prevention. Most states adopt these functions; however, there
are a number of unique states. Although an Alabama district has only two
functions, namely soil conservation and drainage, others--flood prevention,
irrigation, and prevention of sedimentation--are in the hands of its subdistricts.
Missouri's district functions are similar to Alabama's, except that the
function of drainage also belongs to Missouri's subdistricts. Some states
extend this list of functions by including recreation 44
and control of soil and water pollution. 45
The model law lists a number of powers entrusted to the conservation districts:
(1) entering into contracts, (2) acquiring and disposing of property, (3)
providing assistance, (4) developing districtwide plans, (5) constructing
and maintaining structures, (6) cooperating with other districts and agencies,
(7) acquiring and administering projects, (8) imposing conditions for furnishing
assistance, (9) suing and being sued, (10) adopting land-use regulations,
(11) conducting surveys, investigation and research, (12) receiving money
from the state, (13) receiving money from the United States, and (14) receiving
income from property by sales. 46
Most states give similar powers to their districts. However, ten states
(Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma,
Rhode Island, Washington, and Wyoming) allow districts to cooperate with
districts in other states. Nineteen states--Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado,
Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, New
Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Virginia,
West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming--permit the districts to exercise public
powers. 47 Among these states, the public powers
of Colorado, Georgia, and Kentucky are limited. 48
Five states--Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Virginia--are
exceptional because the state laws allow the districts to review subdivision
or other plans. Virginia is the only state that allows the districts to
carry out state and county erosion and sediment control programs, to adopt
erosion and sediment control plans, and to have an enforcement provision
in erosion and sediment control programs. 49 California
and Nebraska are unique in that they allow districts to have further powers
such as levying taxes and assessments, borrowing money, issuing bonds, receiving
matching funds, and receiving revolving funds.
5. The conservation district governance
Although most states follow the model law by identifying the governing body
members as supervisors, a number of states identify the members as directors 50
or commissioners. 51 The model law provides that
the governing body of the district consists of five elected or appointed
supervisors. 52 Most states follow this scheme.
There are three unique states--California, Kentucky and Pennsylvania. Rather
than being limited to having just five individuals per board of directors
of a Resources Conservation District (RCD), California added some provisions
in 1992 which allowed RCDs to have five, seven, or nine directors, to be
elected or appointed by division within each district. 53
Kentucky and Pennsylvania call for seven supervisors. Contrary to the model
law's suggestion that a vacancy is to be filled in the same way as the retiring
member was selected, 54 most states require vacancies
to be filled by appointment.
The model law provides that each supervisor serves for a term of 3 years.
However, the supervisors who are first appointed are designated to serve
for terms of 1 and 2 years, so that the terms expire at different times
and at least one supervisor's term of service will carry over. Supervisors
may be removed for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, not any other
reason. Although most state laws follow this design, there are a few variations
regarding terms of office and cause for removal. For example, Arizona, Iowa,
Minnesota, and North Dakota allow the elected members to serve for 6 years,
while Illinois law allows the elected members to serve for only 2 years.
Arizona, Maryland, Nevada, New York, Oregon, and Pennsylvania provide that
failure to attend meetings in conjunction with malfeasance and/or nonfeasance
can be cause for removal.
The model law lists a number of governing body functions for the district.
They are: (1) the governing body must organize annually and elect a chairman
among its members, (2) the district can call on the state commissioner or
attorney general for legal services, (3) the governing body must provide
an annual audit, and (4) the governing body can appoint an advisory committee
for coordination with other agencies. Most states follow the majority of
these governing body functions. Contrary to the model rule, a few states
provide that the governing body may receive compensation in addition to
expenses. 55 California is unique in a sense because
although the RCD directors are not allowed to receive compensation for their
services, the law provides that the RCDs may properly use their funds to
pay premiums for major medical group insurance plans for the directors through
the California Special District Associations. 56
The tables that follow are comprehensive but do not enter into minute detail.
Reference to the law of each individual State is essential for full understanding
and elucidation of its provisions.
Footnotes
1
Soil and Water Conservation District Commissioner
Handbook, March 1991. Iowa Department of Agriculture & Land Stewardship.
Dale M. Cochran, Secretary of Agriculture, p. 5 (noting that this program
was the first of its kind anywhere) (hereinafter Soil and Water Handbook).
2
Ibid.
3
Pub. L. No. 74-46, 49 Stat. 163, 16 U.S.C. 590(a)-(f).
4
Ibid.
5
Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act: 1980
Appraisal Part II, Soil, Water, and Related Resources in the United States:
Analysis of Resources Trends, USDA. Issued August 1981, at 209 (hereafter
Soil and Water Resources Appraisal).
6
Pub. L. No. 74-461, 49 Stat. 1148, 16 U.S.C.590 (g, h, i-k, l-q).
7
Soil and Water Resources Appraisal.
8
Soil and Water Handbook.
9
Ibid.
10
Ibid.
11
Soil and Water Resources Appraisal.
12
Soil and Water Resources Appraisal.
13 Ibid.
14
See Ala. Code § 9-8-20 et seq. (1987);
Alaska. Stat. § 41.10.010 et seq. (1988); Ark. Code Ann. § 14-125-101
et seq. (1987 & Supp. 1991); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 37-1001 et
seq. (1993); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 9074 et seq. (1977); Colo. Rev.
Stat. § 35-70-101 et seq. (1995); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-314 et
seq. (1983 & Supp. 1993); D.C. Code Ann. § 1-2801 et seq. (1981);
Del. Code Ann. tit. 7 § 3901 et seq. (1991); Fla. Stat. Ann. §
582.01 et seq. (1987 & Supp. 1994); Ga. Code Ann. § 2-6-20 et seq.
(1982); HAWAII REV. STAT. § 180-1 et seq. (1985 & Supp. 1992);
IDAHO. CODE § 22-2715 et seq. (1977 & Supp. 1994); ILL. COMP. STAT.
ANN. tit. 70 et seq. § 405/1 et seq. (Smith-Hurd 1993); IND. CODE ANN.
§ 13-3-1-1 et seq. (1990 & sUPP. 1992); IOWA CODE ANN. § 467A.1
et seq. (1991); KAN. STAT. ANN. § 2-1901 et seq. (1991 & Supp.
1992); KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 262.010 et seq. (1981 & Supp. 1992);
LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 3:1201 et seq. (1987 & Supp. 1993); MD. CODE
ANN., AGRIC. §8-101 et seq. (1985 & Supp. 1994); ME. REV. STAT.
ANN. tit. 12, §§ 1 to158 (West 1981 & Supp. 1992); MICH. STAT.
ANN. § 13.1781 et seq. (1987 & Supp. 1993); MIN. STAT. § 103C.001
et seq. (1990 & Supp. 1993); MISS. CODE ANN. §69-27-1 et seq. (1991
& Supp. 1993); MO. REV. STAT. § 278.060 et seq. (1993); MONT. CODE
ANN. § 76-15-101 et seq. (1995); N.C. GEN. STAT. §139-1 et seq.
(1992); N.D. CENTURY CODE § 4-22-01 et seq. (1987); NEB. REV. STAT.
§ 2-1575 et seq. (1987); NEV. REV. STAT. reprinted 548.010 et seq.
(1994); N.J. STAT. ANN. § 4:24-1 et seq. (West 1973 & Supp. 1993);
N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 432:1 et seq. (1991); N.M. STAT. ANN. §
73-20-25 et seq. (1978 & Supp. 1987); N.Y. SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION.
DIST. book 52-B § 1 et seq. (Consol. 1949 & Supp. 1996); OHIO REV.
CODE ANN. § 1515.01 et seq. (1986 & Supp. 1992); OKLA. STAT ANN.
tit. 27A, § 3-1-101 et seq. (West Supp. 1995); ORE. REV. STAT. §
568.210 et seq. (1991); PA. STAT. ANN. tit. 3 § 849 et seq. (1963 &
Supp. 1993); P.R. LAWS ANNO. tit. 5, § 241 et seq. (1981); R.I. GEN.
LAW ANN. § 2-4-1 et seq. (1987 & Supp. 1992); S.C. CODE ANN. §48-9-10
et seq. (Law. Co-Op. 1987 & Supp. 1992); S.D. CODIFIED LAWS ANN. §
38-8-1 et seq. (1985 & Supp. 1992); TEN. CODE ANN. § 43-14-201
et seq. (1987); TEXAS AGRIC. STAT. CODE ANN. § 201.001 et seq. (1995);
UTAH CODE ANN. § 4-18-1 et seq. (1995); WA. CODE ANN. § 89.08.010
et seq. (1992 & Supp. 1996); WIS. STAT. § 92.01 et seq. (1990);
VA. CODE § 10.1-500 et seq. (1993 & Supp. 1995); VERMONT STAT.
ANN. tit. 10 § 701 et seq. (1984 & Supp. 1990); W.VA. CODE §
19-21A-1 et seq. (1991 & Supp. 1993); WYO. STAT. § 11-16-101 et
seq. (1994).
15
Beatrice H. Holmes, Legal Authorities for Federal
(USDA), State and Local Soil and Water Conservation Activities, Second RCA
Appraisal (1987), p. 33 [hereafter Holmes].
16
Holmes.
17
A Standard State Soil Conservation Districts
Law § 2 (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1936) (hereafter Model Law).
18
Model Law § 4(A).
19
Idaho Code § 22-2718 (1977).
20
Model Law § 4(A).
21
Model Law § 4(C).
22
For example, for the state of Indiana, a supervisor
is allowed to be paid a salary per diem for any part of a day that the supervisor
is engaged in the official business of the supervisor's district. See The
Indiana Soil and Water Conservation Districts Act, IND. CODE § 13-3-1-7
(1990).
23
Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana North
Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington include this activity.
24 Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Nevada,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wyoming include this
activity.
25
Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin include
this activity.
26
Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, Wisconsin, and Washington include this activity.
27
Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin include
this activity.
28
Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Nebraska,
Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Virginia, and Wyoming include this activity.
29
California, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Oklahoma,
Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming include this activity.
30
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado,
Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming include this activity.
31
Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, and Maine include
this activity.
32
Soil Conservation District Law, Miss. Code
Ann. § 69-27-13(k) (Supp. 1994).
33
Model Law § 5.
34
Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Maryland,
Michigan, New Jersey, North Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.
35
Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia,
and Wisconsin.
36
Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts,
Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming.
37
Arizona, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Vermont.
38
California.
39
Model Law § 3(1), p.3.
40
N.D. Century Code § 4-22-02(8) (Supp.1994).
41
See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 37-1035 (1993).
42
Model Law § 5(H), p. 12.
43
Model Law § 15, p. 26.
44
Most states' districts have this function.
45
Kentucky, Nebraska, Ohio, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.
46
Model Law § 8, p. 15.
47
The term "public powers" denotes
the governmental power to take private property for public use. For an example
of "public powers" authorization, see Soil and Water Conservation
District Law, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 139-8 (1992).
48
For an example of a state with limited power authorization, see Colo. Rev. Stat. Code, art. 70, § 35-70-108(1) (1989).
This power is limited in the sense that it is subjected to rules, regulations,
and bylaws adopted by a district or a special meeting called by qualified
voters. Ibid.
49
Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and South Dakota, have these
three similar powers. However, the authority for these powers is contained
in state laws other than the district laws.
50
Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, Nebraska, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas,
and Virginia use the term "director".
51
The states using the term "commissioner"
in lieu of "supervisor" are Iowa, Mississippi, and South Carolina.
52
Model Law § 7, p. 14.
53
Resource Conservation, Cal. Publ. Res. Code § 9301 (West 1977 & Supp. 1995).
54
The states which follow the model rule in filling vacancies are Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Nevada, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.
55
Arizona, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina,
South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
56 Resource Conservation Law, Cal. Publ. Res.
Code § 9303 (West 1977).
Tables
Tables associated with this document are too detailed for use on the World
Wide Web. Contact Liu Chuang for a hard copy of the tables.
< Back to RCA Publication Archive
| | |