RC&D Councils: Forging a Different Future

Remarks by Bruce I. Knight, Chief Natural Resources Conservation Service, at Southeastern Regional Association of RC&D Councils

September 8, 2005
Orlando, Florida

Good morning everyone. I deeply appreciate Jenni’s giving me the opportunity to join you today. Jenni, thank you so much! You have been doing great things here in the Southeast.

So it is indeed a pleasure to be here today to bring you up to date on some of the things that are happening at NRCS and your RC&D program.

I realize many of you know co-workers, friends, and relatives whose lives have been impacted by Hurricane Katrina. And before I begin, I’d just like to ask all of you to keep those folks in your thoughts and prayers.

Working on the response and recovery has been a major effort for USDA. Early on, ten NRCS staff with agency boats rescued 150 people and helped an additional 300. Yesterday, we oversaw the burial of 1 million chickens in Mississippi. And RC&D is helping keep our offices open while we are out doing damage assessments and carcass removal. In addition—

• Rural Development has committed 30,000 homes
• 3,000 Forest Service employees are helping out with the incident command
• APHIS and FGIS are working to make sure food is safe
• FSA is providing loan relief and ECP assistance

We are going to need your help also—with contractors and logistics.

Cooperative Conservation Conference

I also want to share with all of you here today a great experience I had last week—one that has been almost eclipsed by Katrina.

I have never been so proud to be Chief as I was being a part of NRCS’ participation as one of the key agencies on the USDA team at the White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation in St. Louis. It was a wonderful opportunity to celebrate conservation accomplishments and build networks and links for the next generation of partnerships. I also want to thank Sharon Ruggi and her team who participated in this exclusive conference.

I was thrilled to sit beside folks from the agricultural conservation movement, wildlife conservationists, State and federal natural resource managers, and representatives of land trust groups. In my experience, this was a first. And getting people with different perspectives on conservation in the same room discussing ways to work together to accomplish mutual goals was very encouraging. Those of us who care deeply about conservation are part of a large, vibrant, and committed community—and it’s time we got to know one another better!

We also shared success stories—and NRCS had the lead on five of 33 stories and a major role in eight more. In addition, ten NRCS projects were featured in a conference book.

That makes sense because cooperative conservation is what we do. We’ve been a partner in conservation for 70 years, working with private landowners to get conservation on working agricultural lands.

In addition, the extensive NRCS display booth wowed the attendees and emphasized the value of our scientific and technical tools as well as our soils and plants databases and our ability to adapt new technologies for practical uses. But the collaborative approach—natural and evolutionary to us—certainly everyone in this room—is a radical, revolutionary idea for regulatory agencies. The White House conference provided a platform for them to interact with stakeholders and see how well incentives and partnerships can work in accomplishing environmental goals.

As you all know, cooperative conservation can take longer—it’s important to reach out to all the potential partners—and it may cost more. But it is worth the extra time and increased dollars because the net result is so much greater than what a solo effort can produce.

The conference made clear how important conservation is to all who share the landscape—farmers, ranchers, Tribes and communities. We know that the best way to conserve natural resources is through partnerships that recognize that economic prosperity and environmental protection go hand-in-hand.

Does the Administration Support RC&D?

I’ve been asked if the Administration supports RC&D councils. That’s a fair question in light of the President’s proposed budget for FY 06. I think it is best answered by two quotations from the White House Conference. At the conference, and at every farm bill forum, Secretary Johanns states that conservation and economic sustainability must go hand-in-hand.

Nearly 100 years ago, in 1910, Teddy Roosevelt put it this way, “Conservation means development as much as it means protection.” EPA Administrator Steve Johnson echoed this sentiment not once, but twice in his address, indicating that EPA must support development. I think these statement speak for themselves.

First, I want to make clear that the budget is a priority-setting document. It was not intended to define as much how we move forward, as to provoke discussion. And it certainly accomplished that aim.

We’ve had some intense discussions over the past eight months—sometimes painful discussions, but also fruitful ones. The councils, and NRCS, need to tackle the reality that we need to change some of the way we’ve been operating. That’s the only way we can move ahead and bring about the changes necessary to garner support for RC&D's.

Does the Chief of NRCS Support RC&D?

Now the other question I have gotten this morning in the hall is what about me personally?
I want you to know that one of my fondest memories during my early days as Chief was a tour across Nebraska. RC&D Councils showed me a unique version of conservation and economic development.

We all know that conservation and economic development can work together to produce a viable business and a strong community. So, yes, I support RC&D Councils. I am excited about the unique niche that RC&Ds fill.

But at the same time, I know that this is a program that needs to evolve to be successful during a time of change. And I’m here today because I want to work with you to find solutions to the challenges we face.

Here’s the thing. OMB—and others who want to know what we’ve done with the taxpayers’ dollars—how we measure NRCS—and our programs—based on achieving conservation objectives. So as NRCS funding is increasingly tied to achieving program objectives, so will support for RC&D’s from the NRCS budget be directly related to conservation accomplishments.

Some RC&D’s have taken on additional projects. These may be conservation-based such as Conservation Innovation Grants or Conservation Partnership Initiatives or projects related to biomass or healthy forests.

Conservation Innovation Grants

For example, last year, two RC&D Councils were awarded Conservation Innovation Grants.

• The Tennessee Valley RC&D (now named the Alabama Mountains, Rivers and Valley RC&D) received over $462,000 to demonstrate low-cost alternatives for temporary poultry litter storage facilities to protect water quality.

• The Wy’East RC&D Council in Oregon received over $303,000 to demonstrate how improved irrigation scheduling conserves water for in-stream use and improves water quality.

This fiscal year,

• The Golden Triangle RC&D in southwest Georgia, received $500,000 for a poultry litter composting project.

• The Missouri & Mississippi Divide RC&D received over $375,000 for conservation outreach to those who don’t operate agricultural land they own.

• Mississippi Coastal Plains RC&D received $100,000 for a strategic cogongrass control partnership in south Mississippi.

Conservation Partnership Initiative Awards

This fiscal year, the North Central Mississippi Resource Conservation and Development Council received $27,863 for their Tippah Creek Kudzu Control Project.

Grazing Land Conservation Initiative

The Lake Plains RC&D Council in New York is supporting the NRCS Grazing Land Conservation Initiative. They have helped educate hundreds of livestock producers on the environmental and economic advantages of prescribed grazing.

Watershed Planning

In Iowa, the Northeast Iowa RC&D has led conservation efforts to—identify sub-area watersheds that contribute excessive sediment and nutrient runoff into the watershed. They have accomplished this worthy task through a highly effective multi-county, multi-state, and multi-agency partnership.

Nutrient Management

The Seneca Trail RC&D Council in New York assisted a local dairy farm obtain funding to install an anaerobic digester for manure management. This assistance helped the dairy farmer address odor control, nutrient planning, and groundwater contamination.

So, why have I mentioned all these programmatic examples? Because one of the challenges that NRCS has is to reconnect the RC&D platforms we have built together with the conservation grant opportunities. That is why I am advocating these success stories and encouraging you all to apply in the future.

However, other projects may be focused primarily on economic growth rather than conservation.
And councils may have been very successful at finding funding to support those projects.
That’s fine. These projects may be a very good thing for your community.

But the point is this: NRCS federal dollars must be pointed toward conservation projects—they can’t be used to support other efforts.

Traditionally, the NRCS dollars that enable councils are distributed based more on past history than demonstrated needs or proven results. That may change. More and more we will be tying funding to conservation performance—establishing an enabling platform for those councils that are alive and want to thrive.

They should receive more dollars. (I learned this from listening to your concerns about the graduation proposal.)This approach is not unique to RC&D’s—we are moving all other NRCS programs to a similar position.

How are we going to help improve the RC&D program?

I’d like to take a minute to share with you the NRCS perspective of RC&D. Overall we want to make the RC&D program the best possible investment for the American taxpayer.

We want to help councils build capacity for addressing both their resource and economic development concerns. This is the cornerstone of cooperative conservation.

It is vital that we keep our lines of communication open and listen to each other. I think forums—like the one we are participating in here today—are a good means of accomplishing this.

Challenges

Let’s talk about some of the challenges we’ve faced recently. Please keep in mind that these challenges are the result of growth, the result of opportunity.

There is uncertainty concerning the funding and technical resource prospects for RC&D areas older than 20 years. Currently, the competition for funding of discretionary programs like the RC&D program is keen. Every dollar is highly scrutinized.

The President’s Office of Management and Budget has developed a new Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). PART is used to evaluate all programs across government. For the initial PART evaluation, the RC&D program did not receive a favorable score. In fact, it received a 41—the lowest NRCS score.

As a result, the President’s Budget for fiscal year 2006 proposed reducing the appropriations for the program by half and eliminating technical resources for RC&D’s older than 20 years. While the Congressional action on the President’s proposal is not complete yet, both the House and Senate mark indicate that the 2006 appropriation will likely be something different than what the President proposed.

Of course, we will do our best to administer the program with the funds the Congress provides while we look for opportunities to increase our program effectiveness and reduce costs. But, keep in mind that a restoration to a flat budget is not success, because it still does not provide room for new councils, and inflation eats into the base support.

Accomplishments

During 2002 through 2004, RC&D achieved some pretty impressive accomplishments.

Under the Land Conservation and Land Management elements—
• 9.7 million tons of soil were saved;
• 1.6 million acres of grazing land were improved;
• almost 6 million acres of wildlife habitat were improved; and over 600 thousand acres of agricultural land were preserved or restored.

Under the Water Management element—
• over 30 million acres of watersheds were improved or protected;
• over 400 thousand acres of lakes were improved; and
• 3,600 water bodies improved or created.

Under the Community Development element—
• almost 18,000 jobs were created;
• 1,200 businesses were created;
• almost 5,000 businesses were expanded; and
• an additional 4,500 businesses were assisted.
• Almost 12,000 workshops and training sessions were held and 1.8 million people were instructed in a variety of topics.
• Over 400 thousand tons of solid waste were reduced and 125 thousand tons of material were recycled.
• Hundreds of public facilities for community buildings and subsidized housing were constructed and improved.

Unfortunately, these traditional measures are output measures rather than outcome measures. We recently sat down with the National Association leadership and found that we are coming very close together on ways to best measure performance and accountability.

The Future: Together, We Can Build a Stronger RC&D Program

NRCS strongly supports the cooperative public-private partnerships established through the RC&D program. RC&D represents cooperative conservation in very tangible terms.

The White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation in St. Louis highlighted the Southwest Mississippi RC&D Council’s use of a renewable energy and energy efficiency grant.
This grant assisted 120 producers to improve on-farm energy usage.

Non-profit RC&D councils—working with NRCS technical assistance and other partners—help deliver services in niche areas where no other services are available. As we move forward, we will be looking for ways to strengthen the program and get a better evaluation score in future PART evaluations. When it comes to competing for scarce discretionary funding, I want to make sure that the RC&D program competes favorably with other programs.

I believe there are things we can do that will improve our program score while not jeopardizing local projects and local decision making. The actions we are proposing are no different from the actions we are pursuing in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and Conservation Technical Assistance program.

First, we will be looking at ways to target our limited RC&D funding to meet the highest priority needs. During the 2006 allocation cycle, we will begin targeting allocation resources to need by using 17 to 19 standardized ranking criteria. I want these criteria to better reflect program needs for the four program elements: Land Conservation, Land Management, Water Management and Community Development. This is similar to what is being done in all NRCS programs.

Beginning with the 2007 cycle, we will be adding a reward for good performance to the more targeted resource allocation approach. We realize this is a significant change from our past allocation methods and we will be building transition into the new process. The transition includes a floor for a minimum allocation for each RC&D area. You will have an opportunity to talk about this new approach—including criteria used to develop allocations—with NRCS representatives in both informal and formal discussion settings.

Second, we plan to establish program priorities and performance goals. As part of our 2005 Cooperative Agreement, we have asked the National Association of RC&D Councils to provide us with council recommendations on program priorities and long-term performance measures. (As both Sharon and I mentioned, we are already very close.) We value these recommendations and plan to consider them carefully as we develop the program priorities and performance measures and goals.

Third, we want to have a strong program performance reporting system in place soon. Our target date from the update and return of points is January. I know this concerns you greatly.
Having an effective program performance system is a priority for us as well. I’m sorry we weren’t able to have it available this year. (It was certainly in the work plan, but got eclipsed by another program’s growing pains.)

And finally, we want to work with you to increase the utility of area plans by more effectively tying them to the program goals and performance measures we establish. We aim to accomplish this by—targeting resources, setting clear priorities and goals and putting an effective performance measuring system in place. These steps will put us in a very good position for the next PART evaluation. That, in turn, will enable us to clearly show the effective use of RC&D funds.

Taking these key steps is consistent with what we are doing in other programs. And we believe that they are essential for the long-term viability of the RC&D program. This is what I mean by re-inventing all of our conservation programs. Rather than performing fragmented acts of conservation through the RC&D program, we want RC&D councils to be more strategic in their approach. We want to see more local projects supporting national and local priorities for both conservation and community development based on the four elements contained in the law.

We expect councils to work on projects that support the program performance goals and we anticipate rewarding those that meet the targeted goals. However, we also expect councils to continue to work on projects that meet local priorities.

People Count: People Make the Difference in RC&D

As I visit with RC&D councils and review success stories, it is obvious that people—working together—make the positive difference in their communities through the RC&D program. They may use a variety of funding sources and sponsors, but the success of the RC&D project reflects the commitment of highly energized people working together towards a common goal of making a positive difference in their communities.

It’s important to remember as you discuss your local issues and concerns that through the NRCS-directed RC&D program, you are tied to a network of Federal USDA programs as well as a national information network. Your NRCS State Conservationists, RC&D Program managers and coordinators can help you as you establish goals and implement projects through your area and annual plans.

Conclusion

As we look toward the future for RC&D councils, we know we need to make some changes.
I’m here because I want to hear your ideas for ways we could modify things to meet the increased scrutiny and accountability we now face—and achieve the conservation objectives we are agreed upon.

I’ve already noted some of the changes we’re planning, but we’ll need to consider others as well.
Let me close with reiterating my support for RC&D as a vital, integral part of NRCS’ comprehensive conservation portfolio.

I would appreciate your questions or statements. Thank you.