Big Win On Manure Pipes; Big Loss on CUP Appeals
Nine DRA members traveled to Pierre this week to testify against two bad bills.
House Bill 1184 would have allowed the right of CAFO operators to run force-main manure pipes from their lagoons to cross private land using the right-of-way–without landowner notice or permission to do so. The bill placed these pipes, a benefit to a private business, in the section of code dealing with public utilities.
The bill was supported by individual CAFO operators, the Farm Bureau, SD Pork Producers, SD Dairy Producers, the SD Dept. of Transportation, SD Association of County Commissioners, and the lobbyist for both SD Association of Co-ops and SD Ag Unity. Testimony from the operators present indicated that they are already using these manure pipes, and they are doing so by working with their neighbors to gain permission and provide notification. This bill would have ended the necessity of working with neighbors and infringed on private property rights, and that was the focus of our testimony in opposition.
Our contingent to oppose HB 1184 in Senate Transportation Committee consisted of farmers, ranchers, and landowners, as well as former state legislators, county commissioners, and township supervisors. We were joined in opposition by lobbyists for sportsmens’ environmental, and conservation groups.
After a lengthy day of testimony, with final remarks coming shortly before 5pm, committee members moved to send the bill to the 41st day–effectively killing the bill. The final vote was 4-2 (1 excused) to kill the bill, with one lawmaker excused.
Senators voting in favor of manure pipes were Jim Bolin (R-Canton) and Jim Stalzer (R-Sioux Falls). Those who voted to support private property rights and working with neighbors were Jason Frerichs (D-Wilmot), Alan Solano (R-Rapid City), Ernie Otten (R-Tea), and Lance Russell (R-Hot Springs). Blake Curd was excused.
We had anticipated seeing the bill “smoked out” on the Senate floor–a process by which the bill’s proponents attempt to have a bill that was killed in committee brought up for debate by the full body of House or Senate. The morning after the vote, DRA members and others blanketed Senators’ mailboxes with an excellent opposition article on the bill, and we tracked the afternoon’s floor proceedings from the Senate gallery. The smokeout never came, and HB 1184 appears to be dead for the year.
House Bill 1292 was an even harder fight, and unfortunately one where we did not prevail. Understanding the bill required a crash course in all the different ways that counties and municipalities set up their Conditional Use Permitting process, and DRA’s lobbyist and members spent an extraordinary amount of time talking this through with legislators and others in the weeks preceding the hearing. Five DRA members testified in opposition, along with our lobbyist and the lobbyist for the SD Chapter of the Sierra Club.
The bill’s proponents argued that it creates consistency in the appeal process when those opposed to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) decision decide to challenge that decision in circuit court. While that’s technically true, the problem is that there isn’t consistency in the way counties and municipalities grant those permits, and the permitting bodies have options when it comes to setting up their own systems in order to allow for the appeal process they want.
Right now, those boards deciding on CUPs by a simple majority vote will have a full review (de novo) of their proceedings should the permit be appealed. Those granting CUPs with a supermajority have a de certiorari review, which only looks at whether the body had jurisdiction to grant, and whether they acted legally in doing so. The bill took away all option for a de novo, or full review. The problem is not necessarily losing the full review option for simple majority CUP-granting boards at present–there aren’t many of them. The real problem is that the vast majority of the boards currently using a supermajority vote for CUP decisions may consider moving to a simple majority now that the “threat” of de novo review no longer exists.
HB 1292 slid through Senate Judiciary Committee on a 4-3 vote last Tuesday evening. Proponents included the bill’s sponsors, Rep. Jason Kettwig (R-Milbank), Sen. John Wiik (R-Big Stone City), and Sen. Art Rusch (R-Vermillion), as well as two lobbyists for large wind energy companies. One of those lobbyists admitted that he hadn’t understood the bill when he first read it, but now that he did, he thought it was a great idea. While large CAFO interests were not present at the hearing, it is likely that they, too, are rejoicing at its passage because this legislation seriously undermines citizens’ ability to challenge the granting of CUPs for large industrial projects that negatively affect natural resources and South Dakotans’ quality of life.
The bill passed the Senate floor Thursday evening on a 22-13 vote, and will be signed by the Governor. Senator Craig Kennedy (D-Yankton) and Senator Stace Nelson (R-Fulton) spoke against the bill, and immediately following the second opposition speaker, Lieutenant Governor and President of the Senate Matt Michels moved quickly to shut down debate and called for closing remarks by the sponsor.
Passage of this legislation makes it more important than ever that DRA members and others interested in preserving our rural communities and natural resources step up to run for county and municipal offices, and to apply for seats on planning and zoning boards as they become available.
THE FOLLOWING SENATORS VOTED TO UNDERMINE YOUR ABILITY TO APPEAL:
Blake Curd (R-Sioux Falls), Brock Greenfield (R-Clark), Josh Klumb (R-Mount Vernon), Ryan Maher (R-Isabel), Art Rusch (R-Vermillion), Alan Solano (R-Rapid City), John Wiik (R-Big Stone City), Gary Cammack (R-Union Center), Bob Ewing (R-Spearfish), Terri Haverly (R-Rapid City), Jack Kolbeck (R-Sioux Falls), Jenna Netherton (R-Sioux Falls), Jeff Partridge (R-Rapid City), Jim Stalzer (R-Sioux Falls), Larry Tidemann (R-Brookings), Jordan Youngberg (R-Madison), Jason Frerichs (D-Wilmot), Kris Langer (R-Dell Rapids), Al Novstrup (R-Aberdeen), Deb Peters (R-Hartford), Deb Soholt (R-Sioux Falls), Jim White (R-Huron).
Initiative & Referendum: The Long Debate:
The last of the initiative & referendum bills made their way through their committees of origin last week, and they’re beginning to show up in their second round of committee hearings.
We supported House Bill 1005, which simplifies ballot language for the effect of a “yes” or “no” vote once it was amended to clear up confusing wording on referred laws. It sailed through Senate State Affairs this week, but was not placed on the consent calendar, so we will watch for any potential last-minute amendments on the Senate floor last week.
House Bill 1196 required petition circulators to provide a laundry list of personal information to the Secretary of State’s office in order to prove their residency. The list included the last three addresses of residency for the circulator, the area code of their cell phone, the address of their immediate family, and even whether they had an out-of-state library card. We saw the bill as an intimidation tactic, as well as an opportunity for those who are anxious to bring court challenges to initiatives they don’t favor to have their research work done for them in advance. The bill did make it through committee, but the list was extensively amended. We’ll continue to oppose it on the Senate Floor.
House Bill 1216 limited out-of-state contributions to ballot question committees. We opposed the bill because not only is it likely unconstitutional, but out-of-state money isn’t necessarily a bad thing. For example, we can envision a situation where allied groups from other states might be willing to pitch in on a campaign to help strengthen our Family Farm Act. DRA was joined in opposition by a number of other organizations that have not taken positions on most other initiative bills–including SD Retailers Association, SD Chamber of Commerce & Industry, SD Electric Utility Companies, and Americans for Prosperity. The bill was killed in committee, then immediately placed back on the table with a hoghouse amendment coming Monday. We’ll be watching closely for what surprises that new language will contain.
SJR 1, the 55% threshold for approval of constitutional amendments on the ballot, passed its final hurdle last week and will go on the ballot. We testified against this bill early on in the process, but its final hearing in House State Affairs this week overlapped with our fight against the Manure Pipes bill, so our lobbyist was unable to take another crack at it in person. No other organization appeared to contest the bill in that final hearing, either, and it passed on a party-line vote, with Democrats Spencer Hawley (Brookings) and Julie Bartling (Gregory) opposing. The House floor vote was 55-9, so the proposed amendment will appear on the 2018 general election ballot for South Dakota voters to decide.
The Session is drawing to a close, but we’re still fighting for your voice in Pierre!
Throw a few bucks in the legislative tip jar to keep us truckin’.
Thank You!