Relates to the memberships of country agriculture and farmland protection boards; authorization to hold conservation easements and funding for agricultural projects

Summary of provisions

Section 1 of the bill amends Agriculture and Markets Law (AML) §302 (1) to authorize the chairperson of a county soil and water conservation district to designate an employee of the district to serve on an AFPB in lieu of the chairperson.

Section 2 of the bill amends Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) §49-0303(3) to include a county soil and water conservation district in the definition of a "public body" for purposes of holding conservation easements.

Section 3 of the bill adds a new subdivision 4-a to the Soil and Water Conservation Districts Law (SWCDL) §9 to provide Districts with authority to acquire, hold, maintain, administer and improve conservation easements; receive income from such activity and expend it in carrying out the purposes and provisions of the SWCDL; and extinguish conservation easements.

Section 4 of the bill amends SWCDL § 11-b (5) to clarify that state assistance payments for nonpoint source projects cannot exceed 87.5 percent.

Existing law

AML §302(1) (a) authorizes a county legislative body to establish a county agricultural and farmland protection board and provides the conditions for membership.

ECL §49-0303(3) defines a "public body" for purposes of holding conservation easements to mean municipal corporations; the Palisades Interstate Park Commission and the Central Pine Barrens Joint Policy and Planning Commission.

SWCDL §9 sets forth the powers of soil and water conservation districts and directors

SWCDL §11-b establishes a matching grant program to fund agricultural non-point source abatement and control projects and sets forth project funding criteria

SWCDL § 11-b (5) requires that state assistance payments not exceed 90% of eligible costs for any specified non-point source control project.

Prior legislative history

This is a new proposal.

Statement in support

AML §302 authorizes county legislative bodies to establish county agricultural and farmland protection boards (AFPBs) consisting of eleven members. An AFPB has a broad range of responsibilities as it advises the county legislative body in relation to the proposed establishment, modification, continuation or termination of any agricultural district; renders expert advice relating to the nature of farming and farm resources; reviews notices of intent; approves county agricultural and farmland protection plans; provides recommendations as to the effect and reasonableness of proposed actions involving the advance of public funds or acquisitions of farmland in agricultural districts by governmental entities; and may request that the Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets review any state agency rule or regulation which the AFPB identifies as affecting agricultural activities within an existing or proposed agricultural district. Counties are struggling with their ability to obtain a quorum at meetings, however. Several chairpersons of county soil and water conservation district (SWCD) boards of directors are finding it difficult to attend AFPB meetings. County SWCD staff is knowledgeable of the farm family, the farm enterprise and the productivity of the soils within the county and can provide necessary information and support to AFPBs as they carry out their responsibilities. The proposed amendments will facilitate greater participation on these local boards.

Soil and Water Conservation Districts are charged in statute with the preservation of soil and water resources, including flood prevention, erosion control, water quality, water conservation, recreational use planning and preservation of natural resources. Districts presently have statutory authority to own or obtain title to real property through various means to advance these important provisions of the Soil and Water Conservation Districts Law. Efforts to protect natural resources for the public benefit can be greatly enhanced by adopting legislation that gives the Districts the capacity to hold conservation easements. These easements often include some type of conservation plan and Districts are well-suited to monitor and ensure compliance with the easement and plan due to their experience in working with public and private landowners. The ability to hold conservation easements would be a valuable tool in advancing the work of Districts while providing a valuable option to government entities

and private landowners seeking experienced oversight of important land resources.

The proposal also makes a necessary technical change to the SWCDL. The SWCDL currently provides that state assistance payments for agricultural nonpoint source abatement and control projects cannot exceed 90 percent of eligible costs. However, since the State match can only be increased from the current statutory maximum of 75 percent in equal proportion to the amount contributed by the agricultural landowner or operator, then mathematically, the maximum state contribution is capped at 87.5 percent, rather than the 90 percent currently referenced in the statute.

Budget implications

None.

Local impact

This bill would not impose a mandate on a county, city, town, village, school district or special district.

Effective date

The amendments take effect upon enactment.