The South Dakota Legislature is considering curtailing public input at Water Management Board hearings. House Bill 1028 limits opposition to projects that use the state’s water supplies. Under this bill, only people “uniquely injured” by the water use can initiate a contested case. Proponents say the bill streamlines the permitting process, but opponents say it stifles citizen participation.
Eric Gronlund is the chief engineer for the state Water Management Board. He testifies in favor of House Bill 1028 before the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources. And he specifically refers to 12 days of board hearings held over three months in 2019 to consider water use permits for the Keystone XL pipeline.
“Public interest matters heard by the board consisted of sex trafficking, drug use related to workforce man-camps, and potential spill hazards posed by the pipeline once constructed.”
Gronlund says confined animal operations, housing developments, and industries might present matters of public interest, but they’re not handled by the water management board. Instead, the board’s responsibility is to determine whether there is enough water available for the project to go ahead.
After testimony from several supporters and opponents, the committee passed the bill with just one “no” vote, and the full House discussed the bill the following day.
There, Representative Ryan Cwach spoke in opposition. The Yankton lawyer says the bill is one of many the legislature has considered over the years to limit citizen participation.
“We kind of keep seeing these bills where the government is asking us to shorten the notice period or limit exactly which SD exactly have a right to say something to their government, and it’s usually in the name of streamlining or efficiency, as if our public is a nuisance to our government.”
Cwach says every South Dakotan should be considered an interested person when it comes to what the government does.
Bill proponents say the current statute does not adequately define “public interest.” Opponents say the bill doesn’t define “unique injury.”
The House passed the bill by a 49 to 21 vote. It now moves to the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources.