South Dakotans to get final say over 'Landowner Bill of Rights'
Secretary of State certifies referendum of carbon pipeline policy OK'd by Legislature, Gov. Kristi Noem
PIERRE — After years of carbon pipeline policy debate dominating government chambers in South Dakota, voters this fall will get their chance to have a say.
The South Dakota Secretary of State’s office Wednesday approved an initiated referendum of Senate Bill 201, certifying tens of thousands of signatures filed in support of repealing the legislatively approved measure known by supporters as the “Landowner Bill of Rights.” Titled Referred Law 21, the question of whether the law should stand or be stricken will appear on the general election ballot in November.
NEWS: Lincoln County approves financing package for 85th Street interchange
“The citizens of South Dakota stood and had their voice heard,” said Rep. Tina Mulally, who is co-leading the campaign committee South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance (SDPRLCA) that pushed for Referred Law 21. “As our motto says, under God the people rule.”
Passed in the final days of the 2024 Legislative Session and touted as a compromise between carbon pipeline companies, ethanol producers, and landowners, SB 201 would create a $1 per linear pipeline foot tax for counties to apply on projects running through their jurisdictions while stipulating half of those funds could be used to help impacted landowners offset annual tax bills. It also mandates carbon pipelines be buried a foot deeper than what federal regulations require and allows the Public Utilities Commission to override county zoning ordinances in its permitting process.
Supporters also point to the legislation’s ban on perpetual easements, limiting them to a maximum of 99 years. The measure also requires the release of dispersion models by carbon pipeline companies, which would show the way CO2 would be released into the environment in the event of a leak. Carbon pipeline skeptics had previously criticized companies like Summit for declining to release the models.
It enjoyed the support of ethanol producers and Summit Carbon Solutions, the Iowa-based company looking to build thousands of miles of carbon pipelines through the eastern part of the state.
And though the bill passed the South Dakota Legislature with a 39-31 vote in the House and an even more comfortable margin in the Senate before being signed by Gov. Kristi Noem, it did little to appease opponents of carbon pipeline projects and landowners resistant to allowing carbon pipelines to pass through their property.
SDPRLCA submitted more than 31,000 signatures in support of referring the law to the ballot. They had a 92 percent approval rate for signatures, much higher than average.
“The people’s voice couldn’t be louder,” said Mulally, who along with other opponents of SB 201 criticize it as too friendly to carbon pipeline projects while undermining the ability of local governments to regulate the projects.
The opposition doesn’t see it that way.
Rob Skjonsberg, a founding member of a group called South Dakota Ag Alliance that champions itself as a moderator between carbon pipeline proponents and opponents, said if SB 201 goes away, so will all the protections for landowners included in it that lawmakers fought for.
“I can relate to the opponents’ concerns, but Referred Law 21 doesn’t do what they say it will do,” he said. “Referred Law 21 will not stop carbon pipelines from being built, so we need the Landowner Bill of Rights to hold pipelines accountable and ensure that landowners and communities receive the advantages and protections they need.”
NEWS: Agreement between feds and state could keep more tribal officers close to home
Patriotism. Passion. Purpose. 🇺🇸
The spirit of 1776 runs deep in the heart of South Dakota.
United. Strong. And True.
One more battle down. SB201 has been halted from becoming law of the land. Our private property rights and local governance live to see another day.
And it’s all thanks to the tireless grassroots efforts of so many. You all serve as a beacon of hope and an example to follow for other states who are seeing similar attacks on their private property.
Without question — South Dakota will lead the charge in this fight.
Now prepare for the big money to come into town with their smear campaigns and attack ads. We’ve already been told out-of-state interest groups are coming in to push back against the will of the citizens.
These entities know they need SB201 to lay the ground work for their Green New Deal pipeline, and to set a precedent to take more land for their 50+ years of pet projects they have planned across the state.
But I’m putting all my chips on the hard-working, honest grassroots people in my beloved home state. I would never bet against you. Congratulations on this incredible victory!
Next stop, the November ballot where we the people will borrow the Governor’s VETO branding iron on the egregious power grab that is SB201 (now officially referenced on the ballot as referred law 21), and stop it once and for all.
Green New Deal grifters — hear us loud and clear:
South Dakota may be open for business, but we are not for sale! We will not bend to this agenda. We will not give up our local control.
We recognize your scam for what it is, a mechanism for control and a reallocation of wealth using our tax dollars, and we aren’t going to go along with it.
We will fight to maintain control of our land, our homes, our backyards, our communities, and our futures in the beautiful state of South Dakota.
We stand together in unity. This issue knows no party line because the neighborly thing is to take care of each other, and that’s exactly what we intend to do.
God bless South Dakota! ❤️
I would like to know more about why:
Rob Skjonsberg, a founding member of a group called South Dakota Ag Alliance that champions itself as a moderator between carbon pipeline proponents and opponents, said if SB 201 goes away, so will all the protections for landowners included in it that lawmakers fought for...(and)...“Referred Law 21 will not stop carbon pipelines from being built, so we need the Landowner Bill of Rights to hold pipelines accountable and ensure that landowners and communities receive the advantages and protections they need.”
It seems to me that the passage of this referendum would stop the pipeline cold and that it would take another formal legislative action bucking the proponents of the referendum to get it started again. I might be wrong and therefore would like to know more about why Mr. Skjonsberg feels the pipeline which needs eminent domain powers would survive the passage of this referendum. Dakota Scout?