From the Argus Leader, it sounds as if the Governor, like many others, was a protest vote for “not Donald Trump” in the recent GOP Primary election earlier this month.

South Dakota’s Republican governor didn’t mark his ballot for the party’s presumptive nominee in this month’s South Dakota GOP primary.

“I voted for John Kasich,” Gov. Dennis Daugaard told reporters Tuesday in Sioux Falls.

Read it here.

Governor, you were in good company. Trust me. With 10,659 others.

Noem, Cramer, Peterson Introduce Legislation to Address Wetland Determination Backlog

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Representatives Kristi Noem (R-SD), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), and Collin Peterson (D-MN) today introduced the bipartisan Wetland Determinations Efficiency and Transparency Act.  This legislation aims to address the backlog of wetland determinations and enact permanent reforms that make the determination process more efficient, accountable, and transparent.

“Part of promoting sustainable conservation practices is ensuring programs and processes work for the producers who use them,” said Rep. Noem.  “Waiting years before knowing whether a person can improve their land without jeopardizing a wetland or their participation in farm programs is an unacceptable and costly delay.  Together with Reps. Cramer and Peterson, we are offering real reforms that can help eliminate the backlog and ensure timely and accurate determinations are made from here on out.”

“Not since the 1990s has there been serious discussion about Swampbuster, at least not with landowner and producers’ best interests in mind,” said Rep. Cramer. “From streamlining wetland certifications to due process reform, this bill is a package of common-sense improvements which will benefit not only landowners and producers, but also the environment.  With the next Farm Bill on the near horizon, I look forward to working with Kristi and Collin, and engaging with our stakeholders, to help make these reforms reality.”

“This bill starts the conversation about how we can help address the wetland determination backlog facing producers in our region,” said Rep. Peterson.  “I will continue to work with my colleagues to give producers the tools they need to make improvements on their land which can increase yields, reduce the risk of flooding, and improve water quality, as well as make it easier to stay in compliance with conservation rules.”

The National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is responsible for determining whether land qualifies as a wetland, and therefore, is protected for conservation purposes according to so-called “Swampbuster” rules.  If property is determined to be a wetland, certain changes – such as laying drain tile in a field – are not allowed without a landowner losing the ability to participate in federal farm bill programs and crop insurance.  In recent years, producers have faced a significant backlog in wetland determination.  As of June 1, 2016, 3,086 requests were outstanding in the Prairie Pothole Region – 1,374 of which were made in South Dakota, 757 in North Dakota, and 325 in Minnesota.

“Many Farmers in South Dakota are experiencing challenges in receiving timely and accurate wetland determinations from the NRCS. We’ve been calling for increased transparency, timely determinations including a fair and efficient appeals process for many years,” said Jerry Schmitz, farmer from Vermillion and President of the South Dakota Soybean Association. “We want to thank Representatives Noem, Cramer, and Peterson for their leadership on this critical issue, and for their strong support of farmers across the U.S. This legislation will make a real difference in the lives of thousands of farmers within our state.”

“Several years of waiting to get optimal production out of a piece of property can have serious financial consequences for a producer,” said Scott VanderWal, President of the South Dakota Farm Bureau.  “A more timely and transparent process will help landowners better understand if the use of water management practices to enhance the soil for crop production is available to them.  We’re grateful to Representatives Noem, Cramer, and Peterson for offering a solution that makes the determinations process more efficient and accountable.”

“We are grateful to have someone like Representative Noem and her colleagues recognize how crucially important it is to make the wetland determination process easier for producers,” said Doug Sombke, President of South Dakota Farmers Union.  “While the backlog has decreased this year, it gives us a critical opportunity to move reforms forward before requests spike again.”

“The South Dakota Corn Growers have supported farmers using the best stewardship practices available,” said Keith Alverson, President South Dakota Corn Growers Association.  “It is important that farmers have answers to these wetland determinations and congresswoman Noem’s legislation helps address those issues.  We appreciate her efforts on this.”

More specifically, the Noem-Cramer-Peterson legislation would:

• Ensure timely determinations. The USDA would be given 60 days to make wetland determinations, after which producers would be protected from penalties during a transition period to come back into compliance.
• Make the appeals process more efficient.  If a producer believes a determination is incorrect, they would be given the option of either going through the administrative appeals process or appealing directly to the federal district court.
• Allow third parties to be better used as a resource to shrink backlog and ensure timely determinations. The USDA would be able to utilize approved third-party data and technical assistance when making a final certification, leveraging outside expertise without a cost to taxpayers.
• Improve transparency. Clarifies in law the NRCS’s responsibility to share any and all information used for the determination with producers.  Additionally, the legislation puts the burden of proof to the federal government, rather than the producer.

###

Democrats Reject Critical Funding to Combat Zika Virus

“Democrats are apparently more interested in pacifying a Democrat special-interest group than they are in actually doing anything about Zika. This is election-year politics at its worst. The American people know it, and they deserve better.”  

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) issued the following statement after Senate Democrats blocked the military construction, veterans affairs, and Zika appropriations conference report, legislation that would have funded numerous programs to support America’s veterans as well as vital military construction projects:

“I’m disappointed that just days before the July 4 holiday, Senate Democrats voted in lockstep to deny funding for America’s veterans and for important construction projects that would support the mission of our military personnel around the globe,” said Thune. “It sends all the wrong messages to our veterans and their families, the men and women who currently serve in the military, and the rest of the American people.”

The bill also contained a key provision that would have provided critical funding to combat the emerging threat posed by the Zika virus. The House-Senate negotiated bill would have provided funding for immediate needs like mosquito control programs and for longer-term goals like vaccine development and treatments.

“It’s highly disingenuous for Senate Democrats to on the one hand say the Zika threat requires immediate attention and then on the other hand block critical funding designed to tackle this problem early in the mosquito season,” continued Thune. “Democrats are apparently more interested in pacifying a Democrat special-interest group than they are in actually doing anything about Zika. This is election-year politics at its worst. The American people know it, and they deserve better.”

Just last month, every Senate Democrat voted for a separate Zika response bill with a funding level identical to that in the current proposal.

Prior to today’s vote, Thune spoke on the Senate floor and urged his colleagues to support this common-sense bill.

###

Rounds Issues Statement on Senate Passage of BUILD Act

WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, today issued the following statement on the Senate passage of S. 1479, the Brownfields Utilization, Investment, and Local Development (BUILD) Act, of which he is a cosponsor. The legislation passed by unanimous consent.

“A number of South Dakota communities have benefited from the Brownfields program, which provides federal funding for technical assistance grants to small communities and rural areas,” Rounds said. “Reauthorization of the program will allow state and local governments to clean up polluted areas so they are once again safe for use. I’m pleased the BUILD Act passed the Senate and look forward to seeing it enacted in the near future.”

On June 2, 2015, Rounds joined EPW Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and a group of bipartisan senators in introducing S. 1479, the BUILD Act. The legislation would make several enhancements to the program, including (1) prioritizing technical assistance grants for Brownfields projects in small communities, Indian tribes, rural areas and disadvantaged areas, (2) establishing a program to provide grants to locate clean energy projects at Brownfields sites, and (3) expanding funding eligibility for governmental entities that did not cause or contribute to the contamination.

On Feb. 2, the BUILD Act was adopted as an amendment to the Energy Policy Modernization Act (S.2012), which passed the Senate on April 20 and is currently being conferenced with the House.

On May 18, the BUILD Act was reported out of the EPW Committee by voice vote.

###

In the past couple of weeks, I caught wind of an interesting Rotary Club Meeting in Sioux Falls, with guest speaker Shantel Krebs appearing before the group, making a speech that had some questioning whether it was a talk from the Secretary of State, or her Gubernatorial kickoff.

In fact, I’m told a person formerly affiliated with the State’s largest newspaper made a statement/inquired to that end.

Coverage of the meeting did make the news on KELO…

As for the future beyond that, an audience member asked Krebs directly if she would ever consider running for a higher office.

“I see an opportunity for things like zero based budgeting. I want to challenge those state agencies to do so. I want a full review of all the taxes. Why these taxes have been imposed and where do they go? That review hasn’t been done since the 1970’s, so when you say that, I think there’s work to be done.” Krebs said.

Krebs says her passion is restoring trust in government and that it begins with accountability and transparency.

Read that all here.

… but some of what wasn’t covered in the story was equally as interesting, because as she talked about what needed to take place in how state government is being run, some of the comments burned her colleagues in Pierre a bit to this audience.

The statement above about ‘no review of where taxes go since the 1970’s‘ seemed to be a somewhat acerbic commentary of the appropriations process.

What wasn’t mentioned is that I was told directly by people in the audience that she was quite pointed in comments about conflicts of interest, using the term corruption. But as also was related to me, she quickly turned aside a question by State Representative and incoming Speaker of the House Mark Mickelson who was in attendance.*

Lighting torches to challenge other offices on their budget, demanding a review about how taxes are levied and spent, and talking about how Pierre is corrupt is not what you typically hear from the State’s chief elections officer. However, it does sound like a stump speech for someone who has their eye on the Governor’s race.

Appearances like this may be direct overtures for higher office in 2018, coming at the same time when competitors such as Mickelson, and Jackley are out on the stump for South Dakota’s highest State Office.

One major difference is that while others have started or are starting to assemble campaign teams, it puts the Secretary of State in a position of potentially having to do so and raise money for it as we move through the next several months of the 2016 election cycle, and officially kick off the race for Governor in 2018.

(*Update – Now, I did have someone who was in attendance contact me, and tell me that they remember the question from Mickelson was not on conflict of interest laws, but on another topic, although they did confirm that his question was “deflected.” So I did change that to be a bit less specific.)

Did my eyes decieve me, or was that Mike Myers with Annette Bosworth at today’s hearing regarding her status in a federal database?

Watch for yourself at KSFY.

The AG sent out a court filing today that sheds a little more light on the extravagance that the parties involved in the GEAR-UP investigation treated themselves to, including a lot of steakhouses, and around 20k at best buy:

Notice of Intent Introduce Phelps by Pat Powers

While I was out at convention, I received a much anticipated pin I’d bought on e-bay, the purely local counterpart to one in the State Museum which also includes Taft on it:

Governor Vessey and US Senator Coe Crawford were Republicans, and during their time in office were mired in a controversy that sounds oddly familiar:

During an interview with a news correspondent in early September, Crawford talked candidly about the political situation in his state. He excoriated Taft’s managers at the Republican convention for “fraudulently and illegally forcing the nomination of Taft” by unseating delegates in certain states who were pledged to Roosevelt.

and…

Crawford also explained that all Republicans, whether stalwart or progressive, who were legally nominated in the primary should be favored by the party in the general election. In other words, he was willing to give loyal Republican stalwarts the full support of the party.

Unfortunately. Crawford’s reasoning did not convince the conservatives, for an editorial in the Daily Huronite on 4 September, the day of the publication of his interview, described the Senator as, among other things, “a combined republican-bull-moosie.”

A week later, the editors commented that the South Dakota factions of Republicanism had reached “the parting of the ways” and that there would be “no further overtures for a settlement of differences.”

Unable to conceal their abhorrence of the Progressive campaign, approximately two hundred and fifty conservative supporters of Taft gathered in Mitchell, South Dakota, on 19 and 20 September to lodge an official protest. Meeting at the Gale Theatre, the delegates chose Charles M. Day, editor of the Sioux Falls Daily Argus-Leader, as chairman of the convention. Senator Gamble also attended and delivered an address. The conservative spokesmen then passed a resolution that read: “That we condemn the action of Governor Vessey [and] Senator Crawford .. . in escorting and supporting the Bull Moose candidate for Vice President through this state in his campaign against the republican national nominees.”

and…

South Dakota stalwarts sought revenge for Crawford’s refusal to endorse Taft. Their opportunity to strike back came in the 1914 senatorial primary. Congressman Burke defeated the incumbent senator in that contest, but Burke in turn lost the general election to Edwin S. Johnson, the Democratic challenger. When Crawford’s single term as Senator ended in March 1915. he returned to his law practice in Huron.

Read the entire story of Coe Crawford and the Campaign of 1912 here.

A fuss over a nominee? A split in the party between “Stalwarts” and “Progressive Republicans?”

Naaahh…  Could never happen in South Dakota again.

Rounds Expresses Concern Over Staff Downsizing at Hot Springs VA

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, today sent a letter to Janet Murphy, Director of the Veterans Affairs (VA) Midwest Health Care Network, asking why the VA Black Hills Health Care System continues to downsize staff at the Hot Springs Medical Clinic, despite current law which forbids such actions. No formal decision has been made on the realignment of services within the Black Hills Health Care System, nor has the final Environmental Impact Statement been released.

“In 2012 the Hot Springs Campus was staffed with three medical doctors, two physician assistants and one nurse practitioner working in primary care. Today only one physician assistant remains to meet the needs of veterans in primary care,” wrote Rounds. “These staff reductions have dramatically reduced care and services to veterans, placed undue burden and stress on remaining staff and potentially add risk for veterans.”

The full text of the letter is available below:

June 27, 2016

Ms. Janet Murphy
Network Director
VA Midwest Health Care Network (VISN 23)
2805 Dodd Road, Suite 250
Eagan, MN 55121

Dear Director Murphy,

I write to express my concern over the continual downsizing and staff reductions at the Hot Springs Campus of the VA Black Hills Health Care System. Specifically, since 2012, I note 33 key clinical positions have either been transferred or eliminated at the Hot Springs campus.  These staff reductions have dramatically reduced care and services to veterans, placed undue burden and stress on remaining staff and potentially add risk for veterans.

In 2012 the Hot Springs Campus was staffed with three medical doctors, two physician assistants and one nurse practitioner working in primary care. Today only one physician assistant remains to meet the needs of veterans in primary care. Of eight pharmacists on staff in 2012, only two positions remain. Of six respiratory therapists on staff in 2012, only three positions remain. The respiratory therapist shortage recently resulted in patients being informed on June 10 via a sign on the door that the Respiratory Therapy Clinic was “closed due to lack of staff.” I also note the further staff reductions of psychiatrists, surgical physicians, nurse practitioners, X-ray technicians, lab technicians, registered nurses and licensed practical nurses.

Given the final Hot Springs Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has not been released and that no formal decision has been made by the VA regarding the realignment of services in the Black Hills Health Care System, these deliberate staff reductions are deeply concerning.    Additionally, current law has suspended any realignment in Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 23 for the last three years. This provision remains in effect until the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) transmits to Congress a comprehensive national realignment strategy of health care services. To date, I am unaware of Congress receiving such a report.

Under these circumstances, I respectfully ask the following questions:

1. Why has the Hot Springs Campus undergone such dramatic downsizing over the last four years?
2. How does the VA interpret the law to allow for the elimination of these services at the Hot Springs Campus?

I thank you for your hard work and commitment to serving our veterans. I share your goal of improving access and quality of care for all of our nation’s heroes and look forward to hearing back from you on this important matter. I would very much appreciate a response not later than July 27^th, 2016.

Sincerely,

###