Alex Hertel, legislative budget policy analyst, briefed the Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment Committee on April 10 on the Soil Conservation District’s proposed FY2026 budget and programs. The district’s proposed budget before recoveries is $22,337,500, an increase of roughly 8% from the FY2025 approved level, Hertel said.

The district said the proposed budget is largely recovered from non‑general‑fund sources and county support. Hertel told the committee the district expects $2,337,500 in recoveries and that the county provides the majority of the district’s operating funds. The FY26 general‑fund compensation amount is listed at $1,646,400; operating increases reflect an OIT allocation and a higher fringe rate.

Why it matters: The district protects agricultural land, reviews erosion and sediment control plans, and supports urban agriculture programs that affect local farms, school curricula and small food producers. District Executive Director Steve Darcy told the committee the district has preserved roughly 7,400 acres across more than 80 farms and awarded about $1.5 million in federal contracts to local producers this year through farm‑bill and IRA‑sourced programs.

Program highlights and staffing

- Core services: Hertel and Darcy described five core programs—rural agricultural conservation, agricultural land preservation, urban agriculture conservation, urban development conservation (grading/erosion control) and outreach/education. The district said it prepared 91 soil‑conservation plans covering nearly 7,800 acres in the prior year and helped producers install more than 200 best‑management practices on over 4,200 acres.

- Staffing and budget detail: The FY26 proposal funds 16 full‑time positions (unchanged from FY25). Hertel cited a $73,000 grants line (an increase of $3,100) and said the district expects fewer grant opportunities amid federal uncertainty.

- Preservation and programs: Darcy said the district remains state‑certified for agricultural preservation programming, which matters because certification returns 75% of ag transfer tax receipts to the county. Darcy told the committee the district has about 238 parcels larger than 35 acres that remain eligible for preservation and that local HEART (county land‑preservation) funds will play a larger role if state preservation funding declines.

Federal and state funding risks

Darcy and staff briefed the committee on several external funding risks. Darcy described recent USDA staffing reductions and the broader federal reorganization as an “unprecedented” source of uncertainty for program delivery; he said contracts already obligated will be paid but warned that reductions in technical staff could slow delivery of new contracts. Committee members and staff also discussed state budget changes: cuts to the statewide cover‑crop program and the Maryland Agricultural Cost‑Share Program introduce further uncertainty for next year’s funding.

Committee questions and next steps

Committee members thanked the district for outreach and noted the program’s broad county impact. The committee flagged two items for follow up: continued monitoring of state and federal funding changes and a near‑term review of the county stormwater fund, which provides a large share of local support for conservation work and is under fiscal pressure.

Ending: District leaders said they will monitor federal/state developments and continue local outreach and technical assistance; the committee acknowledged the district’s continued role in meeting water quality goals and preserving farmland.