10 Facts About Governor Noem’s Pipeline Package

Pat Powers

10 Facts About Governor Noem’s Pipeline Package

PIERRE, S.D. – Today, the Joint Committee on Appropriations held a hearing on Governor Noem’s pipeline package. Here are ten facts about the set of bills, SB189 and SB190.

  1. The bills do not place restrictions on peaceful protest or assembly.
  2. There are no new crimes created and no new criminal penalties.
  3. The legislation does not stop any pipeline project and does not require any pipeline project to move forward.
  4. They do not allow rioters to escape financial liability for damages caused.
  5. The plan is proactive and transparent – the first of its kind.
  6. The bills protect our rights: property rights, freedom of speech and peaceful assembly.
  7. They will protect taxpayers from extraordinary law enforcement costs.
  8. The legislation spreads cost and risk among the state, counties, federal government, pipeline companies, and rioters.
  9. No new boards or commissions are created.
  10. No new taxes are created.

The legislative package has two parts. First, it creates the Pipeline Engagement Activity Coordination Expenses (PEACE) fund for the coordination of law enforcement expenditures. This includes a transparent process for fees and other funds to be collected through a variety of sources to pay for the extraordinary costs associated with the pipeline construction incurred by the state and counties. Second, it creates a second fund and legal remedies to pursue out-of-state money funding the riots aiming to shut down the pipeline build.

###

15 thoughts on “10 Facts About Governor Noem’s Pipeline Package”

  1. Pipeline Engagement Activity Coordination Expenses (PEACE)
    …I mean, really? You had the gall to call it that? *BARF*

    Meanwhile…
    The bills protect our [property] rights…
    Protect property rights by forcing Americans to give up their property to a Canadian corporation? Something ain’t adding up here…

      1. Project much? The only thing I fear is folks allowing Noem to doublespeak her way into them thinking she’s protecting their property rights when all she really wants is fat donations from oily Canucks whom she allows to run roughshod over . I guess property rights only matter when they’re yours, right?

        1. Is that similar to what big tech companies are doing when building 5G towers in residential areas without public input? Or when green companies build wind turbines in areas where property owners don’t want them?

  2. my understanding is once the pipeline is in the ground the nobody can build a structure or plant trees on it.
    This seems much nicer than having a railroad line go through your land.

  3. The idea that that you can condemn private property for the economic gain of others especially foreign entities by the government is a violation of constitutional rights. In the case of this pipeline the foreign entity should be forced to pay a per barrel tariff for the duration and set aside restoration funds if they force their way across one’s property.

    1. So you want domestic railroads carrying oil in tanker cars running past your house. Maybe that can be arranged. .

      1. I’d gladly take tar sands oil on a train in my backyard over a pipe. Bakken oil belongs in a pipe. Tar sands oil has no business in a pipe. This is coming from someone who had had oil wells since the first boom in the 80s. Bakken is 100 times more volatile than tar sands oil. Tar sands is made more dangerous to be able to send it through a pipe. Throw in the fact that this is a foreign entity who’s govt doesn’t even want it in a pipe on their land, why should we? You bet they can pay a premium.

  4. The pipeline goes underground. How does that hurt me if it goes across my land? There are thousands of miles of underground pipeline already. Why is this one creating so much anger?

    1. Besides the potential for spills and environmental contamination, some see the Keystone XL as affirmation of US policy to be slow to react to the threat of climate change – that by killing the KXL, we can speed up progress on green energy and phase out fossil fuels and their effect on on the atmosphere.

      I can certainly understand the other reasons folks support the pipeline (though I may disagree), but there’s no need to BS about this actually being good for property rights. That’s just gaslighting and using political trigger words to counter a traditionally conservative principle of property.

    2. Keystone just leaked 400,000 gallons last year. Of course the company first lied about the amount and wouldn’t let reporters close to the scene. 400k gallons of crude in your water supply might hurt you.

        1. Yeah, please tell us about that. I’d love to hear this. I grew up nw of Dickinson where our wells have a high concentration of gas. We could light our faucets on fire. I’ve seem oil contaminated wells from failed well casings. It is quite the site when the oil up there is almost like gas.

          1. And… are you hoping the govt will step in and fix your problem? If they do happen to step in, the problem is more than likely going to get worse.

            How many farms up there in nw of Dickinson uses fertilizer or other chemicals that run off into the rivers where we get our water from?

            Don’t drink the water, filter first. That’s what we did after watching the fall out in Flint, MI.

            1. I’m not hoping for anything. I just find it funny that a bunch of US citizens support a foreign entity profiting through the theft of US citizen’s land and then get upset when we want safety requirements in place.

              How many farms? Very few since a majority of the land is pastures. I’d be more worried about fecal matter than I would chemicals from fertilizer.

Comments are closed.