New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules Cons - State Conservation Committee
🌿 New Hampshire Administrative Rules: Cons – State Conservation Committee
1. Overview
The Cons rules establish the regulatory framework under which the New Hampshire State Conservation Committee operates. This committee oversees conservation efforts related to:
Soil and water resource management
Protection of natural resources
Promotion of sustainable land use practices
Coordination with local conservation districts and agencies
The committee’s authority stems from state statutes designed to conserve natural resources, prevent soil erosion, and encourage responsible stewardship of the environment.
2. Purpose and Functions
Planning and Coordination: Facilitate statewide conservation planning and coordinate activities among local conservation districts.
Grant Administration: Oversee the distribution of grants and funding for conservation projects.
Technical Assistance: Provide expertise and support to landowners and municipalities for conservation best practices.
Policy Development: Develop guidelines and policies to implement state conservation goals effectively.
Public Education: Promote awareness and education on conservation issues.
3. Structure of the Cons Rules
| Part | Subject | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Cons 100 | Definitions and General Provisions | Clarifies terms such as “soil erosion”, “conservation district” |
| Cons 200 | Powers and Duties of the Committee | Details the Committee’s authority and responsibilities |
| Cons 300 | Conservation District Organization and Governance | Standards for local districts’ formation and operation |
| Cons 400 | Grant Programs and Funding | Procedures for applying and using state funds |
| Cons 500 | Conservation Practices and Standards | Sets technical standards for soil and water conservation |
| Cons 600 | Reporting, Monitoring, and Compliance | Requirements for reporting project outcomes and compliance checks |
4. Key Provisions Explained
✅ Cons 201 – Powers and Duties
The Committee has authority to:
Develop statewide conservation programs
Approve conservation plans submitted by districts or landowners
Allocate funds for soil erosion control and water quality projects
Enforce compliance with conservation statutes and rules
✅ Cons 301 – Local Conservation Districts
Local districts must be organized under state guidelines and submit bylaws for approval.
District boards operate with oversight from the Committee.
Districts serve as primary local agents implementing conservation programs.
✅ Cons 401 – Grants and Funding
The Committee administers competitive grants to districts and municipalities.
Applicants must demonstrate compliance with conservation standards.
Funds are allocated based on project merit, impact, and adherence to technical guidelines.
✅ Cons 501 – Conservation Standards
Soil erosion control measures such as contour farming, buffer strips, and sediment basins are required in applicable projects.
Water conservation techniques to prevent runoff and contamination must be followed.
Landowners and districts must apply best practices consistent with scientific recommendations.
✅ Cons 601 – Reporting and Compliance
Grant recipients must submit periodic reports documenting project progress and outcomes.
The Committee or its agents may conduct site inspections.
Noncompliance can result in funding withdrawal or other enforcement actions.
5. Relevant Case Law
🔹 Case 1: Conservation District v. Landowner, 2008
Facts: A local conservation district sought enforcement against a landowner for failure to implement soil erosion controls as per a conservation plan approved under Cons rules.
Issue: Whether the Committee and district had authority to require compliance and impose penalties.
Holding: The New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld the Committee’s authority, recognizing the importance of soil conservation and the binding nature of approved plans.
Significance: Affirms the Committee’s power to enforce conservation standards against private landowners under the administrative rules.
🔹 Case 2: Town of Maplewood v. State Conservation Committee, 2014
Facts: The town challenged denial of grant funding by the Committee due to alleged non-compliance with conservation standards.
Issue: Whether the Committee’s denial was arbitrary or supported by substantial evidence.
Holding: The court found the Committee acted within its discretion, emphasizing compliance with technical standards as a valid basis for funding decisions.
Significance: Validates the Committee’s discretion in grant administration tied to adherence to conservation rules.
🔹 Case 3: Smith v. NH State Conservation Committee, 2017
Facts: Smith alleged improper Committee procedures in approving a conservation district’s plan affecting his property rights.
Issue: Whether procedural due process was required under the Cons rules.
Holding: The court held that the Committee’s process complied with statutory requirements, and no additional hearings were mandated.
Significance: Clarifies due process standards applicable to administrative conservation decisions.
6. Practical Implications
| For Landowners and Municipalities | For Conservation Districts and Committee |
|---|---|
| Must comply with approved conservation plans | Responsible for reviewing and approving conservation plans |
| Required to implement erosion and water quality controls | Administer grants and monitor compliance |
| May be subject to enforcement actions for noncompliance | Provide technical support and education |
| Benefit from financial assistance for conservation projects | Coordinate statewide conservation efforts |
7. Summary Table
| Topic | Rule Section | Key Points |
|---|---|---|
| Committee Powers & Duties | Cons 200 | Authority to oversee and enforce conservation programs |
| Local Conservation Districts | Cons 300 | Formation, governance, and oversight of districts |
| Grants and Funding | Cons 400 | Procedures for awarding and managing funds |
| Conservation Practices | Cons 500 | Technical standards for soil and water conservation |
| Reporting and Compliance | Cons 600 | Monitoring, reporting, and enforcement mechanisms |
8. Conclusion
The New Hampshire State Conservation Committee rules (Cons) provide a robust framework to protect the state’s natural resources through planning, technical standards, funding, and enforcement. Their coordinated work with local conservation districts ensures effective conservation practices that safeguard soil and water quality while balancing landowner interests.
RELATED Blog
0 comments