A new public attitudes survey commissioned by the Kootenay Conservation Program suggests Golden and Columbia Shuswap Regional District Area A could be among the more receptive communities in the Kootenays when it comes to creating a dedicated conservation fund and possible mandatory levy.
But the numbers behind that conclusion also raise questions about how much weight should be placed on the Golden-area results, particularly at a time when residents inside the Town of Golden are already facing rising municipal costs tied to aging infrastructure.
The 2026 Public Attitudes Survey, prepared for KCP by Mustel Group, was conducted to gauge public support for the expansion or creation of Local Conservation Funds across the Columbia-Kootenay region. KCP describes itself as a network of approximately 96 organizations working on private land conservation, with a focus on coordinating conservation efforts, sharing knowledge and building support for conservation work.
The survey found broad regional support for conservation in principle. Across the full sample of 1,243 respondents, 90 per cent said they believe it is important to conserve private land in valley bottoms in its natural state. Just over half, 53 per cent, supported the idea of creating a mandatory levy that landowners would pay to fund conservation initiatives, while 41 per cent opposed the idea.
For Golden and Area A, the report identifies the CSRD/Golden area as one of the strongest areas of support. According to the survey, support for a mandatory conservation levy was highest in the City of Nelson at 62 per cent, followed closely by CSRD/Golden at 61 per cent. The report concludes that Nelson and CSRD/Golden “appear to be particularly promising candidates” for further consideration around a mandatory conservation levy.
However, that conclusion is based on a relatively small local sample. Of the 1,243 surveys completed across the region, 51 were from the CSRD/Golden sub-region, which includes the Town of Golden and CSRD Area A. The report lists the local population of that sub-region at 7,026 and gives the CSRD/Golden sample a maximum margin of error of plus or minus 13.7 per cent.
That means the Golden-area result may be useful as a starting point, but it should be treated with caution. A 61 per cent support figure sounds strong at first glance, but the margin of error is large enough that actual support could be meaningfully lower or higher. For residents and elected officials, that makes the next stage of public engagement especially important.
The proposed Local Conservation Fund would not be general government revenue. Respondents were told the levy would be collected and used solely for conservation initiatives, and would only move ahead if approved through a region-wide vote.
The suggested levy has been described as being in the range of $20 to $25 per property. On its own, that may not sound like a large amount, particularly when compared with other municipal or regional costs. But the concern for some taxpayers may be less about the size of the levy and more about the principle of adding another mandatory charge.
If approved, the levy would likely become an ongoing cost, rather than a one-time contribution. In practical terms, that means residents would not simply be deciding whether they support conservation. They would be deciding whether to create another permanent layer of taxation.
That distinction matters in Golden, where residents within the Town of Golden are already facing rising costs tied to infrastructure challenges, including water, sewer, roads and other core municipal services. Area A residents, while included in the CSRD/Golden survey area and any broader conservation funding discussion, are outside the Town’s municipal infrastructure system and are not facing those same town-level infrastructure costs.
Still, if a conservation levy were created for a service area that included both Golden and Area A, it would be mandatory for properties within the approved area. That means the proposal would affect more than just those who actively support conservation funding, and it would likely remain in place over the long term.
Those details are important because they shift the conversation from whether conservation is valuable to whether residents are prepared to accept another ongoing charge at this moment.
The KCP survey itself appears to capture some of that tension. When respondents across the region were asked, without prompting, to identify the most important issues facing their communities, economic concerns slightly outweighed environmental ones. Affordable housing, cost of living, jobs and the economy, and taxes were among the key economic issues. Community concerns included homelessness, crime and drugs, fire services and health care. Environmental concerns included wildlife management, climate change, clean air and water, and forestry.
In other words, residents care about conservation, but they are also worried about affordability and the basic services their communities rely on.
For KCP, the survey suggests there is enough interest in Golden and Area A to keep the conversation going. For elected officials, it may suggest something different: that any proposal for a new levy will need to be explained clearly, tested locally and weighed against other financial pressures already facing parts of the community.
The report does not establish a levy. It does not bind the Town of Golden or the CSRD to any particular course of action. What it does provide is an early snapshot of public opinion, one that KCP believes shows promise for expansion.
But with only 51 local survey responses, a margin of error of plus or minus 13.7 per cent, and a proposed levy that could become a mandatory, ongoing charge, Golden and Area A residents may need a much deeper conversation before any new conservation funding mechanism is put to a vote.
