Don't starve Conservation Bank

The South Carolina Conservation Bank won't get the greatest number of dollars from the state's rising revenue stream, but it will be its biggest beneficiary. If the state's revenue projections are correct for next budget year, the bank won't be subject to an unfair legislative provision that periodically puts it on starvation rations.

Under that provision, if the state budget faces broad cuts, the Conservation Bank's funding goes to other state operations. The bank's budget is derived from a portion of the sale of documentary stamps required for land transactions.

In past years, that annual allocation has ranged from $7 million to $14 million in a good year. Or nothing, when times get hard.

Next budget year, the Conservation Bank expects to get $7.5 million, which should enable it to meet existing responsibilities for land purchases, and actually consider acquiring other tracts of particular importance to the state. The money also will pay for the minimal administration costs of the state's smallest agency -- two employees.

Since the recession, the poison pill provision has made just keeping the lights on a challenge. Special appropriations were required to keep the office operational.

Advocates for the Conservation Bank, including Sen. Chip Campsen, R-Charleston, and Rep. Jim Merrill, R-Daniel Island, have submitted legislation to eliminate the unfair provision, so far without success.

Rep. Merrill tells us he'll try again this year, though predicts there will be opposition. It's hard to understand why. The Conservation Bank has helped the state preserve more than 150,000 acres at a fraction of the appraised value.

That's because it depends on the assistance of like-minded organizations, such as The Nature Conservancy, to achieve its beneficial ends. And property owners who are committed to conservation have regularly given the bank a break on the price of property -- much as they have locally in backing the efforts of the Charleston Greenbelt initiative.

The bank has acquired land and easements on behalf of conservation and historic preservation, and its work has been done from the coast to the mountains. If legislators were willing to take a close look at the results, they would be convinced that the Conservation Bank is a bargain for the state, and act to ensure its funding on an annual basis.

No other state agency operates on so little, and none is treated so arbitrarily -- indeed, shabbily -- under state law.