Bill
H 3296
South Carolina: Prohibits large financial institutions (> $100B assets) from denying services to farmers due to ESG factors; AG enforcement and damages possible.
Note on source material and jurisdiction
- The materials provided combine two distinct legislative texts under the same bill number: (A) a Massachusetts bill titled “An Act relative to the Cobble Mountain Reservoir” (House No. 3296) and (B) a South Carolina draft titled the “Farmers Protection Act” (proposed addition to Chapter 1, Title 46, S.C. Code). The summary below treats each separately and identifies jurisdiction, key provisions, affected parties, and procedural notes. Please verify which jurisdiction/version you intend to track.
Jurisdiction: Commonwealth of Massachusetts (House Docket No. 3500 / House No. 3296)
Introduced: Filed 01/17/2025; Presented by Reps. Nicholas Boldyga and Paul W. Mark
Purpose and intent
- Direct the Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM) to open and maintain public recreational access along Cobble Mountain Road adjacent to the east side of Cobble Mountain Reservoir (towns of Blandford, Granville, and Russell).
Key provisions
- DCAMM must open the entire length of Cobble Mountain Road for recreational use (pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians).
- The road must remain open daily from sunrise to sunset; DCAMM may impose additional hour-based restrictions but not close it during those core hours.
- DCAMM must post visible signage noting that the road is open to pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian traffic and specifying any restrictions.
- Required sign locations: intersection of Cobble Mountain, Hayden, and Crooks Roads (Blandford) and intersection of Cobble Mountain and Wildcat Roads (Granville).
Affected parties/impacts
- Local residents and recreational users (hikers, cyclists, equestrians) gain authorized access.
- DCAMM is directed to manage access and post signage; towns of Blandford, Granville, Russell may see increased recreational use and potential management/maintenance issues.
- Potential operational, safety, liability, and environmental considerations (e.g., trail maintenance, habitat/water quality) will fall to DCAMM and local stakeholders.
Procedural status (from provided materials)
- Referred to State Administration and Regulatory Oversight (01/17/2025 filing). Related docket/precedent noted from prior session (House No. 2992, 2023–24).
Jurisdiction: State of South Carolina (proposed addition to Chapter 1, Title 46)
Filed: 12/05/2024 (text included in materials)
Purpose and intent
- Prohibit certain financial institutions from discriminating against agricultural producers based on “ESG factors” (environmental, social, political considerations) and to provide enforcement/remedies.
Key provisions
- Definitions: “Agriculture producer” (producers of crops, livestock, dairy, silviculture, etc.); “ESG factor” (factors collateral or not reasonably likely to affect financial risk, including greenhouse gas emissions, fertilizer use, fossil-fuel machinery); “Financial institution” limited to companies doing business in SC with total assets over $100 billion (includes affiliates/subsidiaries).
- Prohibition: Financial institutions may not deny or restrict financial services to an agriculture producer based, in whole or part, on an ESG factor.
- Inference: If a financial institution has made ESG commitments related to agriculture, an inference arises that a denial/restriction violated the prohibition.
- Rebuttal: A financial institution may rebut the inference by showing denial/restriction was based solely on documented risk analysis, not ESG considerations.
- Enforcement: South Carolina Attorney General may enforce the provision; violations constitute unfair trade practices under Chapter 5, Title 39. Aggrieved parties may seek damages under Section 39-5-140.
- Other: Standard severability clause; effective upon gubernatorial approval.
Affected parties/impacts
- Agriculture producers (farmers, ranchers, timber producers) would gain a legal protection against ESG-motivated denial/restriction of financial services.
- Large financial institutions (threshold: > $100 billion in assets) operating in SC would be subject to the prohibition and potential AG enforcement or private suits.
- Could constrain banks’ or lenders’ use of ESG criteria in agricultural lending and investment decisions, increasing compliance and litigation risk for covered institutions.
Procedural status (from provided materials)
- Draft includes effective-upon-governor clause and severability language. (No specific South Carolina legislative action dates were provided beyond the filing date in the included text.)
If you want, I can:
- Produce a one-page comparison of the two versions and recommend which to track based on your jurisdiction, or
- Prepare a stakeholder impact memo focused on either the Massachusetts access bill or the South Carolina Farmers Protection Act.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
