FEMANCW STATU5 QF SOIL CORSER‘IATiON DISTRICTS N THE CfiRN BELT S’i‘ATES - 1963 Thesis for the Degm cf M. S. MSCHlGAN STATE UNWERSWY Marie Eva Affei? Shepard T966 W mmnnnmmmmmwmnlnm L 3 1293 00808 8845 LIB}?! A R Y “ [Michigan State University J IIHII W111 WWI] IWWIMWII L 3 1293 00808 8845 LIB}! A R. Y = Michigan State University FINANCIAL STATUS OF SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS IN THE CORN BELT STATES - 1963 by Marie Eva Affelt Shepard The objectives of this study were to determine the financial status of Soil (and Water) Conservation Districts in the Corn Belt States in 1963. The states included Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio and Wis- consin. The objectives were to determine: 1. Present sources of income 2. Expenditures 3. Anticipated future income and needs for adequate District program 4. How additional funds would be used 5. Relationship between age of District and need for funds 6. Relationship between age of District and major items of expense Six hundred fifty—eight Districts were sent a three page questionnaire with an additional page for comments. A cover letter from the researcher explained the purpose of the survey. Executive Secretaries of State Soil Conservation Committees of Indiana, Michigan, Missouri and Ohio contributed cover letters which were also enclosed, asking for co-operation in the return of the completed questionnaire. At the end of mmJ Marie Eva Affelt Shepard ten weeks, five hundred thirty-three questionnaires had been returned (81.8%). These states were chosen because they comprise the same area as the National Association of Conservation Dis- tricts Area III (Upper Mississippi Valley). The researcher has known conservation leaders in the majority of these states for several years and has had a knowledge of their District problems, particularly financing. The questions were multiple choice, fact and Opinion. The 1963 receipts and expenditures were itemized as would be listed in a District's annual audit or report. Compiled data indicates the major source of funds came from the following: Source Percentage of Districts Receiving Funds State legislatures 88% County government 56 Contributions from business, industry and individuals 46 Districts usually obtained monies from several sources. In certain Districts funds were received from a Special acti- vity such as equipment rental or tree sales; however, this was not a widespread practice among the Districts surveyed. One hundred seventy-nine Districts (33.6%) received monies from $lOOO—2999 from State legislatures. The next two significant categories were (1) $100-499 with one hundred Marie Eva Affelt Shepard Districts (18.8%), (2) $500-999 with seventy—eight Districts (14.6%). Eighty Districts received over $3000 from their legislatures. One hundred nine Districts (20.5%) received from $lOOO-2999 from County governments. Eighty—eight (16.5%) from $100—499 and sixty-two (11.6%) from $500-999. Two hundred forty-two Districts (45.4%) received no funds from County sources. Contributions from individuals, industry and busi- ness were the third most important source of funds. One hundred fourteen Districts (21.4%) received from $lOO-499, while sixty-four Districts (12.0%) received $50—99. Two hundred ninety—one (54.5%) received no funds from this source. The monies received were generally spent for full and part—time secretarial help and male aides, District officials expenses and educational needs. Iowa and Ohio spent the greatest sums for full-time secretarial assistance. In the total survey, two hundred thirty-three (43.6%) Districts reported expenditures from $lOO-2999 for part-time secretarial assistance. Fifteen Districts in Minnesota employed full-time technical aides. Part-time aides were reported by one hun- dred sixty—nine Districts (31.7%) with expenditures from $100-2999. Marie Eva Affelt Shepard Approximately the same amount was spent for District officials expenses and educational work. In two hundred nineteen Districts, the largest category for officials ex- pense was $100-499 (41.1%). Educational expenses for two hundred thirty—five Districts (44.1%) were also in the $100- 499 range. The State legislatures were given as the major source of expected additional funds. The category of $1000-2999 was the largest (24.4%) with the exceptions of Michigan ($500- 999) and Indiana ($100-499). Anticipated funds from local (county and township) government were somewhat less with nearly equal amounts as follows: Amount Number of Districts Percentage $100-499 77 14.4 500-999 87 16.3 1000-2999 85 15.9 Indiana indicated the largest amount expected from this source, 40.3% in the $1000-2999 category. Contributions were a minor source of anticipated funds, usually less than $500 per Districts. However, these were considered important for paying dues, educational needs and other activities that Districts would not be able to do otherwise. Profits from equipment rental, tree sales and other Marie Eva Affelt Shepard miscellaneous sources were also a minor source of funds. They were used for same items as were the contributions. There appeared to be no relationship as to the age of the District and need for additional funds, except for those Districts that were organized in 1961-1962. Several Districts commented that they were too new to need addi- tional funds at this time, but expected that they would need more in the future. From the questionnaire and comments it was found that States with a majority of Districts ten years or more of age desired additional secretarial and technical male aides. Wisconsin was an exception. States with up to 35% of their Districts nine years or less in age indicated more funds were needed for additional educational work. The attitude of how their reSpective Districts rated from ”very well" to "poorly financed" was considered impor- tant. It gave the District governing body an Opportunity to make an assessment of present and future financing. With 47.7% indicating a need for more money in the future, it is evident that increased revenues from existing sources will be necessary. Districts indicated it would be spent for these major items: (1) male aides, (2) secretarial help, (3) watershed work, (4) educational needs, (5) officials expenses. FINANCIAL STATUS OF SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS IN THE CORN BELT STATES - 1963 by Marie Eva Affelt Shepard A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Resource Development 1966 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to extend my sincere gratitude to the many people who have helped in the preparation of this thesis. I am especially grateful for the guidance given me by my advisor, Dr. George P. Graff. During the past year he has given generously of his time and advise. I also wish to recognize the assistance given at various times by other members of my interdepartmental graduate committee: Dr. Raleigh Barlowe, Professor Russell G. Hill, Dr. Milton Steinmueller and Professor Russell Kleis. To those at the Computer Center, I wish to especially thank Mrs. Margaret Wright and Dr. A. C. Fleck and the many others who assisted in the programming of the data. For financial assistance, I wish to acknowledge my gratitude to Michigan State University Experiment Station for research funds from their Soil and Water Conservation grant. Without the c00peration of all the Soil Conservation Districts in these states, this thesis would not be possible. I sincerely thank each and every one who answered the ques— tionnaire. A special thanks to the Executive Secretaries of the State Soil Conservation Boards, Committees and Commis- sions for their comments and assistance. ii And finally, to my family, who have had to endure "mother's going to school" activities for these many years, a special thank you. iii CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii TABLE I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vi INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vii Chapter I. BACKGROUND OF THE SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT MOVEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. PRESENT DISTRICT FINANCING AND PURPOSE OF THESIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 III. METHOD OF STUDY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Exploratory questionnaire Pre—testing the questionnaire Procedure for conducting the survey The questionnaire IVO RESULTS. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O 15 Age of Districts Districts considered Urban, Urban—Rural or Rural Whether respondent was elected, appointed, or served because of another public office Length of service on District governing body Paid clerical help provided by another unit of government Technical (male) aide provided by other local unit of government How District was financed during fiscal year 1963 How District funds were spent in 1963 Opinion as to how District is financed Anticipated sources and amount of future funds How anticipated funds would be used iv Chapter Page Opinion as to whether or not officials be paid a per diem State Association dues quota Amount of State Association dues paid Opinion of State Association dues National Association dues quota Amount of National Association dues paid Opinion of National Association dues V. FINANCIAL COMPARISON OF FOUR STATES 1958 and 1963. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Indiana Michigan Missouri Ohio VI. CONCLUSIONS. . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 VII 0 SUMMARY 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 64 VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 I O O O C O O O O O O > O O O O O O O O O O O O 72 II (Forms used) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 III (Illinois) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 IV (Indiana). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 V (Iowa) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 VI (Michigan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 VII (Minnesota). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 VIII (Missouri) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 IX (Ohio) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 . X (Wisconsin). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 AWOBIOGRAPM O O O O O O C C O O O O O C C O O O O O 161 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1. Percentage of Districts receiving funds from State Legislatures—-1963 . . . . . . . . 26 2. Percentage of Districts receiving funds from County Government-—1963. . . . . . . . . 28 3. Percentage of Districts receiving contributions from business, industry, indiVidualS“'1963 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 3O 4. Percentage of Districts with expenditures for District officials expense—mileage-— 1963. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O 32 5. Percentage of Districts having expenditures for educational work, including newsletters, annual reports, Soil Stewardship materials—- 1963. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6. Percentage of Districts employing part—time secretarial assistance——l963. . . . . . . . . 36 7. Percentage of Districts expending funds for part-time male technical aides-—1963. . . . . 37 8. Opinions that reveal District governing body financial status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 9. Percentage of Districts needing increased appropriations from State legislatures. . . . 44 10. Percentage of Districts with prOposed additional expenditures for Educational and Soil Stewardship materials. . . . . . . . 48 11. Percentage of Districts with prOposed eXpenditures for scholarships, prizes and awards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 12. Opinions as to whether District governing body should be paid a per diem for regular and special Board meetings. . . . . . . . . . 51 13. Percentage of Districts with amount of dues quota assessed by their State Associations. . 52 INTRODUCTION The Soil Conservation District movement began in 1935. Much has been written about the general organization of Districts, how they assisted farmers and ranchers in slowing down the erosion of the nation's valuable tOp soil by wind and water. Many books, pamphlets and bulletins have been pub- lished about the various conservation practices, such as prOper crOp rotations, contouring, strip-crOpping and wind- breaks, to name a few. However, the specific area of Dis- trict finances--sources of funds and how they are used-- appears to have received very little attention. Few references could be found on the subject. This research analyzes the 1963 financial status of the eight Cornbelt States and the Opinions of District officials regarding sources of anticipated future funds and how they would be used. Any program to be successful, needs funds for daily Operation, as well as, for special projects. In programming and analyzing District operations this research may be valuable to the Districts themselves, State Associations of Districts, as well as others that assist Districts—-financially-—and with technical and other services. vii CHAPTER I BACKGROUND OF THE SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT MOVEMENT The Soil Conservation movement is over a quarter of a century old, dating back to the Dust Bowl and depression days of the 1930's. Before that, Dr. Hugh Hammond Bennett, a soils scientist, had been extremely concerned with the erosion and loss of valuable tOp soil taking place in the United States, particularly in his own area, the south- eastern states. In 1933 the Soil Erosion Service was established in the Department of Interior to work on demonstration areas for erosion control, both by wind and water. In many of these demonstration areas provisions were made to measure the effects of erosion control or runoff and sediment load of watershed streams. As dust from the Prairie States rolled over Wash- ington, D. C., Congress passed Public Act 46, dated April 27, 1935. It established the Soil Conservation Service as a part of the United States Department of Agriculture. Tech- nical services were to be provided by the USDA-Soil Conserva- 1 2 tion Service to local units of government established by state statute for the specific purpose of dealing with soil and water conservation problems. These were to be known as Soil Conservation Districts. A model law was sent to all states. Arkansas passed the first State Soil Conservation District Law on March 3, 1937. By July 1, 1947 the forty- eight states, Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands had a State or territory District law. The first Soil Conservation District was chartered August 4, 1937 as Brown Creek District, in North Carolina, the home county of Dr. Bennett. On July 1, 1964 there were 2,965 Soil and Water Conservation Districts. Approximately 98 per cent of the farms in the United States are now in Districts. Districts are organized through petition, initiative and referendums by the local peOple. Officials are elected by land owners and/or occupiers. The District governing body is responsible for developing long range objectives. They plan the soil and water conservation program in rela- tion to the amount of technical assistance available each year. Districts carry out many activities that may not be a direct application of recommended procedures for putting conservation on the land itself. For example, a District 3 may sponsor a field trip for children to show local conserva- tion practices. At the same time, other District officials may be consulting with local units of government regarding planning and zoning using maps, soils and other information found in the District office. The original objectives and responsibilities as stated by most of the legislatures in the Districts' enabling law is to provide for the conservation of the soil and soil resources of this state, and for the control and prevention of soil erosion, and thereby to preserve natural resources, control floods, pre— vent impairment of dams and reservoirs, assist in maintaining the navagibility of rivers and harbors, preserve wildlife, protect the tax base, protect public lands, and protect and promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people of this state. Soil and Water Conservation Districts work only within the framework as stated in the District's law. They assist farmers and ranchers by encouraging them to follow and main- tain their basic soil and water conservation plan as developed by the co—Operator and the technical staff assigned to each District by the USDA-Soil Conservation Service. They hold tours and demonstrations, often in conjunction with other agencies, to promote new and better methods of agricultural production and the related conservation practices. Originally Michigan, Soil Conservation Districts Law, Act 297 - P. A. 1937 as amended. Section 2. 4 these basic plans called for various methods of controlling erosion of t0p soil. These were usually accomplished by contouring, terraces, grass waterways, strip crOpping, wind— breaks, and replacing of unsuitable crOpland with permanent cover--grasses or trees. Williams says, . . .these thinking people want to know what con- servation means, not just in terms of combating erosion and preventing other types of soil deteri— oration, but in terms of wiser planning for the use of all our land and water resources—-in terms of expansion potentials for industry, for transporta- tion, for recreation, and for living room for the rapidly growing population as well as production potentials for the food and fiber we ultimately will need. Districts are actively promoting the new and broader concepts of soil and water conservation and wise land use as it applies to their area. New basic conservation plans for farmers and ranchers may include all the former practices as well as new considerations. These may include wildlife plots, farm ponds, various types of structures for control of water, complete tiling systems and timber stand improvement. Farm family recreational develOpment for income and non-income producing enterprises is a relatively new trend in land use utilization. 1Donald A. Williams, "New Methods for New Problems," §pi1 Conservation (U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Con- servation Service, November, 1960), p. 75. 5 Districts, under their policy of assigning priorities of assistance, aid local units of government, their boards and committees; schools; airports; youth groups; women's, civic, business, industrial and private organizations with their soil and water conservation programs and problems. These are undertaken only by written request from those desiring aid. CHAPTER II PRESENT DISTRICT FINANCING AND PURPOSE OF THESIS Today, Soil and Water Conservation Districts are assuming new roles of leadership in soil and water conserva- tion and wise land use programs. During the formative period of this movement, money for District Operation was left to the discretion of state legislatures and/or local sources. It still is. District officials usually serve without pay (salaries) and devote many hours promoting District activities. Money for financing District activities is spent for: (l) employing District secretarial help or technical (male) aides, (2) mileage and/or expense funds for officials attend— ing District board meetings, (3) educational materials and publishing of reports, newsletters, leaflets, (4) phone, postage, office supplies and equipment, (5) purchasing and maintaining equipment for rental (land levelers, tree planters, etcetera), (6) Operation of nursery and/or sale of planting stock (evergreen) for reforestation, Christmas tree produc- tion, windbreaks or wildlife habitat shrubs. Funds for District Operation are provided by legis- 7 lative grants, county or township government, contributions and profits from various activities promoted by the local District. The District program has grown and now includes activities and programs for rural, suburban and urban areas. The purpose of this thesis is to determine the pres- ent source of funds and expenditures of the six hundred fifty—eight Districts in the Corn Belt States, which include Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin. Another purpose was to determine sources of future funds and how Districts would use this additional income, if received. The region of the Corn Belt States was chosen be- cause these states contain rural and highly urbanized areas. They were organized at approximately the same time (l937~ 1940's), with the exception of Missouri. While there are variances in their state enabling acts, the results should indicate some uniformity of District Operation and program- ming. The kinds and methods of agricultural production are similar. Working with non-agricultural groups is also an important District activity. The region is one of the seven designated areas of the National Association of Conservation Districts. CHAPTER III METHOD OF STUDY Exploratory,gpestionnaire In April, 1964 a letter was sent to the Executive Secretaries of the State Soil Conservation Committees (Board or Commission) of these eight states asking for suggestions and comments on the prOposed questionnaire. This letter also requested: (1) a list of Districts and the District treasurers, (2) a list of Districts and their income and expenditures for 1958, (3) a cover letter signed by them to be enclosed with the questionnaire. Allan J. Collins, State Conservationist, USDA-Soil Conservation Service, East Lansing, Michigan was also sent a c0py of the proposed questionnaire for his suggestions. Indiana, Michigan, Missouri and Ohio provided the expenditures and receipts for 1958. Cover letters were provided by Indiana, Michigan and Missouri. Ohio contributed cover letters as well as an addressed envelOpe to each of the District offices. Complete lists of District governing bodies were received from Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan. Lists of 9 treasurers only were supplied by Minnesota and Missouri. Wisconsin sent names of County Superintendents of Schools, as they serve many times as secretary—treasurer of the local Districts, as well as several treasurers' names. Ohio sent no list; therefore, a list was compiled from addresses on the envelOpes. A few suggested changes in wording of the question— naire were received. The three questions originally on page four regarding the eighty-one county area of the Northern Great Lakes States were omitted on final question- naire. Later in April, 1964 twopme-tests of the question- naire were made to ascertain percentage of response and clarity of questions as interpreted by District officials. Pre~testing the questionnaire The first pre-test group was eleven Districts in Michigan, chosen because of (1) urban or rural in nature, (2) geographic areas, (3) whether treasurer was new or had held office for several years. Only six Districts (54%) responded and the results, because of the small number, were not significant. Sug- gestions for changes and additions were submitted and incor- porated into the final questionnaire. At the same time the pre-test questionnaire was sent 10 to State Association officers of seven states (excluding Michigan) and the vice-president of the National Association because he resided in the area, a total of twenty-six. A total of nineteen responses were received. There were no suggestions from recipients for changes in the questionnaire. Procedure for conducting the survey During the first ten days of June the revised questionnaire, researcher's cover letter, cover letter from Executive Secretary when available and a stamped addressed envelOpe was sent to six hundred fifty-eight Soil Conserva- tion Districts. Approximately ten weeks were given for return of data, during which time two post cards were mailed intermittently to those who had not responded. At the end of ten weeks, five hundred thirty-three questionnaires had been received. Five were received too late to be considered. The survey response by state is as follows: Number Number Percentage State Mailed Returned of Response Illinois 98 84 85.7 Indiana 86 67 77.7 Iowa 97 79 81.4 Michigan 73 62 84.9 Minnesota 87 71 81.6 Missouri 49 40 81.6 Ohio 85 83 97.6 Wisconsin 73 _31 64.3 Total 658 533 (aV.) 81.8 11 As soon as a sufficient number of questionnaires were received, they were coded and key punched on IBM Data Processing cards. A 3600 computer at the Computer Center, Michigan State University was used for analyzing results. The problem was programmed according to the number of responses and percentages of the sixty-two items listed. Hand tabulations were made for certain items which could not be otherwise reported. These are noted in Chapter IV. The questionnaire The questionnaire was slightly revised from the original used in the pre-test. The cover letter and ques— tionnaire were lithographed. The questions were multiple choice, fact and Opinion. The amounts of money were in generalized categories. The 1963 receipts and expenditures were itemized as they are usually listed in a District's annual audit or report. The Opinion questions of possible future receipts and expendi- tures were listed in a similar manner to avoid confusion. In tabulating the totals, the Nggg column was com— bined with the No response of the computer analysis, as many respondents checked only the items that applied to their District and did not check the None column. It was hypothe— sized that if it were not checked, it would be the same as None. 12 Definition of terms Whenever used or referred to in this thesis, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context: 1. "District” or "Soil Conservation District" or "Soil and Water Conservation District.? A governmental subdivision of a state, and a public body corporate and politic, organized in accordance with the provisions of the enabling act of that reSpective state. ”Director," "Supervisor," "Commissioner." One of the members of the governing body of a Dis- trict, elected, appointed or serving because of another public office in accordance with the provisions of that State's enabling legislation. "State Soil Conservation Committee, Board or Commission." The agency created to assist in the organization of Districts. They also super- vise the annual District elections, offer assist- ance in carrying out District powers and programs, provide an interchange of advice and experience between Districts, to disseminate information throughout the state concerning the activities and programs of Districts and to formulate such policies and procedures as it deems necessary 10. 13 relative to the extension of aid in any form from federal or state agencies to such Districts. "Cooperator." Land—owner or occupier who has signed an agreement with the District that he will apply and maintain the soil and water con- servation practices as recommended by the Dis- trict. "Area." The region including all eight states in this survey, unless otherwise indicated. “Basic plan." A soil and water conservation plan develOped by the District cooperator and assisted by USDA-Soil Conservation Service staff attached to local District. The plan is a record of soil and water conservation practices the cooperator intends to do. "State Association." A voluntary state associa~ tion of Districts, one for each state. "National Association." The National Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts, a nation wide organization of Districts. Tioverning body." Members comprising the offi- cial District board. "Tree sales." Districts raise or purchase large quantities of evergreen seedlings for reforesta- ll. 12. 14 tion, windbreaks and other purposes. They are sold at slightly above cost as an accommodation to residents of the District. They are not used for landscaping purposes. "USDA." United States Department of Agriculture. "P. L. 566." Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, Public Law 566 (83rd Congress). CHAPTER IV RESULTS Questionnaires were sent to six hundred fifty-eight Soil (and Water) Conservation Districts in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin. Five hundred thirty-three replied (81.8%). The following is an analysis of major items in the survey and the results--number of responses and the per- centages--of five hundred thirty-three replies. Results of questions which showed insignificant data will be found in Appendix I. Significant deviations by individual states are mentioned. 1. How old is your District? Age-Years Reply % No reply 4 .7 0-4 25 4.7 5-9 42 7.9 10-14 68 12.8 15-19 210 39.4 Over 20 184 34.5 The purpose of this question was to determine if the age of the District would be an indication as to the source and amount of funds for District Operation, how spent and 15 l6 attitudes toward planning for future District financing. The largest number of Districts is found in the fifteen and over twenty years of age categories. The pri- mary reason is that the 1940's was the period of greatest activity in District organization, statewide, except for Missouri. Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin are now completely organized. . . l . . . . Williams indicates in a report that Ohio was completed as of May 7, 1964. The other states are continuing District organization as rapidly as the local peOple indicate a desire for a District. 2. Is your District considered: Urban (Over 50,000), Urban-Rural, Rural Opinion Reply % No reply 7 1.3 Urban (Over 50,000) 47 8.8 Urban-Rural 134 25.0 Rural 344 64.9 The purpose of this question was to obtain an Opinion from the District official about the type of District he represented. From the responses, more than half of the Districts considered themselves rural in nature. There is a trend 1D. A. Williams, "Soil Conservation Districts, Status of Organization, by States, Approximate Acreage, and Farms in Organized Districts," (Washington. D. C. USDA-Soil Conservation Service, 1964), p. 71, Mimeo. 17 toward urban and urban-rural Districts located near major metr0politan centers. Ohio reported 49.4% of their Districts were Urban and Urban-Rural, followed by Wisconsin with 44.7%, Indiana 41.8% and Illinois 34.5%. Udall says, The sift of our Nation from a predominantly rural to an urban pOpulation has made a sinister sand- wich of much of our land, buttering our soil with concrete and asphalt, piling peOple on peOple, and then hanging a pall of polluted air overall. He further states, We can produce a wide range of goods and machines, but our manipulations have multiplied waste products that befoul the land, and have introduced frighten- ing new forms of erosion that diminish the quality of indispensable resources and even imperil human health.2 Barlowe reports, With our farm lands, it is recognized that many areas in Michigan have a potential for expansion. However, it is expected that the recent downward trend in farm numbers and acreage will continue for at least another two decades.3 lStewart L. Udall, The Race For Inner Space: A Special Report to the Nation, Prepared by The United States Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary, Divi- sion of Information (Washington, D. C. 1964), p. 6. 21bid., pp. 13—14. 3 . . . . Raleigh Barlowe, "Michigan's Changing Land Use Picture," Paper presented at Michigan Natural Resources Con- ference annual meeting, Lansing, Michigan, October 21, 1964 (Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1964), p. 16. 18 The most rural states were: Minnesota 81.7%, Michi- gan 71.0% and Iowa 70.9%. Orville Freeman in a report states, The distribution of ownership and the competing alternative uses of rural land and water re- sources and the access to economic opportunity in rural areas is of growing concern.1 3. As a member of the local Soil Conservation District governing body were you: Elected, Appointed Serve because of another public office which you hold. Fact Reply % No reply 10 1.8 Elected 430 80.7 Appointed 51 9.6 Serve because of an~ other public office which you hold 42 7.9 The purpose of this question was to determine if their type of selection would influence their Opinion on certain questions. In the majority of these eight states at least three of the five members of the governing body are elected by land owners and/or occupiers within the District boundary. The results indicate that the method of selection of District officials had little influence on their Opinions lOrville Freeman, ”Secretary's Memorandum No. 1464, Revised: U.S.D.A. Land and Water Policy Committee"(U. S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Secretary, Washing- ton, D. C. 1962), p. 1, Mimeo. 19 regarding District programs and policies, except in question number twelve (Payment of a per diem). The following shows number on governing body, method, term of office and title: State Number Method Term Title Illinois 5 Elected 2 years Director Indiana 5 Elected 3 Supervisor Iowa 3 Elected 6 Commissioner Michigan 5 Elected 3 Director Minnesota 5 Elected 5 Supervisor Missouri 4) Elected 4 Supervisor 1) Co. Extension Director ex-officio member Ohio 5 Elected 3 Supervisor Wisconsin 5-11 Member of County Board of Supervisors Unspecified Supervisor 4. How long have you been a member of the local Soil Conservation District governing body? Length of Membership (years)_ Reply __%;_ No reply 32 6.0 0-2 101 19.0 3-5 151 28.3 6-8 119 22.3 9-11 51 9.6 12-14 38 7.1 15-17 24 4.5 18 or more 17 3.2 The purpose of this question was to determine whether length of membership on the District board would influence opinions regarding future financing. Replies reveal a continuing replacement of members. 20 In the category 0-2 years, Indiana (22.5%), Minnesota (26.7%) and Missouri (37.5%) rank above average. Iowa is lower with 11.4%. In the 3-5 year group Indiana (35.8%), Iowa (39.2%) and Missouri (35.0%1are higher than average. Michigan (19.4%) and Minnesota (18.3%) rank lower. In the 6-8 year group, Wisconsin (31.9%) is higher and in the 9-11 year category, Michigan is highest with 21.0%. Graffl in a survey of Michigan Districts reports there is a 10% change in membership of the governing body each year. The average length of term is six years, while five per cent has been on the District board for fifteen or more years. 5. Does some other unit of government provide a paid secretary or clerical help? Yes No Comment Reply % None 7 1.3 Yes 276 51.8 No 250 46.9 Several states, including Ohio and Minnesota have state legislative grants which provide for either full or part-time secretarial help in each District office. There 1George P. Graff, "Who Are Our SCD Directors" mimeo- graph report, Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University, March, 1964. 21 are instances where an office is shared by some other gov- ernmental agency (either state or local) and that office answers telephone, does typing and reproducing of newsletters and other materials. It might be hypothesized that if Districts had to pay for this service by having their own clerical help, the cost of District Operation would be greater than is shown under expenditures. 6. Does some other local unit of government pro- vide technical assistance (male District aide)? Yes No Comment Reply % None 12 2.3 Yes 181 34.0 No 340 63.7 Iowa (62.0%), Minnesota (64.8%) and Ohio (47.0%) rank above the average for providing local technical assist~ ance. These states receive large legislative grants and it may be hypothesized that a portion of their money is used for male aides. The technical staff furnished by USDA-Soil Conserva- tion Service is not always adequate to meet the demand by COOperators to solve their soil and water problems. When funds permit, Districts supplement this staff with aides. In a report to State Conservationists (USDA—Soil 22 Conservation Service) dated March 2, 1964, D. A. Williams, Administrator, indicates that in 1958 there was an average of 4.04 man years of technical assistance to each District in the United States. In 1963, the average had dropped to 3.63 man years. Therefore, it is assumed that local units of government will be requested to provide additional funds to maintain current and future demands for technical assist- ance. Question 7 (A through I) will be answered individu- ally, although the leading question will not be repeated each time. Items will be mentioned that did not show signi- ficant amounts or trends, but the number of responses and percentages will be found in Appendix I. 7. How was your Soil Conservation District financed during this last fiscal year - 1963? A. Funds from State Legislature: Amount Reply % None 67 12.6 $l-49 0 0. 50-99 29 5.4 100-499 100 18.8 500-999 78 14.6 1000-2999 179 33.6 3000-5000 45 8.4 Over $5000 35 6.6 A continuing source of funds for District Operation is vitally important as they become involved in more Federal, 23 state, and local projects involving soil, water and human resource programs . These may include P. L. 566 Small Watershed spon- sorship, Resource Conservation and Development programs, recreational inventories, CrOpland Conversion and CrOpland Adjustment programs, River Basin projects, urbanization of urban-rural areas as well as many local projects too numerous to mention. Soils information found in local District offices is used by many as a guide in planning and develOpment of community as well as agricultural areas. Henry says, The Architectural Standards Division of the Federal Housing Administration, well aware of this growing need and demand for soils information, is now using this combined approach effectively (Pedological Soil Classification System and Unified Soils Classi- fication System) in the development of a sound soil program designed to meet the needs of modern resi- dential develOpments. This division has recognized the need for new technical education tools to pro— vide real estate peOple, engineers, planners, ap- praisers, with essential soil information.l Williams2 reports that local peOple have contributed a great deal for the design and lay out of conservation practices, which include preliminary engineering surveys, determine need and practicability, stake and layout practices, 1Elvin F. Henry, "To the Victim Belongs the Soil" Ngtional Capital Area Realtor, (Washington Real Estate Board, Inc., October, 1960) Reprint, no page given. 2 . . . U. S. Department of Agriculture, 8011 Conservation Service, Advisogy B&F-103 Re:Man-Years of Non-Federal Input, D. A. Williams (Washington, D. C., August 2, 1965), p. 1, Mimeo. 24 check practice performance and others. The summary data for fiscal 1965 shows man—years contributed by individual land owners and operators and others: (1) employees of state and local governments, (2) private contractors, (3) others. These estimates are based on what it would have cost in additional technical staff to do the work. A portion of the summary follows:l Man-Years Contributed by Land Owners & Occupiers for Design and Layout of Dollar Equivalent State Conservation Practices (all sources) Illinois 61.2 $900,200 Indiana 66.2 981,400 Iowa 36.6 833,700 Michigan 11.3 176,400 Minnesota 23.1 709,800 Missouri 62.7 674,100 Ohio 32.8 821,100 Wisconsin 16.0 179,200 Total 309.9 $4,275,900 During the past five years significant increases to Districts by State Legislatures have occurred in Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa and Ohio. Other states have received increases in lesser amounts. A comparison is made in the following: 2U. S. Department of Agriculture; Soil Conservation Service, Advisory B&F-103 Re: Man-Years of Non-Federal Input, D. A. Williams (Washington, D. C., August 2, 1965), p.1, Mimeo. 25 TABLE I FUNDS APPROPRIATED BY STATE LEGISLATURES FOR DIRECT ASSISTANCE T0 SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 1958a and 1963b State 1958 1963 Illinois $ 79,536 $120,000 Indiana 0 25,000 Iowa 400,000 500,000 Michigan 24,427 51,000 Minnesota 171,722 195,788 Missouri 7,744 10,338 Ohio 183 147,400 Wisconsin 0 O aU. S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, "Current State ApprOpriations and Allocations for Soil Conservation District Program" (Washington, D. C., November, 1958), Mimeo. U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, "Funds Appropriated by State Legislatures, or Otherwise Provided Through Official Facilities of the State, for Fiscal Year 1963 for Participation in Soil Conservation District Programs (Washington, D. C., October 1, 1962), Mimeo. Glick says, For the current year (1962) the State Legis- latures have made available 14 million dollars for the work of the Districts in conservation and flood control. Almost exactly half of this has gone to works of improvement in watershed protection programs. Only about 3 million dol- lars is being spent for direct assistance to Districts. For the Federal Government to ap- prOpriate 100 million dollars a year while the 50 states apprOpriate about 14 million dollars shows that the States are not doing their share. What makes this problem even more acute is the fact that by common consent the Federal money 26 is available primarily for technical and economic assistance. It is the State money that is needed to enable the Districts to employ the office management and administra- tive help that they must have. Here the need is great, and the inadequacy is perilous. It is my personal opinion that larger State ap- prOpriations to enable the Districts to do a good management job is the overriding and most imperative need of the 1960's.1 Additional funds are also provided to their State Soil Conservation Boards, Committees or Commissions who assist Districts in initial organization, disseminate in- formation among and about Districts, conduct workshops and training sessions for District officials. The Governor may appoint them to act as his representative in matters that pertain to Federal programs, such as the P. L. 566 projects. Over $5000” 6. % :::::::::: w, $500-999 $100-499 $50-99 $1-49 \\\ None N. 6 Fig. l.--Percentage of Districts receiving funds from State Legislatures--l963 1Philip M. Glick, Soil and Water Conservationggig— tricts: Their Origins and Their Future (General Counsel, National Association of Conservation Districts), delivered to District leaders of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas (Western Gulf Area of NACD), July 19, 1962 (League City, --- -—‘ __ 1 1 27 7. B. Funds received from County government: Amount Reply % None 242 45.5 $l-49 3 .6 50-99 6 1.1 100-499 88 16.5 500-999 62 11.6 1000-2999 109 20.5 3000-5000 16 3.0 Over $5000 7 1.3 The boundaries of Soil Conservation Districts usually correspond with county boundary lines. Districts are local entities of State government and are managed by locally elected peOple residing within the District's boundaries. Minnesota and Ohio county government continue to contribute substantial amounts ($500-5000), even though their respective state legislatures have provided funds for part or full time secretarial assistance for most of the Districts. Many Wis- consin Districts receive a substantial amount of county funds; however, they receive no funds from their legislature. Responses indicated 20% of the Districts receive $1000-2999 from County government. Thirty-three percent receive a similar amount from their state legislatures. Districts may receive funds from either the county, state or both. Twenty-eight per cent of the Districts indicated that they received from $100-999 from their County govern- ment. The states of Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota 28 received this percentage or more. Over $5000 $3000-5000 3.. $1000-2999 §\\ \\\‘ $500-999 11.6% $100 499 \fiy §\ \°\\°‘ $50-99 3 $1-49 Fig. 2.—-Percentage of Districts receiving funds from County Government-—l963 0 U1 \0 (1‘ 7. C. Funds from Township or other local unit of government: Less than 1% of the Districts received money from Townships or other local units of government. (Appendix I) 7. D. Sale of trees and/or nursery operation: This is a specialized activity and of the total replies, it is a minor source of income. The largest cate- gory was $100-499 with thirty-seven replies (6.9%). (Ap- pendix I) Michigan Districts indicated it was the second largest source of funds. The majority (54.9%) received from $100- 2999, with six Districts receiving from $3000 to over $5000. Michigan has had a great need for a reforestation program because of the past history of extensive timber 29 exploitation. This was followed by a brief period of farm— ing on lands which were generally unsuited for agriculture. Thirty-two Minnesota Districts indicated it as a source of income. The largest category was $100-499 and figures indicate twelve (16.9%) of the Districts have a some- what profitable tree program. Four Districts received from $3000 to over $5000. 7. E. Equipment rental: Kinds of equipment owned by Districts varies with the states. In Minnesota it may be gOpher control equipment; Michigan, tree planters; Ohio, heavy equipment while others rent out silo forms. This item is also a minor source of income, but important to individual District programs. They offer services and machinery that are not usually available locally. Ohio had the greatest percentage of response (48.3%) ranging from $1—500. (Appendix I) 7. F. Soil testing laboratory: Soil testing laboratories were operated by ten Dis- tricts, one in Iowa, eight in Michigan and one in Ohio. It is an item of minor importance. (Appendix I) 7. G. Income from annual reports, newsletters, sale of advertising: Another item of minor financial consideration, al- though several Districts commented they were able to make a small profit on this item. (Appendix I) 30 7. H. (1). Contributions from business, industry, individuals: This is a secondary source of income to certain Dis- tricts. The figures (Appendix I) do not represent the true amount of monies received from these sources, as bills are often paid directly by the contributor and the actual cash never is handled by the District. It would be difficult to estimate how much money is contributed toward District pro- jects and programs, because of the great variation in Dis- trict activities. $500—999 $100-499 $50-99 $1-49 Fig. 3.--Percentage of Districts receiving contribu- tions from business, industry, individuals--l963 7. H. (2) Contributions from District COOperators: This was another minor source of income. However, eighty-five Districts did report receiving from $100—499 yearly. Methods used were: (1) cooperators gave a yearly donation, (2) new COOperator donations, (3) they sold affiliate memberships, (4) joined District Conservation Club, (5) charged a penny an acre. 31 A total of one hundred thirty-six Districts received income from COOperators. (Appendix I) 7. H. (3) Contributions--Other: & 7.5 I--Other Insignificant amounts of total income are reported in these two items. (Appendix I) 8. How were these funds spent? The disbursement of the Districts are a major con- sideration of this study. Results for this section of the questionnaire are as follows: 8. A. District officials expense--mileage, etc: Amount Reply % None 137 25.7 $l-49 61 11.4 50-99 74 13.9 100-499 219 41.1 500-999 36 6.8 1000-2999 5 .9 3000-5000 0 .0 Over $5000 1 .2 This item is included to ascertain the amount spent by the governing bodies for expenses and mileage to attend regular and special board meetings and other functions. 32 Over $5000 $3000-5000 $1000-2999 $500-999 6 8° .\_ p\\\\\\\\\czaa 13. % \\ $50-99 \\ $l-49 None Fig. 4.--Percentage of Districts with expenditures for District officials expense-mileage--l963 8. B. Educational work, including newsletters, annual reports, Soil Stewardship materials, etc.: Amount Reply % None 74 13.9 $l-49 76 14.3 50-99 105 19.7 100-499 235 44.1 500-999 38 7.1 1000-2999 5 .9 3000-5000 0 .0 Over $5000 0 .0 In comments made by the respondents, numerous refer- ences were made to this item and the need for more educational work in the District. The following indicates the range of funds (greatest percentage) for educational work in these states: 33 Percentage State Category of Districts Illinois $500-999 45.2 Indiana 100-499 38.8 Iowa 500-999 51.9 Michigan 100-499 53.2 Minnesota 100-499 29.6 Missouri 100-499 37.5 Ohio 100-499 61.4 Wisconsin 50-99 27.7 Missouri Districts with 37.5% of their funds spent for educational purposes from a generally inadequate budget, indicates that age of Districts may have a bearing as to the amount that it spends on educational work. Missouri is still organizing several Districts yearly and apparently needs the educational materials to inform the peOple of the District about soil and water conservation. Aldrich says, An educated public and public officials can save our fertile lands for their best use--agriculture. Urban develOpment can become our reservoir of productive power while farms grow food and fiber where they can be grown efficiently and at prices people can afford. As in the receipts, this was a minor item among the total survey, but of major importance in a District and State analysis. By comparing the income and expenditures of this item, a very small profit will be noted. It appears that 1D. G. Aldrich, Jr., Everybody Wants Our Best Land! Abstracted from talk given at the 16th Annual Meeting of the Soil Conservation Society of America and reprinted from Better Farming Methods (Eastern Edition, Mount Morris, February,l962), Vol. 34 (no page given)- Illa, 34 $1000-2999 5500-999 $100-499, $50-99 $l—49 None Fig. 5.--Percentage of Districts having expenditures for educational work, including newsletters, annual reports, Soil Stewardship materials--l963 Districts offer this service to their COOperators in order to accomplish needed reforestation programs. This item is misleading, as it shows up as a large income item. However, close observation reveals it is generally a major disburse- ment. For instance, in Michigan, 22.6% received $100-499 while 11.3%.spent that much. In the $500-999 category, 12.9% receive that amount and 22.6% spend an equal amount. A random survey of individual Districts revealed that usu- ally they received a small amount of profit. 8. D. Scholarships, prizes, awards: Amount Reply % None 221 41.4 $1-49 153 28.7 50-99 108 20.3 100-499 51 9.6 A relatively small amount of District funds was spent for this item. In some instances local business firms have 35 paid for this item directly and it does not show as a Dis- trict expense, such as door prizes at annual meetings, con- tests, and teacher-scholarships to conservation classes. 8. E. Soil Test laboratory: Results were insignificant, less than 1%. (Appendix I) 8. F. Secretarial help (Full-time): Over one-fourth of the Districts (27.4%) reported full-time secretarial assistance. Thirty-five per cent Of the Iowa Districts received from $1000-2999 and 46.8% re- ceived $3000-5000. Ohio was next with 14.5% receiving $1000-2999 and 21.7% receiving $3000-5000. These were the only states that showed any appreciable number of Districts that employed a full-time secretary. (Appendix I) 8. F. Secretarial help (Part—time): Amount Reply % None 249 46.7 $l-49 28 5.3 50-99 23 4.3 100-499 63 11.8 500-999 55 10.3 1000-2999 112 21.0 3000-5000 3 .6 The preceding results reveal that many Districts are using a major portion of their funds for part-time secretarial assistance. Comments indicated that major duties of part- time workers included taking care of District correspondence and business, as well as alleviating the Soil Conservation 36 personnel of routine office work. $3000-5000 a \ $1000-2999 ‘\\21.0% :Sts ‘\ $500-999 \\\\10 3% $100-499 1.:% $50‘99 4. o $lO-49 Fig. 6.--Percentage of Districts employing part- time secretarial assistance--l963 8. G. Technical aides (Male) (Not SCS) Full-time: These results were not significant--less than 3%-- on an area basis. (Appendix I) In individual states, the following were the only ones showing a significant number of Districts employing full-time technical aides (Not SCS): Number of Districts State $1000-2999 $3000-5000 Iowa 0 4 Minnesota 11 4 Ohio 2 5 Because of limited funds, it appears that few Dis- tricts can afford to hire additional aides for assisting the Soil Conservation Service technical staff assigned to their District. Often the present staff is sufficient for the current work load. 8. G. Technical aides (Male) Amount None $l-49 50-99 100-499 500-999 1000-2999 3000-5000 Over $500 The above re 37 Reply % 346 64.9 3 .6 7 l 3 30 5.6 42 7.9 97 18.2 5 .9 0 3 .6 sults indicates a definite trend tow (Not SCS) Part-time: ard part-time technical aides and that Districts do employ tech- nical assistance whe n funds are available. The following shows the two highest percentages for each state spent by Districts for part-time technical assist- ance: State $500—999 $1000-2999 Illinois 9.5% 9.5% Indiana (None) Iowa 19.0 49.4 Michigan 14.9 Minnesota 9.9 39.4 Missouri (None) Ohio 12.0 26.5 Wisconsin 4.3 Over $5000 '\\f8\ 3/ $3000-5000 Q§§;S:>\ .‘fi \\\ \ \ \ $1000-2999 5\7.9% $500-999 5.6% $50—99 fl $1-49 {_ x:‘\“ None .\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 64.9% Fig. 7.--Percentage of Districts expending funds for part-time male technical aides--l963 38 8. H. Equipment purchase or repair: Amount Reply % None 330 61.8 $l-49 59 11.1 50-99 50 9.4 100-499 67 12.6 500-999 15 2.8 1000-2999 9 1.7 3000-5000 2 .4 Over $5000 1 ,2 This is another minor source of expense when con- sidered on an eight state basis as the above results confirm. A random survey to compare the income and expense for this item indicates that costs were as great or greater than the income in many instances. Individual Districts commented that they made a small margin of profit, for ex- ample, "District's income comes from planting trees with the District tree planter (Minnesota)" and "Rent from this equip— ment (2 land levelers and 1 earth scraper) helps run our District program (Ohio)." Apparently there are Districts which make a few hundred dollars and are Spent on current projects, as none indicated that they were setting aside the annual depreciation or other funds to replace the current equipment. It appears that Districts make the equipment avail- able only when there are no local private concerns to do a specific conservation job in that area. 39 8. I. Office rental: Thirty Districts (5.7%) reported an expenditure for office rental. Not a significant item of expense, except in Wisconsin where thirteen of forty-seven Districts indi- cated it an item. The other seventeen Districts were scat- tered throughout the six states, as Missouri had none. As in Michigan, District offices are usually located in the Work Unit Office of the Soil Conservation Service. Were it not for this sharing of office space, Districts would have a large item of expense for housing, especially if it maintained a part or full-time secretary. When Districts are considering yearly expenses, this item is seldom realized because it does not appear as a line item in the expenditures. It would be a considerable amount if it were a direct cost to the District. (Appendix I) 8. J. Other Amount Reply % None 352 66.1 $l-49 30 5.6 50-99 37 6.9 100-499 90 16.9 500-999 16 3.0 1000-2999 6 1.1 3000-5000 2 .4 Under Other, comments were made as to the nature of the expense: state and national dues, telephone, lath, dona— tions, insurance, mailing permit, photographic and annual meeting. 40 This starts the Opinion portion of the study with the exception of question number two. 9. Would you say your District is financed: Very well; Adequate for present; Adequate for now, but will need more in the future; Poorly financed: Comment Reply % No reply 31 5.8 A. Very well 29 5.4 B. Adequate for present 130 24.4 C. Adequate for now, but will need more in future 254 47.7 D. Poorly financed 89 16.7 The comments were as varied as the District's activi- ties. A hand tabulation of comments revealed that they need additional funds for the following items (Listed in order of importance): Mail District aide (Full or part-time) Secretarial assistance (Full or part-time) Watershed work Education, information, promotion New and expanded present programs, increased responsibilities Miscellaneous (dues, scholarships, increases in governing body expenses) 7. Urbanization work 8. Recreational 9. Equipment U'IoPUJNH 00000 0‘ Many checked C and D (Adequate for now, but will need more in the future and Poorly financed), but did not write a comment. Vague statements were made--"need more money," "increased costs," "poor District." Others stated as follows: "I believe the financial success of a district will 41 have a direct bearing on their success toward pro- moting their program in the county." (Indiana) "As program varies and more responsibilities in field of water conservation, recreation and urban develOpment the district will need more finances to carry out their program." (Illinois) "Need more local funds--a sounder conservation pro- gram is the result when local peOple become a part." (Iowa) "Not enough finances to serve needs of District." (Michigan) "A need for a widening and expanding District pro— gram will require more financial help.” (Minnesota) "Increased demand--more work called for each year-— more information and educational drive to help urban understanding, dependency and responsibility." (Missouri) "Expanding work load and watershed development will require more funds for technical help." (Ohio) "We have been able to accomplish our goals including small watershed develOpment." (Wisconsin) The data indicates that District governing bodies are aware of the financial strain ahead if increased funds are not made available to carry out their programs. 42 \ Very well 5.4% Adequate for now \024i4% Adequate now, \\:E§§S:§\ more in future 47.7% :::>\X \‘\\_ Poorly financed 16.7% \\ '\ k ‘\ No reply 5.8% \ Fig. 8.--Opinions that reveal District governing body financial status 10. How much more money does your Soil Conservation Dis- trict governing body believe it needs to carry on a good program? (Question was answered in four parts) A. State Legislatures Amount Reply % A. None 165 30.9 B. $1-49 3 .6 C. 50-99 5 .9 D. 100-499 66 12.4 E. 500-999 98 18.4 F. 1000-2999 130 24.4 G. 3000-5000 47 8.8 H. Over $5000 19 3.6 From the above results, District officials apparently consider present legislative appropriations, as the following state by state report indicates--with the exception of Mis- souri. The states now receiving the larger sums have also the highest percentage of Districts asking for the larger amounts. Of those Districts responding to the question, 70% stated that additional legislative apprOpriations would be Highest categories of requests (lst & 2nd place) State $100-499 $500-999 $1000-2999 $3000-5000 Over $5000 Illinois 42.9% 19.0% Indiana 32.8% 14.9% Iowa 21.5 17.7% Michigan 16.1 40.3 Minnesota 12.7 29.6 Missouri 20.0 20.0 25.0 Ohio 18.1 31.3 Wisconsin 10.6 19.1 needed in the future if a good District program is to be carried out. A breakdown of this percentage is found on page 42, items B. through H. Approximately one—third of the replies indicated their District did not need nor apparently expect additional funds from the legislature. The following illustrates the wide range among states in this survey: Percentage of Districts Indicating No Additional ApprOpriations State Needed from State Legislature Illinois 16.6% Indiana 43.3 Iowa 26.6 Michigan 30.7 Minnesota 32.2 Missouri 17.5 Ohio 21.7 Wisconsin 57.5 Wisconsin, which does not at present receive direct state assistance and because their District organization 44 pattern is based on the County governing body and Agricul- ture Committee, tends to bring the combined results some- what out of line. Over $5000 $3000-5000 . % 51000-2999 ::::::;:\;:E§Ej % $100-499 SE:§&SC % $50-99 E . $1-49 ‘ \\\\\\\\\‘50\-% Fig. 9.--Percentage of Districts needing increased apprOpriations from State legislatures 10. B. Local (County or Township) Amount Reply % None 243 45.7 $1-49 2 .4 50-99 13 2.4 100-499 77 14.4 500—999 87 16.3 1000-2999 85 15.9 3000-5000 19 3.6 Over $5000 7 1.3 Districts indicated that they anticipated the same amount of increase from local government as from the State legislature in two categories--$lOO-499 and $500-999. However, the comparison ends there as the next cate- gory of $1000-2999 shows local sources somewhat less (15.9%), 45 compared to 24.4% from the State legislatures. As the amount of funds needed increases, the requests to local government decreases sharply. This is the reverse of desired assist- ance from State sources. The following shows the percentages (lst & 2nd) as anticipated from local governments: State None $100-499 $500-999 $1000-2999 $3000-5000 Illinois 34.5% 22.6% 28.6% Indiana 34.3 11.9 40.3% Iowa 84.8 5.1 2.5 2.5 5.1% Michigan 46.7 21.0 19.4 Minnesota 54.9 12.7 14.1 Missouri 30.0 32.5 17.5 Ohio 20.5 21.7 26.5 Wisconsin 58.5 12.8 14.9 Michigan's former Governor, John B. Swainson says, We need new methods of selling soil and water programs to non-farm groups, to legislatures and to Congress. After twenty-five years of Opera- tion we surely have a wealth of actual informa- tion to strengthen our demands for greater partici- pation by farmers and increased financial support from county, state and federal sources. 10. C. Individuals, Business, Industry Amount Reply % None 358 67.1 $1-49 4 .8 50-99 27 5.1 100-499 111 20.8 500-999 25 4.7 1000-2999 6 1-1 3000-5000 2 -4 Over $5000 0 -0 lGov. John B. Swainson (Michigan) Address before Area III meeting, Upper Mississippi Valley Region, National Association of Soil Conservation Districts, Kellogg Center, East Lansing, Michigan, August 21, 1961, p. 4, Mimeo. 46 Contributions and donations will apparently continue to be a minor source of funds and always an unknown factor when planning for future District activities. They do help the District program by providing small sums to carry out special activities that might not otherwise be possible on the District's budget. Indiana with 37.3% in the $100-499 category and Michigan with 30.6% in this same group were the leaders in using this as a source of future District financing. 10. D. District cOOperators: The responses were not significant except for the one category of $100-499, in which 12.9% indicated District cooperators as one source of income. The other amounts were 3.4% or less, with 78.6% response of "none". (Appendix I) Ohio (25.3%), Illinois (17.9%) and Missouri (17.5%) all in the $100-499 category showed greatest anticipation of funds from this source for the future. 11. If your District had more funds available now, how would they be spent? 11. A. Additional clerical or technical aides: Amount Reply % None 144 27.0 $1-49 4 .8 50-99 6 1.1 100-499 70 13.1 500-999 85 15-9 1000-2999 157 29.5 3000-5000 59 11.: Over $5000 8 47 Their responses verify the comments that were made in question nine, regarding their Opinion of the financial status of their District. The comments indicated that the two leading needs were for Male District aide and secretarial assistance. In this question, Districts responded as to how much more they can afford for these two items, if the funds were available. 11. B. Educational work and Soil Stewardship materials: Amount Reply % None 191 35.8 $1-49 21 3.9 50-99 75 14.1 100-499 201 37.7 500-999 36 6.8 1000-2999 8 1.5 3000-5000 1 .2 Over $5000 0 ,0 In line with comments to question nine, educational work, information and promotions were items of next impor- tance. All states indicate they would spend from 30.4% to 43.5% of additional income for this item in the category of $100-499. Lesser amounts were listed in the other categories. Laurence M. Mitchell, Chairman, Northern Virginia Soil Conservation District says. We have never been able to keep all of our con- stantly changing public officials informed with respect to the position, responsibilities and performance of the soil conservation district 48 and progress toward a common planning and co- ordination of effort leaves much to be desired. $3000-5000 $1000-2999 1 \ $500-999 6.8% $50-99 ::\l4.l% \ $1-49 \ W398 Fig. 10.--Percentage of Districts with prOposed additional expenditures for Educational and Soil Steward- ship materials 11. C. Scholarships, prizes and awards: Amount Reply % None 235 44.0 $l-49 25 4.7 50-99 117 22.0 100-499 138 25.9 500-999 14 2.6 1000-2999 4 .8 Many times individuals and local businesses assist the District as co-sponsors of a contest and the actual award money is given directly to the winner, so it does not appear in District's financial statement as an income nor expense item. This is an item of lesser importance in over-all l C I I Laurence M. Mitchell, "Opportunities for 5011 Con- servation Districts in Rurban Areas," Talk presented before the State meeting of Soil Conservation Serv1ce Personnel, Blacksburg, Virginia, August 25, 1960, p. 11, Mimeo. 49 District finances, but one that cannot nor should not be ignored. $100042999 $500-999 :1 $100—499 \\\\::EE;EEi} $50-99 \\ $1-49 4.7% e\ \\\\\\\\\\R . Fig. ll.--Percentage of Districts with proposed expenditures for scholarships, prizes and awards 11. D. Pay District officials more mileage, and/or expense money: Amount Reply % None 333 62.4 $l-49 13 2.4 50-99 48 9.0 100-499 107 20.1 500-999 28 5.3 1000-2999 4 .8 This is a companion question to items number 8. A. and number twelve, regarding per diem and expenses for Dis- trict officials. The above responses Show approximately one- fifth of them believe they should receive a total of $100- 499 more for the total governing body. By state, the highest percentage is given: State 50-99 100-499 Illinois 28.6 Indiana 11.9 Iowa 21.5 Michigan 22.6 Minnesota §:-: Misouri . ' 15.7 15.7 Ohio 21.3 Wisconsin 50 11. E. Invest for future District projects: This item was of little significance as Districts did not indicate purpose for what they would set aside funds, if they were available. (Appendix I) 11. F. Other: The percentage answering any category was 5.6% or less. No indication was given as to items that might be included for future District financing. (Appendix I) 12. Do your District officials think they should be paid a per diem for attending regular and special District board meetings? Yes No Comment Reply % None 40 7.5 Yes 257 48.2 No 236 44.3 If yes, how much? Responses were as follows for the second part of this question: Amount Reply % $0-4 27 5.1 5-9 111 20.8 10-14 92 17.3 15-19 20 3.8 20 3 .6 There were very few comments on this question. The greatest response percentagewise is given below: State 5-9 10-14 Illinois 13.1% 17.9% Indiana (cbntinued) 51 State $5-9 $10-l4 Iowa 1576 ——_——— Michigan 30.6 Minnesota 59,2 Ohio 15.0 Wisconsin 66.0 None 7.5% \ Fig. 12.--Opinions as to whether District governing body should be paid a per diem for regular and special Board meetings The following items-—questions thirteen through eighteen--were included in this questionnaire for the specific purpose of assisting State Associations, National Association of Conservation Districts and other District leaders in ob- taining present Opinions of Districts regarding dues levied in 1963. In cross-checking some of the questionnaires, several Districts indicated in question twelve they were financed "very well" or "adequate for present," but still did not pay dues to their State and/or National Associations. No reason for non-payment were given. 13. How much were your District's State Association dues in 1963? (Including regional or area dues): Amount 52212 ._;I__ No reply 27 5.1 $1-24 55 (continued) Amount $25-49 50-74 75-99 Over $100 Over $100 $75-99 $50-74 $25-74 $1-24 I O 3%.’ x\ /A Reply % 190 35.6 87 16.3 99 18.6 75 14.1 . \ \\ Vifié \\ 18.6% \\ l6.3° \\\‘ \\\\ 35.6%. ( \\ None \./ U'l Fig. l3.--Percentage of Districts with amount of dues quota assessed by their State Associations 14. How much did your District pay toward State Association dues in 1963?: Am_o_urit None $l-24 25-49 50-74 75-99 Over $100 Reply % 49 9.2 71 13.3 197 37.0 99 18.6 71 13.3 46 8.6 The largest percentage of dues paid by Districts were $25-49 and $50-74. The bulk of the District assess- ments were in the $25-49 and $75-99 group. Over $100 $75-99 $50-74 $25-49 $1-49 None 8.6%: SEA 18 . 6%\ . \\\\\\\3340\% ‘ / // Fig. l4.--Percentage of Districts paying dues to their State Associations 15. 16. 17. 18. 53 Does your District feel the State Association dues quota was: __N0t enough __Sufficient __;Too much Opinion Reply % None 37 6.9 Not enough 34 6.4 Sufficient 410 76.9 Too much 52 9.8 How much were your District's National Associa- tion dues in 1963?: Amount Reply % None 31 5.8 $1-24 3 .6 25-49 11 2.1 50—74 45 8.4 75—99 405 76.0 Over $100 38 7.1 How much did your District pay toward National Association dues in 1963?: Amount Reply % None 102 19 l $1-24 15 2.8 25-49 27 5.1 50-74 35 6.6 75-99 324 60.8 Over $100 30 5.6 Does your District feel the National Association dues quota was: __Not enough __Sufficient __Too much Opinion Reply % None 41 7.6 Not enough 9 1.7 Sufficient 366 68.7 Too much 117 22.0 CHAPTER V FINANCIAL COMPARISON OF FOUR STATES 1958 and 1963 A hand tabulated, random survey of more than 50 per cent of Districts responding to questionnaires in Indiana, Michigan, Missouri and Ohio indicates a definite trend in increased funds from State legislatures in Ohio and Indiana. A slight increase was noted in Missouri and generally less per District in Michigan. County funds per District were increased in Ohio, slight increase in Indiana and Missouri and about the same in Michigan. The tabulations show that as Districts do receive more funds from a definite source they are used in this order: (1) secretarial assistance, (2) male aides, (3) edu- cational needs, (4) District officials expenses. A resume'of each state follows. Indiana (1) Thirty-four of sixty-seven Districts indicated that all were receiving from $100—499 from State legislature in 1963 and none in 1958. RA (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Michigan (1) 55 Five Districts received from the County, $1000- 2999 and one $100—499 in 1963 and none in 1958. Contributions declined by one hundred or more dollars in thirteen Districts, remained same in sixteen and showed a slight increase in five Districts during 1963. In 1963 equipment rental was of minor importance except for two Districts whose income was over $5000, one $1000-2999 and one $100-499. District officials received from $l—100, none in 1958. In 1963, expenses for educational materials declined sharply in majority of Districts, four reported a slight increase and the rest remained about the same. Prizes and scholarships remained approximately the same for both years. Thirty—three of sixty-two Districts were tabu- lated. Income from State legislature in 1963 per District was either less or remained nearly the same, ranging from $100-999. In 1958 thirteen reported more than $1000, whereas there were none in 1963. Missouri (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (l) 56 Of Districts handling trees, only one reported more income in 1963 than 1958. Three Districts were selling trees in 1963 that did not in 1958. A sharp decline in tree sales and ex- penditures for item were noted with a very small margin of profit. Funds from County government were approximately the same ranging from $200-600. Equipment rental and soil testing laboratory service was either the same or less, with a wide range of income and expense both in 1963 and 1958. Expenditures for District officials were approxi- mately the same, less than $500. Expenses for educational needs remained the same. In 1963, secretarial and male aide expense showed five with less, ten with more expense, balance the same. The random survey of twenty of forty Districts revealed that most of the Districts were Spend- ing much more (over $500 in two Districts) on the average for educational needs. In 1958 very little was spent on this item. Ohio (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (l) (2) (3) (4) 57 A general increase in prizes and awards was noted. Four Districts were spending more on secre- tarial expense, in amounts from $50 to $2999. The majority of Districts received slight in- creases in 1963 from State legislature. Eleven received funds from County government, none in 1958, usually in the $100-499 category. Seven were in equipment rental business in 1963, but was a minor source of funds, with four in $100-499 category, others in lesser amounts. Forty-four of eighty-three Districts indicated that majority of Districts (26) received $1000- 2999 from State legislature, two from $3000- 5000 and balance less than $1000. In 1958 there were no funds from this source. County funds were the same or increased since 1958. Contributions on the whole remained about the same as 1958. A few reported a decline. Equipment rental was a minor item both in 1958 and 1963. (5) (6) (7) (8) 58 Supervisors expenses increased, but no more than $500 was spent for this item in 1963. Districts spent from $100-499 for printing publications and educational needs, compared to less than $100 in 1958. Secretarial expense, full and part-time, absorbed major portion of funds from State legislature. Twenty-two Districts in 1963 employed male aides full or part—time whereas in 1958 there were none . (l) (2) CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS The researcher hOpes that if the questionnaire did nothing more, it enabled six hundred fifty-eight District officials, (and often their entire governing body)_ to review the present financial status of their District and the sources and expenditures of future funds. The opinions as to whether their District was rural, urban—rural or urban could be misleading, unless an actual pOpulation base had been included. Some Dis- tricts do not appear to note the urbanization or other changing land uses that are taking place in their area. Many Districts still set priorities of assistance in this order: full-time farmer, part—time farmer and non-farm interest. The non-farm drainage or conserva- tion problem may be as urgent as a full-time farmer's problem; however, it usually affects more people. An example of this is assisting a school board in the proper site location of a new school, using soils, drainage and other information found in the District office. 59 (3) 60 Since 1949 the researcher has been associated with the Genesee Soil Conservation District, Flint, Michigan, either as a part-time secretary (four years) or as an elected member of the governing body for the past thir- teen years. During this period a definite trend in the type of program the District offers has changed from working with full—time farmers, to almost entirely working with part-time farmers (93% of District co- operators) and non-farm interests as the District changes into a rapidly growing urban area. While our program has changed, our need for greatly increased and dependable source of funds continues at even a more rapid rate, if we are to serve all the people of our District with their conservation and land use problems. These include working with teachers, admin- istrators and boards of education in large, suburban school Districts; consulting with local governmental units about soil and water problems as it relates to planning, zoning and community develOpment. More sec- retarial and technical aides are needed as well as a much eXpanded educational program, if funds were avail- able. Agriculture is still being served, but they are larger farm units, with a more comprehensive planning and follow-up program. (4) (5) (6) 61 If a District is to accept the responsibility and chal- lenge of the broadened concepts of conservation and resource develOpment as we know it today, more funds are necessary now to carry out programs that serve all the peOple of the District, urban and rural. The writer concludes that if conservation is the respon- sibility of the peOple who own and Operate the land, they and the agencies who assist them are going to need more tax monies to do a better job of resource develop- ment. As this study shows, most legislatures are recog- nizing to some degree the importance of the local Soil Conservation District by increasing their appropriations each year; however, in most instances not enough to meet increasing needs. Some legislatures provide addi- tional funds for the investigation and planning portions of the Small Watershed Protection Program (P. L. 566). Comments from Michigan Districts indicate declining tree sales and little or no profit. They stated that other sources of funds will need to be sought. No ex- planation was given as to the cause of the declining sales. The Task Force report of the Northern Great Lakes Region states. that for the eighty-one county area of northern Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin re- forestation programs are in the public interest and (7) (8) (9) (10) 62 that full advantage should be taken of multiple use opportunities. The researcher hypothesizes that the trend for reforestation will again go upward as in- creased emphasis in multiple use programs of recreation, tourism, and forest industries gain momentum, as well as increased interest of the absentee landlord. From the statistics compiled in this survey, Districts have recognized the need for secretarial assistance and male aides to keep the District Operating in a business-like manner, for if they do not have funds for these items, anticipated future funds would be spent in this area. Educational needs were not as high priority as researcher had expected. Apparently many Districts believe they are doing an adequate job with present funds, but could do better with a slight increase of funds for this pur- pose. Districts are entities of State government and if they are to carry out the responsibilities as stated in the Declaration of Policy of each of the state statutes of enabling legislation, they should be sufficiently sup— ported by adequate tax monies contributed by all the peOple, urban and rural. Districts have always given freely of their services (ll) 63 to their cooperators. From the replies (question 10 D.) it would appear that Districts do not anticipate their cooperators contributing heavily toward the District finances. The writer hypothesizes that Districts wish to keep their services on a gratis basis and rely on other sources of funds--state and loca1-—to finance District activities. The researcher believes that Districts do realize the need for increased financial support from state and local government and that new methods of giving Dis- tricts a dependable source of annual income will be the foremost problem confronting Districts in the next five years. (l) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) CHAPTER VII SUMMARY Seventy-four per cent of the Districts have been organ- ized for fifteen or more years. Sixty-five per cent of the Districts reported they were rural while 25% considered themselves rural-urban and only 9% were classified as urban. One per cent did not respond. Seventy per cent of the respondents stated that they had been on the District governing body eight years or less, while 8% indicated their tenure of office had been fifteen years or more. Fifty-two per cent of the Districts received funds for secretarial and clerical assistance from other govern- mental sources. Approximately one-third (34%) receive funds from other local units of government for technical assistance (male District aides). One-third of the Districts receive legislative appropri- ations in the amount of $100-999, while another one- third (34%) receives $1000—2999. Twenty-eight per cent of the Districts received $100—999 64 (8) (9) (10) (ll) (12) (l3) (14) 65 and 21% from $1000-2999 from county government. Forty—six per cent of the Districts accepted contribu- tions from business, industry or individuals in amounts of $1 to $500. Minor sources of income include township; sale of trees or nursery Operation; equipment rental; soil testing laboratory; incomes from annual reports, sale of ad- vertising; District COOperators; other contributions. Sixty-six per cent of the respondents indicated the total amount spent by their entire District governing body for officials mileage and other expenses to attend regular and special board meetings were usually less than $500. Forty-four per cent indicated they spent $100-499 for educational work, including newsletters, annual reports, Soil Stewardship materials. Forty—seven per cent apparently Spent no funds for part—time secretarial assistance, while 22% spent over $1000. Forty-eight per cent of the Districts stated that their finances were adequate for now, but will need more in the future. Seventeen per cent replied they were poorly financed. Twenty-four per cent of the Districts believed they (15) (l6) (17) (18) (19) (20) 66 needed $1000-2999 in additional annual legislative appropriations, while only 12% indicated $3000 or more. Thirty-one per cent desired additional funds from county government in the amount of $100-999, While 16% indicated $1000-2999 was needed. Forty—four per cent replied that they anticipated no funds from this source. Twenty-one per cent replied they might expect from $100-499 in contributions from business, industry and individuals. Fifty—eight per cent indicated that if additional funds were received, Districts would use from $100-2999 tO employ additional clerical or technical aides. Fifty-six per cent responded that between $l—500 addi- tional funds would be spent toward educational pro- grams. Thirty—six per cent indicated that none would be spent. Twenty per cent indicated that they would allocate $100-499 for District officials expenses. However, 62% replied they would spend no additional funds for this item. Of the 48% indicating that a per diem was desirable for attending regular and special Board meetings, 21% were of the Opinion $5—9 was adequate while 17% believed (21) (22) (23) 67 $10-14 was sufficient. Thirty-seven per cent of the Districts paid $25-49 for State Association dues while 61% paid$75-99 to the National Association of Conservation Districts for dues in 1963. Approximately three-fourths Of the Districts believed present dues quotas for their state and national organizations were sufficient. In a summary of the financial comparison Of four states -- Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, OhiO-—for 1958 and 1963, indications are that apprOpriations from all sources have increased. During the same time District expenses increased because Of greater expenditures for secre- tarial and technical assistance. (1) CHAPTER VIII RECOMMENDATIONS The researcher recommends that a future study be made Of District finances in 1968-70 to ascertain the following: a. If increases in funds are Obtained from State legislatures for direct District assistance. If increases in funds are Obtained from County governments for direct District assistance. If increased funds were used for items Districts now considered high priority--male technical assistance, secretarial help, watershed work, educational work, and additional funds for Dis- trict officials expenses. If trends established in 1958 and 1963 in the four states that were compared (Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio), continue in same trend or show more deviation from average of over-all eight state area. The rapidity of change from rural to urban clas— sification Of District. 68 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 69 That similar studies be carried out in other areas Of the United States in order tO obtain a comprehensive review Of the financial status Of Districts at the present time. Use Of appendix material by individual State Associa- tions to determine weaknesses Of financial structure and desires Of Districts for specific uses Of addi- tional funds, if they could be obtained. A survey to determine if Districts had the power to levy taxes, would they do so, or be content to continue receiving usually inadequate funds from several sources. If changing agricultural methods and Federal conserva- tion and agricultural programs, as well as local re- quests from non—agricultural interests create a demand for more or less funds and the categories affected by these changes. An educational survey to determine if lack of funds at the present time restrict a good educational program at the District level, what Districts consider a good program, or if factors other than funds are hampering the educational work. These factors may include: a. Lack of training in writing articles, appearing before civic groups by members of District govern- ing body. (7) 70 b. Lack Of time to devote to District business by members. c. Educational work left up to others outside the official governing body. d. Need for Office manager or executive secretary in District Office to facilitate District business. State Soil Conservation Committees, Commissions and Boards as well as State Associations of Districts may be able to use these statistics as a guide for future requests for funds from State legislatures. APPENDICES 71 APPENDIX I Items not included in Chapter IV (Results) because they were insignificant items Of income and expense. 7. C. Township or other local unit of government (Income): Amount Reply % None 526 98.6 $l-49 2 ,4 50-99 2 .4 100-499 2 ,4 500-999 1 .2 7. D. Sale of trees and/or nursery Operations (Income): Amount Reply % None 432 80.9 $1-49 4 .8 50-99 10 1.9 100-499 37 6.9 500-999 20 3.8 1000-2999 20 3.8 3000-5000 6 ”1.1 Over $5000 4 .8 7. E. Equipment rental (Income): Amount Reply % None 405 76.0 $1-49 41 7.7 50-99 34 6.4 100—499 36 6.8 500-999 7 1.3 1000-2999 5 .9 3000-5000 0 .0 Over $5000 5 .9 7. F. Soil testing laboratory (Income): 72 73 Amount Reply % None 523 98.0 $1-49 2 .4 50-99 1 .2 100-499 4 .8 500-999 2 .4 1000-2999 1 .2 7. I. Other: Amount , Reply % None 458 85.8 $l-49 11 2.1 50-99 8 1.5 100-499 38 7.1 500-999 10 1.9 1000-2999 4 .8 3000-5000 2 .4 Over $5000 2 .4 7. G. Income from annual reports, newsletters, sale Of advertising: Amount Reply % None 436 81.8 $1-49 11 2.1 50-99 10 1.9 100-499 56 10.5 500-999 14 2.6 1000-2999 6 1.1 7. H. 1. Contributions from business, industry, individuals: Amount Reply % None 291 54.5 $l-49 52 9.8 50-99 64 12.0 100-499 114 21.4 500—999 12 2.3 74 7. H. 2. Contributions from District COOperators: Amount Reply None 397 $l-49 27 50-99 16 100-499 85 500-999 8 96 7. H. 3. Contributions: Others: m1 Reply % None 489 91.8 $l-49 13 2.4 50-99 6 1.1 100-499 21 3.9 500-999 2 .4 1000-2999 0 .0 3000-5000 0 .0 Over $5000 2 .4 8. C. Nursery and/or tree and shrub sales (Expense): Amount Reply % None 430 80.7 $l—49 8 1.5 50-99 14 2.6 100-499 26 4.9 500-999 25 4.7 1000-2999 20 3.8 3000-5000 5 .9 Over $5000 5 .9 8. E. Soil testing laboratory (Expense): Amount Reply % None 521 97.9 $l—49 5 .9 50-99 3 .6 100-499 1 .2 500—999 0 .0 1000-2999 2 .4 8. F. Secretarial help (Full-time) Amount None $l-49 50-99 100-499 500-999 1000-2999 3000-5000 Over $5000 8. G. Technical aides (Male) Amount None $l-49 50—99 100-499 500-999 1000-2999 3000-5000 (Expense): Reply % 419 72.6 0 .0 O .0 2 .4 4 .8 48 9.0 59 11.1 1 .2 (Not SCS) (Expense): Reply % 14 2 13 2 8. I. Office rental (Expense): Amount None $l-49 50-99 100-499 500—999 1000—2999 3000-5000 10. D. income): Amount None $l-49 50-99 100-499 500—999 1000-2999 3000-5000 Rep 1y % 503 94.3 3 .6 1 .2 14 2.6 6 1.1 4 .8 2 .4 District COOperators (Anticipated source of Rep 1y % 419 78.6 10 1.9 18 3 4 69 12 14 2 6 2 .4 .2 9 l 76 11. E. Invest for future Districts projects: Amount Reply % None 360 67.6 $l-49 7 1.3 50-99 30 5.6 100—499 80 15.0 500-999 31 5.8 1000-2999 18 3.4 3000—5000 5 .9 Over $5000 2 .4 11. F. Other (If funds available, how spent?): Amount Reply % None 472 88.5 $l-49 2 .4 50-99 16 3.0 100-499 30 5.6 500-999 9 1.7 1000-2999 3 .6 3000-5000 0 .0 Over $5000 1 .2 APPENDIX II 1037 Nichols Road Swartz Creek, Michigan 48473 April 7, 1964 Dear I am currently working on a Master's degree program at Michi- gan State University in the Department Of Resource Develop- ment. My thesis title is “The Financial Status of Soil Con- servation Districts in the Corn Belt States — 1963." I would appreciate your sending me the information indicated on the attached sheet for each Of the Soil Conservation Dis- tricts in your state for the fiscal year 1958. I need this information to indicate trends during the last five-year period. Any other information you may have will be appreciated. I am enclosing the anticipated questionnaire that will be sent to all District Treasurer's in the Corn Belt States shortly after May 15th. If you have any suggestions or comments for improvement of this questionnaire, please do so. The survey will be tabulated in the MSU Computer Center so individual District finances will not be divulged in the survey. If possible, I would appreciate your writing a cover letter dated May 15, 1964 to the District treasurers and sending sufficient COpies to me so that I may enclose it with the questionnaire, to assure a better response and return Of it. Also I'd like a list of the Districts in your state and their present Treasurer. The summary and interpretation of this survey will be by state and also the total area. COpies will be provided to those interested in the results Of it. Thank you so very much for your assistance in this project. Sincerely, (Mrs. Robert Shepard) Secretary—Genesee Soil Encl. Conservation District Letter to Executive Secretaries Of State Soil Conservation Committees, Boards or Commissions 77 78 poeuumfio an 6066 now mmma H .6 5666 monumeuomcH mmflhmwmuomm O>Husowxm mo Umpmm 6862 .axm .mwm 666666 66669 .966 666:666Hos66 .666 .6666 66 66666 66 666666Ho 6666 .666 66666666 no .669 .666636 .666666H636: 6H6666660 . . H6666s66e .masvm >666662 H666 .666666 .6H.662 .656m 6666666o i‘I‘I‘q‘ AmeH 1 66666666 >mo "666666666 xm mcoHpoanucoo Hmuowm .nmq mnounmlmmmua aflnmc3oe mucooo mumum mEMZII “COEQHUUW . mmm. HHOW MO mflmm HUflHuan—H AMWmH u uoanvmflo wmv umEOOOH 79 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing Department of Resource Development Dear For nine years I had the privilege Of serving as treasurer Of the Michigan Soil Conservation Districts and am very familiar with the added responsibilities of carrying out a more active and progressive statewide role in soil and water conservation activities. There are many areas Of interest with which we deal today that were unheard Of 10 years ago, including Water— shed programs (P.L. 566), rural recreation, RAD and others. I have served as chairman, secretary and treasurer of our local Genesee Soil Conservation District and realize that no District program can be successful if it does not have ade- quate finances tO carry out a broader program of soil and water conservation. It, too, has an ever—increasing responsibility to all the peOple within the District, both rural and urban, youth and adult. In 1963 I served as Michigan Council member to the National Association Of Conservation Districts and as alternate in 1964. The NACD also has been asked to assume more and more leadership at the National level and all these programs and activities cost money, whether on a local, state or national level. With this background, I decided that.nq'Master of Science Degree (Department Of Resource Development, Michigan State University) would deal with District finances. I would appreciate your COOperation in filling out the en— closed questionnaire and returning it in the envelOpe provided by May 15. This is a pilot project, with the basic project to begin by June 1 and will involve 652 Districts in the eight Corn Belt States. The replies will be confidential and all tabulation will be done by myself or at the MSU Computer Center. Copies Of the completed thesis will be available to those desiring it. Any comments or suggestions that would make this more appli- cable tO your District will be appreciated. Please feel free 80 to discuss any project or ideas you may have regarding Dis- trict or State Association finances in the space provided at the end of the questionnaire. Thank you so very much. Sincerely, (Mrs. Robert Shepard) Cover letter in Pilot Projects I and II 81 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing Department of Resource Development Dear For nine years I had the privilege of serving as treasurer of the Michigan Soil Conservation Districts and am familiar with the added responsibilities of carrying on a more active state— wide rOle in soil and water conservation activities. Water- shed programs (P.L.566), rural recreation, RAD and others were unheard Of ten years ago. I have served as chairman, secretary and treasurer Of our local Genesee Soil Conservation District and realize that no District program can be successful if it does not have adequate finances to carry out a broader program of soil and water conservation. Districts have an ever—increasing responsibility to all the people - both rural and urban, youth and adult. In 1963 I served as Michigan Council member to the National Association of Conservation Districts and as alternate in 1964. The NACD also has been asked tO assume more leadership at the National level. All these programs and activities cost money, whether on a local, state or national level. Presently I am working toward a Master Of Science degree at Michigan State University in the Department of Resource Development. With a background Of Soil Conservation District work, my thesis will be about District finances. I would appreciate your taking a few minutes to fill out the enclosed questionnaire. If you have comments, please put them on the last page. A good response will help in deter- mining future trends in District finances. The replies will be confidential as all tabulation will be done at the MSU Com- puter Center. COpies of the complete thesis will be available. Please use the enclosed envelOpe to return the questionnaire by AUGUST 15. Thank you and your cooperation on this project is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, (Mrs. Robert Shepard) Cover letter sent to 658 Soil Conservation Districts lllllllllilllllliilllmmmmmlww It; 6606666 000 60666660 .m -‘—(>—— «L .dr- - 6663©c6 .mmmcamsm .H chaquHHDCOU .m rlllllllllrlillllllllll ~ 666666>66c6 mcflmauum>©m mo wamm .muouuoam3mc .666OQ66 Hmzccm E060 mEoocH .0 60666O36H 666m66 HHOm .m 1Lll11lllll1lllililllllllllilfll 0cm 66666 00 mamm Q cofiumuwmokfiumm6oc 60\ 00 66c: HMUOH 66:60 6O Qflzmc3oe .0 6coE066>Om ucoEC6m>O 6:300 .m .Illlllilllllilllfll 66566666064 mumum E060 60:56 < |l||lyllllllll|lil Questionnaire used in Survey 00066 00066 60666 0666, 0666 8666 66>o 100066 100066 -0066 -0066 06-066 06-66 6:62 2 mmmma I Mama Hmowflw ummH mag» mCHHDG omucmcflm #Ofiuumfln coflwm>ummcou aflom u50> mm3 30$ .0 8 OZII|.mwMWII. mAvflm uOAHumfin OHMEV mucoumflmmm HMOHGSUOD mofl>oum acmficum>om mo uflcs HMUOH Hwfluo meow mmom .0 OZWII.mwwWII Noam: HMOHHOHO 60 mumumuowm 6660 6 mofl>06m unmecum>00 mo was: 66:60 6806 moon .m 6608 no 6666» mall! mummm haumalll 6666» watmalll.mnmm> Haumlll mumw> mlolll.mumm> mlmlll 6666» «loll! mmoon mcflcum>om uoauumfla coflum>uwmcoo Hflom HMUOH 636 no umflEmE m comp so» m>mn mood 30: .v 6H0: 50> £0653 wOHMMO OHHQDQ umnuocm mo mmsmomn m>umm 50> OQIII poucflommmlll owuomamlll ”50> @603 woon mcacum>om uoauumflo coaum>ummcoo HHOm HMOOH may no 669868 6 md .m Hmuomlll amusmucmnuaflll.Acoflumaomom 000.06 60>Ov :mnuDIII "omhmoflmcoo uofiuuman 6:0» 6H .N 66666 06 66>0|1|.man66111.66-06111.6unllu 66666 6.01:1 666666666 6666 66 666 366 .6 llllllllll "mm3mz¢ mDON mom moummcoo HHom mo mzumum Hmwocmcflm one 83 6606060 000 00660060 >6005066 .06006650 .6H650H>60:H AQHLmQSOE Ho H0004 06506666 00 06600 .4 llllllll1l|11|ll1lll1 QUHDOW 00006 H0>o m :0 >Humo 00 00005 06 0>0HH0Q >003 ms 00066 100066 mommw Ioooam 0006 10066 000w loon 0010mm owlam I m>m3 0:02 Hou0>om 00660669 codum>u0moou Hfiom .QHUQQJN CH QHOE 600$ HH 08660060 0000 65O> 0000 >0cofi 0609 £058 30m . . . . . . 00050060 >Huoom .Q 63 059 .30: How 0005000¢ .0 .. .050m0um Mom 00650004 .0 . . HH03 >H0> .d 650> >60 50> 0H503 . C C C . C . O C O I C O O . 6000:0060 06 uuauumfln 66:60 .0 666666 666660 .6 666006 60 066:0650 0:0EQH5Um .m 666616666 .0 0E601HH5m .H AmUm 002V AwamEv 00060 H0060£00B .0 686616666 .0 686616666 .6 0H0: H066600600m .Nuoumuonma ocflum0u HHOm 606036 .m0NHHO .mmflnmumHOLOm UQEIJEL: m0Hmm 056:6 w 0060 60\ocm NMOmH5z .000 .mamflumume 06:60663060 HHOm .6060006 Hm5ccm .06000066300 00505H006 x603 HmcoflumO5pm .m .060 .0mm0HHE 1 06:0mX0 mHmHOHmwO uOHuumHQ 000mm 60>o 000mm Iooomw mommw Ioooaw 0006 10066 00mm 10066 001066 06166 0:02 EwuH 005000 0055M 00050 0603 30: .OH 84 006w 60>O mmlmhm 0010mm 001mm» 0N16w 0m006 56 0050 50660600005 60506602 060306 %0m 60666065 650% 060 5055 305 0066 60>0111 001606111.¢01060111 001606111 «6166111 0m006 56 0050 50660600005 60506602 0.60666065 650% 0603 5055 300 5055 OOBIII 650606665mlll 505050 602Wll. "003 06050 0050 50660600005 06060 056 6000 60666065 650% 0005 0066 6650' 001606Il. 001066|l 001606111 6.01661l 0m006 56 0050 50660600005 06060 060306 %0m 60666069 650% 060 5055 305 0066 60>0111 001606111.¢01066111 001600111 00166111 6.0050 0060 60 60506006 05605605Hv 0m006 56 0050 50660600005 06060 0.60666060 650% 0603 5055 305 000111 061660111 061060111 0160111 «106111 05055 305 .00N 66 oz 00% 000566005 06005 60666065 6060000 050 6065006 056050660 606 5060 60m 0 0600 05 065050 %056 #5656 060606660 60666065 650% on 60560 .m 0600flomm.6066606a 06565m 6cm 600>5H .m 60505 0050QX0 60V050 0000665 0605 060606660 60666069 %0m .9 006030 .00066QI.0Q6506060500 .0 060660605 06500603060 6600 050 5603 6050660050m .m 00060 600655006 60 60066060 6050666005 .5 00066 00000 00006. 00061, 0006 wcoz 2066 60>0 100066 100066 10066 10066 001066 00166 065050 05 %056 06503 305 .305 0650660>0 00556 0605 005 6066606Q 650% MH .06 .06 .m6 .06 .M6 .N6 .66 85 60000 06066062 .60060 066630 0600 6606062 0606 60660050 660600 .6620 .%6060056m .m6 605054 %5 565606 000060 .30605 06006056 .05500 %660605056w 66 0505 06 60666065 650% 56 650 0066600 0>05 50% 0600nO6m 6o 05066000050 .06505500 %50 0>05 50% 06 "MZO%mm>m mom 5055 009 6506066650 505050 602 "003 06050 0050 50660600005 60506602 056 6000 6066606Q 650% 0005 .06 86 Dear Friend: Some time ago you were mailed a questionnaire regarding the financial status of Soil Conservation Districts. To date, nearly 300 replies have been received from your fellow Board members in eight states. To make this survey and results valid, I need your questionnaire returned to me by august 15, (Second card dated September 1.), Thank you very much. Mrs. Robert Shepard 1037 Nichols Rd. Swartz Creek, Michigan 48473 Post card reminders sent August 1 and August 15, 1964 APPENDIX III - Illinois Questionnaires were sent to ninety-eight Soil Con- servation District treasurers, and eighty-four or 85.7% replied. The results of the eighty-four Districts: 1. How old is your District? Age-Years Reply % 0-4 0 0 5-9 2 2.4 10-14 4 4.8 15-19 39 46.4 Over 20 39 46.4 Is your District considered: Rural 921222 No reply Urban (Over 50,000) Urban-Rural Rural As a member of the local Soil Conservation Dis— trict governing body were you: Fact Elected Appointed How long have you been a member of the local Soil Reply 2 8 21 53 Reply 83 1 Urban, Urban-Rural, wU1kON i—‘OU’IuD- 2 6 Elected, Appointed % Conservation District governing body? Years No reply 0-2 3-5 6-8 9—11 87 Reply 1 20 3O 20 3 % Illinois 10. ll. 88 Years Reply % 12-14 '7 8.3 15—17 2 204 18 or more 1 102 Does some other unit of government provide a paid secretary or clerical help? Comment Reply % No reply 0 90 Yes 50 59.5 No 34 40.5 Does some other local unit of government provide technical assistance (Male District aide)? Comment Reply % No reply 2 2.4 Yes 15 17.9 No 67 79.8 How was your Soil Conservation District financed during this last fiscal year - 1963? (Table l & 2) How were these funds spent? (Table 3 & 4) Would you say your District is financed: Comment‘ Reply % No reply 2 2.4 A. Very well 1 1.2 B. Adequate for present 18 21.4 C. Adequate for now, but will need more in future 40 47.6 D. Poorly financed 23 27.4 How much more money does your Soil Conservation District governing body believe it needs to carry on a good program? (Table 5 & 6) If your District had more funds available now, how would they be spent? (Table 7 & 8) 89 Illinois 12. Do your District officials think they should be paid a per diem for attending regular and special District board meetings? Comment Reply % No reply 10 11.9 Yes 25 29.8 No 49 58.3 If yes, how much? Amount Reply % $0-4 5 6.0 5-9 11 13.1 10-14 7 8.3 15—19 1 1.2 20 2 2.4 13. How much were your District's State Association dues in 1963? Amount Reply % No reply $l—24 25-49 50—74 75-99 Over $100 NO‘ l—‘\l Ntfi N.b+4c5+40\ MCDO 45O\\IONl-' 14. How much did your District pay toward State Association dues in 1963? Amount Reply % No reply 11 13.1 $l—24 l 1.2 25-49 1 1.2 50—74 53 63.1 75—99 18 21.4 15. Does your District feel the State Association dues quota was: 90 Illinois Comment Reply % No reply 7 8.3 Not enough 2 2.4 Sufficient 62 73.8 Too much 13 15.5 16. How much were your District's National Associa- tion dues in 1963? Amount Reply % No reply 5 6.0 $1-24 0 '.0 25-49 0 .0 50-74 13 15.5 75-99 65 77.4 Over $100 1 1.2 17. How much did your District pay toward National Association dues in 1963? Amount Reply % No reply 19 22.6 $l-24 3 3.6 25-49 1 1.2 50-74 9 10.7 75—99 52 61.9 18. Does your District feel the National Association dues quota was: Comment Reply % No reply 7 8.3 Not enough 0 ..0 Sufficient 56 66.7 Too much 21 25.0 91 «.6 0.« 0.0 0.« «.6 0.00 60660 .6 «.6 0.« 0.« «.6 0.«0 60660 .m 0.0 6.06 «.6 0.0 «.06 06060605000 60666060 .« 0.0 0.0« 0.06 0.« m.«m 060006>6006 .66600006 .00006050 .6 0506655666500 .0 0.« 0.« 0.m« 0.« «.6 0.60 00606660>00 60 0600 .06066060305 .066om06 605550 5066 0EOO5H .0 0.006 %606060506 0566006 6600 .m «.6 0.« 0.0 0.0 0.00 606006 600556000 .0 .v.N «IN N...” ofvm GOHUMHwQO >meHDG .HO\OGM 00066-.6 m0 060m .0 N.._.. w.mm 6660866606600 MO UHCD HMUOH Hwfluo .HO “HSWEOH. .U «.6 6.6 0.06 6.00 «.6 0.00 600E¢60>00 660600 .0 «.6 0.06 0.66 0.0 «.6 06560606006 06060 5066 00550 .0 00000 00000 000«0 0000 0000 60>0 -00060 -00060 -0000 -0060 00-000 00-60 0002 5066 06056666 I 0565606 60 0006500600 .N 06509 6 « 6 « 6 66 60560 .6 6 « « 6 06 60560 .m m 06 6 6 mm 06060600000 60666060 .« w 6N M6 N 00 060506>6056 .%6605056 .0005605m .6 0506655666500 .m « « 0« « 6 6m 00606660>00 60 0600 .06066060305 .0660006 605550 5066 0E0056 .0 00 6606060606 0066006 6600 .0 6 « 0 0 06 606006 600556600 .0 m N 6 06 506606000 %600655 60\050 00066 60 0600 .0 6 mm 650E560>o0 60 6655 60006 60560 60 56505309 .0 6 0 06 «m 6 6m 6002060>00 660000 .0 6 m0 m6 0 6 06560606006 06060 8066 00556 .4 00000 00000 000«0 0000 0000 60>0 -00000 -00060 -0000 -0060 00-000 00-60 0002 5066 06056666 I 000505006 60 605252 .6 06509 «0006 - 600% 600066 6006 0656 056650 00050566 60666069 50660>6005OU 6600 650% 003 30m 92 6 N m6 0 m mm 60560 .0 6 6 N0 606506 006660 .6 6 06 0 N6 mm 660006 60 00050650 650Em65vm .m m m 0 N 6 mm 0866-6600 .N 6 mm 0066-6650 .6 6000 6020 606080 00060 600655009 .0 6 00 06 m 6 06 0666-6600 .N N 0 N 00 0866-6650 .6 @605 6066060600m .m 6 00 6606060006 0066006 6600 .0 06 06 0N 0m 006030 .000660 .0m650606o5om .Q 6 N N 00 00600 55650 0 0066 60\050 >600652 .0 N 66 mm m6 0 66 .060 .060660605 Q650060306m 6600 .0660006 605550 .0606606 I0305 056056056 5603 60506600500 .m 6 «6 6« 00 .060 .0000660 I0050mx0 060606660 60666060 .0 ooomw 000m mmmN mam 000 mm 00 60>0 -00000 -00060 -0000 -0060 -000 -60 00oz 0066 06006666 00050000& 60 605852 .m 0650B 0650mm 00556 00056 0603 305 93 m a «.N m ma H.n @.m N.on umnuo .b N.H N.H v.50 HMpcmu muammo .H N.H m.HH H.h m.¢H m.m© uflmmwu no mmmzuusm yawfimflsvm .m m.m m.m m.m v.m N.H a.m© mEflvluHmm .N N.H m.mm mEHuIHHsm .H AmUm pozv AmHmEv mmUHm HMUHcfiuwB .0 N.H ©.mm v.HN 0.0 m.a ©.©H mEHqunmm .m v.N m.¢ ¢.N v.0m mEHuuaasm .H mama HMHHMpmuumm .m N.H m.mm >H0pmuonma mcflpmmu HHom .m m.HH o.ma ©.mm m.ov mwumzm .mmwaum .mmflamumHonum .Q N.H «.N v.m o.vm mmamm nsuflm w mmup HO\©cm hummusz .U ¢.N H.ma m.mv m.ma n.0H H.ma .oum.mamfluwum8 mflnmUHMSwum HHOm .munomwu Hmsccm .mumpuwam3mc mcflcsaocfl xHOB HmcoHuMUdvm .m m.m m.¢H o.mm «.mm .uum .mmmmafle Immcmmxw mamfluflmwo pUHHumHQ .é ooomw ooom mmmm mmm mm¢ mm mw uw>o nooomm uooofim noomw nooaw nomw law mcoz EmpH mHOGHHHH I mausgmn mo mepcwonmm .w manme mucmmm mGGSM mmmnu mHmB 30m m.¢ m.nH 0.9 o.m p.50 muoumummooo pofluumfla .a N.H N.H >.oH m.o~ m.m v.mm mupmswcfl .mmmcflmsn .mflmsofl>flccH .u m.¢H o.mm m.mm m.qm Amflnmc3oe no mucsoov Hmooq .m ¢.N o.mH m.m¢ m.mH o.m o.oH musumamflqu mumpm .¢ .A moom comm mmmm mom mmw mm av w umpo -ooomw Ioooam Ioomw Iooaw nomw IHW mcoz EwuH mHOQHHHH I mausumu mo momvcmuumm .o magma M w ma m m mm muoumummoou uuflupmfln .n m H H m 5H m mfi hupmsccfl .mmmcflman .mHmDUH>flU:H .U M NH vm ma mm Amflnmc309 Ho hpcsouv Hmooq .m N “ ow om ma m «a musumamflmmq mpmnm .« omomw_ ooom mmmm mom mow mm ow Hmpo Iooomm Ioooaw Ioomm nooaw Iomm Iam mcoz amuH mflocHHHH I mmmcommmu mo HmMEDZ .m magma mamumoum moom M £0 huumo on momma pH m>wflamg mwog mcflcnm>om pUAHumHQ cowum>ummcou HHom HSO% mmoc wmaoe whoa £058 30m .OH 95 ¢.m v.m m.¢ ©.m m.om nwnuo .m N.H 0.0 m.m m.m N.H o.mn mpomfloum uUHHHmHQ musgsm Mom ymm>cH .m m.H H.n m.wm H.h ©.m «.mm wmaoe mmcmmxw H0\Ucm mmmmHHE whoa mHMHUHmmo pUHHumHQ Mmm .Q N.H o.m H.mm m.m~ o.m n.mm monm3m .mmNHHm .mmHsmHmHonom .o N.H n.0H h.Hv m.¢H o.m m.mm mHMHHmumE mHSmGHMBmum HHom 6cm Mno3 HMCOHumuswm .m N.H m.mH m.mm m.mH m.¢ m.H~ mmUHm HMUchomp uo HMUHHwHU HmcoHpH©U¢ .d ooomw ooom mmmm mam mow mm mv um>o Iooomw IOOOHW Ioomw Ioon Iomm IHw .mcoz amuH mHocHHHH I mauspmn mo mmmpcmoumm .m mHnme m m H m mm “mayo .m H m m m H Ho muomfloum #UHHumHQ musuzm Mom umm>aH .m H o ¢m o m ¢¢ Mmcofi mmcmmxm HO\ccm mmm ImHHE mHQE wHMHUHmmo HUHHpmHQ ham .0 H m um om m cm moumzm .mmuHum .mmHHmumHonom .o H 0 mm NH m ¢m mHmHHmHma mHnmcum3mum HHom cam HMO? Hm:0Humoscm .m H mH mm mH w mH mmch HmoHcfiomu Mo HMUHHmHU HMGOHuchd .d ooomw ooom mmmm mmm mm¢ mm m¢ Hm>o IOOOmw IOOOHw Ioomw IOOHm Iomw IHw mcoz EmpH wHOGHHHH I mmmaommmu mo Hmnfisz .n mHQMB mpcmmm ma wonp UHDOB 30: .30c mHQMHHm>m mvcsm mHoE can “UHHumHQ much MH .HH APPENDIX IV . INDIANA Questionnaires were sent to eighty-six Soil Conserva— tion District treasurers. Sixty-seven or 77.7% replied. The results are as follows: 1. How old is your District? Age-Years Reply % No reply 2 3.0 0-4 4 6.0 5-9 13 19.4 10—14 12 17.9 15-19 20 29.9 Over 20 16 23.8 2. Is your District considered: Qpinion Reply % No reply 1 1.5 Urban (Over 50,000) 7 10.4 Urban—Rural 21 31.4 Rural 38 56.7 3. As a member of the local Soil Conservation Dis- trict governing body were you: Fact Reply % No reply 2 3.0 Elected 34 50.7 Appointed 29 43.3 Because of another pub- lic office which you hold 2 3.0 4. How long have you been a member of the local Soil Conservation District governing body? .Xes£§ 52212. % o—2 15 22.5 3-5 24 35.8 6—8 10 14.9 96 97 Indiana (continued) Years Reply % 9-11 7 10.4 1.2-l4 7 10.4 1.5-17 2 33.0 18 or more 2 3.0 5. Does some other unit of government provide a paid secretary or clerical help? Comment Reply % Yes 19 28.4 NC 48 71.6 6. Does some other local unit of government provide technical assistance (male District aide)? Comment Reply % No reply 2 3.0 Yes 9 13.4 No 56 83.6 7. How was your Soil Conservation District financed during this last fiscal year - 1963? (Table l & 2) 8. How were these funds spent? (Table 3 & 4) 9. Would you say your District is financed: Comment Reply % No reply 2 2.7 Very well 2 3.0 Adequate for present 19 28.4 Adequate for now, but will need more in future 31 46.5 Poorly financed 13 19.4 10. How much more money does your Soil Conservation District governing body believe it needs to carry on a good program? (Table 5 & 6) 11. If your District had more funds available now, how would they be spent? (Table 7 & 8) 98 Indiana 12. Do your District officials think they should be paid a per diem for attending regular and special District board meetings? Comment Reply % No reply 7 10.4 Yes 28 41.8 No 32 47.8 If yes, how much? Amount Reply % $0-4 3 4.5 5-9 10 14.9 10-14 12 17.9 15—19 2 3.0 20 0 .0 13. How much were your District's State Association dues in 1963? Amount Reply % No reply 4 6.0 $l-24 l 1.5 25-49 49 73.0 50—74 2 3.0 75-99 5 7.5 Over $100 6 9.0 14. How much did your District pay toward State Association dues in 1963? Amount Reply % [—1 H O No reply $1-24 25-49 5 50-74 75-99 Over $100 l—‘Ol—‘NOCD (D f—‘U‘l U'IOU1l-‘O\O 1. 15. Does your District feel the State Association dues quota was: 99 Indiana Comment Reply % No reply 5 7.5 Not enough 10 14.9 Sufficient 48 71.6 Too much 4 6.0 16. How much were your District's National Associa- tion dues in 1963? Amount Reply % No reply $1-24 25-49 50-74 75-99 5 Over $100 6. 8 wawOb OOU'IU'IOO 4. 4. 2. 3. 17. How much did your District pay toward National Association dues in 1963? Amount Reply % _ No reply 22 32.8 $1—24 3 4.5 25-49 7 10.4 50-74 1 1.5 75—99 33 49.3 Over $100 1 1.5 18. Does your District feel the National Association dues quota was: Amount Reply % No reply 7 10.4 Not enough 0 .0 Sufficient 40 59.7 Too much 20 29.9 100 m.H 0.6 m.H m.mm umnuo .H m.v m.H o.m o.Hm Hmauo .m 0.0 o.m o.m o.mh muoumuomooo uownumHQ .N m.¢ m.Hm ¢.mH e.MH v.am mHmscH>HocH .muumsocH .mmmaHmam .H mCOHuannucoo .m m.H m.H v.mH m.H m.H 0.55 mchHuum>pm «0 oHum .mumuumeSmc .muuomwu Hansen Scum OEOUGH .0 o.oOH snoumuoan mcHummu HHom .m o.m m.H m.H o.m m.v m.om Hmucou unuEmHsvm .m m.H m.H o.hm GOHumummo hummuac u0\pcm moon» mo.mHmm .Q m.H m.mm ucwficuw>om mo uHca HMUOH nonuo no mHzmn3oa .0 m.H m.¢H m.H m.H 6.0m unwecnm>om mucnoo .m m.H m.mm 0.0 unaumHmHmmH wumvm EOHM vaSh .c ooomw ooom mmmm mom mac uw>o IOOOMw IOOOHw Ioomw IOOHm mmIomm quHw mcoz EmuH mCMHch I mausumn mo mmmucmoumm .N anme H v H om uwzuo .H m H N Ho Hmsuo .m o N 0 mm muoumuomooo UUHHumHQ .N m Hm m 0 mm mHmspH>Hch .huumnocH .mwmchsm .H mGOHuanHuucoo .m H H HH H H mm mchHuum>om 00 «Hum .mnouume3o: .muuommu Hmsccm EOHM meoocH .0 b0 xuoumuoan mcwummu HHom .m m H H N m mm Hmucmu unmemHsvm .m H H mm coHumummo >nmwusc H0\Ucm moon» mo onm .n H mm ucmECHm>om mo uHcs HmooH Hwnuo no mHnmc3oa .o H OH H H 4m unmecum>ow aucsou .m H No v musumHmHmmq mumum scum awash .¢ ooomw ooom mmm~ mom mme H um>o Iooomw nooon Ioom» Ioon manomm mvnHm ocoz EmuH mcprcH I noncommmu mo uwnEsz .H mHnme mmme I nmo» HmomHm ummH mwnu mcHRSp pmucmch uUHuumHQ coHum>nmmcoo HHom H90» mm3 30m 101 H m o m m mv Hmfluo .h H 00 Hang?H monmo .H H m m m m 0 mm HHmmmH Ho mmmnuubm unwEmHsvm .m no mEHpIpHmm .N no mEHDIHHSm .H Amow DOZVAmHmEV mmUHm HMUHGSUmB .0 m H N N wH mm . mEHqunmm .m m mo mEHuIHHSm .H meS HMHHmumHomm .m H H mm muonmnoan mcHummp HHom .m H m mm om mUHmBM .mmNHHm .mmHSmHmHosum .Q H N H mm mmHMm naufim w wmnu u0\Ucm mummnsz .0 a 6m 4H mH m .onm .mHMHnmnme ermcnmzmnm HHom .munommu Hm5cam .mhmgumHmBmc mGHGDHUGH MHOB HmcoHumoSUm .m H m mm om 6H .oum .mmmmHHe Immcmmxm .mHmHonmo DUHHumHQ .¢ ooomw ooom mmmm mam mow mm mv um>o Iooomw Iooon Icemm IOOHW nomm IHw mcoz EmnH MGMHUGH I mmmcommwu mo HwQEDZ .m mHQMB mucmmm mocsm mmmnu mum3 30m 102 m.H o.m o.m m.HH m.h H.nw H0300 .b m.H m.mm Hmuamu monmo .H m.H o.m o.m m.n m.HH o.m H.v0 nHmmmn no mmmnohsm unmEmHDUm .m 0.00H mEHDIuHmm .N 0.00H wEHpIHHsm .H AmUm DOZVAmHmEV mmUHm HMUHGQUmB .0 ¢.mH m.H o.m o.m m.om «.mm wEHDIuHmm .m o.m 0.5m mEHuIHHSm .H 0H0: HMHHMpmnomm .m m.H m.H 0.a0 snoumnoan mcHummu HHom .m m.H 0.HH 0.Hv 0.00 mwnmzm .mmNHnm .mmHnmanosum .0 m.H o.m m.H 0.0m memm Aswan w wmnu HO\©cm wummusz .0 0.0 0.0m 0.0m «.mm 0.HH .upm.mHmHnmums mHnmonmzmum HHom .mpuommu Hmsccm .mumaumHm3mc mcHUSHocH MHO3 HMCOvaospm .m m.H m.HH. m.mm m.mm m.mm .Upm .mmmmHHE Immcmmxm mHMHUHmmo “UHHumHQ .4 oooan ooom mmmm mmm mo¢ mm mm nm>o I000m0 I000Hw Ioomm I00Hw nomw IHm mcoz EmnH MCMHUQH I manspmu mo mmmpcmonmm .v mHQme mucmmm mpcsw mmmflp wum3 30m 103 0.0H 0.m H.mm mnoumnmmoou uoHnumHa .c m.H m.nm m.¢ n.0m hnwmswcH .mmmnHmDQ .mHmscH>HUCH .0 0.m m.00 0.HH 0.0 m.H m.¢m HmHsmcaoe no mncsoov Hmooq .m m.v m.¢H m.mm o.m m.H m.mv mnsumHmHmmq mumum .¢ ooomw ooom mmmm mom mow mm m0 Hm>o IOOOmw IOOOHw Ioomm IOOHw Iomw IH% 0:02 EmpH MCMHUCH I manspmn mo mmmucmonmm .0 mHflme 0H m mm muoumummoou DUHHumHQ .9 H mm m mm wnumswcH .mmmchsn .mHm50H>H0cH .0 N am 0 0 H mm HmHnmczoe no mucsoov HMUOH .m m 0H mm m H mm mnspmHmHmmH mnmum .0 ooQWw ooom mmmm mom mow mm ow H0>O Iooomw IOOOHw Ioomm Ioon Iomm IHw 0:02 EmuH MCMHUGH I momcommwn mo anESZ .m mHQMB mEmnmonm 0000 m 00 munmo Op mpmmc DH 0>0HH0£ >003 00chm>om DUHHDmHQ coHum>me000 HHom MSG» m®00 hwcoE mHOE £058 30m .OH 104 0.0 m H m.Nm n0£po .m 0.m 0.m 0.H 4.0H 0.0 H.ma muuoflonm uUHHumHn 0nswsm now um0>cH .m m.H 0.m 0.5 0.HH 0.m H.mm >0008 0080mx0 H0\0cm 0000HH8 0808 mHMHUHmmo pUHHpmHQ >00 .9 m.¢ ¢.NN v.0H 0.m 0.0m 008030 .m0NHnm .mmHanMHoaom .0 0.m 0.0. m.am 0.0H 0.0 m.¢m mHmHnmpma mHzmonm3mum HHom 0cm xHOB H000H00050m .m 0.0 m.0¢ 0.HH m.h m.H 0.Nm m00Hm H00H0£o0w H0 H00HH0HU HmcoHpH00fi..m 00000 000m mmmN 000 000 mm 00 80>0 Iooomm I000Hm Ioomm I00Hw Iomm IHw 0802 800H mcmH0cH I mcn500n mo 0000c0on00 .m 0Hnme 0 H N0 H03po .m m m H m 0 04 muomflonm pUHHpmHQ 085090 How 000>GH .m H N m 0 N 00 >0008 0mcmmX0 HO\0cm 0000HH8 0H08 mHMHUHmmo pUHHumHQ >00 .0 m 0H mH N «m m0nm3m .m0NHHm .mmHanmH0300 .0 m m mm 0H 4 mm mHmHnmume mHnmnnmzmpm HHow 000 #803 HmcoHpmos0m .m 0 5N 0 m H NN m00Hm HMUHCSU0D no HMUHH0H0 HmcoHpH00¢ .0 000mm 000m mmmN 000 000 . mm 00 um>o I000m0 I000H0 -0000 I00H0 I000 IHm 0002 500H 0:0H0GH I 000800008 00 809852 .5 0HQMB mu00mm 0Q N030 0H503 30S .30: 00850 0808 00: uUHHumHQ usom 0H .HH APPENDIX V - IOWA Questionnaires were sent to ninety-seven Soil Con- servation Districts. Fifty were sent to the treasurer, forty- seven to the District chairman, as the treasurer may be an appointee or hired member of the District staff. Seventy- nine or 81.4% replied. The results are as follows: 1. How old is your District? Age-Years Reply % 0-4 0 .0 5-9 0 .0 10-14 3 3.8 15—19 39 49.4 Over 20 37 46.8 2. Is your District considered: Opinion Reply % No reply 1 1.3 Urban (Over 50,000) 3 3.8 Urban-Rural 19 24.0 Rural 56 70.9 3. As a member of the local Soil Conservation Dis— trict governing body were you: Fact Reply % Elected 68 86.1 Appointed 11 13.9 4. How long have you been a member of the local Soil Conservation District governing body? 121:2 REP—12 % No reply 1 1.3 0-2 9 11.4 105 Iowa (continued) 10. 11. 106 Years Reply % 3'5 31 39.2 6‘8 17 21.5 9-11 10 12.7 12-14 6 7.6 15—17 2 2.5 Over 18 3 3.8 Does some other unit of government provide a paid secretary or clerical help? Comment Reply % Yes 64 81.0 No 15 19.0 Does some other local unit of government provide technical assistance (male District aide)? Comment Reply % No reply 1 1.3 Yes 49 62.0 No 29 36.7 How was your Soil Conservation District financed during this last fiscal year — 1963? (Table 1 & 2) How were these funds spent? (Table 3 & 4) Would you say your District is financed: Comment Reply % No reply 4 5 0 Very well 7 8.9 Adequate for present 21 26.6 Adequate for now, but will need more in future 40 50.6 Poorly financed 7 8.9 How much more money does your Soil Conservation District governing body believe it needs to carry on a good program? (Table 5 & 6) If your District had more funds available now, how would they be spent? (Table 7 & 8) 107 Iowa 12. Do your District officials think they should be paid a per diem for attending regular and special District board meetings? Comment Reply % No reply 2 2.5 Yes 32 40.5 NO 45 57.0 If yes, how much? Amount Reply % $0—4 3 3.8 5-9 15 19.0 10-14 10 12.7 15-19 2 2.5 20 0 .0 13. How much were your District's State Association dues in 1963? Amount Reply % $1-24 0 .0 25—49 0 .0 50-74 4 5.1 75-99 26 32.9 Over $100 49 62.0 14. How much did your District pay toward State Association dues in 1963? Amount Reply % No reply 8 10.1 $1-24 1 1.3 25—49 2 2.5 50—74 10 12.7 75-99 21 26.6 Over $100 37 46.8 15. Does your District feel the State Association dues quota was: 108 Iowa Comment Reply % No reply 3 3.8 Not enough 1 1.8 Sufficient 53 67.1 Too much 22 27.8 16. How much were your District's National Association dues in 1963? Amount Reply % $1-24 O v.0 25—49 0 .0 50—74 1 1.3 75-99 61 77.2 Over $100 17 21.5 17. How much did your District pay toward National Association dues in 1963? Amount Reply % No reply 16 20.2 $1-24 1 1.3 25-49 4 5.1 50-74 4 5.1 75-99 43 54.4 Over $100 11 13.9 18. Does your District feel the National Association dues quota was: Comment Reply % No reply 3 3.8 Not enough 0 .0 Sufficient 48 60.8 Too much 28 35,4 109 m.N 0.mH 0.m H.m 0.00 00300 .H 0.0 m.H m.H 0.00 00300 .m m.H 0.0m 0.0 0.00 00000000000 00000000 .N m.H m.0N N.mH H.0H H.mm mHm500>H0aH .>00m50:H .00000050 .H 0000053000000 .0 0.0 0.0 N.0H 0.0 0.N H.00 00000000>0m 00 0H00 .000000H030c .0000000 Hm5ccm 800m 0800CH .0 m.H 0.00 000000000H 0000000 H000 .0 m.H 0.0 0.0 0.00 Hmucmu 000200000 .0 m.N m.0 N.Hm c0H0000mo m00m05c 00\0cm 00000 00 0Hmm .Q 0.00H 0808000>00 00 0005 HmooH 00300 00 00000309 .0 m.H m.H v.00 0:08:00>Om >00500 .m 0.00 H.0v m.H 0.N m.H 0.N wusumH000mq 00000 EO00 00000 .< 00000 0000 mmmN 000 000 00>o Iooomw I000H0 I0000 I00H0 00:00» 0¢IH0 0802 9000 0300 I mc05000 mo 0000:00000 .N 0H3me N HH m 0 mm 00300 .H 0 H H 00 00300 .m H 0H m mm 00000000000 000000HQ .N H 0H NH 0 N0 mHm50H>H000 .h00m50cH .00000050 .H 0:00053000cou .m m 0 NH m N mm 0C00H000>0m mo 0H00 .000000H030c .0000000 Hm5ccm 800w 08000H .0 H 00 >000muoan 0000000 H000 .0 H N 0 H0 H00C00 0:080H5Um .m N 0 N0 c000m00mo >00m05c 00\0cm 00000 00 0Hmm .0 i on 0008000>00 M 00 00c5 HmuoH 00300 00 00300309 .0 H i H up 0:08:00>00 >0c5ou .0 mm mm H N H N 00500H0000A 00000 8000 00050 .0 00000 0000 000N 000 11000 00>0 I000mw I000Hw Ioomw Ioon mmIomm vaHw 0002 8000 m3oH I 000:00000 00 003852 .H 0H3we mm0mH I 000% Hmomflm 0mmH 0030 0:0050 00UCMCH0 00H00000 coH0m>00mcoo HHom 050% 003 Box llO H mH 0 0 mm 00300 .0 H N 00 H00000 000000 .H H 0H m 0 0m 0H0000 00 00030050 000fimflsvm .m 0 mm mH 0 H 0H 0EH0I0H0m .N 0 H H mm 0EH0IHHDm .H 3000 002030H0zv 00000 H0000300B .0 m m H N 00 0EH0I0H0m .N H mm 0N mH 0EH0IHH50 .H mH03 H0HH000HU00 .m on M00000030H 0000000 H000 .m OH on 0N NH 000030 .00NHHQ .0003000H03Um .0 H m H H H0 00H00 35030 0 0000 00\000 0000002 .0 H 0 00 00 0 0 .000.0Hm0000ma 00000003000 0000 .0000000 H0scc0 .000000H0300 mGHGDHUCH 3003 H0000000000 .m 0 00 0 0 .000 .0000005 I0000mx0 0H0000000 00000000 .0 000mm. 000m mmmN 000 000 00 00 00>0 I00000 I000H0 I0000 I00H0 I000 IH0 0:02 E000 030H I 000000000 00 003E52 .m 0H30B 000000 00050 00030 0003 300 lll ©.h a m 0.50 Hmfluo .b m.H m.~ N.©m Hmucwu mUHmmo .H m.H n.5H m.© ¢.HH m.mo Hammwg no mmmnousm ucmemflsvm .m H.m v.m¢ o.ma H.m m.H H.0m mEflulunmm .m H.m m.H m.H m.mm maflulaasm .H ”mom uOZVAmezv mwvfim Hmoacsome .0 m.m m.m m.a m.m ©.mm mafigluumm .m m.H w.©v «.mm m.©H mEHaIHHsm .H mam: HMflnmmeUmm .m o.ooa wuoumuonma mcfiummu HHom .m h.mH o.mm m.¢m H.ma mwum3m .mmuflum .mmflnmumaonum .n m.H m.o m.H m.H w.mm mwamm QDHSm fi mmnp H0\Ucm hummusz .U m.H H.m m.am 0.0m ¢.HH >.m .oum.mHMHHmumE mflQmUHMBmpm HHom .mpuommu Hmsccm .mumppmHmBmc mcawsaocfl .xHOB Hmcofl#m05©m .m m.H H.m m.mn 9.5 H.0H .opm .ommwafls Immcmmxm mHMHUHmwo #UHHumHQ .¢ ooomw ooom mmmm mmm mow mm ow um>o uooomm uoooaw noomm uooam nomw uam mcoz EmuH MBOH I wcnsgmu mo mmmpcmunmm .w manme mpcmmm mUCSM mw¢£¢ wuw3 3cm 112 m.m m.m m.H m.mm wnogmummooo uUHHumHQ .Q m.m H.o m.H h.mh huumdwcfl .mmmcflmsn .mam5©H>H©:H .U H.m m.m m.~ H.m m.¢m Amflpmczoe no wucsouv Hmooq .m n.5a ¢.HH m.HN m.o m.o 0.0m mgsumamflmmq mumpm .m ooomw ooom mmmm mmm mm¢ mm m¢ um>o uooomm noooaw noomw nooaw nomw law 0:02 amuH magnumu mo mmmucmowmm .o mHQMB m HH H mm mHOpmummooo uuauumfln .n h m a mo huumswcfl .mmmGHmDQ .maMSUH>HUcH .0 w m m ¢ no Amflpmczoe no mucsouv Hmuoq .m «H m 5H ma m an musumamflmmq mpmum .< oooww ooom mmmm mom mow mm ow Hm>o Iooomw noooaw loomw Iooaw Iomw lam wcoz EmuH MBOH I mmmcommmn m0 quESZ om maflme mamnmoum @000 M £0 muumo ou mUmw: pH m>mHHwQ >609 mcflcum>om HUHHpmwQ coflum>ummcoo HflOm H50» mmow mchE whoa £038 30m .OH 113 m N m.© Noam Hmzuo .m m.~ 0.5 ¢.HH m.m m.H vamp mpumfloum poauumfln mususm How umm>cH .m H.m m.HN H.m m.m© hmcoE mmcmmxm HO\U:m wmmmHHE whoa mHMHUHmmO uUHHumHQ mam .Q m.H m.mm m.am m.m o.om mcumsm .mmuflgm .mmflnmumaonom .o m.H m.m v.0m m.ma m.m m.o¢ mamanmuma mflnmwumzmpm HHom cam xuo3 Hmcoflumoscm .m m.H n.na m.mm m.om m.® m.H m.om ammoflm HMUchumv Ho HMUHHmHo amcoflvflcod .4 ooomw ooom mmmm mmm mow mm mv Hm>0 Iooomm Ioooaw Ioomw Iooaw Iomw lam mcoz EmpH MBOH I mauswmu mo mmMpchHmm .m magma m m Nb Hmnpo .m N o m m H mm muomfloum uuaupmfla mHSpr new umm>cH .m w PH w vm hmcofi mmcmmxm H0\Ucm wmmmHHE mHOE mHMHUHmmo pUHHumHQ mam .n a ma ha m ow mUHm3m .mmuflum .mmflflmumaonom .0 a m #m Ha M 5m mamaumgme mflnmcumBmgm HHom cam MHO3 HMGOHpMUDUM .m H va om 0H m H ma mmoflm Havaczomu Ho Havaumao HMCOHuH©©¢ .¢ ooomw ooom mmmm mom mmfi mm m¢ Hm>o Iooomm Ioooaw Ioomw Iooaw Iomw Iaw mcoz EmpH m3oH I mmmcommmu mo Hmnfisz .h manme mucmmm ma hwnu UHSOB 30: .30c manmaflm>m mchm mHoE Um: uUHuumHQ H90» MH .HH APPENDIX VI - MICHIGAN Questionnaires were sent to seventy-three Districts in Michigan. Six Districts had already participated in Pilot Project II. Sixty—two or 84.9% replied. The results were as follows: 1. How old is your District? Age-Years Reply % 0—4 3 4.8 5-9 3 4.8 10-14 10 16.1 15-19 29 46.8 Over 20 17 27.4 2. Is your District considered: Opinion Reply % No reply 1 1.6 Urban (Over 50,000) 6 9.7 Urban—Rural 11 17.7 Rural 44 71.0 3. As a member of the local Soil Conservation Dis- trict governing body were you: Fact Reply % Elected 62 100.005” 4. How long have you been a member of the local Soil Conservation District governing body? 228% 3122.11 % No reply 1 1.6 0-2 11 17.7 3-5 12 19.4 6—8 13 21.0 9-11 13 21.0 12-14 5 8.1 15-17 4 6.5 Over 18 3 -4.8 114 Michigan 5. 10. ll. 12. 115 Does some other unit of government provide a paid secretary or clerical help? Comment ReEIX % No reply 1 1.6 Yes 18 29.0 No 43 69.4 Does some other local unit of government pro- vide technical assistance (male District aide)? Comment Reply % No reply 1 1.6 Yes 7 11.3 No 54 87.1 How was your Soil Conservation District financed during this last fiscal year - 1963? (Table l & 2) How were these funds spent? (Table 3 & 4) Would you say your District is financed: Comment Reply % No reply 1 1.6 Very well 3 4.8 Adequate for present 17 27 4 Adequate for now, but will need more in future 31 50.0 Poorly financed 10 16.1 How much more money does your Soil Conservation District governing body believe it needs to carry on a good program? (Table 5 & 6) If your District had more funds available now, how would they be spent? (Table 7 & 8) Do your District officials think they should be paid a per diem for attending regular and special board meetings? 116 Michigan Comment Reply % No reply 6 9.7 Yes 39 62.9 No 17 27.4 If yes, how much? Amount Reply % $O-4 7 11.3 5-9 19 30.6 10-14 7 11.3 15—19 5 8.1 20 0 ..0 13. How much were your District's State Association dues in 1963? Amount Reply % No reply 4 6.5 $1-24 1 1.6 25-49 38 61.3 50-74 15 24.2 75-99 4 6.5 Over $100 0 .0 14. How much did your District pay toward State Association dues in 1963? Amount Reply % No reply 4 6.5 $1—24 2 3.2 25-49 39 62.9 50—74 14 22.6 75—99 3 4.8 Over $100 0 .0 15. Does your District feel the State Association dues quota was: W 112le .__S/g__ No reply 5 8.1 117 Michigan (continued) Comment Reply % Not enough 6 9.7 Sufficient 50 80.6 Too much 1 1.6 16. How much were your District's National Associa- tion dues in 1963? Amount Reply % No reply 3 4.8 $1-24 l 1.6 25-49 0 .0 50—74 10 16.1 75-99 48 77.4 Over $100 0 .0 17. How much did your District pay toward National Association dues in 1963? Amount Reply % No reply 12 19.4 $1-24 3 4.8 25—49 5 8.1 50-74 7 .11.3 75—99 35 56.5 Over $100 0 .0 18. Does your District feel the National Association dues quota was: comment 321112 ___%__ No reply 6 9.7 Not enough 1 1.6 Sufficient 41 66.1 Too much 14 22.6 118 o.H m.HH o.H m.¢ 5.9m “expo .H m.H m.H m.m o.mm guano .m 0.00H muoumuwmooo uUHuumHQ .N m.~H H.m a.m m.mo mHmsoH>HocH .suumsccH .mmmcHusm .H mcoHuanHHusoo .m m.o m.¢ o.H H.nm mchHuum>om mo mHmm .muwuumHmBmc .muuommu Hmzccm Eoum OEOUGH .0 o.H o.H m.¢ o.H ~.m ~.nm . muoumuoan wcHumou HHom .m o.H ~.m H.m ¢.mH n.bo Hmucuu unmemHsum .m ~.m m.o «.mH m.~H m.- m.¢ o.H o.m~ coHumummo hummus: uo\6:m ammuu 00 onm .n o.H m.H m.om unmeauw>om mo #Hcfi HMUOH Hmfiuo no QHSmGSOB .U m.¢ H.m ¢.mH o.H H.oo Hamscum>om mucsoo .m h.mm m.ov UHaDMHmwmmq mumum .c ooomm ooom mmmm mam mow um>o nooomw Iooon Ioomm noon manomm vaHw wcoz souH cmmHSUHZ I mausumu mo mmmusmoumm .N mHQwB H n H m om “wave .H H H m mm guano .m No muoumummooo HOHHumHQ .N m m o m¢ mHMSpH>HUcH .%Humancw .mmocwmflm .H msowuflnfiuucoo .m e m H 6m mchHuum>6m no «How .muwuumHm3wc .muuommu Hmaasm scum «EOUGH .0 H H m H N dm kHOHMHOQMH mGHumwu Hwom .m H N m NH Nv Hmucou uGoEmHSUm .m N w NH m vH m H mH GOHuwummo hummusc H0\pam moon» mo onm .n H H om usoesuo>om mo uHs: HmooH umnvo no mHnmazoB .U m m NH H Hw unmecuw>om muqsou .m an mm ousumHmHmmq mumum scum moans .c ooomw ooom mmmm mam mme uo>o Iooomm IoOOHw noomw nooHu manomm mqum 0:02 smuH cmmH£UHz I noncommmu mo Honesz .H mHnme mmmmH I ham» HmomHm ummH mHAu mcHHSp pmocmch uUHHumHQ coHpm>Homcou HHom Mach mm3 30m 119 N N o m w m? Hmnuo .b H H H mm Hmpsmu monmo .H N N m HH m mm HHmmmu Ho mmmfiousm pcmEmHSUm .m H m H H om wEHquumm .N H H@ wEHpIHHsm .H Hmom DonAmHmZv meHm HMUHGQUOE .0 v n mN OH m 0H mEHquHmm .N H H H mm wEHuIHHsm .H mefi HMHHmumuomm .m H H H m om snowmuoan maHpmmu HHom .m 0H mH OH 5N mpum3m .mmNHum .mmHnmumHOSUm .Q N m m «H n m H oN mmHmm nsnnm a coma HO\©cm hummusz .U H 6 mm MH 5 m .oum.mHmHumume chmcumzmum HHom .munomwu Hmsccm .mumpumHmBmc mchsHosH .MHOB HmcoHumUDUm .m m «m H m .066 .mmmmHHe Immcmmxm mHMHonmo DUHHDmHQ .¢ OOOmw ooom mmmN mmm mow mm mw um>o Iooomw IOOOHw Ioomm IOOHm Iomw IHm mcoz EmDH :mmHQUHE I mmmcommmu mo HmQESZ .m OHQMB mucmmm mUCDM mmmnp mumB 30m 120 N.m N.m v.0 m.¢ m.o m.Nn nongo .b ©.H ©.H ©.H N.mm Hmusmh onmmO .H N.m N.m m.¢ h.mH H.m o.m© HHmmmH Ho mmMSUHDm DCOEQHDUM .m ©.H m.¢H ©.H ©.H v.0m mEHquumm .N ©.H «.mm wEHDIHHDm .H HmOm DOZVHmHmzv mmUHm HMUchomB .w m.© m.HH N.m¢ H.©H m.v H.0H mEHpIuHmm .N @.H ©.H ©.H N.mm mEHuIHHsm .H mefl HMHHmumnowm .m 6.H 6.H 6.H m.q m.om muoumuoan mcHummu HHom .m H.0H N.¢N H.©H ©.m¢ mpum3m .mmNHHQ .mmHnmumHOQom .Q N.m H.m m.NH ®.NN m.HH H.m ©.H N.Nm mmHMm anfim 0 won“ HO\©Cm muwmnsz .U ©.H h.m N.mm o.HN m.HH N.m .Uum.mHMHkumE mHnmpumzme HHom .muuommn Hmsccm .mumuume3m: mcHUDHocH xuo3 HmsoHumoscm .m H.m H.nm 6.H N.m .uum .mmmmHHs Immcmmxm mHmHUHmmo DUHHumHQ .4 ooome ooom mmmN mom mad mm mo Hm>o Iooomw IOOOHw loomw IOOHw Iomw IHw mcoz EmuH :mmHSUHS I mcuoumu mo wmmucmoumm .v mHQMB mucmmm mGGSM ommnu mumB 30m 121 m.o m w a.mm muoumummoou uUHHHmHn .a 6.H 6.0m m.¢ o.mo suumswcH .mmmchsn .mHmscH>HocH .o n.m «.mH o.Hm ~.m n.66 HmHnmczoe no summons HmUOH .m m.~H m.ov H.6H 5.0m muspmHmHmmH mumpm .a 000mm ooom mama mom was mm as uw>o nooomm Iooon Ioomm -oon Iomm un maoz ampH cmmHSUHE I mcHSDOH mo mmmucwoumm .o OHQMB v m mm mnoumummooo DUHHumHQ .0 H wH m mm mupmspsH .mmmchsn .mHmspH>H©:H .U 6 NH mH m mm HmHzmc3oe no spcsooc HmUOH .m m mm OH mH musumHmHmmH mumum .4 000mm ooom mmmm mom mos mm as um>o nooomm IOOOHW Ioomm IOOHW Iomw IHm mcoz smuH cmmHSUHZ I mmmcommou mo HwQEDZ .m mHQme mfimnmoum boom 6 so >HHMU on momma DH m>mHHmQ >609 mCchm>om DUHHDmHQ COHDM>Hmmsoo HHom H50> mmop hmGOE mHoE £058 30m .OH 122 ©.H m.© m.¢ H.nm ngpo .m m.m m.¢ 6.Nm m.HH H.mm myomfloum DUHHDmHQ muswom mom umm>cH .m h.@ ©.NN m.HH m.¢ ©.Hm hmcofi wmcmmxm HO\©Gm wmmmHHE mHoE mHMHUHmmo “UHMumHQ won .9 ©.H v.0m w.mN ©.H ¢.o¢ mUH63m .mmNHHm .mQHSmumHosom .U m.o m.mv H.6H m.mm mHmHuwpms mHnmoum3mum HHom cam xHOB HmcoHpmosom .m ©.H ©.H h.nH m.NH m.mm m.¢ m.mN mmUHm HMUHC£omu Ho HMUHHmHU HmcoHuH©©¢ .¢ ooomw ooom mmmN mam mmw mm mv Hw>o Iooomm IOOOHw Ioomw IOOHm Iomm IHw msoz EmuH :mmHSUHS I mcuoumu mo mmmucmoumm .m mHQme H H6 m Hum Hwfluo . pH m m 6H a 6m mpomfloum DUHHumHQ mududw How umm>sH .m m 8H m m Nm wmcoE mmcmmxm n0\pcm mmmmHHE mHoE mHMHUHmmo DUHHumHQ mmm .Q H mH 0H H mN mUHMBM .mmNHum .mmHSmHMHoxom .0 w hN 0H HN mHMHHmumE QHSmpHm3mpm HHom 6cm xuo3 HMCOHDMUSCM .m H H HH m NN m 0H mmpHm HMUHCSUmu Ho HMUHHwHo HmcoHqupd .4 000mm ooom mmmm mom mow mm as uw>o Iooomm Iooon Ioomw IOOHm Iomm IHm mcoz EwDH cmmH£0H2 I mmmcommwu Mo HmQESZ .h mHQme mpcmmm on hwfip pHSOB 303 .30c mHQmHHm>m mossm QHOE Um: DUHHDmHQ H30» MH .HH APPENDIX VII - MINNESOTA Questionnaires were sent to eighty-seven Soil Conserva- tion Districts in Minnesota. Seventy-one or 81.8% replies were received: The results are as follows: 1. How old is your District? Age-Years Reply % 0-4 8 11.3 5-9 14 19.7 10-14 20 28.2 15-19 17 23.9 Over 20 12 16.9 Is your District considered: Opinion Reply % No reply 2 2.8 Urban (Over 50,000) 1 1.4 Urban-Rural 10 14.1 Rural 58 81.7 As a member of the local Soil Conservation Dis- trict governing body were you: Fact 32212 __%L_ No reply 4 5'7 Elected 64 90°1 Appointed 3 4'2 How long have you (treasurer) been a member of the local Soil Conservation District governing body? Years BEELX % No reply 1 1'4 0-2 19 26.7 3_5 13 18.3 6—8 16 22.5 123 Minnesota (continued) 10. 124 Years ReElx % 9-11 7 9.9 12-14 6 8.5 15-17 7 9.9 Over 18 2 2.8 Does some other unit of government provide a paid secretary or clerical help? Comment Reply % No reply 1 1.4 Yes 31 43.7 No 39 54.9 Does some other local unit of government provide technical assistance (male District aide)? Comment Reply % No reply 3 4.2 Yes 46 64.8 No 22 31.0 How was your Soil Conservation District financed during this last fiscal year - 1963? (Table l & 2) How were these funds spent? (Table 3 & 4) Would you say your District is financed: Comment Reply % No reply 9 12.3 Very well 3 4.3 Adequate for present 16 22.9 Adequate for now, but will need more in future 37 52.1 Poorly financed 6 How much more money does your Soil Conservation District governing body believe it needs to carry on a good program? (Table 5 & 6) 125 Minnesota 11. If your District had more funds available now, how would they be Spent? (Table 7 & 8) 12. Do your District officials think they should be paid a per diem for attending regular and special Comment Reply % No reply 6 8.5 Yes 62 87.3 No 3 4.2 If yes, how much? Amount Reply % $0-4 0 .0 5-9 42 59.2 10-14 18 25.4 15-19 2 2.8 20 O .0 13. How much were your District's State Association dues in 1963? Amount Reply % No reply 7 9.9 $1—24 O .0 25-49 20 28.2 50-74 8 11.3 75-99 27 37.9 Over $100 9 12.7 14. How much did your District pay toward State District board meetings? Association dues in 1963? Amount Reply % No reply 8 11.3 $1—24 0 .0 25-49 22 31.0 50-74 12 16.9 75-99 23 32.3 Over $100 6 8.5 126 Minnesota 15. Does your District feel the State Association dues quota was: Comment Reply % No reply 9 12.7 Not enough 6 8.4 Sufficient 49 69.0 Too much 7 9.9 16. How much were your District‘s National Associa- tion dues in 1963? Amount Reply % No reply 8 11.3 $1-24 O .0 25-49 3 4.2 50-74 5 7.0 75-99 49 69.0 Over $100 6 8.5 17. How much did your District pay toward National Association dues in 1963? Amount Reply % No reply 8 11.3 $1—24 O .0 25-49 3 4.2 50-74 6 8.5 75-99 48 67.5 Over $100 6 8.5 18. Does your District feel the National Association dues quota was: Comment Reply % No reply 8 11.3 Not enough 6 8.5 Sufficient 52 73.2 Too much 5 7.0 127 e H v.H v.H m.N m N m.N v.50 umfipo .H m.N v.H ¢.H v.vm uwnuo .m ¢.H m.N m.mm muoumuwmooo UUHuumHQ .N v.H 0.5 m.m o.» H.6n mHmscH>H6cH .NuumsncH .mmmchsm .H mcoHuanuucoo .m m.N N.¢ o.mm mchHuum>nm mo mHMm .mumuumHmb: .muuomwu Hmsccw Eouw mEOUCH .0 0.00H xuoumHOQMH mCHumwu HHom .m m.N m.N o.m n.NH 0.5 v.H N.No Hmucmu ucmsmstm .m m.N m.N 0.m m.m m.oH 0.m ¢.H o.mm coHumuon xummusc u0\pcm moon» mo mem .0 v.H 0.00 ucchum>om mo uHss HmooH umnuo no mHanBOB .U ¢.NN N.mH m.NN ¢.H o.vN unmecum>om Nuasoo .m N.oo m.N ¢.H o.m musumHmemH mumum scum means .4 000mm ooom ommN mmm mow um>o IOOOmw Iooon Ioomw Ioon mmlomw mlew wcoz EwuH muOmwccHz I magnumu mo mmmucwouwm .N wHQmB H H H N N N No umzuo .H N H H be umnuo .m H N we muoumuwmoou DUHMumHQ .N H m 0 m vm mHm50H>H©cH .>Humsch .mmmchsm .H mcoHuanHHsoo .m N m 00 mchHuum>pm wo mHmm .mnmuumHm3mc .muuommu Hmsccm Eouw oEoocH .0 Ha snoumuoan mcHHmmu HHom .m N N ¢ A m m H mv Hmucmu usmEmHsvm .m N N v n _ NH v H mm coHumquo hummusc u0\pcm wwwuu mo mHmm .0 v H on ucmscum>oo 1 mo uHcs HmooH nonpo no mHnmc3OB .0 mN «H 1 6H H NH ucmscum>om Nucsoo .m we N H v musumHmHme mumum Eoum moans .4 000mm ooom mmmN mom H mow uw>o IOOONW Iooon Ioomw Ioon mmIomw vaHm mcoz EmuH MHOmmccHz I mwmcommmu mo HmQEDZ .H oHnme mmomH I umw> Hmome ummH mHLH mcHusp pmocmch uoHHumHQ coHum>ummcou HHom uso> mMB Box m HH N 0 me Hmnuo .b H H mm Hmpswu monwO .H H H N m m m CH ¢¢ HHmmmH Ho mmmnowsm usmEmHSUm .m m mN b m H mN wEHvIpHmm .N e HH 0m mEHDIHHsm .H Hmom DOZVHmHmzv wmpHm HMUHGSUmB .0 0 0H HH v H mm wEHquumm .N H on mEHpIHHsm .H % 0H0: HMHHmvaUmm 3m 1 H H mo swepmuoan mchmmu HHom .m m NH m be mpHMBM .mmNHum .mmHLmHMHOQUw .Q m h 0 m d m mm mmHmm nonfim a mmnu.n0\pcm hummusz .0 H HN HH mH mN mHmHumpms aHsmoumzmum HHom .munommu Hmsssm .mumuumHm3m: mcHUDHUCH xHOB HmcoHumusom .m w NN on m N OH .066 .mmmmHHs Immcmmxm mHmHOHmmo DUHHumHQ .¢ ooomw ooom mmmN mam mos mm as Hm>o Iooomm IOOOHw Ioomw IOOHw Iomw IHm mcoz EmuH MHOmmcaHz I noncommwu mo HmQEDz .m wHQMB Npcmmm mUGSM mmmnu oHoB Bom 129 N w m mH m.N m.m o.m0 Hmnuo .b v.H v.H N.hm Hmusmn onmmo .H ¢.H ¢.H m.N N.¢ N.w m.m H.vH o.No “Hammw no mmmrousm quEmHsvm .m N.¢ d.mm m.m N.¢ ¢.H m.o¢ mEHpIpHmm .N 0.m m.mH m.mh mEHuIHHDm .H H000 uOZVHmezv mmUHm HMUHGSUmB .0 m.m m.NN m.mH o.m ¢.H m.0v mEHquHmm .N ¢.H 0.0m mEHuIHHsm .H 0H0: HMHHMHwHme .m v.H v.H N.Nm asepmuoan mchmmu HHom .m N.¢ m.oH N.NH N.6o mwumam .mmNHum .mmHnmumHorom .n N.v m.m m.m h.NH 0.m N.v 0.0m mmHMm QSHSm w mmuu HO\0sm whwmusz .0 ¢.H 0.mN m.mH H.HN ¢.Nm .opm.mHMHkumE mH£m©Hm3mum HHom .munomwu Hmsscm .mumuponBmc OGHUDHUGH MHOB HmcoH0m090m .m o.m o.Hm m.N¢ N.¢ m.N H.HH .onm .wmmmHHa Iwmcmmxm mHMHOHmwo “UHHpmHQ .d 000mm. ooom mmmN mom was mm ow um>o nooomm Iooon Ioomm IOOHW Iomw -Hw mcoz ampH MpommccHz I mausuww mo wmmpcmoumm .w wHQme Nuammm mossm mmmnp wum3 Bow 130 ¢.H ¢.H m.N ¢.H 4.H o.Hm muoumnmmooo uUHNumHa .a 4.H 4.H 1o.» N.om NuumswcH .mmmaHmsA .mHmscH>H6cH .o 4.H m.N H.4H N.NH m.m N.4 m.¢m HmHnmazos no Npcsouv Hmooq .m ¢.H m.m o.mN N.NH o.m N.N4 musumHmHmmq mumnm .4 ooomw ooom mmmN mam mme mm m4 um>o uooomw IOOOHW Ioomm Ioon Iomw IHw maoz smuH muommGst I mmmzommmu Mo Hmnfisz .m wHQma H H N H H mm muoumuwmooo uoHupmHa .n H H m 40 huumDGGH .mmmchsn .mHmspH>H0aH .0 H N 0H m N m mm HmHnmc3oa no Nucsoov Hmooq .m H o HN m 4 ON mHsumHmHmmH mumum .4 ooomm ooom mmmN mam mm4 mm m4 um>o Iooomm IOOOHm noomw Ioon Iomm IH% 4:02 EmuH muommacHz I noncommmu mo Hmnfidz .m wHQma Namumoum 0000 m so huumu ou momma 0H m>wHHwQ >009 mchum>om DUHHumHQ coH0m>Hmmc00 HHom know mmop hm:0E whoa HOSE 3cm .oH 131 H0400 .m m.N 4.H N.4 o.a m.mH N.4 4.H p.00 muownoum uUHHumHQ musudm How pmm>cH .m 0.N 0.5 H.HN 0.5 ¢.H 5.00 00008 0mcwmx0 H0\0:m 00m0HHE whoa mHMHonwo uoHuvan 5mm .0 0.N v.H m.NN N.0N v.H 5.m¢ mUHMBM .mmuHum .mmHamHMHOSUm .0 m.N m.N o.mm 0.0H N.4 m.mm mHmHnmuma mHnmoumsmum HHom 0:0 HHOB Hmsovaoscm .m ¢.H 0.0 N.0N 5.0H 0.0 0.0m mmon HMUchomp Ho HMUHumHU HmcoH0H004 .4 0000w 0000 000N 000 004 00 00 H0>o Iooomw I000Hw Ioomm I00Hw Iomm IHm 0:02 EwuH muOmmccHz I mansumu mo mmmucmoumm .0 mHnme m 00 H0300 .m N H m m NH m H m4 muumnoum uUHHpmHQ mususm H00 umm>aH .m N m 0H 0 H m4 hmcoE mmsmmxw u0\0:m mmmmHHE muofi mHMHUHmmo pUHHpmHQ ham .0 N H 0H 0N H Hm mCHMBM .mmuHHm .mmHQmHMHonom .0 N N 5N NH m mN mHmHumume mHnmoumzmpm HHom cam MHOB HmcoHpmusUm .m H 5 ON 4H 5 NN mmch HmoHcfiuwu H0 HMUHumHo HmcoHuH004 .4 0000w 0000 000N 000 00¢ 00 04 um>o Iooomw IOOOH» noomw IOOHm Iomw IHm mcoz smuH 000mmccHz I mmmcommmu mo Hmnfidz .5 0HQMB mucmmm 03 wmfiu 0H503 304 .300 0HQmHHm>m mUGDm 0008 can HUHH00HQ H50» MH .HH APPENDIX VIII - MISSOURI Questionnaires were sent to forty-nine Soil Conserva- tion District treasurers and forty or 81.6 per cent replied. The results of the forty Districts are as follows: 1. How old is your District? Age-Years Reply % 0-4 9 22.5 5-9 5 12.5 10-14 5 12.5 15-19 8 20.0 Over 20 13 32.5 Is your District considered: Opinion Reply % Urban (Over 50,000) 3 7.5 Urban-Rural 8 20.0 Rural 29 72.5 As a member of the local Soil Conservation Dis- trict governing body were you? Fact Beglx ._;&__ Elected 38 95.0 Appointed l 2-5 Because of another public office which you hold 1 2.5 How long have you (treasurer) been a member of the local Soil Conservation District governing body? Years Reply ._;E__ 0‘2 15 37.5 3_5 14 35.0 6-8 6 15.0 9-11 2 5'0 12-14 1 2'5 2 5.0 Missouri 5. 10. 11. 12. 133 Does some other unit of government provide a paid secretary or clerical help? Comment Reply % No reply 2 5.0 Yes 16 40.0 NO 22 55.0 Does some other local unit of government provide technical assistance (male District aide)? Commepp Rpply % No reply 1 2.5 Yes 6 15.0 No 33 82.5 How was your Soil Conservation District financed during this last fiscal year — 1963? (Table l & 2) How were these funds spent? (Table 3 & 4) Would you say your District is financed: Comment Reply % No reply _ l 2.5 Very well 3 7.5 Adequate for present 3 7.5 Adequate for now, but will need more in future 19 47.5 Poorly financed 14 35.0 How much more money does your Soil Conservation District governing body believe it needs to carry on a good program? (Table 5 & 6) If your District had more funds available now, how would they be Spent? (Table 7 & 8) Do your District officials think they should be paid a per diem for attending regular and speCial District board meetings? 134 Missouri Comment Reply % No reply 1 2.5 Yes 15 37.5 No 24 60.0 If yes, how much? Amount Reply % $0-4 2 5.0 5-9 6 15.0 10-14 5 12.5 15—19 3 7.5 20 O .0 13. How much were your District's State Association dues in 1963? Amount Reply % No reply 3 7.5 $l—24 O .0 25—49 20 50.0 50-74 6 15.0 75-99 7 17.5 Over $100 4 10.0 14. How much did your District pay toward State Association dues in 1963? Amount Reply % No reply 6 15.0 $1-24 2 5.0 25-49 19 47.5 50-74 7 17.5 75-99 4 10.0 Over $100 2 5.0 15. Does your District feel the State Association dues quota was: 92003.4: 13221.3: % No reply 2 1 5.0 135 Missouri (continued) Comment Reply % Not enough 2 5.0 Sufficient 34 85.0 Too much 2 5.0 16. How much were your District's National Associa- tion dues in 1963? Amount Reply % No reply 5 12.5 $l-24 O .0 25—49 4 10.0 50-74 6 15.0 75-99 23 57.5 Over $100 2 5.0 17. How much did your District pay toward National Association dues in 1963? Amount Reply % No reply 8 20.0 $1-24 2 5.0 25—49 4 10.0 50—74 4 10.0 75-99 20 50.0 Over $100 2 5.0 18° Does your District feel the National Association dues quota was: Commepp. Reply _ % No reply 2 5.0 Not enough 2 5.0 Sufficient 32 80.0 Too much 4 10.0 136 m.N 0.m 0.m 0.50 00:00 .0 m.N 0.m m.N0 00:00 .m m.N m.Nm 0.m 0.m 0.mm 0000000moou 00000000 .N m.N 0.00 m.NH m.NN m.NN 0H0000>0000 .>000:000 .00000000 .H mcoHusflHuucoo .m 0.m m.a m.N m.N m.N0 00000000>0m 0o 0Hmm .000000Hm30c .0000000 Hansen 5000 0E00:H .0 0.00H >000000£0H 0cH0000 HHom .m m.NH 0.m 0.m 0.0k Hm0c00 000500000 .0 0.00H 00H0000mo >00009: 00\0:0 00000 00 0Hmm .Q 0.00H 0:0Ecu0>00 mo 0Hc5 HmooH 00:00 00 mHnmc3oe .0 0.m m.NH 0.0m m.N 0.m0 0c0E¢00>om 000000 .0 m.NH m.00 0.0N 00:00H00000 00000 eo00 00000 .4 000mm 000m 000N 000 000 00>o Iooomm I000Hw noomm I00Hw monomm mqu0 0002 E000 HusommHZ I 0:09000 mo 0000c0000m .N 0Hnme H N N mm 00:00 .0 H N 5m 00:00 .m H NH N N NN 00o00000ooo 00000000 .N H 0H m 0 0 0H090H>H0cH .>000500H .mm0chsm .H mcoHuanuucou .m N m H H mm 00000000>00 00 0H00 .000000Hm30c .0000000 Hmsccm Eouw 0EoocH .0 00 000000000H 0000000 HHom .0 m N N Hm Hmuc0u 000EQHDUM .m 00 coHumH0mo M00005: 00\vcm 00000 mo 0Hmm .0 0V 0c0ecu0>00 mo uHcs HmooH 00:00 00 mHnmc3oe .0 N m «H H 0H 0c0E¢00>00 >04500 .m 0 AN 0 00:00H00000 00000 5000 00:00 .4 ooomw 000m 000N 000 000 00>0 Iooomm I000Hw Ioomw I00Hw manomw vaH0 0002 E000 HHSOmmHz I 000:00000 mo 00QEDZ .H 0Hnme mm00H I 000% HmomHm ummH 0H4» 0cH050 UmucmcHw uoHuumHQ coHum>u0mGOU HHom 0:0» 003 300 137 o N H Hm 00:00 .b 00 H00000 00Hmmo .H H N m Nm 0H0Q0H Ho 0m0£UHDQ 0:0EQHSUN .m 00 0000:0000 .N 00 0EHuIHHsm .H Hmom 0osz0H0zv 00000 H0000000e .0 H N h m @ HN 0EHuluu0m .N H mm 0EHpIHHsm .H mH0£ H000000000m .m 00 >000000£0H 0:00000 HHom .m 0 m h HN 000030 .m0NHHQ .mmHflmH0Hosum .Q H mm 00H00 Q5030 0 0000 00\UG0 hummnsz .U 0 mH m n w .000.0H0H0000E @03000030um HHOm .muuom0u H0scc0 .000000Hm30: mGHUDHUCH M003 HmcoHumoscm .m 0H m 0 ON .000 .0000H00 I0mc0mx0 0H0H0Hmmo uanpmHQ .0 000mm ooom mmmN mmm mmw mm m0 00>0 Iooomm I000H0 I0000 I00H0 I000 IH0 00oz 0000 HusommHz I m0mcomm00 00 003852 .m 0HQ08 Npc0mm mUGSM 00030 0003 30m 138 o.mH o.m m.N m.nn 00000 .b 0.00H H00000 000000 .H m.N o.m m.NH 0.0m 0H0m00 0O 0000005m 0G0Em05vm .m 0.00H 0EH0I000m .N 0.00H 0&00IHH5m .H Amom 0OZVA0H02V 00000 H0UHc£U0E .w m.N o.m m.nH m.n o.mH m.Nm 0&00I00mm .N m.N m.mm 0EH0IHH5m .H mH0£ H0H00000U0m .m 0.000 000000000H 0000000 H000 .0 o.OH 0.0N m.hH m.Nm 000030 .00NH0Q .0m05000Honom .n m.N m.nm 00H00 95000 0 0000 0O\©50 h00005z .U 0.0H m.nm 0.0N m.hH o.mH .000.0H0H00000H @0000003000 H000 .0000000 H05000 .000000H030c mCH©5HUGH x003 H000H0005©m .m 0.0N 0.NH 0.NH 0.00 .000 .0000H00 I0000mx0 0H0000000 00000009 .< ooomw 000m mmmN mom mm¢ mm m0 00>O.Iooomm IOOOHm loom» IOOHw Iomw IHw 0002 E00H 00500002 I 0005000 00 0000:0000m .0 0HQ0B N000m0 00:50 00000 0003 30m 139 0 N 0 0 0.00 0.0 0.00 00000000000 00000000 .0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 00000000 .00000000 .000000>0000 .0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 000000300 00 0000000 00000 .0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 000000000000 00000 .0 00000, 0000 0000 000 000 00 00 00>0 -00000 -00000 -0000 -0000 -000 -00 00oz 0000 00500002 I 0005000 00 0000000000 .0 00009 0 m 0 0 0m 00000000000 00000000 .0 m m 00 0 N 00 00000000 .00000000 .000000>0000 .0 0 0 m0 0 0 00 000000300 00 0000000 00000 .0 m 00 0 0 m m 0 000000000000 00000 .0 00000 0000 0000 000 000 00 00 00>0 -00000 -00000 -0000 -0000 -000 -00 00oz 0000 00500002 I 000000000 00 00AE5Z .m 00009 0500mo0m 0000 0 00 >0000 00 00000 00 0>0000Q >000 000000>om 00000000 00000>0000OU 0000 050% 0000 h00OE 0008 £055 300 .00 140 o.m o.m m.NH m.nn uw£uo .m m.m m.ma m.nH m.n o.m o.mm muomnoum powuumfln musgnm How umm>cH .m o.m m.NN m.NH o.m o.mm hmcofi mmcmmxm u0\©am mommHHE mHOE mamaoflmmo poauumfin hmm .Q o.m 0.0m 0.0m o.oa o.mN moum3m .mmuflum .mflanmHonom .0 m.N o.oa m.N¢ m.ba o.m m.NN mamagmuma mflzmoum3mum HHom 0cm xno3 Hmcoaumosom .m m.NH o.m 0.0N o.mN o.m o.m m.nN mmcflm HMUHG£UMp no HMUHHmHU Hmcoapflowd .m ooomw ooom mmmN mam mmw mm aw um>o nOOOmm noooaw noomm nooam nomw naw wcoz ampH HHSOmmflz I mausumu mo wmmucmunmm .m manme N N m Hm “mayo .m H m n m N mm muomnoum uoauuman mnspsm How #mm>GH .m N m m N NN hmGOE mmcmmxm HO\UGM mmmwaflfi whoa mamaoflmmo goaugman wmm .Q N NH NH w OH moumzm .mmuflum .mmflflmumaonom .U H ¢ 5H m N m mamaumpmfi mflfimvHMBmpm HHom cam xHOB Hmcowvmosom .m m N m CA N N Ha mmoflm HMUHGSUmp Ho HMUHHmHU Hmcofluwmod .¢ oooww ooom mmmN mmm mmfi mm av nm>o uooomm uoooaw noomm nooaw -omw -Hw mcoz EmuH Husommflz I mwmcommmu mo Hwnfisz .n wHQme Nuammm ma hmflu GHSOB 303 .30: mannaflm>m mUCSm whoa was uoaupmfln use» MH .HH APPENDIX IX - OHIO Questionnaires were sent to eighty—five Soil Conserva- tion Districts in Ohio. Eighty-three or 97.6% replied. They were sent to the District office, not an individual, but the treasurer was requested to answer it. The results are: 1. How old is your District? Age-Years Reply % 0-4 0 .0 5-9 2 2.4 10-14 10 12.0 15-19 45 54.3 Over 20 26 31.3 2. Is your District considered: Opinion Reply % Urban (Over 50,000) 12 14.5 Urban—Rural 29 34.9 Rural 42 50.6 3. As a member of the local Soil Conservation Dis- trict governing body were you: Fact Bepix % No reply 4 4-8 Elected 77 92.8 Appointed 2 2.4 4. How long have you been a member of the local Soil Conservation District governing body? Years R822! % No reply 28 33'8 0_2 5 6.0 3-5 17 20.5 6-8 22 26.5 141 Ohio (continued) 10. ll. 142 XEEEE Reply % 9-11 3 3.6 12-14 2 2.4 15-17 3 3.6 18 or more 3 3.6 Does some other unit of government provide a paid secretary or clerical help? .QQEEEEE Reply % No reply 2 2.4 Yes 55 66.3 No 26 31.3 Does some other local unit of government provide technical assistance (male District aide)? Comment Reply % Yes 39 47.0 No 44 53.0 How was your Soil Conservation District financed during this last fiscal year — 1963? (Table l & 2) How were these funds spent? (Table 3 & 4) Would you say your District is financed: Comment Reply % No reply 3 3.7 Very well 6 7.2 Adequate for present 23 27.7 Adequate for now, but will need more in future 42 50.6 Poorly financed 9 10.8 How much more money does your Soil Conservation District governing body believe it needs to carry on a good program? (Table 5 & 6) If your District had more funds available now, how would they be spent? (Table 7 & 8) Ohio 12. 13. 14. 143 Do your District officials think they should be paid a per diem for attending regular and special District board meetings? Comment Reply % No reply 4 4.8 Yes 17 20.5 No 62 74.7 If yes, how much? Amount Reply % $0—4 7 8.4 5—9 6 7.2 10-14 2 2.4 15-19 1 1.2 20 0 .0 How much were your District's State Association dues in 1963? (Including regional or area dues) Amount Reply % $l-24 48 57.9 25—49 26 31.3 50—74 0 .0 75-99 5 6.0 Over $100 4 4.8 How much did your District pay toward State Association dues in 1963? Amount Reply % No reply 1 1.2 $l-24 62 74.7 25-49 18 21.7 50~74 0 ,0 75-99 2 2.4 Over $100 0 .0 Ohio 15. l6. 17. 18. 144 Does your District feel the State Association dues quota was: Comment ngly % No reply 1 1.2 Not enough 4 4.8 Sufficient 78 94,0 Too much 0 .0 How much were your District's National Association dues in 1963? Amount Reply % $l-24 2 2.4 25-49 1 1.2 50-74 2 2.4 75-99 74 89.2 Over $100 4 4.8 How much did your District pay toward National Association dues in 1963? Amount Reply % $l-24 2 2.4 25-49 1 1.2 50—74 2 2.4 75-99 74 89.2 Over $100 4 4.8 Does your District feel the National Association dues quota was: Comment Rpply % No reply 1 1.2 Not enough 0 .0 Sufficient 72 86.8 Too much 10 12.0 145 w.m 0.0 v.0m Hmsuo .H 0.0 N.H m.m N.mm umnuo .m o.m N.Nv 6.0 o.NH m.Nm muoumummooo uoHuumHn .N N.H H.om m.¢ o.NH N.Nv mHmsvH>anH .NuumsncH .mmocstm .H mcoflusnfluucoo .m o.m m.v v.N N.mm mchNuum>om mo mHmm .mumuumHm3ms .muuommu Hmsccm Eoum MEOUGH .w N.H N.mm >u0pmHOQMH mcwummu HHom .m ¢.N m.oH m.vH m.oH m.m¢ Hmucmu unmemHsvm .m N.H ®.m m.¢ v.N N.H m.om COHumnwmo hummhss H0\0cm mmwuu mo mHmm .Q N.H m.mm a:0&:um>oa mo uHcs HmooH umsuo no mangSOB .O 0.6 m.oH m.mo m.m o.m N.H unwecuo>om Nassau .m N.b m.Ho m.mN ¢.N o.m musumHmHmmA mumum Eoum awash .d ooomw 000m mmmN mmm mm¢ um>o IOOOMW Iooon Ioomm Ioon mmIomm vaHw wcoz EmuH oHno I mansumn mo mmmucmouwm .N wHQmB m m mm Honvo .H m H m vb umnuo .m m mm m 0H 5N muoumummooo UUHupmHn .N H mN NH 0H mm mHmspH>NpsN .auumsosw .mmocfimsm .H mcoHuanHucoo .m m v N vb vchHuum>Um mo mHmw .mumuume3mc .muuommu Hmsscm Eoum weoucu .0 H Nm muoumuoan mcwummu HHom .m N «H NH vH He Hmucmu ucwsmHsvm .m H m v N H Nb coHumummo hummus: u0\pcm moon» «0 mHmm .n H Nm pcwficuw>om mo uHcs HmooH szuo no QHnmc3oa .O m 0 5m m m H pcwecum>om >HGSOO .m o Hm HN N m wusumHmHme wumum Eoum mpcsm .4 ooomw ooom mmmN 0mm mmv um>o IOOOmw Iooon Ioomm Ioon mmIOmm vaHw wcoz EmuH OHLO I mmmcommmu mo umnEsz erHnma NmomH I “mow Hmomfim umMH mflfiu mcflusp poocmcflm uUHuumHQ coHum>mecou HHom H50» mm3 30m 146 N o 0N m m mm Hwnuo .b N m mm Hmvcmn monmO .H m mN HH m mN uHmmmH no mwmQUHsm quEmHfivm .m NN OH h m Hv mEHquHmm .N m N H m5 mEHuIHHDh .H Hmom UOZVHmHmSV mmpHm HMUHGHUQB .0 N Nfi m H H gm mEHpIpHmm .N mH NH H H Hm mEHuIHHSm .H mHmn HMHHMHOHUmm .m mm Nnoumuoan mcHummu HHom .m NH @H Nm mN mpum3m .mmNHHm .mQHQmHmHonum .Q d m m mm mmHmm flaunm w mmuu HO\pcm hummhsz .O H n Hm NH m h .oum.mHMHHm#mE mHanHMBmum HHom .mpuommu Hmsacm .muwaume3mc mGHUDHUGH HHOB HMGOHHMUSUM .m H hm HN HH NH .030 .mmmmHHs Immsmmxm mHMHUHmmo HUHHumHQ .d 000mm ooom mmmN mam mm¢ mm mg um>o Iooomm IOOOHW noomw IQOHW Iomm IHm mcoz smuH OHSO I mmmcommmn mo HmQEsz .m mHQme Nucmmm mossm mmmfiu meB 303 147 v.N N.> m.Hm m.OH 0.0 m.N¢ nguo .b v.N o.m o.vm Hmusmn mUHmmO .H N.h m.vm m.mH m.oH m.mm HHmmmH Ho owmxoudm HcmEmHsvm .m m.©N o.N ¢.m o.m m.m¢ mEHpIuHmm .N 0.0 ¢.N N.H ¢.om mEHHIHHsm .H AmOm DOZVAmHmzv mmpHm HmoHsfiowB .w ¢.N 0.0m ©.m N.H N.H o.H¢ mEHDIpHmm .N N.HN m.¢H N.H N.H ¢.H© oEHuIHHsm .H mHmfi HMHHMpmuumm .m 0.00H showmuoan mcHummu HHom .m m.¢H m.oH o.mm 0.0m mcumsm .mmNHum .mmHHmumHozum .o m.¢ ©.m ©.m o.wm mmHsm QSHSm w mmuu HO\©cm Mummubz .U N.H ¢.m «.Ho m.¢H 0.0 m.@ .Upm.mHMHHmme mHampHm3wum HHom .mHHOQQH Hmsccm .muwpumHm3m: OCHUDHUGH MHOB HmsoHDmodpm .m N.H 6.44 m.mN m.mH m.mH .upm .mmmmHHE Iwmcmmxm mHMHUHmmo uUHHuwHQ .¢ ooomw ooom mmmN mom mme mm ma um>o Iooomw IOOOHm Ioomw Ioon Iomw IHw mcoz smpH OHSO I manspmu mo mmmucmoumm .w mHQme Npcmmm mpcsm mmmnu ®Hm3 30m 148 m w m.mN ¢.m ¢.N H.mm muoumummooo poHuumHn .o o.m ©.m m.©N o.© N.H H.mm huumDUsH .mmeHmSQ .mHMS©H>H©:H .O 0.0 m.mH m.©N h.HN m.0H N.H m.ON HmHfichOa Ho wpcsoov HMUOH .m v.N o.NH N.Hm H.mH m.¢H N.HN musumHmHmmH mumum .< ooomw ooom mmmN mom mac mm mg Hw>o Iooomw Iooon Ioomw Ioon Iomw IHw wcoz EmuH OHSO I mcusumu mo mmmucmuumm .o wHQMB w HN h N 0% muoumummooo uUHHHmHQ .Q m m NN m H mg mumeUGH .mmwchSQ .mHm5©H>H©cH .O m HH NN mH m H NH HmHnmc3oa no spcsouv HmUOH .m N OH 6N mH NH mH musumHmHmmH mpmum .¢ ooomw ooom mmmN mom 00¢ mm mg um>o Iooomw Iooon Ioomw IOOHw Iomw IHm wcoz EmHH OHno I mmmcommmu mo quESZ .m mHflme Nemumoum @000 m :0 huumo OD mpomc pH w>mHHmQ hpon mchum>om HUHHHmHQ COHum>Hmmaou HHom Mao» mmOU mocoe mHoE £058 30m .OH 149 N.H 6 m v.m m.¢ v.N @.mh umfipo .m 0.6 6.6 n.6H v.N N.H n.66 mpumfloum HUHHumHQ mususm Mom Hmm>sH .m N.H h.mH h.mH ¢.N 0.60 wmcoE mmcmmxm HO\pcm mmmmHHE wHoE mHMHUHmmo DUHHHmHQ wmm .Q N.H ©.m m.NN H.mH ©.m ©.¢¢ mpum3m .mwNHum .mmHanMHonom .U N.H o.NH m.hm m.OH N.n m.Hm mHMHHmumE QHQmUHMBwum HHom paw MHOB HmsOHDmUSGM .m ©.m m.¢H m.Hm m.vH m.0H N.H H.¢N mmpHm HMUHCSUwH Ho HmoHumHo HmsOHpH©©¢ .¢ 00066 0006 mmmN mom mag mm mg Hm>o IOOOmw Iooon Ioomm IOOHw Iomw IHw mcoz EouH ngo I mcusumu mo mmmpcooumm .m mHQMB H m n g N we Hmnpo .m 6 6 6H N H N6 muomfloum DUHHHmHD muspsm How umm>GH .m H MH MH N gm mmcoE mmsmmxm HO\©cm mmmmHHE wuoE mHMHonwo HUHHpmHQ ham .9 H m mH mH m hm mUHMBM .mmNHHm .mmHanmHonom .U H OH H6 6 6 6N mHMHumuma mHnmoumzmpm HHom paw xHOB HMGOHHMUDUM .m m NH 0N NH m H ON mmUHm HMUHcflomu Ho HMUHumHo HmGOHwH©©¢ .é ooomm ooom mmmN mom mow mm mg Hm>o IOOOmw IOOOHw Ioomw IOOHm Iomw IHm mcoz EmuH OHLO I mmmcommmu mo HmQEDZ .6 mHQme mucmmw mg wmflu UHSOB 303 .30: mHQmHHm>m mpcsw mHOE Um: HUHHpmHQ H50» MH .HH APPENDIX X - WISCONSIN Questionnaires were sent to seventy-three Soil Con- servation Districts in Wisconsin. Forty-seven were returned or 64.3%. They were sent to the County Superintendent of Schools (who often serves as secretary and/or treasurer) and a few treasurers who were not in this capacity. The results are as follows: 1. How old is your District? Age-Years .EEELX ._jé__ No reply 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 1 Over 20 2 bIb-hturaao 2. Is your District considered: Opinion Reply % Urban (Over 50,000) 7 14.9 Urban-Rural 14 29.8 Rural 26 55.3 3. As a member of the local Soil Conservation Dis- trict governing body were you: Fact Reply % Elected 4 8.5 Appointed 4 8.5 Because of another public office which you hold 39 83.0 been a member of the local 4. How long have you . Soil Conservation District governing body? 150 Wisconsin 151 Years R921! 0-2 7 3'5 10 6'8 15 9-ll 6 12—14 4 15-17 2 18 or more 3 % 14.9 2l.3 31.9 12.8 8. 4. 6. IPOJU'I Does some other unit of government provide a paid secretary or clerical help? Comment R921X No reply 1 Yes 23 No 23 Does some other local unit of government provide technical assistance (male District aide)? Comment Reply No reply 2 Yes 10 No 35 ‘y o How was your Soil Conservation District financed during this last fiscal year - 1963? (Table 1 & 2) How were these funds spent? (Table 3 &:4) Would you say your District is financed: Comment Rpply No reply 9 Very well 4 Adequate for present 13 Adequate for now, but will need more in future Poorly financed 7 o/ 0 fl Wisconsin 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 152 How much more money does your Soil Conservation District governing body believe it needs to carry on a good program? (Table 5 & 6) If your District had more funds available now, how would they be spent? (Table 7 & 8) Do your District officials think they should be paid a per diem for attending regular and special District board meetings? Comment Reply % No reply 4 8.5 Yes 39 83.0 No 4 8.5 If yes, how much? Amount Reply % $O—4 0 .0 5-9 2 4.3 10-14 31 66.0 15-19 4 8 5 20 l 2.1 How much were your District's State Association dues in 1963? Amount Reply % No reply 3 6.4 $l—24 4 8.5 25-49 37 78.7 50-74 1 2.1 75—99 1 2.1 Over $100 1 2.1 How much did your District pay toward State Association dues in 1963? Amount Reply __J§__ No reply 3 6.4 $1-24 3 6.4 Wisconsin (continued) 15. 16. 17. 18. 153 Amount 25—49 50-74 Does your District feel the State Association dues quota was: Comment No reply Not enough Sufficient Too much How much were your tion dues in 1963? Amount No reply $1-24 25-49 50-74 75—99 Over $100 How much did your District pay toward National Reply 39 2 Association dues in 1963? Amount No reply $l-24 25-49 50-74 75-99 Over $100 Does your District feel the National Association dues quota was: Comment No reply Not enough Sufficient Too much Reply 17 1 Reply 7 O 25 15 % 83.0 4.3 o/ O ———— 12.8 .0 .O 10.6 63.8 12.8 4 1 % 154 H.N m.nm Hmnuo .H H.N H.N H.N h.mm Honuo .m 0.00H muoumummooo uUHHumHQ .N H.N 6.0 6.0 0.6 0.N6 mHms0H>HucH .muumsvaH .mmmchsm .H mcoHuanHusou .m 0.00H mchHuumbpm mo mHmm .mumuumHm3o: .muuommu Hmsccm Eoum meoucH .0 0.00H muoumuoan mcHummu HHom .6 H.N H.N 6.0 6.0 N.N6 Hmucmu unmemHsum .m 0.00H :oHumummo mummus: H0\0:m mmmuu mo mHmm .n H.N m.nm unmecum>om mo UHGQ HmooH Honuo Ho mHnmc3oa .U 6.0 6.0H 0.NH N.Hm N.HN 6.0 6.0 6.6 acmecuo>om Npcsou .m 6.0 p.60 musumHmHmmg wumum scum 66056 .< ooome ooom mmmN mom mm¢ um>o Iooomm I000H6 I0066 I00H6 mmI066 0¢IH6 mcoz EmuH chcoomHz I mausumu mo mmmucmouwm .N anme H ov Hwnuo .H H H H ¢¢ Hague .m h¢ muoumummoou uUHHumHQ .N H N N m 06 mHmsoH>HccH .NnumsocH .mmmchsm .H mcoHuDQHuucoo .m n¢ mchHuum>pm mo mHmm .mumuumHmBm: .muuomwu Hmzcsm Eoum mEoocH .0 N0 Nuoumuoan mcHummu HHom .6 H H N N H4 Hmucmu ucmsmHsvm .m nfi coHumquo xummusc u0\pcm mmmuu mo mHmm .0 H 0v ucmEcuw>om mo uHcs HmUoH umnuo no QHnmc3oe .O N 6 6 6H 0H N N m unmecum>o0 Nucsoo .m N mv wusuMHmHmmH mumum Eoum mpcsm .4 00066 0006 ommN mmm mmv nm>o -00066 I000H6 -0066 I00H6 00-066 60IH6 mcoz EmuH :HmcoomH3 I noncommmu mo quEDZ .H mHQme «momH I umw> HmomHm ummH mHLu mCHusp pmoamch uUHuumHQ coHum>ummcoo HHom know mm3 30m 155 H H h H N mm Hmflpo .b N H m m H mm Hmusmu mUmeo .H N m m mm uHmmmu no omMSUHSQ ucwEmHDUm .m N 60 oEHpqumm .N >0 mEHp-HHsm .H AmOm pozvaonSv mmUHm HMUHcQUwB .0 N m m N N mN mEHHIuHmm .N H 00 mEHuIHHsm .H mHm£ HMHMmumuomm .m Nw muonmuoan mcHummp HHom .m H m 0H mN mpum3m .mmNHHm .mmHflmHMHonom .Q H 00 mmHmm nounm 0 won“ H0\©cm hummusz .O H 0H 6H 0 «H .oum.mH6Huoume mHnm0nmzmum HHom .wpnommu Hmsscm .mumppmHmBmc mcHUDHUcH HHOB HMGOHDMUSUM .m H m mH m H 0N .Uum .mmmmHHE Immcmmxw mHMHUHmmo HUHHumHQ .4 ooomw ooom mmmN mom 000 mm ow um>o -00066 -000H6 -0066 -00H6 -066 -H6 6:02 smuH CHmcoomHB I mmmcommmu mo HQQEDZ .m mHQMB mpcmmm mpcsm wmmflu 0Hm3 3cm 156 H N H N m.¢H H.N m 0 6.05 “mayo .0 m.¢ H.N 0.0 m.¢H H.N N.ow Hmucmu mUHmmo .H m.¢ 0.0 0.0 m.Nm HHmme Ho mmMSUHSQ usmEmszm .m m.v n.mm wEHquumm .N 0.00H mEHuIHHSm .H H606 pOZVHmHmzv mmon Hmochome .0 m.¢ 0.0H 0.0H m.¢ m.¢ m.mm oEHHIpumm .N H.N m.nm oEHuIHHsm .H mHmn HMHHmuwuomm .m 0.00H Nuoumnoan mcHummu HHom .m H.N 6.0H 0.06 6.66 606636 .mmNHum .mmHnmanosum .n H.N m.nm m0H6.m QDMSm 0 mwup HO\©cm wwmmnsz .0 H.N N.HN N.NN H.0H 6.0N .oum.mHmHnmpms mHnmcnm3mum HHom .muuommu Hmscam .muwuuonch mGHpsHUCH xHOB HMGOHDMUDUW .m H.N 0.6 N.NN 6.0H H.N H.H6 .oum .mmmmHHs Immcmmxm mHMHUHmwo UUHHuwHQ .d ooonw ooom mmmN mam mm¢ mm mv Hm>0 IOOOmw IOOOHw Ioomw IOQHw Iomw IHw 0:02 EmuH :HmcoomHB I manswmu mo mmmucmoumm .v mHQme Nucwmm mUCSM mmmsu wHwB 30m 157 0.00H mHOpmummooo uoHHumHQ .n 6.0H 6.0 H.N 0.60 muumswcH .mmmchsn .mHm:0H>H0:H .0 H.N 6.0H 0.0H m.NH H.N 6.06 AmHnms3oe no hchOUV HMUOH .m 6.0 H.0H 6.0H 6.0 6.06 0H5u0HwH00H 00606 .d ooonw. 0006 000N 000 00¢ 00 00 H0>O Iooomw I000Hw I0066 I00Hm I066 IHw 0:02 80UH sHmsoomH3 I mausumm 00 0000000000 .6 0HQMB n0 muoumummooo uUHHpmHQ .n 6 N H 06 huums0CH .mmmchDQ .mHms0H>H0:H .0 H 6 N 6 H RN HmHnmczoa no sucnoov Hmooq .m 0 0 6 N NN musumHmHmmH 66666 .0 oooww- 0006 000N 000 000 00 00 H0>O Iooomw I000Hw I0066 I00Hw I066 IHw 0002 :HmcoomHB I mmmcommmu mo Hmnfisz .6 0HQMB Namumoum 0000 m :0 wuumo ou 6000: pH w>0HH0Q >003 00H0H0>00 “UHHpmHQ coHum>ummGOU HHom H50» 0000 >0:OE 0HOE QUDE 30m .OH 158 H.N 0.50 H0300 .m 6.0 6.0 H.N 6.0H H.N m.N5 6606606: pUHHumHQ 0hsusm Mom u60>:H .m 6.0 m.HN 0.05 >0:OE 06:0mx0 H0\0:m 0000HHE 0:05 mHMHUHmmo uUHHumHQ hm: .Q 6.6N 6.0 0.6 0.06 m0HMBM .60NHHQ .mmHflmHMHOSUm .0 H.N H.N 6.Hm 6.6 0.66 mHmHumpms mHnmnumzmpm HHom 0:6 xho3 Hm:0Hpmod0m .m H.N v.0 6.6N 6.0 0.5H 6.00 600H6 HMUH:£U0u H0 HMUHH0HU Hm:0H#H00¢ .0 00060 0006 000N 000 000 00 00 H0>O Iooomm Iooon loomw IOOHm Iomw IHw 0:02 E00H :Hm:oomH3 I m:u:u0u mo 0060:00H0m .0 0Hnt H 60 H0390 .m N N H 5 H vm muo0monm HUHHumHQ 0:5050 Mom um0>:H .m N 0H mm M0:OE 06:0QX0 H0\0:m 0000HHE 0:08 mHMHUHmmo “UHuamHQ mm: .0 NH 0 m 0N 60:036 .m0NHHm .mmHnmumHosum .0 H H 6H 0 6N mHMHH0umE mH£m0H630um HHom 0:6 MHOB Hm:0Humos0m .m H 6 NH 0 6 6H mmon HMUH:£U00 H0 H60HH0HU Hm:0HuH00¢ .¢ 00066 0006 000N 000 000 00 00 H0>O IOOOmw IOOOHw Ioomw IOOHw I066 IHw 0:02 E0uH :Hm:oomH3 I m0m:omm0n mo H0QESZ .5 0Hnms Nu:0mm 0Q >0£u 0H903 30: .30: 0HQMHHm>m 60:50 0:06 063 pUHMMmHQ :00» MH .HH BIBLIOGRAPHY Aldrich, Jr., D. G. "Everybody Wants Our Best Land!" Abstract from talk given by author at 16th Annual Meeting of the Soil Conservation Society of America, reprinted from Better Farming Methods, Eastern Edi- tion, Mount Morris, 111., Vol. 34, February 1962, No. 2. Bacon, E. M., et al. Resources and Recreation In the Northern Great Lakes Region. A Department of Agriculture Task Force Report (U. S., Department of Agriculture, 1962), pp. 91—92. Barlowe, Raleigh. ”Michigan's Changing Land Use Picture," Paper presented at Michigan Natural Resources Conference annual meeting, Lansing, Michigan, October 21, 1964 (Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 1964 mimeograph), p. 16. Freeman, Orville. ”Secretary's Memorandum No. 1464, Revised: U.S.D.A. Land and Water Policy Committee," U. S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Secretary (Washington, D. C., 1962), p. l, Mimeo. Glick, Philip M. "Soil and Water Conservation Districts: Their Origins and Their Future," (General Counsel, National Association of Conservation Districts), Delivered to District leaders of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas (Western Gulf Area of NACD), July 19, 1962 (League City, Texas, NACD), p. 13. Graff, George P. "Who Are Our SCD Directors," mimeograph report, Department of Resource DevelOpment, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, March 1964. Henry, Elvin F. "To the Victim Belongs the Soil," National Capital Area Realtor magazine (Washington Real Estate Board, Inc., October 1960) Reprint. Michigan, Soil Conservation Districts Law (1963), Section 2. Mitchell, Laurence M. "Opportunities for Soil Conservation Districts in Rurban Areas," Talk presented before the State meeting of Soil Conservation Service Personnel, Blacksburg, Virginia, August 25, 1960, Mimeo. 159 160 Oregon State Soil and Water Conservation Committee, State Government Participation in the Soil and Water Con- servation District Program: Summary of a Survey of the State Soil and Water Conservation Committees, Commissions and Boards (Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon) January 1965. Partain, Lloyd E. "History of Soil Conservation Districts in the United States,” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 10, No. 1 (January, 1955). Swainson, Gov. John B. Address at Area III Meeting, Upper Mississippi Valley Region, National Association of Soil Conservation Districts, Kellogg Center, East Lansing, Michigan, August 21, 1961, Mimeo. Udall, Stewart L. The Race for Inner Space: A Special Report to the Nation, prepared by the United States Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary, Division of Information (Washington, D. C. 1964) pp. 6, 13-14. U. S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service, "Advisory B&F-103 Re: Man—Years of Non-Federal Input," D. A. Williams (Washington, D. C.) August 2, 1965, Mimeo. U. S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service, "Current State ApprOpriations and Allocations for Soil Conservation Districts" (Washington, D. C.) November 1958, Mimeo. U. S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service, "Funds Appr0priated by State Legislatures, or Other- wise Provided Through Official Facilities of the State, for Fiscal Year 1963 for Participation in Soil Conservation District Programs" (Washington, D. C.) October 1, 1962, Mimeo. U. S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service, "Soil Conservation Districts: Status of Organiza- tion by States, Approximate Acreage, and Farms in Organized Districts" (Washington, D. C.) July 1, 1964, Mimeo. Williams, Donald A. "New Methods for New Problems," Soil Conservation (U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, November 1960. AUTOBIOGRAPHY I, Marie Eva Affelt Shepard, was born in Flint, Michigan, November 21, 1919. I received my elementary schooling to grade three in Flint, Michigan schools and three through eighth grade in rural school (Herrick) near Davison, Michigan. I graduated as salutatorian from Davison High School, June, 1936. In June, 1939 enrolled at Michigan State Normal College (Now Eastern Michigan University), Ypsilanti, Michi- gan on a State Limited Teaching course, graduating in June, 1941. From l9¢1 to 1952 I attended summer schools and ex- tension courses from Eastern Michigan University, graduating with a Bachelor of Science degree, August, 1952. A permanent teaching certificate was issued from there in January, 1955. In 1954, I enrolled in graduate school at Michigan State University, Department of Resource Development and Department of Education, and became a candidate for a Master of Science degree in December, 1965. Teaching experience includes all eight grades in primary school districts as well as single grades in suburban schools of Flint, Michigan area. For three years I did sub- stitute teaching and am presently employed full-time as elementary science and social studies teacher at Swartz Creek Community Schools, Swartz Creek, Michigan. 161 162 In 1949, I became acting Secretary of the Genesee Soil Conservation District and then was elected for a three year term as a director in January, 1953 and have been re- elected since that time. I have served as chairman, secre- tary and treasurer of the Genesee District. I have served as regional director (1 year), secre- tary (2 years), and treasurer (9 years) of the Michigan Soil Conservations Districts. In 1963, I was the first and only woman member of the Council, the governing body of the National Association of Conservation Districts representing Michigan. I served as alternate Council member from Michigan in 1964. In 1964 I was appointed by Secretary of Agriculture, Orville Freeman, to serve on the United States Department of Agriculture Public Advisory Committee on Soil and Water Con- servation, one of eighteen members and the only woman. I have participated in state, area (eight states) and national meetings on soil and water conservation. Presently, I am a member of the National Urban- Suburban Conservation Problems Committee of the Soil Con— servation Society of America, a professional organization, as well as the same committee in the Michigan Chapter. I am married, live on a family farm and have a boy (9), and two girls (7 and 5). HICHIGQN STQTE UNIV LIBRQRIES IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII" I 31293008088845 "h- —"I. I