Category: Uncategorized

Are you familiar with the duties of a Public Utility Commissioner? For review, from their website:

The commission regulates investor-owned electric, natural gas and telephone utilities. The PUC ensures utility companies in South Dakota provide safe and reliable service and that investor-owned companies do so with just and reasonable rates. It plays a more limited regulatory role with respect to wireless communication companies and cooperative, independent and municipal utilities.

The PUC has authority to issue permits for the construction of energy conversion, AC/DC conversion, wind energy and electric transmission facilities as well as certain pipelines, including those designed to transport coal, gas, liquid hydrocarbon products or carbon dioxide.

Read that here.

The Public Utilities Commission is a quasi-judicial panel which hears utility and pipeline matters, and is supposed to make unbiased decisions after weighing testimony and evidence, a system which has worked well for the commission for decades.

Which raises the strongest concerns when one of the candidates for the office notes publicly that he’s going to be heading north to an encampment of protesters of a pipeline that the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission has, in part, jurisdiction over:

Gloria (Wife of Democrat PUC Candidate Henry Red Cloud) said that she and her husband are planning to conduct workshops on sustainable building and energy production at the water protectors’ camp at the Cannonball–Missouri confluence this week. They’ll demonstrate straw bale construction and provide other useful information to the tribes who have gathered there to fight the Dakota Access pipeline.

We can mobilize to fight the predations of big fossil fuel projects on our water and our sovereignty (don’t forget: eminent domain!). We can chain ourselves to bulldozers, risk dog bites and pepper spray, and create spontaneous protest towns with thousands of vocal residents.

and..

And electing a man like Henry Red Cloud would bring those principles into the conversations and the regulatory decisions of the Public Utilities Commission.

Read that here.

The liberal fringe in South Dakota is cheering that they have a PUC candidate who is aligned with opponents of fossil fuel projects, and the candidate’s spouse is apparently telling anyone who will listen that they’ll be participating with and giving seminars at the protester’s camp.

For a candidate who is running for a quasi-judiciary position, and will sit in judgement of projects that may be proposed to transport fossil fuels to and through South Dakota, it beggars the imagination that Henry Red Cloud would be taking up such a hyper-partisan position as participating with protesters, some of which have regularly been in the practice of committing felonies and destroying millions of dollars wth of equipment to make their point.

So much for Henry Red Cloud offering governance according to the rule of law.

On Prescribed Burns, Ask Those Who Know Best
By Sen. John Thune

Almost every rancher in western South Dakota whose operation includes or borders federal land is familiar with prescribed burns and the importance they play in land management. Prescribed or controlled burns remove residue, enhance new growth, and they help prevent the spread of invasive species or disease. Perhaps most importantly, they help mitigate the risk of damaging forest or prairie fires. Prescribed burns, when conducted correctly, provide numerous benefits to the land and the surrounding landowners and communities. When set under unsafe circumstances, like hot, windy, or dry conditions, prescribed burns have the potential to destroy millions of dollars’ worth of private property.

The federal government, including the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the National Park Service (NPS), use prescribed burns on federal land across the country. I’m a strong supporter of safe, controlled burns on federal land, but they must be well-planned and started under optimal conditions, and only after federal agencies have properly consulted with state and local officials. 

There are two important examples in South Dakota that highlight what can happen when this local consultation is neglected. In April 2013, the USFS initiated a prescribed burn in northwestern South Dakota that was intended to clear a relatively small area of grassland. Wind and unusually dry ground conditions quickly turned this planned 100-acre burn into an out-of-control 16,000-acre blaze that torched millions of dollars of private property. Two years later, a similar burn was initiated in Wind Cave National Park. The Cold Brook fire, as it became known, quickly grew larger than what could be handled by crews on the ground, requiring considerable local firefighting resources. This fire also burned thousands of acres – fortunately within park boundaries. In both cases, had the USFS and NPS consulted with state and local officials, neither of the fires likely would have been started in the first place.

The collaboration concept is actually pretty simple. The farmers, ranchers, and state and local officials who walk the land on a daily basis – many of them have done so for years – are in the best position possible to help determine potential risks before prescribed burns are set. Many of these local property owners and officials themselves support prescribed burns, and when they are consulted, can help make sure burns are set on days when the danger is low.  

I’ve been advocating to make this local collaboration part of the law, and we’re a step closer to achieving that goal. My provision, which includes key portions of a standalone bill I introduced last year, the Prescribed Burn Approval Act of 2015, was unanimously approved by the Senate Agriculture Committee. If enacted, this common-sense approach would help streamline communication between federal agencies and folks in local communities and help prevent future out-of-control burns, which would protect landowners from unintended and potentially damaging consequences.   

###

Defending the United States
By Senator Mike Rounds

When I was working as governor of South Dakota, one of the most difficult parts of my job was sending off our men and women in uniform as they deployed overseas. I promised them I would do everything I could to make sure they came home safe and sound, and to take care of their families while they were gone. Working in the Senate now, the defense of our country and support for our troops are still two of my top priorities. As I’ve said many times, the most important responsibility of the federal government is to provide for our national defense. Unless that responsibility is fulfilled, the freedoms we enjoy every day are in jeopardy.

In the Senate, we need to pass a defense appropriations bill each year to provide the necessary resources for our troops to conduct operations around the globe. Yet, Senate Democrats have blocked the defense appropriations bill from even being debated six times in this Congress. They have chosen this path of obstruction apparently to use the defense appropriations bill as a bargaining chip for some other spending they may identify in the future.

Supporting our troops should not be a partisan issue. It should be an issue where we can find consensus, and I hope that it can be the first step toward moving the Senate back to what we call “regular order” with regard to the budget process. This means passing not only the defense appropriations bill but all of the appropriations bills one-by-one, so that we have the opportunity to debate and consider the merits of each bill individually. Regular order is an important way to keep our spending priorities in check.

Another issue that impacts our national security is our soaring national debt. Three-fourths of our budget—mandatory federal spending and the interest on the debt—is on auto-pilot, and Congress has little ability to debate the merits of that part of the budget through the appropriations process. This leaves one-quarter of the annual budget for everything else – from education and infrastructure to national defense. The result is that budget caps and other efforts to rein in costs are narrowly focused on the one-quarter of the budget which Congress controls. Unfortunately that includes defense – the primary responsibility of the federal government.

By cutting the amount we spend on defense, we are putting our nation’s security at risk. Sequestration has shrunk the size of our Army from 566,000 active-duty soldiers in 2011 to an estimated 450,000 at the end of 2017. This is despite the fact that threats against the United States continue to increase.

We made a promise to our troops that we would do everything we can to keep them safe. We should be prepared to make good on that promise. There is a very human price to underfunding our nation’s armed forces. It is our men and women in uniform who will hurt the most if Congress does not give them the tools they need to perform their jobs. It’s time to put aside our political arguments and agree on one thing: defending our great nation—and those who serve to protect it—is the primary responsibility of the federal government. 

###

Classroom to Career
By Rep. Kristi Noem

Every few months, I have the opportunity to welcome a new business to the state.  Almost every time, I hear versions of the following: “We started in (or expanded to) this area, because South Dakotans have the skills needed to do the job right – and the work ethic to do it right now.”  This is not by accident.  In addition to smart economic policies that create opportunities for employers to grow, South Dakota has a strong tradition of starting careers in the classroom. 

Much of this job-ready teaching is done through Career and Technical Education (or CTE) programs in high school.  Shop and home-ec were the CTE classes of my generation (and maybe yours), but today, South Dakota’s young people have access to courses that offer job-ready training in everything from IT and healthcare to skilled trades, like plumbing and welding.  Organizations like FFA, DECA, FCCLA, and FBLA also offer CTE opportunities, giving young people hands-on experiences in leadership, problem solving, and communication – translatable skills that students can take with them regardless of where the job market may lead.

In addition to offering opportunities for young people to pursue good-paying jobs in industries that are critical to our economy, a strong CTE program equips employers with a skilled workforce, ready to fill the jobs that are available.

Earlier this month, I helped the House pass the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21^st Century Act, which improves the federal programs that support many CTE opportunities in South Dakota and across the country. 

It’s been more than a decade since Congress weighed in on how federal investments into these programs are made.  As a result, they no longer reflect the realities and challenges facing today’s students and workers.

Among other things, our legislation offers states and localities more flexibility, so the programs implemented can better target the community’s needs.  Additionally, it encourages stronger engagement with local employers and meaningful credentialing so students are prepared to enter the workforce prepared for success.

Additionally, the legislation helps link high school curriculum to postsecondary education, investing equally in both areas.  That’s especially beneficial to South Dakota, which has some of the nation’s top community colleges.  In fact, Lake Area Technical Institute (LATI) near Watertown was just recognized as one of ten finalists for the 2017 Aspen Prize for Community College Excellence – a distinction that could come with a $1 million prize if LATI comes out on top.  The final winner will be announced in March of next year, but regardless of the outcome, a spot in the finals is an incredible distinction. 

I’m always proud to represent people with the work ethic of South Dakotans.  Investing in CTE programs means we’re investing into that work ethic and equipping young people in the classroom with the skills needed to be successful in the career of their choosing.

###

The South Dakota Way
A column by Gov. Dennis Daugaard:

Eight decades ago, in 1936, South Dakota received a presidential visit. It was the height of the Great Depression and the state was in the middle of the worst drought in history. Tom Berry, who was serving as governor at the time, took on the responsibilities of directing New Deal programs for the state. He was the only governor to do so. Managing federal aid programs led Gov. Berry to have a good working relationship with President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration, and when the President came to South Dakota, Gov. Berry served as his tour guide.

In his Sept. 6, 1936, fireside chat, FDR talked about his tour of South Dakota and other Great Plains states. He spoke of the families he had met who had lost their crops, their cattle, the water in their wells and all of their money. FDR saw “field after field of corn stunted, earless and stripped of leaves” and “brown pastures which would not keep a cow on 50 acres.”

After describing the devastation, he added:

“Yet I would not have you think for a single minute that there is permanent disaster in these drought regions, or that the picture I saw meant depopulating these areas. No cracked earth, no blistering sun, no burning wind, no grasshoppers, are a permanent match for the indomitable American farmers and stockmen and their wives and children who have carried on through desperate days, and inspire us with their self-reliance, their tenacity and their courage.”

Almost exactly 80 years to the day that FDR spoke those words South Dakotans again demonstrated this kind of fortitude in a time of trouble.

Over Labor Day Weekend, in the early hours of Monday, Sept. 5, 2016, Springfield was hit by a severe storm with straight line winds of 110 mph. The storm destroyed six homes and damaged a number of others. According to early news reports, 70 people were displaced by the storm. The local emergency manager called the SD Department of Public Safety to say the town might need state assistance.

What followed was the kind of response for which South Dakota is well known. Of all of those without a place to stay, only two people used the shelter arranged by the Red Cross. The rest found refuge with relatives and friends. In the days following the storm, more than 500 volunteers emerged to assist the community in cleanup efforts. The emergency manager called us back to say they wouldn’t need help after all.

I can’t say I was surprised. Whether it’s a flood, blizzard, drought or windstorm, South Dakotans always pull together when disaster strikes. We don’t wait for the government to arrive; we get to work, help ourselves, and help our neighbors, too. That’s the way it was when President Roosevelt visited eight decades ago, and as we saw over Labor Day, that’s the way it is, yet today. And our way remains extraordinary.

-30-

A reader sent this to me from Gettysburg.

From the Argus comes a story on how the State’s lone refugee placement center is not increasing their numbers for refugee placement, despite what the federal government is asking them to do:

South Dakota won’t participate in the White House’s next push to increase the number of refugees escaping poverty and violence.

The director of the lone resettlement program in South Dakota said it would not participate in the federal effort, citing the debate over immigration in the state.

and..

Fewer refugees are finding a home in Sioux Falls and the rest of the state in recent years in spite of the federal government’s wishes. Lutheran Social Services plans to end a direct resettlement program in Huron at the end of the month.

and..

LSS also ignored the last attempt by the White House to spur resettlement. Last year, the administration bumped the goal from 70,000 to 85,000 refugees and South Dakota’s numbers continued to wane.

The nonprofit is spending $5.4 million to buy and remodel the old Kilian Community College building in an effort to expand space for refugees. It asked the public to pitch in $1.25 million this spring. But the improvements aren’t designed to make room for a larger caseloads.

“It just simply allows us to consolidate programs and allow for more efficient services to individuals throughout the community,” Jurgens said.

Read it here.

Over history, refugee resettlement and the community objections to it have been one of those issues that never goes away. It’s been with us for a good chunk (or all) of our national history.

It just changes form over time.

It’s interesting as I’ve done extensive genealogical research, you see as these new American families start out dirt poor when they hit the shores of our nation, and over generations build themselves up in affluence and social status.

My great-great grandparents hit the shores as a Boston maid and a paper mill worker at a time when anti-immigrant sentiment in America made today’s objections look mild.

One of their sons was a cigar factory worker, and his son, an attorney and lobbyist. At that point in the early to mid 1900’s, public prejudice against Irish Catholics had largely gone away as they’d assimilated into the American fabric.

The questions and fears over modern refugees are the same, but a bit more complex than they were 160 years ago.

Back then – not dissimilar from now – support for these new Americans came from churches. But in these modern times, a far greater proportion of support comes from public tax dollars. And it’s not just housing support – it affects communities on a much wider basis.

Imagine dropping a number of families who have a very limited, if any, mastery of the english language in a typical South Dakota town. Given that we guarantee a free and appropriate public education, the children of these families may require ESL instructors, and a great amount of public school support. All of this costs taxpayer dollars.

Further adding to the complication in South Dakota is that we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation. Until these refugees can find gainful employment, we’re further subsidizing them until they can find jobs.

Since the Cuban resettlement in the 1960’s, the Federal Government began to take the primary financial role in assisting refugees. And what does the federal government do better than anything else? Dump their problems and decisions on lower levels of government.   Some people like to characterize resettlement objections as prejudicial, but I can’t help but note that communities and Americans have always had a hard time when decision makers in Washington try to ram their decisions down people’s throats.

In South Dakota, we’re fighting the EPA over unilateral and somewhat stupid decisions on coal emissions and the waters of the US. Don’t even get me started on their pipeline stupidity. So, why wouldn’t everyday citizens take other decisions seemingly made by a federal government from 1500 miles away with a grain of salt?

Yes, absolutely, some of it is implemented locally. But that’s not how the average everyday citizen sees it.  And I would argue that the federal government’s involvement does not help things at all.

The federal government has their goals for refugee resettlement. LSS has their own goals for refugee resettlement.  And amazingly, this is all subsidized by the American taxpayer.  The parts people see in the equation are “refugee,” “federal government” and “taxes.” And things go downhill from there.

It’s less a matter of stone-hearted communities as much as objecting to what they see as unilateral placement decisions by fiat, at their expense.  I don’t believe that helps communities accept significant numbers of people who – like most immigrants – start out their time in a country alien to them in poverty as they start their journey to catch the American dream.

We all come from somewhere. But maybe it should be about opening our hearts, and less about the federal government.

Campaigning for @defeat_22 with a fresh CR face!! 🇺🇸😀 pic.twitter.com/udxmMNfuAw

— Augie Republicans (@AugieCRs) September 16, 2016

In case you’re not attending Saturday Night’s SDSU football game, the Lincoln County GOP is hosting a dinner with 3 potential Gubernatorial contenders for 2018 – Congresswoman Kristi Noem, incoming Speaker of the House Mark Mickelson, and Attorney General Marty Jackley:

Tickets are available at the door, and are $40 each or 2 for $75 at the “All Occasions” center, at the Tea I-29 exit.

 

Honored to receive the @NFIB Guardian of Small Business Award this morning. pic.twitter.com/fpoRcP7IWP

— Senator John Thune (@SenJohnThune) September 15, 2016