Author: @SoDakCampaigns

Perpetual Conservation Easements: Forever Is a Long Time
By Senator Mike Rounds
October 30, 2015

In South Dakota, we take great pride in our land. We rely on our vast natural resources for nearly every aspect of our lives: to provide clean water, maximize ag production, provide recreation, attract tourism and more. As such, we are good stewards of our land and are willing to work with state, federal and local governments to keep it in tact for future generations. However, when it comes to permanent conservation easements, I have never been a fan. I am in favor of giving landowners the option to enter into shorter-term, renewable contracts with the federal government. Termed easements are more likely to keep the landowner and the grantee on equal footing and would result in greater public access to these lands.

A permanent conservation easement is a legally-binding agreement between a land owner and the government or in some cases, a non-profit group. The landowner is the grantee that places restrictions on the land and typically opens it up to public access in exchange for landowner tax benefits.  Today, these conservation easement contracts are forever, they pass down through the generations or from seller to buyer.

I understand that – in some cases – permanent easements have their place.  If a family is fully informed as to the effects, or if we’re talking about public utilities or infrastructure – permanent easements can serve the greater good.

There have been plenty of passionate debates over property rights in South Dakota over the years – in the State Capitol while I worked as a state senator and governor and even around my own dinner table.  My family comes from a long line of hunters and conservationists. We’re also landowners and staunch supporters of property rights. We’ve developed our own working farm into a pheasant hunting paradise, through sound management and conservation. My family, like many South Dakota families, is a reflection of South Dakota’s rural and urban population. That diverse blend of South Dakota perspective makes me believe there’s a better way to protect our land, conserve habitat and honor individual property rights.

An important point that gets lost in the discussion surrounding permanent conservation easements is that perpetual means forever. The legally-binding contract with the federal government continues even when land is passed down within the family or sold to a new owner. The economic and ecological changes that we’ll see over the coming years cannot be predetermined, and yet the government or the grantee essentially bans certain enhancement without regard to those inevitable changes – thus locking the landowner and their heirs into a contract that is unlikely to ever be revisited.

For example, thinning efforts within forests can help deter the threat of forest fires in the Black Hills and elsewhere.  But, if the land is locked in to a permanent conservation easement and the federal government chooses to strictly abide by the terms of the contract, a permanent easement may not allow for necessary logging or underbrush thinning which increases the risk of a damaging forest fire.  Another example is that farming practices will continue to evolve over time.  A piece of valuable habitat today may not be as valuable 100 years from now, so it seems rash to put limitations on the location of certain public access points.

I’ve suggested that greater optionality for landowners would benefit everyone. Landowners have told me that they’d be more inclined to enter into an agreement with the government if they also had the option of a short-term, renewable contract as opposed to a permanent contract. Those shorter term contracts – 10 or 20 years, for example –should have the same tax benefits as a permanent easement.  And, termed conservation easements may be a better fit for someone who isn’t interested in tying up their property forever. A termed conservation easement is more likely to keep the landowner and the grantee on equal footing.  The government would have to treat the landowner fairly in order to have the easement renewed. They could not arbitrarily impose heavy-handed fines for minor, often mistaken, violations of the easement contract.  I believe more landowner options would result in greater public access.

If our goal is to increase habitat development and provide greater public access, more options seems like a good compromise. Forever is a long time and I’d rather we be stewards of the land, not stewards of the government.

###

Heritage and Hope
By Rep. Kristi Noem
October 30, 2015

A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit with a number of young people on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.  Their stories about the epidemic of suicide by young people in the community were absolutely heartbreaking.  They spoke about how they felt they had no hope.  In their eyes, you could see an overwhelming sadness and grief.  They told me stories about friends and loved ones who had taken their own lives – and some explained they had tried to do the same.  It was an experience that will stay with me for the rest of my life.

Lakota Instructions for Living teaches that “the hurt of one is the hurt of all.  And the honor of one is the honor of all.”  I felt the hurt of these young people that day.  I felt the hurt of a community whose spirit has been bent, although not broken.

I recognize there are no words to wipe away the pain these kids have had to experience, but I’m committed to working with these young people and tribal leaders to pave a more hopeful future for them.

In the coming months, I will be closely collaborating with tribal leaders to make sure the programs and grants in use today are working.  If we find there are ways to improve them, I’m dedicated to doing that.  If there are better options out there, I’m devoted to pursuing them.

I will also be looking at opportunities to make more after-school and job-training programs available to Native American youth.  Shortly after visiting Pine Ridge, I spent time at the Rosebud Boys and Girls Club in Mission.  The after-school program they had implemented impressed me.  It gave the kids access to tutors and had activities to keep them busy.  It was an incredible sight to see and you could tell instantly what the club meant to these young people.  We need more programs like that.

As we celebrate Native American Heritage Month this November, I will be very focused on helping Native American young people find continued inspiration from their heritage and a new hope for the future. I am truly honored to be a part of this effort and I look forward to watching these young men and women live out their proud heritage here in South Dakota.

PHOTO: Noem reads to class at Red Cloud Indian School in Pine Ridge (October 2015)

 

Rail Investments Bring Big Results
A column by Gov. Dennis Daugaard:

During construction season it’s frustrating to wait for a pilot car when half of a two-lane highway is closed for repairs. It’s time-consuming, inconvenient and inefficient to try to move two-way vehicle traffic over a single lane.

For railroad shippers in western South Dakota, that’s exactly the current situation. Between Rapid City and Pierre, a single rail line without any large siding prevents head to head traffic from passing one another. This problem is exacerbated by the condition of the rail, which, in most places, can handle trains traveling at only 10 miles per hour.

In that 165-mile stretch, there are no sidings long enough to allow trains coming from both east and west to pass each other. That means a train leaving Rapid City must wait until a westbound train from Pierre has covered the entire distance, which often takes 16 hours or more, before beginning its run.

But that will soon change. Recently, the U.S. Department of Transportation awarded the Rapid City, Pierre & Eastern (RCP&E) Railroad a $6 million TIGER grant to upgrade portions of the old DM&E track and install a siding near Philip to allow trains to pass one another. A second portion of the project replaces a length of rail near Huron.

The RCP&E is adding $4.4 million to this project and the state of South Dakota $2 million to complete the $12.4 million upgrades. Once completed, these improvements will increase operating efficiency along the entire line.

This combination of federal, state and private investments is on top of $28.4 million in rail upgrades begun during 2011, $1.75 million in 2012 and $58 million announced just last December. Beyond over $100 million in rail improvements, additional private investments have been encouraged, including a new $40 million grain terminal under construction in Kennebec, and a new $30 million grain facility now underway in Britton.

Rail investments bring big results and often lead to additional projects which directly reduce shipping costs for farmers and improve bottom lines for the men and women who drive our state’s economy. I’m excited about this latest project, and I look forward to seeing even more new investments in the coming years.

-30-

From the Sioux City Journal, State Representative Jim Bolin was talking about 2018 recently, and made note of some stuff he probably read here at DWC:

He said Republicans are already jockeying to line up support in order to become candidates in 2018 for the governor post, since Daugaard won a second term in 2014.

Since the state is so heavily Republican, winning the party’s primary in late spring almost guarantees winning the governor spot in November, Bolin said.

Bolin said three Republicans have a strong interest in being governor in 2018. He said the list includes Attorney General Marty Jackley, Sioux Falls lawmaker Mark Mickelson, a son and grandson of two former governors, and U.S. Rep. Kristi Noem. That latter name caught my attention, as Noem would be making a big move to leave the House for a state executive position.

Read it all here.

All this 2018 gubernatorial speculation will certainly guarantee one thing – we’ll continue to see all three of them attending Lincoln Day Dinners across the state!  🙂

 

I was reading the Argus this morning, regarding the aftermath of the Government Operations and Audit Committee (GOAC) as they looked into the Audit that the incoming Secretary of State ordered upon her election. And in this morning’s article at the Argus Leader web site, it surprisingly seemed as if it was criticizing Gant’s development of a voting system created to make voting easier for overseas voters.

The Secretary of State’s office under former secretary Jason Gant used more than $500,000 in federal grant money to help 27 active military members vote last year.

The news came during a state Government Audit and Operations Committee meeting Friday in which Gant testified about a report that found he misused federal grant money, overspent the office’s annual budget and couldn’t account for $43,000 in state funds. Secretary of State Shantel Krebs has said the discrepancy has since been resolved.

“I know that 27 doesn’t sound like a wonderful number, but it was a program that 27 people took advantage of,” Gant said.

The testimony comes a day after Gant disputed some of the report requested by Krebs, accepted responsibility for some of its findings and characterized some other findings as accounting or coding errors.

Read it here.

What? That’s what they chose to complain about? Sorry, but criticism should not be leveled on trying to find a better way, especially when we were given a grant for it. Unless we’ve started to punish trying in America.

I was in the SOS office when the federal grant was being discussed in it’s earliest stages, but it wasn’t my area, so I only heard anecdotal information on it. But, I recall it was a competitive grant awarded by the Department of Defense and the Federal Voting Assistance Program to develop a new, more efficient system for overseas military voting.

What we had (and still have) is passable, but there are still flaws, and problems with getting things back on time.

Several states competed for this grant, and South Dakota won funding for a small portion of it. What were the goals of this grant?

As part of the grant application, applicants for the grant proposal were asked to explain how they would:

• Establish and operate successful, sustainable and affordable electronic tools that will improve voting systems for voters protected by Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA).

• Increase the percentage of ballots successfully returned by UOCAVA voters to be either equal to, or greater than, the percentage of ballots returned by the general absentee voting population.

• Reduce the failure rates for UOCAVA voters experienced in each of the various stages of the absentee voting process (such as voter registration, absentee ballot request, blank absentee ballot delivery, absentee ballot marking, absentee ballot tabulation, and absentee ballot return verification). The standard for such reductions is to reduce these failure rates to be equivalent to the level of the general electorate for similar stages in the voting process, and for similar demographic populations.

• Establish and maintain a pipeline of ideas, techniques and best practices of election officials and their services for UOCAVA voters.

Gant said, “South Dakota’s portion of this grant is directly related to how such a system would maintain the security of the electronically marked ballot.”

Read that here.   And on that basis, they developed the iOASIS system for military voting.  Now, voting using the internet had been attempted before. But, as noted in an article that came out about the time the system was being developed:

The Department of Defense abandoned an online voting project 10 years ago amid concerns that the Internet is not secure enough to build voting systems.

“Election information is subject to change, modification, tampering, loss, whatever, when it’s traveling through communication channels,” said Pamela Smith, the president of Verified Voting, a national group that supports voting systems that can be verified.

Read that here.

The system created under Gant’s direction was developed, tested extensively, and actually used for an election at a time where there weren’t as many people eligible to use it. So, there were about 27 people who used it in an election, where it worked well, by all reports. In fact, the system was up for an innovation award, as well as many other accolades.

The critics of the program are focusing on the numbers and dollar signs, but is that an entirely fair thing?  The system developed was by any sense of the word an “experimental” system to see if it could be done, and whether there was an effective method to “maintain the security of the electronically marked ballot.”  And despite grousing, no one seems to deny that this experiment – paid for through an outside grant of federal funds – appeared to work.

Innovation in election systems might seem to be an alien concept here in South Dakota, where as recently as twenty or fewer years ago there were areas where people still checked a box on a paper ballot and they were counted by hand.

Somehow, we’ve managed to move from paper ballot, to punch ballot, to optical scan. And in each of those cases, SOMEONE had to figure out a way to do it first. And as it’s been adopted and refined, of course the costs come down. The system developed in South Dakota had as one of it’s top requirements, that it maintain the security of the ballot in an electronic environment. Such innovation isn’t going to come cheap, and I don’t think that was lost on the DOD and others as they laid out money to create the system.

And as explained by “Everyone Counts,” a company in the business of electronic elections solutions, who partnered with the State on the project, the project laid the groundwork for future innovation:

Although the new system streamlines the process on the front-end, it currently still does require the voter to mail their marked ballot back, but according to Lori Steele, CEOO of Everyone Counts, the system provides flexibility and could include electronic return.

“The program in South Dakota does require the voter to mail back the ballot,” Steele said. “In the case of other jurisdictions, the ballots could be returned securely electronically or the voters could even securely return a full ballot package with signature electronically.”

Because the system uses the CAC cards, it is currently only available to members of the military, but Steele suspects that won’t always be the case.

“This will likely, though, be expanded with time.  Other jurisdictions could use CAC authentication for any federal government employee working overseas.  And the same technology could be used to authenticate civilians with things like driver’s licenses,” Steele said. “Really, this innovation opens up secure remote voting to any voter, anywhere!”

Read that here.

His successor decided to roll back the experimental program in the state, which is certainly her right. But that shouldn’t mean we should damn Jason Gant for trying.  Unless, as noted, we don’t try anymore in this country.

If his detractors are going to bash Jason Gant for his time as Secretary of State, I’m sure they’ll have no trouble pointing out his faults. He’s well aware of and openly holds himself accountable for his shortcomings.

But, don’t bash Gant because he accepted a challenge to innovate to help create a system better than the flawed one currently in use. Not everyone cares to be stuck in the past, with a system where in some elections, over 40% of military ballots have to be discarded because they arrive late or suffer other problems.

In many cases, we can curse the darkness, or light a candle.

And in this case, South Dakota lit a candle, and that was a good thing.

Paula Hawks is out hawking for cash this weekend, claiming that she has a powerful grassroots movement. She does? Where are they?  (I’m not sure where that boast is coming from.)

Someone at the campaign might be having a movement, but I’m not going to venture into further speculation. Otherwise, there are few signs of life from one of the worst campaigns in recent state history:

From: “South Dakotans for Paula” <[email protected]>
Date: October 30, 2015 at 1:37:22 PM CDT
To:
Subject: who we are
Reply-To: [email protected]

Progressive voters in South Dakota have united behind Democrat Paula Hawks for Congress. As a State Legislator for the 9th district, Paula has proven her commitment to bottom-up solutions to our most pressing problems, like our state’s massive teacher shortage. Now she’s ready to advocate for us in Washington.

Across South Dakota, working families, teachers and parents of public school students, and concerned citizens know that the culture of dysfunction and gridlock in Washington must end.

If you’re with us, please donate to Paula’s campaign before her HUGE October deadline tomorrow at midnight!

DONATE $5 NOW!

DONATE $25 NOW!

DONATE $75 NOW!

DONATE $150 NOW!

DONATE $300 NOW!

We’ve formed a powerful grassroots movement, and our numbers are swelling by the day. But we’re working against a Republican establishment in South Dakota funded by big money outsiders who don’t know the first thing about our state.

We need Paula to go to Congress to fight for us and our progressive ideals.

This is BIG: Click here to send a contribution to Paula before time runs out!

South Dakotans for Paula

 

Stolen from facebook:

Yes, really. They really said this:

Most of the 1.3 billion pounds of pumpkins produced in the U.S. end up in the trash, says the Energy Department’s website, becoming part of the “more than 254 million tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) produced in the United States every year.”

Municipal solid waste decomposes into methane, “a harmful greenhouse gas that plays a part in climate change, with more than 20 times the warming effect of carbon dioxide,” Energy says.

Read it here.   And read the original website here.

How much energy does it take to be a scold?

The SD Retailers building now stands where the old State Capitol once stood, but I managed to return a souvenir of it that had been in Minnesota back to home state soil. This piece of custard glass is decorated with old state capitol which stood across the street from the current one around 126-130 years ago.

I had never seen one of these before, and managed to snag it on eBay for about $22, which I thought was a pretty good price.

I’m hearing late this afternoon that Annette Bosworth won the right to continue practicing medicine while her case is under appeal.

Thoughts? Would you set an appointment with her?