South Carolina Casino Proposal Tied to Conservation Funds

South Carolina legislators are preparing to debate whether to authorize a casino in a designated region along Interstate 95. The discussion centers on projected tax revenue, economic development considerations, and a proposal to direct a portion of the proceeds toward environmental preservation.

Legislative Push and Revenue Allocation Ideas

Supporters of the casino effort argue that residents already spend gambling money in neighboring states, which leads to potential tax revenue leaving South Carolina. State Rep. Bruce Bannister of Greenville has emerged as a key proponent, emphasizing the idea that revenue from a gaming venue could address chronic funding challenges without requiring tax hikes. He said that “proponents of the casino have come back and said this is a way to take revenue generated from a lot of out-of-state gamblers who come through South Carolina and use it to help address some of those systemic problems.” Bannister added that gambling is already present across state borders, noting, “We’re not stopping it from happening, but we could use the revenue generated by that to do something positive for South Carolina.”

Companies interested in the project estimate that a gambling hall and connected resort could produce roughly $100 million in annual tax revenue for the state, with millions more potentially flowing to nearby counties. A plan put forward by Bannister would assign 35 percent of those casino tax dollars to the S.C. Conservation Bank, which is charged with protecting forests, farmland, and culturally significant landscapes. If the revenue projections materialized, the Conservation Bank would receive approximately $35 million per year. Bannister views money dedicated to safeguarding farmland as particularly valuable, describing “having that farm security that we can grow our own food and having those lands in South Carolina conserved” as an important benefit.

The amendment also envisions directing revenue toward veterans services and county governments. Advocates say this approach could generate recurring funding streams without raising taxes, while helping rural areas compete with neighboring states already benefiting from casino operations.

Details of the I-95 Proposal and Regulatory Framework

The renewed push centers on House Bill 4176, known as the I-95 Economic and Education Stimulus Act. The legislation would allow one casino license in a Tier IV county identified as economically distressed by the Department of Revenue. Under that designation, Dillon, Marlboro, and Orangeburg counties would qualify.

The bill would authorize only a single license for at least the first decade. A county would need to pass a local ordinance and sign a development agreement before submitting a license request. Applicants would face a minimum investment requirement of $200 million and must complete an economic impact study. The proposal sets the tax rate for casino revenue at 15 percent, with estimates suggesting the state could receive between $22.35 million and $39.3 million each year. To oversee the sector, the bill seeks to establish the South Carolina Gaming Commission to handle licensing and regulation duties.

Business representatives have told lawmakers that Orangeburg offers the strongest prospects for the casino site. Local leaders envision benefits for schools, restaurants, and the broader business community, along with expectations of employment growth that could help reduce crime. One estimate mentioned in earlier discussions predicted as many as 4,600 jobs.

Opposition From Religious and Political Voices

The casino legislation has drawn pushback from religious groups, faith leaders, and residents who fear that gambling would cause more harm than good. During hearings at the State House, speakers warned about risks to families and individuals. Orangeburg County resident Sid Goff said, “It is not a good thing to come to any county in South Carolina,” citing concerns over addiction, crime, and personal financial distress. As reported by The State, another critic from a prior gathering of religious leaders remarked, “This is not a fiscal issue, this is a moral issue,” and referenced scripture while arguing that gambling should remain illegal.

Gov. Henry McMaster has consistently expressed his opposition to gambling expansion, and his aides reiterated that position during the debate. He has said “there are better ways to make money,” and his spokesman stated that the governor has long opposed casino gambling and sports betting. If the bill clears both chambers with a supermajority, it could become law without McMaster’s signature.

The Catawba Indian Nation, South Carolina’s federally recognized tribe, also raised concerns. Representatives noted that the bill does not mention the tribe, despite its decades of attempts to establish casino operations in the state before ultimately pursuing a casino project in North Carolina. The tribe’s leaders indicated interest in the continuing process, while others warned that federal recognition of the Lumbee Tribe in North Carolina could pave the way for a competing tribal casino near the border.

While public hearings have concluded without a vote, lawmakers signaled that Bannister’s conservation amendment could be introduced on the House floor. The proposal remains on the House calendar and could be debated in the weeks ahead. Its supporters believe the environmental funding component may appeal to rural legislators and shift the political dynamics of the discussion.