Oconee County advances changes to Conservation Bank ordinance amid strong public objections

Oconee County Council on Tuesday advanced an amendment to the county's Conservation Bank ordinance (ordinance 2025-12) on second reading after an extended public comment period in which local landowners, conservation groups and stakeholders urged the council to keep previously donated funds restricted to permanent land protection.

The measure would amend Oconee County Code sections 2-398 through 2-409 governing the Oconee County Conservation Bank (OCCB). Dozens of residents and representatives of nonprofit stakeholders, including Upstate Forever and advocates involved in the Keowee-Toxaway relicensing, told council members the OCCB was established and funded by private donations specifically for conservation easements and fee-simple land protection.

Those speakers said redirecting bank funds to a broader list of activities would breach donors' expectations and could jeopardize future contributions from major donors such as Duke Energy. "It is incumbent upon this council to respect and uphold the restrictions donors understood to be true when contributing to the bank," said Chris Starker, speaking on behalf of Upstate Forever.

Why it matters: several speakers tied the bank's original funding to negotiations around the Keowee-Toxaway (KT) hydroelectric relicensing and a negotiated contribution from Duke Energy. Stakeholders said those contributions were intended for permanent land conservation; several warned that changing the ordinance could put future funding at risk and asked that any Duke funds be segregated or returned.

Public comment and stakeholder warnings

Emily Hitchcock, a former chair of the Oconee County Conservation Bank, urged the council to accept the OCCB board's recommendation to fund a conservation easement for the Keyes family farm and to reject the proposed broader amendments. "The preservation of our farms is of critical importance," Hitchcock said, arguing the proposed list of eligible activities in the draft ordinance, such as private water infrastructure improvements, would permit nonpermanent or private uses of OCCB money.

Representatives of long-time stakeholders repeated that concern. "The group's goal was to work with Duke to determine how to address unavoidable environmental impacts," said Alan Stewart, FERC licensing manager speaking for Duke Energy, and described the company's understanding that its contribution was intended for land conservation. "To be clear, Duke Energy does not oppose Oconee County modifying the current OCCB ordinance. However, should the current OCCB ordinance be modified to permit OCCB funding for purposes other than land conservation, [Duke Energy requests] Oconee County establish a separate account for all funding provided by Duke Energy ... to be used for land conservation," he said.

Several other speakers reinforced that point. Gary Owens, president of Advocates for Quality Development (AQD), told the council the proposed changes "violate the intent of the original negotiated agreement" and warned they could "kill the possibility that Oconee County will receive future conservation bank funding unless there is a clear stipulation that the funds will only be used for conservation easements." Eddie Martin of Oconee Preservation Unlimited described the bank's original purpose as permanent protection and urged the council to "vote no on this ordinance."

Council actions and directions

During the meeting the council heard a direct recommendation from the Oconee County Conservation Bank to approve a $116,000 grant request for a conservation easement on the Keyes family farm; a motion to approve that grant was made, seconded and called for a vote during the meeting.

Separately, one council member moved that staff begin the process to return Duke Energy's remaining contribution to the county (described in meeting materials as a $618,000 contribution related to the KT relicensing agreement), and the motion was seconded. Council members asked staff to research the legal and logistical steps required and to return findings in time for third reading.

Council members then took a second-reading vote on ordinance 2025-12 (the proposed amendments to the OCCB ordinance). A motion to advance the ordinance on second reading was made, seconded and put to a vote; the motion carried and the ordinance advanced on second reading. The transcript does not record a roll-call tally for that second-reading vote.

Votes at a glance

- Ordinance 2025-12 (amend OCCB ordinance, Oconee County Code 2-398 through 2-409): advanced on second reading (motion carried; vote tally not specified in transcript). - Keyes family farm easement grant (OCCB recommendation): recommendation to fund $116,000; motion to approve made and seconded and called for a vote (outcome not recorded with a roll-call tally in the transcript). - Several budget and district ordinances were approved earlier in the meeting on third reading (transcript contains motions and approvals; where roll-call tallies were read aloud the transcript records them). Specific ordinance numbers and outcomes are included in the meeting record and backup materials.

What the record shows and what remains open

Speakers at the meeting repeatedly tied the bank's original funding to the Keowee-Toxaway relicensing process and said the bank has used donated funds to conserve more than 700 acres through easements and fee-simple purchases. Meeting testimony referenced both a roughly $600,000 figure and a $618,000 figure as Duke Energy's contribution; council asked staff to clarify the exact remaining balance and to outline options for returning or segregating donor-restricted funds if the ordinance is changed.

Council members and staff said they would return with legal analysis and options before third reading; council also directed staff to include any letters submitted for the public record in the meeting backup materials. The transcript records several public requests that existing donated funds be protected prospectively and that any redefinition of OCCB purposes not redirect previously donated monies without clear donor consent.

The matter will return to council for third reading, with council members asking staff for research on liability, the process for returning restricted donations and the legal effect of past donor agreements referenced in relicensing documents and the memorandum of agreement.