Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conservation Tax Credit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee backs higher conservation easement tax credit after landowners and conservation groups testify
Summary
House Bill 3409, which raises the per‑acre conservation tax credit from $250 to $1,000 and doubles the annual per‑taxpayer cap to $105,000, received a favorable report after testimony from landowners, the Farm Bureau and conservation groups and discussion about fiscal impact and credit transferability.
A House Ways and Means subcommittee voted to give a favorable report to House Bill 3409, a proposal to increase the nonrefundable income tax credit for qualified conservation contributions from $250 to $1,000 per acre and to raise the annual per‑taxpayer credit limit from $52,500 to $105,000.
Staff told the panel the bill amends the relevant tax code provision (recorded in the hearing as Section 12 6 35 15 c). Supporters described the change as a needed update to a credit that was established when land values were much lower.
Several witnesses spoke in favor. Tanya Winbush, who identified herself as a fourth‑generation landowner in Anderson County, said the increased credit would make it possible for families with limited resources to place property in conservation easements and thereby keep land in family ownership. “Sometimes when it seems like eminent domain is taking over, this is an opportunity to right some wrongs,” she said. Gary Spires of the South Carolina Farm Bureau Federation told members that easements are voluntary tools that respect property rights and help keep farmland in private hands; he urged rapid action, saying rising land values had made the old $250 per‑acre cap outdated.
Witnesses and committee members discussed the bill’s fiscal impact and transferability of credits. Upstate Forever’s Megan Chase said Department of Revenue oversight already exists for credit transfers and suggested the committee ask DOR to report annually on credit‑transfer applications to provide data rather than estimates. Witnesses offering demand figures said past annual usage of the credit was just above $1 million, and one panelist referenced a not‑verified figure of up to $25 million in unused credits but said the actual amount is unclear; the hearing record did not establish a definitive statewide total of unused credits.
The subcommittee voted to give HB 3409 a favorable report to the full Ways and Means Committee. Staff called the roll; members present voted in favor. The bill will next be considered by the full committee.
Where the record lacked a specific fiscal‑impact figure or a definitive count of unused credits, witnesses either said updated DOR reporting could provide numbers or described local demand observed by land trusts.
