Bluestem Prairie

South Dakota News Watch: Federal money to prevent Black Hills forest fires left 'in limbo'

Earlier Friday, I'd posted Looming federal cuts complicate MN budget; will they change BOAH's avian flu response?.

Over here in the Rushmore State, South Dakota News Watch took a look at how federal funding cuts and snafus might damage our iconic Black Hills.

Federal money to prevent Black Hills forest fires left 'in limbo'
By Bart Pfankuch, South Dakota News Watch

PIEDMONT, S.D. – A $5 million program to help private landowners in the Black Hills manage their forest lands and prevent wildfires is on hold as part of President Donald Trump's widespread freeze of federal loan and grant programs.

The forest funding for South Dakota was allocated in 2024 after getting approved by former President Joe Biden and the U.S. Congress as part of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The South Dakota funding is one small part of a much larger $350 million federal program aimed at helping landowners, state and local agencies and tribal governments manage private forests, reduce fire risk and mitigate impacts of climate change across the country. Funding for the entire program appears to be on hold.

The $5 million allocated to South Dakota is for a cost-sharing program with Black Hills landowners for "climate mitigation and/or forest resilience practices,” according to the U.S. Forest Service. In all, 37 states were approved to receive about $140 million for private landowners.

The five-year grant funding is largely aimed at thinning overgrown forests on private land, which helps prevent forest fires from starting and spreading.

About 60% of forest land in the U.S. is privately owned, according to the forest service, making the landowner forest management program a key part of overall wildfire mitigation efforts across the country. The funding freeze comes at a time when the Trump administration has fired or laid off thousands of workers, including in the forest service and wild land fire agencies.

One fire reveals difference in managed forests

Pennington County businessman Dean Henderson, who owns woodlands near his ranch and construction company offices north of Rapid City, saw the benefits of forest management up close in October 2021.

Henderson, who owns Blue Ladder Construction, watched that fall as a fire that broke out between Haines Avenue and Deadwood Avenue torched woodlands around his business and began to threaten buildings.

Several years prior to the fire, Henderson had obtained grant funding to manage his land. As the fire raged, it was clear to see which areas had been thinned of trees in the past, he said.

"In areas where we had thinned, it helped out immensely," Henderson said. "In areas where it was thick and overgrown, it was total devastation, totally cleared out by a very hot fire."

Henderson's buildings were saved, and he remains a supporter of government grant funding to aid private landowners with forest management. "It made it so I could afford to do that because otherwise it wasn’t cost effective," he said.

Bob Burns of Piedmont is a landowner who also serves as co-chair of the South Dakota Family Forests Association, a nonprofit group committed to forest management and resiliency in the Black Hills.

The family forests group was selected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to administer the South Dakota forest management funding, which is provided as 80% reimbursement to landowners who mainly hire contractors to thin their forest lands.

The Black Hills has been hit by several small wildfires and a few major blazes in recent years. The Jasper fire south of Custer burned 83,000 acres of timberland in 2000, and the Custer State Park fire in December 2017 torched about 53,000 acres of forest.

Managed forests promote healthier trees, landowner says

Thinning of forests also promotes growth of healthy trees and reduces the likelihood of insect infestations, including from the mountain pine beetle, which destroyed or damaged pine trees on about 450,000 acres of the northern and central Black Hills during an epidemic lasting from the late-1990s to the mid-2010s.

Proper forest management allows for improved flow of moisture from rain or snow and leads to increased growth of mature trees that are suitable for logging, which can aid the struggling logging industry in the Black Hills, Burns said.

Until recently, Burns said his group was operating under the assumption that since the grant program was fully approved by Congress and the former president, it could begin soliciting grant applications from qualified Black Hills landowners.

After receiving about two dozen applications, however, he learned the federal money was on hold. No official notice of the funding freeze was given, but Burns said that after some investigation on his own, he figured out that, for now at least, the money is not available.

"We’re in limbo right now," Burns told News Watch. "We’re not going to sign people up to do this work unless we know that these funds are going to be flowing to us to reimburse them."

In one of his first executive orders after taking office, Trump froze all funding within the Inflation Reduction Act. He also paused most federal loan and grant programs in late January as his administration undergoes a review to ensure spending aligns with the president's executive orders and goals and to root out potential fraud or wasteful spending.

Burns said the forest resiliency programs are highly controlled and that grant funding is closely monitored.

“There’s nothing approaching fraud or waste in this, and every dollar will be used to do something good for the Black Hills,” he said. "It seems odd to me that this came from an act passed and signed by the president and Congress, so how someone can come and stop it dead in its tracks, I don’t understand that."

Burns said he has contacted representatives in the office of U.S. Sen. John Thune but has not received any updates on if or when the forest funding will be released. A spokesman for Thune told News Watch in an email that the senator's office has communicated with Burns but was unable to provide an update on funding.

"Our office has been in touch with Bob Burns and various other stakeholders in South Dakota assisting them as agencies have been transitioning and getting set up," the spokesman wrote.

The South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources said landowner forest management efforts help maintain and sustain healthy forests in the state.

"We (DANR) work with private landowners to draft forest management plans that identify objectives for their forests and provide management options and tools to accomplish those plans," the department said in an email to News Watch. "Proper forest management, whether on federal lands or private property, is important to reduce the risk of large disturbances such as wildfires or insect outbreaks while accomplishing other ecological services."

Black Hills forest program 'really benefits everyone'

Forested lands in the Black Hills are naturally regenerating, meaning that seeds living in the soil do not require planting of new trees.

Fire has historically served as nature’s way of thinning the forest and leading to growth of new, stronger trees, but in the modern world, with intermingling of homes and businesses in the national forest, “we can’t have wildfires thinning the forests, we just can’t,” Burns said.

While controlled burning can help, the most effective method of reducing fire fuels is through forest management that includes regular thinning of trees that are small or too close together.

The program will benefit the forests that need management and also create jobs and revenues for professional loggers and foresters, Burns said.

“This money really benefits everyone,” he said.

About 800,000 acres of forest in the Black Hills are suitable for logging, and about 290,000 of those acres are privately owned, Burns said.

To participate in the grant program, landowners must have more than 10 acres and be members of the family forests association, which means they must pay for a state-approved forest stewardship plan that guides how the land should be managed.

Grant participants must obtain three separate bids from foresters and submit the low bid for approval. Once approved, the landowner then qualifies for an 80% reimbursement of the contract costs, paying the final 20% from their own pocket. The cost of thinning trees by a professional forester can range from less than $1,000 an acre up to more than $3,000 an acre, so managing tracts of land averaging about 40 acres in size can get expensive, Burns said.

To date, the family forests association has about 160 members who own about 46,000 acres, Burns said.

Burns and his wife, Mary LaHood, are both active not only in managing their own tree farm located west of Interstate 90 near Piedmont but also in promoting forest management among other landowners.

For their longstanding leadership and land management efforts, the couple in 2021 was named National Outstanding Tree Farmers of the Year by the American Forest Foundation. As a team, now married more than 40 years and managing their forest  together that entire time, they're committed to maintaining the quality and beauty of the Black Hills region that they and their adult children call home.

"People don't realize it, but when they drive through the Black Hills, they're driving past thousands of acres of private lands that are beautiful and well preserved," Burns said. "I understand that everyone wants to make sure that tax dollars are being spent wisely, but this is such a wonderful way to increase forest resiliency and protect the Black Hills."

This story was produced by South Dakota News Watch, an independent, nonprofit organization. Read more stories and donate at sdnewswatch.org and sign up for an email to get stories when they're published. ContactBart Pfankuch at [email protected].

Photo: Private landowners control of about 60% of all U.S. forest lands, making grant programs that offset forest thinning costs critical to overall land management in the Black Hills. This tree farm in Piedmont, S.D., shown on Feb. 21, 2025, is owned by Bob Burns and Mary LaHood. (Photo: Bart Pfankuch / South Dakota News Watch).

This South Dakota News Watch article is republished online with the permission of News Watch.

Related posts

• Fireworks back at Mount Rushmore in 2026, while wildland firefighting cut: oh my
• Initial test finds PFAS in Mount Rushmore drinking water at level exceeding new limit
• Here's hoping Jesus grants state rep Joe Donnell a vision about changing SD housing fund law
• State of South Dakota predicts no trouble at future Rushmore fireworks, despite clash in 2020
• Future Fund, COVID-19, indigenous land & wildfires: notes on Mt Rushmore fireworks show 
• Another face on Mount Rushmore? Keep calm and consider history, engineering studies

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

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

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

Looming federal cuts complicate MN budget; will they change BOAH's avian flu response?

The question of federal budget cuts keeps coming up in the Minnesota House committees that I'm following.

Here's one example from the House Agriculture Finance and Policy  Committee on Wednesday. HF979, a bill offered by Chair Paul Anderson, R-Starbuck, a bill to fund the Minnesota Board of Animal Health, which among other things provides the front line defense from the impact of animal diseases. 

Minority Lead Rick Hansen, DFL-S. St Paul, sought to amend the bill so Minnesotans can be prepared in the event of federal funding cuts. Here's a clip from the complete Minnesota House Information Services' YouTube of the hearing, taken from Hansen's legislative Facebook page:

On Thursday at the Minnesota Reformer, Madison McVan and Michelle Griffith posted an overview of the larger budget implications, in coverage of a briefing of the Senate Finance committee by state budget director Ahne Minge Thursday.

Looming federal cuts complicate Minnesota budget
by Madison McVan and Michelle Griffith

Minnesota lawmakers will start crafting a budget next month without knowing the impact of funding cuts, tax law changes, tariffs and other sweeping fiscal policies promised by the Republicans controlling the federal government.

Next week’s state budget forecast, which will tell state lawmakers how much money they have to work with for the next two-year budget, will not account for the massive spending cuts federal Republicans are targeting over the next decade, state budget director Ahne Minge said at a meeting of the Senate Finance committee Thursday.

About one-third of Minnesota’s budget comes from the federal government, and more than half of those federal dollars go to Medical Assistance, Minnesota’s Medicaid program. Federal funding also accounts for significant portions of transportation spending, child care subsidies and SNAP benefits, which help low-income households pay for food.

U.S. House Republicans passed a budget resolution Tuesday targeting $2 trillion in budget cuts over the next ten years to offset a proposed $4.5 trillion tax cut, an extension of the 2017 tax cuts whose biggest beneficiary is the wealthy. To reach the $2 trillion target, Republicans will almost certainly have to cut Medicaid spending and SNAP benefits.

As of now, those targets are merely part of a broad outline, will be subject to negotiations between the House and Senate, and have not been passed into law.

If those funding cuts come to fruition, however, the state would have to pay more for Minnesotans to maintain the same level of benefits.

But the state is already spending more money than it’s bringing in, and there’s a potential $5 billion deficit on the horizon starting in 2027, according to the most recent economic forecast.

In the current fiscal year, the federal government sent Minnesota $11.7 billion for Medicaid, $3 billion for transportation, $1.6 billion for SNAP and more than $500 million each for child care subsidies and public health.

Changes to Medicaid would have huge impact

The state is spending more money than ever on its share of the state Medicaid program, driven largely by increased demand and higher costs of providing services.

To address the looming deficit, Gov. Tim Walz in January proposed slowing spending on services for people with disabilities.

If Congressional Republicans cut Medicaid funding, Walz said he would rethink his proposed budget.

“The fix that we proposed, while it wouldn’t have dropped anyone off, wouldn’t have reduced quality of services, that would no longer hold true if they follow through. We’ll have to reassess at the time,” Walz said at a Capitol press conference Thursday.

Federal Medicaid cuts proposed in Tuesday’s federal budget resolution could mean a reduction of $1.2 to 1.6 billion for Minnesota starting in fiscal year 2027, and increasing in the following years, according to state budget officials.

Without knowing the specifics of where the cuts will come from, budget officials can’t project the full impact of federal funding changes.

Senate Republicans repeatedly criticized Democrats for holding the hearing Thursday, arguing that lawmakers should be focusing on the state’s finances and Walz’s proposed budget cuts, not potential federal cuts that aren’t finalized.

“We’re looking for a headline here and a distraction,” said Sen. Rich Draheim, R-Madison Lake. “We should be looking in our own mirror. We have our own problems here that we have to work through together.”

Sen. Glenn Gruenhagen, R-Glencoe, argued that it was too early in the federal budget process to fret over potential cuts, noting that Trump has previously said he would not touch Medicaid funding.

But after Trump said he would not cut Medicaid, he endorsed the House’s budget resolution that called for the $880 billion in cuts to programs overseen by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which includes Medicaid.

“There’s not one person in the state of Minnesota that I know of that hasn’t received their Medical Assistance yet,” Gruenhagen said. “Is there some concern on the horizon? Yes. But to say that that’s going to happen and those people aren’t receiving anything — that simply is a fallacy.”

Photo: Gov. Tim Walz presented his budget proposal at the Department of Revenue building in St. Paul on Jan. 16, 2025. Photo by Michelle Griffith/Minnesota Reformer.

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

Related posts

• USDA rolls out $1 billion, 5-step plan to combat bird flu in poultry after egg prices rise
• 134M poultry and counting: Interactive charts show hardest-hit counties in bird flu crisis
• All hail H5N1: Trump pick for USDA secretary says she has ‘a lot to learn’ about bird flu

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

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

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

Legislative committee softens budget blow to South Dakota State Library, but concerns remain

I've been following former Governor Kristi Noem's proposed budget cuts to the South Dakota State Library and its aid to local libraries.

This is welcome news, mostly. I agree with "library advocates said the cuts still go too far."

From the South Dakota Searchlight.

Legislative committee softens budget blow to SD State Library, but concerns remain
by Makenzie Huber

South Dakota’s main legislative budget committee softened the proposed cuts to the State Library on Thursday at the Capitol in Pierre, but library advocates said the cuts still go too far.

The Joint Committee on Appropriations endorsed House Bill 1041 in a 16-2 vote, with the two votes against it coming from Reps. Erik Muckey, D-Sioux Falls, and Scott Moore, R-Ipswich.

The original proposal would have cut $1 million in state funds from the State Library, cut the state Department of Education’s ability to seek $1.4 million in federal funding for the library and laid off a dozen employees. Former Gov. Kristi Noem proposed the budget cuts during her December budget address in response to lower-than-anticipated revenues and rising Medicaid costs.

The changes made Thursday would rescue most of the programs that were proposed to be cut, said South Dakota Department of Education Secretary Joseph Graves, including most databases, access to interlibrary loans and “adequate personnel to provide for the training and the promotion of the summer reading programs.” 

The department’s ability to seek $1.4 million in federal funding would also be reinstated to help “make the difference” in cuts at the state level, Graves said. The actual budget cuts are not in HB 1041, since they’re embedded in the state’s general appropriations bill.

The legislation dissolves the South Dakota State Library Board with plans to cut about $825,000 in the library’s budget and three-and-a-half full time positions. The library would retain “standard oversight” by the library director and the Education Department, Graves said. He told lawmakers earlier in the week the changes would cut four databases made available through the State Library to public libraries across the state, including Ancestry Library, Fold3, HeritageQuest and Swank.

The library will be able to keep a total of 17 full time positions, said Rep. Terri Jorgenson, R-Rapid City. The library currently has 21 employees.

Jorgenson, who worked on the changes with the state Department of Education, said the changes are a “way for us to save our State Library.”

Muckey said that statement is “half true” in an interview with South Dakota Searchlight after the meeting.

“I simply just want the bill dead so we can restore all the funding back,” he said.

Elizabeth Fox, president of the South Dakota Library Association, told South Dakota Searchlight that the association can work with the changes, adding that the adjustments spurred a reevaluation of the State Library’s services.

The association is still concerned about the staff and database cuts.

“With the budget revenue predictions and the data we have now, it’s unreasonable to expect nobody will get budget cuts,” Fox said. “These are much more reasonable cuts.”

South Dakota Searchlight’s Joshua Haiar contributed to this report.

Photo: From left: Sen. Ernie Otten, R-Tea; Rep. Mike Derby, R-Rapid City; and Sen. Mark Lapka, R-Leola, listen to a budgetary brief in Pierre on Jan. 14, 2025. (Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight).

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

Related posts

• Lawmakers decline to endorse Noem-backed state library funding cut, school safety grant program
• State cut could hurt local SD library resources ranging from dishwasher research to genealogy
• Noem's proposed SD State Library budget cut would hamstring local libraries, opponents say

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

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

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

USDA rolls out $1 billion, 5-step plan to combat bird flu in poultry after egg prices rise

I've read two helpful articles today about the USDA's evolving plan to combat avian influenza in poultry.

At the University of Minnesota's Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) News, there's USDA rolls out 5-step plan to battle avian flu in poultry.  Lisa Schnirring reports:

Newly confirmed US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Brooke Rollins, JD, today introduced new steps to battle avian flu in poultry and stabilize the egg supply, which includes $500 million to help poultry producers shore up biosecurity measures.

Earlier this week, Rollins met with egg producers during a tour of an egg-laying facility in Texas, and today she detailed USDA's strategy in an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal. The USDA also detailed the plan today on its website.

Since 2022, the H5N1 avian flu virus has led to the loss of more than 166 million poultry, including 19 million over the past 30 days. Outbreaks over the fall and winter have hit poultry farms hard, especially layer facilities in some of the top egg-producing states, such as Ohio. 

Along with a heavy burden on farmers, the outbreaks have diminished the supply of eggs, increased egg prices, and continue to pose a risk to people who have intensive contact with sick and dead poultry.

No 'silver bullet,' but a 5-pronged approach

Rollins wrote that there is no silver bullet for eradicating avian flu, but the USDA is adopting a five-pronged strategy, with the $500 million in biosecurity support as one of the key steps. This step will include free biosecurity assessment for commercial layer farms, with the federal government to pay up to 75% of the cost of repairing biosecurity vulnerabilities.

Second, she said the USDA will increase financial relief to affected farms and streamline approval to ensure they can resume operations as quicky as possible following outbreaks.

Regarding vaccines and therapeutics, the USDA will provide up to $100 million in research and development, with an overall goal of reducing the need to depopulate flocks. Rollins added that the USDA will work closely with stakeholders on whether to use a vaccine, if approved. "We will also work with our trading partners to minimize potential negative trade effects for U.S. producers and to assess public-health concerns," Rollins wrote.

Some countries bar poultry imports from nations that vaccinate commercial poultry due to concerns that their use could mask ongoing avian flu circulation. However, the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) said in a 2023 policy brief that the rapid spread of the virus requires a review of existing control strategies, given that current tools might not be enough. Earlier this month, the USDA conditionally approved a license for an avian flu vaccine for poultry made by Zoetis.

The final two steps include removing regulatory burdens, when possible, and considering egg imports as a temporary solution to boost the egg supply, if the suppliers meet stringent US food safety standards.

Mike Naig, Iowa's agriculture secretary, said today that he is grateful that Rollins and the USDA are making avian flu a top priority, given that Iowa poultry farms have been hit hard by H5N1. 

"I am supportive of exploring an effective H5N1 HPAI vaccination strategy. I encourage USDA to work closely with state animal health officials, farmers and industry to formulate an implementation strategy, incorporate valuable lessons learned, and minimize potential negative trade impacts," he said. 

There's more from the States NewsRoom. As republished in the News Room's South Dakota member, the South Dakota Searchlight.

USDA rolls out $1 billion plan to combat bird flu after egg prices rise
by Jennifer Shutt

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced Wednesday it plans to spend up to $1 billion in Commodity Credit Corporation funds to try to reduce the spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza in poultry.

The virus, also known as bird flu or H5N1, has disrupted the work of poultry farmers for years and began infecting dairy herds last year. But a recent spike in egg prices has led to renewed public attention to the disease.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said the new five-point plan would implement increased biosecurity measures for poultry farms to help reduce interactions between domestic flocks and wild birds, provide funding for farmers to quickly repopulate after having to cull infected flocks, remove some regulations, import eggs from other countries and research a vaccine.

Rollins said she was “confident” that the firing of probationary federal employees and efforts to reduce the size of the federal workforce wouldn’t negatively affect USDA.

“As we look to streamline and make more efficient the U.S. Department of Agriculture, will we have the resources needed to address the plan I just laid out?” she said. “We are convinced that we will, as we realign and evaluate where USDA has been spending money, where our employees are spending their time.”

The USDA scrambled earlier this month to rehire employees working on H5N1 issues, who were fired as part of government efficiency moves.

Bird flu vaccine

Rollins was lukewarm on the idea of using a vaccine to address bird flu, saying she believes the issue needs further research before the United States would potentially begin vaccinating poultry against H5N1.

“We got a lot of feedback from those who think that’s the immediate solution, and that we should be doing it,” Rollins said.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins speaks during her Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee confirmation hearing on Jan. 23, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

But after she “really dug in” and spoke with officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes of Health and veterinarians, Rollins said she concluded there needs to be more research.

“A lot of the feedback I got was, as I mentioned, that it could be a solution,” Rollins said. “But to push that out now and require it — we’re just not ready, we don’t have enough information and we need to fully understand how it will affect the food supply.” 

Details from USDA

Kailee Tkacz Buller, chief of staff at USDA, said on a call with reporters that up to $500 million of the $1 billion total investment would go toward helping farmers bolster their biosecurity measures.

The USDA plans to begin that work with egg-laying hens before expanding to other poultry farms and will cover 75% of the costs of upgrading farms with best practices, she said.

Rosemary Sifford, deputy administrator of veterinary services and chief veterinary officer at USDA’s Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service, said on the call that the agency will help coordinate biosecurity audits for flocks that have been affected by H5N1 as well as flocks that haven’t contracted the virus.

USDA will then work with the farmers to cover that 75% share of fixing the highest risks to the poultry flocks, Sifford said.

Buller said up to $400 million of the $1 billion in Commodity Credit Corporation funds would go toward helping farmers repopulate their farms quickly with an indemnity rate “based on fair market value.”

The final pot of funding, up to $100 million, would go toward research into vaccines and therapeutics for poultry.

“We’re going to make sure that we work to limit any impact on export trade markets, if there ever were vaccinations rolled out,” Buller said.

Egg imports

USDA officials, speaking on background during the call with reporters, said that in addition to trying to find a vaccine for bird flu and helping farmers with biosecurity measures, the department is working to bolster egg imports.

One of the USDA officials said they were laying the groundwork to increase the number of eggs coming from the nation of Türkiye from about 70 million to 420 million annually.

The official didn’t provide many details about the arrangement other than to say it will last until egg prices within the United States go down and that the USDA would not subsidize any private purchases.

An official declined to answer a question about whether that would mean no tariffs on eggs coming into the country.

“This is just an opportunity for us to have the conversation,” the official said. “So we’ll continue to have those discussions.”

Photo: Bird flu, or H5N1, has disrupted the work of poultry farmers for years and began infecting dairy herds last year. (Photo by Lance Cheung/USDA).

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

Related posts

• 134M poultry and counting: Interactive charts show hardest-hit counties in bird flu crisis
• All hail H5N1: Trump pick for USDA secretary says she has ‘a lot to learn’ about bird flu
• HPAI update: first case of bird flu in hog discovered on small Oregon farm
• Are HPAI outbreaks on dairy farms contributing to spread of avian influenza in Kandiyohi, Renville County breeder turkey farms? 
• HPAI dairy update: fourth human case of bird flu diagnosed in Colorado dairy farm worker
• Fed health officials prepare for bird flu jump to people by commissioning Moderna vaccine, tests
• Board of Animal Health: First case of bird flu in MN dairy cows strikes Benton County herd
• HPAI digest: 3rd worker catches flu; testing not reaching workers; more MN flocks stricken
• At a Michigan dairy: CDC confirms second bird flu infection of dairy worker
• U.S. Department of Agriculture to require bird flu tests of lactating dairy cattle before transport 
• How two vets discovered avian flu in dairy cows
• Sick cows news digest: Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza detected in South Dakota dairy herd 
• [VIDEO] State vet briefs MN House Ag Committee on avian flu (HPAI) in dairy cows and people
• Not an April Fools' Day joke: Person in contact with HPAI infected cows in Texas catches bird flu
• Dairy cattle in Kansas and Texas catch highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) from wild birds
• Minnesota Board of Animal Health: Stevens County goat tests positive for avian influenza
• MN Board of Animal Health: HPAI confirmed in commercial Meeker County turkey flock 
• MN DNR: Wild fox in Minnesota tests positive for highly pathogenic avian influenza
• In America's turkey industry, SD producers hit hardest by highly pathogenic avian influenza
• Board of Animal Health: Minnesota poultry sales and exhibitions temporarily banned for 31 days
• Board of Animal Health: Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza confirmed in two Minnesota flocks 
• SD Game, Fish & Parks: Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) detected in South Dakota 
• Associated Press: Bird flu detected among commercial flock in southeastern South Dakota
• Minnesota Reformer: Menacing bird flu detected in western Iowa backyard chicken and duck flock
• Shocking photos in state vet's report to Midwest lawmakers reveal bird flu toll to farmers & flocks 

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

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

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

SD House: carbon capture pipeline moratorium and land-agent regulations advance, while environmental analysis bill fails

Yesterday was another bad day for ethanol carbon pipelines in Pierre, the South Dakota Searchlight reports. The failure of the environmental analysis bill updates an earlier post, SD lawmakers endorse hurdles for eminent domain, enviro studies for carbon pipelines.

CO2 pipeline moratorium and land-agent regulations advance, but environmental analysis bill fails
by Joshua Haiar

PIERRE – In South Dakota’s ongoing debate over carbon capture pipelines, lawmakers advanced two bills to further regulate those projects Tuesday but rejected one that would have required in-depth environmental assessments. 

The bills are among several filed in response to controversy over Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions’ proposed $9 billion, five-state pipeline that would pass through eastern South Dakota. 

The project would transport captured carbon dioxide emissions from more than 50 ethanol plants to an underground storage area in North Dakota. While supporters view it as a critical step toward bolstering the ethanol industry, opponents are concerned about private property rights and safety risks from potential leaks.

Pipeline moratorium

One of the bills that passed the House of Representatives, 40-30, seeks to halt the construction of carbon dioxide pipelines in South Dakota until the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration finalizes new safety regulations. 

“This bill simply asks that we take the time to sit back, take a step back, and wait until these rules are finished,” said the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Richard Vasgaard, R-Centerville. 

Supporters said the moratorium is essential to safeguard residents and ensure that comprehensive safety standards are in place before proceeding with such projects. 

Opponents said existing regulations are sufficient and that delaying pipeline development could hinder economic opportunities and deter investment in the state’s energy sector.

The bill goes to the Senate next.

Land agent accusations

Another bill headed to the Senate empowers landowners to sue for allegedly deceptive practices, fraud, harassment, intimidation or misrepresentation during the acquisition of land access agreements — known as easements — by carbon pipeline land agents. It passed the House 36-34. 

Supporters alleged there have been numerous instances when landowners faced aggressive or misleading tactics from CO2 pipeline land agents. They said the bill provides the necessary legal recourse and promotes fair negotiations. 

“Why is it OK for these companies to treat us like this?” said the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Kaley Nolz, R-Mitchell. 

Opponents said such misconduct is already illegal. They said the bill’s provisions might be overly broad, potentially complicating legitimate infrastructure projects and leading to increased litigation.

“This bill is a lawyer’s dream,” said Rep. Steve Duffy, R-Rapid City.

Environmental impact statements

A bill failed that would have mandated any applicant seeking a permit for a carbon dioxide pipeline to have an environmental impact statement. 

Opponents said the requirement could introduce bureaucratic delays, increase project costs and discourage companies from pursuing energy projects in South Dakota.

Supporters emphasized the necessity of thoroughly assessing potential environmental consequences, like the impact on the state’s water resources, before project approval. 

“We are literally, in my opinion, walking blind into a huge project that is going to use millions of gallons of water,” said bill sponsor Rep. John Hughes, R-Sioux Falls.

However, because the bill also included a permanent application fee increase, the House speaker ruled that the bill required a two-thirds majority. The vote was 37-32, which was short of two-thirds, and the bill failed.

Eminent domain bills pending

The Summit project may ultimately need eminent domain to gain land access from unwilling landowners. Eminent domain is a legal process for obtaining that access with just compensation determined by a court, for a project beneficial to the public — traditionally for projects such as electrical power lines, crude oil pipelines, water pipelines and highways. 

A bill to ban eminent domain for carbon pipelines passed the House last month and is awaiting action in the Senate.

Another bill approved by the Senate earlier this week would retain eminent domain as an option. But it would require entities using it to first attend mediation with the affected landowner and to also have a state permit before commencing eminent domain proceedings.

 

Photo: Rep. Richard Vasgaard, R-Centerville, speaks to lawmakers on the South Dakota House floor in Pierre on Feb. 25, 2025. (Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight).

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

Related posts

• SD lawmakers endorse hurdles for eminent domain, enviro studies for carbon pipelines
• CURE action alert: carbon pipelines & CCS not Minnesota's answer to a carbon free future
• Ethanol carbon capture pipeline news digest: stories from South Dakota--and The Atlantic
• Bill supports ND landowners caught in costly legal battles over eminent domain & easements
• State lawmakers vote down six bills to limit carbon capture in North Dakota
• Bill to kill carbon pipeline property tax exemption in North Dakota fails in state senate
• Iowa House GOP lawmakers introduce suite of pipeline bills on IUC, eminent domain issues
• Iowa House subcommittee advances bill to remove climate change language; aimed at stopping ethanol carbon pipeline
• Landowners, energy industry at odds over bills limiting ethanol CO2 pipelines in North Dakota
• Ban on eminent domain for carbon pipelines passes South Dakota House, heads to Senate
• Ethanol carbon pipeline bills set for hearings in North Dakota legislature this week 
• Ban on eminent domain for carbon capture pipelines makes it out of SD House committee
• Carbon pipeline company asks court to force SD regulator’s recusal due to alleged conflict
• Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline company formally asks SD regulator to recuse herself 
• South Dakota Public Utilities Commissioner stays on new carbon pipeline case after prior recusal, with no explanation this time
• Hundreds pack SD PUC Summit ethanol carbon pipeline hearings in Watertown and Aberdeen
• 100s attend first day of SD PUC ethanol carbon pipeline meetings in Mitchell and Sioux Falls
• Federal regulators announce proposed rule for CO2 pipeline safety
• Carbon pipeline opponents rallied Monday in Pierre amid push for eminent domain ban
• North Dakota landowners appeal Summit ethanol carbon storage decision 
• Punt! Lincoln County commissioners push back decision on ethanol carbon pipeline rules
• Summit Carbon Solutions in the news: landowners & counties appeal North Dakota pipeline permit; Summit tells Iowans to cease & desist; Pipeline Fighters Hub & CURE statements
• North Dakota Industrial Commission approves CO2 storage for Summit ethanol carbon pipeline
• Minnesota PUC granted a permit for Summit Carbon Solutions Otter Tail to Wilkin County pipeline
• South Dakota Public Utilities Commission schedules public input meetings on Summit carbon pipeline application
• Summit ethanol CO2 injection wells up for approval but court appeal already in the works
• Oh the irony: ethanol carbon pipeline company has failed to address crossing concerns, DAPL oil pipeline company says
• Iowa Supreme Court upholds land survey abilities of pipeline companies in Summit case
• U.S. appeals court hears Summit pipeline case against Iowa's Shelby and Story counties
• Never mind the voters: ethanol carbon pipeline company reapplies for South Dakota permit
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Summit sues another Iowa county and more!
• North Dakota Public Service Commission approves Summit carbon pipeline route
• North Dakota couple plans to ‘dig in’ if Summit ethanol carbon pipeline is approved
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: CO2 pipeline in MN moves forward; ND Public Service Commission decision coming Friday
• SD pipeline foes secure legislative leadership; MN Summit decision could come Dec. 12
• In unofficial results, ethanol carbon-pipeline law tossed out by South Dakota voters 
• CURE: MN Administrative Law Judge’s report on Summit’s CO 2 pipeline expected November 4
• Seven South Dakota ballot measures, $7 million and counting: Reports reveal total spending
• Jeepers: ethanol coop kicks in another $400,000 to support carbon pipeline ballot question 
• Ethanol carbon news digest: Summit Carbon pipeline in MN, Iowa & North Dakota media
• Summit Carbon Solutions CEO asks for prayer, while MN PUC wants public comment on FEIS of Otter Tail – Wilkin portion of CO2 Pipeline
• Public can comment on Otter Tail – Wilkin Co section of ethanol carbon pipeline until Sept. 11
• VIDEO: Carbon capture in Minnesota: public lands, fast money, and pipe dreams
• Summit pipeline segment enters final permitting stages in Minnesota; CURE raises objections
• Ethanol is fueling support of South Dakota carbon pipeline ballot measure
• Pipeline Fighters Hub: Summit Carbon Solutions numbers don’t add up in South Dakota 
• Referred Law 21 & carbon pipelines: A landowner bill of rights or an undermining of local control
• Summit Carbon Solution's ethanol carbon pipeline takes #2 spot on Heatmap's The Most At-Risk Projects of The Energy Transition 
• Ethanol carbon pipeline news: Attorneys differ on meaning of common carrier law in Summit case
• Summit Carbon Solutions pipelines won’t capture all carbon emitted by ethanol plants
• South Dakota Supreme Court ruling complicates Summit Carbon Solution’s push for land
• Referred pipeline law puts Summit Carbon Solution's permit quest in limbo
• Breaking crowded South Dakota ballot news: carbon pipeline law referendum validated
• Sustainable jet fuel company Gevo contributes $167K in defense of carbon pipeline law
• South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance turns in petitions to SD Secretary of State to force a vote on carbon pipeline policy
• South Dakota District 1 GOP House primary news round-up: carbon pipeline politics major issue
• New Midwest battles brew over CO2 pipelines

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

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

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

MNHouse bonding committee: MN Zoo seeks state funds for upgraded animal care facility

Minnesota legislative committee hearings have been peculiar this session (more on that in two future posts about "carbon free" wood waste and revising reporting requirements for grain buyers' licenses).

But one element of Minnesota government remains consistent: the Minnesota Zoo.

From Session Daily.

Minnesota Zoo seeks state funds for upgraded animal care facility
By Brian Basham

Nimbus and Pepper are not your typical committee testifiers.

Yet, both appeared before lawmakers Tuesday to help make the case for a new animal hospital at the Minnesota Zoo.

“Look at those cute little animals,” Rep. Mary Franson (R-Alexandria) said of Nimbus, the chinchilla, and Pepper, a Soloman Islands skink.

Director John Frawley told the House Capital Investment Committee a new animal hospital and wellness center to help employees and zoo animals like Nimbus and Pepper is the Minnesota Zoo’s most critical need right now.

The first building to be constructed at the zoo in Apple Valley, the current animal hospital is 50 years old and in dire need of an update. Frawley said its age poses risks to both the animals being treated and humans doing the treatment.

“The facility is not equipped to handle the approximately 5,000 animals at the zoo of great diversity of species, putting humans and animals in difficult working environments that are not ergonomic or safe,” said Anne Rivas, director of animal health.

Zoo officials are requesting nearly $17.7 million in bonding for a new wildlife hospital and wellness center. The 2025 bonding proposal put forth by Gov. Tim Walz has just $3.81 million for asset preservation and building maintenance for the zoo. Per the proposal, the estimated total deferred maintenance need at the zoo is $66.97 million.

[MORE: View the zoo’s presentation]

The state-of-the-art center for veterinary care, education and training is expected to cost $30 million, with $9 million already raised from private donations and $1.22 million from previous state funding.

The zoo’s current animal hospital lacks the essential infrastructure to meet U.S. Department of Agriculture and veterinary standards, Rivas said. Animal holding spaces are inadequate, and the surgical area is too small and lacks proper ventilation.

“The key thing is to create a safer and more ergonomic workspace to work with wildlife and zoo animal species and provide them the proper medical care that they need at current industry standards,” she said.

Here's the Minnesota House Information Services YouTube of the hearing:

Photo: Rep. Liz Reyer gets a close look at Pepper, a Solomon Islands skink, during the House Capital Investment Committee meeting Feb. 25. Naturalist Alexandria Tasa was among zoo staff and creatures there to present the zoo’s bonding request. (Photo by Michele Jokinen).

 

Related posts

• MN DNR, Minnesota Zoo reintroduce Dakota skipper butterflies to Glacial Lakes State Park
• May Day digest: Dakota skippers, Lawns to Legumes, Senjem's Canada goose egg appeal 
• Surprise invite to SWO Dakota skipper prairie demonstrates MN Zoo's conservation work
• The SWO Lake Traverse Reservation roots of some MN Zoo Dakota skipper butterflies

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

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

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

SD lawmakers endorse hurdles for eminent domain, enviro studies for carbon pipelines

Earlier Monday, I'd posted CURE action alert: carbon pipelines & CCS not Minnesota's answer to a carbon free future.

Meanwhile, in South Dakota, CCS was having a bad day in the state legislature.

Indeed, those carbon pipeline dreams haven't really recovered from the primaries and the ballot measure in November that removed the so-called "landowner bill of rights" that in fact favored the pipeline developers. Moreover, as the South Dakota War College reported over the weekend, anti-pipeliner Jim Eschenbaum is the new Chair of South Dakota Republican Party.

Jeepers.

South Dakota Searchlight reported on the CCS pipeline's bad day in Pierre.

SD lawmakers endorse hurdles for eminent domain and environmental studies for carbon pipelines
by Joshua Haiar

PIERRE — South Dakota lawmakers advanced legislation Monday at the Capitol that would make it more difficult for carbon dioxide pipeline companies to use eminent domain and would subject their projects to required environmental impact statements.

The bills are among several filed in response to controversy over Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions’ proposed $9 billion, five-state pipeline that would pass through eastern South Dakota. 

New eminent domain requirements

Eminent domain is a legal process for obtaining land access from unwilling landowners with just compensation determined by a court, for a project beneficial to the public — traditionally for projects such as electrical power lines, crude oil pipelines, water pipelines and highways. A bill to ban eminent domain for carbon pipelines passed the House last month and is awaiting action in the Senate.

Meanwhile, a bill approved by the Senate 17-16 on Monday would retain eminent domain as an option. But it would require entities using it to first attend mediation with the affected landowner and to also have a state permit before commencing eminent domain proceedings. 

The bill failed last week in a close vote with two members absent, and then passed Monday when it was reconsidered and will head to the House next. It is sponsored by Sen. Jim Mehlhaff, R-Pierre. He said the measure strengthens landowner rights in condemnation proceedings. 

“What it simply does is it requires a developer to go through that process and get a permit prior to gaining the privilege to use eminent domain,” Mehlhaff said.

Opponents said mediation could serve as a tool to force landowners into talks they don’t want to have.

“If a landowner said no thank you, their wishes should be respected,” said Sen. Joy Hohn, R-Sioux Falls. 

Some senators also hope to pass the ban on eminent domain for carbon pipelines rather than merely imposing new eminent domain restrictions.

Environmental impact statements

The House Commerce and Energy Committee voted 9-4 to send a bill to the House floor that would require an environmental impact statement for carbon dioxide pipelines. 

The bill, sponsored by Rep. John Hughes, R-Sioux Falls, mandates state utility regulators to prepare or require the preparation of the statements before approving a carbon pipeline permit. The statements are detailed documents required at the federal level to assess the potential environmental effects of some projects.

“This is not an anti-pipeline bill,” Hughes said. “This is a public safety bill and it’s a bill that protects our resources.”

Opponents, including representatives from the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce & Industry, utilities, and Summit argued that the bill would add an unnecessary regulatory burden.

“It’s hard not to see this bill as directed at Summit Carbon Solutions,” said Brett Koenecke, a lobbyist for the project. 

Opponents also said the regulators serving on the Public Utilities Commission already conduct a rigorous permitting process.

“What we’re doing is so much more robust than this process,” Koenecke said. “We are doing the things that the sponsor wants us to do already.” 

The Summit pipeline would capture some of the carbon dioxide emitted by 57 ethanol plants and transport it for underground storage in North Dakota. The project has received permits in Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota, while its application is pending in South Dakota. Nebraska does not have a permitting process. 

The project would be eligible for federal tax credits incentivizing the capture of heat-trapping greenhouse gases to mitigate climate change. Hughes said other states, including Minnesota, mandate extensive environmental reviews.

“This project, when completed, will generate over $1.5 billion in federal tax credits,” Hughes said. “We’ve got to get this right.”

Other carbon pipeline bills

Among other pending carbon pipeline bills this legislative session is one that would put a moratorium on carbon pipelines until new federal safety rules are finalized, and another empowering landowners to sue pipeline companies for the alleged abuses of their land agents.

Photo: Sen. Jim Mehlhaff, R-Pierre, speaks on the South Dakota Senate floor on Jan. 21, 2025. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight).

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

Related posts

• CURE action alert: carbon pipelines & CCS not Minnesota's answer to a carbon free future
• Ethanol carbon capture pipeline news digest: stories from South Dakota--and The Atlantic
• Bill supports ND landowners caught in costly legal battles over eminent domain & easements
• State lawmakers vote down six bills to limit carbon capture in North Dakota
• Bill to kill carbon pipeline property tax exemption in North Dakota fails in state senate
• Iowa House GOP lawmakers introduce suite of pipeline bills on IUC, eminent domain issues
• Iowa House subcommittee advances bill to remove climate change language; aimed at stopping ethanol carbon pipeline
• Landowners, energy industry at odds over bills limiting ethanol CO2 pipelines in North Dakota
• Ban on eminent domain for carbon pipelines passes South Dakota House, heads to Senate
• Ethanol carbon pipeline bills set for hearings in North Dakota legislature this week 
• Ban on eminent domain for carbon capture pipelines makes it out of SD House committee
• Carbon pipeline company asks court to force SD regulator’s recusal due to alleged conflict
• Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline company formally asks SD regulator to recuse herself 
• South Dakota Public Utilities Commissioner stays on new carbon pipeline case after prior recusal, with no explanation this time
• Hundreds pack SD PUC Summit ethanol carbon pipeline hearings in Watertown and Aberdeen
• 100s attend first day of SD PUC ethanol carbon pipeline meetings in Mitchell and Sioux Falls
• Federal regulators announce proposed rule for CO2 pipeline safety
• Carbon pipeline opponents rallied Monday in Pierre amid push for eminent domain ban
• North Dakota landowners appeal Summit ethanol carbon storage decision 
• Punt! Lincoln County commissioners push back decision on ethanol carbon pipeline rules
• Summit Carbon Solutions in the news: landowners & counties appeal North Dakota pipeline permit; Summit tells Iowans to cease & desist; Pipeline Fighters Hub & CURE statements
• North Dakota Industrial Commission approves CO2 storage for Summit ethanol carbon pipeline
• Minnesota PUC granted a permit for Summit Carbon Solutions Otter Tail to Wilkin County pipeline
• South Dakota Public Utilities Commission schedules public input meetings on Summit carbon pipeline application
• Summit ethanol CO2 injection wells up for approval but court appeal already in the works
• Oh the irony: ethanol carbon pipeline company has failed to address crossing concerns, DAPL oil pipeline company says
• Iowa Supreme Court upholds land survey abilities of pipeline companies in Summit case
• U.S. appeals court hears Summit pipeline case against Iowa's Shelby and Story counties
• Never mind the voters: ethanol carbon pipeline company reapplies for South Dakota permit
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Summit sues another Iowa county and more!
• North Dakota Public Service Commission approves Summit carbon pipeline route
• North Dakota couple plans to ‘dig in’ if Summit ethanol carbon pipeline is approved
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: CO2 pipeline in MN moves forward; ND Public Service Commission decision coming Friday
• SD pipeline foes secure legislative leadership; MN Summit decision could come Dec. 12
• In unofficial results, ethanol carbon-pipeline law tossed out by South Dakota voters 
• CURE: MN Administrative Law Judge’s report on Summit’s CO 2 pipeline expected November 4
• Seven South Dakota ballot measures, $7 million and counting: Reports reveal total spending
• Jeepers: ethanol coop kicks in another $400,000 to support carbon pipeline ballot question 
• Ethanol carbon news digest: Summit Carbon pipeline in MN, Iowa & North Dakota media
• Summit Carbon Solutions CEO asks for prayer, while MN PUC wants public comment on FEIS of Otter Tail – Wilkin portion of CO2 Pipeline
• Public can comment on Otter Tail – Wilkin Co section of ethanol carbon pipeline until Sept. 11
• VIDEO: Carbon capture in Minnesota: public lands, fast money, and pipe dreams
• Summit pipeline segment enters final permitting stages in Minnesota; CURE raises objections
• Ethanol is fueling support of South Dakota carbon pipeline ballot measure
• Pipeline Fighters Hub: Summit Carbon Solutions numbers don’t add up in South Dakota 
• Referred Law 21 & carbon pipelines: A landowner bill of rights or an undermining of local control
• Summit Carbon Solution's ethanol carbon pipeline takes #2 spot on Heatmap's The Most At-Risk Projects of The Energy Transition 
• Ethanol carbon pipeline news: Attorneys differ on meaning of common carrier law in Summit case
• Summit Carbon Solutions pipelines won’t capture all carbon emitted by ethanol plants
• South Dakota Supreme Court ruling complicates Summit Carbon Solution’s push for land
• Referred pipeline law puts Summit Carbon Solution's permit quest in limbo
• Breaking crowded South Dakota ballot news: carbon pipeline law referendum validated
• Sustainable jet fuel company Gevo contributes $167K in defense of carbon pipeline law
• South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance turns in petitions to SD Secretary of State to force a vote on carbon pipeline policy
• South Dakota District 1 GOP House primary news round-up: carbon pipeline politics major issue
• New Midwest battles brew over CO2 pipelines

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

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

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

CURE action alert: carbon pipelines & CCS not Minnesota's answer to a carbon free future

Another moment in the carbon capture pipeline saga in the upper Midwest.

Bluestem's been posting about the resistance to carbon pipelines here in South Dakota--in blog entries like Ethanol carbon capture pipeline news digest: stories from South Dakota--and The Atlantic--a state in which there's board popular and legislative opposition to the proposed pipeline system.

The Republicans in the Minnesota legislature seem to be taking a different position.

Grassroots rural environmental and energy policy organization CURE is warning about a bill making its way in the Minnesota House that would “support the development and deployment of carbon capture and sequestration technologies in Minnesota.”

HF9 will be heard on Wednesday, February 26, 2025 at 10:15 AM in the Taxes Committee, so Minnesotans who take CURE's warning seriously, should contact your state representatives with your concerns.

From CURE's Facebook page:

There's a link on the post that leads to this copy on the organization's webpage:

CO2 Pipelines & CCS: Not MNs Answer to a Carbon Free Future

HF 9 is a bill authored by Rep. Chris Swedzinski (R-Ghent) and it will make changes to Minnesota’s 100% Carbon Free Energy Standard. One big change is to add language to make it Minnesota law to “support the development and deployment of carbon capture and sequestration technologies in Minnesota.”

So-called carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is a failed climate “solution” favored by the oil and gas companies and other industries that emit CO2 to keep making lots of money in a decarbonizing future. Even with huge taxpayer subsidies, CCS hasn’t reduced CO2 emissions and can be very dangerous for people living near CO2 pipelines. CO2 pipelines at grave risk.

Learn more about the problems with CCS and CO2 pipelines and the risks they pose for Minnesota’s communities: https://curemn.org/carbon-pipelines-mn/resources/

In January, the House Energy Finance and Policy Committee approved HF 9 and sent it to the House Taxes Committee. This bill could be voted on by the House soon. It’s critical for lawmakers to hear from people who will be affected by these projects.

👉 Your Minnesota Legislator needs to know about the concerns, risks, and problems these projects could bring to our lands, waters, and communities.

👉 Write to your representative to tell them who you are, why you care, and what concerns you have about a policy that would advance Carbon Capture and CO2 pipelines.

ACT NOW

Let your Rep know that CCS ≠ MN’s Carbon Free Future

👉 Make it Personal

Your story makes a big impact on decision-makers.

Please add a note about why this issue matters to you!

There's also a form on the page where visitors can sign up for future notices on the issue.

Photo:  An ethanol plant.

Related posts

• Ethanol carbon capture pipeline news digest: stories from South Dakota--and The Atlantic
• Bill supports ND landowners caught in costly legal battles over eminent domain & easements
• State lawmakers vote down six bills to limit carbon capture in North Dakota
• Bill to kill carbon pipeline property tax exemption in North Dakota fails in state senate
• Iowa House GOP lawmakers introduce suite of pipeline bills on IUC, eminent domain issues
• Iowa House subcommittee advances bill to remove climate change language; aimed at stopping ethanol carbon pipeline
• Landowners, energy industry at odds over bills limiting ethanol CO2 pipelines in North Dakota
• Ban on eminent domain for carbon pipelines passes South Dakota House, heads to Senate
• Ethanol carbon pipeline bills set for hearings in North Dakota legislature this week 
• Ban on eminent domain for carbon capture pipelines makes it out of SD House committee
• Carbon pipeline company asks court to force SD regulator’s recusal due to alleged conflict
• Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline company formally asks SD regulator to recuse herself 
• South Dakota Public Utilities Commissioner stays on new carbon pipeline case after prior recusal, with no explanation this time
• Hundreds pack SD PUC Summit ethanol carbon pipeline hearings in Watertown and Aberdeen
• 100s attend first day of SD PUC ethanol carbon pipeline meetings in Mitchell and Sioux Falls
• Federal regulators announce proposed rule for CO2 pipeline safety
• Carbon pipeline opponents rallied Monday in Pierre amid push for eminent domain ban
• North Dakota landowners appeal Summit ethanol carbon storage decision 
• Punt! Lincoln County commissioners push back decision on ethanol carbon pipeline rules
• Summit Carbon Solutions in the news: landowners & counties appeal North Dakota pipeline permit; Summit tells Iowans to cease & desist; Pipeline Fighters Hub & CURE statements
• North Dakota Industrial Commission approves CO2 storage for Summit ethanol carbon pipeline
• Minnesota PUC granted a permit for Summit Carbon Solutions Otter Tail to Wilkin County pipeline
• South Dakota Public Utilities Commission schedules public input meetings on Summit carbon pipeline application
• Summit ethanol CO2 injection wells up for approval but court appeal already in the works
• Oh the irony: ethanol carbon pipeline company has failed to address crossing concerns, DAPL oil pipeline company says
• Iowa Supreme Court upholds land survey abilities of pipeline companies in Summit case
• U.S. appeals court hears Summit pipeline case against Iowa's Shelby and Story counties
• Never mind the voters: ethanol carbon pipeline company reapplies for South Dakota permit
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Summit sues another Iowa county and more!
• North Dakota Public Service Commission approves Summit carbon pipeline route
• North Dakota couple plans to ‘dig in’ if Summit ethanol carbon pipeline is approved
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: CO2 pipeline in MN moves forward; ND Public Service Commission decision coming Friday
• SD pipeline foes secure legislative leadership; MN Summit decision could come Dec. 12
• In unofficial results, ethanol carbon-pipeline law tossed out by South Dakota voters 
• CURE: MN Administrative Law Judge’s report on Summit’s CO 2 pipeline expected November 4
• Seven South Dakota ballot measures, $7 million and counting: Reports reveal total spending
• Jeepers: ethanol coop kicks in another $400,000 to support carbon pipeline ballot question 
• Ethanol carbon news digest: Summit Carbon pipeline in MN, Iowa & North Dakota media
• Summit Carbon Solutions CEO asks for prayer, while MN PUC wants public comment on FEIS of Otter Tail – Wilkin portion of CO2 Pipeline
• Public can comment on Otter Tail – Wilkin Co section of ethanol carbon pipeline until Sept. 11
• VIDEO: Carbon capture in Minnesota: public lands, fast money, and pipe dreams
• Summit pipeline segment enters final permitting stages in Minnesota; CURE raises objections
• Ethanol is fueling support of South Dakota carbon pipeline ballot measure
• Pipeline Fighters Hub: Summit Carbon Solutions numbers don’t add up in South Dakota 
• Referred Law 21 & carbon pipelines: A landowner bill of rights or an undermining of local control
• Summit Carbon Solution's ethanol carbon pipeline takes #2 spot on Heatmap's The Most At-Risk Projects of The Energy Transition 
• Ethanol carbon pipeline news: Attorneys differ on meaning of common carrier law in Summit case
• Summit Carbon Solutions pipelines won’t capture all carbon emitted by ethanol plants
• South Dakota Supreme Court ruling complicates Summit Carbon Solution’s push for land
• Referred pipeline law puts Summit Carbon Solution's permit quest in limbo
• Breaking crowded South Dakota ballot news: carbon pipeline law referendum validated
• Sustainable jet fuel company Gevo contributes $167K in defense of carbon pipeline law
• South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance turns in petitions to SD Secretary of State to force a vote on carbon pipeline policy
• South Dakota District 1 GOP House primary news round-up: carbon pipeline politics major issue
• New Midwest battles brew over CO2 pipelines

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

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

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

Republican SD lawmakers pursue a multifaceted crackdown on citizen-backed ballot measures

Since moving to South Dakota, I've been impressed by the times I've been able to vote on ballot measures. Those I have supported down always carry the day, but that's part of the process.

Now some in the state legislature are gunning for this part of South Dakota democracy.

From the South Dakota Searchlight.

Republican SD lawmakers pursue a multifaceted crackdown on citizen-backed ballot measures
by Joshua Haiar

Some Republicans, many of them aligned with anti-abortion groups, are tired of South Dakotans petitioning their ideas onto the ballot. 

“There are things being put on the ballot that they can’t get through the Legislature,” said Brian Gosch, a Republican former state lawmaker who lobbies for clients including South Dakota Family Voice Action, which opposes abortion rights. “They’re trying to bypass that process to go around it and then get their way through some other means.”

Gosch was testifying recently on behalf of legislation that would limit how often similar ballot questions can be proposed to voters. The bill is one of many that Republican lawmakers have proposed during the current legislative session at the Capitol in Pierre to crack down on citizen-backed ballot measures. The bills include efforts to reduce the time for signature gathering, to require signatures from every legislative district in the state, to raise the threshold to pass a constitutional amendment to 60%, and more. 

Rep. Erin Healy, D-Sioux Falls, said citizens putting issues on the ballot that their lawmakers will not entertain is a good thing.

“They’re trying to let the people decide; they’re trying to participate in democracy,” Healy said. “And Republicans here in this building continue to try to completely just squash their voice, and that’s wrong, and that’s undemocratic, and I’m tired of it.”

Nancy Turbak Berry is a Democratic former legislator who is co-chairing an effort to bring an abortion-rights measure to the ballot in 2026.

“The Legislature knows they are out of touch with what most South Dakotans want,” she said. “So, they want to limit our ability to put stuff into law. Plain and simple.”

The “Protect Our Initiatives Coalition” was recently launched in response to the wave of ballot measure legislation. 

“The sponsors of these bills attacking our initiative process say they are trying to stop out-of-state money from flooding our elections, but we don’t buy that the solution should be a systemic attack on the initiated process itself,” said Chase Jensen of Dakota Rural Action, one of 10 coalition members.

The state has three types of statewide ballot measures: constitutional amendments, initiated measures and referendums. 

To be placed on the ballot, citizen-backed constitutional amendments need petition signatures from registered voters equal to 10% of the votes cast in the last election for governor. The current signature requirement is 35,017. State lawmakers can also send constitutional amendments to the ballot. 

Initiated measures propose an ordinary law, and referendums put a law passed by legislators on the ballot, with each requiring signatures equal to 5% of the votes cast in the last governor’s race. That threshold is 17,508 signatures.

This year’s legislation includes:

A bill that would move the deadline for filing ballot measure petition signatures from May up to February, shortening the time available for signature collection. A bill that would require signatures for constitutional amendments to be gathered from every legislative district in the state.A resolution that would ask voters to raise the approval threshold for constitutional amendments from a simple majority to 60% of votes cast.A resolution that would ask voters to require defeated questions to wait for one general election before being submitted again.A bill that would prohibit paying people to gather signatures for ballot measures and make violations a felony.

All of the bills are pending in various parts of the legislative process.

Signatures in every district

Rep. Rebecca Reimer, R-Chamberlain, is sponsoring the bill to require petition signatures from all legislative districts in the state. She said the bill addresses concerns that ballot measures advance with signatures concentrated in Minnehaha and Pennington counties, the two most populous in the state.

“This ensures amendments have real statewide support before they go to the voters,” Reimer said.

The bill was supported by the state’s most prominent anti-abortion group, South Dakota Right to Life, which played a leading role in defeating a ballot measure in November that would have restored abortions rights in the state. 

“We believe that we will continue to see – unless there’s a change – those who do not share our pro-life values using the current signature requirement mechanism to try and skew the process,” said Dale Bartscher, South Dakota Right to Life’s executive director. 

The bill’s opponents said South Dakotans from across the state already have their voices heard on ballot measures when they vote. They said the bill would make it harder for citizens to put a question on the ballot.

60% to amend the constitution

Rep. John Hughes, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the effort to raise the vote threshold for constitutional amendments to 60%. He said the bill would make it harder for nonresidents of the state to change the state’s constitution. 

“This ensures only amendments with overwhelming public backing are adopted,” Hughes said.

Hughes pointed to the 2024 abortion-rights ballot measure receiving large donations from Think Big America, an issue-advocacy nonprofit launched by Democratic Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker with a focus on supporting abortion rights. Pritzker’s wife was raised in South Dakota. The measure was rejected by 59% of voters. 

Less time for signatures

Another bill proposes amending the deadline for filing petitions to initiate a law or constitutional amendment in South Dakota. Rep. Jon Hansen, R-Dell Rapids, introduced it. He serves on South Dakota Right to Life’s board of directors.

Hansen’s bill would move the deadline from May to February of a general election year, shortening the period petition sponsors could collect signatures by three months. 

Hansen said the purpose of the change is to ensure sufficient time for legal challenges and verification of signatures. Hansen helped lead an effort to challenge the signatures for the 2024 abortion-rights measure. 

“Six months is just not long enough to litigate these disputes,” Hansen told fellow representatives in the House.

During the bill’s committee hearing, opponents argued the changes would limit South Dakotans’ ability to bring forward ballot measures, making the process more difficult.

Waiting period

A proposed constitutional amendment introduced by Republicans would require any new but similar ballot measures rejected by voters in the prior election to wait until at least one general election has passed before the question could appear on the ballot again.

Zebediah Johnson is with the Voter Defense Association of South Dakota and testified against the measure. He said the bill would unduly restrict the initiative process while not imposing similar restrictions on the Legislature. 

“A defeated initiative is not without merit,” he said. “If the people of South Dakota decide to petition their government for change, they should be allowed to do so.”

Former state Sen. Reynold Nesiba, a Sioux Falls Democrat, returned to Pierre during a committee hearing on the legislation. He mentioned South Dakota’s status as the first state to allow initiatives and referendums in 1898, and he called citizen-backed ballot measures a safeguard against big money and power influencing the Legislature. 

“Under God, the people rule,” Nesiba said. “This is a fundamental part of who South Dakota is.”

Bartscher, with South Dakota Right to Life, spoke in favor of the bill. He said abortion-rights groups continue to push for ballot measures.

“People are telling us across the state, they want a break,” Bartscher said. “South Dakotans are tired. They’re fatigued of all the campaigning, of all the commercials, and the postcards.”

State lawmakers don’t appear to be heeding that alleged fatigue. They have introduced 11 bills of their own this legislative session that would appear as questions on the 2026 ballot.

Other bills that would impact the ballot measure process include legislation that would require petition signers to list the address and county where they are registered to vote, rather than merely the address where they reside, and prevent the Secretary of State’s Office from counting signatures without the information; change how petitions for ballot initiatives are formatted; allow fiscal estimates for ballot measures to be updated closer to elections; and require the secretary of state to review ballot initiatives for compliance with the state’s single-subject rule. That review is already required for constitutional amendments.

 

Photo: Members of the South Dakota House of Representatives meet on Feb. 4, 2025, at the Capitol in Pierre. (Seth Tupper/South Dakota Searchlight).

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

Related posts

• Seven South Dakota ballot measures, $7 million and counting: Reports reveal total spending
• PAC'n Heat sends anti-Mark Robinson post card against Republican SD1 House candidates
• Dark money in SD: Virginia nonprofit outspends in-state groups in open primaries campaign
• Ethanol is fueling support of South Dakota carbon pipeline ballot measure
• Jeepers: ethanol coop kicks in another $400,000 to support carbon pipeline ballot question 
• SD abortion-rights measure opposition gets $500,000 from Leonard Leo's Concord Group 
• Cannabis industry is major funder of South Dakota pot legalization ballot question 

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

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

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

MN House Energy committee sends proposed solar metering changes to House Floor

On Thursday, I watched the Minnesota House Energy Finance and Policy Committee hear testimony on a bill authored by Rep. Dave Baker (R-Willmar),  HF845.

The subject was net metering of solar installations on homes and businesses of utility customers. It's a practice that's helped several rural friends participate in distributed power generation.

The Session Daily article below covers that discussion, though I put the Minnesota House Information Services YouTube of the hearing first, followed by links to some written testimony calling for more work on the bill.

The hearing:

Recommended written testimony, from the agenda:

• The Clear Energy Coalition
• CURE
• Clean Energy Economy MN

There's a list of testifiers on the agenda, though it doesn't include the Minnesota Farmers Union's Stu Lourey, who is in the video. As the Session Daily article notes, ". . .of the 27 testifiers in an overflowing hearing room, 23 spoke against the bill..."

I certainly hope Dave Baker lives up to his acknowledgements that the bill needs work,

From Session Daily:

Energy committee sends proposed solar metering changes to House Floor
By Rob Hubbard

If you have solar panels on your home, barn or business that are hooked up to your local investor-owned, municipal or cooperative utility, you’re both a producer and a consumer of electricity.

And if you produce more than you consume, Minnesota law calls for something called “net metering,” which means the utility gives you back credits that reduce your energy bill, commensurate with the extra power you pump onto the electrical grid.

But is it an equitable arrangement?

Rep. Dave Baker (R-Willmar) thinks not. He sponsors HF845, which would change the compensation paid to wind and solar generators with a capacity below 40 kilowatts when they sell excess electricity to a municipal utility or cooperative electric association.

On Thursday, the House Energy Finance and Policy Committee approved the bill, as amended, by an 8-7 party-line vote and sent it to the House Floor.

Some utilities claim that net metering increases electricity rates for non-solar customers. The bill intends to address that.

“Minnesota is the only state in the country that requires co-ops — their members, the owners of the co-ops — to pay a retail rate for excess generation from distributed solar facilities,” Baker said. “Retail rate for a wholesale product.

“But this bill would take us off that island. It would also reduce the uneconomic incentive to build oversized generation systems that are much larger than needed by members to offset the purchases from their co-op.”

Among the 27 testifiers in an overflowing hearing room, 23 spoke against the bill, most saying that it would severely curtail Minnesotans’ move to solar energy.

“This bill will crush our industry,” said Kim Benjamin, owner of MN Solar and More. “Take California as an example. They’ve lost over 17,000 jobs in our industry since they put the kibosh on net metering.”

“Those who overbuild are the problem,” said Bill Black, government relations attorney for the Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association. He added that the bill “surgically removes a growing problem.”

But Logan O’Grady, executive director of the Minnesota Solar Energy Industries Association, said he’d yet to see evidence of that overbuilding.

“Show me the cost shift numbers, what they are and the extent of the problem,” O’Grady said. “If we can get to a place where we’re operating in facts and data around this narrative, we will have a much better conversation.”

Rep. Larry Kraft (DFL-St. Louis Park) unsuccessfully asked Baker to table the bill to allow for more bipartisan discussion that would address the issues of both the utilities and the solar developers.

“I want solar to do really well in Minnesota,” Baker said. “But I do not want it to be on the backs of anyone else.”

Judging from the Republican representatives' constituent emails I read today, municipal utility or cooperative electric association leaders were out in force. See notes in those from Jeff Backer (R-Brown's Valley) and Spencer Igo (R-Wabana Township) as examples.

Photo: In a packed committee room, the House Energy Finance and Policy Committee listens to Feb. 20 testimony on a bill that would modify provisions governing net metering. (Photo by Andrew VonBank).

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

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

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

Ethanol carbon capture pipeline news digest: stories from South Dakota--and The Atlantic

Reading around today, I came across several articles about carbon capture. 

One is another installment from the South Dakota Searchlight in the Upper Midwest ethanol carbon pipeline saga.

The other is a look at how Trump Could Start A New Pipeline Fight, published in the national publication The Atlantic.

First, Friday's South Dakota Searchlight piece.

Lawmakers advance carbon pipeline moratorium and bill regulating land agents
by Seth Tupper

South Dakota lawmakers advanced bills Friday at the Capitol in Pierre that would put a moratorium on carbon dioxide pipelines until new federal safety rules are finalized, and would authorize landowners to sue pipeline companies for the alleged abuses of their land agents.

The bills don’t name Summit Carbon Solutions, but they’re a response to the Iowa company’s proposed $9 billion, five-state pipeline that would pass through eastern South Dakota. It would collect carbon dioxide emitted by more than 50 ethanol plants and transport it for underground storage in North Dakota, to capitalize on federal tax credits incentivizing the prevention of heat-trapping emissions into the atmosphere.

Land agent bill

Rep. Kaley Nolz, R-Mitchell, is the main sponsor of the bill that would authorize lawsuits by landowners who allege they’ve suffered from deception, fraud, harassment, intimidation or misrepresentation by a land agent for a carbon pipeline company.

Landowners who file a suit within 12 months of the behavior and prove the allegations to a court could have their agreement with a company voided. The bill allows for an award of damages up to three times the amount of the agreement or highest offer.

Several landowners testified and alleged that they’d been contacted by pipeline land agents who claimed that the landowners’ neighbors had signed agreements, only to find out later that wasn’t true. Nolz filed the bill in response to those complaints.

“Clearly, the existing laws were not enough deterrence,” Nolz said.

Members of the committee who opposed the bill said the alleged abuses are already illegal under existing laws.

Justin Bell, a lobbyist for Summit, said the bill could lead to excessive litigation and unfair targeting of one project’s land agreements — known as easements — while not addressing similar agreements for other types of projects.

“I’m not sure I understand why, if this truly is happening and is a problem, why this would be limited to just one form of easement,” Bell said.

The legislation additionally includes a provision requiring land agents for carbon pipelines to be a company employee, a resident of the state or a real estate agent licensed in the state. A similar provision was part of a broader package of pipeline law reforms passed by the Legislature last year that was tossed out by South Dakota voters in November.

The committee voted 8-4 to send the bill to the House floor.

Moratorium bill

Rep. Richard Vasgaard, R-Centerville, is the main sponsor of the moratorium bill.

“This pipeline is going to be in the ground for a long time,” Vasgaard said. “Let’s make sure it’s done right.”

The legislation would bar the state Public Utilities Commission from permitting carbon dioxide pipelines until the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration adopts its new safety rules for carbon pipelines. The administration issued proposed rules last month and will finalize them sometime after a 60-day public comment period.

A lobbyist for Summit Carbon Solutions testified against the moratorium, saying it would take authority from the state Public Utilities Commission and hand it to the federal government. A majority of the House Commerce and Energy Committee disagreed and sent the bill to the House of Representatives on a 7-6 vote.

Eminent domain bill pending

Among other pending pipeline bills is one that would ban the use of eminent domain by carbon pipeline companies. Eminent domain is a legal process for obtaining land access from unwilling landowners for a project beneficial to the public — traditionally for projects such as electrical power lines, crude oil pipelines and water pipelines. That bill has passed the House and is awaiting action by a Senate committee.

Another bill that has been sent to the Senate by the Senate State Affairs Committee would reform the eminent domain process and add new requirements for those seeking to use it.

The issues takes the national stage in Zoë Schlanger's Trump Could Start a New Pipeline Fight; A tax credit for carbon capture has fans in the oil industry in The Atlantic.

Some passages citing the fight in South Dakota. I've been using the hashtag #FederalTaxCreditProfiteers in my X posts about this issue, and that's where Schlanger begins:

The Trump administration is fully engaged in a drive to eliminate virtually any government activity or mention related to climate change—with a few notable exceptions. Take, for example, a single tax credit in Joe Biden’s signature climate law that may have the best chance of survival out of any climate-coded policy.

A provision in the Inflation Reduction Act, known as 45Q, enlarged a tax credit for any company willing to capture carbon dioxide. A version of this credit has been in place since George W. Bush’s presidency, and in its current iteration, it represents billions of dollars in federal incentives. If the Trump administration moves to keep 45Q intact, that choice would be an unusual vote of confidence from the president for a large government expenditure billed as a way to fight climate change. (The White House did not respond to a request for comment.)

The politics of this tax credit are unusual in the climate world too. Both the oil industry and some climate-minded Democrats in Congress want to keep it. Among its opponents are environmental groups, as well as avid Donald Trump supporters in South Dakota and other states where carbon-capture infrastructure would be built.

And that opposition?

Karla Lems, a Republican representative from South Dakota, voted for Trump and considers herself a conservative. She is among the most vocal opponents of a pipeline that the company Summit Carbon Solutions plans to build across her state and four others, to bring carbon dioxide from ethanol plants to a storage site in North Dakota. The company is attempting to use eminent domain to clear its way, which incensed Lems. “George Washington said freedom and property rights are inseparable,” she told me. She sponsored a bill now making its way through the state legislature to bar eminent domain for carbon projects. (For a while, Summit planned to put it directly through her family’s farmland, but the company eventually decided to site it on her neighbor’s land instead, she told me. Summit declined to comment for this story.) 

To Lems, the 45Q tax credit is exactly the type of handout and government bloat that Trump promised to eliminate. “In my mind, this is a company that stands to make a lot of money from this project, which I believe is just a grift on the taxpayers," she told me. “It’s all a big boondoggle and a scam. We’ll see if the Trump administration can see it for what it is.” Chase Jensen, an organizer at Dakota Rural Action, which is also working to block the Summit pipeline, says many of his group’s dues-paying members voted for Trump and would see it as a betrayal if he decided to keep the tax credit. Many assumed Trump would be against it, given its presentation as a Biden-branded climate solution, he told me. But more than that, he said, “these folks hold property rights as one of the most core rights.” That those rights would be traded so that, as they see it, a corporation could make money would violate their deepest conservative values.

Already, the Summit-pipeline fight has “completely restructured” leadership in South Dakota, Jensen said; 11 Republican representatives who had voted for pro-pipeline legislation lost primary elections for state House and Senate seats. Jensen expects that the Trump administration’s stance on 45Q will be disillusioning for supporters who might have expected the president to side with people over corporations. “People are going to have to reconcile what’s happening,” he said. (Summit has said that the project would need “reassessment” if the tax credit were repealed.) ...

Read the entire article at The Atlantic.

Photo:  Rep. Kaley Nolz, R-Mitchell, speaks on the South Dakota House floor during the 2025 legislative session. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight).

The South Dakota Searchlight article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. I'm stretching fair use conventions with the Atlantic copy.

Related posts

• Bill supports ND landowners caught in costly legal battles over eminent domain & easements
• State lawmakers vote down six bills to limit carbon capture in North Dakota
• Bill to kill carbon pipeline property tax exemption in North Dakota fails in state senate
• Iowa House GOP lawmakers introduce suite of pipeline bills on IUC, eminent domain issues
• Iowa House subcommittee advances bill to remove climate change language; aimed at stopping ethanol carbon pipeline
• Landowners, energy industry at odds over bills limiting ethanol CO2 pipelines in North Dakota
• Ban on eminent domain for carbon pipelines passes South Dakota House, heads to Senate
• Ethanol carbon pipeline bills set for hearings in North Dakota legislature this week 
• Ban on eminent domain for carbon capture pipelines makes it out of SD House committee
• Carbon pipeline company asks court to force SD regulator’s recusal due to alleged conflict
• Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline company formally asks SD regulator to recuse herself 
• South Dakota Public Utilities Commissioner stays on new carbon pipeline case after prior recusal, with no explanation this time
• Hundreds pack SD PUC Summit ethanol carbon pipeline hearings in Watertown and Aberdeen
• 100s attend first day of SD PUC ethanol carbon pipeline meetings in Mitchell and Sioux Falls
• Federal regulators announce proposed rule for CO2 pipeline safety
• Carbon pipeline opponents rallied Monday in Pierre amid push for eminent domain ban
• North Dakota landowners appeal Summit ethanol carbon storage decision 
• Punt! Lincoln County commissioners push back decision on ethanol carbon pipeline rules
• Summit Carbon Solutions in the news: landowners & counties appeal North Dakota pipeline permit; Summit tells Iowans to cease & desist; Pipeline Fighters Hub & CURE statements
• North Dakota Industrial Commission approves CO2 storage for Summit ethanol carbon pipeline
• Minnesota PUC granted a permit for Summit Carbon Solutions Otter Tail to Wilkin County pipeline
• South Dakota Public Utilities Commission schedules public input meetings on Summit carbon pipeline application
• Summit ethanol CO2 injection wells up for approval but court appeal already in the works
• Oh the irony: ethanol carbon pipeline company has failed to address crossing concerns, DAPL oil pipeline company says
• Iowa Supreme Court upholds land survey abilities of pipeline companies in Summit case
• U.S. appeals court hears Summit pipeline case against Iowa's Shelby and Story counties
• Never mind the voters: ethanol carbon pipeline company reapplies for South Dakota permit
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Summit sues another Iowa county and more!
• North Dakota Public Service Commission approves Summit carbon pipeline route
• North Dakota couple plans to ‘dig in’ if Summit ethanol carbon pipeline is approved
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: CO2 pipeline in MN moves forward; ND Public Service Commission decision coming Friday
• SD pipeline foes secure legislative leadership; MN Summit decision could come Dec. 12
• In unofficial results, ethanol carbon-pipeline law tossed out by South Dakota voters 
• CURE: MN Administrative Law Judge’s report on Summit’s CO 2 pipeline expected November 4
• Seven South Dakota ballot measures, $7 million and counting: Reports reveal total spending
• Jeepers: ethanol coop kicks in another $400,000 to support carbon pipeline ballot question 
• Ethanol carbon news digest: Summit Carbon pipeline in MN, Iowa & North Dakota media
• Summit Carbon Solutions CEO asks for prayer, while MN PUC wants public comment on FEIS of Otter Tail – Wilkin portion of CO2 Pipeline
• Public can comment on Otter Tail – Wilkin Co section of ethanol carbon pipeline until Sept. 11
• VIDEO: Carbon capture in Minnesota: public lands, fast money, and pipe dreams
• Summit pipeline segment enters final permitting stages in Minnesota; CURE raises objections
• Ethanol is fueling support of South Dakota carbon pipeline ballot measure
• Pipeline Fighters Hub: Summit Carbon Solutions numbers don’t add up in South Dakota 
• Referred Law 21 & carbon pipelines: A landowner bill of rights or an undermining of local control
• Summit Carbon Solution's ethanol carbon pipeline takes #2 spot on Heatmap's The Most At-Risk Projects of The Energy Transition 
• Ethanol carbon pipeline news: Attorneys differ on meaning of common carrier law in Summit case
• Summit Carbon Solutions pipelines won’t capture all carbon emitted by ethanol plants
• South Dakota Supreme Court ruling complicates Summit Carbon Solution’s push for land
• Referred pipeline law puts Summit Carbon Solution's permit quest in limbo
• Breaking crowded South Dakota ballot news: carbon pipeline law referendum validated
• Sustainable jet fuel company Gevo contributes $167K in defense of carbon pipeline law
• South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance turns in petitions to SD Secretary of State to force a vote on carbon pipeline policy
• South Dakota District 1 GOP House primary news round-up: carbon pipeline politics major issue
• New Midwest battles brew over CO2 pipelines

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

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

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

 

In 36-34 vote, Rep. Bobbi Andera's vaccine ‘conscience exemption’ bill fails in SD House

This development should give South Dakota's COVID-19 anti-vaxxers the hollowing fantods.

From the South Dakota Searchlight.

Vaccine ‘conscience exemption’ bill fails in SD House
by Makenzie Huber

The South Dakota House of Representatives voted 36-34 Wednesday at the Capitol in Pierre to defeat a bill that would allow residents to exercise a “conscience exemption” from genetic-based vaccinations during a public health emergency. An attempt to revive the bill on Thursday failed.

The legislation, introduced by Sioux Falls Republican Rep. Bobbi Andera, was amended to prohibit businesses, governments and public accommodations from denying employment, services or entry to a building for an unvaccinated person who asserted a “conscience exemption.” The amendment removed individual residents from the list of entities who could not deny a conscience exemption. It also cut a proposed penalty for violations.

“They must make reasonable accommodations as they would with religious or medical exemptions,” Andera said.

The exemptions would not have applied to required school immunizations or health care facilities, or to the South Dakota National Guard if the vaccination was required for federal activation.

Supporters of the bill said the legislation supported personal freedom and bodily autonomy. House Majority Leader Scott Odenbach, R-Spearfish, told lawmakers that the COVID-19 pandemic and the rapid development of a vaccine turned “big business” into a “de facto arm of the government” with businesses requiring workers to be vaccinated during the public health emergency.

Sioux Falls Republican Rep. Taylor Rehfeldt opposed the bill because she struggled with the bill’s vague language, such as “adversarial employment action,” and questioned the point of a bill without penalty.

“If there is no action or consequence if it isn’t followed, then why are we passing it?” Rehfeldt said. “Is this a bill we’re passing to make us feel better and to say how much we hate the COVID-19 vaccine?”

Rehfeldt added that the legislation prioritized one person’s freedom over another’s.

Photo: Rep. Bobbi Andera, R-Sioux Falls, speaks with other lawmakers during the governor’s budget address on Dec. 3, 2024, on the House floor of the South Dakota Capitol in Pierre. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight).

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

Related posts

Related posts

•  In two South Dakota city elections, anti-mask mandate city council candidates consistently fail
• Anti-vaxx in MNHouse committee: Zeleznikar calls childhood vaccines poison
• MN state rep Tom Murphy to save consumers from livestock mRNA vaccination conspiracies
• Action 4 Liberty's senator calls COVID-19 vaccines a ‘death shot’ at Capitol rally 
• Scott Jensen to speak--again--at "vaccine awareness" Global Health Freedom Summit
• Late on the MNGOP leadership story: RPM's new treasurer prominent anti-vaccination activist 
• MN Representative Mary Franson repeats discredited theories linking vaccines and autism

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

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

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

Fireworks back at Mount Rushmore in 2026, while wildland firefighting cut: oh my

It's a commonplace these days to read stories that illustrate confusion and chaos.

So it was for me with two articles published in States Newsroom venues.

First, this from the South Dakota Searchlight here in the Rushmore State:

Mount Rushmore fireworks to return next year, mixing a spectacle with fire risks and other problems
by Seth Tupper

Mount Rushmore will host an Independence Day-themed fireworks display next year, bringing worldwide attention to the national memorial and South Dakota, but also bringing concerns about potential forest fires, water pollution, litter and other problems.

South Dakota Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden announced Monday that the state has reached an agreement with the federal government to host a fireworks display at the mountain carving next year in celebration of the nation’s 250th birthday. Rhoden said in a news release that he struck the agreement with Doug Burgum, the former governor of North Dakota and new secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior, which includes the National Park Service.

“We are ready to throw the biggest birthday party ever for the United States of America,” Rhoden said in the release.

Fireworks have a complicated history at Mount Rushmore. The National Park Service began allowing shows in 1998 but ended them after 2009. Debris from the exploded fireworks lingered on the 1,278-acre memorial site, a chemical in fireworks was believed to be polluting the memorial’s water supply, and officials had grown tired of deploying dozens of firefighters in the forest around the memorial to put out fires started by falling fireworks embers.

There are also conflicting feelings about the fireworks in Keystone, the town at the base of the mountain. While some business owners welcome the fireworks displays and benefit from them, others have said the town is overwhelmed by the tens of thousands of visitors who converge all at once for the spectacle.

In 2020, then-Gov. Kristi Noem convinced the Trump administration to reauthorize fireworks at Mount Rushmore and also convinced President Donald Trump to attend. The show that year sparked controversy for gathering thousands of people together during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, and for a protest that turned into a physical altercation with law enforcement.

After that, the Biden administration ended the displays. Rhoden said he has invited Trump to next year’s display.

Rhoden’s announcement did not say how much the display will cost or how it will be funded. South Dakota Searchlight asked for an estimate and a funding source. Rhoden’s spokeswoman, Josie Harms, said “those details will be confirmed at the proper time.”

South Dakota spent $1.5 million on the 2020 display. Tourism officials estimated that global media coverage of the event generated the equivalent of $22 million in advertising for the state.

Thursday, there's this Stateline article republished in the North Dakota Monitor.  Stateline is part of States Newsroom..

Trump’s cuts to federal wildfire crews could have ‘scary’ consequences
by Alex Brown

ISSAQUAH, Wash. — President Donald Trump’s moves to slash the federal workforce have gutted the ranks of wildland firefighters and support personnel, fire professionals warn, leaving communities to face deadly consequences when big blazes arrive this summer.

“There’s going to be firefighters that die because of this, there will be communities that burn,” said Steve Gutierrez, a union official who served 15 years as a firefighter with the U.S. Forest Service.

Gutierrez now serves as a labor relations representative with the National Federation of Federal Employees, which represents government workers. He said thousands of wildland firefighters have had their jobs thrown into limbo by Trump’s government-wide hiring freeze.

Brian Fennessy, chief of the Orange County Fire Authority and president of the California Fire Chiefs Association, echoed that concern. “The public needs to know they’re at risk,” Fennessy said. “If the public knew all of this, they would lose their minds.”

Federal agencies depend on an army of seasonal firefighters to fill their ranks during the months when wildfires are most active. Scott, a Forest Service firefighter with six years of experience in the Western United States, who asked to be identified by a pseudonym to avoid retaliation, is among those whose role has been thrown into uncertainty.

“It’s just going to be a disaster for the wildfire response this season,” he said.

Scott was slated to move to a new Forest Service fire station this spring. But following the federal hiring freeze, he was told by his captain that it’s unclear whether his new job still exists. Thousands of his colleagues are in a similar state of limbo.

In a statement to Stateline, the Forest Service said wildland firefighting jobs are considered public safety positions that are exempted from the hiring freeze, and the agency is working with the federal Office of Personnel Management on those positions. The agency did not respond to follow-up questions about the number of unfilled positions under review.

The U.S. Department of the Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs did not grant Stateline interview requests.

Federal agencies employed more than 17,000 wildland fire staffers last year, many of them in seasonal roles. This year, many of those workers had job offers rescinded — or had their transfers and promotions put on hold — just as they were set to begin onboarding and training for the 2025 fire season.

Trump’s efforts to cut the federal workforce are led by his newly created commission dubbed the Department of Government Efficiency, helmed by billionaire Elon Musk, the world’s richest man.

Aside from the hiring freeze, the Forest Service fired an additional 3,400 staffers last week, many of whom provided critical support for wildfire operations. Meanwhile, Trump’s freeze on federal spending has cut off funding for projects such as prescribed burns to reduce future risk. Wildfire officials offer mixed reports on whether that funding has been restored in the wake of judicial rulings.

“We are watching a valuable [federal] partner in wildland fire suppression go into this fire season unnecessarily handicapped,” said Thomas Kyle-Milward, wildfire communications manager with the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. “That’s concerning.”

States, tribes and fire chiefs are all watching the situation closely. Officials say they’re preparing for a fire season in which they may have minimal federal support. While they plead with Trump to reverse course quickly, they fear much of the damage may be irreversible. Many wildland fire officials noted that seasonal workers will likely move on to other jobs if their position with a federal agency is in doubt.

“If there’s not enough federal firefighters, that affects everybody in the state,” said Jake Rhoades, fire chief of Buckeye Fire-Medical-Rescue Department in the Phoenix suburbs and president of the Arizona Fire Chiefs Association. “That’s scary for me.”

Rhoades and others noted that firefighters need significant training and qualifications to fill leadership positions. Trump’s actions have delayed that onboarding process. As a result, engine crews could be grounded this summer because they don’t have a certified leader, or teams could be sent into harm’s way without the proper training.

The federal role

Wildland fire response in the U.S. is a collaborative effort shared by a variety of entities, from tiny local fire districts to massive federal agencies. In Western states especially, the feds play a crucial role. Agencies manage a vast landscape of national forests, national parks and Bureau of Land Management parcels. The Bureau of Indian Affairs also provides wildfire response on tribal reservations.

While state agencies have invested heavily in their own wildfire crews, they say the federal agencies are critical partners.

“If they’re unable to fill the majority of their positions, it would have an impact on everybody this summer,” said Vaughn Jones, wildland fire management section chief with the Division of Fire Prevention & Control in the Colorado Department of Public Safety. “We have to partner with them every day of every fire season.”

Trump’s orders have thrown those agencies into chaos.

“I hear it multiple times a day from folks who are applying for jobs, from folks who are trying to fill positions, and they’re all getting stymied,” said Bobbie Scopa, executive secretary with Grassroots Wildland Firefighters, a nonprofit that advocates for federal staffers. “These folks are worried about their families and paying the mortgage, and they’re worried about their physical safety if they’re going to be responding to fires with a crew that’s not staffed up all the way.”

Federal firefighters corroborated that account.

“They’re saying there’s this public safety exemption, and that’s a blatant lie, because I’m a wildland firefighter and my job has been frozen,” said Scott, the Forest Service employee.

Scott said many of his colleagues were among the 3,400 Forest Service employees fired last week. While the agency said those cuts do not include firefighters, wildland fire experts note that many staffers in other roles hold wildfire certifications and serve on the line during fire season. And nearly all of them play critical support roles for the agency’s wildfire response.

Another Forest Service firefighter, who asked to remain anonymous, said the cuts to his unit included an aviation manager who supervised helicopter contracts and crews, as well as mapping specialists who provided key information to wildfire crews.

“There’s going to be days where we can’t call a helicopter because of staffing,” he said. “From a mapping perspective, our intelligence-gathering is going to be really affected by losing those people.”

Scott said he’s begun applying for other jobs, but is still holding out hope he can stay with the Forest Service. But he said many other firefighters will have moved on by the time the feds get their act together.

A wildfire planner  in a Western state, who asked to remain anonymous to avoid retaliation, said the impacts of Trump’s cuts will be felt long beyond this fire season.

“This could end up costing us a generation of firefighters,” he said. “They think a two-month delay doesn’t mean anything, but people get laid off and they find other work. This is a very specific skillset, and there ain’t many people in this work.”

Officials at all levels say that recruitment and retention of firefighters is already a major challenge. Wildland fire workers must accept unsteady seasonal positions, with grueling hours and exposure to dangerous conditions and cancer-causing smoke. Many suffer from mental health issues as a result. And the profession’s paltry salaries, experts say, rarely match the demands.

Contingency plans

State and local leaders say they’re still working to make sense of the federal chaos. In Nevada, where 86% of the land is managed by federal agencies, the turmoil could have an outsized impact.

“Obviously, we’re a little nervous right now,” said Kacey KC, the Nevada state forester and fire warden. “We’re putting contingency plans in place for emergency hires for fire season, if need be.”

KC said a loss in federal support would be a huge blow to Nevada’s wildfire response efforts. As the state works to staff up its own crews, it has seen an increase in applicants from federal agencies, perhaps indicating that the uncertainty is driving Forest Service and BLM employees to other jobs.

In Arizona, officials say they plan to lean on an interstate compact that allows them to share resources with Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming and the Canadian province of Saskatchewan. Jones, the Colorado official, said such agreements could be essential this year.

“If [federal support] is diminished, those compacts and the states finding ways to make things happen will be critical,” he said.

Nevada is one of the few states that has not signed onto a wildfire compact. KC said she’s pushing lawmakers to authorize the state to join such agreements.

In Washington state, the Department of Natural Resources is planning to meet with regional Forest Service leaders to assess what adjustments they may have to make.

“Are the feds able to field an adequate number of firefighters that they can cover their jurisdiction within Washington state?” said Kyle-Milward, the DNR official. “We’re concerned that they won’t.”

In recent years, the state has invested heavily in its own response, staffing up to 700 firefighters, in an effort to become less dependent on federal agencies.

Tribal nations are also trying to make sense of the situation. The federal Bureau of Indian Affairs employs thousands of firefighters that respond to fires on tribal lands. And many tribes staff their own wildfire crews using federal funding that’s now in doubt.

For the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, in northeast Washington state, it’s unclear whether they’ll be able to hire the seasonal firefighters they rely on during wildfire season.

“It’s definitely a touch-and-go situation right now,” said Chairman Jarred-Michael Erickson. “We’re hoping to get answers sooner than later. I really hope they’re looking at this, because wildfire season comes really quick and if you’re not prepared…”

In 2023, wildfires burned more than 57,000 acres on the Colville Reservation.

Prevention work

Trump’s freeze on federal spending is another major concern for wildfire professionals. In Washington state, for instance, officials have lost access to more than $200 million in wildfire preparedness funds, the Seattle Times reported. That money was intended to help agencies purchase equipment, train local departments, plan evacuation routes and conduct fuels reduction projects like prescribed burns to reduce risk.

Wildfire experts say the Inflation Reduction Act and infrastructure law passed under President Joe Biden made significant investments in projects to improve forest health and prevent out-of-control megafires. Trump has attempted to block those grants.

“If we’re not able to do that in certain areas, then the fuel load is going to be impacted, and that increases the possibility of the magnitude of some of these fires,” said Rhoades, the president of the Arizona Fire Chiefs Association.

The Western wildfire planner, who asked to remain anonymous, said the funding freeze is threatening projects to improve the safety of local communities.

“[Trump] is driving the wildfire prevention train off the rails,” he said. “I’m hoping that this year is not the year that the big fire shows up in my neighborhood.”

In California, leaders have not yet seen a cutoff in federal money to support wildfire projects, said Patrick Wright, director of the California Wildfire and Forest Resilience Task Force, a coalition of state and federal agencies. He noted that the state has committed billions of its own funds to ensure the work continues.

Wright said the state expects to retain a strong partnership with federal land management agencies. But he noted that the recent firings of thousands of federal staff would impact the pace of their work.

“It will slow things down,” he said. “We’re all facing shortages in workforce across the board. Clearly, losing more of that workforce is going to have an impact.”

Image: A meme making its way around social media following the firefighting cuts.

These articles are republished online under  Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Related posts

• Initial test finds PFAS in Mount Rushmore drinking water at level exceeding new limit
• PFAS in South Dakota News: Brooking 3M plant contamination; firefighting foam related illnesses burden for Rushmore State veterans 
• Proposed federal EPA PFAS regulation could cost South Dakota millions for testing, cleanup
• Here's hoping Jesus grants state rep Joe Donnell a vision about changing SD housing fund law
• State of South Dakota predicts no trouble at future Rushmore fireworks, despite clash in 2020
• Future Fund, COVID-19, indigenous land & wildfires: notes on Mt Rushmore fireworks show 
• Another face on Mount Rushmore? Keep calm and consider history, engineering studies

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

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

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

Minnesota farmers and food banks describe ‘chaos’ of USDA grant suspensions

Like many Americans. I'm watching the chaos of selective federal government program shutdowns, especially in rural areas like the one I live in here in northeastern South Dakota.

From the Minnesota Reformer.

Farmers, food banks describe ‘chaos’ of USDA grant suspensions
by Christopher Ingraham

Tom Smude is a farmer who operates a sunflower processing plant in Morrison County. Last year his business was awarded a $500,000 grant through the USDA’s Resilient Food Infrastructure Systems Program to bulk up their processing of sunflower byproduct, which is used to make cereals and other foods.

Smude has already ordered much of the equipment for the expansion, taking out a temporary loan to cover the cost while waiting for the federal reimbursement to come in. But now, thanks to the Trump administration’s chaotic freeze on loan and grant programs, that reimbursement is in limbo. 

“The challenge is we tore out our line, now we’re not making any product,” he said during a state Senate agriculture committee hearing this week. “I don’t know what to do.”

Smude was among the farmers, food manufacturers and food bank representatives who testified about how the administration’s actions were affecting them and their customers.

Brady Barnstable owns Seven Sundays, a Minneapolis food manufacturer that uses Smude’s sunflower products to make cereals sold at Wal-Mart, Costco and other big retailers. He told senators that several of his upcoming contracts are dependent on increased output from Smude’s processing operation, and are now in jeopardy.

“We don’t really have a Plan B,” he said.

Hannah Bernhardt, who runs a livestock operation in Finlayson, said that she’s been affected by a freeze on the USDA’s Local Food Purchase Assistance program, which local governments use to buy food from farmers and distribute to food banks and other organizations.

“I was all set to sell three more beef to the LFPA program this March when I was informed that the funding freeze meant they would be unable to buy from me,” she said. “Now I’m worried about scrambling to find new customers to buy that beef.”

She’s also had to hold off buying seed for cover crops because a grant through the Conservation Stewardship Program is now on hold.

“I hope the federal government will honor their commitments to farmers,” she said. “When I sign a contract with the government, I should be able to plan ahead for my season and count on that.”

The committee also heard from representatives of Minnesota food banks, who said that as a result of grant suspensions they’ve had to stop purchasing various foods from local farmers.

“We have had absolutely no communication from USDA,” said Sophia Lenarz-Coy, executive director of The Food Group, a nonprofit.

Farming is heavily subsidized, with government payments accounting for about 20% of Minnesota farm income in recent years. The bulk of those subsidy payments go to the biggest, wealthiest farm businesses, but smaller operations rely on them too.

Courts have ordered the Trump administration to resume all grant and loan payments while the executive orders are litigated. But like their peers in Minnesota, farmers in the rest of the country are reporting that they are unable to access previously promised funds.

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

Photo: A combine harvesting wheat. From Facebook.

Related post

• Federal lawmakers renew effort to update farm bill, ease ‘economic crisis’ in farm country

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

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

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

Bill supports ND landowners caught in costly legal battles over eminent domain & easements

As noted in Saturday's post, State lawmakers vote down six bills to limit carbon capture in North Dakota, anti-ethanol carbon capture bills haven't been very successful this session in the North Dakota legislature.

A fossil fuels extraction industry might do that to a state.

But it does look as if a sop is being thrown to landowners.

From the North Dakota Monitor.

Bill supports North Dakota landowners caught in costly legal battles
by Jeff Beach

Sen. Jeff Magrum has not had much success backing bills that seek to protect landowner rights and curb the use of eminent domain and the development of carbon pipelines. 

But Magrum, a Republican from Hazelton, got strong backing last week from Senate Majority Leader David Hogue on a bill that would allow landowners to recoup legal fees in eminent domain cases and easement negotiations. 

“I love pipelines,” Hogue, R-Minot, said testifying Wednesday in favor of House Bill 2321, “but that doesn’t mean the landowner shouldn’t be treated fairly."

Landowners are asked to provide right-of-way on their land by developers of large infrastructure projects such as pipelines, power lines and roads. Landowners are compensated for that right-of-way, known as an easement, but how much they are paid is subject to negotiation between the developer and landowner. 

If an agreement can’t be reached, a developer may be able to obtain the easement through a legal proceeding known as eminent domain.

With eminent domain, a landowner can be forced to provide right-of-way. The court would determine how much a landowner is paid if it allows eminent domain. 

But during negotiations and court proceedings, the landowners may incur thousands of dollars in expenses through fees to attorneys or obtaining an appraisal or other expert testimony. 

Bismarck attorney Derrick Braaten, who represents landowners, said a growing number of eminent domain cases are ending up in federal court because one of the parties is from out of state. He said federal judges are still basing their rulings on state law, including awarding of fees and expenses, and that federal judges are looking for clarity in state law on how to handle those awards. 

He said judges also have discretion not to award the full amount of fees and expenses if it seems unreasonable. 

The bill could also address situations where a project developer begins negotiations with a landowner but abandons the project or changes the project footprint. In those cases, a judge could award compensation to the landowner. 

“This addresses the situation where there is no win or loss,” said Hogue, who is an attorney.   

The Senate Judiciary Committee did not act on the bill but indicated it might pick up the bill again Monday. 

The bill is one of several backed by Magrum to give support to landowner rights. In testimony, he has singled out the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline as being forced on landowners who can’t afford the court costs to fight back. 

Earlier in the week, the Senate defeated Senate Bill 2322, sponsored by Magrum, which would have eliminated eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipelines. 

Hogue voted against the bill but noted during discussion on the Senate floor that North Dakota eminent domain law is flawed, treating half-inch fiber optic cable and 24-inch pipelines the same way and without fair compensation for landowners who seek to negotiate the best possible contract with a project developer. 

Another Magrum bill, Senate Bill 2320, sought to remove property tax exemptions for interstate carbon pipelines. That bill also failed last week.

Magrum was a co-sponsor of six House bills related to carbon capture. All six failed on the House floor Friday. 

His bills addressing carbon pipelines in the 2023 session also failed. 

There is opposition to Magrum’s bill addressing fees and expenses. 

“Eminent domain is a necessary tool to ensure reliable and affordable electric service, particularly in the development of transmission infrastructure,” lobbyist Dennis Pathroff wrote on behalf of the Power Companies of North Dakota. “The added costs mandated by SB 2321 could increase project expenses, delay infrastructure investments, and result in higher costs for North Dakota electric consumers.” 

After hearing Hogue’s comments on eminent domain, Magrum said he looked forward to getting more support on the bill to improve the stand of landowners in easement negotiations. 

“Thanks, Mr. Leader,” Magrum said. 

 

Photo:  Sen. Jeff Magrum, R-Hazelton, talks to landowners Jan. 30, 2025, at the Capitol. (Jeff Beach/North Dakota Monitor).

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

Related posts

• State lawmakers vote down six bills to limit carbon capture in North Dakota
• Bill to kill carbon pipeline property tax exemption in North Dakota fails in state senate
• Iowa House GOP lawmakers introduce suite of pipeline bills on IUC, eminent domain issues
• Iowa House subcommittee advances bill to remove climate change language; aimed at stopping ethanol carbon pipeline
• Landowners, energy industry at odds over bills limiting ethanol CO2 pipelines in North Dakota
• Ban on eminent domain for carbon pipelines passes South Dakota House, heads to Senate
• Ethanol carbon pipeline bills set for hearings in North Dakota legislature this week 
• Ban on eminent domain for carbon capture pipelines makes it out of SD House committee
• Carbon pipeline company asks court to force SD regulator’s recusal due to alleged conflict
• Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline company formally asks SD regulator to recuse herself 
• South Dakota Public Utilities Commissioner stays on new carbon pipeline case after prior recusal, with no explanation this time
• Hundreds pack SD PUC Summit ethanol carbon pipeline hearings in Watertown and Aberdeen
• 100s attend first day of SD PUC ethanol carbon pipeline meetings in Mitchell and Sioux Falls
• Federal regulators announce proposed rule for CO2 pipeline safety
• Carbon pipeline opponents rallied Monday in Pierre amid push for eminent domain ban
• North Dakota landowners appeal Summit ethanol carbon storage decision 
• Punt! Lincoln County commissioners push back decision on ethanol carbon pipeline rules
• Summit Carbon Solutions in the news: landowners & counties appeal North Dakota pipeline permit; Summit tells Iowans to cease & desist; Pipeline Fighters Hub & CURE statements
• North Dakota Industrial Commission approves CO2 storage for Summit ethanol carbon pipeline
• Minnesota PUC granted a permit for Summit Carbon Solutions Otter Tail to Wilkin County pipeline
• South Dakota Public Utilities Commission schedules public input meetings on Summit carbon pipeline application
• Summit ethanol CO2 injection wells up for approval but court appeal already in the works
• Oh the irony: ethanol carbon pipeline company has failed to address crossing concerns, DAPL oil pipeline company says
• Iowa Supreme Court upholds land survey abilities of pipeline companies in Summit case
• U.S. appeals court hears Summit pipeline case against Iowa's Shelby and Story counties
• Never mind the voters: ethanol carbon pipeline company reapplies for South Dakota permit
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Summit sues another Iowa county and more!
• North Dakota Public Service Commission approves Summit carbon pipeline route
• North Dakota couple plans to ‘dig in’ if Summit ethanol carbon pipeline is approved
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: CO2 pipeline in MN moves forward; ND Public Service Commission decision coming Friday
• SD pipeline foes secure legislative leadership; MN Summit decision could come Dec. 12
• In unofficial results, ethanol carbon-pipeline law tossed out by South Dakota voters 
• CURE: MN Administrative Law Judge’s report on Summit’s CO 2 pipeline expected November 4
• Seven South Dakota ballot measures, $7 million and counting: Reports reveal total spending
• Jeepers: ethanol coop kicks in another $400,000 to support carbon pipeline ballot question 
• Ethanol carbon news digest: Summit Carbon pipeline in MN, Iowa & North Dakota media
• Summit Carbon Solutions CEO asks for prayer, while MN PUC wants public comment on FEIS of Otter Tail – Wilkin portion of CO2 Pipeline
• Public can comment on Otter Tail – Wilkin Co section of ethanol carbon pipeline until Sept. 11
• VIDEO: Carbon capture in Minnesota: public lands, fast money, and pipe dreams
• Summit pipeline segment enters final permitting stages in Minnesota; CURE raises objections
• Ethanol is fueling support of South Dakota carbon pipeline ballot measure
• Pipeline Fighters Hub: Summit Carbon Solutions numbers don’t add up in South Dakota 
• Referred Law 21 & carbon pipelines: A landowner bill of rights or an undermining of local control
• Summit Carbon Solution's ethanol carbon pipeline takes #2 spot on Heatmap's The Most At-Risk Projects of The Energy Transition 
• Ethanol carbon pipeline news: Attorneys differ on meaning of common carrier law in Summit case
• Summit Carbon Solutions pipelines won’t capture all carbon emitted by ethanol plants
• South Dakota Supreme Court ruling complicates Summit Carbon Solution’s push for land
• Referred pipeline law puts Summit Carbon Solution's permit quest in limbo
• Breaking crowded South Dakota ballot news: carbon pipeline law referendum validated
• Sustainable jet fuel company Gevo contributes $167K in defense of carbon pipeline law
• South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance turns in petitions to SD Secretary of State to force a vote on carbon pipeline policy
• South Dakota District 1 GOP House primary news round-up: carbon pipeline politics major issue
• New Midwest battles brew over CO2 pipelines

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

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

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

Questions in SD House about parental abuse lead to Manhart's gender identity bill’s downfall

Logan Manhart, author of House Bill 1201, represents me in District 1 in the South Dakota Legislature.

I'm happy this one crashed on the House floor.

From the South Dakota Searchlight "Quick Read" article, SD House defeats gender identity notification bill and taxpayer-funded education lobbying ban by Makenzie Huber:

. . .Questions about parental abuse lead to gender identity bill’s downfall

State representatives largely didn’t debate the merits of House Bill 1201 before voting 40-28 to defeat it.

The legislation would require public school and state-accredited private school counselors, teachers, administrators and staff to alert parents if a student discusses gender identity with them.

Aberdeen Republican Rep. Logan Manhart told lawmakers that schools would not have to report that discussion to parents if they suspect the student is abused or could face abuse if that information is shared with the parent.

But because the legislation doesn’t explicitly say that, Rep. Peri Pourier, D-Pine Ridge, said she worried schools would still report to parents and potentially endanger students.

Photo: The South Dakota House of Representatives meets on Feb. 6, 2025, at the Capitol in Pierre. (Seth Tupper/South Dakota Searchlight).

Related posts

• Mark Robinson's shadow in South Dakota District 1: campaign mailer rips Manhart for extremism, presence at Dakota First Action fundraiser
• Is election denier Logan Manhart working in South Dakota Secretary of State elections office?
• News digest: Manhart pulls out of SD1 race 
• Eligibility questioned, Logan Manhart withdraws from South Dakota District 1 House race
• SD SOS response to 32CIV22-92, asking SD1 House candidate's removal from ballot
• Dakota Free Press post: Manhart voted in Wisconsin in 2021, thus ineligible to run for South Dakota House in 2022
• Manhart candidate integrity questioned: docs from 32CIV22-92; McCleerey vs Barnett
• In SD District One, GOP candidate & operative doesn't want to talk to press about January 6
• Media scrutiny of SD District 1 House Logan Manhart candidate integrity questions continue

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

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

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

State lawmakers vote down six bills to limit carbon capture in North Dakota

While the anti-carbon capture pipeline forces here in South Dakota have scored a number of wins, the story is different in our neighbor to the north.

Late last week, I republished a North Dakota Monitor article, Bill to kill carbon pipeline property tax exemption in North Dakota fails in state senate.

That's a trend, as the Monitor article below illustrates.

Quote of the month, so far? From the article:

Carbon dioxide pipelines also come with risks, bill supporters noted. Carbon dioxide is a hazardous material and a rupture is potentially fatal.  

“Accidents happen all the time,” said Rep. Dennis Nehring, R-Williston, a veteran of the oil and gas industry.

That's reassuring, given the consequences of a carbon dioxide leak, as the folks in Sartartia, Mississippi can tell you.

Lawmakers vote down 6 bills to limit carbon capture in North Dakota 
by Jeff Beach, North Dakota Monitor

Members of the North Dakota House on Friday showed their commitment to pipelines and energy development, voting down six bills that would have taxed or put guard rails on the emerging carbon capture industry. 

Rep. Jeremy Olson, R-Arnegard, summarized his opposition to three of the bills by saying, “North Dakota doesn’t need a CO2 sin tax.” 

Opponents of the bills voiced support of carbon capture pipelines, in particular for their potential to extend the productivity of North Dakota oil wells through enhanced oil recovery. In enhanced oil recovery, gas is pumped into the well to help force out more oil. 

Carbon dioxide pipelines also come with risks, bill supporters noted. Carbon dioxide is a hazardous material and a rupture is potentially fatal.  

“Accidents happen all the time,” said Rep. Dennis Nehring, R-Williston, a veteran of the oil and gas industry. 

While not named directly by legislators, many of the bills and much of the discussion circulated around Summit Carbon Solutions, the developer of a five-state pipeline network that will capture carbon dioxide from ethanol plants and transport it to western North Dakota for permanent underground storage. 

While Summit’s plan doesn’t include gas for enhanced oil recovery, legislators said North Dakota should not inhibit carbon pipeline development for the oil and gas industry, or for the coal and ethanol industries.

Rep. SuAnn Olson, R-Baldwin, the sponsor of four of the bills, said she tried to focus on carbon pipelines that were only for storage, not for industrial use.

Opponents argued that ethanol and coal plants need carbon capture to lower their carbon scores and stay economically viable. 

While enhanced oil recovery is not yet widely used in North Dakota, a study by the state tax commissioner projects North Dakota could see another $2.9 billion to $9 billion in oil tax revenue over 10 years if oil companies begin using the technology.

“The oil industry is the golden goose of this state. And I think we want to be prepared for when those times come where the pressures within the Bakken diminish, and we’re going to need to go to the enhanced oil recovery piece,” Rep. Craig Headland, R-Montpelier, said. 

Some of the bills attempted to limit the ability of carbon pipeline developers to use eminent domain, a legal proceeding that could force landowners to provide a property easement for pipeline construction. One way to hinder the use of eminent domain would be stripping carbon pipelines of common carrier status.

The bills defeated Friday were: 

House Bill 1292, removing common carrier status for carbon pipelines.House Bill 1414,  denying use eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipelines and revoking common carrier status for carbon pipelines. House Bill 1295, eliminating tax exemptions for carbon pipelines. House Bill 1573, imposing a fee on carbon dioxide transportation to create a disaster fund. House Bill 1210, specifying that carbon dioxide pipeline companies are liable for damages within a 25-mile zone if a pipeline leaks or ruptures and providing protections against pipeline operator’s bankruptcy. House Bill 1574, which would have placed a two-year moratorium on direct air capture of carbon dioxide in North Dakota. 

Meanwhile, on Thursday, the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee supported  House Concurrent Resolution 3016, citing the benefits of enhanced oil recovery and encouraging the state and federal governments to support the development of carbon capture technology and utilization of carbon dioxide.

A vote by the full House is to come. 

Photo:  Rep. SuAnn Olson, R-Baldwin, speaks during a House floor session on Feb. 14, 2025. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor)

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

Related posts

• Bill to kill carbon pipeline property tax exemption in North Dakota fails in state senate
• Iowa House GOP lawmakers introduce suite of pipeline bills on IUC, eminent domain issues
• Iowa House subcommittee advances bill to remove climate change language; aimed at stopping ethanol carbon pipeline
• Landowners, energy industry at odds over bills limiting ethanol CO2 pipelines in North Dakota
• Ban on eminent domain for carbon pipelines passes South Dakota House, heads to Senate
• Ethanol carbon pipeline bills set for hearings in North Dakota legislature this week 
• Ban on eminent domain for carbon capture pipelines makes it out of SD House committee
• Carbon pipeline company asks court to force SD regulator’s recusal due to alleged conflict
• Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline company formally asks SD regulator to recuse herself 
• South Dakota Public Utilities Commissioner stays on new carbon pipeline case after prior recusal, with no explanation this time
• Hundreds pack SD PUC Summit ethanol carbon pipeline hearings in Watertown and Aberdeen
• 100s attend first day of SD PUC ethanol carbon pipeline meetings in Mitchell and Sioux Falls
• Federal regulators announce proposed rule for CO2 pipeline safety
• Carbon pipeline opponents rallied Monday in Pierre amid push for eminent domain ban
• North Dakota landowners appeal Summit ethanol carbon storage decision 
• Punt! Lincoln County commissioners push back decision on ethanol carbon pipeline rules
• Summit Carbon Solutions in the news: landowners & counties appeal North Dakota pipeline permit; Summit tells Iowans to cease & desist; Pipeline Fighters Hub & CURE statements
• North Dakota Industrial Commission approves CO2 storage for Summit ethanol carbon pipeline
• Minnesota PUC granted a permit for Summit Carbon Solutions Otter Tail to Wilkin County pipeline
• South Dakota Public Utilities Commission schedules public input meetings on Summit carbon pipeline application
• Summit ethanol CO2 injection wells up for approval but court appeal already in the works
• Oh the irony: ethanol carbon pipeline company has failed to address crossing concerns, DAPL oil pipeline company says
• Iowa Supreme Court upholds land survey abilities of pipeline companies in Summit case
• U.S. appeals court hears Summit pipeline case against Iowa's Shelby and Story counties
• Never mind the voters: ethanol carbon pipeline company reapplies for South Dakota permit
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Summit sues another Iowa county and more!
• North Dakota Public Service Commission approves Summit carbon pipeline route
• North Dakota couple plans to ‘dig in’ if Summit ethanol carbon pipeline is approved
• Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: CO2 pipeline in MN moves forward; ND Public Service Commission decision coming Friday
• SD pipeline foes secure legislative leadership; MN Summit decision could come Dec. 12
• In unofficial results, ethanol carbon-pipeline law tossed out by South Dakota voters 
• CURE: MN Administrative Law Judge’s report on Summit’s CO 2 pipeline expected November 4
• Seven South Dakota ballot measures, $7 million and counting: Reports reveal total spending
• Jeepers: ethanol coop kicks in another $400,000 to support carbon pipeline ballot question 
• Ethanol carbon news digest: Summit Carbon pipeline in MN, Iowa & North Dakota media
• Summit Carbon Solutions CEO asks for prayer, while MN PUC wants public comment on FEIS of Otter Tail – Wilkin portion of CO2 Pipeline
• Public can comment on Otter Tail – Wilkin Co section of ethanol carbon pipeline until Sept. 11
• VIDEO: Carbon capture in Minnesota: public lands, fast money, and pipe dreams
• Summit pipeline segment enters final permitting stages in Minnesota; CURE raises objections
• Ethanol is fueling support of South Dakota carbon pipeline ballot measure
• Pipeline Fighters Hub: Summit Carbon Solutions numbers don’t add up in South Dakota 
• Referred Law 21 & carbon pipelines: A landowner bill of rights or an undermining of local control
• Summit Carbon Solution's ethanol carbon pipeline takes #2 spot on Heatmap's The Most At-Risk Projects of The Energy Transition 
• Ethanol carbon pipeline news: Attorneys differ on meaning of common carrier law in Summit case
• Summit Carbon Solutions pipelines won’t capture all carbon emitted by ethanol plants
• South Dakota Supreme Court ruling complicates Summit Carbon Solution’s push for land
• Referred pipeline law puts Summit Carbon Solution's permit quest in limbo
• Breaking crowded South Dakota ballot news: carbon pipeline law referendum validated
• Sustainable jet fuel company Gevo contributes $167K in defense of carbon pipeline law
• South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance turns in petitions to SD Secretary of State to force a vote on carbon pipeline policy
• South Dakota District 1 GOP House primary news round-up: carbon pipeline politics major issue
• New Midwest battles brew over CO2 pipelines

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

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

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

Group seeks revocation of North Dakota state permit for Riverview Dairy in Richland County

While Riverview Dairy's proposed operation in Richland County, North Dakota, was granted a permit, citizens opposing the dairy aren't giving up.

From North Dakota Monitor.

Group seeks revocation of North Dakota dairy’s state permit   
by Jeff Beach

The Dakota Resource Council and residents near a proposed large dairy in southeast North Dakota have filed an appeal of a state permit for the dairy, citing concerns about water quality. 

The North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality approved a permit on Jan. 3 for a 12,500-cow operation run by Riverview Dairy in Richland County. 

Dakota Resource Council, an environmental group, said in a news release Tuesday that it filed a notice of appeal with the South Central District Court in Bismarck on Feb. 3. The group is asking that the permit be revoked. 

The news release cites concerns over water pollution raised by the group, geohydrologist David Erickson, and 65 area residents in written comments.

The group contends the dairy threatens to pollute the Red River and other rivers with manure and other waste, and could harm aquifers that supply drinking water to residents of Abercrombie Township and cities of Wahpeton, North Dakota, and Breckenridge, Minnesota, and other communities. 

The Dakota Resource Council asserts that the state agency’s approval process contained multiple oversights, including insufficient monitoring, failure to hold a public hearing and not requiring a national pollution permit.

In announcing the permit’s approval, the Department of Environmental Quality said the permit was modified to include groundwater monitoring requirements and removed three fields in the floodplain from the dairy’s manure management plan. 

Riverview, based in Morris, Minnesota, operates several large milking operations in western Minnesota and is planning two large dairies in eastern North Dakota. 

The Department of Environmental Quality also is considering a permit for a 25,000-cow dairy near the Red River east of Hillsboro in Traill County. 

Riverview declined to comment on the appeal. 

Erik Olson is a member of Abercrombie Citizens for Responsible Growth that opposes the project. 

“If the state allows these mega dairy projects, they must also be prepared to allocate millions of taxpayer dollars when water resources are compromised,” Olson said in a news release.  

Photo: The Burleigh County Courthouse is pictured on Thayer Avenue in Bismarck on March 13, 2024. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor).

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

Related posts

• Huge dairy farms planned for eastern North Dakota (North Dakota Monitor) 
• South Dakota Economic Development Finance Authority approves $25 million bond for dairy
• White Earth Reservation Business Committee passes feedlot moratorium on reservation 
• Becker County adopts one-year feedlot moratorium; White Earth Nation shuns CAFOs
• Arizona Republic: Riverview LLP may be largest AZ corporate farmer, farm with most wells 
• Riverview Dairy drawing down Arizona's aquifers
• Township at center of permit dispute that led to disbanding of Citizen Board restricts feedlot size
•  MN12A: Does Backer want to strip citizens of ability to ask MPCA for environmental studies? 

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

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

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

Federal lawmakers renew effort to update farm bill, ease ‘economic crisis’ in farm country

Readers in rural Minnesota have been asking about late 2024 measures to aid farmers and ag policy issues. 

This Iowa Capital Dispatch article addresses some of the questions.

Lawmakers renew effort to update farm bill, ease ‘economic crisis’ in farm country
by Cami Koons

Congress has failed to reauthorize the massive piece of bipartisan legislation, known as the Farm Bill, the past two sessions. The House committee tasked with drafting the legislation began the process anew this week, with members citing a “crisis” in the farm economy that could be alleviated with swift action. 

“America’s producers are the ones paying the price,” Rep. Glenn “GT” Thompson, R-Pennsylvania, chair of the House Committee on Agriculture said to his committee members. “We cannot let this year be a repeat of the last.” 

The Farm Bill, which controls most food and farm related spending by the federal government, including crop insurance and the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, was last authorized in 2018. It initially expired in 2023 but Congress extended the deadline that year and again in December when it failed to reach an agreement on the legislation. 

The latest farm income report from U.S. Department of Agriculture forecasts a nearly 30% increase in net farm income for 2025, which would be a welcome sight for many farmers after two years of declining net farm income. The increase, however mostly reflects the more than $30 billion in a disaster aid allocated by Congress at the end of 2024.

Ad hoc payments like this have been propping up farmers in lieu of an updated farm bill that could adjust crop insurance rates, labor costs and expand crop markets.

John Newton, the executive head at Terrain, a group that analyzes agricultural economic issues for farm credit associations, appeared before the House Committee on Agriculture as a witness Tuesday and spoke to the “historic volatility” in the farm economy over the past several years. 

Newton said farmers want a farm bill that accounts for some of the “unprecedented” economic challenges they face, rather than the ad hoc bailouts Congress has authorized to make ends meet. 

“These economic assistance payments offset only a portion of a farmer’s negative margins and are only a bridge until a new five-year farm bill can be authorized by Congress,” Newton said. 

Rep. Zach Nunn, R-Iowa, said the disaster assistance farmers in Iowa, and other parts of the country, received at the end of 2024 helped farmers “get back on their feet” but is not the solution. 

“It’s been seven years since Congress passed a Farm Bill,” Nunn said. “Seven years since our farm safety net was updated … We have to have a long-term strategy here to address America’s food security that starts right here in the United States.” 

Expensive labor and inputs

Ryan Talley, a fruit and vegetable farmer from California and representative of the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance, said input costs are rising at an “alarming rate,” with labor comprising half of his production costs. 

Talley said in 2016 the H-2A visa program, which allows farms to hire temporary farm workers from other countries, saved his farm during a labor shortage. 

But he said the cost for that labor has increased nearly 40% since then and the “escalating wages” could “spell the demise” of his farm.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, H-2A wages ranged from $15 to $22 per hour, depending on the state, in 2024. USDA projections for 2025 predict farm labor cost will continue to increase to “a record high” of more than $53 billion across U.S. farm sectors. 

Talley asked lawmakers to include assistance for mechanical advancements to enhance the human labor on specialty crop farms. 

Talley also advocated for changes to the crop insurance program to provide specialty crop growers “with a functional safety net for the very first time.” 

“The dietary guidelines for Americans recommend that fruits and vegetables should comprise at least half of Americans’ diet,” Talley said. “Yet under current law, specialty crops receive a small fraction of their proportional share of the Farm Bill resources.”

Rodney Weinzierl, an Illinois row crop farmer and executive director of Illinois Corn Growers Association, said the lack of demand for corn and soybeans in particular is driving the downturn. 

USDA data for crop cash receipts show a more than $12 billion decrease for corn and about $9 billion decrease for soybeans from 2023 to 2024 and project continued declines for the crops in 2025. 

Weinzierl said more demand for biofuels in the U.S. would “drastically impact the profitability” of row crop farmers. This is something Iowa farm commodity and renewable fuel groups have also urged Congress to facilitate through the year round sale of E15, a fuel blend with a higher percentage of ethanol.

Panelists noted input costs like seed, fertilizer and machinery have increased substantially in recent years and stayed high. 

USDA data shows nominal farm production expenses have risen sharply since 2020, but fertilizer and pesticide expenses have been declining in price since 2022 and are expected to follow the same trend in 2025. 

Seed, labor and poultry and livestock purchase expenses, however, are expected to rise again in 2025. 

SNAP

Last year, House Republicans pushed for additional work requirements for the SNAP eligibility, a program which makes up a significant portion of the Farm Bill, and are expected to push for a similar policy this year.

Politico reporting from Wednesday on the House Republican’s budget plans revealed GOP lawmakers want the ag committee to cut $230 billion from its programs. The reporting said the food assistance program would be a target.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office released a report Wednesday that found the USDA violated its reporting obligations for the SNAP program in October 2023. 

Kailee Buller, chief of staff of USDA, said the former administration put “politics over commonsense” in the change of practice.

“The Trump Administration will immediately correct this egregious action, making certain material weaknesses like this do not happen again.”

Thompson called the action an “abuse of taxpayer resources.” 

“We will not let this go unchecked—we will ensure accountability and put an end to these partisan budget games,” Thomson said in a press release with the House Committee on Agriculture. 

Ranking member of the committee Rep. Angie Craig, a Democrat from Minnesota, said Tuesday she was concerned by discussions from the Trump administration to make cuts to the SNAP program.

“I believe this new administration’s early actions are implementing early policies that could potentially hurt our family farmers and ranchers,” Craig said. 

Craig said she was also concerned by the president’s reductions to the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, which she said is a $2 billion market for U.S. farmers who grow food for the program.

Next generation of farmers 

Alisha Schwertner, a farmer and rancher from Texas, spoke to the committee and said her farm, like many others, “will not endure” the current economic conditions.

“We risk losing everything that we and past generations have worked so hard for,” Schwertner said. “This includes the ability to pass on our legacy and profession to the next generation.” 

Rep. Randy Feenstra, a Republican from Iowa, said he’s also concerned for the next generation of farmers, and wanted to repeal the “death tax” or the federal tax on inherited property. 

Feenstra called the 40% tax on the transfer of land “ridiculous” and why he wants to repeal the tax with a bill that “has got to get done.” 

Feenstra said the farm bill presents a “great opportunity” to change the trajectory of what’s happening in farm country. 

Tariffs and freezes

President Donald Trump’s freeze on funding related to the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act left farmers “on the hook” for millions of dollars they had been previously promised, according to a Washington Post article from Monday.

Ranking member of the committee Rep. Angie Craig, a Democrat from Minnesota, said she was concerned for the impact the freezes would have on farmers and “good programs” with USDA. 

Schwertner said she has money tied up with USDA currently, but has “never not been paid” for the programs she has participated in.

“I’m confident that President Trump — he’s said that he would take care of farmers and ranchers, and he’s held true to that promise in the past, and I’m certain that we will get paid regardless of the current freeze,” Schwertner said. 

Last week, President Trump imposed a 25% tariff on inputs from Canada and Mexico. Representatives asked about the impact this would have on potash, a potassium fertilizer. The U.S. imports 80% of the potash it uses from Canada. 

Weinzierl, said if these tariffs, which have been temporarily paused, go into effect, it likely wouldn’t affect farmers this crop season as they would have already applied potash in the fall, or have it stocked for spring application. 

Rep. Josh Riley, D-New York, said he would lead a letter to the Trump administration, urging them to exclude potash from any tariffs imposed on Canada, and invited fellow committee members to join him on the effort.

Representatives from northern states and regions like Oregon and California that grow large quantities of specialty crops were concerned for what a trade war with Canada would mean for their farm families. 

“Getting into a tariff and trade war, it could possibly decimate our agricultural community, specifically in California,” Talley said, noting the short shelf life of many specialty crop products. 

Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Massachusetts, said the effects of the current administration have exacerbated the decline of the rural economy and he critiqued his Republican colleagues for standing by the actions of the president toward the ag industry.

“Tariffs against our closest allies and ag trading partners, gutting science programs while bird flu rips through poultry and livestock, freezing money that has been promised to farmers for ongoing projects … these things are not America first,” McGovern said. “These are policies of people who do not care about rural America at all.” 

Rep. Mike Bost from Illinois said the problems with agriculture span much longer than the past three weeks. The Republican congressman said ag trade deals “have not been good.” 

“I  would hope that this committee would back away from the partisanship and actually come together, pass this farm bill and realize that trade – we should hold accountable those countries we’re dealing with and get our trade deals right,” Bost said. 

Thompson said the committee needs to get a farm bill together “sooner than later.” 

“If we wait until the end of this year to do a five year farm bill, we will be back asking Congress for more economic disaster assistance.”

The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, held a similar committee hearing Feb. 5 focused on the agriculture economy.

Photo: Witnesses at a House Committee on Agriculture hearing Feb. 11. From left, John Newton, Alisha Schwertner, Ryan Talley, Rodney Weinzierl. (Screenshot from House Committee on Agriculture/ via 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. 

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

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

Imminent MN-tribal compacts allow tribal nations major access to off-reservation cannabis market

Here in South Dakota last November, voters turned down the measure to legalize adult recreational cannabis. 

Meanwhile, in Minnesota, tribal nations are leading the way in establishing off-reservation adult cannabis outlets.

Whatever the end result, peace will be on earth when my neighbors can cross the border into Big Stone County, which won't even have to rebrand. In the meantime, they might have to head out for a weekend in Moorhead so they won't have to drive home buzzed or bring any product over the border.

Fortunately for those with script, medical cannabis is available here in the Rushmore State.

(As my medical chart notes, I'm allergic to cannabis, so this is just a policy and administration discussion for me).

Imminent Minnesota-tribal compacts would allow tribal nations major access to off-reservation cannabis market
by Peter Callaghan, MinnPost 

Pending compacts between Gov. Tim Walz and 10 of the state’s 11 tribal nations would allow tribal governments to license businesses to become significant players in the cannabis market with off-reservation stores, cultivation and manufacturing.

The compact negotiations, directed by the 2023 law that legalized recreational cannabis in Minnesota, could give a large share of the new industry to tribal nations and businesses they license. These enterprises would be exempt from rules against vertical integration facing non-tribal businesses that prevent them from having retail, cultivation and manufacturing under one company.

The closed-door compact talks were first reported by MinnPost last May. MinnPost obtained a copy of the pending compact language on Tuesday, and the Office of Cannabis Management acknowledged the overall aim of the negotiations. 

Spokesperson Josh Collins said in a statement that the new law envisioned “a robust, diverse marketplace with room for social equity applicants, Tribal businesses, and general applicants.

“As we near the execution of the first few compacts, we are also quickly approaching the anticipated adoption of rules, which would make it possible for OCM to begin issuing licenses to the 200 social equity applicants that qualified during the license preapproval round – including 193 microbusinesses that could be in position to open storefronts this spring as well.”

During a hearing before the House Commerce Committee Tuesday, however, acting OCM director Eric Taubel acknowledged the ongoing talks when asked about the operations already set up by the Prairie Island Indian Community.

“I can’t go into specifics of the compacts but I think Minnesota will look different than a lot of states in terms of the role tribal nations will play in our market,” Taubel said. “Having partners like Prairie Island who are engaged in this work will help make us a more robust and successful market.”

At the same hearing, in response to complaints by some other lawmakers that the state’s market rollout trails other states, 2023 law author Rep. Zack Stephenson, mentioned tribal involvement as one of the goals of the law.

“We wanted to prioritize small over large; we wanted to prioritize Minnesota entities over people from other states,” said the Coon Rapids DFLer. “If you end up with a model that gives a big advantage to tribal nations and microbusinesses, that pretty much fits right into what we were trying to do in the beginning.”

Tribes involved in the talks did not yet respond to a request for comment. 

Leili Fatehi, a lawyer, lobbyist and legalization advocate who helped write the new law did not comment directly on the draft compact language but said the slow rollout of the legalized market — especially for social equity applicants — is a bigger problem.

“If the licensing process were on track as promised, I don't think we would be having this conversation because Tribes and social equity applicants alike would be building their businesses and the early industry infrastructure at the same time,” she said.

“Instead, OCM’s failures have created a situation where Tribal Enterprises are advancing while state license applicants are stuck waiting. That’s not the Tribes’ fault and, unfortunately, now the question has become one of whether the Tribes “deserve” their market share rather than whether the state’s failure to move licensing forward is responsible for this imbalance.

“Let me be clear: the problem isn’t that Tribes are moving forward — it’s that OCM is falling behind,” Fatehi said.

The details of the pending compact come as the state continues to battle litigation to return to a schedule that would see the non-tribal market start by summer or fall. A lottery that would have begun issuing provisional licenses to social equity applicants was canceled when some applicants who weren’t allowed in the lottery sued. Now, the OCM is preparing to accept both general and social equity license applications later this month with hopes of holding a license lottery in May or June.

That lottery will issue 75 retail licenses to social equity applicants — those from communities that suffered from cannabis prohibition — and 75 retail licenses for general applicants. It will also issue 50 cultivator licenses, split evenly between social equity and general applicants. In addition, there will be 50 mezzolicenses in each group. Mezzo licensees are allowed to cultivate and sell in smaller quantities than cultivators.

It is difficult to assess how many retail stores will be tribal affiliated since each tribe can license multiple “tribal enterprises” that would each have up to five stores and each have up to 30,000 square feet of plant canopy. That is the amount of cannabis cultivation that each holder of a non-tribal cultivation license would be permitted.

If each of the 10 tribes authorizes one tribal enterprise, that could include up to 50 off-reservation dispensaries. If one or more authorizes more than one tribal enterprise, each could add five stores to their inventory. The provision would also help smaller tribes or those with reservations in rural parts of the state without large markets because they could open stores in the metro area.

But not all tribes have been trying to enter the market, so it is unknown how many will sign compacts or start cannabis businesses.

The tribal enterprises approved under the compacts would have to have at least 51% tribal ownership and would be prevented from operating on-reservation and competing with cannabis retailers owned by tribal governments. The cannabis aspects of these enterprises would be regulated not by the state Office of Cannabis Management but by tribal regulatory agencies created by tribal governments.

It also would allow the 10 tribes involved in negotiations (the one tribe not taking part is the Upper Sioux Community) to do business with other tribes and with non-tribal businesses licensed by OCM. That means cannabis products grown and manufactured by a tribal entity or tribal business could be sold to non-tribal retail stores, micro businesses or mezzo businesses.

That said, the compacts make several references to agreements that many of the limits and other controls would match those adopted by OCM. And it includes this language: “Tribal Enterprises operating outside of Tribally Regulated Land are not by this Compact made exempt from any generally applicable non-Cannabis related State law or regulation.”

No state taxes can be collected on sales on reservation, just as tribal casinos cannot be made to share revenue with the state and don’t in Minnesota. But the draft compacts do envision some tax collection in tribal stores operating off reservation.

“The Tribe and State agree that a tax agreement, as authorized under Cannabis Act Art. 2, Sec. 2, subd. 6 for sharing of sales and gross receipts tax collected from any Tribally owned cannabis business that operates off-Reservation, may be negotiated between the Tribe and the Minnesota Department of Revenue in the future,” it states.

While it is unclear how close the draft obtained by MinnPost is to a final agreement, those involved have been saying they expected to close a deal within weeks. The White Earth Band of Chippewa announced last week that it would be opening off-reservation stores in Moorhead next month and St. Cloud in the spring, pending approval of a state compact.

When the talks began last spring, the state was represented by staff from the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of Cannabis Management, the governor’s office and outside legal counsel Mark Levitan, hired to help with the negotiations. The state has not engaged in negotiations for new compacts with tribes for decades and wanted outside legal expertise on cannabis law and tribal relations, which Levitan has, the officials said.

Last May, a Walz administration official speaking on condition that they not be named, said “these are friendly parties with the goal of getting to yes and making sure the state’s needs and the tribes’ needs are both met by what the statute allows.” 

The 2023 law that required Walz to negotiate compacts “in good faith” patterns the talks over the state-tribal compacts over casino gambling that resulted from the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

“The legislature finds that these agreements will facilitate and promote a cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship between the state and the Tribes regarding the legalization of cannabis,” the law states. “Such cooperative agreements will enhance public health and safety, ensure a lawful and well-regulated cannabis market, encourage economic development, and provide fiscal benefits to both Indian Tribes and the state.”

The law states that the governor cannot require any revenue sharing or right to tax tribally licensed cannabis sales, cannot require state licensing or oversight and cannot require tribes to permit state laws to be enforced on tribally regulated land. It also, at some length, assured that business interactions between tribal entities and state-regulated businesses — as well as interactions between non-tribal customers and tribal businesses — would be legal.

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

Photo: Island Peži, the latest cannabis store to open on tribal land in Minnesota, officially opened in June 2024. Credit: MinnPost photo by Peter Callaghan.

Related posts

• Cannabis industry is major funder of South Dakota pot legalization ballot question
• Cannabis on South Dakota ballot yet again with IM 29: if voters decriminalize marijuana, lawmakers would make the call on sales  
•  Marketing opportunity for Big Stone County? South Dakota News Watch Poll: South Dakota voters oppose recreational marijuana measure
• South Dakota cannabis legalization ballot measure validated for November 5 election 
• South Dakotans return dope to governor's office, defeat legal pot, preserve Pierre's red swamp 
• Bummer! South Dakota News Watch poll shows referendum on recreational cannabis legalization in South Dakota could fail in November 
• After court defeat, South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws keeps working for adult cannabis
• SD Supreme Court strikes down legal cannabis; supporters vow to make the people rule

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

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

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