Virginia Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts
7308 Hanover Green Drive, Suite 100, Mechanicsville, VA 23111-1793
(804) 559-0324 • Fax (804) 559-0325
To: Richard Chaffin, VASWCD President, Kendall Tyree, VASWCD Executive Director, & VA SWCD’s.
SUBJ: Quarterly report on NACD Activities for the VASWCD Board Meeting at Lynchburg, VA.
FROM: John Peterson, VASWCD NACD Board Representative. Director, Chairman, NO. VA SWCD.
REPORT:
I’m sorry I am not able to be with you in person. In addition to my own SWCD Board meeting, I had other
appointments I had to keep.
Thursday June 11th I took part in the EPA USACE 1.5 hour Webinar on the new Clean Water Rule which redefines
Waters of the United States in the Clean Water Act. Over 2000 people took part in the webinar. While I still have a lot
of reading and thinking to do regarding where I stand on this new rule, and I do appreciate EPA and the USACE
conducting the webinar, I still am of the opinion that the new rule significantly enlarges EPA jurisdiction. The new rule
is much improved over the proposed rule. I am working with a number of other groups here in DC analyzing the rule
and its impacts. I feel NACD will have reviewed everything and be ready to announce their position soon. I do feel a
bit sorry for EPA and the USACE in that many terms in the original act were not defined. And trying to define them
after the fact is not easy as people see how any definition may affect them, and oppose more regulation. I suspect rule
this will remain very controversial. One thing that I am still struggling with. The original rule was to have “navigable
waters” be jurisdictional. Navigable waters were never clearly defined. For most people it means being able to float a
canoe in a perennial flowing stream or lake. The webinar talked of 60% of streams in the US being intermittent, and
certainly not navigable, but yet they flow into perennial navigable streams when they do flow. As I understand what
was said today, because of this “connection,” the new rule would make them jurisdictional (Thanks a lot for muddying
the water Justice Kennedy. The term nexus is troublesome. Almost anything can be defined as connected to something
else. Use your imagination.). To me that significantly enlarges EPA jurisdiction. I do not argue that these intermittent
streams can be considered to be “connected” to a navigable stream when they are flowing, but the original Clean Water
Act excluded them. I think I would argue that if society now wants all these waters subject to EPA authority, then the
law needs to be amended by Congress with society’s support. I would not just have EPA promulgate a new definition
and rule. One more thing I take issue with. EPA was adamant today that the rule only dealt with water and not land.
This was in response to the statement made by one questioner that this was a land use control bill and not a water
quality bill. However, when you have jurisdiction over the land on which water flows, and can regulate how that land
may or may not be used, it affects land as much as water. H.R. 1732, the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015,
which would put some curbs on this new definition, has passed the House and is now before the Senate. The Senate has
held a public hearing on S. 1140, the Federal Water Quality Protection Act, which also addresses issues surrounding
EPA’s definition of waters under its jurisdiction. However, even if something should come out of the Congress, it
would be vetoed. And I don’t see Congress willing to deal with it by using their powers of the purse in this regard.
Much more to come. Still a lot of work to do. I am on the NACD Legislative Committee, who with the NACD staff is
preparing the NACD response.
I have been asked to serve on the District Outlook Task Force (DOTF) this next year. Jack Majeres from SD, who has
spoken at our VASWCD Annual Meetings, chairs the DOTF. The Task Force will conduct an analysis of the changing
environment for districts and locally led conservation. With the changing and increased resource needs for a variety of
reasons, districts must be able to adapt to the needs of landowners and users. We should learn from districts that have
adapted to the changing environment, and help districts that need and want to adapt, those that I suggest are
underperforming currently. The analysis will include financial, technical, educational and partnership opportunities.
We are to deliver our Task Force Report to NACD in 2016. In my opinion, the people responsible and in the best
position to defend districts and their role, are district directors/supervisors themselves. Yes, district staff, state
associations, state conservation agencies, and even NACD can and will help as they can, but strong, active, well-funded
districts starts with those of us that serve as district directors or supervisors. That responsibility is ours. One source that
all district directors or supervisors should be knowledgeable of so they can play their role, is their state’s enabling
district legislation. That is always worth rereading from time to time. Remember, we are independent jurisdictions of
state government. Here are some important aspects of Virginia’s legislation.







The people living in the area to be covered by a conservation district had to agree that a district was needed, and
petition the VA Soil & Water Commission (now Board) to establish it.
VA districts are authorized to deliver the Commonwealth’s Ag BMP Cost-Share Program.
VA districts may enter land to investigate ag activity that is causing or may cause pollution.
VA districts are authorized to acquire, construct, operate and maintain property.
VA districts are authorized to conduct surveys, investigations and demonstration projects.
VA districts are authorized to coordinate and implement educational programs.
VA districts are non-regulatory.
Most conservation districts in both rural and urban areas;



Are experiencing development.
See their mission gradually shifting from only a focus on agriculture, to a broader one of conservation to
improve water and air quality across all sectors of the environment – rural, suburban and urban; agricultural,
residential and commercial.
Some have leadership that has not adapted to these changes and has not understood the need for marketing their
value and relevance. Districts that have allowed this to happen have become irrelevant in today’s world. These
are the underperforming districts.
The Virginia Constitution says – “To the end that the people shall have clean air, pure water, and the use and enjoyment
for recreation of adequate public lands, waters, and other natural resources, it shall be the policy of the Commonwealth
to conserve, develop and utilize its natural resources, its historical sites and buildings. Further, it shall be the
Commonwealth’s policy to protect its atmosphere, lands and waters from pollution, impairments or destruction for the
benefit, enjoyment and general welfare of the Commonwealth.”
Who better to help the Commonwealth carry out that objective than its Soil and Water Conservation Districts?
Conservation districts in both rural and urban areas work to conserve our precious natural resources. Our objectives are
the resources themselves, the soil, water, plants, etc. Districts are unique in that sense. Many state, county and local
departments focus more on use and development than conservation. We are there to help and advise them. I am
reminded by an old Soil and Water Conservation Society (SWCS) saying that applies equally to conservation districts,
we are involved in “The art and Science of Good Land Use.”
Each SWCD should have a strategic and annual plan that sets priorities and outlines area needs and objectives. All
director/supervisors should be knowledgeable of why their district exists, what its competencies are, the resource issues
it deals with, and its real value to the community. We are the ones who have the responsibility of proving our value to
those with the money. In my opinion defending a SWCD’s existence should not be hard to do. My concern is that we
are all going to be called upon to do it more often in the times ahead.
So my argument is this. We directors/supervisors are the first line of defense when the need for our conservation
districts is challenged. While there may be some help from our staffs, the state associations and NACD, we are the
ones ultimately responsible for articulating what districts do, why they do it, and why it is important. We are the ones
who need to remind our constituents what value districts bring to their communities. It is a never ending task, but done
properly pays dividends for the district and those whom we serve. My own Northern Virginia SWCD is a good
example of how our directors have practiced those skills for many years, long before I became part of it. And it has
paid dividends in how we are recognized and supported in Fairfax County.
Our DOTF recently had a July retreat held at the Samuel R. Noble Foundation in Ardmore, OK. The Noble Foundation
hosted us and provided professional facilitators. We reviewed all previous reports NACD had done attempts to help
underperforming districts, and spent a lot of time going over our past tracks. Those past efforts were all over the board,
and discussed directors, staffs, training, state conservation agencies, funding, etc. I hope this DOTF doesn’t just do the
same thing again. In my opinion we have to focus on directors/supervisors, and in many cases those that have allowed
their districts to become irrelevant need to go. Given the way they attain their seats, that isn’t something NACD can
dictate, but they can influence. Stay tuned. This could be interesting.
I am also on the NACD Finance Committee. We have just approved the NACD budget for 2016, and it has been
referred to the officers and executive committee for review before it goes to the full NACD Board in Spokane this July.
The budget is being presented in a very different format than in the past, and that might be difficult for some BOD
members to accept. I think it is starting to do a better, clearer job of portraying our financial situation. There are now
some categories of expense that really stand out, and may give the BOD a chance to weigh in on priorities with more
information than they had in the past.
July and August will be a busy time for NACD. The NACD Summer Board Meeting will be held in Spokane, WA
from 10-13 JUL. I am not able to attend, but our NACD Board Alternate, Steven Meeks, will represent us. I hope he
can actually see some of the Palouse and the way farming is practiced there. The NACD SE Region Meeting will be
held in Tupelo, MS from 2-4 AUG. I will attend and be there to cheer as our own J.C. Berger is inducted into the
NACD SE Region Hall of Fame. Congratulations to J.C. and Martha on this significant, well-deserved honor.
Below, I have provided a report on the 14th National Watershed Conference hosted by the National Watershed Coalition
held in Fort Worth, TX. I represented VASWCD at this conference.
Report on the 14th National Watershed Conference
Fort Worth, TX, May 16-20, 2015
I attended the 14th National Watershed Conference hosted by the National Watershed Coalition (NWC), the TX
State Soil & Water Conservation Board, and the Association of Texas Soil and Water Conservation Districts in
Fort Worth last week. Since about 1992 VASWCD has been represented on the NWC Board of Directors by
NVSWCD’s Dick Terwilliger, and since 2013 I have served as your NWC Board representative as Dick retired. I
thought you might enjoy a short report on the conference.
For me the conference started on Saturday, May 16th with a NWC Board Meeting. That meeting concentrated on
the conference itself, and many of us learned of our session moderator roles. Sunday was a day to tour a Trinity
River watershed dam in the Jack County, SWCD, about 60 miles NW of Fort Worth. Texas has constructed about
2050 SCS/NRCS assisted watershed dams in the state, many in the Trinity River Watershed. And the area of
Texas we were in has had about 21” of rain in the last 2 weeks, and the structures were running full. The dam we
visited was well maintained, and the principal spillway was roaring, but auxiliary spillway flow had not taken
place. It may have by now.
Speaking of NRCS assisted watershed dams, over time NRCS has assisted local sponsors, many of whom are Soil
and Water Conservation Districts, construct about 11,900 dams that are large enough to be listed in the National
Inventory of Dams (NID). NRCS has assisted farmers, ranchers and project sponsors build about 29,000 dams, but
many are not large enough to be in the NID. Of those 11,900 dams, 978 were originally designed as High Hazard
structures, but over the years, with time and development, 2088 are currently classified as High Hazard. Those
dams were constructed in about 1,300 watershed projects in 47 states. And 4093 of them have reached the end of
their 50-year economic life. Many now need to be upgraded to current safety standards. Only AK, DE and RI
have no NRCS-assisted watershed dams.
The National Inventory of Dams (NID) is a congressionally authorized database, which documents dams in the
U.S. and its territories. The NID was most recently reauthorized in the Dam Safety Act of 2006. The current NID,
published in 2013, includes information on 87,000 dams that are more than 25 feet high, hold more than 50 acrefeet of water, or are considered a significant hazard if they fail. The NID is maintained and published by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), in cooperation with the Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO),
the states and territories, and federal dam-regulating agencies. The database contains information about the dam’s
location, size, purpose, type, last inspection, regulatory facts, and other technical data. The information contained
in the NID is updated approximately every two years.
The 2013 NID includes information on approximately 87,000 dams of which 80 percent are regulated by the State
Dam Safety Offices and almost 70 percent of the entire inventory is privately-owned dams. The federal
government owns or regulates 6 percent of the total NID, which includes approximately 35 percent of the tallest
dams. Dams in the NID are classified according to hazard potential, an indicator of the consequences of dam
failure. A dam’s hazard potential classification does not indicate its condition. The NID lists 14,726 dams
classified as high hazard potential, 12,406 significant hazard potential, 58,956 low hazard potential and 1,271
undetermined. Dams assigned the high hazard potential classification are those where failure or mis-operation will
probably cause loss of human life. Significant hazard potential are those dams where failure or mis-operation
results in no probable loss of human life but can cause economic loss. Dams assigned the low hazard potential
classification are those where failure or mis-operation results in no probable loss of human life and low economic
and/ or environmental losses. Losses are principally limited to the owner’s property. More than 27,000 (32
percent) of the dams listed in the NID have a primary purpose of recreation and more than 15,000 (17 percent) are
primarily for flood damage reduction and storm water management.
The actual conference started on Monday morning with an address by the Chairman of the House Agriculture
Committee Representative Mike Conaway (R-TX, 11th). Chairman Conaway talked of the funding for USDA’s
watershed programs, rehabilitation funding, the USACE’s Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
reauthorization, and the stop-gap reauthorization of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). He closed by expressing a
concern that the US was losing its way, and cited John Adams who said “Our Constitution was made only for a
moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." That drew much audience
appreciation.
There were many concurrent sessions of interest, many of them dealing with specific case studies and innovative
funding methods employed by some dam owners. Streambank stabilization was addressed, and conservation plans
and practices used for improving water quality was a highlight. I specifically enjoyed the information on NRCS
Dam Watch.
Dam Watch is a web-based application developed for NRCS by USEngineering Solutions Corporation (USES) to
assist watershed project sponsors to monitor and manage NRCS-assisted dams. This tool provides real-time
monitoring of rainfall, snowmelt, stream flow and seismic events that could pose potential threats to dam safety. A
number of NRCS State Offices are using Dam Watch. Our VA NRCS State Office is among them.
VA was well represented at the conference. Alicia Ketchem, PE, an engineer on the NRCS State Staff presented
two sessions coauthored by NRCS State Engineer Mat Lyons, PE. One told of the unexpected recreation benefits
of 60-years of SCS/NRCS Flood Control Dams in VA. The other was on the rehabilitation of Dam 10A, Augusta
County, VA. She also had some photos of our No. VA SWCD’s recent Pohick Watershed Celebration as we
completed rehabilitating 4 of our 6 watershed dams.
Another very interesting session, which I moderated, dealt with “Remembering Historic Dam Failures.” This is a
topic I wish more conservation and water conferences would present. How many of you remember the
catastrophic dam failures such as Rapid City, SD (1972), Buffalo Creek, WV (1972), Teton Dam, ID (1976), and
Taccoa Falls, GA (1977)? Those failures resulted in tremendous loss of life. Those failures also caused the dam
building and owning community, including the federal government, to reassess dam design criteria, particularly
High Hazard dams in urban areas, and develop more rigorous design criteria. I am pleased that VASWCD is still
active with the National Watershed Coalition.
Report respectfully submitted by,
John W. Peterson
VASWCD NACD Board Representative