Gov. Daugaard Signs Open Waters Compromise
PIERRE, S.D. – Gov. Dennis Daugaard this evening signed into law House Bill 1001, the compromise bill on nonmeandered waters.“I thank the Legislature for recognizing the urgency of passing the Open Waters Compromise,” said Gov. Daugaard. “With the signing of this bill, we are opening up tens of thousands of acres of nonmeandered waters to public recreation, while respecting the property rights of landowners.”
Gov. Daugaard convened the Legislature today for a special legislative session to consider legislation relating to public recreational use of non-meandered waters overlying private property. The bill immediately opens more than two dozen bodies of water to the public while giving landowners the ability to post and close certain areas of nonmeandered waters.
An amendment to the bill “sunsets” the legislation on July 1, 2018, which will require the Legislature to take up the issue during the next legislative session.
The bill, which included an emergency clause, passed both houses with the required two-thirds majority, making the law effective immediately.
The Department of Game, Fish and Parks will release further information about the reopening of these lakes tomorrow morning.
-30-
I am confused.
This bill was drafted by a committee. There was only one amendment to bill (sunset this bill so it has to be dealt with in this next regular session).
Question #1: Since those who voted “Nay” didn’t offer amendments to the bill, can I assume they wanted these lakes closed to the fishing public (current status)?
Question #2: Some of those who voted “Nay” on the main bill also sponsored a resolution urging the GFP to open the lakes (in violation of the Supreme Court ruling) until the Legislature had more time to study the issue (which I presume is to be addressed during the next regular session). Unless I’m missing, what is the rationale to oppose the main bill which opens up the lakes and support a resolution which instructs the GFP to open the lakes?
Can someone answer these questions? I’m very confused.
Those are excellent points, Troy! A very astute, concise analysis of the issue. Some of those legislators fancy themselves “Constitutional conservatives”. Others think they possess more knowledge than the courts. Still others self-identify as Supreme Court Justices. Those people view themselves in the same vein as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. The difference is Scalia and Thomas were/are strict constructionists. The legislators you are talking about are strict obstructionists.
Troy,
If you saw Hessla’s comment you would understand the division. He opposed the bill that was presented and led the charge to kill it knowing that nothing else could pass. He stated that either the sportsman should have unlimited access, or all waters should be closed to everyone. If he would have won the day, all the lakes would still be closed today. Go figure.
Anonn,
I read Chris’ statement and have both personal affection and respect for him but it doesn’t explain my questions above.
However, your comments alert me with regard that those I mention above as it appears to create an impression those who introduced/supported the resolution bit opposed the bill have an Obama-like “use executive power outside the law and Constitutuin” mentality vs. fidelity to the rule of law and Constitution.