By Lindsay Street, Statehouse correspondent | After much past ado about questionable financial practices and a lack of public access to conserved tracts, lawmakers could reauthorize the S.C. Conservation Bank indefinitely — or at least until 2028.
The bank directs taxpayer funds toward land conservation. Since its inception in 2002, more than 288,000 acres statewide in 45 counties have been conserved with the help from the bank, which aids other government agencies and nonprofits that eventually own and manage the land.
The new leader of the bank’s board told Statehouse Report this week that he is “cautiously optimistic” about the bank being reauthorized prior to its legislatively mandated June 30 sunset date. He credited a budding relationship with legislators.
“Things are going as well as they could be right now,” said Doug Harper of Greenville “Everybody is very upbeat right now.”
Reauthorization in question
But things weren’t always so rosy for the bank’s future. Two events in 2017 nearly derailed hopes of the bank continuing.
Alarms from conservationists around the state first sounded after a 2017 budget proviso sought to strip the bank of funding. Gov. Henry McMaster vetoed the proviso, briefly stalling the looming 2018 reauthorization question until this year.
But a $3 million snafu threatened again to derail the bank in 2017. Money that was supposed to go to another state agency was not sent until after the issue was made public.
“Through both investigative portions (of a legislative audit and a State Inspector General’s report ordered by the governor) and through the final results they (the reports) lauded the bank for its transparency, its clarity cooperation and openness. Obviously, of course, there was no malfeasance,” Harper said. “Most of the findings were technical, which are being corrected.”
Harper, a developer with a heart for conservation, is part of new leadership at the bank, which lost its longtime executive director to retirement at the end of 2017. Harper served on the bank board for two years prior to taking over as chair. Currently, the bank is without an executive director — and that position is expected to remain open until reauthorization is finalized, Harper said.
Lawmakers also alleged in 2017 the bank wasn’t doing enough to ensure the public could gain access to land conserved by taxpayer money. That issue is addressed in the House and Senate reauthorization bills with added stipulations on public access.
Harper said increased communication with lawmakers in recent weeks has helped bring the bank from the brink.
“Several months ago there was some question about the future of the bank,” Harper said. Now, he added, there is “lots of communication” between the conservation community and the Legislature.
Moving forward
The warming relationship appears to be paying off.
On Wednesday, a House Ways and Means subcommittee unanimously passed a bill (H. 4727) that would authorize the bank indefinitely, though it does not give the bank a dedicated funding stream. That means the bank would have to request money from the legislature annually, a difference from how it currently operates with a dedicated funding stream in place. The bill will go before the Ways and Means Committee prior to the House floor. A vote in committee has not been scheduled as of deadline.
“i see the direct connection between conserving these natural resources we’ve been blessed with with quality of life and economic development,” Harper told the House subcommittee Wednesday. “I am strongly optimistic you’re going to see a better and stronger conservation bank in the future.”
The Senate has its own version (S. 7) of the reauthorization of the bank, but it maintains the sunset clause at 10 years and identifies a dedicated funding source. That bill has languished in the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee since January 2017.
“We prefer a dedicated funding source but we serve at the will of the Legislature,” Harper said. “If we have to go before the legislature every year, so be it … We will work with whatever they come up with.”
S.C. Rep. Phillip Lowe, R-Florence, said he’s not certain the House’s bill is ideal but it’s a start.
“The concern that we’ve had was over how some of the funding in the past has been spent and I think they’ve tried to correct that,” Lowe told Statehouse Report. “Maybe we’ve (in the House) overcorrected but they’re losing the dedicated funding portion of this.”
Lowe said sunsets can be helpful in keeping lawmakers informed about state agencies.
“We learned a lot about the bank because we had a sunset clause, probably more laws need sunsets so we can determine if they’re following the guidelines, if they are effective,” he said.
During Wednesday’s subcommittee, S.C. Rep. Mike Pitts, R-Laurens, spoke in favor of the bank after being a vocal critic of continuing it in 2017.
“I’d like to commend the bank board for making moves in the last months to correct issues,” he said.
The lone Democrat in Wednesday’s subcommittee meeting, S.C. Rep. Lonnie Hosey of Barnwell, added that he hoped the woes of 2017 wouldn’t be “revisited.”
Harper told Statehouse Report he doesn’t mind the heightened scrutiny the bank has received.
“If a good idea can’t withstand scrutiny, it’s not a good idea so I welcome scrutiny,” he said. And the bank is a good idea, especially with the state’s explosive growth where conserving natural resources is paramount to protecting the state’s quality of life and economic development, he added. “Look at record and get into the facts, it’ a great deal for South Carolina.”
He went on to say the legislature should look at the bank as an investment rather than an expenditure, citing the economic benefits of natural resources and the bank’s ability to win federal and private grants toward conservation.
During Wednesday’s meeting, South Carolina Realtor CEO Nick Kremydas echoed Harper’s sentiments.
“(The bank) is vital to public interest and the public good,” he said.
We Can Do Better, South Carolina!