The House and Senate each released proposed operating budgets last weekend. These budgets join the Governor’s proposed budget, creating three distinct and competing plans for funding our state’s government including the Conservation Commission. There are significant differences between these plans which are summarized below.  

As next steps in this process, a conference committee comprised of House and Senate budget leadership will negotiate a budget document for the Legislature’s consideration and a vote which will likely occur on or very near the last scheduled day of session, March 12. The Governor will then have 20 days to review and approve the budget, with the ability to issue line-item vetoes within the budget bill.

Here are some significant differences between these documents and our current biennial budget:

Governor’s Proposed Budget

• The Governor proposes a reduction of $676,000 to “Technical Services and Program Delivery,” which could be applied to different programs in that area of our budget.

Senate Proposed Budget

• The Senate proposes an increase of $1.25M to the Forest Health and Community Wildfire Resiliency program from the general fund for FY27 and ongoing per fiscal year in future biennia.

House Proposed Budget

• The House proposes a reduction of $1M to Riparian Grant Program outreach funding in FY27 and eliminating the operating funding for outreach in future biennia.
• The House also proposes a reduction of $750,000 to Sustainable Farms and Fields in FY27 and ongoing per fiscal year in future biennia.

The Conservation Commission favors the Senate’s budget, though we continue to express the need for the full $2.5M for the Forest Health program. We are also glad to see that there is no general reduction for Technical Services and Program Delivery in either chamber.

We are very concerned about the proposed cuts in the House budget and will continue to share the impact of eliminating Riparian Grant Program outreach funding, which has already been obligated to conservation districts for the current biennium. That funding is also critical for future biennia to maintain a pipeline of projects for the capital budget. Of course, we have also expressed our concern about the substantial reduction to Sustainable Farms and Fields, which would severely limit the size, scope, scale, and number of its projects.  

The uncertainty around the budget is stressful for our agency and everyone in the conservation community across the state. Please know that we will continue to share the message of the impacts that will be felt by conservation districts and the communities we serve as we advocate for robust funding.

It is unlikely that we will have more information to share until the end of session on March 12, as conference committee negotiations do not occur in public view.  

As always, please reach out to me if you have any questions.

Thank you,

James

‍