Mark Leeman, chairperson of the Crawford County Conservation District, told the Crawford County Commission the district is asking the county for $10,000 less this year after the state increased its funding, but that staffing losses and canceled state programs mean the local technician position will likely remain unfilled.

The budget presentation, given during the commission’s public meeting, outlined two pages of items: one with pass-through funds the presenter did not fully detail and a second with the district’s operating costs. “As far as the budget goes, the state of Kansas increased this funding that they're paying for us. So we're asking for $10,000 less from the county this year,” Leeman said. He also said the district will not be able to replace a retiring technician because previously available federal-funded programs were canceled.

The distinction matters because the technician provides technical assistance for terraces, waterways, pond staking and flood-control projects. Leeman described routine duties: advising and, when projects use state money, performing technical assistance at no cost. With fewer in-house hours, the district now borrows a technician from Cherokee County, who covers multiple counties and can take “2 weeks to a month” to respond, Leeman said.

Commissioners asked for clarification about the technician’s duties and whether the temporary coverage would address urgent flooding problems. Leeman said the borrowed technician had in past years been able to respond when possible but that he could not guarantee availability. He directed residents to contact the conservation service office and named Brian Edgecomb as the acting conservationist on site.

Leeman also described a state-funded cost-share program for failing septic systems that the district still administers. He said the program handles individual septic repairs (not district-wide sewer projects) and that the district typically funds four full systems per year and may sometimes do a partial fifth depending on remaining funds. Leeman added, “I think it's down to 15,000,” when asked about a line-item amount; the transcript did not specify whether that figure referred to an annual program cap or a per-project limit.

After discussion, a commissioner moved to approve the conservation district budget as presented; another commissioner seconded the motion and the chair called the ayes. The commission approved the budget and authorized the chair to sign the certification.

The presentation left several operational details unspecified in the meeting record: the exact program name and statutory source for the septic cost-share (the transcript used a garbled phrase), the precise dollar figure referenced for the “15,000” line, and a timeline or contingency plan for securing a permanent replacement technician. Those items were not resolved during the meeting and would require follow-up with the conservation district or county staff.