The Senate State Affairs hears two bills that would alter South Dakota’s stance on eminent domain, a significant debate among state landowners.
The bills fell to different fates though.
Senate bills 49 and 198 both aim to tackle the eminent domain question, a debate which has intensified in recent years as pipeline companies seek to find a home in South Dakota.
SB 49 was brought by Piedmont Republican Sen. John Carley. It prohibited eminent domain to be used to construct carbon dioxide or hydrogen pipelines.
“Clearly, 70% of our public spoke up very loud last year, voted, and said ‘we don’t want eminent domain for private gain.’ This bill today was to stop that, and that’s the role of our legislators," Carley said. "To be the voice for our citizens against the corporations saying, ‘we’re going to blast through your land, take eminent domain, to make our new products happen.”
That resistance was seen in the large number of landowners who arrived in support of the Carley bill. Ultimately, it was killed by committee.
Instead, the panel opted for SB 198, brought by Senate Majority Leader Jim Mehlhaff.
“Well, the Carley bill targeted two specific commodities, one being carbon one being hydrogen," Mehlhaff said. "Where my bill was strictly to do with eminent domain. It would put additional requirements that a developer would have to satisfy before they could utilize it.”
Requirements like a mediation process between companies and landowners before attempting to declare eminent domain.
SB189 will next be heard on the Senate floor after receiving bipartisan support from Sioux Falls Democrat Liz Larson, assistant minority leader.
“This bill, at least, it is an honest-to-goodness attempt to get everyone to the table to talk about the relevant issues," Larson said. "I’m not saying it’s perfect, I’m not saying it will pass, but I think it’s an opportunity to bring the conversation to a wider audience.”
When asked if they would support similar bills targeting eminent domain questions, Sen. Carley said he was all in for landowner protections. Sen. Mehlhaff, on the other hand, was more measured in his response, voicing concerns for targeted legislation like SB 49.