By Scout Nelson
In a significant legislative session, the South Dakota Senate State Affairs Committee reviewed two bills aimed at refining the state's approach to eminent domain. These bills, reflecting contrasting outcomes, have ignited a robust discussion among state landowners and legislators.
Senate Bill 49, introduced by Piedmont Republican Sen. John Carley, sought to restrict the use of eminent domain for constructing carbon dioxide or hydrogen pipelines. Sen. Carley emphasized the public's strong opposition to eminent domain for private gain, stating, “Clearly, 70% of our public spoke up very loud last year, voted, and said ‘we don’t want eminent domain for private gain.’
This bill today was to stop that, and that’s the role of our legislators, to be the voice for our citizens against the corporations saying, ‘we’re going to blast through your land, take eminent domain, to make our new products happen.” Despite substantial support from landowners, the bill was ultimately defeated by the committee.
Conversely, Senate Bill 198, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Jim Mehlhaff, received the committee's favor. This bill introduces additional prerequisites that a developer must meet before claiming eminent domain, including a mandatory mediation process with landowners.
“Well, the Carley bill targeted two specific commodities, one being carbon one being hydrogen," Mehlhaff explained. "Where my bill was strictly to do with eminent domain. It would put additional requirements that a developer would have to satisfy before they could utilize it.”
Senate Bill 198 garnered bipartisan support and is set to be discussed next on the Senate floor. Sioux Falls Democrat Liz Larson, assistant minority leader, supported the bill, appreciating its approach to bringing stakeholders together.
“This bill, at least, it is an honest-to-goodness attempt to get everyone to the table to talk about the relevant issues," Larson noted. "I’m not saying it’s perfect, I’m not saying it will pass, but I think it’s an opportunity to bring the conversation to a wider audience.”
The differing outcomes for these bills highlight ongoing tensions between protecting landowner rights and accommodating development needs, a debate that continues to resonate deeply within South Dakota's legislative and agricultural communities.
Categories: South Dakota, Government & Policy