So, has anyone heard about the referral of SB201 yet?

I’ve spent a chunk of last week in airports, but I believe the Secretary of State was working under a hard deadline for the approval or rejection of the SB201 petition signatures.

Allegedly, there was a completion deadline for the SOS review, as laws passed in the 2024 legislative session go into effect today, but I do know they had staff out of the office, and they are not allowed to review on Saturday or Sunday.

Has anyone heard what happened with that yet?

56 thoughts on “So, has anyone heard about the referral of SB201 yet?”

  1. My understanding is that as of Monday they were still verifying the signatures. Implementation of SB201 has been delayed as a result. If the measure does make the ballot, SB201 will not be enacted pending November’s elections. Curious to see Summit’s next move. CEO Lee Blank said to the media that they plan to submit their application to the PUC this month.

  2. I’m mainly interested in what this group is going to do when Summit comes out in favor of repealing 201. By pushing a flat out repeal of 201, this group is doing Summits work for them. If the concern is local control, then the they should only be asking for sections 6 and 7 to be repealed. This group also continues to bring up that 201 is a gateway for summit to use eminent domain. While I am not in favor of the use of eminent domain for this project, now I do think it should qualify for the use of eminent domain, 201 has nothing to do with eminent domain.

    An initiated measure changing the eminent domain laws and possibly another dealing with local control is what should have been done. By flat our repealing 201, all they are doing is hurting landowners and counties and helping Summit.

    I sympathize with landowners who don’t want this project in their property and are concerned about eminent domain. I also would like to see at least some local control. However, the path this group has chosen is extremely short sighted.

    1. Nope, disagree, here’s why:

      The SD PUC already denied Summits permit application. That’s when Lee had his little fit and called Hader an idiot, or whatever. So then the Legislature gets together and is like “we’ll pass this bill and misleadingly call it Landowner Bill of Rights and then the PUC will approve the application.” Summit gets their way and landowners get a few pennies a year while otherwise being railroaded.

      By repealing 201 they’re hoping/assuming the PUC will again deny until permit, as they should.

      1. So, like I said, then do something to retain local control. Which is why the PUC denied it the first time around. Because the app didn’t conform with county ordinances. The remainder of 201 helps counties and helps landowners. It’s foolish to get rid of it completely.

        I fully agree that counties should retain local control. I’m not a fan of that part of 201. But outside of that, how does 201 harm landowners or counties?

        1. Summit is pumping money in pacs to keep BS201. They do not want it repealed. BS 201 does nothing but provide summit a path forward.

          1. So your entire argument is “Summit bad…201 bad.” Why won’t you answer the question? And what PACs is summit pumping money into?

      2. There are a number of low points in this saga, and very few high points. The meltdown by the Senator from Watertown was certainly a low point, more reflective of a late night at the bar than any reasoned discussion. The ultimate low point is the inability of ANYONE to clearly articulate their position. The Ag Alliance sat on both sides of the fence when it came to justifying their actions before and after the “landowner bills of rights.” As pointed out here, the opponents rail against eminent domain even though the bill they want to repeal doesn’t address it. Summit obviously has a position, but they’re not really saying anything right now, which tells me they have a plan but they’re satisfied passing the popcorn with all of us argue like toddlers over a chew toy. Would someone be the adult in the room? Please?

  3. Honestly reading thru the so- called landowner bill of rights, it seems to me that 95% of what is in that would be negotiated with an easement. It seems the legislators, 1 are not very smart or 2 tried to sell stripping away local control with a title called the landowner bill of rights to achieve the objective. Either way I don’t see it as good legislation as the power should always remain with the people in there respective counties and township’s the way our framers intended. If we start giving up local control what happens next could you imagine Washington or Pierre for a matter of fact running a county in South Dakota without there residents interests. The majority of South Dakotans just want to be left alone and live there lives how they see fit and be a good neighbor.

    1. Left alone, as in having a neighbor a mile away getting to tell you when you can wipe your behind? That’s the what’s these extreme “local” control laws do—take away individual rights of landowners.

      1. People want local control until they don’t. Example: you local control peeps can start totally funding your local school systems.

        1. They dont want public education because they consider it propaganda. They want private everything, because as we all know: private orgs never propagandize and therefore need no oversight ever.

          1. Well when project 2025 cuts the 18 billion in school funding, it’s going to be hilarious how many trumpers will be running around without the ability to read or write. SD will be screwed when they see their taxes go through the roof.

  4. The whole facade of pipeline local control will be gone in time. There is no such thing as local control on interstate pipeline zoning, but the legislature threw the counties a bone by leaving it in as an attempt to find compromise while also protecting landowners and funding counties out of Summit’s pockets. If I was Summit, I would let SB 201 die. In the end, the blame will be on the anti crowd for taking protections away from landowners and costing taxpayers millions defending the extreme setbacks enacted by these reckless counties that don’t comply with federal law.

    1. How exactly does the bill protect land owners ? I have been read that, but don’t quite understand how this bill accomplishes that ?

      1. Sets a deeper depth for the pipeline, guarantees that the companies have to notify and compensate for surveys, sets a higher compensation base rate.

        1. What happens when the pipeline companies fold? As long as this is a going concern companies like summit will/should pay the fees and compensate landowners. But let’s not kid ourselves too much. We’re pumping air into the ground so EU companies can buy “credits” and continue pumping their exhaust overseas. As even Schoenbeck put it, the science is wonky. Wind turbines are hitting a bit of a snag already. What happens when Europe falls on tough times and the science isn’t working out like they thought? Summit looses its main source of revenue and files for bankruptcy. Who pays for the clean up and removal then? Does 201 create its own version of the superfund? Eventually this house of cards will fall and the landowners will have miles and miles of dormant pipe underground good for nothing but air. I don’t see this addressed. I think 201 assumes this will always be there, and assumptions like that almost always fail.

          1. The pipe can lay dormant in the ground if not used. It would not be a hazard. Since it’s 4 feet deep it’s not in the way of farming that would require removal. If there is salvage value the landowner would get that after the 5 years of inactivity since the easement would be void thanks to HB 1186, another bill these so-called property rights activists voted against.

            1. “The pipe can lay dormant in the ground if not used.” Debatable, but what if the landowner doesn’t want it there? Under this scheme, the landowner does not get to negotiate the easement and they don’t get to participate in the permitting process. It is entirely possible that the pipe causes some kind of damage in the future that we can’t predict now. What if the pipe can’t just sit there, and it’s causing problems? Is the homeowner expected to “eat it” when they decide the empty pipe needs to come out? “Salvage value”? Really. Sure, you can get scrap metal pricing AFTER you dig it out. No way salvage value covers the cost of removal. Pipes have empty space. If not purposely filled with air, they’ll eventually corrode and fill with something like other gases, ground water, or anything that leaches through the soil. These are a lot of what-ifs, but it’s inevitable that someone encounters a problem with this. When that happens, the pipeline companies will be long gone. If the best answer we have to solve this problem is “salvage value,” that’s not an assurance at all.

              1. Where does this bill remove the negotiation of the easement? How is this any different than the miles of oil pipeline running through the state? The only valid argument I’ve heard against this bill is that it gives the PUC too much power to override local zoning. (They always could override local zoning, the bill just makes it easier.) But that is something that could be fixed with an amendment to the bill, not throwing the whole damn thing out and starting from scratch. I don’t think people understand the legislative process at all, and this includes almost everyone one of the Freedom Caucus idiots just elected.

              2. Comment at 4:16.

                I am guessing that the comment was made by John Mills or Karla Lems, two of the farmer hating, anti development people in the HOUSE.

        2. You would negotiate that in an easement. The Compensation for a survey is laughable. So I ask again how does this protect landowners?

          1. Assuming folks are all lawyered up and saying they should have to hire a lawyer instead of being protected by law leads me to believe you’re a lawyer. Other than the I-don’t-get-it schtick.

            These lame arguments don’t age well, but I’m afraid the general public isn’t paying attention so folks like you keep perpetuating this crap.

            1. Definitely not an attorney but you don’t need an attorney to negotiate at easement. So I ask again what additional landowner protections are provided in this bill ?

              1. Well the fact is that the landowners in nd lost their court case and it was deemed that summit can just show up, unannounced and do what they please with $0 dollars in compensation should say something to you. This bill would force 30 day notification and $500 to the landowner just for them showing up to do the work thing other courts said they could do for free. I can’t believe the shortsightedness I continue to see. Summit is winning case after case in their favor. This is an interstate pipeline and summit is going to continue to win cases against landowners and counties at the landowners/counties’ expense. It should be clear at this point that summit made the compromises on this bill. The people in butte county yelling about it crack me up. Butte county doesn’t have even have zoning for crying out loud. Oh and the PUC always had the ability to override local zoning and ordinances. And the PUC still has the ability to deny permits. At this point, I have to believe that the anti group is willfully ignorant, illiterate or both.

                  1. Illiteracy really is the silent killer. Requirement for thirty day notice to landowner (not currently required). Requirement for payment upon arrival (not currently required). 4 foot depth instead of current required 3 foot depth. SD residents appraising and surveying the property so your property isn’t valued by an out of state hack and lowballed. Repairing of drain tile. Indemnity to landowners for any damage. A limitation on term of easement. Not to mention property tax relief for the landowner on top of what they are paid for the easement. This is all in black and white and not difficult reading. It’s only 8 pages, so you likely won’t need to set aside your entire afternoon to read it. I might suggest you do what I did. Print out the bill. Then print out the original sections of statute that are being amended. Then place them side by side and compare. It should be enlightening, unless, as I suspect, you are intentionally being dense.

      1. An operating ethanol plant helps the whole region, so I would disagree with your top feeder notion.

      2. That isn’t how a tax credit works. It isn’t your money or “tax payer” money being handed out to corporations.. It is the pipeline company’s money- the credit lowers the amount of taxes they pay, but they still have to pay taxes.

  5. Once the 8th Circuit affirms the Iowa court decision the whole issue will be over. The only authority over interstate transmission lines is the federal government. All this feigned indignation by a-holes that don’t even live near the pipeline route will be for nothing. This has been a bunch of hysterics from the same folks who say elections are rigged and despise all government.

  6. of the thousand of interstate pipelines like Summit’s may be, that currently are in place in SD and have been so for decades, how many counties needed ‘local control’ to address where those highly explosive pipelines needed to be placed? is this the same local control that demands more money from the legislature for property tax relief but kills off any economic development in their county?

  7. Has there been any polling done on the repeal yet or not likely to be any until after it gets approved for the ballot?

  8. *silence*

    very quiet here so far on the shiny new kingship claimed by donald trump based on SCOTUS’ 6-3 affirmation of the notion that a president has immunity from prosecution for certain official acts.

    by his own series of xtweets monday, trump quickly expanded the scope of the limited decision to include instant broad sweeping powers for himself. he expanded the window for his “official” (meaning ‘in office’) actions to include the years before his presidency began. he extended it beyond January 2021 to include this very moment.

    truth social was so busy. he ordered the immediate arrest of a dozen or so members of congress. he openly talked about arresting president biden, of holding liz cheney, nancy pelosi, the j6 committee and witnesses in chains for high treason as well as the immediate release of the “j-6 hostages.” since his felony sentencing looms for 2016 conspiracy to illegally interfere in the race between him and mrs clinton, he was quick to demand the immediate arrest of judge merchan.

    i of course will be called out for “tds” but wanting trump installed as a self-crowning king is the derangement. from here on in, anyone advocating trump has no moral right to claim they are in any way a republican in any sense of the term. biden is a better republican. what a joke.

    biden, the current president, was quick to call out the supreme courts massive error. biden would be well within the scope of his new expanded powers to arrest the six majority justices for high treason against the constitution, and have this decision marched back for reconsideration asap.

    1. You and the rest of the left are terrified about things Trump may do at the same time the left is doing these things presently.

  9. I guess I need help understanding this … SB 201 Referendum petition deadline was last Monday (June 24). One reason deadlines exist is to allow for situations in which laws enacted by the Legislature are referred, thus requiring the measure to go before the voters at the next General Election. I believe the system was designed to prevent the scenario playing out currently whereby affected parties are in limbo – because the SOS has failed to complete its duty to determine whether sufficient valid signatures were submitted by the deadline – thus preventing the proposed law from taking effect.
    This is a fundamental responsibility of the SOS office. Procedures are in place for reviewing petitions to determine their validity – and those procedures specifically prescribe methods for doing so, such as using random number generators to check petitions for valid and invalid signatures. It has now been more than a full week since petitions were filed. What am I failing to understand? The nebulous gray area is inexplicable (imo) and extremely frustrating. And please don’t suggest lame excuses like “staff shortages”. The office has had more than enough time to do its job.

  10. This is outrageous. Farms are at risk because these laws have not gone into effect to protect SD landowners.

    1. What farm is at risk ? You are protected, the puc told them no already once because they couldn’t adhere to the county setbacks. If this passes you are at risk sir

      1. How, just how would he or anyone else who has the pipeline be at risk? You anti 201 individuals are so goddamn illiterate on scientific and economic matters it would be funny if you weren’t about to torpedo farmers and small town SD.

          1. And? Should we litter this thread with the pages of oil pipeline ruptures that have occurred? These things do happen and that’s the unfortunate reality. At least the bill gives protection and indemnifies the landowners. This bill doesn’t grant approval to the carbon pipelines. The PUC can still deny the permits based on any number of factors. Just like they denied the last permits.

            1. The question was “how would he or anyone else who has the pipeline be at risk?” The link has an answer. You goddamn illiterate or something?

              1. Well I’m not the one who made the “illiterate” comment, so I think your ire is misplaced. My post acknowledges the inherent risk of any pressurized pipeline. It just seemed disingenuous to suggest that these pipelines are somehow categorically more dangerous than other pipelines already running through the state. I assure you that I am quite literate. No need to ruin discussion and discourse by being a tough-guy keyboard warrior.

              2. The Mississippi pipeline carried hydrogen sulfide, which is toxic and what caused the hospitalizations. Swing and a miss, go read a high school chemistry book.

                1. It’s like the anti 201 folks are trained bots that spew out the same 3 talking points. Maybe Pat can set up a landing page that requires folks read 201 before they can make comments about stealing land, taking away property rights, and it all being a green new deal boondoggle.

                  If you’re an anti 201 person reading this and don’t know what I’m talking about, go read the bill. And then send your anti leaders a text asking them why they are fighting a bill that’s good for landowners.

  11. If we just went to 100% green energy and got rid of all fossil fuels, that would solve this problem. Look at Deepwater Horizon. 11 people died and it caused an environmental disaster. Not to mention destroyed the fishing industry and shut down who knows how many businesses. And oil companies use eminent domain for pipelines all the time. If we get rid of fossil fuels, we get rid of carbon capture from ethical plants. Problem solved. (Insert very large eye roll)

  12. While we are over here trying to repeal landowner protections, the UK just elected a party and prime minister whose platform is to ban production of the internal combustion engine by 2030. The biofuels industry better adapt to appease consumer demands, or it will die.

  13. Haha there are no protections just political talking points, gives Little will in a large suit with an extra small body some yapping points to yap about how he has plays cow hand when all honesty he sold family land to eat steak

Leave a Reply

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