Non-meandered waters legislative committee meeting will be on Fri June 2

Lake

Earlier this week I noted the fourth meeting of the Regulation of Access to and Use of Non-Meandered Waters on Public and Private Property Study legislative committee would likely be on June 2. It can now be confirmed the meeting will be on June 2 as the agenda has been posted on the LRC website.  Here is the full agenda:

  • 9:00 AM
    • Call to order
    • Determination of Quorum
    • Approval of Minutes – May 24, 2017
    • Comments from the Chair
  • 9:10 AM
    • Proposed Legislation
  • 10:00 AM
    • Public Testimony on Proposed Legislation
  • 11:15 AM
    • Committee Discussion and Final Action
  • 1:00 PM
    • Adjourn

There isn’t any updated proposed legislation on the LRC website yet. If there will be proposed legislation ahead of time it will be posted here on the LRC website. My look at the current draft of the proposed legislation can be viewed here. I plan to attend the meeting and possibly live-tweet during the proceedings. The audio from this meeting can be listened to on the LRC interim meetings website or on SD.net.

Sioux Falls public meeting about Meandered and Non-Meandered waters on Tues May 30

Photo from Facebook Event

On Tuesday, May 30, there will be a public meeting about Meandered and Non-Meandered waters. This meeting is being hosted by the 29-90 Sportsman’s Club and the South Dakota Wildlife Federation (SDWF).

Here is the information about the meeting listed in the Facebook Event:

The 29-90 Sportsman’s Club, Sioux Falls, along with South Dakota Wildlife Federation (SDWF) would like to invite sportsmen/women to our public meeting about Meandered and Non-Meandered water here in South Dakota.
The presentation is open to the public and will be held on; Tuesday, May 30th at 7:00 PM in the Hub building, 2001 N Career Ave located on the SE Tech campus.
There will be a Power Point presentation covering the history of water, The Public Trust Doctrine and our 12 words to fix water law in SD. We will also hear about the “Economic Impacts” of the recent Supreme Court Decision Duerrer V. Hepler that Northeast SD and sportsmen/women of SD are currently experiencing.
29-90 Sportsman and SDWF are trying to be proactive in moving in the right direction for everyone. We have invited all Sioux Empire Legislators to this meeting. It is a state-wide issue and affects all of us.
29-90 Sportsman is about 150 members strong and is one of SDWF’s 16 Affiliate Clubs and is located in Sioux Falls.
Our goal is to disseminate accurate and factual information to the public and too help everyone understand the recent decision. We are also soliciting questions from the public to be presented to the speakers. If you have a question which you would like answered, please E-mail them to sdwf@mncomm.com. We are expecting a large crowd so individual questions from the audience will not be taken or asked for. We are hoping to select 10 submitted questions to present to the speakers.

This meeting looks like it will be similar to the one I recorded in Watertown a couple of weeks ago.  Although that meeting didn’t have draft legislation to actually speak about.

If I see any more public meetings between now and June 2 I’ll try to list them on the blog. I doubt I’ll make this meeting as I already plan to be in Watertown, Pierre and Rapid City this week (plus hopefully some time at home in Aberdeen).

The non-meandered waters issues go way beyond a couple dozen lakes or property taxes

I just had someone ask why the legislature will go special session over a couple dozen lakes when all that needs to be done is get rid of property taxes for any land under water. This isn’t the first time I’ve heard this question, or variations of it anyhow. It’s a fair question considering most of the coverage in the news has been focused on the lakes GFP shut down public access to. In my attempt to answer some of the questions people have about non-meandered waters I seem to have forgotten some important points. I’ll try to answer a few more questions about non-meandered waters here as best as I can.

I’ll probably do more of these posts as June 2 approaches to help people have conversations regarding non-meandered waters.

How many non-meandered lakes are there in SD?

To answer this one I’ll defer to a chart included in the power point presentation GFP gave to the legislature:

Natural Lakes in South Dakota. Graph from GFP PowerPoint Presentation.

Looking at the graph above there are 2,324 nonmeandered lakes covering 325,000 acres in South Dakota which are over 40 acres in size. When adding in the lakes under 40 acres, there are 29,033 lakes covering 588,000 acres in South Dakota. The twenty-plus lakes GFP closed access to are just a drop in the bucket compared to how many lakes are being talked about. There is a lot of flooded farm land in NE South Dakota; a lot of which formed in the 1990’s.

Most of these nonmeandered lakes do not have fish in them. Here is another chart from the GFP presentation:

Non-meandered Lakes with Fishing. Chart from GFP PowerPoint presentation.

So of the thousands of non-meandered lakes in SD, GFP has determine only 91 of those lakes have fishing. Just under 2/3 of the land under these non-meandered lakes with fishing belongs to private landowners.

I think the above charts do a good job of showing that dealing with non-meandered waters is more than just a couple dozen lakes.

So are the 91 fish-able non-meandered lakes the only ones that have to be dealt with?

Simple answer: No (despite what I heard incorrectly noted during a radio news story earlier this week).

The legislature is tasked with determining if the public has a right to enter or use non-meandered waters for recreational purposes, and what the conditions are in order to utilize non-meandered waters for recreational purposes. There are recreational uses other than fishing. Common recreational uses include hunting, trapping, snowmobiling, swimming, boating, kayaking, and many other activities. Just because a lake doesn’t have fish it doesn’t mean it can’t be used for recreation.

Going back up to the numbers shown above, this issue has to do with thousands of bodies of waters covering hundreds of thousands of acres. That number is greatly reduced when counting only bodies of water where the public can gain access (such as from a road), but even that number is going to be very high.

Won’t abating property taxes on flooded lands please the landowners?

I hear this solution a lot. In reality I don’t think this is a solution. Many of nonmeandered waters being discussed are flooded farm lands. Yes, some landowners would like a property tax abatement. And yes, some already have an abatement of up to 90% depending on the county their flooded land is in. But in reality what is really frustrating many of these landowners is that they have farmland that has been taken out of production because of this water. A lot of these farmers would love to find a way to remove the water altogether. With commodity prices dropping it places even more of a financial burden on these farmers as they potentially have a large number of farm acres inaccessible. Some of these lands may actually have loans against them, which the yearly payments they make on the land make the property taxes look like a pittance.

Property tax abatement or supplement may be part of a solution, but I don’t think property taxes is as big of an issue as many think it is (although I could be wrong).

DOR decides against forcing farmers market in Sioux Falls to collect tourism tax

Farmers market

Two days ago I published a post about the SD Department of Revenue (DOR) trying to force the farmers marking in Sioux Falls into collecting an additional 1.5% tourism tax. Actually I think just about every media organization in South Dakota did at least some coverage of the story. Apparently that caused enough of a backlash that the Department of Revenue has changed its mind. Here is what KELO is reporting:

However, Secretary of Revenue Andy Gerlach reviewed the case and determined the tax wasn’t applicable. He says the majority of people going to the market are consumers, not necessarily tourists.

He says any money the vendors have collected will be refunded back.

Gerlach calls the situation unique, but they will look at other cases in the state, and will talk with legislators about potential changes if the department sees a need.

It is good Gerlach decided to reverse the decision made by the DOR.  But this is not the first time the DOR has suddenly decided a sales tax should be collected in new ways. A few years ago the DOR suddenly decided that baseball coaches paid by the American Legion should be paying sales tax. This was due to a sudden reinterpretation of law by the DOR. To his credit Sen Brock Greenfield  (R, Dist 2) tried to fight the the DOR on the sudden reinterpretation of sales tax law; and tried to bring forth legislation to reverse the DOR’s decision a couple of times. Greenfield was even able to get SB 159 (SoDakLiberty Posts) passed through both chambers in 2015 to exempt American Legion and VFW coaches from sales and use tax. But the bill was vetoed by Governor Dennis Daugaard; who also happens the be the top elected official above the DOR.

As I said earlier this week, I think something needs to be done to keep state agencies from arbitrarily changing how the laws are interpreted. State departments should have to go through some sort of public and legislative review process before doing so. Doing so might prevent more state agency overreaches in the future.

Rep Bartels hosting Non-meandered waters public meeting at LATI on May 31

Rep Hugh Bartels at the non-meandered water hearing in Aberdeen on May 10, 2017.

On Wednesday, May 31, there will be a meeting held in Watertown to discuss non-meandered waters. The meeting is being hosted by the Kampeska Chapter of the Izaak Walton League and Rep Hugh Bartels (R, Dist 5). The meeting will begin at 7:00 pm on the fourth floor of Lake Area Technical Institute.

Here is part of what Rep Bartels said about the event on Facebook:

They have asked that I address the provisions of the draft bill being considered by the Legislative Summer Study on this issue. I have asked that the Secretary of Game Fish and Parks attend the meeting and have received confirmation that he will be attending.

The current draft of the proposed legislation can be read here.  Additionally, my look at this draft legislation can be read here.  I don’t know if I will be able to attend this particular meeting. But I would recommend anyone in the Watertown area to attend.

If anyone hears of any other legislators on the non-meandered waters hosting an event prior to the upcoming committee meeting on June 2 please let me know. I’ll bring attention to any the meetings leading up to the imminent non-meandered waters special session.

Video: Trevor Loudon speaking in Aberdeen

Trevor Loudon speaking in Aberdeen

On Thursday, May 25, 2017, Trevor Loudon gave a presentation at the Dakota Event Center in Aberdeen, SD. Loudon is the author of “The Enemies Within” and produced a documentary with the same name. Loudon is from New Zealand and is traveling the US talking about the communist/socialist agenda for America. This event was sponsored by Americans First, Task Force of Aberdeen, SD.

I have split the video into two parts. The first part is Loudon’s main presentation. The second video is the question and answer session. I have also included a playlist which contains both videos.

Here is the first video. It is just under an hour long.

Here is the second video. It is just over a half-hour in length.

Finally, here is a playlist which contains both videos.

A look at the draft non-meandered legislation

Boats on the lake

Updated to correct a couple of typos that made it seem the landowners owned the water.

Yesterday the Regulation of Access to and Use of Non-Meandered Waters on Public and Private Property Study legislative committee met in Pierre for what was supposed to be the final meeting. Instead they decided to have another meeting on June 2, with a possible special session being called for June 12. The timeline was delayed because the committee has to do some more work on the legislation. Two days ago I had some reservations about the draft bill after a brief reading, and it hasn’t gotten any better after reading through the bill more thoroughly. In this post I will look at the bill section by section and add some editorialized commentary for some parts of the bill.

The My Thoughts sections are just that, my opinions. I am a true believer in property rights, but also happen to be a sportsman. I actually have more to say about some sections of this bill. But I will save some of what I have to say for future posts in order to keep this from being a novella.

It should be noted this legislation is going to be amended at the next meeting; probably dramatically! There may even be new pieces of legislation brought forth.

Fair warning, this is a LONG post!

Section 1 – Findings

Text of Section 1:

(1) The South Dakota Supreme Court, in Parks v. Cooper, 2004 SD 27 and Duerre v. Hepler, 2017 SD 8, held that the Legislature has the obligation to determine the extent of public use of water overlying private property for recreational purposes; and

(2) The Legislature must balance the interests of recreational users and the rights of private property owners to provide a constitutionally sound and manageable basis for establishing public recreational use of water overlying private property in accordance with this Act.

My thoughts:

Nothing much to say here. This is basically the legislature agreeing they have to do something and acknowledges there has to be a balancing act between private property rights and the interests of recreational users. The  Duerre v. Hepler decision can be read here.

This section was amended by the committee to add the fact that the water is in the public trust.

Section 2 – Definitions

Text of Section 2:

That the code be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:

Terms used in this Act mean:

(1) “Commission,” the Game, Fish and Parks Commission;

(2) “Department,” the Department of Game, Fish and Parks;

(3) “Meandered lake,” any natural water body, except a river or stream, for which a meander line survey was included as part of the official survey conducted by the United States surveyor general for the land on which the lake is situated and the meander lines are shown on plats made by the United States General Land Office;

(4) “Nonmeandered lake,” any natural lake that is not a meandered lake;

(5) “Recreational use,” use for one or more of the following activities, except as otherwise limited by law: hunting, fishing, swimming, floating, boating, trapping, off-road driving, water sports, or snowmobiling

My thoughts

It should be noted that “natural” is included so lakes created from stock dams and such are not included in the definition of nonmeandered lake. I did notice “lake” is not defined by size, capacity, or any other feature. That may be a problem if lake isn’t defined somewhere else in state law. Actually if it isn’t defined elsewhere I would say this definition of meandered lake is downright bad from a landowners perspective.

I can see possibilities of the definition of recreational use being a problem from either side of the debate as well. There are some items missing the sportsmen might want on the list, and some activities such as off-road driving the landowners will definitely not want in the definition.

Section 3 – Meandered Lakes

Text of Section 3:

That the code be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:

The bed of each meandered lake within the lake’s ordinary high water mark and the water of each meandered lake is open to recreational use

My Thoughts

For this I would wonder how ordinary high water mark is actually determined, since many of the lakes in question are new and can/do change over time.

Section 4 – Agreement

Text of Section 4:

That the code be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:

The department, on behalf of and in the name of the state, may negotiate with each landowner to acquire, by gift, grant, devise, purchase, lease, or license, recreational use of all or any portion of any nonmeandered lake overlying private property. Any agreement reached pursuant to this section, or any failure to reach an agreement, does not constitute appealable final action of the department.

My Thoughts

This is where the GFP is able to create agreements with landowners to provide access to nonmeandered lakes for recreation. The last sentence is to make sure the agreement doesn’t lead to court action according to testimony. I would have liked to hear more about that since red flags are going up as I read the sentence. I also wonder why purchase is included in this bill, since the land in question will likely have the water recede in the future and there is no reason for the state own that land at that point. It should also be noted there is nothing in this bill to allow for revenue to pay for this land in question.

Section 5 – Permission

Text of Section 5:

That the code be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:

Any person is entitled to recreational use of the portion of a nonmeandered lake that overlies private property if that person has permission from the owner of the private property.

My Thoughts

I don’t see a problem with this section. This allows the private property owner of land underneath a nonmeandered water to allow access to that water.

Section 6 – Default Rule; Marking

Text of Section 6:

That the code be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:

Any nonmeandered lake overlying private property is open to recreational use without permission of any owner of the private property underlying the nonmeandered lake unless the owner of the private property installs conspicuous markers, which may consist of signs or buoys, to identify the area of the nonmeandered lake that is not open to public recreational use without permission or agreement as provided under this Act

My Thoughts

This is being touted as the essential piece to bring landowners and sportsmen together. This section basically says that any nonmeandered lake is open to the public for recreational use unless the owner of the land under the nonmeandered water has posted signs or buoys marking the portion of the nonmeandered lake that is off-limits. Further down in Section 14 is specifies that recreational users must have legal access to that nonmeandered water, and cannot trespass on private property to gain access to that lake.

I can see where landowners and sportsmen will have problems with this section.  One the one hand the burden is being placed upon landowners to mark and remark the sections of lake they want/need off-limits as the water rises/lowers. Some of these nonmeandered waters change dramatically over time. And some of the farmers will hope no recreation is done on lands they plan to use when the water goes down.

From the sportsmen point of view this looks like a means for landowners to completely shut down access to these nonmeandered lakes if they wish to. I’m not sure this compromise will truly be seen as a compromise. This section of the bill could be said to be unconstitutional from the sportsmen viewpoint because it delegates control of waters in the public trust to land owners (I don’t agree with that opinion, but then I’m not a judge).

Section 7 – Lakes

Text of Section 7:

That the code be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:

Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act, any nonmeandered lake listed in section 8 of this Act is declared open for recreational use, based on the following conditions occurring prior to January 1, 2017:

(1) The open, obvious, and continuous recreational use by the public for a significant period; and

(2) The expenditure of public funds for the construction of one or more boat ramps

My Thoughts

This section basically says the lakes listed in Section 8 are open for recreational use based upon the fact these lakes have been open and used by the public for a long time and that public funds were used to construct one or more boat ramps.

Notice there is no timeline that was chosen to declare these lakes open. Instead the term “significant period” was used.

I think what they were trying to do with this section (and 8 below) is to get some of these nonmeandered lakes reopened that the GFP chose to close public access to. It is important to note that this portion of the bill treats the nonmeandered lakes listed in section 8 differently than other nonmeandered lakes. This section of the bill actually places recreational use above landowners rights, at least initially.

Section 8 – Lakes

Text of Section 8:

That the code be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:

The following nonmeandered lakes are declared open for recreational use pursuant to section 7 of this Act:

(1) Highway 81 East in Brookings County;

(2) Casey’s Slough, Cottonwood GPA, Dry #1, Dry #2, Round, and Swan in Clark 5 County;

(3) Deep and Goose in Codington County;

(4) East Krause, Lynn, Middle Lynn, and Reetz in Day County;

(5) North Scatterwood in Edmunds County;

(6) Three Buck in Hamlin County;

(7) Highway 81 West in Kingsbury County;

(8) Bullhead, Cattail-Kettle, and Opitz in Marshall County;

(9) Island South in McCook County;

(10) Keisz in McPherson County;

(11) Grass, Loss, Scott, and Twin in Minnehaha County;

(12) Twin in Sanborn County;

(13) Cottonwood and Mud in Spink County;

(14) Cottonwood in Sully County; and

(15) Dog Ear in Tripp County, South Dakota

My Thoughts

These are the actual nonmeandered lakes which would immediately be reopened by this legislation. This list also seem to include lakes that are connected to meandered lakes. This is what the sportsmen and businesses in the tourism industry for NE South Dakota want: for these lakes to immediately be reopened to the public.

Section 9 – Marking Standards

Text of Section 9:

That the code be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:

The commission shall promulgate rules, pursuant to chapter 1-26, to establish a process whereby an owner of private property underlying any nonmeandered lake listed in section 8 of this Act may petition the commission to allow the owner of private property to restrict recreational use of the water overlying the owner’s private property. The commission shall determine whether to grant, deny, or modify the petition. The commission shall consider the privacy, safety, and substantially affected financial interests of the owner of the private property underlying the water, as well as history of use, water quality, water quantity, and the public’s interest in recreational use of the water.

My Thoughts

Now we get up to where a landowner who owns land under one of the lakes listed in Section 8 can go before the GFP commission to get an exception that would allow them to close part of the water off to the public for recreational use. This section really gives me heartburn. A landowner has to go before an un-elected commission, which answers to nobody, to get permission to restrict access over their land. I believe most of the landowners on these lakes will be unlikely to block access to their part of the lake, But if they do have a reason it just seems odd to have a non-elected body make the determination; especially since that non-elected body is in charge of a state department which many landowners feel are on the side of sportsmen.

This was touted as a way for the landowners and commission to communicate directly and come up with agreements that may keep the lake open.

Section 10 – Lease Renewal

Text of Section 10:

That the code be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:

No lease or license entered into pursuant to section 4 of this Act may be for a term exceeding ten years.

My Thoughts

This section I agree with. It prevents land from being locked up in perpetuity as some federal conservation programs do.

Section 11 – Landowner Liability

Text of Section 11:

That the code be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:

The liability of any owner of private property underlying a meandered or nonmeandered lake is limited as provided in §§ 20-9-12 to 20-9-18, inclusive.

My Thoughts

This is probably one of the biggest win for the landowner side. This section ensures the private landowner is not held liable for anything that happens involving someone in the public recreating on their part of a nonmeandered lake.

Section 12 – Marker Standards

Text of Section 12:

That the code be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:

The commission shall promulgate rules, pursuant to chapter 1-26, to specify standards for the markers described in section 6 of this Act after weighing the cost and burden of compliance by the owner of private property against the visibility of the markers to the public.

My Thoughts

This section allows the GFP Commission to make rules setting the standards for markers used by landowners to restrict access. It was noted during testimony that the burden of posting notice is placed on the landowner. It was also said during testimony that the GFP would be willing to provide the signs, at the landowners cost, so uniform signs could be used around the state. I’m not sure how landowners are going to take the cost being shifted to them to enforce their property rights.

Section 13 – Technology; Public Notification

Text of Section 13:

That the code be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:

The owner of private property shall notify the department, within a reasonable time frame, of any area of a nonmeandered lake marked by the owner of private property pursuant to section 6 of this Act. The department shall, within a reasonable time frame, identify the marked area and applicable restrictions in any map, guide, mobile application, or website maintained by the state to assist the public in identifying each public hunting or fishing area.

My Thoughts

None on this section.

Section 14 – Means of Access

Text of Section 14:

That the code be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:

Access to any nonmeandered lake for recreational use may only be by public roadway, public right-of-way, or other lawful means. Nothing in this Act creates a right of ingress or egress on private property to access a nonmeandered lake

My Thoughts

This is the section which states people recreating on the nonmeandered water must have legal access to that water without trespassing on private property.

Section 15 – Bed and Frozen Surface Usage

Text of Section 15:

That the code be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:

No person may walk, wade, stand, or operate a motor vehicle on the bed of a nonmeandered lake, or trap or hunt on the frozen surface above private land, without permission from the landowner or any other person legally in possession of the privately owned property underlying the waters of that portion of the nonmeandered lake.

My Thoughts

I can see some recreational users not liking the restriction on walking, wading, or standing on the bottom of the nonmeandered lake. That really restricts the amount of swimming which can be done by families. Although technically swimming is already highly restricted because the private land next to nonmeandered lakes are already off-limits.

The restriction for hunting on ice will definitely make some of these landowners happy. People hunting from these nonmeandered lakes and shooting things over private land is a concern for many landowners I don’t see a problem with hunters having to get permission.  But, I’m not sure how the hunters will take this section, I’m guessing not well.

This section will likely be amended to clarify the language.

Section 16 – Transportation Lane

Text of Section 16:

That the code be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:

The commission shall promulgate rules, pursuant to chapter 1-26, to establish a process whereby a person may petition the commission to open a portion of the waters or ice of a nonmeandered lake marked pursuant to section 6 of this Act for the limited purpose of transportation to a portion of the nonmeandered lake that is open for recreational use under the following conditions:

(1) The marked portion of the nonmeandered lake is directly between a point of legal public access and a portion of the nonmeandered lake open for recreational use; and

(2) There is no alternative legal public access or improved legal public access to the portion of the nonmeandered lake open for recreational use

My Thoughts

This section basically allows recreational users to have a process to open a portion of a nonmeandered lake marked as off-limits by a landowner because there is more nonmeandered water on the other side of the restricted area. This section may cause some heartburn for certain landowners.

Section 17 – Transportation Lane Standards

Text of Section 17:

That the code be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:

The commission shall set the size and location of the area of the marked portion of a nonmeandered lake opened for transportation pursuant to section 16 of this Act and set reasonable speed, wake, and other limitations to protect the privacy, safety, and substantially affected financial interests of the owner of private property underlying the marked portion of the nonmeandered lake.

My Thoughts

Basically this goes along with Section 16 to allow the GFP Commission to make rules about transportation lanes opened up in a restricted area.

Section 18 – Penalties

Text of Section 18:

That the code be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:

Any person who enters or remains upon private property or waters overlying private property in violation of this Act is guilty of a criminal trespass in accordance with the applicable provisions of chapters 41-9 and 22-35, except for unarmed retrieval of lawfully taken small game as authorized in § 41-9-8 and subject to the affirmative defenses set forth in § 22-35-7.

My Thoughts

This section provides penalties for trespassing on private property which have been marked as off-limits. There is an exemption for hunters.

An amendment was passed by the committing to ensure incidental contact is exempt from trespassing. For instance if a fishing lure touched the ground below the water it would not count as trespassing.

Section 19 – Game, Fish, and Parks Regulatory Authority

Text of Section 19:

Special Note. This is the only section of the bill I am not doing a copy/paste of the whole section. Rather I am just copying the relevant portions of the section where actual code is being changed. The underlined words below are what the bill would add. The original full section can be read on the draft legislation.

That § 41-2-18 be amended to read:

The Game, Fish and Parks Commission may adopt such rules as may be necessary to implement the provisions of chapters 41-1 to 41-15, inclusive. The rules may be adopted to regulate:

(1) The conservation, protection, importation, and propagation of wild animals and fish except for any nondomestic animal which that is regulated pursuant to § 40-3-26;

(5) The management, use, and improvement of all meandered and nonmeandered lakes, sloughs, marshes, and streams extending to and over dry or partially dry meandered lakes, sloughs, marshes, and streams, including all lands to which the state has acquired any right, title or interest for the purpose of water conservation or recreation;

My Thoughts

This section really gives me heartache. This would put the GFP in direct regulatory control of non-meandered lakes. This section alone is why I think the bill as it is should be killed. GFP has no true oversight.  The only oversight is from a Commission, whose members are appointed by the Governor’s office. GFP does not seem to follow the same transparent budgetary process that other state agencies have to follow. GFP is also the largest law-enforcement agency in the state. Giving GFP direct regulatory access over landowners property just because there is water over that land is a non-starter for many landowners.

Section 20 – Emergency Clause

Text of Section 20:

Whereas, this Act is necessary for the support of the state government and its existing public institutions, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this Act shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval.

My Thoughts

This is necessary for whatever solution the special session passes into law so it can take effect immediately.

A farmers market tourism tax? Should state agencies have to hold a hearing before reinterpreting rules?

Farmers Market

The Argus Leader has an interesting story about the SD Department of Revenue (DOR) forcing a farmers market in Sioux Falls to collect an additional 1.5% tourism sales tax on the goods sold. There apparently has been a battle between the farmers market and the DOR over whether the farmers market should be subject to the tax. Here is what the article says about the DOR’s stance:

The state says because the market is held at Falls Park, a major tourist destination for the city of Sioux Falls, it is subject to the state’s tourism tax and could be subject to three-year’s worth of back taxes.

To keep the vendors from having to owe three years of back taxes a deal was worked out “allowing” vendors to collect the extra tax going forward. Doing so the DOR said the state agency will not go after the back taxes they say are due to the state. The article goes on to state the vendors are not happy about the agreement, but they will do so in order to keep operating; especially since the DOR could find a way to impose the tourism tax if they moved to a new location.

The reasoning behind the DOR’s move is that the farmers market is held in Falls Park, which is a tourism destination for Sioux Falls. As such sales made at the park are subject to the tourism tax. But the farmers market is not a tourism draw, and according to the vendors few sales are actually made to non-residents.

As I read the DOR’s publication on the tourism tax I see Falls Park likely falls under the “Visitor Attraction” purpose of the tourism tax. So, since the farmers market is being held on a site that could be classified as a visitors attraction, the DOR wants to treat the farmers market as subject to the tourism tax. Previously the farmers market has not been subject to the tourism tax. It is only now, after the Daugaard administration is looking for more revenue sources due to declining sales tax income for the state, that the DOR seems to be finding new areas to collect taxes.

Personally I believe this use of tourism tax goes against the intent of the law. Using the same reasoning as the DOR I could see many other farmers markets in the state being forced to pay the tourism tax. For instance, here in Aberdeen the farmers market is held at Central Park. This park also occasionally hosts special events such as concerts, which are subject to the tourism tax. Is the DOR now going to go after the vendors at the farmers market in Aberdeen and tell them they must pay three years worth of back taxes? By their reasoning with Falls Park I could see the DOR making the same case for Central Park.

But to me the more important question is whether the DOR should be allowed to reinterpret current laws and regulations without a public hearing. Currently state agencies must go through a public rules review process anytime they create a new regulation or change and existing regulation. Yet there is no process in place for when state agencies decided to reinterpret current laws and regulations. In fact state agencies don’t even have to notify the public. State agencies can simply mail threatening letters to people they believe are breaking their new reinterpretation of the law; as they did in this case.

Perhaps it is time for the legislature to change the rules review process. A legislator could bring forth a bill in the 2018 session requiring state agencies to follow the same rules review process for reinterpretations of rules that must be followed for rule additions or changes. This would ensure the public is able to get their say on the new reinterpretation of rules and the legislative rules review committee can possibly stop rule reinterpretations before they are implemented.  In this case the DOR will simply try to state they are not reinterpreting a law or regulation, but they are instead enforcing a law that had not been previously enforced. But I would contend that would fall within the definition of a rule reinterpretation. Making state agencies answer to the public about reinterpretations in rules would at least add some transparency and accountability to those same state agencies.

PS. It will be interesting to see if the SDDP decry’s the DOR’s move to add more tax to food. The SDDP legislators in Pierre have tried many times to repeal any sales tax on food; and here we have the DOR trying to add a 1.5% sales tax on healthy food.

Non-meandered summer study will reconvene June 2 and possible special session on June 12

Non-meandered lakes will be THE topic to keep an eye on!

Today the Regulation of Access to and Use of Non-Meandered Waters on Public and Private Property Study legislative committee met in Pierre. I will be blogging about portions of the meeting later. But for now I thought I would note the committee has decided to wait at least another week to allow legislation to be written that can actually pass both houses with a 2/3 majority. The current draft legislation is unlikely to do so.

The committee will reconvene on Friday, June 2nd. The special session likely to follow that committee meeting will probably begin on June 12. This timeline will give committee members another week to work on legislation and then a full ten days after committee action for the rest of the legislature to get caught up on the issue.

This is an issue I will continue to blog about…

Non-meandered water interim summer study committee meeting on Weds, May 24

Tomorrow, May 24, the Regulation of Access to and Use of Non-Meandered Waters on Public and Private Property Study legislative committee will meet at 10:00 am in Pierre. For anyone curious about what non-meandered waters are, I covered that earlier today in a post. The previous meeting for this legislative summer study committee included getting public testimony about the topic right in my town of Aberdeen. I recorded and posted the testimony from both Day 1 and Day 2. Additionally I posted a video I recorded at a sportsmen event which included GFP explaining their side of things.

The agenda for this upcoming meeting is pretty simple. Basically the committee with look at draft legislation, take public testimony about the draft legislation, and then take action. The only piece of proposed legislation can be viewed here. I don’t have time between now and the meeting to actually analyze the legislation. But from a brief reading of the legislation I have apprehensions. The bill is trying to do a lot, and anytime a bill tries to do too much there is a severe chance of unintended consequences. Plus I have apprehensions about giving GFP more power, when they may be part of the problem (actually I think we should make the head of GFP an elected official, but that is a post for a different day).

Audio from the meeting can be found on the SDPB website and/or on the LRC website. Unfortunately I am unable to attend and record the meeting, so I will not be video recording this meeting. This is THE meeting to listen to, it will determine when/if there is a special session!

South Dakota political blogging from a libertarian-leaning individual

%d bloggers like this: