We the undersigned oppose the proposed amendments by the by Oconee County Council to the Conservation Bank Ordinance (2025-12). County Council’s amendments subvert donated funds  (not taxpayer money) intended to help eligible property owners obtain Conservation Easements which preserve agricultural or forested land in Oconee. The County Council wants to allocate these funds to projects NOT related to permanent conservation of Oconee’s family farms, natural resources, streams, and rivers. We want to keep the Oconee County Conservation Bank Ordinance as it is today.  Vote no on these amendments.

Summary:

Oconee County Council is proposing amendments to the Conservation Bank Ordinance that would expand the scope of how Conservation Bank funds—originally intended solely for preserving natural and agricultural land through conservation easements—can be used. These funds come from charitable donations, not taxpayer dollars, and were meant to support permanent land conservation. The proposed changes open the door for the funds to be spent on projects that are not directly tied to land conservation, such as community gardens, recreational infrastructure, and private water systems.

Talking Points to Oppose the Amendments:
    •    Preserve Original Intent:
The Conservation Bank was created to protect Oconee’s farmlands, forests, and water resources through permanent conservation easements. These amendments undermine that mission by allowing unrelated projects.
    •    Protect Donor Trust:
Funds for the Conservation Bank come from private donors—not taxpayers. Changing the use of these funds betrays the expectations of those who contributed in good faith to protect land permanently.
    •    Dilutes Conservation Impact:
Allowing spending on short-term or non-land conservation projects—like community workshops, educational signage, and private well infrastructure—dilutes the long-term environmental benefits the fund was designed to ensure.
    •    Threat to Rural Character:
The original ordinance helps prevent overdevelopment and protects the rural nature of Oconee County. Broadening the fund’s scope risks encouraging infrastructure projects that could lead to sprawl.
    •    Reduces Transparency and Oversight:
While the proposed board will still be involved in project evaluation, the expanded list of eligible projects could make the process more political and harder to track in terms of conservation return on investment.
    •    No Public Demand for Change:
There is no demonstrated community demand for these amendments. The current ordinance is working as intended, and changes appear to be top-down rather than citizen-led.
    •    Permanent Easements vs. Temporary Projects:
Conservation easements are perpetual and legally binding. Community gardens or trail signage are not. Redirecting funds to non-permanent activities undermines long-term stewardship.