South Dakota Wildlife Federation demanding that landowners unable to profit from their flooded land in special session.

Pat Powers

From a my voices column from this past weekend, on behalf of the South Dakota Wildlife Federation, Chris Hesla is arguing against the proposed legislation, operating under the assumption that farmers’ flooded land should belong to everyone but the person who physically holds title to it:

Further, this bill allows mass commercialization of a public resource. Although this bill prohibits landowners from receiving financial compensation in exchange for granting permission to fish closed public waters, it does not prevent other types of compensation; does not apply the same restrictions to lessees; does not prevent an owner from receiving financial compensation in exchange for granting other access including hunting; and does not prevent individuals from forming a legal entity that purchases submerged property and then allows exclusive access to members/shareholders. This is not balance. Balance is either opening public waters to all or closing public waters to all.

SDWF has other concerns still unaddressed, including no specific recognition that recreational use is a beneficial or lawful use of water; not allowing certain recreation activity on the bed of nonmeandered lakes or their frozen surfaces; and amending criminal trespass in the light of inconsistent marking standards. Further, though well-intended, the sunset provision gives SDWF no solace given the political climate where a passed bill would likely be subsequently continued to avoid conflict. Nor does SDWF find solace in the hope landowners will not post public waters closed – under this bill, once public waters are closed they can be closed forever. But, SDWF is willing to work through those issues so long as the public has the right to petition to open closed waters and recognition that if waters are closed, they are closed to all.

Read that here.

If the measure provides that the bill “prohibits landowners from receiving financial compensation in exchange for granting permission to fish closed public waters,” then that’s a serious error that legislators should remedy today.”  Why should someone be denied the ability to rent their own land, especially when they did not ask for millions of gallons of water to be standing on it?

Those conditions could change with a shift in weather patterns – as they did to create the lakes. If they were allowed to obtain a profit from the land when it grew corn or beans, they should be allowed to continue to make a livlihood while that potential lasts.

13 thoughts on “South Dakota Wildlife Federation demanding that landowners unable to profit from their flooded land in special session.”

  1. If land owners can’t make a profit from me fishing on their land, then they shouldn’t be able to make a profit from me hunting pheasants on their land. Let’s open that can of worms.

    1. Yikes. Greenfield obviously didn’t think that through. Can of worms indeed.

  2. Why should someone be able to deny a citizen their right to fish and access a lake from the public property?

    This bill only creates more of a mess. Any time a lobbyist like Matt MaCaulley is involved in writing the bill then the public should have great concern.

    Vote this bill down.

    This is the guy who will be advising Kristi Noem on her campaign and as governor if she wins. Sportsman beware.

  3. It seems that the SD Wildlife Federation wants the use of someone else’s property without paying for it. If they want it so bad, let them raise the money to buy all the flooded land. If it ever dries up then the SDWF could let everyone hunt on it. Or . . . a special license for fishing on flooded land could be sold and the money used to pay the farmer for the use of it. That way those who want to fish it can pay for it and others don’t have to pay. Isn’t hat fair?

  5. Liberty Dick, I agree.

    There are two options:

    1) Legislature does nothing today and fishing rights end on these waters. In short, fishing on these waters becomes the same as hunting on private land whereby you can harvest State game animals (fish and pheasants) with permission of the landowner or do so above public owned/controlled land.

    2) The Legislature decides to declare that water accumulation on private land creates “public body” (effective legal seizure of private property with the added benefit of collecting tax from the landowner) above the land and legal fishing is permitted.

    There is really no middle ground so let’s quit pretending there is something which is a compromise.

  6. If a landowner profits from waters over his/her land and denies public access then that land should go back to 100% taxable instead of the 10% it is now.

  7. The amount of anti-landowners supporting this bill is staggering!
    Bob Merced quoted Tim Rounds saying “once landowners get control, the Legislature won’t be able to get it back” Clearly he’s drinking the Hesla Kool-aid!

    1. Rounds is doing the right thing.

      Until a couple months ago the landowners didn’t have any rights on non meandered waters.

      The legislature is trying to do a 180.

      Good for Tim.

  8. We are so lucky we have a limited government Republican super majority in our legislature Who are dedicated to protecting and supporting the constitutional private property rights of South Dakotans.

  9. 6:32,
    You must elaborate then because I can’t reconcile a statement that says we don’t want the landowners getting too much control with what appears a defense on your part him defending landowner rights.
    Are you in favor of the bill or not because it seems you are contradicting yourself. What does his no vote mean to you?

Comments are closed.