Release – Vote Yes on Referred Law 21: Protect the Landowner Bill of Rights

Vote Yes on Referred Law 21: Protect the Landowner Bill of Rights

(Pierre, SD) The Landowner Bill of Rights is pro-landowner, pro-agriculture, and pro-business. The Landowner Bill of Rights provides significant benefits for landowners, including property tax relief, indemnification, and annual compensation. The South Dakota Ag Alliance is encouraging South Dakotans to vote Yes to uphold this pro-landowner and pro-agriculture, pro-business legislation that also holds pipelines accountable.

“Supporting Referred Law 21 will ensure landowners receive the rights and protections they deserve,” said Jason Glodt, founding member of the SD Ag Alliance. “Referred Law 21 is not just about pipelines, it’s about securing the future of South Dakota agriculture and ensuring new market opportunities that will benefit all South Dakotans.”

“I can relate to the opponent’s concerns, but Referred Law 21 doesn’t do what they say it will do,” added Rob Skjonsberg, also a founding member of the SD Ag Alliance.  “Referred Law 21 will not stop Carbon pipelines from being built so we need the Landowner Bill of Rights to hold pipelines accountable and ensure that landowners and communities receive the advantages and protections they need.”

With corn prices at $3.44 in South Dakota, farmers are facing financial challenges and losing money this year. We need to find new markets and add more value to our commodities to secure the future of South Dakota.  The Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) market represents a significant opportunity to lower the carbon footprint and add more value to the corn farmers produce, however, our farmers will not be able to benefit from SAF if the pipeline is not built. Every farmer in South Dakota will be impacted, and we cannot miss this one shot to take advantage of new market opportunities.

Voting Yes on Referred Law 21 means supporting landowner rights, protecting agriculture, holding pipelines accountable, and opening doors to new markets for the benefit of all South Dakotans.

Landowner Bill of Rights

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


23 thoughts on “Release – Vote Yes on Referred Law 21: Protect the Landowner Bill of Rights”

  1. Interesting. So what are the opponent’s concerns? That it doesn’t go far enough to protect landowners? That it goes too far? Are the opponents really just opposed to the pipeline in general and hoping SB201 fails and they can put something even more restrictive in place next Session, which would effectively kill the pipeline? Hmmm.

    1. Wouldn’t they have a better chance of more restrictions by keeping 201 and amending to better fit their picture?

      1. Probably, but I think the carbon companies see SB201 as the guardrails to a path forward to build the pipeline. If SB201 goes away, they might be hesitant to push forward with building the pipeline until they know the rules of the game. Essentially, they don’t love SB201, but it provides a path forward. Without SB201, there is no path forward. Or at least the path forward is fraught with more risk for the carbon companies.

        At least that’s my (admittedly uneducated) take on it, but I would love to hear how I’m wrong.

        1. SB201 does not provide guardrails. These same points were offered to individuals and to counties long before SB201 mimicked the offers. I do not expect legislators to be knowledgeable in all matters, but those who attended county commission meetings time after time heard all of these tactics. They are not landowner friendly. Do not be deceived by this company.

  2. The opponents’ concerns include foisting eminent domain upon a utility that isn’t a utility (non-public use), that it is Green New Deal boondoggle that will result in unnecessary energy debt, that it unleashes a private entity to indiscriminately override local ordinances and elected officials’ judgments — just to name a few.
    Opponents (at least this opponent) tend to hold an ambivalent view towards satisfying loonies with questionable carbon credits and with spoon-feeding corn growers. Opponents would like to see corn growers grow up and make decisions for themselves without government holding their hands all the ever-loving time.

    1. All good points. It’s almost as if the opponents should get themselves organized and have a spokesperson or two to help educate the public on their position so we can make an informed decision in November.

  3. Vote NO on South Dakota Referred Law 21: Protect Our Families, Farmers, Land, Communities, and Future.

    Dear Fellow South Dakotans,

    As we approach the vote on South Dakota Referred Law 21 in November, it is crucial to consider the broader implications of this legislation on our families, farmers, land, communities, and future. While some paint a promising picture, a closer examination reveals significant concerns that cannot be ignored.

    1. Short-Term Benefits vs. Long-Term Consequences

    Proponents argue that Referred Law 21 provides immediate financial benefits to landowners and counties through annual payments and tax relief. However, these benefits come at a cost. The law effectively paves the way for carbon pipelines to cut through our lands, imposing long-term environmental and safety risks. The promise of .50 cents per linear foot of pipeline pales in comparison to the potential damage from leaks and other hazards that could devastate our lands and communities. If you are killed by a CO2 pipeline leak no amount of indemnification matters.

    2. Environmental and Health Risks

    Carbon capture pipelines pose significant environmental and health risks. Despite the proposed measures for minimum burial depth and leak liability, the inherent risks of such pipelines cannot be entirely mitigated. The dispersion models, while required to be public, do not eliminate the dangers posed by potential leaks and spills. Our priority should be protecting the health and safety of our citizens and the environment, not facilitating risky infrastructure.

    3. Agricultural Impact

    While the law is touted as pro-agriculture, it could have adverse effects on the very farmers it claims to support. The construction and operation of pipelines can disrupt agricultural activities, damage soil and water resources, and reduce the productivity of farmlands. The promise of new markets like the Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) market should not come at the expense of the sustainability and health of our agricultural lands.

    4. Property Rights and Local Control

    Referred Law 21 limits perpetual easements to 99 years, but this still represents a significant loss of control for landowners impacting at least two generations, if not more. It also mandates that land surveyors be South Dakota residents, which, while seemingly beneficial, does not address the fundamental issue of landowners potentially being coerced into agreements that favor pipeline companies. True protection of property rights means ensuring landowners have the ultimate say over the use of their land without undue pressure or influence from large corporations.

    5. Economic Concerns

    While the current financial challenges faced by farmers are real, relying on pipeline projects as a solution is shortsighted. We need sustainable and diverse economic strategies that do not compromise our land and safety. Investing in renewable energy, local food systems, and other sustainable agricultural practices can provide long-term economic stability without the risks associated with carbon pipelines.


    Voting No on Referred Law 21 is a vote to protect our land, our environment, and our future. It is a vote to prioritize long-term sustainability over short-term financial gains. Let us seek solutions that genuinely support our farmers and communities without compromising the safety and integrity of our precious families, farmers, and lands.

    Join me in opposing Referred Law 21 and advocating for a safer, more sustainable future for South Dakota.


    Jeffrey Church
    Concerned South Dakotan in District 17

    1. Did chat GPT write this? A lot of words but not anything of substance. The natural gas lines crossing the state don’t seem to be risky infrastructure, nor do the oil pipelines. Both entities pose a risk, but the public benefit is higher, and the same is valid with the carbon pipeline.

      If there are all these other “solutions” to help farmers, why are you not disclosing them? You might not have been in SD long enough to understand the life-changing and substantial benefits the ethanol industry has provided for Agriculture in this state. Hundreds of farms are still in operation because of industry innovation.

      Voting NO hurts Farmers, Landowners, Small communities, and everyone in this state and region. $4 corn does not provide a sustainable future. Understand agriculture before you pretend to be its friend.

    1. I haven’t seen any activity from the pipeline opposing the referendum effort since it started – has anyone else?

      1. Why would they need to spend any cash or expend any effort when they’ve got useful idiots doing that work for them already?

  4. Seems odd to put so much effort into a referral that may or may not accomplish the “anti pipeline” crowd’s goal.

    People get to vote on it and I suppose that’s fine. I’m sure we will hear a lot more as the election draws near from legal expert Mrs. Radke.

  5. It is quite cute seeing the anti-pipe liners think that by removing 201 they will magically stop the pipelines from being built.

    Instead what will happen is that the pipeline companies, instead of dealing with the compromises imposed and retaining some good community faith, will opt to bend landowners and recalcitrant counties over the barrel with the cudgel that is Kelo vs New London.

    And guess who will pay the legal tab that the counties will run up at the behest of the antis? All of us taxpayers.

      1. For now. Iowa and ND denied Summit the first go around, and guess what happened a few months ago? IA and ND PUCs approved them.

    1. I don’t think referring 201 was so much about stopping the pipeline asit was about stopping the taking away county rights on local control.

          1. Yeah with Project 2025 Big Bird, The Cookie Monster and Kermit along with Sesame Street will be fired!

      1. They are removing local control and keeping counties from trying to supercede federal law and ending up with the taxpayers paying huge lawsuits when the pipelines win in court. They want to impose setbacks that will never hold up and everyone will pay for these moronic landowners and commissioners.

  6. Agricultural Losses Hit Midwest States’ GDP

    “Minnesota’s economy shrank slightly in early 2024 amid agricultural sector declines that slammed much of the Midwest.

    While real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased in 39 states and the District of Columbia between the fourth quarter of 2023 and the first quarter of 2024, Midwestern states experienced just small gains or drops, according to U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) data released Friday.

    The country’s biggest GDP decline was 4.2% in South Dakota; Minnesota saw a 0.8% loss. The BEA also reported declines in North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa and Illinois.

    “It wasn’t a great GDP report for the country overall, but for the Midwest, it was a really bad outcome,” said Scott Anderson, chief U.S. economist and managing director at BMO Capital Markets.”

    yet, the opposition of SB 201 wants to let the ag economy and ethanol (15% of SD GDP) to suffer more because why….’no one can tell me what to do!’. What ever happened to self sacrifice for the good of the many? Pipelines transport products safely and have an impeccable record. And why does Tina Mullay care what happens 250 miles from her district anyway. There will never be a CO2 pipeline west river.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *