South Dakota Legislative Weekly Report: January 15-21, 2012
from the South Dakota Chapter of the Sierra Club
The legislature was in session only two days this week due to the holiday and former governor Bill Janklow’s funeral. Nonetheless, some significant actions took place both in and out of the session.
I got a quick look at Dakota Rural Action‘s (DRA) new eminent domain bill. It has many elements that protect the rights of landowners to negotiate a fair value for taken property and forces the condemner to a higher standard of integrity regarding the disclosure of certain aspects of a project’s planning, design and implementation. The bill provides more time for consideration and a more open process. This should be a positive for landowners and land safeguards. While this bill will cover all projects involved in the eminent domain condemnation process, it is specifically directed at keeping TransCanada from playing the Godzilla Tar Monster and rolling over everyone in its path with impunity. The proposed bill is presently being passed around to legislators and six have tentatively signed on as bill co-sponsors which bodes well for initial review and eventual passage out of committee. I will have all the specifics out as soon as the bill is formally introduced.
I spoke with Sen. Jason Frerichs who is working on an ambitious Keystone XL Pipeline indemnity bonding bill of $500 million. We could not get a $30 million indemnity bill out of committee last session. I will be working with Sen. Frerichs next week on his draft proposal, which I hope will have some of the elements featured in Nebraska’s successful indemnity bill. Ken Winston, Sierra Club lobbyist for Nebraska, said he waged a long campaign to gather grassroots support. Kudos to Ken as well as Nebraska’s governor and legislature for slowing down the TransCanada pipeline juggernaut long enough to protect the Ogallala Aquifer. I believe their decisive action to demand better safeguards and an alternate route around the Sandhills was instrumental in drawing more national public attention to this ecologically devastating project. The U.S. State Department‘s and President Obama‘s decision this week to halt the Keystone XL pipeline indefinitely from entering the U.S. was a serious blow to some congressional Republicans’ concerted effort to force this issue. It is presently my understanding that Keystone XL must now begin a new permitting process that could take as long as two years to complete and review. This delay will buy more time to develop alternative energy resources and may well signal the beginning of a real Green Energy paradigm shift away from our society’s (and the petroleum industry’s) insistence of relying on and promoting increasingly dirtier fossil fuels extracted from the earth at ever greater ecological costs.
The President’s rejection of Keystone XL shows that politicians still pay attention to their constituents who make an effort to watch and follow what they are doing, so I continue to urge you to get involved to the extent you feel comfortable.
To check out bills, access the SD state Legislative Research Council (LRC) homepage http://legis.state.sd.us/, click on and then click on “urrent Legislative Session” and then “Bills”. The easiest way to send an email to a legislator is to go to the LRC homepage, click on “Current Legislators” then click on the legislator you want to contact. Write a brief message in the box and then click Send. You will also find a phone number and mailing address in their contact information if you want to make your message more personal, which tends to make for a longer lasting impression. Whatever method you choose, try to make your message brief, concise and to the point as well as polite and respectful. Your input does make a difference.
* * *
Game Fish & Parks Secretary Jeff Vonk gave an assessment to the Senate Ag & Natural Resources committee last Thursday regarding the current status of State Park, Recreation and Wildlife issues. I know this information will be of interest to many of you so I have bulleted his points as follows:
- After 14 years of planning and development, Outdoor Campus West in Rapid City was finally completed. Both Rapid City and the Sioux Falls Campus’ conduct classes that cover a wide range of topics and all types of outdoor recreation activities. Outdoor Campus West was financed with money from license sales, excise tax on outdoor equipment and a $1.2 million donation from the Parks and Wildlife Foundation. No general funds were used.
- Roadside pheasant populations were down 40% probably due to the harsh winter and wet spring last year.
- 90% of all big game licenses are now sold through the Internet and 35% of small game licenses.
- Camping and park visitations were down 10% from last year due to flooding while park revenues were down 2%.
- 42 state park areas were affected by flooding last spring and summer. This included 37 areas along the Missouri River. Repair of damaged park facilities will cost $9 million and will have to be accomplished over the next few years as money becomes available.
- There was an exceptionally large flight of Mountain Pine Beetles last summer into Custer State Park. 140,000 trees in the park have already been identified as infected and will have to be removed this year by cutting and chunking trees to kill the grubs before they are able to mature and fly.
- In December, 305 acres were purchased for the Blood Run archeological state park site southeast of Sioux Falls. A master development park plan has already been completed. The land is currently being held by the Parks and Wildlife Foundation and Conservation Fund until all the funding and private donations have been secured.
Edward Raventon
Sierra Club Lobbyist, South Dakota Chapter
South Dakota Legislative Weekly Report: January 10-14, 2012
Note: Sierra Club is sharing its legislative reports with SDRC.
Lawrence Novotny, SDRC
I want to welcome back all the readers of this legislative newsletter report from last year and thank you for your continued commitment and support of natural resource conservation and environmental protection issues.
The first week of the session did not produce any bills of any particular interest or concern. Often, the first week of the legislative session tends to cover housekeeping issues regarding old laws and minor legislation. Taking advantage of the lull so to speak, I set up a meeting with Luke
Temple, Dakota Rural Action lobbyist and Paul Lepisto, Izaac Walton League representative in Pierre. We all tend to share similar concerns regarding resource conservation and environmental protection and I wanted to learn what they were watching and working on.
Mr. Temple has been working on an eminent domain bill that protects the rights of landowners. He tried to introduce an eminent domain bill during the last session with safeguards protecting landowners from being ”bulldozed” by big corporations but his sponsor backed out at the last
minute. He is drafting a new bill this session specifically designed to protect the bargaining rights of landowners who are being forced to deal with TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline. I liked what Temple outlined for me at our meeting. I’ll share the specifics as soon as a bill has been drafted
and introduced.
Last session I supported an attempt to get a $30 million bond bill approved by the legislature that would protect landowners in the event of a major oil pipeline rupture (Nebraska passed a $100 million bond). That bill didn’t get out of committee. I hope the fact that Nebraska was
able to set the terms on what they would accept as bonding compensation as well as an alternate route around the sandhills will embolden the SD legislature to do the same thereby gaining much better protection for the land and landowners. I believe a bill on this issue is being drafted now
and will be an important issue unless the Federal Government renders its moot by denying Keystone XL the right to enter the U.S.
Another issue that we supported last session was lowering the tax valuation of non-cropland (i.e. pasture/grassland). We got a good start with two new laws last session designed to reassess existing land use and values statewide based on what they actually are (i.e. cropland or non-cropland) as opposed to their highest income value potential. The next step will require legislation to actually implement a new tax valuation system. There was a good deal of pushback on this issue from the state revenue department and some grain farmers last session.
Taxation and valuation of agricultural land could be a hot topic with the meteoric rise of ag land values and ag commodities over the last two years. High commodity prices are putting more pressure on farmers to till every piece of arable land. This is already beginning to have devastating consequences for wildlife and wildlife habitat. This situation coupled with the reduction of federal dollars dedicated to CRP lands will continue to further isolate and reduce lands available to wildlife.
Mr. Lepisto foresees water management issues that focus on expanding drain tiling of potholes, sloughs and marshes disrupting natural water flows and threatening critical waterfowl production habitat in the eastern part of the state. It’s still too early to know how any of these issues will play out in the legislature this year.
While I will work hard to keep you posted on issues in the legislature and testify as needed, your input concerning proposed legislation is vital in everyway. Legislators pay attention to their constituents who make an effort to watch and follow them on what they are doing so I urge you all to get involved to the extent you feel comfortable.
It’s pretty easy to check out bills for yourself by accessing the SD state Legislative Research Council (LRC) homepage (http://legis.state.sd.us/) and then click on “Current Legislative Session” and then “Bills“. The easiest way to send an email to a legislator is to go to the LRC homepage, click on “Current Legislators” then click on the legislator you want to contact. Write a brief message in the box and then click send. You will also find a phone number and mailing address in their contact information if you want to make your message more personal which makes for a longer lasting impression. Whatever method you choose, try to make your message brief, concise and to the point as well as polite and respectful.
Submitted by Edward Raventon
Sierra Club Lobbyist, South Dakota Chapter
The U.S. State Department’s 2010 draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on TransCanada’s Keystone XL tarsands pipeline was so bad, it got the Environmental Protection Agency’s lowest rating, and it had to issue a second, supplemental EIS. But the Supplemental EIS is not much better.
Tell the State Department that the latest EIS isn’t good enough to justify condemning public land for an unsafe pipeline that isn’t needed.
Send in your comments by June 6 by clicking on this link
http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5706/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=7045
Earth Day Banquet May 7: Order Tickets Now!
Spring is springing: so are Earth Day and the SDRC Earth Day Awards Banquet! The South Dakota Resources Coalition will award the 2011 South Dakota Resource Award to Shirly Holt at its Earth Day banquet to be held May 7 at the Shady Beach Supper Club on Lake Cochrane, near Gary, SD. You are cordially invited to join us in honoring Shirly for her work on the preservation of the quality of Lake Cochrane.
To learn how to get tickets, check our Awards Banquet page. To learn more about Shirly Holt’s good work protecting water quality on Lake Cochrane, read her bio at the top of our Earth Day Honorees page. We look forward to seeing you all at Lake Cochrane May 7!
South Dakota Can Do Better Than Hyperion
Tell Gov. Daugaard:
Oppose the Hyperion Refinery!
Our friends at the Sierra Club urge us all to contact Governor Dennis Daugaard and urge him to withdraw South Dakota’s support for the proposed Hyperion oil refinery in Union County:
The proposed Hyperion oil refinery would discharge more air pollution per refined barrel than any other refinery in the U.S., diminishing the quality of life in rural Union County and threatening public health in southeastern South Dakota and northwest Iowa.
The project’s promoters have never built or managed an oil refinery, and with this their first foray, they would be refining tar sands crude oil, the dirtiest crude in the world!
Tell the Governor that our state can strengthen and improve our economy without adding massive pollution and driving people from their homes.The South Dakota government has supported this project, but we must ask new Governor Dennis Daugaard to reconsider that support.
Building a massive, polluting oil refinery on productive, fertile farm land is economic development in reverse. The Hyperion oil refinery project is not in our state’s best interest, especially because it promises to introduce massive air and water pollution.
We can do better than Hyperion, and we must do better.
Sincerely,
Peter Carrels
Sierra Club South DakotaP.S. For more information on the proposed Hyperion Oil Refinery and why the Sierra Club opposes it, visit our new website: www.opposehyperion.com
Legislative Weekly Report: Feb 21-Feb 27, 2011
submitted by Edward Raventon, lobbyist
South Dakota Chapter of the Sierra Club
SB 180 (the pipeline reclamation bill) was killed in committee on Tuesday morning 5-2. It was not even a close vote. Senators Buhl and Adelstein voted for this piece of legislation and need to be commended. The proposed $30 million mitigation/reclamation fund was in my opinion pitifully small but nonetheless never got to see the light of day in the state Senate.
SB 158 a pro-industry, uranium mining bill that seeks to suspend the state’s DENR primacy regulatory authority on underground injection control Class III wells and in situ leach mining passed in the House State Affairs committee 5-8. The committee was heavily stacked with pro-business conservatives. Four of the Republicans on that committee were signed on as co-sponsors of that bill including Chairman Lust so those minds were already made up. All four Democrats voted against this piece of legislation along with one Republican. Again, this was disappointing.
This hearing was characterized by some curiously odd statements made by the two proponents. Mr. Hollenbeck, Powertech’s Edgemont representative, stated that he gives his four children fresh cow’s milk and believes that makes him “a radical environmentalist”. Mr. Larry Mann, Powertech’s lobbyist, contradicted himself stating, “how good of a job the state DENR does” but apparently, he would rather not have them watching Powertech’s operations too closely. He favors the EPA.
Regarding the EPA, Ms. Rebecca Leas, an opponent who testified against this bill, stated that the EPA has only one representative in their Denver regional office that has to cover all the uranium industry’s mining activity in six western states. She further added that she had a very difficult time actually making contact with this representative and talking to him on the telephone. To say the local EPA is stretched thin may be the understatement of the entire session. If they were stretched any thinner, they would be invisible.
SB 158 goes to the House Floor next week and if it passes will go on to the Governor’s desk for signing or veto. Call or email your district legislators stating that you oppose SB 158 and “believe it’s in the best interests of the people of the state and their health to keep local DENR regulatory control in monitoring the uranium mining industry in the Black Hills.”
Other bills of ancillary interest:
HB 1178, an act “to restrict the entry of conservation officers onto certain private land without permission” was soundly defeated 48 nays to 21 yeas yet again on the House Floor this week. Apparently, this piece of legislation will ultimately require a silver bullet or have a stake driven in its heart to keep it from coming back next year.
We did help to stop two very bad bills that would have made it difficult to pass on conservation easements to willing buyers and/or heirs. We also encouraged the beginning of some good tax equalization legislation that will give a break to people who keep their land in grass. This will be important legislation in the future with the great surge in demand for corn, soybean and wheat products.
Thank you all for your support this session. This will be my last posting.
Legislative Report: February 14-20, 2011
submitted by Edward Raventon, lobbyist
South Dakota Chapter of the Sierra Club
SB 180, an act to “impose a fee on certain pipelines carrying crude oil and to create a crude oil pipeline compensation fund that may be used in the event of a crude oil spill” was heard on Thursday. There was a good deal of compelling proponent testimony on this bill. Regrettably, after all the proponent testimony, this bill was deferred until next Tuesday for opponent testimony and voting. I spoke with two of the committee members after the hearing and the sponsor, Senator Jason Frerichs. There seems to be some good support for this bill but I am not sure how the bill will fare after the opponents testify.
I urge you to contact members of the Senate Commerce and Energy committee telling them you feel it is important for South Dakota to establish a pipeline damage reclamation fund. There will be ruptures, breaks and leaks and we cannot rely on this company to keep their promise that they will be good stewards and clean up their mess. Nebraska has very tough laws in place regarding clean up and reclamation. Presently, we have nothing on the books so it is imperative that the state have a contract with a ready fund to take care of whatever mess is created immediately. Landowners also need to be compensated their losses.
SB 158 a pro-industry, uranium mining bill that seeks to suspend the state’s DENR primacy regulatory authority on underground injection control Class III wells and in situ leach mining passed the committee 6 to 1. This was disappointing. I put a good deal of effort in getting a signed letter from Mr. Gary Haag, the prime drafter of guidelines and regulations for the DENR on this exact subject. He clearly stated in his letter that this bill is not in the best interest of state. I have some suspicion that this bill is being backed by the governor’s office. There was a strong, anti-regulatory push by Powertech’s lobby complete with theatrics and a good deal of what I believe to be uninformed, misinformation regarding Powertech’s finances and stability as a reputable company. It went on to the Senate floor where it passed 29 to 2. It goes next to the House State Affairs committee next week.
Other bills of ancillary interest:
HB 1177, the so-called Eminent Domain bill is one that Dakota Rural Action (DRA) has worked very hard on. It was killed by its sponsor, Rep. Verchio, when the Attorney General, DOT, and the governor’s office decided they did not want to work on a compromise. DRA’s lobbyist, Luke Temple, was disappointed but said they would continue to pursue a draft of an Eminent Domain bill for the 2012 session over the summer with all interested parties.
HB 1178, an act “to restrict the entry of conservation officers onto certain private land without permission” was discussed yet one more time. It is my understanding that some form of this bill has come up 6 times during the last eight legislative sessions and got a “do pass” twice, including this time. It is a bill with significant ramifications regarding the enforcement of game laws in the state and seems to be an almost annual attempt by a handful of legislators, mostly from the western part of the state, to keep Conservation Officers from entering private property without permission to check game licenses. It would in effect greatly hinder COs from doing their job in a timely, effective manner. Chris Hesla, lobbyist for the SD Wildlife Federation, called this the most important bill for him of the session. This bill will go to the House floor next week. I hope it will be killed one more time.
Please thank Sen. Angie Buhl (D-Sioux Falls) for her singular support in opposing SB 158 and Sen. Jason Frerichs (D-Wilmot) for introducing SB 180.
I wish I could report better news this week.
Uranium Mining Bill Heads to House
Senate Bill 158 made it out of the Senate last week. We need to stop it in the House! This bill is moving very quickly, so we need to act fast.
SB 158 would remove state regulation of in situ leach uranium mining. At the Senate hearing, the only people who spoke for the bill were Powertech Uranium Corp. employees. This company wants to mine in the southern Black Hills. State regulators have been holding the company to the law, so the company is trying to do away with state regulation.
Uranium exploration has taken place all around the Black Hills and in the southeastern part of the state. So passage of this bill would impact a wide area. We need to re-double our efforts. Please contact your own House members—and any others you have time to contact—TODAY and ask them to vote against SB 158!
You may also want to focus attention on members of the House State Affairs Committee, which will see the bill next.
Following is a list of concerns about removing the state regulations on uranium mining.
- SB 158 would remove state regulation on in situ leach uranium mining, a dangerous, radioactive industry that always pollutes water. This would remove an important safety net for people across the state.
- State regulations do not duplicate federal regulations. State regulations are more detailed and—among other things—give the public a chance to be heard in the permitting process, require notification in case of an accident, insure that in situ mine facilities are built according to strict safety standards, and insure that mine sites are cleaned up properly.
- A Canadian uranium company put this bill forward and was the only entity to testify for the bill in the Senate Committee hearing. The bill is obviously self-serving and would benefit a foreign corporation at the expense of South Dakota residents.
- This bill would turn regulation over to the federal government. Why should we give regulation of this industry over to the federal government, when we know federal regulations are not necessarily best for South Dakota or South Dakotans? If we wish to cut regulation, we should work to have federal rules suspended.
- The South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources is doing a good job of regulating the mining permit process. This is why a uranium company wants to suspend state regulation.
- Federal government offices are in Denver and Chicago. How quickly will they get here when there are the inevitable spills and leaks?
- According to the DENR, this legislation would not save the State any money.
- The company pushing this bill, like most uranium companies active in the state, is small, new and financially unstable. The company has been on the edge financially for some time. Private investors withdrew their support, and the stock now sells at 50 cents a share. We need to safeguard our state Treasury by protecting against operators that could leave an expensive mess behind.
This bill, initiated and supported by a single company, is a desparate attempt by that company to stay alive—at the expense of those who depend on quality groundwater for their livelihood and their lives.
Legislative Update #5: February 7-13, 2011
submitted by Edward Raventon, lobbyist for the SD Chapter of the Sierra Club
HB 1195, an attempt to undermine and/or nullify every conservation easement attached to a piece of property sold in the state was killed in committee 10 to 3. We worked hard to kill this bill and I want to thank everyone who contacted his or her legislators to oppose it. It had wide opposition at the hearing from conservation lobbyist, private citizens and the State Bar and Municipal League on legal grounds. I hope we don’t have to deal with the issue again for a while.
HB 1166, an act “to restrict, under certain circumstances, the transfer of certain land parcels by the federal government” attempted to do the same thing as HB 1195 by subjecting every conservation easement land sale in excess of 30 acres to the Federal Government (i.e. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) to the public scrutiny of local county commissions. It was also killed. Chris Hesla, Paul Lepisto and I were primary in testifying against this anti-conservation piece of legislation.
We got clobbered 12 to 0 on HB 1047, a bill to “revise certain prairie dog shooting season provisions”. This bill rolled back every regulation regarding the shooting of prairie dogs. The usual ranchers south of the Conata Basin showed up with their hard luck stories of ranching in the marginal, near desert conditions of the Badlands. It’s a tough place to scratch out a living in the cow business but I can’t fault the prairie dogs for loving the Conata Basin area. It is ideal habitat for them due to the sparse, scarcity of grass. Prairie Dogs were nonetheless excoriated, demonized and railed against by the committee along with the Black footed ferret.
Essentially this bill if enacted into law will simply legalize an already, fairly common de facto practice of shooting prairie dogs whenever they want. I believe its limited over all effect will be more psychological than practical.
SB 180 an act to “impose a fee on certain pipelines carrying crude oil and to create a crude oil pipeline compensation fund that may be used in the event of a crude oil spill” was deferred until next Tuesday. I will support this piece of legislation along with Dakota Rural Action’s lobby and feel fairly confident that it has a good chance of passing out of committee.
SB 158 is a pro-industry, uranium mining bill that seeks to “toll (i.e. suspend) the Department of Environment and Natural Resources administrative rules on underground injection control Class III wells and in situ leach mining until the department obtains primary enforcement authority of the comparable federal programs”. This bill is an attempt to bypass the State DENR local regulatory authority in favor of the authority of the EPA and the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission), national agencies distantly removed from where the actual mining is proposed to take place. The site is in the Dewey-Burdock area on the far western side of the Black Hills, northwest of Edgemont on the Wyoming line. It is remote even by SD standards and will need to be carefully and effectively monitored locally as the mining company is another foreign Canadian enterprise like Brohm Mining which created and then abruptly left an ugly superfund site in the northern Black Hills when it went bankrupt in 1999. This bill was deferred until next Tuesday morning. I will oppose it vigorously next week.
Uranium Alert! Senate Bill 158 Erases In-Situ Leach Mining Rules
Senate Bill 158 was introduced amidst a flurry of last-minute in the South Dakota Legislature last week. This is apparently an attempt to sneak a very bad bill past the public.
Bottom line: the bill would stop enforcement of state regulations on in situ leach uranium mining. Two types of regulation by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources—water management and minerals mining regulation—would be stopped.
Companies could still be issued permits to mine. But the state would not have any control over any of these mining operations. For example, there would be no state requirements for public notice, proper construction, safe operation, accident reports, or clean-up after the mining ended.
This bill is scheduled for a hearing before the Senate Commerce and Energy Committee on Thursday, February 10, at 10:00 a.m.. Please write e-mails to these legislators on this issue now!
Here are some of the points to make to the seven committee members:
- The State wrote uranium mining regulations for a reason—this is a dangerous type of mining that always pollutes water.
- Water has never been returned to its original condition after in situ leach uranium mining. Clearly, we need careful regulation to protect South Dakota’s water.
- The bill would leave all oversight of in situ leach uranium mining to federal agencies, which do not necessarily know the specifics of mining here or have South Dakota’s best interests in mind.
- The State has the right to regulate uranium mining, and this bill would deprive us of that right.
- Citizens of South Dakota have passed laws through our legislature indicating that we want this radioactive, dangerous mining to be regulated by the State.
- The requirement that companies post bonds to insure that their operations are cleaned up would be lifted by this legislation. The state would have no recourse if a company failed to clean up after itself.
- Most uranium companies are from other countries. This bill would allow them to take our state’s minerals, ship them to foreign governments, and leave the U.S.—all without State protection.
- The uranium industry has a history of failing to clean up after itself in South Dakota, which has cost taxpayers millions of dollars. This bill would allow the industry to continue being irresponsible.
- Without state regulation, companies have no incentives to deal with state representatives, agency staff, or other leaders.
The seven members of the Senate Commerce and Energy Committee can all be contacted through the Legislature’s website. All you have to do is click on the Senator’s name, and it will take you to a page from which you can e-mail the Senator.
Please remember to e-mail your own legislators (two House members and one Senator) as well.
Always be respectful. We believe that most legislators simply do not understand what this bill would do.
Note that in the bill text, “toll” means “suspend.”
Thank you for your quick action!
Lilias Jones Jarding
Clean Water Alliance
