Skip Navigation

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


The Development of Federal Soil and Water Conservation Law
State Soil and Water Conservation District Laws


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.


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 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