Bluestem Prairie

100s attend first day of SD PUC ethanol carbon pipeline meetings in Mitchell and Sioux Falls

Two news reports on PUC meetings over the ethanol carbon pipelines in South Dakota. I'll be attending tomorrow's meeting in Aberdeen.

For the Mitchell Republic, Marcus Traxler reports in PUC public input meetings for Summit Carbon pipeline begins in Mitchell:

More than 250 people were on hand to hear from company officials about the plan at the Mitchell High School Performing Arts Center . . .

The PUC held a public input session at the Mitchell High School Performing Arts Center, with more than 250 members of the public in attendance for the three-hour-plus session. It was the first in a series of six public meetings held between Wednesday and Friday on the eastern half of South Dakota. In addition to a Wednesday night meeting in Sioux Falls, meetings in De Smet and Watertown are scheduled for Thursday, while Aberdeen and Redfield will be sites for Friday’s meetings.  . . .

Those in attendance heard from ag industry advocates and construction industry professionals who spoke about the benefits of the project to farmers and to the workforce. Opponents to the plan spoke about potential concerns if the pipeline were to burst, and the issues that it would cause for health, environment and communities along the pipeline's route, along with taking aim at Summit Carbon's hope to use eminent domain against landowners who don't want to use the pipeline. In August 2024, the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled against Summit, saying it cannot use eminent domain because it is not a common carrier and carbon dioxide is not a commodity. . . .

An informal tally of proponent and opponent speakers during the meeting included 16 individuals speaking in favor of the project and 19 against the project, with two speaking and indicating they were neutral. . . .

Read the entire article at the Mitchell Republic.

Sounds like it was a bigger and more raucous crown down in Sioux Falls. From the South Dakota Searchlight.

Hundreds crowd public hearing on second attempt at a carbon pipeline permit
by Makenzie Huber

SIOUX FALLS — Hundreds of people, many of them opponents of a carbon dioxide pipeline, filled the Southeast Technical College auditorium Wednesday evening for a state Public Utilities Commission hearing regarding a second attempt by Summit Carbon Solutions to gain a permit for the project. 

“We know this is an incredibly important issue to you,” said Commissioner Gary Hanson at the start of the three-hour meeting. “We are here today to learn and listen, and we appreciate each of you being with us today to give us your input.”

The Iowa-based company plans a 2,500-mile, $9 billion pipeline to capture carbon dioxide from 57 ethanol plants across five states, including eastern South Dakota, and transport it to North Dakota for underground storage. The project would capitalize on federal tax credits incentivizing the prevention of heat-trapping carbon emissions.

The commission rejected Summit’s first permit application in 2023, in part due to the pipeline route’s conflicts with local ordinances mandating minimum distances between pipelines and existing features.

The project has a storage permit in North Dakota and route permits in North Dakota, Iowa and Minnesota, while Nebraska has no state permitting process for carbon pipelines. The project also faces litigation from opponents in multiple states.

The Sioux Falls meeting focused on residents in Minnehaha, Lincoln, Turner and Union counties. The commission held another meeting in Mitchell earlier in the day.

Most of Wednesday’s attendees opposed the pipeline — evident by applause often filling the room after opponents spoke. The opponents who spoke primarily reiterated concerns about safety and impacts to farmland affected by the pipeline’s planned route, which were raised during the company’s initial attempt at a permit.

Opponents also spoke against efforts to designate the pipeline as a common carrier, which would allow the use of eminent domain to push the project through. The South Dakota Supreme Court ruled last year that the pipeline has not yet proven it should be allowed to take private land for public use. The high court sent the case back to a lower court, where the company is trying to prove its case.

Meanwhile, some state lawmakers have proposed legislation to ban carbon pipelines from using eminent domain.

Betty Strom, whose property would be crossed by the pipeline, said it would be a “forever hazard across my land.” 

“Summit is in it for the tax credits. They don’t care about property rights, safety, the damage to property, its value or the long-term consequences,” Strom said. “Please deny this permit again.”

Representatives from Summit explained why the route was selected and reviewed safety regulations and standards for the pipeline.

In a handout, Summit said the project would include $1.9 billion in capital expenditures in South Dakota, add 3,000 construction jobs while the pipeline is being built and support 260 jobs annually. 

Project supporters said it would provide economic opportunities to South Dakota if implemented.

Al Giese, an Iowa farmer, board member for the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association and owner of a feed and trucking company doing business in South Dakota, told the commission that the “carbon sequestration train, locally and nationally, has left the station.”

“Yes, it is a South Dakota issue. It is a Midwestern issue. But we must move forward with sequestering carbon not only for the vitality of the ag sector but for all the economies in the Midwestern states,” Giese said. “There’s no other way to go about it.”

The next public hearings will be in De Smet and Watertown on Thursday, and in Aberdeen and Redfield on Friday.

Photo: Hundreds of people fill the Southeast Technical College auditorium in Sioux Falls for a Public Utilities Commission hearing about a carbon dioxide pipeline proposal on Jan. 15, 2025. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight).

This South Dakota Searchlight article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Related posts

•  Federal regulators announce proposed rule for CO2 pipeline safety
• Carbon pipeline opponents rallied Monday in Pierre amid push for eminent domain ban
• North Dakota landowners appeal Summit ethanol carbon storage decision 
• Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline company formally asks SD regulator to recuse herself 
• South Dakota Public Utilities Commissioner stays on new carbon pipeline case after prior recusal, with no explanation this time
• Punt! Lincoln County commissioners push back decision on ethanol carbon pipeline rules
• Summit Carbon Solutions in the news: landowners & counties appeal North Dakota pipeline permit; Summit tells Iowans to cease & desist; Pipeline Fighters Hub & CURE statements
• North Dakota Industrial Commission approves CO2 storage for Summit ethanol carbon pipeline
• Minnesota PUC granted a permit for Summit Carbon Solutions Otter Tail to Wilkin County pipeline
• South Dakota Public Utilities Commission schedules public input meetings on Summit carbon pipeline application
• Summit ethanol CO2 injection wells up for approval but court appeal already in the works
• Oh the irony: ethanol carbon pipeline company has failed to address crossing concerns, DAPL oil pipeline company says
• Iowa Supreme Court upholds land survey abilities of pipeline companies in Summit case
• U.S. appeals court hears Summit pipeline case against Iowa's Shelby and Story counties
• Never mind the voters: ethanol carbon pipeline company reapplies for South Dakota permit
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Summit sues another Iowa county and more!
• North Dakota Public Service Commission approves Summit carbon pipeline route
• North Dakota couple plans to ‘dig in’ if Summit ethanol carbon pipeline is approved
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: CO2 pipeline in MN moves forward; ND Public Service Commission decision coming Friday
• SD pipeline foes secure legislative leadership; MN Summit decision could come Dec. 12
• In unofficial results, ethanol carbon-pipeline law tossed out by South Dakota voters 
• CURE: MN Administrative Law Judge’s report on Summit’s CO 2 pipeline expected November 4
• Seven South Dakota ballot measures, $7 million and counting: Reports reveal total spending
• Jeepers: ethanol coop kicks in another $400,000 to support carbon pipeline ballot question 
• Ethanol carbon news digest: Summit Carbon pipeline in MN, Iowa & North Dakota media
• Summit Carbon Solutions CEO asks for prayer, while MN PUC wants public comment on FEIS of Otter Tail – Wilkin portion of CO2 Pipeline
• Public can comment on Otter Tail – Wilkin Co section of ethanol carbon pipeline until Sept. 11
• VIDEO: Carbon capture in Minnesota: public lands, fast money, and pipe dreams
• Summit pipeline segment enters final permitting stages in Minnesota; CURE raises objections
• Ethanol is fueling support of South Dakota carbon pipeline ballot measure
• Pipeline Fighters Hub: Summit Carbon Solutions numbers don’t add up in South Dakota 
• Referred Law 21 & carbon pipelines: A landowner bill of rights or an undermining of local control
• Summit Carbon Solution's ethanol carbon pipeline takes #2 spot on Heatmap's The Most At-Risk Projects of The Energy Transition 
• Ethanol carbon pipeline news: Attorneys differ on meaning of common carrier law in Summit case
• Summit Carbon Solutions pipelines won’t capture all carbon emitted by ethanol plants
• South Dakota Supreme Court ruling complicates Summit Carbon Solution’s push for land
• Referred pipeline law puts Summit Carbon Solution's permit quest in limbo
• Breaking crowded South Dakota ballot news: carbon pipeline law referendum validated
• Sustainable jet fuel company Gevo contributes $167K in defense of carbon pipeline law
• South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance turns in petitions to SD Secretary of State to force a vote on carbon pipeline policy
• South Dakota District 1 GOP House primary news round-up: carbon pipeline politics major issue
• New Midwest battles brew over CO2 pipelines

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

Federal regulators announce proposed rule for CO2 pipeline safety

I'll be posting in a bit about South Dakota PUC public meetings in Sioux Falls and Mitchell about the Summit Carbon Solutions' ethanol carbon pipeline.

In the meantime, news from the Iowa Capital Dispatch about federal rulemaking for CO2 pipeline safety.

Federal regulators announce proposed rule for CO2 pipeline safety 
by Cami Koons

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, or PHMSA, announced Wednesday a notice of proposed rule making to strengthen guidelines for carbon dioxide pipelines. 

The proposed rule would apply to carbon dioxide transported in a supercritical liquid state through pipelines and establishes, for the first time, guidelines for pipelines transporting gaseous CO2.

PHMSA, which is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, said in a press release the proposed rules are the result of “PHMSA’s largest public outreach campaign on record.” 

The proposed rule, if adopted as is, would require CO2 pipeline operators to train emergency responders and ensure local first responders have the necessary detection equipment in the event of an emergency.

It also would require operators produce more detailed vapor dispersion analyses and implement “more robust requirements” for communicating with the public in the event of an emergency, like a pipeline rupture or leak. 

According to the press release, these proposed rules address “lessons learned” from the administration’s multi-year investigation of a CO2 pipeline rupture in Satartia, Mississippi. 

“I have learned first-hand from affected communities in Mississippi and across America why we need stronger CO2 pipeline safety standards,” PHMSA Deputy Administrator Tristan Brown said in the release. “These new requirements will be the strongest, most comprehensive standards for carbon dioxide transportation in the world and will set our nation on a safer path as we continue to address climate challenges.”

The proposal would also create new rules for transitioning an existing pipeline into a CO2 pipeline and would establish requirements for CO2 gas pipelines. 

The department said the proposed rules respond to a “significant anticipated” need of what it estimates could be a 10-fold increase in carbon capture and storage infrastructure by 2050. According to the press release, currently the U.S. has more than 5,000 miles of carbon dioxide pipelines in operation.

The Summit Carbon Solutions proposed pipeline would have approximately 2,500-miles of pipe through Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota and Minnesota, transporting sequestered carbon dioxide from ethanol plants to underground storage in North Dakota. 

A statement from Summit Carbon Solutions, said the company was “pleased” with the proposed rules for providing clear standards for project developers. 

“As a company currently permitting a CO2 pipeline in the Midwest, Summit Carbon Solutions is committed to following these enhanced safety requirements and designing infrastructure that meets the highest standards of reliability and public safety,” the statement read.

Jimmy Powell, the chief operating officer for the company, said the updates underscore the importance of safety standards as the infrastructure for CO2 pipelines grows nationwide.

“Summit Carbon Solutions will ensure these standards are met as we move forward,” Powell said. “CO2 pipelines are essential for opening new opportunities for Midwest agriculture and supporting the success of American energy and economic goals.”

Jess Mazour, with the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club, an organization opposed to the Summit project, said the group was working to evaluate the rule as it would apply to the project in Iowa and surrounding states.

“We are very happy to see that PHMSA listened to the voices of everyday people threatened by proposed carbon pipelines,” Mazour said in a statement. “We hope the incoming administration continues to prioritize this rule and prioritize the needs of people, not pipeline companies and their investors.” 

Tom Buis, the CEO of American Carbon Alliance, an Iowa-based advocate of carbon capture pipelines and ethanol production, reiterated the safety and efficiency of CO2 pipelines, in a statement about the proposed rules. 

“Pipelines have a proven track record of safety and reliability, minimizing the risks associated with other forms of CO2 transportation,” Buis said. “These new rules will help us lead the world in safety and building infrastructure to meet global demand for American energy.”

A notice of proposed rule making is an announcement and explanation of an agency’s “plan
to
address
a
problem
or
accomplish
a
goal,” according to the Federal Register. 

The proposed rules are open to public comment for 60 days, after which, the agency will use the comments it received and the proposed rules to issue its final rules. 

Those interested in submitting comments can do so on the Regulations.gov website once the proposed rule making is published on the Federal Register.

This Iowa Capital Dispatch article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. 

Map: One of the maps of the proposed Summit Carbon Solutions ethanol carbon pipeline network.

Related posts

• Carbon pipeline opponents rallied Monday in Pierre amid push for eminent domain ban
• North Dakota landowners appeal Summit ethanol carbon storage decision 
• Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline company formally asks SD regulator to recuse herself 
• South Dakota Public Utilities Commissioner stays on new carbon pipeline case after prior recusal, with no explanation this time
• Punt! Lincoln County commissioners push back decision on ethanol carbon pipeline rules
• Summit Carbon Solutions in the news: landowners & counties appeal North Dakota pipeline permit; Summit tells Iowans to cease & desist; Pipeline Fighters Hub & CURE statements
• North Dakota Industrial Commission approves CO2 storage for Summit ethanol carbon pipeline
• Minnesota PUC granted a permit for Summit Carbon Solutions Otter Tail to Wilkin County pipeline
• South Dakota Public Utilities Commission schedules public input meetings on Summit carbon pipeline application
• Summit ethanol CO2 injection wells up for approval but court appeal already in the works
• Oh the irony: ethanol carbon pipeline company has failed to address crossing concerns, DAPL oil pipeline company says
• Iowa Supreme Court upholds land survey abilities of pipeline companies in Summit case
• U.S. appeals court hears Summit pipeline case against Iowa's Shelby and Story counties
• Never mind the voters: ethanol carbon pipeline company reapplies for South Dakota permit
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Summit sues another Iowa county and more!
• North Dakota Public Service Commission approves Summit carbon pipeline route
• North Dakota couple plans to ‘dig in’ if Summit ethanol carbon pipeline is approved
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: CO2 pipeline in MN moves forward; ND Public Service Commission decision coming Friday
• SD pipeline foes secure legislative leadership; MN Summit decision could come Dec. 12
• In unofficial results, ethanol carbon-pipeline law tossed out by South Dakota voters 
• CURE: MN Administrative Law Judge’s report on Summit’s CO 2 pipeline expected November 4
• Seven South Dakota ballot measures, $7 million and counting: Reports reveal total spending
• Jeepers: ethanol coop kicks in another $400,000 to support carbon pipeline ballot question 
• Ethanol carbon news digest: Summit Carbon pipeline in MN, Iowa & North Dakota media
• Summit Carbon Solutions CEO asks for prayer, while MN PUC wants public comment on FEIS of Otter Tail – Wilkin portion of CO2 Pipeline
• Public can comment on Otter Tail – Wilkin Co section of ethanol carbon pipeline until Sept. 11
• VIDEO: Carbon capture in Minnesota: public lands, fast money, and pipe dreams
• Summit pipeline segment enters final permitting stages in Minnesota; CURE raises objections
• Ethanol is fueling support of South Dakota carbon pipeline ballot measure
• Pipeline Fighters Hub: Summit Carbon Solutions numbers don’t add up in South Dakota 
• Referred Law 21 & carbon pipelines: A landowner bill of rights or an undermining of local control
• Summit Carbon Solution's ethanol carbon pipeline takes #2 spot on Heatmap's The Most At-Risk Projects of The Energy Transition 
• Ethanol carbon pipeline news: Attorneys differ on meaning of common carrier law in Summit case
• Summit Carbon Solutions pipelines won’t capture all carbon emitted by ethanol plants
• South Dakota Supreme Court ruling complicates Summit Carbon Solution’s push for land
• Referred pipeline law puts Summit Carbon Solution's permit quest in limbo
• Breaking crowded South Dakota ballot news: carbon pipeline law referendum validated
• Sustainable jet fuel company Gevo contributes $167K in defense of carbon pipeline law
• South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance turns in petitions to SD Secretary of State to force a vote on carbon pipeline policy
• South Dakota District 1 GOP House primary news round-up: carbon pipeline politics major issue
• New Midwest battles brew over CO2 pipelines

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

Governor Noem bids farewell and thank you to South Dakota in State of the State address

My romantic partner's mid-day medical appointment in Sioux Falls and foster kitten's vet visit kept me running all day yesterday, away from following the Minnesota House follies, and the convening of the South Dakota legislature.

Here's the South Dakota Searchlight's take on Governor Kristi Noem's farewell State of the State address.

Noem bids farewell and thank you to SD in State of the State address
by Makenzie Huber

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem used her State of the State address on Tuesday to say goodbye.

Noem is expected to resign sometime after President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, if the U.S. Senate confirms her as Trump’s secretary of Homeland Security. She had been scheduled for a confirmation hearing on Wednesday in Washington, D.C., but it’s since been postponed to 9 a.m. Eastern time on Friday. 

She focused her speech at the Capitol in Pierre on what she wants to achieve at the federal level, while also touting achievements from her six years as the state’s first female governor.

“What kind of country do we want to leave to our families?” Noem said. “I want to leave them a state and nation that is even safer, stronger and freer than the one that I grew up in.”

Noem said there is an “invasion” of undocumented immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border causing a flow of illicit drugs into the country and South Dakota, adding that she’s deployed the South Dakota National Guard multiple times to the border.

While her imminent resignation will mean a change in leadership in the state, she expects Lt. Gov. Larry Rhoden to “lead this state just as I would,” she said.

Noem has served as a conservative Republican, focusing on business-friendly investments, Second Amendment rights and anti-abortion efforts — all of which she touted in the “top 10 list” that she used as the structure for her speech. She also focused on South Dakotans’ personal freedoms, business expansions, infrastructure projects in the state and initiatives to invest in prenatal and maternal health care.

While touting her administration’s responses to natural disasters, Noem announced the awarding of her Governor’s Award for Heroism to a group of state and local authorities for risking their lives and going “above and beyond” during the June Big Sioux River flooding in southeastern South Dakota.

The speech was light on policy goals for the 100th legislative session, Brookings Republican Sen. Tim Reed said after the speech. Tuesday was the kickoff for the session, which continues through March 13.

Reed said the state is “out of focus on how we make sure that we’re open for business.” There has been a push against some infrastructure investments in the state, including against carbon pipelines (a prefiled bill would ban their use of eminent domain) and against data centers with huge electricity demands to handle computing in the artificial intelligence age.

Legislators should ask, “How do we grow our economy to make sure we start to have more revenue?” Reed said, adding that investments in education are a key piece of economic growth.

Fireworks will return to Rushmore, Noem says

Noem did make a few announcements, including her pledge that “we will once again move forward with planning to return fireworks to Mount Rushmore” for a celebration of the nation’s 250th birthday in 2026.

Noem worked with then-President Donald Trump to bring fireworks back to Mount Rushmore in 2020, at a show Trump attended. The National Park Service had stopped fireworks displays at the national memorial in 2010 due to wildfire concerns, litter from the fireworks and drinking water contamination from fireworks chemicals, and has stopped them again during the presidency of Joe Biden. 

Noem also announced a $200,000 one-time grant to help transfer the Keep Farmers Farming program, which helps with estate and transition planning for farmers, from First Dakota National Bank to the South Dakota Ag Foundation. Noem said the money from the Governor’s Office of Economic Development will also help to market and grow the program.

Noem’s proposal to create education savings accounts, which she mentioned in the speech after unveiling it last month during her budget address, has divided educators and lawmakers in the state.

Senate Majority Leader Jim Mehlhaff, R-Pierre, told South Dakota Public Broadcasting after the speech that the program will strengthen South Dakota’s education system because it’ll increase competition among private and public schools. 

House Minority Leader Erin Healy, D-Sioux Falls, said the $4 million program would take away funding that could go toward public education.

Noem said her administration has made efforts to pay public school teachers “what they deserve,” yet South Dakota remains 49th in the nation for teacher pay, and she only proposed a 1.25% increase for public school funding in her budget address.

“Our teachers deserve to be paid fairly,” Healy told South Dakota Searchlight. “We can’t recruit the best until we start paying them more.”

Governor gives bat to Rhoden

In Noem’s goodbye, she passed the baton — or rather the bat — to Lt. Gov. Larry Rhoden, gifting him a literal baseball bat. She said it should hold up better than “those gavels you love to shatter at this podium.” Rhoden has broken two gavels in recent years while presiding over official legislative functions.

She also gifted lawmakers smaller replicas of the bat, meant to remind them that they’re all “at bat now.”

“To the people of South Dakota,” Noem said, “thank you for the incredible honor of serving you as state representative, as congresswoman, and now as governor. Thank you for trusting me and for working with me to accomplish incredible things.”

Governor’s Award for Heroism recipients

During her State of the State address Tuesday, Gov. Kristi Noem awarded her Governor’s Award for Heroism to a group of people who responded to historic flooding in June.

Tim Cowman, South Dakota state geologist with the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, saved lives with his water flow projections, Noem said. “Without Tim, we would not have had as accurate of projections on the rising rivers.”

A group of state Game, Fish and Parks employees saved a person trapped on a highway overpass in rural Union County.

"They risked their own safety and eliminated the need for a more dangerous aerial rescue,” Noem said. “They used a drone to scout the possible route, boated across cornfields with unknown hazards, walked across a narrow berm to the overpass, and rescued that South Dakotan.”

Those employees were Sam Schelhaas, Jeremy Roe, Christopher Schiera and Taylor Etherington.

Noem said members of the Sioux Falls Swift Water Rescue Team worked with the GF&P overnight — apparently on the night of June 23, when catastrophic flooding hit McCook Lake — to rescue people from high water.

Members of the team were Mike Murphy, Mike Olson, Adam Frick, Chris Lohan, Jack Claussen and Rob Flannery.

Photo: South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem delivers her 2025 State of the State address to lawmakers at the Capitol in Pierre on Jan. 14, 2025. (Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight).

This South Dakota Searchlight article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Related posts

• South Dakota Legislature: Property taxes, ethanol carbon pipelines, prisons (and more)
• Good-bye girl: Trump picks Governor Kristi Noem as head of Homeland Security
• Commentary: SD Governor Kristi Noem rides back to D.C., possibly eyeing a bigger prize
• ‘School choice’ would force bad budget choices on state of South Dakota and school districts 
• Commentary: Attorney general and others know: Noem’s SDPB cut threatens public safety
• Noem's proposed SD State Library budget cut would hamstring local libraries, opponents say
• Proposed funding cut could sink network in as little as two years, SDPB director says 
• [VIDEO] Noem budget includes cuts; also new school-choice program & more prison money

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

 

Carbon pipeline opponents rallied Monday in Pierre amid push for eminent domain ban

News from the populist revolt in South Dakota.

From the South Dakota Searchlight.

Carbon pipeline opponents rally in Pierre amid renewed push for eminent domain ban
by Joshua Haiar

PIERRE — Standing before a crowd of hundreds of carbon dioxide pipeline opponents Monday at the South Dakota Capitol, a lawmaker announced her bill to ban the use of eminent domain for carbon pipeline projects.

Rep. Karla Lems, R-Canton, introduced the bill to attendees as “a building block” toward protecting property rights. 

“This bill will bring legislative certainty, and constitutional certainty, to the people of South Dakota,” Lems told the crowd.

The rally — held a day before Gov. Kristi Noem’s State of the State address will kick off the 2025 legislative session — brought together landowners, property rights advocates and other critics of carbon pipeline development. 

Speakers voiced frustration over Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions’ potential use of eminent domain to acquire land for its proposed pipeline. The $9 billion project would capture some of the carbon dioxide emitted by 57 ethanol plants in five states, including eastern South Dakota, and transport it to an underground storage area in North Dakota. The project would capitalize on federal tax credits intended to incentivize the prevention of heat-trapping carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

Some landowners on the Summit route have refused to sign agreements, known as easements, granting access to their land. The company may seek to use eminent domain, which is a legal process to force land access in exchange for fair compensation determined by a court. The power has typically been used for projects such as electrical power lines, oil pipelines and water pipelines.

Lems said her legislation will be introduced Tuesday and would specifically target carbon pipelines.

Incoming Sen. Mark Lapka, R-Leola, will carry the bill in the state Senate, while Lems will carry the bill in the House of Representatives. Both own land that would be crossed by the pipeline.

Some other legislators had already pre-filed their own bill to ban eminent domain for carbon pipelines prior to Monday. That bill was not discussed at the rally.

Rally speakers noted that in August, the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled that Summit had not yet proven its status as a “common carrier,” a designation necessary to exercise eminent domain. The court remanded the case to a lower court for further proceedings, leaving Summit’s eminent domain eligibility unsettled.

The bill comes after years of contentious debate over carbon pipeline development. Lawmakers previously considered similar bills, but they faced resistance and failed, with opponents claiming such restrictions could stifle economic development and hurt South Dakota’s ethanol industry and the corn farmers who depend on it.

Pipeline supporters have defended the use of eminent domain, asserting the project serves the public good by increasing ethanol demand and addressing climate change.

This year, legislation banning eminent domain may receive more support. Eleven Republican legislators lost their reelection campaigns last year after supporting pipeline legislation that did not include an eminent domain ban. Republican legislators have also replaced their leadership team with lawmakers like Lems — set to serve as House speaker pro tempore — who are critical of Summit’s project.

Summit is seeking a permit from South Dakota’s Public Utilities Commission. The commission will host a series of public input meetings Wednesday through Friday in eastern South Dakota cities near the pipeline route. 

The project already has a storage permit in North Dakota and route permits in North Dakota, Iowa and Minnesota, while Nebraska has no state permitting process for carbon pipelines. The project also faces litigation from opponents in multiple states.

Photo: Rep. Karla Lems, R-Canton, speaks to hundreds of rally attendees in Pierre on Jan. 13, 2025, during an event highlighting opposition to a carbon dioxide pipeline. (Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight)

This South Dakota Searchlight article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. 

Related posts

• North Dakota landowners appeal Summit ethanol carbon storage decision 
• Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline company formally asks SD regulator to recuse herself 
• South Dakota Public Utilities Commissioner stays on new carbon pipeline case after prior recusal, with no explanation this time
• Punt! Lincoln County commissioners push back decision on ethanol carbon pipeline rules
• Summit Carbon Solutions in the news: landowners & counties appeal North Dakota pipeline permit; Summit tells Iowans to cease & desist; Pipeline Fighters Hub & CURE statements
• North Dakota Industrial Commission approves CO2 storage for Summit ethanol carbon pipeline
• Minnesota PUC granted a permit for Summit Carbon Solutions Otter Tail to Wilkin County pipeline
• South Dakota Public Utilities Commission schedules public input meetings on Summit carbon pipeline application
• Summit ethanol CO2 injection wells up for approval but court appeal already in the works
• Oh the irony: ethanol carbon pipeline company has failed to address crossing concerns, DAPL oil pipeline company says
• Iowa Supreme Court upholds land survey abilities of pipeline companies in Summit case
• U.S. appeals court hears Summit pipeline case against Iowa's Shelby and Story counties
• Never mind the voters: ethanol carbon pipeline company reapplies for South Dakota permit
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Summit sues another Iowa county and more!
• North Dakota Public Service Commission approves Summit carbon pipeline route
• North Dakota couple plans to ‘dig in’ if Summit ethanol carbon pipeline is approved
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: CO2 pipeline in MN moves forward; ND Public Service Commission decision coming Friday
• SD pipeline foes secure legislative leadership; MN Summit decision could come Dec. 12
• In unofficial results, ethanol carbon-pipeline law tossed out by South Dakota voters 
• CURE: MN Administrative Law Judge’s report on Summit’s CO 2 pipeline expected November 4
• Seven South Dakota ballot measures, $7 million and counting: Reports reveal total spending
• Jeepers: ethanol coop kicks in another $400,000 to support carbon pipeline ballot question 
• Ethanol carbon news digest: Summit Carbon pipeline in MN, Iowa & North Dakota media
• Summit Carbon Solutions CEO asks for prayer, while MN PUC wants public comment on FEIS of Otter Tail – Wilkin portion of CO2 Pipeline
• Public can comment on Otter Tail – Wilkin Co section of ethanol carbon pipeline until Sept. 11
• VIDEO: Carbon capture in Minnesota: public lands, fast money, and pipe dreams
• Summit pipeline segment enters final permitting stages in Minnesota; CURE raises objections
• Ethanol is fueling support of South Dakota carbon pipeline ballot measure
• Pipeline Fighters Hub: Summit Carbon Solutions numbers don’t add up in South Dakota 
• Referred Law 21 & carbon pipelines: A landowner bill of rights or an undermining of local control
• Summit Carbon Solution's ethanol carbon pipeline takes #2 spot on Heatmap's The Most At-Risk Projects of The Energy Transition 
• Ethanol carbon pipeline news: Attorneys differ on meaning of common carrier law in Summit case
• Summit Carbon Solutions pipelines won’t capture all carbon emitted by ethanol plants
• South Dakota Supreme Court ruling complicates Summit Carbon Solution’s push for land
• Referred pipeline law puts Summit Carbon Solution's permit quest in limbo
• Breaking crowded South Dakota ballot news: carbon pipeline law referendum validated
• Sustainable jet fuel company Gevo contributes $167K in defense of carbon pipeline law
• South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance turns in petitions to SD Secretary of State to force a vote on carbon pipeline policy
• South Dakota District 1 GOP House primary news round-up: carbon pipeline politics major issue
• New Midwest battles brew over CO2 pipelines

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

The ghost of Joe Rolette: DFL walkout at the MN State Legislature isn’t without precedent

I learned about this episode in Minnesota history as a girl attending public school in St. Peter, Minnesota. No surprise there, nor the local bias in the curriculum. St. Peter wasn't a place where Joe Rolette was "largely forgotten."

Good context from the Minnesota Reformer for this morning's post, republished from MinnPost: Minnesota leads again: No other state has ever begun legislative session without clear majorities

DFL walkout at the Legislature isn’t without precedent
by Mike Mosedale

You only have to go back to 1857 to find the parallel

When Democrats in the closely divided Minnesota House of Representatives signaled they might boycott the opening of the legislative session over a power-sharing dispute, it seemed like a new era of hardball politics had arrived in Minnesota.

To be sure, lawmakers in other states have occasionally employed such quorum-denying strategies when they wanted to block a gavel-wielding majority. Ballotpedia, the online political encyclopedia, has identified 12 “noteworthy state legislative walkouts,” dating back to 1924.

But Minnesota, alleged bastion of comity and decorum, has always been free of such gamesmanship, right?

Not exactly. You just need to go back to 1857 for the closest historical parallel.

At the time, Minnesota was on the precipice of statehood, and lawmakers in the territorial government were arguing intensely over the proposed boundaries of the soon-to-be 32nd state.

Republicans — the newly ascendant anti-slavery and anti-liquor party — wanted the east-west boundaries to extend from the St. Croix River all the way to the Missouri River. They also wanted to exclude the non-agricultural parts of the territory, roughly the northern half of present-day Minnesota. Given the Republican dominance in the fast-growing farming areas, such boundaries would likely have ensured a potent governing majority.

Democrats, meanwhile, argued that a more diversified mix of farmland and forest would best benefit the economy. They preferred a map with contours much more like the one that exists today.

On Feb. 12, 1857, the Republicans on the territorial council — the equivalent of the Senate — made their big move. As part of their vision for a more agrarian state, they passed a bill to relocate the capital from St. Paul to St. Peter, a newly formed city in the heart of farm country.

In response, Attorney General Lafayette Emmett penned an opinion holding that the removal of the capital by legislative action — rather than a popular vote — was illegal under the territory’s so-called Organic Act.

Undaunted and unpersuaded by Emmett’s legal musings, the House passed the measure. The newspapers of the day, which were largely aligned with St. Paul interests, howled in protest. The Daily Pioneer and Democrat declared the majority had exhibited “not only a degree of scoundrelism, which was atrocious, but the most audacious impudence.”

Other newspapers suggested that the bill’s passage was the result of bribery. They noted that the territorial governor, Willis Gorman, was an investor in the newly formed St. Peter Company, which was incorporated with the expressed intent of establishing a new capital at St. Peter.

Enter Joe Rolette, a colorful if largely forgotten figure from Minnesota history.

Joe Rolette, painted by an anonymous artist, courtesy of the Minnesota Historical Society.

A fur trader from Pembina (located in present day northeastern North Dakota), Rolette, a Democrat, served six terms in the territorial Legislature, where he often dressed in Voyageur garb. He usually traveled by dogsled but, in the winter of 1857, scant snow meant that Rolette had to make the 400-mile trek from Pembina to St. Paul by foot.

His fellow Democrats were glad he made the walk.

Among his duties that year, Rolette served as chairman of the committee on enrolled bills. So, following the passage of the removal act by both chambers of the Legislature, Rolette took physical possession of the engrossed bill. 

He then promptly vanished.

Thanks to parliamentary maneuvers by his allies, the council was both unable to adjourn and unable to proceed with business. For the next six days, lawmakers slept on cots and under desks at the Capitol. One newspaper, The Minnesotian, assured readers that the legislators were “taking most excellent care of themselves.”

“The members all look in good health and spirits,” the newspaper reported, before adding: “Some of them appear somewhat careworn and anxious, particularly some of the older sinners of the majority.”

All the while, Rolette’s whereabouts remained unknown — at least, to his opponents.

Rumors circulated that he’d been killed or was hiding in a brothel or returned to Pembina. In fact, Rolette was holed up at Fuller House, a St. Paul hotel. According to lore, he spent evenings playing cards with the Legislature’s sergeant-at-arms, who, in his day job, was supposed to find Rolette and drag him back to the Capitol.

Rolette’s disappearance enraged his foes. No one, it is said, was more angered than Gorman, the governor.

“The Governor has become insane on the subject and spends most of his time in the public streets and hotels, swearing with all the profanity, though with little of the delicacy, of a fishwoman,” wrote the Pioneer and Democrat.

On March 7, just before the clock expired on the legislative session (or shortly after, accounts differ), Rolette sauntered into the Capitol with the bill in hand. It was too late to take any action, and so, the story goes, Rolette’s gambit had preserved St. Paul’s status as the capital city.

After Rolette returned to Pembina, the Pioneer and Democrat took time to praise the wily fur trader for “fidelity to the true interest of the Territory [and] his loyalty and zeal in the cause of right and justice.”

Did Rolette’s “histrionic antics” really save St. Paul? Not according to historian Theodore Blegen, author of Minnesota: A History of the State.

In that 1963 tome, Blegen noted that the Minnesota Territorial Supreme Court subsequently determined that “the Legislature had used up its capital-locating power when it established St. Paul as the capital.”

“So the scheme collapsed,” Blegen continued. “A half-comic sidelight on the story is that the optimistic St. Peter Company, before its hopes were finally quashed, actually built a capitol which later served as a county courthouse.”

If nothing else, the intense partisanship of the Rolette affair presaged a divisive period in Minnesota politics. A few months after Rolette’s disappearing act, the time came for Minnesota to draft a constitution. Moments after the convention was called to order, the Democratic delegates walked out.

“After such an initial melodrama, one might have expected a cool-headed joint conference to bring about a united convention and put it on an even keel,” Blegen wrote. “But nothing of the sort happened.”

In the end, Democrats and Republicans held two separate conventions and never met once as a whole body, though compromise was eventually forged.

“Both sides maintained a posture of political intransigency to the last moment,” Blegen added. “Somehow, out of the hurly-burly, the constitution of Minnesota was fashioned, and it has been sturdy enough to have lasted as the fundamental governmental framework of the state through all the decades since.”

Graphics:  top: Illustration by Jerry Fearing, courtesy of the Minnesota Historical Society Press. Bottom: Joe Rolette, painted by an anonymous artist, courtesy of the Minnesota Historical Society.

This Minnesota Reformer article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Related posts

• Minnesota leads again: No other state has ever begun legislative session without clear majorities
• DFL Sen. Kari Dziedzic, former MN Senate Majority Leader, dies of cancer at 62
• After Johnson drops notion of appeal, MNHouse 40B special election scheduled for Jan. 28, 2025
• GOP wins MN House majority, for now, after judge rules District 40B DFL candidate ineligible
• Republicans seek Minnesota House majority through two legal challenges
• Dancing in the dark? MNHouse DFL and GOP, tied at 67, locked in a haters’ embrace

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

Minnesota leads again: No other state has ever begun legislative session without clear majorities

Last week, I republished  a Session Daily article, [VIDEO] Session Daily: MNHouse Republicans plan to act as majority, DFL threatens Opening Day absence in power sharing tug-of-war and Amid court challenges & partisan maneuvering, can MNHouse even function this year? by MinnPost's Peter Callaghan.

On Monday morning, MinnPost published his follow-up.

Minnesota leads again: No other state has ever begun a legislative session without clear majorities
by Peter Callaghan, MinnPost, January 13, 2025

It might seem obvious, but Minnesota is alone at the top — or the bottom — of one legislative superlative: the first state to ever begin a session without clear partisan majorities in both the House and Senate.

Legal interpretations aside as to whether the 67 votes Republicans will have Tuesday in a 134-seat House is a majority or not (Republicans say it is, DFLers say it isn’t), the House doesn’t come close to meeting the standard of “clear,” as tracked and confirmed by the National Conference of State Legislatures.

And the death of Sen. Kari Dzeidzic last month from cancer leaves the Senate at 33-33 for the first three weeks of the session, at least.

So who’s in charge when no one is in charge? Absent creation of a co-op or declaration of a self-governing collective, the political situation is, in a word, fraught.

First, a summary (take a deep breath here): 

• The November election left the Senate with a 34-33 DFL majority after that party defended its hold of the only seat on the ballot. It also left the House with a 67-67 tie for just the second time ever and led to power-sharing agreements between DFL leader Melissa Hortman and GOP leader Lisa Demuth.
• One of the DFL winners — Curtis Johnson — apparently didn’t actually live in the district he sought to represent, despite having a mostly empty apartment where he only made cameo appearances. A judge said it wasn’t enough and declared the seat vacant.
• Because there will now be only 66 DFLers available to be sworn in Tuesday, Demuth says the deal is off and she’ll be the sole boss of the House.
• A special election Gov. Tim Walz called for the vacant House seat on Jan. 28 might not meet the rules for such elections, and the Supreme Court will hear arguments on Jan. 15 to see if the election is premature. Both the Dzeidzic Senate seat and open House seat are in safe or safe-ish DFL districts.
• But wait: There’s one other House seat in contention where the DFL must prevail to preserve the tie. The Shakopee-centered district is held by DFL Brad Tabke by 14 votes, but a judge is deciding whether 20 ballots tossed by mistake by election officials should force a re-vote in a race.
• And meanwhile, House GOP leadership has more-than-threatened to use the House’s constitutional authority to be the final judge of its election to deny Tabke his seat, regardless of what the judge says. And DFLers have more-than-threatened to make themselves scarce Tuesday, arguing that it takes 68 voting members to make up a quorum and their absence means the House cannot be convened at all. No House in session = no vote to make Demuth the only speaker of the House and no vote to deny Tabke his seat, even if the court rules in his favor.
• Secretary of State Steve Simon, who by statute opens the House at noon Tuesday and then steps aside once a quorum is present and that quorum elects a speaker, says it’ll take 68 votes to proceed. If the DFL member stay away, Simon said he’ll declare the House not in session and adjourn until Wednesday.
• House GOP members are outraged and are suggesting they’ll proceed regardless and move to elect Demuth and organize the House. Neither party questions that Demuth can be elected speaker with a majority of those present — 67 votes for now. What they are arguing over is whether the quorum needed to convene the House can be a lower number than what is needed to pass laws — 68 votes. Here is the House GOP's letter in response to Simon.
• Republican party officials are threatening to launch recall petitions against DFLers and have launched social media campaigns against some who don’t show up at the House chambers Tuesday. House GOP members sound like they will act as though a quorum is present and proceed. DFL members say they will be working, and collecting pay, just not in the House chambers.
• It is possible the issues (whether 67 is a quorum or whether actions taken by the House GOP are legal) will end up at the state Supreme Court, which might step in or might declare that under separation of powers the fight is up to the Legislature — an independent branch of government — to resolve. Just because lawmakers might wish to keep digging the constitutional hole they are in doesn’t mean the Supreme Court is obligated to jump down there with them.
• Then on Sunday, the House DFL members met at the state History Center to be sworn into office by a retired judge. While state law says members are sworn in after convening on the first day, DFLers say it does not require it and said there are examples of it happening at other places, and times. The House GOP was, not surprisingly, unhappy.

Go ahead and exhale now.

Some observations

Lawmakers never negotiate in the media, unless they do: Most of last week was spent holding press conferences, conducting both scheduled and impromptu interviews, and sending out press release after press release. That doesn’t even include the social media battles being waged by electeds and non-electeds alike.

All of that was meant both to influence the public and to show the more-radical members of the DFL and GOP caucuses that their leaders are fighting the fight and not surrendering. But it does little to further the negotiations that are the only real way to resolve the conflict.

The devil can quote scripture for his purpose and lawmakers can quote Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure: Which is it? Does it take 68 votes for a quorum as Democrats say— a majority of the 134 possible seats? Or, does it take just 67 seats as Republicans say — a majority of the current 133 representatives who can show up Tuesday with election certificates in hand?

The answer is … yes. Without clear language in the state constitution or rules, both interpretations have evidence to cite to support their positions. Democrats quote the notation in Mason’s that says a majority of the 50 states would say 68 votes, and a minority would say 67 votes. In a lengthy letter issued Friday, Simon says that while there are no court cases directly on point, most others suggest that 68 would be needed.

The devil can quote scripture for his purpose and lawmakers can quote Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure.

Republicans respond with their own citations, including those minority states that look at the number of members actually elected, not the number that can ultimately be elected. Congress too uses that interpretation.

There is even a citation from the state constitutional convention in 1857, first uncovered by cannabis legalization lobbyist and archive researcher Kurtis Hanna, that supports the GOP position. 

He should have read more carefully.

In fact, the framers of the Minnesota Constitution rejected both Steve Simon’s intepretation and his profoundly anti-democratic policy choice.

On July 30, 1857, a delegate offered an amendment to adopt Sec. Simon’s view of the quorum… https://t.co/8OW9kU6vX3 pic.twitter.com/vWCoojXFlA

— Rep. Harry Niska (@HarryNiska) January 11, 2025

Is this all for show? It is said that wolves circle three times before lying down to sleep. Politicians too must parade before settling down to serious work. Was last week the political manifestation of circling wolves before they lay down together and negotiate? Or are today’s politics such that the fight is more important than the resolution?

Minnesota House Republicans have launch a campaign targeting DFL politicians refusing to show up on Tuesday.

This Legislature has many recent examples of fiery rhetoric and apocalyptic predictions becoming agreements in days or even hours. But it is hard to negotiate with someone who doesn’t want anything. As of this week, the GOP in the House doesn’t feel the need to negotiate while the House DFL does. Demuth and company know they can’t pass laws with a DFL Senate and Walz in the governor’s office. But with control they can hold hearings and launch a planned fraud committee. That power remains once the House is organized even if the DFL wins the Johnson seat and retains the Tabke seat. If Demuth can be elected speaker by herself, that can only be undone by a majority vote which the DFL won’t have for two years.

It should be noted that Republicans can act to not seat Tabke even with a 67-67 House because it would only take a majority of those present and Tabke, the subject of the challenge, could not vote. 

The House GOP can keep DFL bills from the Senate from becoming law — a veto they have with a tie as well. That could change with a ruling in the Tabke case, a lengthy DFL boycott or other not yet imagined scenarios. But for now, Republicans have little to gain from a settlement.

Meanwhile, over in the Senate where a 33-33 tie exists until a special election can be held, GOP and DFL leaders announced an amicable agreement to share power until then. Co-presiding officers, co-committee chairs and equal numbers from each party on all committees. While the House is doing, who knows what on Tuesday, the Senate will pass a resolution putting the deal in place.

Appendix

What the constitution and state laws say about legislative quorums

Constitution

Sec. 13. Quorum. A majority of each house constitutes a quorum to transact business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and compel the attendance of absent members in the manner and under the penalties it may provide.

Sec. 22. Majority vote of all members to pass a law. The style of all laws of this state shall be: "Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Minnesota." No law shall be passed unless voted for by a majority of all the members elected to each house of the legislature, and the vote entered in the journal of each house.

Section 1. Impeachment powers. The house of representatives has the sole power of impeachment through a concurrence of a majority of all its members. All impeachments shall be tried by the senate. When sitting for that purpose, senators shall be upon oath or affirmation to do justice according to law and evidence. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the senators present.

Section 1. Amendments; ratification. A majority of the members elected to each house of the legislature may propose amendments to this constitution. 

Statutes

2.021 NUMBER OF MEMBERS

For each legislature, until a new apportionment shall have been made, the senate is composed of 67 members and the house of representatives is composed of 134 members.

3.02 EVIDENCE OF MEMBERSHIP

For all purposes of organization of either house of the legislature, a certificate of election to it, duly executed by the secretary of state, is prima facie evidence of the right to membership of the person named in it.

3.05 ORGANIZATION

At noon of the day appointed for convening the legislature, the members shall meet in their respective chambers. The lieutenant governor shall call the senate to order and the secretary of state, the house of representatives. In the absence of either officer, the oldest member present shall act in the officer's place. The person so acting shall appoint, from the members present, a clerk pro tem, who shall call the legislative districts in the order of their numbers. As each is called, the persons claiming to be members from each shall present their certificates to be filed. All whose certificates are so presented shall then stand and be sworn.

3.06 OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

Subdivision 1. Election. Thereupon, if a quorum is present, the houses shall elect the following officers, any of whom may be removed by resolution of the appointing body.

The senate shall elect a secretary, a first and a second assistant secretary, an enrolling clerk, an engrossing clerk, a sergeant-at-arms, an assistant sergeant-at-arms, and a chaplain.

The house of representatives shall elect a speaker, who shall be a member of the house of representatives, a chief clerk, a first and a second assistant clerk, an index clerk, a chief sergeant-at-arms, a first and a second assistant sergeant-at-arms, a postmaster, an assistant postmaster, and a chaplain.

3.96 QUORUM AND VOTE REQUIREMENTS

In the event of an attack the quorum requirement for the legislature is a majority of the members of each house who convene for the session. If the affirmative vote of a specified proportion of members of the legislature would otherwise be required to approve a bill, resolution, or for any other action, the same proportion of the members of each house convening at the session is sufficient. 

This article first appeared on MinnPost and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

Photo: DFL House Speaker-designate Melissa Hortman, left, said her members would be doing things such as meeting with constituents, preparing legislation, making appearances. They just wouldn’t show up in the House chambers. Credit: MinnPost photo by Peter Callaghan.

Related posts

• DFL Sen. Kari Dziedzic, former MN Senate Majority Leader, dies of cancer at 62
• After Johnson drops notion of appeal, MNHouse 40B special election scheduled for Jan. 28, 2025
• GOP wins MN House majority, for now, after judge rules District 40B DFL candidate ineligible
• Republicans seek Minnesota House majority through two legal challenges
• Dancing in the dark? MNHouse DFL and GOP, tied at 67, locked in a haters’ embrace

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

South Dakota Legislature: Property taxes, ethanol carbon pipelines, prisons (and more)

Both the Minnesota and South Dakota legislatures convene tomorrow. Wouldn't you know, my partner scheduled a much-needed medical appointment in Sioux Falls (delayed from last summer when we both got mild cases of COVID), so I'll be missing out on the excitement.

First, a preview of South Dakota's coming attractions, from South Dakota News Watch.

South Dakota Legislature: Property taxes, ethanol carbon pipelines, prisons (and more)
by Stu Whitney

What to watch for as the state's 105 lawmakers convene in Pierre on Tuesday for the 100th session.

The 100th session of the South Dakota Legislature in Pierre will be historic not just for its centennial landmark but because of transitions in power.

Gov. Kristi Noem is scheduled to give her State of the State address Jan. 14 and then head to Washington for hearings on her nomination to become secretary of the Department of Homeland Security in the administration of President-elect Donald Trump.

She can't be officially confirmed until about a week later, when Lt. Gov. Larry Rhoden is expected to be sworn as South Dakota's 34th governor, just in time for a legislative session rife with Republican power shifts and looming budget battles.

Even with these developments, the 2025 session in Pierre is more about issues than eras. Lawmakers are prepared to tackle the three Ps – property taxes, pipelines and prisons – as well as school vouchers, Medicaid funding and child care programs.

It's hard to keep up without a scorecard, so here's a primer on what to watch for as the South Dakota legislative session opens Tuesday.

Raising sales tax to cut property taxes

Property tax relief is a hot topic in Pierre, given that total payments have increased by nearly 60% for residential housing and nearly 50% for commercial property over the past decade in South Dakota.

The problem with cutting property taxes, which help fund local school districts and city and county governments, is that typically you need to backfill that lost revenue with general fund dollars to pay for education and reduce the local effort for school districts.

Rep. Tony Venhuizen (R- Sioux Falls) has floated a proposal to increase the sales tax rate from 4.2% to 5%, which would raise an estimated $280 million in general fund revenue. That money would be used to reduce the levy for owner-occupied homes to fund education at the local level to zero.

“This is meant to start the conversation on property tax relief and to make the point that it costs a lot of money,” said Venhuizen, whose plan is co-sponsored by Sen. Randy Deibert (R-Spearfish). “I’d say that property tax relief is easily the top issue that I hear about from other legislators.”

Raising the sales tax rate, which legislators temporarily lowered from 4.5% to 4.2% in 2023, would require a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers. It could encounter turbulence from limited-government leadership in Pierre, even with the property tax offsets elsewhere.

The measure is also unlikely to win over Democrats, who are outnumbered by Republicans 31-4 in the Senate and 63-7 in the House of Representatives.

Rep. Kadyn Wittman (D-Sioux Falls) noted that property tax relief does little to help low-income residents and non-homeowners who would be impacted by higher sales tax rates on purchases.

“If you really want to impact every single South Dakotan in a tangible way, it would be better to look at removing the grocery tax,” Wittman told News Watch. “I think that would be a better utilization of our legislative powers.”

Voters rejected a grocery plan repeal on the 2024 ballot, but critics mainly derided the measure’s overly broad language rather than the merits of eliminating the food tax.

Venhuizen’s property tax relief plan harkens back to 1995, when Gov. Bill Janklow pushed through a 30% property tax reduction, offsetting the lost tax revenue to schools by increasing the state's education contribution. The program also updated the state’s education aid formula and established property tax caps.

Rep. Will Mortenson of Fort Pierre, who served as Republican House majority leader the past two years, called the proposal “bold and clear-headed” amid all the property tax noise.

“A lot of people have been talking about property taxes as a campaign issue, but to this point, any changes have been kind of around the periphery,” Mortenson told News Watch. “This proposal would deliver substantial, noticeable property tax relief to homeowners across the state. I wouldn't make a guess as to whether it's going to pass or not, but I applaud (Venhuizen and Deibert) for having the guts to do it.”

Proposal sparks school voucher debate

Lively debate is also expected on Noem's push for “education savings accounts” that would provide state money to help students enroll in private schools or help parents pay for homeschooling outside the traditional public school system.

In her Dec. 3 budget address, the governor proposed spending $4 million in ongoing state dollars to provide about $3,000 per eligible student to offset the cost of private or alternative schools as a way to “prioritize education” in the state.

In her budget explanation, Noem said the funds would initially be eligible for “South Dakota kids who need it most” but added that the program could later expand to make all families in the state eligible for payments. She said the program will create new options for parents and increase competition in the educational landscape across the state.

The proposal was formally introduced on Jan. 8 as House Bill 1020 by House Majority Leader Scott Odenbach (R-Spearfish) and Senate Majority Leader Jim Mehlhaff (R-Pierre).

The so-called school choice bill would allow the money to be used for tuition at private schools and “micro-schools” for materials for homeschooling or for entrance exam or virtual learning fees not covered by a local school district.

Critics of the proposal — including several organizations focused on improving public education — said it is a veiled attempt to begin a school voucher program. Voucher programs in other states have resulted mostly from conservative-led efforts to enable more children to attend private, religious or charter schools or to expand home-schooling.

Noem said her program would not reduce funding to the state K-12 system, though her proposed budget includes only a 1.25% spending increase for public schools, well below the recent inflation rate.

Rob Monson, executive director of the School Administrators of South Dakota, said during a Jan. 8 conference call that conservatives in the Legislature have been trying for years to create a voucher program.

Monson said Noem’s proposal, as well as other proposed measures such as House Bill 1009, will ultimately siphon funding from the public education system that serves all children regardless of income, race, ethnicity or disability status.

Monson said backers of voucher programs try to demonize public education and claim it is failing and “indoctrinates” students, which he said is false. He and other public education backers also pointed out that private schools, alternative schools and home-schooled children do not have to undergo the same levels of transparency and accountability that public schools must meet.

Monson said the new leadership in the Legislature appears to be more favorable to vouchers or Noem’s proposed education savings accounts in the upcoming session, and he expects a big battle in Pierre.

“We’re going to see an attack this year, we believe, on the public school institution bigger than we have ever seen (in South Dakota)” he said.

Anti-pipeline forces target eminent domain

Republican populists are still feeling the energy from the 2024 election defeat of Referred Law 21, a “Landowner Bill of Rights” package that critics decried as more favorable to ethanol producers and carbon pipeline companies.

Groups such as the Freedom Caucus and Dakota First PAC exploited the pipeline issue in GOP primaries by highlighting the votes of incumbent legislators, several of whom were defeated to set up the leadership shift.

Though the fate of Summit Carbon Solutions’ $5.5 billion, 2,500-mile pipeline plan will likely play out in the courts and Public Utilities Commission hearings, expect more fireworks in Pierre.

Jim Eschenbaum of the South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance told News Watch that the focus will be on tightening restrictions on eminent domain, which involves taking private property for public use while requiring fair compensation.

“I’ve heard people say that the interstate system couldn’t have been built without eminent domain,” said Eschenbaum, who is also running for chair of the South Dakota Republican Party. “But the interstate system was literally for the use of all, and it was for the greater good. This pipeline doesn’t fit that description at all.”

Whether Summit Carbon Solutions qualifies as a "common carrier" under state legal parameters for eminent domain is being litigated in court and will likely play a large role in legislative debates.

Property rights supporters will rally at the state Capitol rotunda on Jan. 13, the day before session opens. Republican legislators expected to attend include Speaker of the House Jon Hansen (Dell Rapids) and House Speaker Pro Tempore Karla Lems (Canton), both of whom are strident opponents of the pipeline project.

Amanda Radke, a Mitchell rancher and ag representative who has emerged as a leader on the issue, will address the gathering. Eschenbaum said he will be on hand to emphasize the need to “clarify the limits of eminent domain.”

The movement will test the remaining influence of mainstream, pro-business Republicans, who have stressed the positive impact of eminent domain for large-scale development projects that create jobs and increase tax revenue for the state.

“The thing that concerns me most is this "not in my backyard" sentiment bleeding over into other areas of commerce or industry,” Mortenson said. “South Dakota has been viewed as a place where you can come and build something without the government getting in the way. I really worry that because of anger over the pipeline, some of these folks will go too far and cut off our nose to spite our face by blocking construction and development of businesses that could keep our small towns vital and allow other towns to grow.”

Legislators take aim at Medicaid expansion

South Dakota voters passed Medicaid expansion in 2022, extending health care coverage to more low-income residents under the Affordable Care Act, with the federal government covering 90 percent of the cost.

That arrangement will cost South Dakota about $20 million each fiscal year if the matching rate remains the same.

Venhuizen and Sen. Casey Crabtree (R-Madison) have put forth a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment that ties Medicaid expansion in South Dakota to the level of federal assistance.

If the federal matching rate drops below 90%, as some have suggested it could as the Trump administration looks to reform spending strategies, the South Dakota Constitution would no longer require the state to continue Medicaid expansion.

“As things stand now, if they cut the match rate from 90% to 80% or 70%, we would have no choice,” said Venhuizen. “We would have to come up with the money and pay it. So the point of this amendment is to say, if it drops below 90%, then it’s up to the Legislature. We don't have to get out. If they drop it to 88% or 89%, we would probably stay in. If they drop it more than that, at what point does it become so expensive that the state can’t afford it?”

Medicaid is a joint federal and state program that helps cover medical costs for qualified individuals with limited income and resources.

The Affordable Care Act in 2010 expanded Medicaid to include nearly all adults with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level, which translates to an annual gross salary of about $21,000 for an individual or $43,000 for a family of four.

South Dakota was one of the Republican-led states that resisted expansion, which meant childless adults without a disability were ineligible for Medicaid coverage regardless of income level. Many also didn’t qualify for ACA subsidies to help obtain private coverage.

In 2022, South Dakota became one of 40 states to expand Medicaid when voters approved a constitutional amendment with 56% of the vote.

Two years later, Venhuizen sponsored a ballot amendment that allowed work requirements to be used in connection with able-bodied adults receiving Medicaid benefits in South Dakota, subject to federal approval. That measure also passed with 56% approval.

Wittman criticized the latest effort, saying that measures that could eliminate Medicaid expansion in South Dakota altogether show a lack of regard for state residents that require assistance.

“I'm really tired of the South Dakota Legislature continuing to punish people who are vulnerable and marginalized and living in poverty,” Wittman told News Watch. “I really do not understand Rep. Venhuizen's vitriol towards individuals that utilize this particular government support system. If this is truly about him wanting to make smart use of taxpayer dollars, I believe there are other places in our budget where he could focus his efforts and it would not further marginalize an already vulnerable population.”

Budget battle for public broadcasting

Among the belt-tightening measures proposed by Noem in her budget address, cutting South Dakota Public Broadcasting’s funding by 65% has received a lot of attention.

The governor put the $3.6 million budget cut in national terms when presenting her proposal, which earmarked $1.9 million for SDPB in fiscal year 2026. The network had requested $5.6 million.

“Currently, South Dakota has the third-highest per capita funding of public broadcasting of any state in the nation,” Noem said in her budget address. “We’ve been paying more than double the national average.”

SDPB, which relies on state funding and private donations, provides livestreamed coverage of state legislative hearings as well as South Dakota High School Activities Association championship events, in addition to its news, weather and commentary programming, which includes National Public Radio.

“A cut of this size and scale will force significant reductions to all these important services,” the network said in a statement. “This cut is likely to disproportionately affect rural service, where SDPB’s programming is most valued.”

During her 2022 re-election campaign, Noem refused to participate in a debate sponsored by the public broadcasting network, with her team saying in a statement that “SDPB’s extreme leftward swing precludes the possibility of a fair debate.”

While her likely exit from Pierre might shield her from political fallout from the budget cuts, some lawmakers view it differently. Pulling support from something that serves as a conduit to legislative proceedings as well as statewide sports and fine arts events has caused some angst among constituents.

“It’s probably the cut that I've heard the most opposition to since the budget address,” said Venhuizen. “I know a lot of legislators are hoping that we can avoid that cut, but the reality of the budget situation this year is that it's a zero-sum game. And so unless we have cause to increase our revenue estimate in a month, we're going to have to find a dollar elsewhere for every dollar we restore.”

Noem seeks to close prison deal

South Dakota Department of Corrections officials have informed legislators that the guaranteed maximum price for a planned new men’s state prison is $825 million, higher than previous estimates.

That includes $737 million in construction for the 1,500-inmate facility at the proposed site between Harrisburg and Canton in Lincoln County, making it the largest one-time capital investment in state history.

The fact that the prison involves “one time” dollars puts it on a different tier of budget discussion from ongoing expenditures such as health care and education funding, but the governor is looking to close the deal.

Noem's proposal includes putting $182 million in a prison fund that, combined with interest already accrued, would fully fund the project, a clear priority when it comes to shaping her executive legacy.

The Legislature has already committed $87 million to build a new women's prison in Rapid City, with a likely completion date of early 2026.

Some of the same lawmakers who opposed the carbon pipeline project have expressed concern about the men's prison site, which could lead to some interesting discussions in Pierre.

If the project goes through as planned, the outgoing governor will be justified in chalking it up as a win for her administration, said Mortenson.

"It's not a popular thing to build a prison," he told News Watch. "The public would rather spend this money on education or nursing homes or other things, but she saw a need. Our current facilities are falling short of their mission of rehabilitating people and being a Department of Corrections, not just a department of incarceration. She said, 'You know what, we've got the money, let's do something about it,' and I give her credit for that."

Bart Pfankuch contributed reporting to this story, which was produced by South Dakota News Watch, an independent, nonprofit organization. Read more stories and donate at sdnewswatch.org and sign up for an email every few days to get stories as soon as they're published. Contact Stu Whitney at [email protected]

Photo: Gov. Kristi Noem speaks to legislators during the State of the State address on Jan. 9, 2024, at South Dakota State Capitol in Pierre. (Photo: Argus Leader/via South Dakota News Watch).

Related posts

• Good-bye girl: Trump picks Governor Kristi Noem as head of Homeland Security
• Commentary: SD Governor Kristi Noem rides back to D.C., possibly eyeing a bigger prize
•  ‘School choice’ would force bad budget choices on state of South Dakota and school districts 
• Commentary: Attorney general and others know: Noem’s SDPB cut threatens public safety
• Noem's proposed SD State Library budget cut would hamstring local libraries, opponents say
• Proposed funding cut could sink network in as little as two years, SDPB director says 
• [VIDEO] Noem budget includes cuts; also new school-choice program & more prison money

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

North Dakota landowners appeal Summit ethanol carbon storage decision

Another development in the Summit Carbon Solutions ethanol carbon pipeline saga.

From the North Dakota Monitor.

Landowners appeal Summit carbon storage decision
by Jeff Beach

A group of North Dakota landowners is appealing the state’s approval of an underground carbon storage area for Summit Carbon Solutions, the company attempting to build the world’s largest carbon capture and storage project. 

The group represented by Bismarck attorney Derrick Braaten on Thursday filed the appeal in Burleigh County District Court, asserting that the North Dakota Industrial Commission withheld information and violated state law in approving the storage permit plan on Dec. 12. 

The permanent underground carbon storage sites in western North Dakota are a key piece of Summit’s planned five-state pipeline network capturing greenhouse gas emissions from ethanol plants. Approving the storage wells was one of the last decisions of Gov. Doug Burgum as chair of the Industrial Commission, which also included Attorney General Drew Wrigley and Agriculture Commissioner Doug Goehring. 

The unanimous vote by the commission means that landowners who had not signed an agreement with Summit will be forced to allow the carbon storage on their property. 

The landowners assert that the Industrial Commission, which includes the state Department of Mineral Resources, illegally refused to disclose information to landowners under North Dakota open records laws. Braaten and his clients were seeking computer-generated models that predict where the carbon dioxide will go when it is pumped underground for permanent storage. 

The appeal says former Department of Mineral Resources Director Lynn Helms refused to provide the models before, during and after public hearings on the case in June, shortly before Helms retired. 

The order passed by the Industrial Commission said that if any open records requests were not fulfilled, it is because the Braaten Law Firm did not inform the agency that it had not received the records. 

“That’s a lie,” Braaten told the North Dakota Monitor. 

The appeal said Braaten’s firm was able to obtain the records in November. Braaten contends the computer models aren’t accurate but landowners were not given a chance to dispute that. He said multiple requests for a rehearing were ignored. 

Another issue raised in the appeal are the state’s rules on underground storage. Under a process called amalgamation, if 60% of the landowners in a proposed storage area agree to the plan, the state can force the other 40% to comply. 

Summit has obtained more than 92% of the pore space lease agreements across all three areas, according to the order approved in December.

After the commission’s Dec. 12 decision, Summit Executive Vice President Wade Boeshans said the permits resulted from “years of rigorous scientific study, engineering design, and input from regulators, landowners, and local leaders.”

Braaten also is representing the Northwest Landowners Association that has a separate lawsuit before the North Dakota Supreme Court on the amalgamation issue that he contends is unconstitutional. 

He said a ruling on either that lawsuit or the storage decision appeal should clarify the constitutionality of the rules. 

Braaten’s law firm also is representing Emmons County in a separate legal challenge to the state Public Service Commission’s approval of the pipeline route through North Dakota. Emmons County and Burleigh County are challenging the PSC’s interpretation of state law that concluded state zoning rules preempt local ordinances on where pipelines are allowed. 

Another group of landowners also is appealing the PSC permit decision. 

Braaten said those appeals may be combined into one case. 

Photo: Lynn Helms, center, director of the Department of Mineral Resources, listens Tuesday, June 11, 2024, during a public hearing in Bismarck on proposed carbon dioxide storage that would be connected to the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline. (Kyle Martin/For the North Dakota Monitor).

This North Dakota Monitor article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. 

Related posts

• Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline company formally asks SD regulator to recuse herself 
• South Dakota Public Utilities Commissioner stays on new carbon pipeline case after prior recusal, with no explanation this time
• Punt! Lincoln County commissioners push back decision on ethanol carbon pipeline rules
• Summit Carbon Solutions in the news: landowners & counties appeal North Dakota pipeline permit; Summit tells Iowans to cease & desist; Pipeline Fighters Hub & CURE statements
• North Dakota Industrial Commission approves CO2 storage for Summit ethanol carbon pipeline
• Minnesota PUC granted a permit for Summit Carbon Solutions Otter Tail to Wilkin County pipeline
• South Dakota Public Utilities Commission schedules public input meetings on Summit carbon pipeline application
• Summit ethanol CO2 injection wells up for approval but court appeal already in the works
• Oh the irony: ethanol carbon pipeline company has failed to address crossing concerns, DAPL oil pipeline company says
• Iowa Supreme Court upholds land survey abilities of pipeline companies in Summit case
• U.S. appeals court hears Summit pipeline case against Iowa's Shelby and Story counties
• Never mind the voters: ethanol carbon pipeline company reapplies for South Dakota permit
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Summit sues another Iowa county and more!
• North Dakota Public Service Commission approves Summit carbon pipeline route
• North Dakota couple plans to ‘dig in’ if Summit ethanol carbon pipeline is approved
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: CO2 pipeline in MN moves forward; ND Public Service Commission decision coming Friday
• SD pipeline foes secure legislative leadership; MN Summit decision could come Dec. 12
• In unofficial results, ethanol carbon-pipeline law tossed out by South Dakota voters 
• CURE: MN Administrative Law Judge’s report on Summit’s CO 2 pipeline expected November 4
• Seven South Dakota ballot measures, $7 million and counting: Reports reveal total spending
• Jeepers: ethanol coop kicks in another $400,000 to support carbon pipeline ballot question 
• Ethanol carbon news digest: Summit Carbon pipeline in MN, Iowa & North Dakota media
• Summit Carbon Solutions CEO asks for prayer, while MN PUC wants public comment on FEIS of Otter Tail – Wilkin portion of CO2 Pipeline
• Public can comment on Otter Tail – Wilkin Co section of ethanol carbon pipeline until Sept. 11
• VIDEO: Carbon capture in Minnesota: public lands, fast money, and pipe dreams
• Summit pipeline segment enters final permitting stages in Minnesota; CURE raises objections
• Ethanol is fueling support of South Dakota carbon pipeline ballot measure
• Pipeline Fighters Hub: Summit Carbon Solutions numbers don’t add up in South Dakota 
• Referred Law 21 & carbon pipelines: A landowner bill of rights or an undermining of local control
• Summit Carbon Solution's ethanol carbon pipeline takes #2 spot on Heatmap's The Most At-Risk Projects of The Energy Transition 
• Ethanol carbon pipeline news: Attorneys differ on meaning of common carrier law in Summit case
• Summit Carbon Solutions pipelines won’t capture all carbon emitted by ethanol plants
• South Dakota Supreme Court ruling complicates Summit Carbon Solution’s push for land
• Referred pipeline law puts Summit Carbon Solution's permit quest in limbo
• Breaking crowded South Dakota ballot news: carbon pipeline law referendum validated
• Sustainable jet fuel company Gevo contributes $167K in defense of carbon pipeline law
• South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance turns in petitions to SD Secretary of State to force a vote on carbon pipeline policy
• South Dakota District 1 GOP House primary news round-up: carbon pipeline politics major issue
• New Midwest battles brew over CO2 pipelines

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

Commentary: Attorney general and others know: Noem’s SDPB cut threatens public safety

Over a month ago, Bluestem Prairie had republished [VIDEO] Noem budget includes cuts; also new school-choice program & more prison money, a South Dakota Searchlight article that noted:

. . . Noem also wants to cut $3.6 million from South Dakota Public Broadcasting and $2 million from the Board of Regents, which oversees the state’s public universities. . . .

South Dakota Public Broadcasting, which relies on the state for part of its funding and the nonprofit Friends of SDPB for additional funding, issued a statement Tuesday saying Noem’s proposal would be a 65% decrease to the organization’s state budget allocation.

The organization highlighted the importance of its online, radio and television coverage of topics including high school sports, fine arts, education, public policy and the Legislature.

“A cut of this size and scale will force significant reductions to all these important services,” SDPB said in a statement. “This cut is likely to disproportionately affect rural service, where SDPB’s programming is most valued.” . . .

The Searchlight followed that up with two articles specific to SDPB: Proposed funding cut could sink network in as little as two years, SDPB director says and Noem’s public broadcasting cut proves she’s nothing like Mr. Rogers and a lot like Trump.

But there's more, as Watertown's Brad Johnson notes in commentary in Thursday's Searchlight:

Attorney general and others know: Noem’s public broadcasting cut threatens public safety
by Brad Johnson

It seems absurd that Gov. Kristi Noem would harm the U.S. Department of Homeland Security just before she is expected to be confirmed as its leader.

But that is what she is doing with her ill-advised plan to destroy South Dakota Public Broadcasting.

Noem launched her surprise attack on SDPB in her Dec. 3 budget address, proposing to cut slightly more than $3.6 million of its $5.6 million in state funding.

“If it goes though as proposed,” said SeVern Ashes, SDPB’s director of engineering and operations, “there is not enough funding left to support the infrastructure, engineering salaries, buildings, power or service contracts for the equipment.”

It costs $4.8 million annually to “cover engineering expenses for the networks, studio engineering, and 24-7 coverage,” he said.

SDPB’s system is on 45 towers, and 17 of those co-host public safety communication equipment. The network is critical “to all emergency communication from the SD Division of Criminal Investigation on down to county-level emergency management systems such as ambulance, fire and local police departments such as Sioux Falls and Rapid City,” Ashes said.

Additionally, Verizon, T-Mobile and AT&T wireless systems lease space on SDPB towers.

One federal Homeland Security agency using the tower network for communications is U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Ashes said. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S Forest Service and Federal Aviation Administration also use the system, as does the Civil Air Patrol.

Fighting fires in the Black Hills will be difficult without radio communication. County sheriffs, the state Highway Patrol, city and tribal police departments and ambulance systems will all be seeking alternatives.

The potential loss of that emergency communication system is unacceptable to South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley.

“Law enforcement relies heavily on public broadcasting,” he said in a Monday interview. “We rely on it to a great degree for public safety from weather conditions to missing children and endangered individuals. I mean, that is who we go to for our Amber Alert.”

The public best understands the tower system as the way SDPB transmits its programming, which is the real target of Noem’s ire. Conservatives tend to dislike National Public Radio, which is only one part of SDPB’s programming and is funded by private donations and the federally funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

The state’s money primarily is used to maintain SDPB’s transmission system.

Ashes oversees seven SDPB-employed engineers, three in Rapid City, three in Sioux Falls and one in Pierre.

They maintain about 30% of South Dakota’s communication network, with the State Radio System under the Bureau of Information and Technology maintaining the rest.

Ashes said in addition to the towers, SDPB buildings house the state’s radio equipment as well as backup generators. Federal law requires 72 hours of backup power, but SDPB’s sites have seven days of capability.

The sharing of tower space with the State Radio System allows the two organizations to ensure coverage to about 98% of the state.

SDPB is the state’s connection to the federal Emergency Alert System, Ashes said. “We cover every county in the state. Any statewide alert system — Amber Alert, Blue Alert, endangered persons — those are activated out of our facilities in Vermillion.’’

If there is a national emergency, something involving the Homeland Security Department soon to be led by Noem, “Our infrastructure is taken over by the federal government for those alerts.”

If $3.6 million is cut and SDPB is unable to maintain the system, the state radio communications system likely would have to find money to maintain it, or SDPB’s portion goes dark.

At risk would be the state’s television and radio broadcast licenses. Incoming Gov. Larry Rhoden would have to be involved in relinquishing those vital assets.

Noem’s actions basically are those of a person showing malice against NPR, which explores ideas that differ with her worldview.

She never asked anyone at SDPB what might happen if they lost funding, and it’s clear Noem had no understanding of what would happen.

“The first thing we heard was when the governor made the speech,” said Ryan Howlett, CEO of Friends of South Dakota Public Broadcasting. “We weren’t asked about the implication of a cut.”

The bottom line, Howlett said, is that Noem’s proposed cut will “compromise the safety of about 1 million people.”

That’s something Jackley said is unacceptable. “That infrastructure is very significant and important.”

South Dakota Searchlight's EDITOR’S NOTE: Brad Johnson is married to a retired former employee of the nonprofit Friends of South Dakota Public Broadcasting.

Photo: A South Dakota Public Broadcasting tower stands atop a hill above Rapid City on Jan. 7, 2025. (Seth Tupper/South Dakota Searchlight).

This South Dakota Searchlight article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency fines KODA Energy $18,125 for burning waste treated-corn in Scott County waste-to-energy incineration facility

The story of How a Nebraska ethanol plant turned seeds into toxic waste in 2021 prompted concerns about the same sort of irresponsible use of treated seeds (rather than wholesome corn one could feed to cows and other livestock prompted an attempt by the Minnesota Legislature to regulate or ban that use in 2022 as I reported in MNHouse Ag Committee approves proposed rules for disposal of pesticide-treated crop seeds.

That measure didn't make it into law, but in 2023, another version of the bill (HF1317 Hansen) made it into the  Omnibus environment bill that aimed to ‘correct past wrongs, prepare for future,’ committee chair said.

Not that the bill didn't have its opponents, as the Minnesota House Info Services YouTube of March 22, 2023 hearing of the bill in the House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy Committee 3/22/23 illustrates:

Following the passage of the omnibus bill, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) began working on rule making for Waste treated seeds, as Bluestem noted last December in MN Pollution Control Agency makes 2nd request for comments on waste treated seed rules .

Judging from the industry in the summer 2023 Comments received in response to Request for Comments (sw-rule3-02b) on those rules, one would guess the seed industry and commodity groups could never do anything to harm water, pollinators or humans in disposing of waste pesticide-treated seeds.

Jeepers.

How then, with such eco-saints moving among us, does this news release appear on the MPCA's "News and Stories" page: KODA Energy fined $18,125 for burning waste-treated corn as a waste-to-energy incineration facility?

KODA Energy violated its air permit in Scott County from June 2023 to February 2024, according to a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) enforcement investigation. The investigation found KODA energy was burning waste-treated corn and should have submitted a major permit amendment before burning an industrial solid as a waste-to-energy incineration facility.

In addition to paying the $18,125 civil penalty, KODA Energy agreed to complete a corrective action. KODA Energy is submitting a statement that they will no longer burn waste-treated seed without first applying for and being issued a major permit amendment that allows the burning of an industrial solid waste at their facility.  

MPCA rules and regulations are designed to protect human health and the environment by limiting pollution emissions and discharges from facilities. When companies do not fully comply with regulatory requirements, the resulting pollution can be harmful to people and the environment.

When calculating penalties, the MPCA considers how seriously the violations affected or could have affected the environment, and whether they were first-time or repeat violations. The agency also attempts to recover the economic benefit the company gained by failing to comply with environmental laws in a timely manner.

My, my.

What is KODA Energy?  On the company's website, visitor's read on the Koda Energy Facts page:

Koda Energy is an innovative combined heat and power plant which burns agricultural byproducts, virgin wood waste, and urban tree trimmings to create energy in the form of electricity and heat. The project gets its name from the word “Koda”, which means “friend” in the Dakota language.Koda Energy is the only combined heat and power facility in the United States which burns exclusively natural, non-manmade materials in suspension.

Koda is owned and operated by Rahr Malting Company ( Rahr ).
The burning of byproducts from malting and food processing along with raw materials like wood chips, grain dust, chaff, and other plant seed material is used to generate electricity and thermal energy at Koda Energy.

Electrical power generation averages 19.7 megawatt hours, with a net electrical output of approximately 16.7 megawatt hours on average. This relies on the production of 220,000 lb/hr of high pressure steam produced at 900 degrees F. Electricity generation fluctuates, based on the needs of thermal energy by Rahr, which is cyclical in nature.

I'm guessing the treated corn slipped in under "other plant seed material" category but who knows. 

Photo: Waste left over from processing ethanol sat in piles outside the AltEn Ethanol plant near Mead. The heaps created a strong odor in the area and left people and pets sick, residents said. Photo by Anna Reed, Omaha World-Herald.

Related posts

• Omnibus environment bill aims to ‘correct past wrongs, prepare for future,’ committee chair says 
• MN Pollution Control Agency makes 2nd request for comments on waste treated seed rules 
• MNHouse Ag Committee approves proposed rules for disposal of pesticide-treated crop seeds
• Ag budget agreement moves forward in House minus treated seed language, Market Bucks

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6