Eminent domain has been a major issue in South Dakota for years as companies look to lay pipelines across the state, and property owners lands.
One bill has narrowly escaped the Senate and highlights the divides between camps.
There are two ends of this debate represented largely between factions in the Republican Party. On one end are hardline property rights lawmakers, and on the other are moderates seeking compromise between landowners and companies.
This divide was seen via theatrics on the Senate floor Monday over SB 198. It outlines steps companies must make before pursuing eminent domain.
Supporters say it limits how companies can pursue eminent domain and guarantees landowners' rights to "good-faith" mediation. But critics – including Sen. John Carley – say it still gives companies too much power.
It passed the Senate by a single vote. After that vote, Carley challenged the bill during a normally procedural action from Senate President Lt. Gov. Tony Venhuizen.
“Are there any questions on the title? You have a question on the title,” Venhuizen asked.
“Yes Mr. President, I feel the title is not correct, and I have an amendment for the title," Carley responded. "Mr. President, I’d like the amend the title to ‘Forcing Mediation for More Abuse of Eminent Domain.”
“Who had a point of order? Sen. Smith, state your point of order. I’m going agree with your point of order and rule that out of order," Venhuizen responded. "I think the title encompasses the bill in its current form.”
That point of order came from Sioux Falls Democratic Sen. Jamie Smith questioning Carley’s motion. Ultimately, Carley stood by it after Senate gaveled out.
“Here’s the thing, the bill contained mediation in it – that was the purpose of it. What was the mediation for? Eminent domain," Carley said. "When I suggested the title should be ‘Forcing Mediation for More Abuse of Eminent Domain’, that very accurately reflected what the bill says.”
He said when he’s all in for landowner protections, that doesn’t include this bill.
“What I don’t like about the bill is that it forces mediation, and some people just want to say no and not be required to go to mediation,” Carley said.
This bill now heads to House committee.