Madison County Democrat. (London, Ohio) 19??-1958, 1953-03-10
Conservaney District Plan
In Best Interest OF Ohio
Administrative
And Judicial
Acts Explained

lHe oClOUO-SanOuSKy COnSerV-
ancy District may yet turn out to
be a great benefit to many coun-
ties comprising the District it was
revealed through information re-
ceived here Monday.
The District, set up under the
Ohio Conservancy Act, has been
under some criticism recently but
the criticism has been mostly due
to misunderstanding of the pur-
poses and objectives of the Act, it
was brought out. Several officials
in several of the counties which
comprise the Conservancy District
have refused to collect taxes which
provide money for the operating
expenses which are allowed under
the law. However, Madison county
is collecting its share of the tax
with little or no objection once the
law and the purpose have both
been explained, it was said.
Further, it was explained, the
Conservancy District is set up and
administered in much the same
way as are county drainage ditch
es. That is, counties in the district,
whose water flows into the certain
streams and rivers in the District,
are required to aid those landown-.
ers who are directly affected by
high water and flood conditions.
Thus Madison county becomes
part of the watershed which
forms the Scioto river. And since
these waters sometimes contribute
to floods, real property owners in
this county can be legally required
to pay taxes to help maintain the
District.
While the tax levies thus far
have been collected simply for op-
Grating expenses, it is doubtful
that direct taxes for construction
purposes will ever be levied here
since the burden of such tax would
be borne by those counties who
are most benefited by any con-
struction in the way of dams or
other construction to impede the
flow of water.
Thorough perusal of the Con-
servancy Act, shows that while
Common Pleas Judge, James F.
Bell, is member of the Conserv-
ancy Court, he is but a member of
the Court body and acts in the in
terest of all the counties in the
District. It had been stated both
here and elsewhere that Judge
Bells membership to the Court
placed him in a position to tax
Madison county. This report is un-
true since the Act clearly states
that the Common Pleas Judge
from each of the II original coun-
ties in the District shall comprise
the Conservancy Court. The Court,
being a separate judicial body,
acts as a unit and not as a panel
of delegates such as may be found
in some other cases it was brought
out.
Further, 1t was revealed that
Judge Bell is a member of the
Court by the specification of the
Conservancy Act itself, and is not
a member by personal choice. Too,
any compensation he may receive
is only on a per diem basis as al
lowed to all Common Pleas Judges
in the State of Ohio.
The Board of Directors of the
Conservancy District, elected by
the Court, have complete charge
of the administrative duties of the
District and in no wise should it
be construed that the entire body,
both Court and Directors, is en-
gagged in any unjustified legisla-
ton.
1t was further made clear that
the future of the District is in
some doubt since it is expected
that the Ohio Supreme Court will
be called upon to render a de-
cision on the entire matter. And,
should the Supreme Court find the
tax assessment Illegal, the monies
which may have been collected for
any purpose would be refunded to
any taxpayer having made pay
ment.
NAF