CARBON DIOXIDE PIPELINE OPPONENTS WIN KEY VOTE, BUT MANEUVERING CONTINUES

Supporters on both sides prepare backup plans

PIERRE, S.D. (Austin Goss / SDBA) – Dueling measures dealing with a carbon capture pipeline slated for construction across eastern South Dakota met opposite fates Monday morning.

And once again, opponents of Summit Carbon Solutions plan to build the carbon pipeline across roughly 2,500 miles came out on top.

The Senate State Affairs Committee advanced House Bill 1052 to the full floor of the Senate by a 7-2 vote, putting it on the doorstep of Gov. Larry Rhoden’s office. The measure, only a sentence long, would make carbon pipelines “transporting carbon oxide” ineligible to use eminent domain in the state. It cleared the House on a 49-19 vote in January.

Hours before, the House State Affairs Committee unanimously killed Senate Majority Leader Jim Mehlhaff’s Senate Bill 198 — which would have pushed parties towards mediation as part of eminent domain litigation at the expense of the entity pursuing it. The Pierre Republican dubbed it as legislation that would strengthen landowner rights.

“Opposition has claimed that this was a bill to force mediation on landowners,” Mehlhaff told the House State Affairs Committee. “There is nothing in this bill that forces it, it is completely voluntary.”

Rep. Spencer Gosch of Glenham called it “Senate Bill 201 2.0,” referring to the pipeline-friendly measure voters soundly rejected at the ballot box in November.

Mehlhaff’s was one of two votes against HB 1052 — along with Sen. Arch Beal of Sioux Falls — after his counter-proposal went down. Speaker of the House Jon Hansen was one of the members who delivered the knock out punch to Mehlhaff’s bill, and later testified in favor of the House’s measure.

“The make up of this Legislature looks very different than it has in the last few years, in part because this government wasn’t listening to the pleas of the people asking us to protect their private property rights,” said Hansen, referring to the last June’s primary election results where a number of pro-carbon pipeline lawmakers were ousted.

During HB 1052’s hearing, over 150 landowners and activists from across the state poured to the front of the packed committee room to offer support for the measure. Both proponents and opponents of the measure were given about 30 minutes each to speak to it, far more than more routine bills in the Legislature are granted.

Opponents of HB 1052 — sponsored by Speaker Pro Tempore Karla Lems and Sen. Mark Lapka — included a handful of agricultural producers, Summit Carbon Solutions, and GEVO — the company is one of the ethanol plants planning to connect to the Summit line in Lake Preston if it ends up being built.

Mehlhaff questioned Lapka about why his proposal did not go after utilities like water and natural gas if the issue was eminent domain.

“I think the people of South Dakota understand to a high degree what is beneficial to them in their day-to-day lives and what is a requirement,” Lapka responded. “That is not the topic today.”

But as the old saying goes, no idea is ever dead in the State Capitol until session is over.

Both sides of the battle have back-up plans in the pocket. The House State Affairs Committee voted 9-4 near the end of their meeting to revive Mehlhaff’s bill and make it a second version of HB 1052. Rep. Tim Reisch called the move a “a bait-and-switch.”

“This is not the way we should be doing business in the people’s house,” Reisch continued. Proponents of the move noted the strong support landowners had given to the proposal that Summit has called a “kill shot” to the project.

Proponents of the carbon capture pipeline still have a trick still up their sleeve, too. Sen. Stephanie Sauder has a pending amendment to HB 1052 that would allow carbon capture pipelines to get eminent domain if they get a permit from the Public Utilities Commission and 67 percent of landowners on the proposed route to sign on. Summit currently has the latter.

House Bill 1052 will likely be debated on the Senate floor Tuesday. If it passes there, it will be delivered to the governor’s desk.

 

SENATE PASSES CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT FOR 2026 BALLOT THAT COULD END EXTENDED MEDICAID

PIERRE, S.D. (Austin Goss / ADBA) – The South Dakota Senate overwhelmingly approved a measure Monday asking voters to amend the state constitution to end Medicaid expansion if federal funding drops below 90 percent.

House Joint Resolution 5001 passed with a 31-3 vote after senators rejected an attempt to move the question from the November 2026 general election to the June 2026 primary ballot.

The resolution proposes a constitutional amendment that automatically terminates expanded Medicaid coverage if federal support decreases from its current 90 percent level.

Sen. Casey Crabtree, R-Madison, prime sponsor of the measure, said the amendment provides necessary financial protection for the state.

“One of the key points made by the proponents of Medicaid expansion was that the feds were going to pay 90 percent of the cost, and South Dakota taxpayers would only have to pay 10 percent,” Crabtree said at 11:28. “Right now, that 10 percent is projected to cost South Dakota taxpayers about $36 million a year.”

Senators voted 14-19 against an amendment that would have moved the ballot question to the June primary.

Sen. Tom Pischke, R-Dell Rapids, opposed the primary election amendment, citing past voter concerns.

“I had a lot of people in my district that just were very upset that we put that amendment on the primary election,” Pischke said at 2:59. “The comments were, we think not everybody votes at the primary.”

Sen. Liz Larson, D-Sioux Falls, spoke against the resolution itself, arguing that healthcare access should take priority.

“People shouldn’t die because they can’t afford to live,” Larson said at 13:30. “Medicaid expansion has been a lifeline for 28,000 South Dakotans, and it’s saved lives.”

The proposed amendment follows South Dakota’s 2022 voter-approved Medicaid expansion. It increased coverage to adults with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level.

 

HOUSE REJECTS ‘FEEL-GOOD’ ATTEMPT TO RENAME THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Measure would have renamed DOC to ‘Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’

PIERRE, S.D. (SDBA) – The name of the state’s correctional facilities is here to stay.

The South Dakota House of Representatives soundly rejected Democratic Senator Jamie Smith’s Senate Bill 192 to rename the Department of Corrections the “Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.”

Born out of a bipartisan push to reform how the state dishes out criminal sentences, the legislation slid through the legislative process with ease. The Senate passed the bill unanimously last month, a rare sign of strength for legislation coming out of the Capitol’s Democratic caucus.

“It’s a pretty straightforward but meaningful change,” said House Minority Leader Erin Healy, the prime sponsor in the House for SB 192.

But the House didn’t feel warm to the idea, which Healy and other supporters admitted would be just a first step towards sending a message about the department’s goals. Republican and Democratic House lawmakers instead joined together to pummel the proposal as “virtue signaling” on the way to a 55-14 defeat.

“Saying something doesn’t make it so,” said Rep. Lana Greenfield. “This is just feel-good legislation.”

Had it passed, the legislation would have come at no immediate cost to the state. The Department of Corrections would have had the autonomy to decide when and how to update things like staff clothing, names on buildings and other places that feature the department’s name. Accordingly, the legislation had no fiscal note attached, or language that describes the cost of a bill should it become law.

Republican Mary Fitzgerald, who represents Lawrence County in District 31, said she didn’t buy that.

“We are facing all kinds of budget cuts right now. I would be concerned about spending any money of the taxpayers like this,” Fitzgerald said.

Former Corrections Secretary turned lawmaker Tim Reisch also opposed the legislation. He relayed his own experiences leading the department from 2003-11.

“The sponsor thinks this will help. This may suggest to the department a better way of doing things,” Reisch said. “This is not the right thing to do here, let’s give this new administration a chance and not try to start renaming his agencies for him.”

Proponents of the measure, which included nine Republicans and five of the six Democrats in the chamber, pointed to private-sector businesses changing names to refocus their mission and goals as an organization. Further, they pointed out that the department and the governor’s office had remained neutral on the bill.

But maverick Democrat Peri Pourier said that actions should come before words, not the other way around.

“I didn’t run to and get elected to not impact anything,” Pourier told lawmakers in a passionate speech. “We have to change the way we look at criminal justice reform in South Dakota… And then we can come back and do a name change.”

 

SENATE APPROVES $15 MILLION FOR ELLESWORTH BUT REJECTS TAX MEASURE

PIERRE, S.D. (SDBA) – The South Dakota Senate today (Monday) approved a bill to transfer $15 million to support infrastructure projects tied to Ellsworth Air Force Base’s expansion.

However, they rejected a companion measure that would have redirected contractors’ excise tax collections from the base.

Senate Bill 6, which transfers funds from the South Dakota Housing Infrastructure Authority to the newly created Ellsworth Support and Development Fund, passed 29-6 after adopting an amendment proposed by Sen. Helene Duhamel, R-Rapid City.

“Hosting a federal military base is an honor for our state. It’s a national asset with huge economic impact,” Duhamel said. “Ellsworth is the second-largest employer in South Dakota.”

Sen. Arch Beal, R-Sioux Falls, expressed concerns about the fund transfer, noting the money “should go back to the municipalities as grants rather than some other municipality.”

A related measure, Senate Bill 16, failed to achieve the required two-thirds majority, with 14 senators voting in favor and 21 against. The bill would have directed up to $1 million annually in contractor’s excise tax collected from Ellsworth projects to support the base through 2030.

Sen. Taffy Howard, R-Rapid City, the bill’s sponsor, emphasized the limited scope of the proposal.

“With this amendment on, we are talking one million per year for five years,” Howard said. “This past year, the state realized nine million from the contractors’ excise tax revenue from on-base projects.”

Opponents cited concerns about tax policy and precedent setting.

“The contractor’s excise tax is the third-largest tax coming into the state of South Dakota,” Sen. Larry Zikmund, R-Sioux Falls, said. “We’re getting about 200 million dollars coming into the state.”

Sen. Ernie Otten, R-Tea, argued against creating special tax designations. “It’s nothing more than taxing individuals double and then sending that funds to somebody else,” he said.

Ellsworth Air Force Base is expanding significantly to accommodate the B-21 bomber program, with construction projects estimated at $2 billion.

 

SOUTH DAKOTA SENATE REJECTS AMTRAK RESOLUTION AND REMOVES BILL FROM CONSENT CALENDAR

PIERRE, S.D. (SDBA) — The South Dakota Senate rejected a resolution supporting efforts to bring Amtrak passenger rail service to the state today (Monday), despite the measure initially receiving unanimous committee support.

House Concurrent Resolution 6008 failed by a vote of 17-18 after being removed from the Senate Consent Calendar on Feb. 27. The resolution had passed the Senate Transportation Committee 6-0 on Feb. 26.

Sen. Carl Perry, R-Aberdeen, who moved for the Senate to concur with the resolution, characterized the measure as preliminary.

“This is a first step toward a long process of bringing Amtrak to South Dakota,” Perry said. “Forty-eight other states have Amtrak. This links us to the rest of the continental U.S.”

The bipartisan resolution, previously passed by the House 49-21, requested support from South Dakota’s congressional delegation to work with the Trump administration on establishing an Amtrak route connecting Denver and Minneapolis-St. Paul through Rapid City, Pierre, and Sioux Falls.

Perry noted that “federal dollars support the program at this point, and there’s no ask for dollars from South Dakota.”

Opposition emerged during floor debate, with Sen. John Carley, R-Piedmont, expressing concerns about government intervention and potential future costs.

“It is a private business, though. So, I don’t see a purpose of forcing or requiring a private business to come to South Dakota,” Carley said at 2:49. “It costs almost 100 million dollars per mile of line… That’s 10 million dollars per mile to put a passenger rail service in.”

In his closing remarks, Perry emphasized the resolution’s modest scope.

“At this point, what this resolution is is a request for our congressional group to look at this,” Perry said. “It is not a request that they do it.”

The resolution had six sponsors from both parties, including Republican Rep. Timothy Goodwin, who introduced it, and Democratic Reps. Eric Emery, Erik Muckey, Peri Pourier, and Nicole Uhre-Balk.

 

LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES WILLING TO COMPLY WITH REFUGEE REPORT REQUEST

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (Austin Goss / SDBA) – A Sioux Falls non-profit organization that is the target of legislation compelling it to make data about its refugee resettlement operation public says that it is willing to comply.

More than that, Lutheran Social Services says that it has been drafting reports about its refugee resettlement program since a law requiring those reports expired several years ago.

That’s according to LSS President and CEO Rebecca Kiesow-Knudsen, who shared the organization’s report for federal fiscal year 2024, which began on Oct. 1, 2023 and ended last Sept. 30. LSS is the most prominent refugee resettlement organization in South Dakota.

The organization is neutral on House Bill 1106, a measure that passed the state House with broad support requires LSS and all resettlement agencies to report to the Legislature on an annual basis. It would reinstate a similar requirement adopted by the Legislature in 2017. That law “sun-setted” three years later.

In fact, Kiesow-Knudsen said, the non-partisan Legislative Research Council obtained LSS’s report for 2024 in January.

“We’re fine making a report available on resettlement,” she told The Dakota Scout. “We are committed to transparent communication about the resettlement program. I am also happy to talk to anyone who has questions or concerns.”

The report shows that LSS resettled — meaning those that came directly from a foreign country to the state — 386 refugees in the prior fiscal year, up from 206 in 2023. Congolese settlers made up 97 of those, the most of any nationality to move to the Rushmore State through LSS. Of the 14 different nations represented in last year’s report, migrants from Venezuela, Somalia, and Sudan round out the top four.

Slightly more of those arriving were male compared to female, while 163 of the total were under the age of 18.

LSS maintains its headquarters in the state’s largest city. It also has a staff presence in Huron, Rapid City, and Yankton to help support those who arrive by way of secondary migration — refugees who first settle in another state and then move to South Dakota after entry into America.

South Dakota’s upward trend in the number of refugees arriving corresponds with the uptick seen across the nation in 2024. From fiscal year 2021 to 2024, federal acceptance numbers rose by 88,623.

“The president of the United States makes a determination on the maximum number of refugees that will be accepted into the United States during the coming federal fiscal year,” the report explains. “For FY 2024, that threshold was set at 125,000.”

The American Immigration Council estimates that South Dakota currently has about 11,000 undocumented immigrants living here. They are not part of the refugees who were resettled in the state legally.

LSS’ case management and employment services are available to new arrivals for up to five years. All refugees are legally qualified for employment upon their arrival. Employment services provide adults with opportunities to find their first job, as well as job upgrades. Case management includes assisting new arrivals with benefits enrollment, school enrollment, English language training enrollment for adults, obtaining identity documents, and assistance with housing, among other services.

Both private and public sector immigration attorneys assist refugees who are pursuing permanent residency or United States citizenship through a fee-based program, or grants when possible. Additionally, LSS supports two federal programs, Uniting for Ukraine and the Cuban-Haitian Entrants, which move people from those countries to the United States.

“The programs are not administered centrally like the refugee resettlement program,” the report notes.

While LSS is already providing the information that Sen. Taffy Howard is pursuing with HB 1106, the Rapid City Republican who is a main sponsor of the bill argues her measure is still necessary.

“The bill is still needed to ensure it is done, versus them doing it they choose to,” Howard said in a statement.