As representatives of the Clark Conservation District prepare for a public hearing tonight, we hope that county councilors will be paying attention.
The district has admirably served residents for more than 70 years, providing instruction and equipment that enhances land use throughout the area. From small farms to large gardens, assistance from the district has provided essential services. “There are so many not just farmers, but school and all kinds of folks, that really rely on them,” Brenda Calvert, co-owner of Half Moon Farm, told The Columbian. “If this resource is gone, they won’t have this kind of knowledge or plants sales to help them.”
The conservation district relies upon state and federal grants to fund its annual budget of $368,000. But with that money drying up, new revenue streams are needed.
The county council has considered a fee of $5 per parcel of land to keep the district solvent, but that plan has yet to gain much traction. County Chair Marc Boldt was the only councilor to support the fee at a recent meeting, and Councilor Jeanne Stewart said, “I have to see the benefits for all the people that are going to be required to pay, and I’m struggling with that.” Conservation district officials are holding a public hearing at 5 tonight at 78th Street Heritage Farm to discuss the proposal.
Stewart and other county council members are wise to watch out for taxpayers, but they are being shortsighted in ignoring the benefits of the district. As Sue Marshall, board president of Friends of Clark County, said: “It’s been a great resource, and I think it’s a value in educating property owners on how best to manage their land in an environmentally sensitive way.”
The importance of that education is demonstrated by the founding of the conservation district, which was established in 1942 following the Dust Bowl that devastated the central United States during the 1930s. While persistent drought is acknowledged for creating Dust Bowl conditions, the poor farming practices that exacerbated those conditions often are ignored. That led to a national emphasis on education for how to manage and cultivate the land.
The Dust Bowl is an extreme example, but improved land management has yielded benefits throughout the United States in the decades since. Because of that, the Clark Conservation District is worth saving and is worthy of attention from county councilors.
As The Columbian has written editorially in the past, we would support a combination of the parcel fee and some nominal user fees to keep the district up and running. The proposed $5 fee would bring in an estimated $686,000 a year, minus county costs, far exceeding the district’s current budget. Conservation district services are provided for free, and those who benefit directly should be expected to pay some of the cost. Reducing the per-parcel fee to perhaps $2 or $3 and combining that with a charge for services should be manageable for all county residents and adequate for the district.
There is nothing radical about this approach. According to media reports, of the 45 conservation districts in Washington, 16 charge user fees.
The bottom line is that the Clark Conservation District provides a valuable service that is worth maintaining. It helps to preserve the region’s agrarian roots while supporting small farms that are increasingly essential as a buffer against encroaching urban areas. We hope that county councilors come to recognize those benefits.
