I spent most of the day catching up on vegetable gardening chores, and just now saw this South Dakota Searchlight article about drinking water in South Dakota.
Summit's water isn't mentioned in the copy, so here's hoping that's no extra mood boost from the steamed home-grown broccoli. In itself a healthful treat.
Much of South Dakota’s drinking water has more naturally occurring lithium in it than the federal government preliminarily advises as a healthy level, according to numbers in a recent study released by the U.S. Geological Survey.
Lead study author Melissa Lombard hopes the data contributes to further research.
“Lithium is becoming recognized as potentially having impacts to human health,” Lombard told South Dakota Searchlight. “But first we need to identify the amount people are being exposed to through drinking water and study how different concentration levels may impact them. This is a first step in the process, and this will inform public health studies.”
The Environmental Protection Agency does not currently regulate lithium but is gathering information for potential future regulations. Meanwhile, the agency has established a “health reference level” indicating that concentrations above 10 micrograms per liter may be unhealthy. The agency stresses that health reference levels “are not final determinations” and that the science on lithium’s health effects is “still evolving.”
The USGS study used data collected between 1989 and 2020 from more than 18,000 drinking water supply wells in the United States. South Dakota was among 10 Western or Great Plains states with widespread concentrations greater than 30 micrograms per liter — three times the EPA’s health reference level.
More recent data shows about 85% of South Dakota drinking water samples taken in 2023 for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had lithium concentrations above the health reference level.
Lithium is used in medications to treat bipolar disorder and depression, and low levels of naturally occurring lithium in drinking water have been linked to positive health effects, such as reduced suicide mortality and other mental-health benefits, the USGS said. But lithium has also been linked to potentially negative outcomes with autism and thyroid hormone levels.
Among data collected for the EPA by the South Dakota Association of Rural Water Systems, the drinking water tested in Wall had the highest level of lithium in the state, at 238 micrograms per liter.
West River/Lyman-Jones Rural Water System operates four wells in the Wall, Quinn and Creighton areas that provide about 15% of the system’s supply. The system also draws water from the Missouri River via the Mni Wiconi pipeline.
West River/Lyman-Jones Manager Jake Fitzgerald said in an emailed statement that the system is complying with EPA testing requirements and plans to share results in its annual water quality report. He said customers should contact their physician if they are concerned about health implications from testing results.
He said his house is connected to the system, “and my family and I drink water directly from the tap on a daily basis and will continue to do so.”
Fitzgerald added that if the EPA establishes a national primary drinking water standard for lithium, the water system will “evaluate our options” to address it and ensure drinking water meets the standard.
Levels of 100 micrograms per liter or more were also reported in the city of Huron, in the Britton-based Brown-Day-Marshall Rural Water System, in the Beresford-based South Lincoln Rural Water System, and in the city of Aberdeen.
A drinking water system in Utah has the highest reported lithium levels in the country, according to EPA data, at 960 micrograms per liter.
This South Dakota Searchlight article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Map: A map showing estimated lithium concentrations in groundwater supplies for public and private drinking water wells across the nation. The estimates are from a study led by the U.S. Geological Survey. (Courtesy of USGS/via South Dakota Searchlight).
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.
UPDATE September 4: I saw a surge of visits to this post on Bluestem's traffic meters in the last 24 hours. No site led them to this post, but it wasn't hard to find the source of interest in the matter.
Renew Minnesota has published three YouTubes and one webpage post about the episode in Sarah Kruger's life. Kruger won the primary in August. Update: A source in the district tells Bluestem that an email campaign to district residents on this topic is underway, though I'm not sure if Renew Minnesota is the sender. [end update]
Sarah Kruger was arrested for felony damage to property after a neighbor caught her in the act of forcibly removing a fence post, causing significant damage. Despite the seriousness of the crime, which led to her being charged with Criminal Damage to Property in the First Degree—a felony carrying severe potential penalties—Sarah’s parents swiftly intervened to cover up the incident.
Leveraging their legal and political connections, Sarah’s parents engaged in a concerted effort to have the charges dropped. The City Attorney refused to prosecute the case based on recommendations from Kruger’s attorneys despite having prosecuted similar crimes in the past (as the City Attorney himself acknowledged). The case was then pursued by the Winona County Attorney. However, through persistent lobbying and influence, Sarah’s family managed to get the charges dismissed. After the dismissal, they took further steps to erase the incident from public records by successfully petitioning for the expungement of her criminal records. This was achieved despite the objections of the victim, illustrating the lengths to which Sarah's parents went to shield her from the consequences of her actions and cover up her serious crime. . . .
The Renew Minnesota post provides extensive documentation for its claims in the post.
Renew Minnesota: This is a new political independent expenditure committee that is affiliated with the conservative business group founded by former GOP attorney general candidate Jim Schultz. The Minnesota Private Business Council has given Renew $225,000, with $125,000 of that coming after the July CFB report. It has also received $100,000 from the national Republican State Leadership Committee. Renew did take part in some House primary races and has begun to seed GOP campaigns in battleground districts, including giving $34,000 to Rep Natalie Zeleznikar in House 3B which is a top DFL target.
Apparently, as predicted, this district will be attracting outside spending as an important piece in the struggle for control of the Minnesota House. A look at pre-primary spending by the candidates here.
END UPDATE
With the retirement of Minnesota House District 26A state representative Gene Pelowski, DFL-Winona, the Southeastern Minnesota district is in play, as both the Minnesota Reformer and MinnPost Minnesota House Races-to-Watch lists note.
There are primary contests between candidates from both major parties.
On Friday, this message was posted on X by Bloomington, Minnesota's Your Old Pal Donavon:
BREAKING — DFL primary candidate for 26A Sarah Kruger had apparently been arrested in 2022 for ripping a fence post out of the concrete amidst a property dispute between her mom and a 74 y/o neighbor. We really gonna lean into the whole felon thing this year? pic.twitter.com/JTxgOAnCEs
— Your Old Pal Donavon 🥥🌴𓅭 (@hellodonavon) June 28, 2024
That didn't look like good behavior on the candidate's part. A Bluestem reader brought the post to my attention.
A search of Kruger's name revealed three cases: a divorce in 2016, a Ramsey County snow emergency parking ticket in 2023, and 85-CV-23-4608,Sarah Elizabeth Kruger vs Sandra Jean Garry Murnane. There are no felony cases there.
Sandra is the name of the victim on the criminal complaint, so I looked into the files online about this civil case, which document a property dispute between the Kruger family and their neighbor Murnane. The case was settled out of court, according to a Notice of Settlement posted on May 3, 2024.
At least two of the documents posted in the case files include information about the arrest. There's the 05/03/2024 Other Document Index #26 that's 85 pages long, and the document I embed below, which in a September 20, 2023 Order Denying Motion that the defendant Murnane had sought. Searching the criminal case in the database yields nothing, so the case was indeed expunged, if I understand the process.
One Minnesota House sidenote: Kruger's attorney, John Patrick Lesch, served in the Minnesota House from 2003-2020, according to the Minnesota Legislators Past & Present Database kept by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library. In 2020, he won DFL endorsement for re-election but lost the primary for the St. Paul district he represented.
Just after I wrote the above paragraph, Lesch sent a direct message in X:
. . .I saw your post about the Sarah Kruger Sandra Murnane suit. I was her counsel in that matter. To clarify, there was no arrest. There was no probable cause found, and the charge was dismissed. The county attorney also later agreed that her charge should be expunged. The complaining neighbor later admitted that the allegation she made regarding Sarah Kruger removing her fence post was false. . . .
Fact check: No, Sarah Kruger is not a felon. Bluestem recommends that DFL primary voters look to the candidates' positions and real life histories rather than insinuations on social media.
Photo: Sarah Kruger, photo by Amy Nelson, Winona Post.
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.
When catastrophic floodwaters surged toward McCook Lake, her cursory appearance there — along with her lackluster crisis communications and departure for an out-of-state political fundraiser — left people without adequate warning about the danger they faced.
And after declining to use the National Guard for the flood preparations or response, Noem said activating the Guard would be “extremely expensive” and asserted troops should only be used in a “very crisis situation.” This from a governor who has ordered troops to the Texas-Mexico border three times, and paid for it with money from the state’s Emergency and Disaster Fund.
According to Noem, none of that was a mistake, and she led a solid flood mitigation and response effort informed by her experience.
“We learn with every flood that happens,” she said during a Tuesday press conference.
That’s true. And there’s a lot to learn about her from this one.
‘If we don’t, then that’s wonderful’
The flooding began with three days of rain June 20-22 in southeast South Dakota, surpassing 17 inches in some locations.
The Big Sioux River swelled to a historic level and swamped several towns while flowing toward the Missouri. That’s where McCook Lake and 230 homes around it stood in the bullseye.
Meanwhile, where was Noem? Her official calendar is protected by an egregious exemption in South Dakota’s open-records laws. But some details of her travels are known, thanks to journalists such as the Argus Leader’s Dominik Dausch, who reviewed social media posts from around the country to fill in the gaps of her whereabouts.
On Saturday, June 22, Noem delivered a speech at a Faith & Freedom Coalition conference in Washington, D.C.
On Sunday morning, June 23, she was on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” where she jousted with the host about politics and whether she’s being vetted as a running mate for Donald Trump.
By that afternoon, Noem was back in South Dakota. She led a press conference with federal, state and local officials in North Sioux City, where she talked about a voluntary evacuation order in Dakota Dunes, the construction of a temporary levee, a closure on Interstate 29, and the status of Missouri River dams.
Nobody at the press conference expressed an urgent safety concern about McCook Lake. When somebody asked what lake residents should do, Noem said they should protect their personal property, “because we do anticipate that they will take in water.”
“That’s what we’re preparing for,” she said. “If we don’t, then that’s wonderful that they don’t have an impact, but they could see water flowing into McCook Lake.”
Nobody at the press conference clearly explained that the levee under construction was intended to direct floodwaters away from North Sioux City through a slough toward McCook Lake, where the overflow would hopefully drain toward the Missouri River while causing minimal damage.
From McCook Lake to Memphis
Granted, it was tough to imagine how thoroughly the lake would be overwhelmed, because nobody’s ever seen so much water in the Big Sioux.
But that’s precisely why Noem and her advisers should have sounded alarms. She said during the Sunday press conference that the river would reach a record level the following afternoon. She knew an unprecedented situation was unfolding.
Shortly after she finished speaking, forecasters were already predicting an earlier and higher river crest. The water was rising so fast, it went up more than a foot during the press conference.
But Noem wasn’t watching the river. She slipped away Sunday evening to Tennessee, where she headlined the Shelby County Republican Party’s Lincoln Day Gala in a Hilton billed as the tallest hotel in Memphis. Tickets ranged from $200 to $2,750 for the “legacy circle table.”
Back at McCook Lake that night, all hell broke loose. The Big Sioux surged over Interstate 29 and slammed into houses on the lake’s north shore. Local authorities scrambled to alert residents, and rescue teams spent the night and the next morning hauling stunned people to safety.
Noem returned to South Dakota for press conferences Monday and Tuesday, where she described the carnage: “We have whole homes that have fallen into the lake. We’ve got hundred-foot drop-offs from washouts, we’ve got live power lines laying across the roads, we’ve got boats stuck in trees, we’ve got trees that are half-falling over.”
According to her, it was unavoidable.
“That mitigation plan would’ve worked in a lesser event,” she said, “but there was so much water that flowed through there.”
Well, yes, just like she knew it would. She said Sunday afternoon that the Big Sioux would crest at an all-time high, and she knew the excess water would be diverted to McCook Lake. That’s why people living around the lake needed the clear and loud warning they didn’t receive until it was too late — the kind of warning Noem’s predecessor, Gov. Dennis Daugaard, provided before a 2014 flood in the same area when he said, “I am very concerned for residents near McCook Lake.”
As Noem said, there’s something to learn from every flood, and the people of McCook Lake learned a painful lesson: Neither hell nor high water will stop Kristi Noem from pursuing her own ambition at the expense of the people she serves.
This commentary from the South Dakota Searchlight is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Photos: Top--Gov. Kristi Noem speaks during a bill-signing ceremony March 6, 2024, at the Capitol in Pierre. (David Bordewyk/South Dakota NewsMedia Association/via South Dakota Searchlight) Middle-- A June 24, 2024, view of a home destroyed by flooding the previous night at McCook Lake in southeast South Dakota. (Courtesy of Dirk Lohry/South Dakota Searchlight). Below--U.S. Rep. David Kustoff, R-Tennessee, talks with South Dakota Republican Gov. Kristi Noem on the evening of June 23, 2024, at the Shelby County Republican Party Lincoln Day Gala in Memphis, the same night that catastrophic flooding overwhelmed the McCook Lake community in South Dakota. (Photo by Jackson Baker/Memphis Flyer)
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.
Having read of the governors of Iowa and Minnesota calling out the National Guard to assist with flooding in their respective states, I've been wondering why my governor hasn't done the same for emergency flood relief here in South Dakota.
After ordering National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border three times, Republican Gov. Kristi Noem is defending her decision to avoid sending troops to flood-ravaged areas in South Dakota, saying it would be “extremely expensive” and that the Guard should only be used for “a very crisis situation.”
Meanwhile, her spokesman left open the possibility that the Guard “may still be utilized.”
The South Dakota Democratic Party is urging Noem to deploy the Guard to help with relief efforts after the past week’s record rainfall and flooding.
“While the governor’s decisions to send National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border may have been intended as a political statement, it is imperative that our state’s resources are directed toward addressing the immediate and pressing needs of our residents,” the party said Thursday in a news release.
Since 2021 and through May of this year, Noem spent a total of $2.7 million from the state’s Emergency and Disaster Fund on three National Guard deployments she ordered to help Texas secure its border with Mexico (two additional border deployments were federally ordered and funded). The cost of one of Noem’s deployments was partially offset by a $1 million donation from Tennessee billionaire Willis Johnson.
On Sunday, before floodwaters overwhelmed part of the McCook Lake area in southeast South Dakota that night, Noem said it was unlikely the National Guard would be used.
“At this point in time, that has not been requested, and we don’t believe it’s necessary,” she said Sunday. “We have private contractors and the community that is better prepared and believe they can do the work quickly. And so they stand ready, and we have a plan to activate if necessary, but we don’t believe at this time that that’s going to be required.”
Then, during a Tuesday press conference in Yankton, where she said “a couple dozen homes” were destroyed at McCook Lake, she defended her decision to avoid using the Guard. She said counties would have to request and pay for it.
“That’s usually, typically a very crisis situation, and the National Guard is extremely expensive,” she said.
She did not mention that she provided South Dakota’s troops to Texas for free and used South Dakota’s own Emergency and Disaster Fund — the same fund used for flood responses — to cover the costs.
State Senate President Pro Tempore Lee Schoenbeck, R-Watertown, took to social media on Wednesday to criticize the governor.
“Gov Kristi Noem sent troops to Texas and billed us, South Dakota taxpayers,” he shared on X (formerly Twitter). “BUT Noem said it’s too expensive to use our guard to help our taxpayers fight the flood. Explain this hypocrisy???”
Gov Kristi Noem sent troops to Texas and billed us, South Dakota taxpayers. BUT Noem said it’s too expensive to use our guard to help our taxpayers fight the flood. Explain this hypocrisy???#NoemVisitSD?
Noem’s spokesperson, Ian Fury, did not respond directly to a South Dakota Searchlight request for comment, but sent an email to numerous South Dakota media outlets defending Noem’s actions and comments. He mentioned the one known death resulting from the floods — an 87-year-old man who accidentally backed his vehicle over a washed-out road section near Harrisburg.
“While, tragically, we did see one loss of life, we know that the cooperation between the county emergency managers, first responders, volunteers, and the state departments saved countless homes and lives. The media has chosen to ignore this work and have falsely reported that the National Guard were not deployed due to costs,” Fury wrote. “This is not true.”
It’s unclear what media outlets Fury was referencing.
“In order for National Guard troops to be deployed, a request is [made] to the governor from the local government, and after discussion, no request was ever made,” he wrote. “The Guard may still be utilized to help in this disaster if a time comes when a community requests a defined mission that can be best accomplished by our soldiers.”
Fury added there are limitations on what National Guard soldiers can do.
“They legally cannot enter people’s homes or clear or repair private property,” he wrote.
Morgan Speichinger’s McCook Lake home was destroyed, and she and others are attempting to recover belongings and start the cleanup.
“There is a 100% need for the National Guard here,” Speichinger said Thursday. “How are we going to get all of that done in a short amount of time?”
In 2014, Noem’s predecessor, Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard, deployed National Guard troops in advance to help with flood preparations in some of the same areas that are now suffering flood damage, including McCook Lake.
To cover those kinds of costs, state lawmakers annually backfill the state’s Emergency and Disaster Fund with money. During last winter’s annual legislative session, the funding legislation initially included $2.8 million. Lawmakers increased that amount to $4.3 million in anticipation of Noem’s latest deployment of Guard troops to Texas this year.
The legislation designates the funding for “costs related to any emergency or disaster” and references a separate state law’s definitions of those terms. The definitions include language defining such events as those occurring “in any part of the state,” which has led some lawmakers to question the legality of using the fund for troop deployments to Texas.
Noem has defended the costs as a response to what she calls a “warzone” at the border.
This South Dakota Searchlight article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Photo: Gov. Kristi Noem speaks during a June 25, 2024, press conference in Yankton while state Department of Public Safety Secretary Bob Perry looks on. (Courtesy of the Governor’s Office/via South Dakota Searchlight).
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.
Some went further, vowing not to bankroll political candidates who supported Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election.
But today, three and a half years later, nearly all of them have resumed giving money to politicians engaging in election denial, according to an analysis by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonprofit that investigates government corruption.
Among them were some of Minnesota’s blue-chip mega corporations: UnitedHealth, Target, Best Buy, 3M, U.S. Bancorp, Ameriprise and Ecolab, which all promised not to donate to members of what CREW calls the “sedition caucus.”
But as of today, they’ve given hundreds of thousands of dollars to politicians who voted against certifying the 2020 election, opposed the establishment of the Jan. 6 committee, or otherwise supported Trump’s attempt to undo the 2020 results.
A number of other Minnesota companies, including CHS, C.H. Robinson, Thrivent and Polaris, never promised to suspend donations and have continued giving money to candidates who sought to undermine the rightful, peaceful transfer of power after the 2020 election.
Only one current Minnesota lawmaker voted against certifying the 2020 election results: Rep. Michelle Fischbach of the 7th District, who falsely told Fox News shortly after the 2020 election that vote tabulators were “finding votes” when in fact they were counting them.
In a sign of the state Republican Party’s post-Jan. 6 radicalization, she was unable to obtain the party’s endorsement this year and is now facing a primary challenge from a Christian nationalist who says his goal is to “harness God’s power to lead ordinary Americans and their legislators in Washington back towards the Lord.”
CREW said the companies should mind the value of a stable democracy.
“Corporations depend on the stability and laws of a strong democracy in order to do business,” CREW writes. “Taking a stand against lawlessness aligns with the long-term interests of companies benefiting from government protection of intellectual property, contract enforcement and support for American business interests at home and abroad.”
According to their analysis, just one Minnesota company has so far upheld a promise to not give money to election deniers: Golden Valley-based Cheerio maker, General Mills.
And the "patriots" in Minnesota's Seventh call Fischbach a RINO (Republican In Name Only).
This Minnesota Reformer article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Photo: U.S. Rep. Michelle Fischbach, Republican of the 7th District, takes the oath. Fischbach is the only current member of Minnesota’s congressional delegation who voted against certifying the 2020 election results. U.S. House photo.
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.
South Dakota voters might decide on Nov. 5 whether to reject a new state law regulating carbon dioxide pipelines.
The ballot measure committee known as the South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance submitted an estimated 28,000 petition signatures to the Secretary of State’s Office on Monday, said Jim Eschenbaum, chairman of the organization. The group needed signatures from 17,508 registered South Dakota voters by today’s deadline. The Secretary of State’s Office will now sample the signatures to determine if enough of them are valid.
The group aims to refer Senate Bill 201, which the Legislature and Gov. Kristi Noem approved last winter. Supporters said the legislation will implement new protections for local governments and landowners while providing a path forward for pipeline projects. Opponents view it as a capitulation to pipeline companies.
The bill came in response to an $8.5 billion pipeline proposed by Summit Carbon Solutions, which is headquartered in Iowa. The pipeline would collect carbon dioxide from 57 ethanol plants in South Dakota and neighboring states and pipe it to North Dakota for underground storage. The project could benefit from federal tax credits that incentivize carbon sequestration to fight climate change.
The Iowa Utilities Board approved Summit’s project Tuesday. The company announced shortly afterward that it plans to apply again for a permit in South Dakota next month, after its initial application was denied last year by the Public Utilities Commission. The company’s pipeline application in North Dakota is under consideration, and it still needs an underground storage permit in North Dakota.
The South Dakota denial was partly due to conflicts with county ordinances that require minimum distances known as “setbacks” between pipelines and other features. The project has also faced opposition from some landowners concerned about property rights and safety, including health risks associated with potential leaks.
Property rights were a factor in several Republican primary races in eastern South Dakota earlier this summer. Out of 14 incumbents who lost their seat, 11 of them voted for SB 201.
“I think people realize now that people are paying attention and maybe want representation in Pierre that won’t be sellouts to corporate America,” Eschenbaum said.
What the law says
Among the protections in the new bill is authority for counties to collect a pipeline surcharge of up to $1 per linear foot, with at least half of the surcharge allocated for property tax relief for affected landowners. The remaining funds could be used at the county’s discretion. Companies also must submit an agricultural impact mitigation plan and bury pipelines at least 4 feet deep.
The bill mandates public disclosure of modeling to gauge the impact of a pipeline rupture and ensures that pipeline companies, rather than landowners, are liable for damages caused by the projects.
In response to controversy about out-of-state contractors working for pipeline companies, the law says a land agent must be a pipeline facility employee, a resident of the state, or a real estate agent licensed in the state.
House Majority Leader Will Mortenson, R-Fort Pierre, was the prime sponsor of the bill in the House. The legislation provides additional property rights and money for farmers and counties, Mortenson said. He encouraged voters to support the law if it’s certified for the ballot.
“If you don’t think the pipeline should be held accountable, you should vote no. If you don’t think farmers deserve additional compensation, you should vote no. If you don’t think counties deserve additional compensation from these pipelines, you should vote no,” Mortenson said. “But if you want farmers protected and counties benefited if these pipelines are built, you should vote yes like the Legislature did and the governor approved.”
Setback language
The most controversial part of the new law is its language about the Public Utilities Commission and local setback laws. Prior state law allowed the commission to overrule counties’ pipeline setbacks, although the commission has so far declined to do that.
The new law says a permit from the commission automatically overrules local setback laws, unless the commission specifically chooses to uphold them.
“It took the voice away from county commissioners and gave it to three people in Pierre,” said Eschenbaum, who is a Hand County commissioner. “They basically say we’re not smart enough, that we don’t understand. I think it’s an awful precedent to set.”
Finally, the legislation codifies a “Landowner Bill of Rights” that includes references to rights in other South Dakota laws, including two other pipeline-related bills passed during the most recent legislative session.
Measures placed on the Nov. 5 ballot by the Legislature:
An amendment to the state constitution updating references to certain officeholders and people (replacing male-specific pronouns with neutral language).
An amendment to the state constitution authorizing the state to impose work requirements on certain people who are eligible for expanded Medicaid.
Citizen-proposed measures validated for the ballot:
An initiated measure prohibiting state sales taxes on items sold for human consumption, specifically targeting state sales taxes on groceries.
An initiated amendment to the state constitution re-establishing abortion rights.
An initiated amendment to the state constitution establishing open primary elections.
An initiated measure legalizing adult recreational use, possession and distribution of marijuana.
This South Dakota Searchlight article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Photo: Tashina Exendine, left, signs a petition in June 2024 to refer carbon pipeline regulatory legislation (SB 201) to a public vote during the November 2024 election. At right is petition circulator Lloyd Ringrose. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight).
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.
Now it's possible voters across the state may be able to weigh in on the so-called “Landowner Bill of Rights,” which opponents believe favors pipelines over people.
Here's a news digest update in the South Dakota carbon pipeline wars.
{KXLG – South Dakota} It is being announced a coalition of South Dakota citizens has gathered signatures to bring a referendum against Senate Bill 201 (SB201). The announcement was made by the South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance (SDPRLCA), which spearheaded the signature-gathering effort. . . .
"This is a testament to the dedication of hundreds of volunteers across the state,” said Eschenbaum. “Every signature represents a South Dakotan who believes in protecting local control and our property rights.”
SB201, a controversial piece of legislation, has drawn criticism for its potential impact on local control and private property rights. The SDPRLCA argues that the bill grants excessive power to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) at the expense of local authorities. . . .
Opponents of SB201 have raised concerns about its constitutionality and potential negative consequences for public safety. Mulally emphasized that South Dakotans value private property rights and public safety and that the people should make decisions affecting these areas, not a select few.
“These signatures represent a significant step forward in protecting what matters most to South Dakotans,” said Eschenbaum. “We are confident that voters will see through the misleading claims surrounding SB201 and make the right decision come Election Day on November 5th.”
The SDPRLCA maintains that SB201, despite being framed as a “Bill of Rights” for landowners, actually undermines property rights and local control. They urge South Dakotans to reject the bill and uphold the state motto: “Under God, the People Rule.”
PIERRE S.D. (KELO) — The group bringing a referendum against SB201 will deliver their signature petitions to the Secretary of State’s office Tuesday.
The group, South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance, organized the referendum in March, when SB201 was signed by Gov. Noem.
Under state law, a 2024 referral requires that a minimum of 17,509 signatures valid signatures from registered South Dakota voters be filed at the South Dakota Secretary of State office before July 2024.
The Secretary of State will then verify the signatures to determine whether the group met the threshold or not to determine if it goes to a public vote. . . .
Carbon pipeline opponents fighting Senate Bill 201 await ballot certification after petitions submitted to South Dakota Secretary of State
PIERRE — Petitions to force a vote on carbon pipeline policy in South Dakota have been submitted to the state's top election official.
The political campaign committee South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance has turned in signatures in support of repealing Senate Bill 201, submitting petitions to South Dakota Secretary of State Monae Johnson’s office Monday.
Dubbed the “Landowner Bill of Rights,” the pending law, touted as a compromise between counties, landowners and carbon pipeline companies, has been the target of eminent domain and landowner rights groups since its passage in March. . . .
Read the rest at the Dakota Scout.
I'll add to this news digest as more coverage is published.
Photo: Summit Carbon Solutions' pipeline system would transport carbon dioxide from ethanol producers in Iowa to North Dakota. (Photo by Jared Strong/Iowa Capital Dispatch)
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.
I'm enjoying a visit with Mike's family at Lake Okoboji, and just got a chance to read South Dakota Searchlight's update on Governor Noem's Tribal Public Safety Crisis Summit.
Officials from five of South Dakota’s nine Native American tribes said they will not attend Gov. Kristi Noem’s Tribal Public Safety Crisis Summit on Monday in Pierre, but at least two tribes do plan to send representatives.
The rest of the guest list and agenda were unclear as of Friday afternoon.
The governor announced the summit amid a flurry of votes by South Dakota’s nine tribal nations to ban her from their lands. Those votes came in response to statements by Noem that Native American children lack hope and that their parents aren’t there to support them, as well as Noem’s allegation that tribal officials personally benefit from a drug cartel presence on reservations.
Noem invited tribal leaders and their respective law enforcement representatives to the summit.
“We solve problems best when we work together and communicate – I hope that this summit will accomplish that,” Noem said in a press release announcing the event.
Also invited to the summit, among others, were Attorney General Marty Jackley, U.S. Attorney for the District of South Dakota Alison Ramsdell, Department of Public Safety Secretary Bob Perry, Tribal Relations Secretary Dave Flute and Noem’s Tribal Law Enforcement Liaison Algin Young, who was the Oglala Sioux Tribal police chief until his contract ran out this spring.
Jackley will attend, said spokesman Tony Mangan, as will representatives from the state Division of Criminal Investigation. The Bureau of Indian Affairs will have two representatives present, according to BIA spokesperson Robyn Broyles.
Tribal officials have been less eager to participate, for reasons tied to both Noem’s comments and their own scheduling conflicts.
Lower Brule Chairman Clyde Estes told South Dakota Searchlight that no one from his tribe will attend unless the governor issues an apology for her remarks. Crow Creek Tribal Chairman Peter Lengkeek had a similar response.
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Police Chief Charles Big Crow said his tribe will not send anyone to the summit. Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribal Police Chief Gary Gaikowski said his tribe will not be represented, in part because he’ll be involved in a federal trial.
Oglala Sioux Tribal President Frank Star Comes Out issued a statement in late May saying his tribe will not send representatives. Instead, he said, tribal leaders will attend an event marking Victory Day for the Oceti Sakowin in the 1876 Battle of Little Bighorn.
Yankton Sioux tribal leadership will focus on Victory Day, but YST Police Chief Edwin Young said he will attend Monday’s summit.
The Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe told the Moody County Enterprise that its vice president and tribal police chief will attend, but said many other tribes have declined, or haven’t committed to attendance.
Messages and calls about possible attendance to leaders with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and Rosebud Sioux Tribe were not returned as of Friday afternoon.
It’s unclear what might happen at the summit. Noem spokesperson Ian Fury told South Dakota Searchlight that the summit will not be open to the media, but materials from the event will be provided afterward.
Noem has hammered on the message of public safety on the state’s reservations since Jan. 31, the day she gave a speech to a joint session of the South Dakota Legislature on security at the U.S.-Mexico border. In it, she said the Biden administration’s border policies are contributing to a drug trafficking crisis, and said drug cartels have a presence in tribal areas.
Nearly all the methamphetamine and fentanyl in the U.S. originate with drug cartels, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration. That agency’s 2024 threat assessment notes that cartels have a presence in all 50 states, though South Dakota is on the low end for cases with direct links to cartel members.
Most federal drug prosecutions involving large quantities of illegal narcotics in South Dakota are linked to larger cities, according to a recent South Dakota Searchlight investigation into the governor’s claims about cartels. The drugs tend to move out through the rest of the state from Sioux Falls, Rapid City, or from out-of-state locations like Denver.
Noem has said the summit will be an attempt to address crime, drug use and trafficking, human trafficking and violence on reservations. Despite the tension, Noem and tribal leaders have separately decried what they’ve described as inadequate federal support of law enforcement resources for tribes.
This South Dakota Searchlight article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Photo: Gov. Kristi Noem, flanked by advisers and law enforcement officials, speaks on May 17, 2024, at the Capitol in Pierre. Visible from left to right around Noem are Tribal Relations Secretary David Flute, Dewey County Sheriff Ashley Arpan and Tribal Law Enforcement Liaison Algin Young. (John Hult/South Dakota Searchlight)
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.
As the related posts at the bottom of this entry demonstrate, Bluestem's been concerned about neonicotinoids for many years. In the Minnesota Reformer column republished below, beekeeper Steve Ellis lays out the case against neonicotinoid (“neonic”) treated seeds.
On June 17, Vermont became the second state in the nation to ban neonicotinoid pesticides. A supermajority vote of the Vermont House and Senate overrode the Governor’s veto to enact H 706. Vermont’s landmark, pollinator-protecting legislation places it on par with New York, the first state to ban the main agricultural uses of neonicotinoids last December.
Why it Matters: Neonicotinoids are primarily used for agricultural purposes. However, studies have shown that neonicotinoid-treated seeds provide little to no overall net benefit for soybean and corn production. In general, neonicotinoids are a leading contributor to pollinator population decline. These pesticides are linked to numerous adverse health impacts for people such as developmental malformations, memory loss, and finger tremors.
These studies are affirmed by farmers elsewhere: Europe prohibited neonicotinoid treatments 10 years ago, and Quebec has effectively phased them out over the past five, yet production levels remain consistent, with no noticeable effect on yield in either the EU or Canada.
Meanwhile, neonicotinoid treatments are causing widespread harm.
Neonics are extraordinarily toxic to bees, aquatic bugs, and a wide variety of other life.
At least 95% of the neonic coating doesn’t enter the plant as intended; instead, it remains in the environment, contaminating wild plants, wildlife, surface waters and groundwater.
Insect predators that farmers count on for natural pest control are also eliminated, oftentimes decreasing yield as a result and requiring additional insecticidal spraying.
Neonics also harm soil health by killing insects and microbial life critical for capturing carbon and nutrient cycling.
Pollinators — including managed honeybees — are severely impacted by neonicotinoids. This lost pollination on high-value crops such as soy amounts to millions of dollars lost to Minnesota farmers.
Lost honey production and soaring bee losses cost Minnesota beekeepers millions.
Neonics have also been linked to various human health problems.
For children, the risk of these health outcomes is greater. Worse still is the widespread reach that these pesticides seem to have.
Early CDC monitoring found neonics present in the bodies of half the U.S. population. Alarmingly, the highest levels were found in children. A more recent study of pregnant women has found neonics present in the bodies of over 95% of participants nationally, suggesting significantly higher rates of exposure despite the growing body of research raising concern about health implications.
Increasing human exposure also mirrors a pair of studies by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources finding neonics in 61% of deer in 2019 and, just two years later, finding them in 94% of deer statewide.
Neonics are among the most ecologically disastrous pesticides since DDT. And they are everywhere in Minnesota.
How do neonics work? Plants treated with neonics absorb the chemicals, rendering their leaves, nectar, pollen and fruit toxic to insects. Neonics are so toxic that a single treated seed can be potent enough to kill a quarter of a million bees — and kill, they do.
The good news is that our state has already recognized the dangers of pesticides, and some regulations are already in place to protect people and the environment from these chemicals. But because treated seeds are not considered to be pesticides under state law, they are not subject to these crucial safeguards.
We need new legislation to protect our state from the dangers of neonics. One bill in particular, HF2472 (known as the “Treated Seed Bill”), would make strides in the protection of Minnesota’s agriculture, environment, and community health by addressing this regulatory loophole and ensuring seed treatments are only used as needed
The children and wildlife of Minnesota — and my bees — are never acceptable collateral, and our state deserves a future unburdened by the dangers that neonics present. With people, pollinators, and the future of our food supply at risk, there is no time for more delay.
Steve Ellis runs Old Mill Honey in Barrett, Minnesota. He pollinates almonds in California and produces honey in Minnesota.
The minutes for the committee's Thursday, March 16, 2023 meeting note that author Rick Hansen, DFL-S. St. Paul, presented the bill. Here's an embedded clip of the Minnesota House Information Services YouTube of that part of the day's hearing:
The bill was laid over for possible inclusion in the Ag omnibus bill.
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.
. . . Instead of attending, Star Comes Out said the Oglala Sioux Tribe will be focused on engaging in its annual Little Big Horn Victory Day festivities.
Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate Chairman J. Garrett Renville said he also will not be attending. Renville has prior commitments in North Dakota. . . .
I'm not sure if Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate chair Renville will be back from North Dakota the next day, but Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate members must have done some reflecting on the significance of the Battle of Greasy Grass, as it's known in these parts.
The SWO Cultural Preservation Board made a motion to recommend Tribal Council recognize June 25th, Battle of the Little Bighorn Victory Day as a tribal holiday. It's important for us as SWO as an ally with the Lakota, Nakota, Arapaho and Cheyenne to support this day as a day of recognition for all tribes. We are the only ones in history who are victorious over the US Government in our efforts to survive. With that said, we are inviting everyone to come share in this important day.
The image at the top of this post is from the Facebook page post.
Perhaps my romantic partner, a SWO elder, and I will prepare some braised buffalo to share. There's a marvelous recipe in Sean Sherman's The Sioux Chef's Indigenous Kitchen. Or maybe--if Mike still has some frozen chokecherries from his indigenous orchard--we'll make some wojapi in the hopes that there might be fry bread.
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.
To the casual observer, it might look like South Dakotans are addicted to voting on recreational marijuana. Legalizing grass was on the ballot in 2020, 2022 and will be again in 2024.
For the backers of legalized marijuana, the high point came in 2020 when voters here approved a constitutional amendment with 54% of the vote. Just about everything that had to do with marijuana was in that initiative. It was overturned by the South Dakota Supreme Court, citing a violation of the state’s one-topic rule for constitutional amendments. That killed the recreational portion of the measure, even as state government went ahead with implementation of a medical marijuana program.
In 2022, an initiated measure to legalize recreational marijuana failed with 47% of the vote. Backers of that initiated measure offered voters a scaled back version of the constitutional amendment that was approved in 2020. Pro-marijuana advocates said the Supreme Court took so long to rule on the legality of the amendment that they didn’t have time to take direction from the court’s ruling.
The initiated measure in front of voters in 2024, IM 29, allows people 21 and older to possess, grow, sell, ingest and distribute marijuana. They may possess up to 2 ounces of marijuana and have up to six marijuana plants with a limit of 12 plants per household.
Limits would be imposed on locations where marijuana can be used, and employers could restrict employee use. Property owners could decide whether or not they want it used on their property.
Unlike the constitutional amendment voters approved back in 2020, IM 29 makes no mention of the licensing of retail establishments or growing operations. There are also no provisions for a 15% excise tax on marijuana. Amendment backers also talked about a construction boom for growing operations and new retail outlets. Those considerations were a big part of the push for legalization in 2020.
A fiscal note on the 2020 amendment said that by 2024, legalized marijuana would have raised $60 million for South Dakota with half of the money earmarked for schools and half for the state budget’s general fund.
Those who fought against the amendment said that the revenue projections were too rosy. There would also be administrative costs to set up the program and they predicted an increase in the need for social services. While backers of the amendment said legalizing pot would free up police and courts to deal with more serious crimes, those fighting against the amendment foresaw greater law enforcement costs.
With no licensing or taxation provisions in this year’s measure, it would be up to the Legislature to set the licensing and taxation rates. Perhaps a voter’s decision about IM 29 should consider the financial aspects of marijuana legalization. It’s looking more and more like South Dakota could use the money. Consider this:
In 2023, flush with federal pandemic cash and predicting continuing sales tax growth, the Legislature cut the state sales tax from 4.5% to 4.2%. This change was predicted to cut state sales tax revenue by an estimated $104 million.
In 2024 lawmakers debated, but didn’t do much about, the fact that South Dakota teachers are once again among the lowest paid in the nation. At some point, that bill will come due.
When voters consider legalizing marijuana, they’ll also consider another measure on the ballot that calls for eliminating the state sales tax on groceries. A new South Dakota News Watch poll showed 66% of voters favor doing away with the state sales tax on groceries. That could result in an estimated $120 million loss in state revenue.
A recent South Dakota Searchlight story noted a meeting of the Governor’s Council of Economic Advisors where they learned that sales tax revenues from July through April were down $32 million. The state was still able to have a good year, relying on increases in the unclaimed property fund, state investments and the contractor’s excise tax. None of those are traditionally predictable sources of revenue.
Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana, and in November, South Dakota voters will need to decide if they want to join them. There are many factors to consider in this decision: if a continuing prohibition is the right way to approach marijuana, if public safety would be threatened, if legalization will make marijuana more readily available to young people, and if it’s worth the effort to set up new marijuana usage rules for employees and tenants.
The kind of financial windfall the state would receive should also be a factor in that decision. Some voters might not look forward to the day when the pungent aroma of marijuana is common in South Dakota. Perhaps they should consider that it just might be the smell of money.
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.
A new court fight over South Dakota’s abortion-rights ballot measure could hinge on a complicated answer to a simple question: Does a set of six-year-old petition requirements still exist?
The court fight started Thursday, when the Life Defense Fund filed a lawsuit in state court. The lawsuit challenges the legitimacy of a citizen-initiated Nov. 5 ballot question that would reinstate abortion rights. The Life Defense Fund is a ballot question committee organized to oppose the measure.
Dakotans for Health is the ballot question committee that supports the measure and gathered the petition signatures to put it on the ballot. Instead of filing a response in state court, Dakotans for Health asked a federal judge on Tuesday to intervene on its behalf. To understand why, it’s necessary to retrace a series of legislative and court battles dating to 2018.
That’s when the Republican-dominated Legislature enacted restrictions on the petition process that citizens use to place measures on the ballot. The restrictions were intended to prevent non-South Dakotans from circulating petitions, in part by requiring petitioners to provide information proving their South Dakota residency.
One year later, in 2019, some lawmakers said out-of-state petitioners were circumventing the law. So the Legislature repealed part of the 2018 law and replaced it with a new law. Among other things, the 2019 law required all petition circulators to publicly disclose personal information including their address, email and phone number.
A ballot question committee, SD Voice, and a liberal blogger, Cory Heidelberger, successfully sued to block the 2019 law. They said the law violated their First Amendment free speech rights, had a chilling effect on petition circulators, and imposed “unwarranted new restrictions on the ballot measure process, for the purpose of further consolidating power in South Dakota’s dominant political party.”
In 2020, legislators responded with another new law applying similar requirements, but only to paid petition circulators. Dakotans for Health successfully sued to block that law. A federal appellate judge in the case wrote, “While South Dakota has important interests in protecting the integrity of the ballot initiative process, it has no interest in enforcing overbroad restrictions that likely violate the Constitution.”
Both the 2019 and 2020 laws included a 30-day residency requirement for petition circulators. That specific requirement was challenged in yet another lawsuit, filed by the League of Women Voters. The league agreed to drop its narrower lawsuit when Dakotans for Health succeeded with its wider suit.
According to the Life Defense Fund, the end result of all that lawmaking and litigating is that the original 2018 law still stands. It’s still “good law,” the group claims, because none of the subsequent bills that sought to repeal or amend it are currently in force. Those bills were challenged by opponents and blocked by the courts.
The Life Defense Fund therefore asserts that the abortion-rights petitioners were obligated to comply with the 2018 law, which requires sworn statements including information proving the petitioners’ South Dakota residency. The Life Defense Fund says Dakotans for Health failed to obey that law, and “therefore the entire petition is disqualified.”
Dakotans for Health says the Life Defense Fund lawsuit is an illegal attempt to resurrect the 30-day residency requirement for petitioners and “flout” the related court decisions. That’s why Dakotans for Health is asking a federal judge to prevent any state court from enforcing the residency requirement.
There are other allegations in the Life Defense Fund lawsuit: petition circulators failed to provide a required handout to signers, some signatures were counted as valid even though they’d been crossed out on the petition, some signers didn’t list the county where they’re registered to vote, some signers were allegedly duped into thinking they were signing a petition about repealing the sales tax on groceries, and so on.
“This will be proven by witness testimony,” Sara Frankenstein, the attorney for the Life Defense Fund, told South Dakota Searchlight.
Dakotans for Health, represented by attorney Jim Leach, asserts that the Life Defense Fund’s other allegations are insufficient to achieve its aim of removing the abortion-rights measure from the ballot. The petition circulator residency questions are “critical to the possible success” of the lawsuit, Dakotans for Health says in its federal court memorandum.
Nancy Turbak Berry, a Democratic former legislator who leads a coalition advocating for the ballot measure, panned the Life Defense Fund’s legal strategy.
“It is a press release masquerading as a lawsuit, designed solely to allow the opponents of reproductive freedom to peddle more inflammatory lies,” she said.
Dakotans for Health filed its ballot petition in May with about 55,000 signatures. The Secretary of State’s Office validated the petition after sampling the signatures and estimating that 46,098 of them were from South Dakota registered voters — more than the 35,017 needed to qualify for the ballot.
Abortions are currently banned in South Dakota, except to “preserve the life of the pregnant female.” The ballot measure would legalize abortions in the first trimester of pregnancy but allow the state to impose limited regulations in the second trimester and a ban in the third trimester, with exceptions for the life and health of the mother.
South Dakota Searchlight’s Joshua Haiar contributed to this report.
This South Dakota Searchlight article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Photo: An equal justice statue stands outside the doors of the Minnehaha County Courthouse in Sioux Falls. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight).
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.
. . . Today--Tuesday, MinnPost's Peter Callaghan has more coverage, including a reaction by Minnesota House Environmental and Natural Resource Finance and Policy Committee Chair Rick Hansen, DFL-S. St. Paul, who has been unrelenting in using the phrase "regulatory capture. Hansen also serves on the Minnesota House Ag committee, where he raises questions about nitrates, pesticides, pollinators, and other issues.
Personally, I think these dirty hippies are on to something, though Hansen's notion of siccing the Office of the Legislative Auditor investigate programs and agencies, rather than special hearings outside of session, is probably a better means to get to the bottom of the questions they're raising. . . . [emphasis added].
Now Callaghan is back at MinnPost with a detailedexplainer about the Office of the Legislative Auditor itself, and its role in exposing "errors in a $500 million program meant to reward pandemic frontline workers with thank you checks and exposed multiple failures by the Minnesota Department of Education to catch a $250 million fraud in a feeding program for low-income children."
During the second of two bombshell hearings before the Minnesota Legislative Audit Commission last week, Judy Randall offered a theory about how some state agencies miss clear signs of fraud by recipients of tax dollars.
The head of the Office of the Legislative Auditor jokingly termed her comments: “Some deep thoughts by Judy Randall.”
In one week, her Office of the Legislative Auditor (OLA) had found errors in a $500 million program meant to reward pandemic frontline workers with thank you checks and exposed multiple failures by the Minnesota Department of Education to catch a $250 million fraud in a feeding program for low-income children. What, she said, could possibly tie them together? What common theme is there when state agencies miss clear gaps in regulation, clear signs of fraud?
Her answer both posed an interesting theory and defined her agency.
“State agencies don’t necessarily approach their work with an oversight and a regulatory mindset,” Randall told the bipartisan commission after presenting the investigation into the Feeding Our Future scandal Thursday. Agencies often speak of working “with” beneficiaries of programs because they have a passion for the benefits that often result. The education department referred to the organizations that received child feeding money as “clients” and “patrons” rather than applicants or grantees.
“Not that that’s wrong, but you can’t just trust everybody,” Randall said of the message the terminology sends. “I wish we could but clearly we can’t.
“We haven’t seen evidence of the skill set that is needed, of not trusting people,” she said. “If they do have that skill set, we want them at OLA because we’re skeptical.”
The Office of the Legislative Auditor is, in fact, a team of skeptics, professional nit-pickers. And because they are sworn to be free of conflicts of interest in a highly partisan setting, they are political agnostics so as to ward off accusations of bias. The employees — from division bosses to support staffers — must fill out conflict of interest statements annually and when assigned to a specific review audit team — must declare any financial or political involvement for themselves, their spouses as well as close friends.
Randall, for example, says they can and should vote in elections but she doesn’t take part in the every-four-year presidential primary that requires a declaration of party preference.
“It is an extremely professional office and we take the work incredibly seriously,” Randall said. She said the staff is “neurotic” about accuracy and guards its nonpartisanship and independence “jealously.”
“When we release reports, especially like the ones we released this week, they come under a lot of scrutiny. We do everything we can — both individually and as an organization — to make sure that they are accurate, objective and useful,” Randall said in an interview with MinnPost on Friday. In the job interview process, applicants are told they have to give up partisan political involvement and cannot have any connections to the agencies they oversee.
“Look, if we give anybody any opening to question our independence, it takes out all that work, not just that you’ve done but that the team has done,” she said. “People respect their peers too much to jeopardize that.”
Beyond ‘Gotcha’
Taxpayers of Minnesota might not know much about the office that Randall leads, though they might be more familiar with it this week after the back-to-back audit reports that exposed a lot of waste, a fair amount of fraud and a smattering of abuse. The relatively small agency — about 65 employees — is charged with responding to requests for investigations from both the Legislature and the public.
Each year it completes a dozen or fewer investigations as directed by the audit commission. It also responds to legislation for special audits such as the series of looks into the Met Council’s stewardship of the Southwest Light Rail Transit project. Randall, perhaps in an earlier episode of “Deep thoughts by Judy Randall,” said of the Met Council’s management of future light rail projects: “Based on what we’ve seen and based on the structure that we have for funding and building, I’m not convinced that Met Council is the right entity to be the responsible authority for those projects.”
Randall also singled out the Met Council for what she considered a lack of cooperation. She told the audit commission last year that she considered using a power rarely employed — subpoenas. OLA’s audits of SWLRT did lead to some changes this past session in how future projects are managed.
State law gives the OLA significant standing in government. It requires state employees who are aware of fraud or possible fraud to notify the OLA — something that didn’t occur during the Feeding Our Future scandal. It also requires agencies to cooperate with investigations.
“When an agency finds out that we are coming calling, they’re not psyched,” Randall said. “They’re clearly not happy about it. Most agencies understand it is our role, it is part of being a government agency. Most people in government understand there needs to be transparency.
“We’re not here to do a ‘gotcha.’ We’re trying to make sure government is working as well as it can,” she said. Which is why state agencies that are subject to critical audits are in a tough spot. Any questioning of the results looks like they are being defensive. When it responded to the hero checks audit with an eight-page letter, commission Chair Rick Hansen noted it was the longest he’d seen. Education Commissioner Willie Jett was criticized by commissioners for his responses to the Feeding Our Future recommendation.
Rep. Emma Greenman, DFL-Minneapolis, is on her first term on the commission. She also chairs the committee that culls the list of requested audits down to single digits. Greenman said she became interested in OLA from her work on combating what is termed misclassification of workers when some employers call staff contract workers rather than employees. That classification denies those workers of legal protections such as wage and hour law and injured worker protections as well as benefits such as sick leave. Her research pointed her to an examination of the issue by OLA and she urged it to do an update this year.
Her support for the work, however, doesn’t mean she thinks it is above questioning, and she took issue with both the methods and the results of the hero checks audit. For Greenman, the bugs that OLA found were known risks by the legislators such as herself that crafted the program. Lawmakers wanted checks out quickly to those who worked in virus-exposed jobs during the pandemic and allowed them to self-report that they had to work in person and performed at least 120 hours of such work was the chosen method.
Specifically, lawmakers rejected a proposal to give employers the role of telling the state that a given worker was eligible. Therefore, for OLA to use a survey of employers to do a retroactive assessment — surveys that many employers ignored — wasn’t a fair method.
“We questioned whether employers would be forthright about that question,” Greenman said. “My biggest issue with the report is they used methods we expressly rejected. The audit was making a policy decision, and that’s not their job — it’s our job.”
Greenman also said she thought OLA was dismissive of the fraud prevention work of the Department of Labor and Industries that prevented most fraudulent applications.
“The actual fraud number they found was like 2%,” Greenman said. “We’d like it to be zero but if you talk to people in the private sector, they’d think that was a good number. And the reason it was a good number is because all of the checks that were in place that OLA didn’t talk about.”
While Greenman agrees that agencies that say the auditors don’t understand their agency or their methods is a bad response, she thinks it is fair for agencies and legislators to ask tough questions about the reports.
“That’s our job,” she said of legislators. “A lot of times it is the auditor and the executive branch but the Legislature passes laws and we have a stake in making sure they are executed. Not to just cede our authority to the legislative auditor.”
Randall, who had been head of the program evaluation division, was named legislative auditor in 2021, replacing James Nobles who had held the position for 38 years. She was hired by the 12-member audit commission which is made up of six DFLers and six Republicans, six of them House members and six of them Senators. Her term is for six years and, as Nobles demonstrated, she can receive additional terms should the commission choose.
But she can be removed prior to the end of each term only for cause and only after a public hearing of the commission.
Randall is an Ann Arbor, Michigan, native who has worked for OLA for 26 years. She received masters’ degrees in economics and education policy at Wisconsin. After a stop in Michigan where she worked for a nonprofit, she and her husband moved to Minnesota.
“I like to say I grew up professionally at OLA,” she said.
The office was created in 1973 at the recommendation of a private-sector work group called the Loaned Executive Action Program. It replaced an office called the Public Examiner who was appointed by the governor. According to the OLA’s history page, the task force argued that a governor-appointed examiner lacked the “arms-length” separation between the auditor and the audited.
Its duties and resources grew over time but it still turns down far more requests for audits than it can conduct. In the last round of screenings, a list of 100 requests from legislators and private citizens was culled to just five. And even the sweeping examination of the $250 million Feeding Our Future fraud did not look into other nonprofits that received money from the two federally funded youth feeding programs.
The elected state auditor — currently Julie Blaha — was given the duty of conducting “best practice reviews for local governments.” She also conducts financial audits of many local governments.
Still, the OLA has been responsible for a series of blockbuster audits over the decades. It exposed mispayments and fraud in the Child Care Assistance Program in 2019, found law violations and abusive behavior in the Metro Gang Strike Force in 2009, reported on the reasons for a rough rollout of the MNSure health insurance plan and found concerning behavior in University of Minnesota drug trials in 2015 after the suicide of Doug Markingson, a patient enrolled in research.
Randall said an audit she worked on that had a big impact was one on the Office of Health Facility Complaints in the Department of Health. Then-Health Commissioner Jan Malcolm used the report to examine the program, and the Legislature acted to reform how complaints about substandard health facilities are responded to.
“That’s how it should work,” Randall said. “We proposed changes to both the Legislature and the executive branch. The agency took it really seriously and put things into action and then worked with the Legislature to make change.”
Others involved teacher licensure, charter schools and the money sent to school districts that have higher than average enrollment of students and color.
Sen. Mark Koran, a North Branch Republican who has been on the audit commission for the entire eight years of his legislative service and has served stints as both chair and vice chair, supports the OLA’s mission but thinks the state needs more oversight of spending and program compliance than the agency can provide. Some agencies have offices of inspector general, with the Minnesota Department of Education being the latest to create that internal watchdog role last September. But Koran said he considers them too close to the agencies they oversee.
“The description of the IG that they created for the Department of Education — law enforcement, investigative, subpoena — all of those things are legitimate,” Koran said. “The problem I have is it doesn’t work in the Department of Human Services. To mirror that in [the education department] is change without progress.”
Koran pointed to the 2019 OLA report on the Child Care Assistance Program that found dysfunction in the inspector general’s office itself.
In addition, Koran thinks the OLA needs more auditors and support staff given that the audit commission rejects far more requests for examinations than it authorizes. The feeding program that led to the Feeding Our Future fraud could have other problems but the audit released last week only looked at one recipient of funds.
“There were probably a dozen other channels OLA staff would love to pursue, and the taxpayers would benefit by, but they are challenged by resource restraints,” Koran said.
An independent agency with investigative, law enforcement and prosecution authority is needed, if not within OLA then patterned after it, Koran said.
Randall said she thinks inspectors general can be useful, “but it does depend on whether they are given the tools they need and the independence they need.” Whether OLA should be a larger agency, Randall said “we have an endless amount of work to do.
“Could we grow? Sure. But I’m not trying to empire build,” she said. But she is wary of expanding the mission of the office into law enforcement and prosecution of fraud, as has been suggested.
“It’s not something OLA has had. It is not our expertise,” she said, though OLA does refer information to law enforcement as well as county and federal attorneys. Whether the state creates such an office that is modeled on OLA is a legislative question, Randall said.
Gov. Tim Walz on Monday answered questions about the dual audits for the first time. He demonstrated how delicate the balance is — praising the function of the OLA while tossing out a few excuses.
“We appreciate the work of the OLA and others during the time of COVID or anytime of trying to be as effective as we possibly can,” Walz said. He pointed to the creation of an inspector general at the Minnesota Department of Education as a response and even alluded to the fact that Jett replaced the commissioner cited in the audit, Heather Mueller, though he didn’t link the two.
“Were there things that individuals could have done on their own? Yeah, I think the answer is probably yes,” Walz said. “But that isn’t the sole reason.”
And Walz also noted the convictions this month in U.S. District Court of the first five defendants to face trial for the $250 million fraud.
“We can always do better,” Walz said, while also citing the COVID-19 pandemic that was the setting for both audits. “There is always someone who is trying to commit fraud. The trick is trying to stay ahead of them. If we don’t, these kinds of things happen.
“I will accept responsibility,” he said. “We have to do better.”
This article first appeared on MinnPost and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Photo: Legislative Auditor Judy Randall: “It is an extremely professional office and we take the work incredibly seriously.” Credit:MinnPost photo by Tom Olmscheid
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.
On Saturday, the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board sent out an email about new party, PAC and judicial candidate reports:
The second campaign finance report for 2024 covers the period from January 1, 2024, through May 31, 2024. The report was due on June 14, 2024. The report is required from all state political parties, all party units organized around the House and Senate in the legislature, all political committees, but only political funds that had financial activity that has not been previously reported to the Board. Additionally, judicial candidates for the State Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals are also required to file this report.
The reports are now available for viewing on the Board's website.
State House candidates’ pre-primary election reports are due next month, as Michelle Griffith notes in the article below. Federal candidates for the United States Senate and House of Representatives, as well as state party federal accounts can be viewed at the Federal Election Commission's site.
At the Minnesota Reformer, Griffith reported on the legislative party caucus and state party reports.
The Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor House caucus has a large cash advantage over the GOP House caucus as of May 31, according to recent campaign finance reports.
All 134 seats in the closely divided House will be on the ballot in November, and fundraising will be critical as Democrats and Republicans vie for control of the chamber. Democrats currently hold a five-seat majority, and Republicans are fighting to gain control of the House to fracture the DFL’s state government trifecta.
The latest batch of campaign finance reports are from political party units and political action committees; House candidates’ pre-primary election reports are due next month.
The House DFL caucus recently reported $1.15 million cash on hand, while the Minnesota House Republican Campaign Committee reported over $787,000 cash on hand.
House Democrats received donations in the tens of thousands from several labor unions’ political action committees, including the IBEW and North Central State Regional Council of Carpenters.
Alida Messinger, ex-wife of former Gov. Mark Dayton and frequent DFL donor, gave the House DFL caucus $100,000 in February.
Control for the state Senate will also be on the November ballot, on account of a single race, as Sen. Kelly Morrison, DFL-Deephaven, resigned earlier this month to focus on her congressional campaign. The Senate is now evenly split 33-33 between Democrats and Republicans, so the special election for Morrison’s seat will likely draw millions in outside spending.
Campaign finance reports for the candidates running in the special election — held on Nov. 5 — for Morrison’s seat will become public in August.
Senate Republicans currently have a cash advantage over Senate Democrats, according to the latest campaign reports.
The Senate Republican caucus — known as the Senate Victory Fund — reported about $1.4 million cash on hand, while the Senate DFL caucus reported just over $990,000.
Among the largest individual donors to Senate Republicans: Stanley Hubbard, founder of Hubbard Broadcasting, which owns KSTP. Hubbard has donated $60,000 so far this year to the Senate Republican caucus.
The Minnesota DFL Party reported the most cash compared to other political party units, with over $2 million cash on hand.
Messinger this year has donated $300,000 to the Minnesota DFL Party. Political action committees for AFSCME and Education Minnesota, the state’s teacher’s union, have given over $200,000 and $100,000 to the DFL Party, respectively.
The Minnesota Republican Party, which has been strapped for cash in recent years, in its latest report said it had over $78,000 cash on hand.
This Minnesota Reformer article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Photo: Minnesota Capitol. Photo by Minnesota House Public Information Services via Minnesota Reformer.
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.
With adult cannabis legal in Minnesota but not here in South Dakota, Bluestem wonders how much of a market there will be inborder communities when legal weed shops open in the North Star State.
It looks like a golden marketing opportunity just down the road from Summit on Highway 12. Big Stone County wouldn't even have to rebrand, but smart business people would also provide for places for customers to enjoy and not drive home.
Ortonville might never be the same, whereas it appears South Dakota voters will once more reject legal marijuana in the fall.
The rate of opposition is consistent with a similar measure’s defeat in the 2022 election. But the level of support has dropped.
Most South Dakotans oppose the latest attempt to legalize recreational marijuana in the state, according to a scientific poll of 500 registered voters co-sponsored by South Dakota News Watch.
The statewide survey, also sponsored by the Chiesman Center for Democracy at the University of South Dakota, showed that 52% of respondents are against Initiated Measure 29, compared to 42% who support it and 7% who are undecided.
The rate of opposition is consistent with a similar measure’s defeat in the 2022 election, when South Dakotans voted against legalizing recreational marijuana by a margin of 52% to 47%.
But the level of support has dropped, according to the poll, creating a sizable deficit at a critical time when ballot measure committees are raising money and building strategies for the November 2024 election.
"We believe that the level of support among voters for Measure 29 is higher than the figure in this latest poll," said Matthew Schweich, executive director of South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws, whose group spearheaded the petition effort.
Schweich points to the last presidential election in 2020, when pro-legalization Amendment A passed with 54% of the vote, clearing the way for recreational marijuana to be implemented in the state. Medicinal pot was also approved by voters that year in an initiated measure.
Gov. Kristi Noem’s administration challenged the 2020 recreational marijuana effort, saying it violated the state’s requirement that constitutional amendments deal with just one subject. That argument prevailed in a 4-1 decision at the South Dakota Supreme Court.
"It's difficult to explain how support could have dropped 12 percentage points in just four years," said Schweich. "That type of rapid decrease in public support for cannabis legalization has not occurred in other states."
GOP, Catholic leaders oppose measure
In a Pew Research Center poll conducted in January, 57% of Americans said that marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational purposes, while roughly a third (32%) said that marijuana should be legal for medical use only.
But a 2022 News Watch/Mason-Dixon poll of South Dakota voters found that 54% opposed the measure to legalize recreational pot. That poll number was 2 points off the final election tally (52%) as the measure was defeated that year.
Mason-Dixon Polling and Strategy conducted the 2024 survey on May 10-13. Those interviewed were selected randomly from a telephone-matched state voter registration list that included both landline and cellphone numbers. Quotas were assigned to reflect voter registration by county. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.
Initiated Measure 29 would allow people 21 and older to "possess, grow, ingest, and distribute marijuana or marijuana paraphernalia." Possession would be allowed up to 2 ounces in a form other than marijuana concentrate or other marijuana products.
The poll showed that the measure is opposed by nearly 7 in 10 Republicans (68%) in the state, compared to 24% of Democrats and 45% of non-affiliated voters.
The South Dakota Republican Party, at its 2024 convention June 6-8 in Pierre, passed a resolution that urged "all party members and Republican organizations to lend whatever practical support they can to assist in the campaign to defeat Initiated Measure 29."
In a joint statement released June 6, the bishops of South Dakota’s two Catholic dioceses also formalized their opposition to the measure, saying that marijuana "contributes to a host of problems that weaken the social fabric of society."
South Dakotans 'fiercely protective'
Recreational marijuana is legal in 23 states and the District of Columbia, with supporters pointing to economic advantages to the state economy from tax revenue. States collected nearly $3 billion in marijuana revenues in 2022, according to the Tax Foundation.
Opponents cite potential social costs and health risks such as a higher risk of cardiovascular problems from marijuana use, as outlined in a recent study in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
Protecting South Dakota Kids, a campaign committee formed to fight recreational pot legalization in 2022, will actively oppose the effort again in 2024, said Rhonda Milstead, a former Republican state legislator who serves as the group's executive director.
“When it comes to our children, South Dakotans are fiercely protective,” Milstead told News Watch. “We say no to any group selling addiction for profit.”
Most experts characterize marijuana as a drug that can be used responsibly but also poses risks if abused, like alcohol and other intoxicants.
Expanded legalization has led to more usage, not just among adults. A federal government survey conducted in 2019 found that an estimated 32 million people aged 12 or older in the U.S. had used marijuana in the previous month, up from 22 million five years earlier.
'The debate has already been had'
The pro-legalization petition drive was funded primarily by the Grow South Dakota Ballot Committee (with former state legislator Deb Peters as treasurer) and Puffy's Dispensary, a West River-based medical cannabis operation.
Schweich acknowledged the potential of voter fatigue on an issue that will be on the South Dakota ballot for a third consecutive election cycle.
He told News Watch that he made a political miscalculation by going back to the issue in 2022 rather than "taking a breather" and waiting for 2024, a presidential election year with higher voter turnout than midterms.
"My theory was that the anger over the amendment being overturned would cause a whole bunch of voters who might not otherwise show up for the midterms to go out and vote," said Schweich, who also runs Eagle Campaigns, a political campaign service in Sioux Falls. "It was an ambitious theory, and unfortunately things didn't play out that way. It turns out that changing an electorate is very difficult."
This time, South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws will focus on get-out-the-vote efforts rather than trying to win "the hearts and minds" of voters on an issue that they are well-versed on following the 2020 and 2022 campaigns.
"We need to have a meaningful impact on the electorate in terms of who shows up at the polls," Schweich said. "In a lot of ways, the debate has already been had. Our fate will be determined by the strength of our ground game."
Sioux Falls voters oppose legalization
As expected, the News Watch/Chiesman poll showed that the youngest group surveyed (ages 18-34) was the most supportive of South Dakota’s recreational pot measure. But that age group polled even at 48% for and 48% against.
That's a concern for Schweich and his group as they look for a strong base to lean on as the campaign seeks momentum. The 35-49 age group was at 45% support, while the 50-64 and 65-plus groups were at 38%.
Another red flag for supporters is the fact that the poll showed 41% of Sioux Falls area respondents for the measure and 53% against. Minnehaha County was a stronghold for legalization efforts the past two cycles, with 60% voting yes to the 2020 amendment (which included medical marijuana) and 54% supporting the 2022 initiative.
Elsewhere in the state, West River respondents were most likely to oppose the measure (54%), while those designated East River/South were 48% for and 48% against.
The gender breakdown showed female respondents 44% supporting and 48% opposed, compared to 39% supporting and 56% opposed among male voters.
Those respondents who said they plan to vote for President Joe Biden in the 2024 election were 58% in favor of the legalization measure, compared to 37% against. Those supporting Republican nominee Donald Trump were 29% for the measure and 64% against.
Government looks to reclassify pot
The federal government is taking steps to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug, moving it from the Schedule I group (heroin, LSD, ecstasy) to the less tightly regulated Schedule III (ketamine, anabolic steroids).
The review was initiated by Biden, who supports legalizing medical marijuana for use “where appropriate, consistent with medical and scientific evidence,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said.
Most of the changes involve freeing up medical marijuana for clinical trials and easing regulation of taxation for marijuana-related businesses, Schweich said.
"I don't think the proposed rescheduling will have a significant impact on our ability to pass Initiated Measure 29," he told News Watch. "It's a fairly modest change and doesn't alleviate the stigma. There will be positive effects from the standpoint of businesses in South Dakota, but I don't think it has a mainstream political effect."
Other 2024 ballot measures (not polled)
Work requirement for Medicaid
Legislators also passed Senate Joint Resolution 501 during the 2024 session, an effort to amend the constitution to impose work requirements for Medicaid eligibility.
Supporters want to add a work requirement for adults who are not physically or mentally disabled but who are eligible for Medicaid under the expansion of the government-sponsored program that South Dakota voters approved in 2022. The move would still need to be approved by the federal government.
Opponents frame it as a rebuke of the will of voters and cite the state's 2.1% unemployment rate, which ranks second-lowest in the nation. "Who is on Medicaid and is not working? I can answer that for you, it’s the poorest of the poor,” said Democratic Rep. Kadyn Wittman of Sioux Falls.
References to government officials
This is a legislative resolution from the 2023 session that proposes to change outdated male-only references to South Dakota’s governor and other officials in the state constitution and statutes. It's a procedural update in language that shouldn't draw too much opposition, if any.
The Associated Press contributed to this story, which was produced by South Dakota News Watch, an independent, nonprofit news organization.
This South Dakota News Watch article is republished online with permission.
Photo: A poll co-sponsored by South Dakota News Watch showed that statewide support of marijuana legalization has dropped, creating a sizable deficit at a critical time when ballot measure committees are raising money and building strategies for the 2024 election. (Photo: Wesley Gibbs/ Unsplash/ via South Dakota News Watch).
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.
The underground carbon dioxide storage plan that is key to the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline project faced significant scrutiny during a three-day hearing this week.
Summit proposes to transport CO2 emissions captured from ethanol plants in five states for permanent storage in an underground rock formation in North Dakota. In addition to needing approval for the pipeline, the company needs permits from the North Dakota Industrial Commission for three underground storage facilities in Oliver and Mercer counties.
At least 90% of property owners within each storage area have voluntarily signed leases with Summit for use of their pore space, or underground cavities or voids in the rock formation, the company told regulators with the Department of Mineral Resources.
Property owner Kurt Swenson strongly objected to Summit’s request to regulators to force him and other nonconsenting landowners to participate in the project.
“The state can try and take it. You’re going to end up taking it from my cold, dead hands,” said Swenson, who owns 1,400 acres in or near the proposed storage areas.
Swenson and Derrick Braaten, an attorney representing Swenson and nearly a dozen other landowners, raised concerns about potential health hazards, lack of economic benefit, unfair treatment of landowners and Summit’s refusal to share crucial modeling data.
“I think they should be denied,” said Swenson, adding the state will likely be forced to spend taxpayer funds to defend itself against lawsuits if the North Dakota Industrial Commission approves the permits.
Director of Mineral Resources Lynn Helms called the hearing “one of the most contentious” he’s ever endured.
Summit is requesting to force nonconsenting property owners to lease their pore space through a legal process called amalgamation. The process – similar to eminent domain used for pipeline right-of-ways – is the subject of an ongoing lawsuit against the state. Unlike eminent domain, however, amalgamation does not involve a jury weighing in on landowner compensation, which the landowner plaintiffs argue is unconstitutional.
Helms said Friday during a monthly press briefing that the process is different for pore space because the decisions involve studying geology, underground pressures and other technical considerations.
Kenneth Hintz, the only other property owner to testify at the hearing, supports Summit’s project. Hintz, who has worked with Summit on the project since 2021, has no complaints with how the company has communicated with landowners and believes the project will have a positive impact on the area.
“The project will provide new industry for North Dakota, supplemental income for farmers and ranchers, and new tax dollars for the county,” Hintz said.
Summit executives and experts contracted with the company testified the proposed project meets the legal requirements for a permit listed in state law.
Summit’s Midwest Carbon Express pipeline, if completed, will have the capacity to transport 18.5 million metric tons of CO2 annually to the three storage facilities in Oliver and Mercer counties.
The three storage facilities Summit is applying for will serve as the end point for the company’s Midwest Carbon Express project, a 2,000-mile pipeline expected to collect carbon dioxide from 57 ethanol plants and one sustainable aviation fuel facility across five states and transport the CO2 to North Dakota for permanent storage underground.
“This is three enormous storage facilities, which will really change the nature of carbon emissions in the Midwest,” Helms said.
The CO2 will be pumped into the Broom Creek Formation, a layer of sandstone reservoir and saline aquifer between 5,587 feet and 6,421 feet below the surface. “Confining layers” of rock formations will prevent the CO2 from moving vertically and contaminating sources of drinking water, according to modeling performed by the Energy and Environmental Research Center at the University of North Dakota. The CO2 will instead expand horizontally across the storage facility area over time.
Braaten disputes the accuracy of the EERC’s modeling.
Summit estimates the three storage facilities will have a combined capacity for 352 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. The company plans to fill the storage area over the course of 20 years, injecting an average of 17.6 million metric tons of CO2 annually. Leases signed with landowners include provisions allowing Summit to extend the life of the storage facility for an additional 20 years in exchange for a lump sum payment.
The storage facility’s capacity is a fraction of North Dakota’s pore space, estimated to have the potential to store 250 billion metric tons of CO2 according to the Department of Energy.
“It’s a very prolific storage resource,” said Wade Boeshans, Summit’s executive vice president.
Helms, who is retiring this month, said technical staff with the Department of Mineral Resources will review the information and likely make a recommendation to the full North Dakota Industrial Commission by September or October. The commission, which makes the final decision, is comprised of Gov. Doug Burgum, Attorney General Drew Wrigley and Agriculture Commissioner Doug Goehring.
This North Dakota Monitor article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
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)
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.
A report out this week finds that biofuel refineries, which are overwhelmingly concentrated in the Midwest’s corn-producing states, emit significant amounts of compounds that foul the air and threaten public health.
The study was produced by the Environmental Integrity Project, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C. It finds that the total quantity of air pollutants released by the nation’s biofuel refineries adds up to 12.9 million pounds annually, close to the 14.5 million pounds emitted by traditional oil refineries.
The data in the report comes from emissions inventories maintained by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The nation’s biofuel plants reported more than 235,000 pounds of formaldehyde emissions in 2022, more than three times the amount released by petroleum refineries.
“Despite its green image, the biofuels industry releases a surprising amount of hazardous air pollution that puts local communities at risk – and this problem is exacerbated by EPA’s lax regulation,” said Courtney Bernhardt, director of research for the Environmental Integrity Project.
There are at least 226 biofuel plants in the country, according to the report, including 21 in Minnesota, mostly in the southwest quadrant of the state.
In 2022 those plants emitted roughly 715,000 pounds of hazardous pollutants, with the majority coming from the Minnesota Soybean Processors biodiesel facility in Brewster. Minnesota’s ethanol refineries also produced the equivalent of 2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, and nearly 3 million tons of other regulated air pollutants including lead, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter.
“Biofuel factories release surprisingly large amounts of hazardous air pollution, often into rural Midwestern communities that suffer from unhealthy air quality despite having no significant pollution sources around them, other than the smokestacks of ethanol refineries,” the report concludes.
Those emissions undercut the industry’s carefully-crafted image as a “green” alternative to traditional, petroleum-based fuels. Scientists are increasingly concluding that crop-based ethanol may actually be worse for the climate than regular gasoline once a full accounting of emissions associated with its production is made.
The report faults the EPA for subjecting ethanol plants to less stringent emission standards than regular oil refineries. The authors also call on policymakers to eliminate the mandates and subsidies for ethanol production that prop up the industry.
“Biofuels are growing at a rapid rate in part because of government funding and regulatory mandates for blending ethanol into gasoline,” the authors write. “But the environmental benefits of these government supports are questionable at best.”
This Minnesota Reformer story 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.
The nine justices ruled that abortion opponents lacked the legal right to sue over the federal Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the medication, mifepristone, and the FDA’s subsequent actions to ease access to it. The case had threatened to restrict access to mifepristone across the country, including in states where abortion remains legal.
Abortion is banned at all stages of pregnancy in 14 states, and after about six weeks of pregnancy in three others, often before women realize they’re pregnant. . . .
November vote could legalize mifepristone, other pregnancy terminating medications
A unanimous decision by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) Thursday rejecting an attempt to restrict access to mifepristone won’t change South Dakota’s existing ban on the abortion-inducing chemicals.
That’s according to South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley, who issued a statement following the 9-0 ruling by SCOTUS in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, brought by a group of anti-abortion doctors and medical associations who challenged Food and Drug Administration’s expanded access to mifepristone. The court ruled in favor of the FDA.
“The court’s decision does not change the current FDA rules, and state law on mifepristone remains the same,” Jackley said.
Jackley was among 21 other GOP attorneys general supporting the case. . . .
South Dakota abortion law makes it a Class 6 felony for anyone “who administers to any pregnant female or prescribes or procures for any pregnant female” a means for an abortion, except to save the life of the mother.
Proposed Constitutional Amendment G, which aims to make abortion in South Dakota legal and will appear on the November ballot, would legalize mifepristone if approved by voters.
Abortion access is a different situation in the state of Minnesota, where the editorial board of the Minneapolis Star Tribune opines Abortion access: Safer, but not safe.
Photo: South Dakota law makes it a felony for doctors or pharmacists to provide medical abortion medicines to women in the state. In response, some women are traveling to other states to obtain the medication. Mifepristone, approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2000, is the first of a two-drug regimen for medication abortion. Photo: Michelle Mishina-Kunz, New York Times.
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.
I've been researching some leads related to agriculture in Minnesota and South Dakota, but haven't surfaced from that dive enough to post about the material .
In the meantime, a story from the Minnesota Reformer that sums up the state of North Star State politics this June.
However, Bluestem remembers that Ingraham wasn't from around here went he writes in the article below:
Yep, the otherwise always excellent data journalist wasn't around to witness that about the past Klobucher challenger. Or the time the St. Paul Pioneer Press'd great Rachel Stassen-Berger reported Minnesota legislator reprimanded for intervening in judgment.
The latest chapter in Minnesota Republican United States Senare candidates, from the Minnesota Reformer:
On Tuesday evening Royce White, the Minnesota GOP-endorsed candidate to challenge U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, posted a map to Twitter, now X, with the following caption: “Crime in Minneapolis…Out of control. Come on now. Refund the police! #Godspeed”
The sentiment was standard fare for a political party that often seeks to make crime a centerpiece of its election campaigns.
It also reflects poorly on the state political party that endorsed him in May despite much of his history being public knowledge, and which so far has stood by him as new revelations have surfaced.
“He’s a very engaging guy,” Minnesota Republican Party chairman David Hann told KSTP late last month, after the campaign finance irregularities surfaced. “I think we have to give him the opportunity to make the case. He’s the first African American for Senate Minnesota has had and he’s a Republican. That’s a very good thing, and we’re going to try to work with him and see what we can do.”
After the Reformer reached out to White’s campaign requesting comment, he replied to this reporter directly on X, saying “You’re a cuck. We’re leaving the plantation… You and your weird liberal buddies read it and weep.”
White appears to have lifted the drinking fountain map from X user “Mpls Dad,” who jokingly posted it on Monday with the caption “Crime is absolutely out of control in this city.”
Precisely one minute later, he posted a reply revealing the map actually showed drinking fountains.
“I didn’t expect anyone to actually believe it was a crime map,” Mpls Dad, who wishes to remain pseudonymous, said via direct message. “I can’t believe SO MANY people fell for it, especially a GOP-endorsed US Senate candidate.”
But that map doesn’t support a message about “out of control” crime either: data from the city shows that shots fired are down by about 17% year-over-year, and by more than 33% when looking at the three-year average.
White has been active in the replies to his post, responding to mockery by calling users “groomers” and “cucks.”
Since elevating Donald Trump in 2015 the national Republican Party has increasingly welcomed extreme figures who had previously been restricted to the margins of the party. Until recently Minnesota Republicans were more skeptical of the party’s hard-right turn, an acknowledgment of political reality in a state where no Republican has won statewide office in nearly 20 years.
But that string of losses has stirred up anger and resentment among the GOP base, leading to clashes between mainstream figures urging restraint and hard-right activists calling for war. The party’s continued embrace of a scandal-plagued candidate like White, one who has difficulty getting basic facts straight, suggests the activists are winning the battle for the heart and soul of Minnesota’s GOP.
This Minnesota Reformer article is reported 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.
A post on the X platform sums up a terrific article about cartel activity in South Dakota. A little investigative journalism goes a long way in countering the dog-whistling anti-native accusations of our governor blaming fentanyl on the state's tribal nations.
For months, Gov. Kristi Noem has talked about drug cartels on South Dakota's reservations. A U.S. DEA threat assessment and a host of federal narcotics cases in the state, however, highlight the border-to-border influence of drug traffickers.https://t.co/x4QgmMsEPN
— South Dakota Searchlight (@SDSearchlight) June 11, 2024
Ties between transnational trafficking organizations stretch across the state
This story is the first in a series exploring the influence of drug cartels in South Dakota, on and off the state’s reservations.
Years ago, domestic methamphetamine users would make their own drugs, sometimes shaking up cold medicine and camp fuel cocktails in plastic pop bottles.
The days of domestic drug production by way of local meth labs are long gone, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration’s 2024 National Threat Assessment, as well as interviews with numerous law enforcement sources in South Dakota.
According to the DEA assessment, nearly all the nation’s meth, fentanyl, heroin and cocaine comes from across the southern U.S. border, and the Sinaloa and Jalisco cartels in Mexico.
Those drugs – and the influence of the cartels that control the business, by extension – are everywhere, the DEA says.
The word “cartels” carries considerable weight in the current showdown between Gov. Kristi Noem and the state’s nine tribal nations. Noem has painted reservations as safe havens for cartel members and hubs of drug and human trafficking. She’s accused tribal leadership of personally benefiting from a cartel presence. Tribal nations have responded by banning Noem from their lands.
Brendan Johnson, a former U.S. attorney for South Dakota, said it’s unfortunate that the comments have some South Dakotans believing cartels are based on reservations, when in reality they’re targeting communities across the state.
“Suggesting that there’s some sort of pipeline between Mexico and the reservations is silly,” Johnson said. “It would be tantamount to saying, ‘Yeah, the cartels are really focused on Ipswich.’ That’s stupid, and people wouldn’t believe it. Unfortunately, people are more inclined to believe it (about reservations), because they have less knowledge on the reservations.”
Tribal leaders have rejected claims that reservations are the primary source or target for drug trafficking, and have called Noem’s remarks racist, divisive, unsubstantiated and discriminatory.
A map showing the relative intensity of federal drug cases with direct and confirmed connections to Mexican drug cartels. (courtesy DEA)
“Her remarks were made from ignorance and with the intention to fuel a racially based and discriminatory narrative towards the Native people of South Dakota,” Rosebud Sioux Tribal Chairman Scott Herman said in a March 15 statement.
South Dakota: Not a hub, but not immune
Steven Bell, based in Omaha, is the special agent in charge for a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration region that includes North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa and Minnesota.
In the Upper Midwest, it’s “lower population, fewer cases, fewer ties” to the cartels, he said.
“But it’s important to note that in all of the states, we have been able to tie back our investigative activity back to the cartel presence,” Bell said. “In our rural areas, we’ve developed information where we have actual individuals and undercover agents and officers in direct contact with known members of the cartel.”
There are a few other risk factors to consider in rural areas, Bell said, inclusive of tribal areas. First, drugs generally fetch higher prices in smaller communities, as they tend to be further from the source and users have fewer options for purchasing them. Second, there could be fewer law enforcement officers on patrol to notice trafficking.
Even so, Bell said, drugs generally flow from larger communities to smaller ones, not the other way around.
At least one truth applies to rural and urban areas: anyone captured with several pounds of a drug like meth is rarely more than a few steps removed from the cartel sources that mix it in clandestine labs for shipment to the U.S. – whether they know it or not.
“You might see a retail distributor just selling meth who may or may not have any knowledge of, truly, what organization they work for,” Bell said. “That’s where we come in and put the pieces of the puzzle together, because the cartels do that on purpose to minimize their exposure.”
Putting that puzzle together involves working with state, local and tribal law enforcement through joint powers agreements and groups like the Northern Hills Drug Task Force, according to Bell and others in federal law enforcement.
“We’re not targeting the end users,” Bell said of federal-level drug investigations.
Gary Gaikowski, police chief for the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate, does see his officers interacting with a lot of users. But Gaikowski said his officers know that convincing people to talk about their suppliers – not a drug possession charge – is the endgame.
That’s where coordination with other agencies comes into play, he said. Users are more likely to believe they’ll be protected when they speak to the FBI or Division of Criminal Investigation, he said, because “it seems like they have more authority.”
Those agencies also have higher-level charges and penalties to use as bargaining chips for cooperation.
“It does help us when we coordinate with state authorities and work with the task force,” Gaikowski said.
Federal prosecutors: Hot spots are ‘fluid,’ drugs are in the mail
Large enough cases, on or off South Dakota’s reservations, land in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, where traffickers face mandatory minimum sentences more severe than they’d see in the state system. And that office also prosecutes all felonies that occur on reservations in the state, including drug and human trafficking cases.
The Major Crimes Act of 1885 gives jurisdiction for felonies to the federal government. Tribal courts handle misdemeanor offenses.
U.S. Attorney Alison Ramsdell and the assistant U.S. attorneys who specialize in drug prosecutions each offered assessments of the drug trade similar to Bell’s. So did Johnson and his predecessor, South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley, in separate interviews.
Aside from Johnson, none addressed Noem’s recent comments on drug cartels on tribal lands directly. But none suggested that reservations are hubs for narcotics.
Jackley declined to identify any drug hot spots that might have emerged in recent years. Such locations are fluid, he said. He also said the local, state, tribal and federal law enforcement players who cooperate to investigate the drug trade – and meet quarterly at Ramsdell’s behest – would rather not show their cards.
“If I were to pinpoint an area where the drug task force is working, then I would affect an operation,” Jackley said.
The biggest changes over the past decade have been the sheer volume of cheaply produced narcotics from Mexico and the disappearance of state-level meth cooks, according to Mark Hodges, a federal prosecutor who worked for former U.S. Attorney Ron Parsons, and now Ramsdell.
“So far, inflation hasn’t impacted the price of drugs,” Hodges said. “They’ve gone the opposite direction, because of the supply. There’s more of it, so it’s cheaper.”
There’s also been a spike in the purity of seized narcotics. In the past, couriers would cut Mexican dope with other chemicals during stops in cities like Phoenix, Kansas City or Omaha as their product made its way to more rural states.
Today, “when it gets to Sioux Falls or Rapids City, or Chamberlain, it’s 99% pure,” said John Haak, who leads federal drug prosecutions.
“To me, that indicates control from the central business, the main business,” Haak said. “They’re not letting it be cut.”
Haak echoed Jackley on the mobile nature of the drug business. Rural areas with few police officers and the potential for higher prices can be just as attractive as tribal land, while population centers mean access to larger markets.
“There’s not a fixed model that they use all the time,” Haak said. “They look for the cracks. If Trent works in one case, or Mitchell works in the next case, that’s what they do. The whole goal is to stay below the radar.”
Parsons would like to see more postal inspectors in South Dakota.
Traffickers send drugs through the U.S. mail, he said, because FedEx and UPS have more sophisticated screening processes. He testified to Congress about tribal law enforcement issues during his tenure as U.S. attorney and urged officials to hire more inspectors.
That hasn’t happened.
“There are only two postal inspectors in the entire state of South Dakota, and sometimes one of those positions isn’t filled,” Parsons said. “You could intercept a lot of drugs by putting a lot more scrutiny on the postal service.”
Dealer: System needs reform
One drug dealer recently sentenced to federal prison told South Dakota Searchlight she’s always tried to avoid reservations and to stay a few steps removed from cartels. The dealer spoke on condition of anonymity to protect her safety in prison, where revealing her methods could endanger her. Searchlight confirmed her identity and the details of her criminal record.
Mandatory minimum drug sentences for federal crimes – which applied to her after federal officials intercepted a mailed package of methamphetamine – are the reason she avoided reservations and their federal jurisdiction. Fear of violence is the reason she avoided cartel connections.
She worked with cartel sources in another state, she said, but found other ways to get drugs in South Dakota.
“The cartels don’t care,” she said. “They’ll kill your whole family. Women, babies, they’ll do it without batting an eye.”
A vulnerability for South Dakota is its geographic size and low population density, and the role those factors play in the price drugs can fetch. She described being able to buy an ounce of methamphetamine in California for $150 and then make 10 times that amount by breaking it up and selling it in smaller quantities in South Dakota.
Addiction is the heart of the market, she said, for buyers and sellers alike. She’s moved pounds of methamphetamine over the years but said she only got into dealing to support her own habit.
She tried to get into treatment or into one of the state’s drug courts several times but said she’d always been rejected, in part because of a violent crime on her juvenile record. Her stint in the South Dakota Women’s Prison in Pierre on a drug ingestion charge was supposed to include drug treatment, but she didn’t get it, she said.
What she did get was a chance to network.
“I didn’t know half the people I know here until I went to prison,” she said. “They connected me with the rest of the state.”
By the time she was arrested on a federal distribution charge in 2022, she was using an 8-ball of meth every day and sharing with friends, she said. An 8-ball is 3.5 grams, or $350 worth of product at South Dakota prices, she said.
She believes state-level dealers a few steps removed from higher-up players are almost always heavy users.
“They’re not moving weight because that’s what they want,” she said. “They’re moving weight because their habit is so f***ing deep and they can’t afford it otherwise.”
That’s how cartels and those linked to them get a foothold, she said. People desperate for drugs will let distributors use their home as a hub for sales – at least until the home catches the attention of police.
The shuffle of stash houses happens in tribal communities, she said, but “I know of 10 houses where it’s happened in Mitchell.”
DEA: Rural areas not prime trafficking spots, still face dangers
For the drugs that fuel the cartel trade, rural America has specific draws, even though its large-scale busts are smaller than they would be in metro areas.
Bell, the Omaha-based DEA agent, spent much of his career in Phoenix, where he said a 20-pound seizure of meth would be barely notable. In Atlanta in April, federal law enforcement seized more than 600 pounds of methamphetamine.
But 20 pounds of methamphetamine is significant for South Dakota. In a small state, 20 pounds can get a lot of people high and bring in bigger profit margins.
“When you take that off the street in small town USA, you are truly making a difference in the community,” Bell said. “In Phoenix where you have four and a half million people, it’s whack-a-mole. You get 1,000 pounds one day, and you get 800 the next. It’s never-ending.”
“It goes to show how resilient these cartels are,” Bell said. “They have nothing but time and money to figure out the best way to get product into the United States and out to the rural communities, where they’re going to make the biggest bang for their buck.”
This South Dakota Searchlight article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Map: A map showing the relative intensity of federal drug cases with direct and confirmed connections to Mexican drug cartels. (courtesy DEA/ South Dakota Searchlight).
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.
Recent Comments