DRA Legislative Questionnaire Responses, Part Two of Five
In mid-September, Dakota Rural Action sent out a questionnaire to all candidates running for State House and Senate. Below are the returned responses to the following question:
Late this summer, in the northwestern corner of the state, TransCanada has begun condemnation proceedings to seize land from private citizens unwilling to be forced into easements for construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. In the 2018 SD legislative session, a bill was introduced to allow Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations to run above-ground, force main manure disposal pipes through the right-of-way across private property without landowner permission.
In your view, when is it appropriate for a corporation’s development plans to supersede the rights of private property owners and/or to condemn their land through the use of eminent domain?
District 1
House of Representatives
Steven D. McCleerey “It is not appropriate to do that. That may depend on who the next leadership is for the Governor, Senate, and hopefully House. We should stay with Pres. Obama’s decision to stay out of that area. Generally, I can see where eminent domain is used in City Government more than in the county. But I do know what your opinion on this is. I do not believe in perpetual easements either.
District 3
House of Representatives
Cory Allen Heidelberger “Never. Eminent domain should be reserved only for essential public infrastructure, not projects owned entirely by for-profit corporations, and especially not for projects owned by foreign corporations.”
District 4
House of Representatives
Daryl Root “I am a strong supporter of property rights, and eminent domain should only be used for schools, highways, utilities, and other major public good. It should rarely, if ever, be used for corporate activity not directly linked to the above. I do NOT support right of way for above ground manure lines.”
John Mills “Only when the general public has vested interest.”
Kathy Tyler “As one who has seen firsthand the intrusion of corporate land grabs, I can see no instance when a private company should be able to use eminent domain.”
District 6
State Senate
Teresa Ann Robbins “Only when the public interest is the priority should actions to include measures of eminent domain be actively considered. I believe that the protection of private and public land can be safe guarded with funds and management processes to anticipate emerging issues and to rapidly response to adverse situations.”
District 7
House of Representatives
Bill Adamson “Private property rights should be sacrosanct. Land condemnation must first establish that the project is in the public’s general welfare before an eminent domain process can proceed. A public utility would meet this criterion since it is regulated in the public interest and provides vital services for the general public. Private companies should not be able to use eminent domain for projects that are primarily in their self-interest. Private property rights dominate private self-interest.”
District 8
House of Representatives
Chris Francis “We must ensure we are far better stewards of our natural resources and better stewards of our communities too. We must deeply reflect upon the long term consequences of any land use, and how that land responds in not just ten years, but a hundred years, and a thousand more after that. At times, private property has been needed for the public good, truly admirable public works projects, and that can be good. Yet, there are instances where we can reflect, and acknowledge, that some projects pose far more risk than benefit, more harm than good, more short term gain, and long term loss. We must have open and constructive dialogue whenever eminent domain is considered, and move slowly and deliberately. Corporations must be engaged, sometimes even challenged and questioned, for their own well-being and benefit. No doubt, our communities and our citizen legislature must play a pivotal role in that exchange, and we all must be heard in such a process.”
District 11
House of Representatives
Margaret Kuipers “I believe that it is wrong to seize privately owned property or seize the right of way on any property that the owner does not want. I will fight for the rights of private citizens over big business or corporations. They should have everything settled before they even attempt a project.”
Sheryl Johnson “Private property rights should take precedent unless it is vital for the state and benefits all the people in the state. Corporate profits are not a good enough reason to take away property rights.”
District 15
State Senate
Reynold F. Nesiba “I am opposed to our South Dakota private property owners having their rights superseded by big out of state corporations. A clear and present public benefit must be demonstrated. However, this interest would be far easier to see if it were a non-profit public utility making the request. To be clear, I’m opposed to CAFO’s using eminent domain to basically socialize the costs of a privately profitable endeavor. Those granting right-of-way must be fully compensated for the benefit they are providing or the project cannot go forward.”
District 16
State Senate
Liz Merrigan “I can’t envision a time when I would choose a corporation over a landowner when it comes to fossil fuels and CAFOs. This was our fear during the whole Hyperion oil refinery debacle. In the 21st century, it is absurd for officials to pretend that these industries are not dangerous to our environment. As for landowner rights, as a former senior negotiator, I’d be there on the picket line!”
District 19
State Senate
Ardon Wek “Eminent domain should be used when there is a greater benefit to the public. We will all have a different opinion of when this occurs, but I believe an open and honest dialog can create a solution. Private property owners should be compensated when eminent domain is used.”
Stace Nelson “I support eminent domain ONLY for legitimate public good circumstances, NOT to take private property rights away for someone else’s commercial gain.”
District 19
House of Representatives
Alison Bowers “I do not think it is appropriate for a corporation’s development plans to supersede the rights of private property owners. These two situations, though, are of very different scale. It is inappropriate to run manure disposal pipes through private property without landowner permission, so I would not support legislation that allowed that to happen. South Dakota’s private citizens should have their rights protected, and individuals who own and operate CAFOs should have to act as good neighbors and get permission to use right-of-ways that are not on their own land.
For-profit companies, such as TransCanada, should never be allowed to use eminent domain for projects that are not essential public infrastructure. This is especially true for projects owned by foreign corporations.”
Roger Hofer “CAFOs should ask landowners to use their right of ways for manure pipes or hoses. I would pay for market value manure. It is good nutrients. Road damage would be more if treated to the fields.”
District 25
State Senate
Peter Klebanoff “It is my understanding and position that eminent domain is to be used a) when all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted and b) when it is in compelling public interest to seize land, at which time, the owner must be fairly compensated for its value.
I believe that issues with the Keystone XL pipeline, however, go far beyond just improper use of eminent domain and that blatant gift to corporate profits of not only a corporation, but a non-US, non-South Dakota corporation. Further, the risk of extensive harm to our environment from the inevitable leak will not only place undue burden on our natural resources, but, because of a failure to require clean-up bond (as I understand it) may end-up costing South Dakota and/or US taxpayers significant money.
Add the impact on native cultural sites and I believe we have three strikes.”
District 26b
House of Representatives
Debra Smith “I watched both of these developments with alarm as I feel that neither should be allowed and are an unlawful infringement on the rights of landowners.”
District 30
State Senate
A. Gideon Oakes “As a liberty-minded candidate, I summarily oppose eminent domain at all levels.”
Kristine Ina Winter “It should be an extremely rare occurrence and vetted through the courts. The only reason for eminent domain is for the public good. The best example of proper use of eminent domain is roads.”
District 30
House of Representatives
Karen McGregor “No.”
Whitney Raver “No corporate eminent domain. Ever. That goes for government too.”
District 32
House of Representatives
Susan Kelts “Recent legislation to allow CAFOs to run manure pipes across private property was outrageous and appropriately defeated. I am willing to consider legislation to tighten requirements for Certificates of Need before the PUC approves large pipeline or power line projects.”
District 33
State Senate
Ryan Ryder “I would oppose the instances presented in this question. Although eminent domain retains a limited purpose in our government, these examples, in my opinion, are an abuse of the eminent domain process, especially since other options are/were available.”
District 33
House of Representatives
Lilias Jarding “Never.”
District 34
House of Representatives
George Nelson “Never. I’m against allowing private entities, whether for-profit or non-profit, having the tool of eminent domain available to it to advance non-public interests.”
District 35
State Senate
Pat Cromwell “Private property owners should have rights to challenge any eminent domain claim as it might affect the property and owner as well as it might affect the well-being of the public. Any bill which renders the private landowner powerless and without process to challenge is without merit. Eminent domain claims should be publicly filed, landowners able to challenge as a group/class or as single property owner as owners see fit. Corporations should never be able to force on the property owner a nondisclosure requirement in any manner. In very limited situations should eminent domain be able to be claimed and only with a well demonstrated reason which rests on public good and not because it enhances a corporation’s profit margin.”