Referendum Would Only Hurt Landowners by Taking Away Landowner Bill of Rights

@SoDakCampaigns

Referendum Would Only Hurt Landowners by Taking Away Landowner Bill of Rights

Referendum Would Only Hurt Landowners by Taking Away Landowner Bill of Rights(Pierre, SD) the ill-advised campaign committee working to refer SB 201 (The Landowner Bill of Rights) held a rally in Pierre today.  The referendum is anti-landowner and anti-agriculture because it would strip away the landowner compensation and protections in SB 201. Nearly 75% of the landowners on the proposed route have already signed voluntary easements with Summit Carbon Solutions.

“While claiming to be fighting for landowners, their effort will only hurt landowners if they are successful because defeating SB 201 would kill all of the landowner compensation and protections in the bill and the pipeline companies already have federal preemption over county ordinances.” said Jason Glodt, founding member of the SD Ag Alliance.

“A referendum of SB 201 makes no sense because it would only hurt landowners by killing the Landowner Bill of Rights,” said Rob Skjonsberg, founding Member of the SD Ag Alliance. “If the referendum is successful Summit will just sue in federal court and win and landowners will get nothing.”

Senate Bill 201 passed the Senate 24-10 and the House 39-31. The legislation includes the most significant sections in Landowner Bill of Rights with extensive protections for landowners and millions of dollars of reoccurring payments for both landowners and counties. The package does not change local control over zoning.

Landowner Bill of Rights

  1. Compensation for Landowners: Requires carbon capture pipelines to pay landowners at least .50 cents per linear foot of pipeline through their property in the form of property tax relief (SB 201)
  2. Compensation for Counties: Allows counties to collect $1.00 per linear foot of pipeline that runs through their county. At least 50% of the surcharge must be used for property tax relief for landowners on the route. The remaining revenue can be spent by counties at their discretion. (SB 201)
  3. Indemnity for Landowners: Requires pipeline companies to indemnify landowners for liability. (SB 201)
  4. Minimum Burial Depth: Requires pipeline to be buried at least 4 ft deep, exceeding federal regulations of 3 ft (SB 201)
  5. Disclosure of Dispersion Models: Requires carbon pipeline companies to make dispersion modeling public. (SB 201)
  6. Lifetime Drain Tile Repairs: Requires pipeline companies to repair any damage to drain tile (SB 201)
  7. Impact Mitigation: Requires pipeline companies to file an impact mitigation plan. (SB 201)
  8. Leak Liability: Makes carbon pipeline companies liable to the landowner for any damage caused by leaks.  (SB 201)
  9. Land Surveyors Must be from SD: Requires land surveyors be South Dakota residents. (SB 201)
  10. Bans Perpetual Easements: Limits easements to a maximum of 99 years (SB 201)
  11. Information Disclosure: Requires carbon pipeline companies to report linear footage of pipes in counties and disclose if they claim a tax credit. (SB 201)

###

11 thoughts on “Referendum Would Only Hurt Landowners by Taking Away Landowner Bill of Rights”

  1. But why risk screwing the landowners with this reckless endeavor? Even if you win the referendum, when Summit wins their federal lawsuit Summit will get their pipeline built and the landowners will then get nothing because the organizers of this stupid referendum took the Landowner Bill of Rights away. You may not like it, but federal caselaw is heavily on Summit’s side.

  2. This issue is perplexing. Before the LOBOR the pipeline company was going to pull out of SD because the PUC refused to give them a super permit to override local control. Now that we have the LOBOR the argument is we need to override local control or the pipeline company/ies will stay and win in court. Both can’t be true.

      1. It was always assumed the company could and would win in court. That remains. It would just take years and cost our taxpayers millions collectively. If and when the PUC does their jobs, the counties will be preempted as they should be and no costly lawsuits will be needed. One must note that the only party being unlawful in the event of a county setback being preempted or struck in court is the overzealous counties led by their commissioners.

  3. County Commissioners, like School Board members, and town and city Councilors, are the elected representatives closest to the people. Throughout our History, South Dakota State Government has respected this relationship. To think that now is the time for State Government to preempt the will of these representatives in their home counties, would negate this long standing tradition.

    1. Counties are creatures of statute, an arm of the state, and have no more authority than what the legislature has granted them. The legislature always has and will continue to define ghe parameters of local control, and they have the ability to reign it in when it attempts to exceed its authority.

  4. I’d take things like this more seriously if they new how to properly convey currency in written format.
    Compensation for Landowners: Requires carbon capture pipelines to pay landowners at least .50 cents per linear foot of pipeline through their property in the form of property tax relief (SB 201)

    It’s either $.50 or 50 cents. It reads as if it is a half cent. Big difference.

  5. Lawyer and founding member of SD AG Alliance Jason Glodt quoted in this article predicts the federal government forcing the CO2 pipeline on South Dakota counties. Rob Skjonsberg also founding member of SD AG Alliance, founder and former partner of GSG Strategies, LLC, a government and political consulting firm in Pierre, SD., former registered POET lobbyist and long time political operative in Senator Rounds group predicts, with credibility considering his past, victorious federal law-fare by Summit. And yet with all their certainty that the CO2 pipeline will succeed they are upset by a referendum to reverse SD 201. I think this opposition to the referendum contradicts that they are interested in well being of South Dakotan’s and landowners.

    1. Does your head hurt after writing that? They are against the referendum because they want to see the protections for landowners put into law. How is that so hard to comprehend!?

      P.S. Don’t forget to check under your bed before you go to sleep…

      1. A lawyer and a political operative? Not the people I usually think of advocating for anything but profit. Here is a clue for SD AG Alliance get some spokes people that are landowners. And preferably that do not have ranches that are over 7 miles long. Small land owners in eastern SD are the ones getting hammered.

  6. The pipeline installation and protest rally took off when someone wanted to build a corn based jet fuel plant in De Smet. That’s when the private interests decided to pull out. I still don’t know who would win in court but right now it doesn’t appear worth it for anyone to fight. Without a going concern that requires the pipeline it’s not worth it for pipeline companies to fight for federal preemption. And without a pipeline its not worth it for private business to build the plant. That equation may change but right now it’s a stalemate. 201 looks like a land owner bill but it actually breaks the log Jan in favor of private business. The immediate concern for me so goes back to using eminent domain for PRIVATE business. If a legislature votes to build a road and needs private land that’s one thing, but if a private business wants to use eminent domain for their own operations, I don’t care about the precedent I will never support that.

Comments are closed.