Jensen For Senate

Where do your rights come from?

Last week in this paper you may have read a letter to the editor from Rep. Will Mortenson about the carbon pipeline and landowner rights. I think his letter deserves a rebuttal. I will state right up front I voted against SB201, the so called “landowner bill of rights.” First, Rep Mortenson made the statement “the bill had strong bipartisan support.” The bill coming out of the final conference committee passed with 39 yes votes and 31 no votes. Bipartisan? I guess so because there are 7 democrats in the House, and 5 of them voted for the bill. It takes a simple majority to pass a bill of this nature which is 36 votes. Just a little math shows they did not have enough republican support to pass it. Keep in mind that four of the democrats voting yes live in Sioux Falls and only one is a landowner from Dewey County (west river), nowhere close to the proposed pipeline. Only 34 republicans voted yes. It was not an overwhelming victory in my opinion.

But there are real issues here that need to be addressed and Representative Mortenson did not mention those that are very important to many of us. It has been said that rights are what we have in the absence of government. In other words, the government cannot grant you rights, they are already yours, but government can put parameters on your rights. Will states “no one can point to a single provision in the measure that harms property rights.” I will get back to that, but for now my question is, name one provision in the measure that gives the landowners rights they do not already have. Is the ‘money’ the right he is referring too? If a landowner wants to negotiate a fee for an easement, they can already do that. This bill forces them to accept what the out-of-state companies will pay. It seems that the money is the most important talking point. 

In my estimation the phrase “land owners bill of rights” is a masterful use of diversionary language, a smoke screen to cover up the worst part of the measure. Some politicians use contrived wording in bill title so they can promote it and hope you don’t actually read the bill. They are hoping the people will just trust that the title means what the bill actually does. After all, who could argue with being given a ‘bill of rights?’ 

What is not covered in his letter is something that should concern everyone. This bill of rights takes away all authority of the county to set regulations on pipelines and electric transmission lines and gives that authority to the PUC, the state. It also gives out-of-state for-profit private companies and foreign investors access to your land, for money. That is why you are now seeing this mad dash by the wind farm and solar farm companies to get their projects started. These companies are hedging their bet that if the PUC grants the applications they can move forward wherever they want once the application is approved.  If the applications meet all requirements, the PUC must approve the application.

Why is it important for the counties to maintain control of the regulations? Almost every county along the proposed pipeline path are among the largest population centers. That means these counties probably already have future development and usage plans for their communities. What is even more troubling is that any previous regulations the county has set regarding pipeline depth and setbacks are now null and void under this bill. The pipeline will have a chilling effect on those future plans since no one can build on or near a pipeline once it is in the ground. It will undoubtedly affect land values all along the pipeline route. 

To address the question about naming a right that is harmed, a current ‘right’ of the landowner has now been completely eliminated; the right to build a shed or any other structure on their property if there happens to be a pipeline there. The truth is, this measure gives companies like Summit Carbon Solutions and other out-of-state companies more actual rights to run under your land than you have to build on top of your land.

In a free state, should a county be able to restrict what they do not want in their county? Should the state have the right to override any county ordinance or regulation for the use of a private for-profit company? When the state removes authority from the counties because it interferes with their plans, we are starting down a slippery slope. Remember, the PUC cannot stop a project because they don’t like it, if the application process is complete and all the stipulations have been met, they will grant the permits. 

The issue of money always has to be addressed. My perspective is that I don’t care how much you pay me, if I do not want you on (or under) my property, that should be my right. It is estimated there will be 476 miles or 2,513,280 feet of pipeline once completed. At a dollar per foot the counties will get a financial boost. But what happens when the next technology comes along and they abandon the pipeline? Or, what if, under current federal regulations the carbon credits really do expire in 2034. The counties will have become dependent on that money, if they lose that income how will they replace it? Property taxes? 

Senate Bill 201 has harshly divided the party and the landowners alike. Was it worth it? Neighbor against neighbor so a private company can profit? Why are they afraid of putting this on the ballot? Let the people decide. I encourage you to sign the petitions. We are not misguided political activists, we are citizens exercising our “right” to be heard. Remember Margaret Mead. “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.” 

Rep. Kevin D. Jensen, District 16.