Reflections on WSIPP Study

By Ryan Baye

The long-awaited study by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy on conservation district elections was released on Friday, June 27. WSIPP was directed by the state legislature in 2023 to study the current cost of conservation district elections and the potential costs under alternative election methods, i.e., putting all five supervisors on the November ballot. They were also directed to study the “non-monetary costs and benefits” of the proposed changes.

The $156,000 study consisted primarily of outreach and surveys to conservation district and conservation district supervisors. They collected election costs from all 45 CDs, then looked at future costs of: Option A) all five supervisors on the November ballot, and Option B) all five supervisors on the November ballot but in a geographic zone system rather than covering the entire county. They also surveyed conservation district supervisors and managers about the impact to districts if such policies were to be implemented.

Election Costs

There were no surprises in either the election costs or the district surveys, and reflects what WACD and districts have said over the last few years. The main dollar figure is an estimated $25,567,700 over four years if all five supervisor positions of all forty-five CDs had to be on the August primary and the November general ballots. That number decreases to $12,221,100 over four years if using geographic zones, since only 1/5 rather than the whole of the county would be receiving ballots for each supervisor position election. These figures do not include the expense of preparing each district to be a part of the November ballot process (their footnote says it is “nearly impossible to estimate these cost for each county without existing data. As such, we do not consider this cost.”)

One sentence from this section of the report I felt summarized the concerns of the membership that WACD hears whenever this topic is discussed:

“When biennial election costs could increase by several hundred percent in the median district under each of these policies, it is not hard to see where concerns about the financial viability of districts under these policies come from.”

Non-Monetary Costs and Benefits

The surveys of districts and supervisors on the proposed changed also contain no surprises, echoing what we’ve hard in previous conversations. 31 of the 36 districts that participated in one survey expect increased election costs. WSIPP noted two main themes in the survey findings, the “increase in the administrative burden of running elections” and “costs would exceed available funds to cover elections and take away from conservation programming”. Specifically, for the proposal to implement a geographic zone system, the common theme amongst the responses was “increase the administrative burden required to focus specifically on deciding on, creating, and coordinating the zones for elections.”

There was general opposition to the proposals from districts that participated in the surveys, with 34 out of 36 CDs opposed to the November ballot policy and 32 out of 36 opposed to the geographic zone policy. There was also a clear message by the supervisors surveyed, with 69% saying it was less likely, or not likely at all, they would continue to serve under the proposed new systems. The reasons for these responses, both in favor and opposed, were familiar:

  • Districts expressing doubt that the November ballot would increase public knowledge or engagement
  • Increasing awareness of, access to, and interactions with districts
  • Alleviating labor and improve the district election process
  • Political shifts to the detriment of districts
  • Staffing & Operational Burdens
  • Difficulty in Finding Supervisor Candidates
  • Questing voter turnout as a goal
  • Losing the purpose & viability of CDs

Many districts and supervisors made recommendations to the research team, laying out a path similar to what WACD has asked the legislature through the work of the Joint Committee on Elections:

  • Making it an optional process to be on the November ballot
  • Follow through on the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Elections
  • Make additional funding available to offset the costs of these policies
  • Retain some at-large positions (specific to the geographic zone proposal)

What’s next

I encourage folks to look through the full report — there is a lot of data and a lot of graphs. In this article, I tried to include only the most salient points as an “at-a-glance” version of the fifty-one pages in the report. The full report also includes information about current election costs, average turnout in district elections over the last four years, further findings from the surveys to districts and supervisors, and more on potential non-monetary impacts.

I also encourage district managers to look at the estimated costs tied to your district to see if the stated estimates align with estimates received from your local county auditor. These numbers will be referenced if the legislature decides to take up the topic of conservation district elections again in 2026, so it would be good to know if these potential costs are accurate.

And finally, I encourage our member-districts to revisit their previous conversations at your local meetings about the topic of CD elections for your district. Does having an outside perspective make a difference in your opinion? Does this new information change your individual, or collective, position?

Post Views: 1
Share!