SB 201 Referendum Would Take Away Property Tax Relief and Landowner Rights

@SoDakCampaigns

SB 201 Referendum Would Take Away Property Tax Relief and Landowner Rights

(Pierre, SD) The SB 201 Referendum would repeal the Landowner Bill of Rights passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor last Session. Senate Bill 201 is called the Landowner Bill of Rights because it includes extensive benefits for landowners including property tax relief, indemnification, and annual compensation.  The Referendum is anti-landowner and anti-agriculture because it would strip away the property tax relief and landowner protections in
SB 201.

“If I were a pipeline company I’d be 100% supportive of repealing SB 201,” said Jason Glodt, founding member of the SD Ag Alliance. “I believe the sincerity of most of the SB 201 opponents.  However, I’m afraid what they’re selling doesn’t match the reality of what they are doing. They think they are going to stop a carbon pipeline, but the referendum does not address eminent domain and it won’t change federal law. If successful, they will simply repeal all of the landowner rights and property tax relief in SB 201 while the pipeline can still get built.”

“Repealing SB 201 will not stop carbon pipelines from being built in South Dakota,” said Rob Skjonsberg, founding Member of the SD Ag Alliance. “In fact, we believe carbon pipelines will pursue their project with or without landowner benefits found in SB 201.”

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.

###

59 thoughts on “SB 201 Referendum Would Take Away Property Tax Relief and Landowner Rights”

  1. Ag Alliance should’ve chosen a different alliteration, Pipeline Propaganda.

    I’m definitely voting for this referendum if it makes the ballot. So many important things voters get to vote on this year, and the politicians are against nearly all of them. Exciting times! Let’s score the GOP who is in charge.

    1. Instead of bloviating about what you are going to do, how about you tell us which part(s) of SB 201 do you not stand against?

  2. Please, feel free to accept the consequences when corn prices plummet and sd hits a major recession. These m@gat$ are going to make farmer suicide and bankruptcy great again.

    1. Just out of curiosity, for purposes of Commercial property valuation and taxation, what is the difference between the carbon pipeline Summit Carbon Solutions is proposing and, say, a natural gas pipeline?

      1. Don’t expect an answer to this. I’ve been asking it for months. The closest I’ve received to an honest answer was “carbon capture is just part of the “green new deal” and we won’t stand for that in our state”. So it’s just about what’s in the pipeline, not the pipeline itself.

  4. Referring SB 201 has become more about selling Amanda Radke’s promotion services, books, clothing and food rather than landowner rights.

      1. She is so self serving! She can’t keep her lies straight & sadly she has snow balled a bunch of nuts! She used the death of a young boy from a farm accident to sell more books! Anyone who buys her road show crap needs to have their heads examined!

  5. I still haven’t heard an argument against SB201. Just people saying it’s bad but no reasons.

    1. SB201 will cost the utility companies more money and they will pass those costs along to their consumers

      1. Well finally an argument that may have a little base in reality. An actual interesting point. Thank you.

      1. How does this bill allow for that??? How does this bill give anyone any eminent domain authority that wasn’t already there? Point to it.

      2. Be specific. Give examples of how this bill does that. Or seriously stop spouting this ridiculous mantra.

      3. Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005),[1] was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

        Simple.

        1. Don’t bring federal law, reason and provable facts into this argument. You are going to ruin their gaslighting. Let’s also not mention that we are still waiting for a State Supreme Court ruling to determine if carbon is even a commodity. That will decide what eminent domain rights they even have. Let’s also not point out that Summit is winning supreme court cases in places like ND and Iowa just approved their project. So shame on the legislature for trying to get some protections for landowners.

          1. SB 201 has quantifiable benefits to landowners, which are pointed out elsewhere. However, there is also a modification to Chapter 49-41B, which takes away all local ability to regulate in any way the pipeline “routing, setback, construction, operation, maintenance, and zoning permits.” Without this clause, the pipeline does not get built unless Summit cooperates with local zoning authorities who do not want the pipeline close to things like inhabited structures or schools.

            Taking away local control is the whole point of SB 201.

      4. This doesn’t even address allowing eminent domain. That one has been allowed for decades (centuries?).

  6. Not sure where you get this falsehood that everyone in SD is scared.

    Here is a good reason not to have referred legislation.

    A person is smart, people are stupid. ~ Tommy Lee Jones

    1. For sure, look at the great legislators that got taken out by stupid voters.

    2. You honestly think that state legislators are being “bought and paid for” by lobbyists? You thnk people are selling their souls for a couple hundred dollar donation from a PAC so they can buy some campaign signs? If so, then we should talk about how PACs like Liberty Tree give thousands to candidates, so that they can have controllable, useful idiots elected.

    3. Same applies to SDRTL then right? Because the candidates they backed over incumbents sure as shit aren’t wise.

  7. Nothing really, except that there has been nothing but misinformation, fear and outright lies spewed by those trying to get it on the ballot. There arguments are always about striking up fear and anger and not one person has been able to argue against the bill based on what is actually in the bill. It is some of the craziest garbage I’ve ever seen. It’s like none of them have even read it. And a lot of nuts got elected on this issue alone.

  9. If SB201 is removed, the pipeline will still go through and farmers will get shafted on their easements while taxpayers will foot the liability at the local level if Summit files civil suits because counties try to preempt federal law. Should be a fun show.

  10. As documented, mostly on the out-of-state name-caller blog, grudznick is pro-pipeline and big-time pro-borehole. I do like the borehole idea. But this measure, referred, is a mean-spirited attempt to prey upon the ignorance of the masses. It won’t do diddly for most, and it will just strip some power from landowners. If you are a landowner, like grudznick and my friends, get your road dogs to vote no, too. Even my close personal friend, Lar, who owns a few slices of land, is on board with opposing this atrocity. And Lar hates everything.

    1. . Any group using large amounts of money on legislators is not on the up and up. Their carbon pipeline is just plain dumb. Cannot believe how many people are willing to be a part of a green energy scam…Call them carbondum

      1. There it is again. It’s not the pipeline, it’s what’s in the pipeline. Like somehow referring 201 is going to stop a carbon pipeline from happening. I personally think carbon capture is dumb. But I also understand that it is happening and it would be nice to have some protections for landowners in place. One of the few times legislators actually tried to be proactive and get ahead of something and the voters kick them in the junk for it.

      2. Here is what is not a scam: The left is coming after the internal combustion engine. They are coming after coal. They are coming after gasoline and diesel. They want all shut down.

        Ethanol, and coal plants like ND’s Project Tundra, extend the life of each of these by making then low carbon fuel sources. Thats not a scam, it’s math. There can be a debate on merits, but favoring policies that prolong the life of these energy sources does not mean one has bought into a scam.

        You can keep yelling these items are scams, or you can wake up and realize your truck, home, and utilities are all at risk.

    2. Last I heard Lar had a psychotic break after that blog shut down and he was in the New Mexico State Mental Hospital.

    3. That Lar guy does hate everything. He would always try to get ultra-fringe candidates to run as Independents to split the vote and would make offers to help fund their campaigns. One took his offer and you know what he got? A crumpled and soiled five dollar bill and five home made terrible looking photo copied flyers that were dirty in an envelope with no return address postmarked from New Mexico.

  11. I hope those petitions are being looked at VERY closely…there is no way there are that many stupid people to have signed it! If they succeed, SD farmers & SD economy will pay the price. This will not stop the pipeline…just make it a lot less expensive for Summit. Removing 201 is 100% the wrong way to fight the pipeline. One of the complaints that it takes away local government control…wrong, it simply makes them accountable as it should be. This bill has nothing to do with Eminent domain & everything to do with landowner protection.

    1. Last year ethanol has had record sales. You have been fed garbage. Research the amount of carbon released across the US….hardly worth talking about.

      2. Another post showing that it’s not the pipeline, but what’s in it. At least these posts are honest. I can’t stand the disingenuous posts about eminent domain and stealing landowners’ rights. I often wonder how many of these people were at standing rock protesting Dakota Access?

        1. Did we need to be there to be against it?

          Of course it matters what’s in it…if this thing was carrying fresh water I bet it would have a lot more support. Nobody wants or needs ethanol byproducts, especially not on their land.

          1. Well apparently a lot of people want ethanol products. And there is a good number of land owners that wouldn’t mind $90k just to let someone bury a pipe 4 ft underground across a 1/4 section of their ground, that they still get to graze and plant on. Oh, and they still own the land, they’ve just granted an easement. But I get it. If it’s oil, heck yeah!! If it’s carbon, screw you gubment!!

      3. If you’re not paying attention to the multiple markets beginning to demand that any ethanol sold in their jurisdictions must have carbon mitigation, you’re an idiot.

    2. This comment is untrue. Below is the actual language from SB 201:

      Section 7. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 49-41B:

      A county, municipality, township, or other governmental unit, including governmental units chartered under S.D. Const., Art. IX, § 2, may not pass or enforce an ordinance that regulates, restricts, or prohibits a gas or liquid transmission line or an electric transmission line which requires or holds a permit under chapter 49-41B, including without limitation any requirement or restrictions as to routing, setback, construction, operation, maintenance, and zoning permits. Nothing herein restricts the ability of the commission to establish setbacks, or to require the compliance of above-ground structures with generally applicable zoning ordinances, building, and fire codes.

      This Act preempts any local law, ordinance, or regulation that conflicts with any provision of this chapter or any policy of the state implemented in accordance with this chapter and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, a governmental unit of this state may not enact or enforce an ordinance, local law, or regulation conflicting with or preempted by this chapter.

    1. So South Dakota ag alliance is pushing for sb201 which is funded by summit, but summit says they don’t want sb201 ? Makes a lot of sense. I do believe one one of the founders of South Dakota ag alliance was a lobbyist for navigator. People need to wake up and follow the money. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.

      1. SB 201 is a legislative bill that became law. How exactly could it be funded by Summit?

  13. Not for nothing but -From the ND Supreme Court-

    “Summit Carbon Solutions received a ruling affirming its ability to access private property without prior permission for the sake of surveying potential routes for its planned Midwest Carbon Express CO2 pipeline”

    So they don’t even have to get permission. They can just show up and survey. Hmmm… wouldn’t it be nice if there was a bill in place that would require 30 days notice and require them to show up with a $500 check just for entering your property and doing the thing that, at least one, supreme court has already said they could do?

    SB201 was touted as a compromise bill. As the courts continue to rule in their favor, it should be getting clearer all the time that Summit is the one that did the compromising. They’ll be glad to see SB201 disappear.

  14. Looking forward to the new leaders in the legislature to get all this squared away.

    1. Yup. “Silent Sam” Marty will get this taken care of. If his sister remembers to wake him up for the vote.

  15. Here’s something to consider. Now that the referendum has been turned in to the Secretary of State’s Office. If this does appear on the ballot, will it delay the implementation of SB201 which go into effect on July 1st which is this Monday?

  16. From a Nebraska Examiner article –
    North Dakota law does not require written notice to landowners for survey access and allows survey crews access for projects that would benefit the public to show up at any time. Attorney Brian Jorde argued in December that written notice should be required and landowners should be compensated up front.

    Hey, wouldn’t it be cool if SD made it state law that landowners had to receive written notice and they had to be compensated up front? Oh wait…

  17. Pretty safe to presume that those opposed to Carbon Pipelines don’t give a crap about their kids/grandkids. If they did care they’d realize that the pipelines are going to help keep ethanol viable which is vital to our states future economy, and two serve as some of the biggest carbon mitigation efforts to date, which helps out the environment.

      1. Not about surviving. It’s about adapting and growing with the ever changing markets.

      2. I take it you are too young to remember the 80s when there farm auctions every week because corn was hardly worth planting.

        1. We need to get away from monoculture anyways and diversify. Less chemical and water input would sure help anyways. If markets need to be further developed then let’s do it. If there are opportunities for new crops then great whether they be for food or future material utilization.

Comments are closed.