Delivering Wins for Agriculture
MADISON–The Legislature is nearing the end of session and we remain focused on working to find resolution on some of the major policy issues in the state and finalizing a balanced budget for the state’s next fiscal year.
The future success of ethanol, corn markets in South Dakota and carbon dioxide sequestration have been major topics of debate in the Capitol last year and again this year. House Majority Leader Will Mortenson and I introduced SB 201 to find a path forward for South Dakota in what has been an emotional issue related to private property rights and the proposed carbon pipeline. SB 201 is a comprehensive solution that protects landowner rights and establishes clear infrastructure guardrails.
When South Dakota farmers succeed, all of South Dakota succeeds, and that cuts both ways. When South Dakota farmers have limited access to national and global markets, our whole state suffers. A rising tide lifts all boats, and that’s why I am committed to legislation like SB 201 that fosters a brighter future for all of South Dakota.
I want South Dakota to have some of the strongest landowner protections in the nation, and that’s why we’re working on a compromise package. What SB 201 does is set standards in state law for linear utility projects to abide by, specifically CO2 pipelines. It allows counties to levy a surcharge on CO2 pipelines that could equate to $3.5 million each year for counties hosting the proposed pipeline. It also requires land agents to be South Dakota based, CO2 pipeline operators to repair drain tile, and establishes penalties for safety failures for operators.SB 201 also clarifies state law where federal preemption voids any state or local safety standards or setbacks. South Dakota is open for business, which means we don’t set up roadblocks for projects through regulation, red tape, excessive fees, and indefinite timelines. We provide fairness and certainty in the process for landowners and businesses. State law should reflect federal standards and remove uncertainty for counties on actions that would result in lawsuits that will cost taxpayers money. Our farmers and communities deserve better than sham lawsuits that drag out projects and cost taxpayers legal fees. Let’s put money in the pockets of farmers, not lawyers.
Related to ethanol, I joined Gov. Noem, farmers and ethanol producers for the bill signing ceremony of SB 78. This bill helps incentivize gas stations to offer E15 and bolster our ag industry. Ethanol plants buy 64% of the corn grown in the state, supporting 11,00 family farms and 30,000 jobs. I want to see more homegrown fuel sold and used in South Dakota. It’s good for farmers and consumers.
Earlier this week, I was proud to support HCR 6008 discouraging voters from adopting the radical pro-abortion ballot measure paid for by out-of-state special interest groups. South Dakota is a state that values the life of the unborn. Alternating the state’s constitution to allow late-term abortions, remove parental awareness and override existing conscience protections that were enacted for healthcare providers is extreme and frankly, it’s immoral.
The Senate and House enjoyed the service of pages from District 8–Chester, Arlington and two from Howard. These four have bright futures and we are grateful for their help in the Capitol. If you know a high schooler interested in government and public service, encourage them to apply to page in a future year.
###
Mr Crabtree. Are you really believing everything you just said? Then tell me why is there so much opposition? It’s not just a loud minority. This is real. All I hear from Noem is how in South Dakota we are free! You sir are pushing communism, fact. My very first meeting with SCS didnt go well for them. The public was outraged. Depth of pipeline was a issue. 4′ was not acceptable to the public. I knew after the meeting this didnt pass the smell test, as Dan Lederman told me if we set a ordinance of deeper than 4′, SCS will sue me, the commission and the County of Spink. Isn’t that a great way to start economic development? Dont get your way you sue! Its laughable, and now your trying to shove it down County Government throat. I see the Foreign investors in this money grab project. I wonder what happened to Noems statement of SD is not going to allow Foreign countries owning its land! Yet here we go. Question Sir. Do you believe in Global warming? Republicans dont. Also what is local Government now capable of making decisions on? Are you going to sit on the drainage board, the historical board, 4-H, local Ambulance services, R R authority, Grow Spink, road and bridge, Law Enforcement, Foster Grandparents just to name a few. Everyone sees it. Its all about the money. The gall it must take to try and push this through, 201. The gall it takes for ethanol ceo’s to tell the public that County Commissioners are against ethanol. Pathetic!
So correct!! People with knowledge and integrity do not believe the Senator’s “ compromise” that all should be forced to embrace. Instead the bill says, “Counties and farmers, take some money and shut up.” Had he done any studying of the 45q tax credits, he would know that they are a hoax. It is an old idea with a lopsided twist. Guess that is why studying history is so important.
Commissioner Smith-as an elected official have you taken the time to study federal, state and locals laws regarding pipelines? Can you point to another county in the nation with CO2 pipeline setbacks? Further, have you considered the legal costs you are going to put on taxpayers to fight and lose a legal battle regarding your unlawful setbacks (see Story and Shelby County, Iowa)? Have you considered the legal costs associated with you unlawfully prohibiting your county residents from participating in the pipeline that could have paid them $100k’s if not for your egregious setbacks that forced routes to be moved?
If not, I hope you do so now. You can reverse your actions now and hopefully save your constituents time and money before it’s too late. Good luck.
Dear Anonymous.
Since you dont have the courage to sign your rebuttal, I’ll just leave you with this quote from Alex Lang, Director of Engineering for Summit Carbon Solutions. In the December 16th, 2023 publication of The Aberdeen Insider, he stated that the company’s route ” would align with local ordinances establishing setbacks for hazardous material pipelines.”
*elderly and uneducated Republicans don’t believe climate change.
Fixed that for you. I assure you, there are many Republicans who understand and believe climate change.
Ah yes, the part of the party that supported vaccine mandates, lockdowns, and believes the news is real.
The Pipeline opponents have lost their minds. Any credibility they might have had has been lost in the hyperbolic screaming.
A letter in this week’s Moody County Enterprise asserts that “No eminent domain for private gain” is a message that over 80% of SD residents and landowners support.” I doubt it.
I don’t think they know where their natural gas, electricity, water, or telecommunications come from. They remind me of the people who chant “no blood for oil;” who don’t know where their food comes from.
As for CO2, it’s a waste product, and like garbage, sewage, nuclear/medical/hazmat waste it needs to be disposed of properly. There is too much being produced to turn it all into fire extinguishers and seltzer canisters. You might personally see nothing wrong with releasing the excess into the air just as previous generations saw nothing wrong with flushing their toilets into the river, but too many other people disagree with you.
Can you as an authority on the subject answer these questions; who has contracted with ethanol plants to buy their low carbon fuel? For how long is the contract? How many days, months, years are carbon credits guaranteed ? Is corn the only product that will get the supposed credits or will cellulose, sugar, wood etc. be used for ethanol if the the tax credits are such a money maker?
Who cares? It’s a waste product which has been deemed to be an environmental threat, and a consensus has been reached that it must be disposed of properly.
Nobody wants an industrial waste or sewer line trenched through their property but sometimes it’s necessary.
Mrs. Beal, this is the first issue I’ve disagreed with you.
1. Nature fully utilizes CO2 when plants convert it to O2.
2. There is zero evidence that CO2 affects ambient temperatures. There is also zero reason to trust environmentalists who preach otherwise, whose declarations of doom have all been wrong for a century. (The first predictions of man-caused destruction of nature started in the 1920s.)
3. The enviro cult wants to lower the world’s population by billions to “save the planet.” A key part of that mission is outlawing modern ag practices. They’ll do that by forcing us to accept their warped worldview that humans can change the planet’s temperature through phony “sustainability” voodoo.
4. In my experience with enviros — as a student in the 1970s and a newspaper guy later — they lie about everything under the sun, including the sun. No wonder they never returned my calls! The pipeline will be obsolete the instant the feds set a new CO2 standard or kill fossil fuels altogether.
The pipeline is a bad deal with anti-science and anti-human enviro cultists — people who hate free enterprise and the prosperity it brings worldwide. They’re the same ones who assure us we’ll get along fine with windmills and solar panels.
In short, the pipeline is a scam.
Everything after 1 is complete nonsense. It’s a consensus among the science community that climate change is happening at an unfounded rate and is being excellerated by man’s activities. You have no peer reviewed scientific proof to back the claims you make.
Anonymous at 9:43… There should never be a “concensus” in science, only proof through testing hypotheses, and the proof for man-caused climate change is lacking, driven by proxy evidence and silly projections that can’t even predict the past. Sadly, too many scientists, being human, go where the money is, and government money funds only those committed to climate hysteria. So scare-mongering — and deceptive — conclusions always match the results the various agencies and foundations want.
Fortunately, there are honest scientists out there. They’re easy to find on the interwebs. Good luck!
I care, Ms Beal. Of course we all want a clean environment for our children, grandchildren and future generations. However, this Carbon pipeline does not guarantee that. Many have signed easements for water and electricity and fuel. and for other things also. There are many kinds of easements. However, with the utility easements they are usually for a specific number of feet on either side of the pipeline. AS I understand it, the easement for Summit is not specific number of feet but for the entire quarter of land and the easement is forever and ever and ever. There was a land sale in our area recently. Projected sale price was around $6000 to $7000 and acre. It brought a little over $3000. Why, because there were so many easements on it. There is the issue of property values. Many of us and our forefathers have worked hard, sweat blood and tears to hang on to our land so we may pass it on to our family members. Many sacrifices have been made for the land. And we are not out of our minds.
Also our rural water supplier is very concerned about the depth of the proposed pipeline where it will be near the rural water lines. I really resent your statement that the pipeline opponents have lost their minds. Perhaps, you should listen to the reasons they are opposed. I think more public disclosure should be made as to who the investors are in Summit. Is China one of them? I would really like to know. And there are more questions that need to asked. Will there be that much federal money if Biden is not elected and his Green New Deal is not funded again?
“Let’s put money in the pockets of farmers, not lawyers.”
Ha!
For those of you following my FaceBook page, you’ll see I agree with Pat on the pipeline issue for the most part, but there is a lot of nuance left out, and some kind of quid pro quo should be established.
I see the pipeline as a tow rope out of the ditch, not an on-ramp into a new age economy.
South Dakota farmers should understand, I think, that there are people in DC who have prepared a series of shovel ready road blocks to ethanol markets. The revenue from the pipeline, to the extent possible, should fund switching costs to other farm based economies.
In my view, limousine liberal DC elitists do not view ethanol as a valuable safe alternative to fossil fuels. They view it as a bait and switch opportunity to harm core revenues of big oil while they use government power to prop-up an EV market that will require rerouting of the energy grid.
It is difficult for a parochial mind to comprehend that people living a great distance away might care about what is released into the air and water.
Plain and simple..this project will generate a billion (that’s a b) dollars in tax credits and profits for the investors over approximately 20 years. They need access through the private property of South Dakota farmers to make this windfall a reality. The investors interest is to gain that access as cheaply as possible to maximize their investment. We’ll see how free people in South Dakota really are as this situation plays itself to a conclusion.
There is absolutely no proof about the amount of money you project that the state will gain. Also the 20 year span you claim for tax credit is very unlikely.
Terry at 8:09 and Anonymous at 6:11… And the political forces against carbon will come down hard to do away with ethanol in a very short time. They won’t wait 20 years. The Left hates farming and ranching and fossil fuels, and the miracle these enterprises have created in the modern world, and the crazies won’t ever let up on their demands. Look at the stupidity happening in Europe already.
As not much about this billion dollar CO2 pipeline project is known by the public, I’d refer you to the last weekly Legislative report by Representative Ben Krohmer of District 20 which outlines some of the latest action in the Legislature to secure approval of this project. Mr. Krohmer points out that while easements are for 50 years, tax credits expire after 16 years. Frankly no one knows the lifespan of this project, and no one seems to know how much money it generates for investors over the lifespan of the project. Without knowing those two things, it is impossible to speculate what a “fair” payment to landowners is, or will be.