South Dakota

Property rights coalition proposes more limits on eminent domain in SD

Published

1 month ago

January 15, 2026

Press Room

Property rights coalition proposes more limits on eminent domain in SD

Meghan O’Brien
| South Dakota Searchlight

A South Dakota coalition is proposing new legislation to further limit eminent domain and increase landowner protections.
One proposal is a state constitutional amendment to ban the use of eminent domain for private gain.
Another bill, named the “Bossly Bill,” aims to protect landowners from invasive tactics during land access negotiations.

PIERRE, S.D. — The South Dakota coalition that successfully pushed for a state ban on eminent domain for carbon capture pipelines last winter will propose broader limits on eminent domain and more protections for landowners this legislative session.

Sen. Mark Lapka, R-Leola, announced the efforts. One would send a proposed state constitutional amendment to voters in November that would further restrict eminent domain.

“Codified law is too easily amendable over time,” Lapka said. “It’s the constitutionally protected rights that hold firm forever.”

The amendment would “eliminate eminent domain for private gain,” Lapka said, while allowing for public works projects such as public highways, water lines and other infrastructure.

Eminent domain is a legal process for gaining access to privately owned land when a deal can’t be reached with landowners. It’s often used for public infrastructure projects. It became controversial in South Dakota when Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions attempted to use it for a five-state pipeline that would capture carbon dioxide from ethanol plants and transport it to an underground sequestration site in North Dakota. The project would benefit from federal tax credits incentivizing the prevention of heat-trapping emissions into the atmosphere.

Landowner opposition to the Summit project in South Dakota culminated in the Legislature’s passage of a law last year banning carbon pipelines from using eminent domain. Summit is still pursuing the project and has permits in other states, but has been denied permits twice by South Dakota’s Public Utilities Commission.

Lapka announced his new proposals at a property rights rally Monday in the state Capitol rotunda, attended by dozens of South Dakota farmers, ranchers and lawmakers.

SD bill named after Jared Bossly of Aberdeen

Along with the constitutional amendment, Lapka announced what he’s calling the “Bossly Bill,” named for Jared Bossly, of rural Aberdeen, who is suing Summit Carbon Solutions for allegedly trespassing on his land while it was asserting its right to use eminent domain.

Lapka said the bill will mirror language in a decision by the South Dakota Supreme Court in 2024. The decision said Summit had not proven it was a common carrier. That meant the company could not use eminent domain to access landowners’ property.

Lapka’s bill would “clean up” the language that exists in state law, he said, and protect against “invasive tactics.”

There was a bill introduced last legislative session that would have empowered citizens to sue for allegedly deceptive practices, fraud, harassment, intimidation or misrepresentation during the acquisition of land access agreements by carbon pipeline land agents. The bill narrowly failed in the Senate after passing the House.

The text of the bills announced by Lapka had not been released as of Monday afternoon. The 2026 session of the South Dakota Legislature begins Tuesday and continues through March.

South Dakota Searchlight is part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

Source link

Click to comment

South Dakota

Feeding South Dakota

Published

4 hours ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

State

Zip Code

Country

Source link

South Dakota

SD Lottery Millionaire for Life winning numbers for Feb. 26, 2026

Published

16 hours ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

The South Dakota Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big.

Here’s a look at Feb. 26, 2026, results for each game:

Winning Millionaire for Life numbers from Feb. 26 drawing

03-14-22-50-57, Bonus: 04

Check Millionaire for Life payouts and previous drawings here.

Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results

Are you a winner? Here’s how to claim your prize

Prizes of $100 or less: Can be claimed at any South Dakota Lottery retailer.
Prizes of $101 or more: Must be claimed from the Lottery. By mail, send a claim form and a signed winning ticket to the Lottery at 711 E. Wells Avenue, Pierre, SD 57501.
Any jackpot-winning ticket for Dakota Cash or Lotto America, top prize-winning ticket for Lucky for Life, or for the second prizes for Powerball and Mega Millions must be presented in person at a Lottery office. A jackpot-winning Powerball or Mega Millions ticket must be presented in person at the Lottery office in Pierre.

When are the South Dakota Lottery drawings held?

Powerball: 9:59 p.m. CT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
Mega Millions: 10 p.m. CT on Tuesday and Friday.
Lucky for Life: 9:38 p.m. CT daily.
Lotto America: 9:15 p.m. CT on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
Dakota Cash: 9 p.m. CT on Wednesday and Saturday.
Millionaire for Life: 10:15 p.m. CT daily.

This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a South Dakota editor. You can send feedback using this form.

Source link

South Dakota

SNAP soda ban headed to desk of South Dakota governor, who’s concerned about costs

Published

1 day ago

February 26, 2026

Press Room

SNAP soda ban headed to desk of South Dakota governor, who’s concerned about costs

State Sen. Sydney Davis, R-Burbank, speaks in the South Dakota Senate at the Capitol in Pierre on Feb. 10, 2026. Davis is sponsoring a bill that would ban the use of SNAP benefits for soda purchases. (Photo by Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight)

By: John Hult

PIERRE, S.D. (South Dakota Searchlight) – The question of whether South Dakota moves to ban the use of government food assistance for sugary drinks is in the hands of Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden, who has signaled his opposition to the bill all through the 2026 legislative session.

The state Senate voted 27-6 on Wednesday to endorse House Bill 1056, after the House passed it earlier 58-11. Assuming the same levels of support, both margins are wide enough to overcome a Rhoden veto, should he choose to issue one.

The bill directs the Department of Social Services to ask for a federal waiver to allow the state to bar the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for the purchase of soft drinks.

SNAP is a federal program, managed by the state, through which people with low incomes get a monthly allowance for food through a debit-like card that can be used at most stores to buy nearly any consumable grocery item save alcohol and prepared foods.

Representatives from Rhoden’s office testified against the bill in House and Senate committees, arguing that the administrative costs would be too high. A fiscal note attached to the bill between its passage in the House and its appearance on the Senate’s Wednesday calendar estimated that implementation would cost $310,000 through the first two years. Those costs would come from hiring an extra employee and contracting for software to track sales, file reports and help retailers determine which drinks are banned.

Backers see long-term savings to the state, though. A high percentage of SNAP recipients are also on Medicaid, a taxpayer-funded health insurance program open to disabled and income-eligible people.

On Wednesday, Burbank Republican Sen. Sydney Davis noted the connection between excess soda consumption and health problems like obesity, diabetes and tooth decay. Medicaid dental costs alone add up $51 million a year, she said.

Mitchell Republican Sen. Paul Miskimins, a retired dentist, told the body he once counted 32 cavities and seven abscesses in the mouths of 2-year-old twin boys who were covered by Medicaid.

He attributed the tooth decay to sugary beverages.

“I don’t know if that first visit was more traumatic on the boys or on my dental staff and myself,” said Miskimins.

Tamara Grove, R-Lower Brule, was the lone senator to speak in opposition on the Senate floor. She argued that some stores might stop accepting SNAP payments due to the administrative burden of sorting barred products from the rest of their inventories, and pointed out that the bill wouldn’t do a thing to prevent SNAP recipients from loading up on sugary foods like ice cream or snack cakes.

“It gives this look as if there’s going to be this big, huge change in the way that people buy products, but it’s really not going to be,” Grove said.

Some surrounding states, including Nebraska, have moved to ask for a waiver to ban soda sales through SNAP. Such waivers are now an option, as President Donald Trump’s administration is willing to consider granting them. Former President Joe Biden’s administration was not.

Rep. Taylor Rehfeldt, the South Dakota bill’s prime sponsor, got a letter last week from Trump administration officials expressing support for her proposal.

In response, Rhoden spokeswoman Josie Harms told South Dakota Searchlight that the governor “has always been supportive of the Trump Administration’s efforts to Make America Healthy Again,” using a reference to the policy agenda branding used by U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

“We have met directly with his Administration on this issue, and at no point has our opposition been directed at President Trump or his efforts to reform SNAP,” Harms said. “Our focus has always been on ensuring the implementation of SNAP reform works effectively for our state.”

Harms said Wednesday that Rhoden would answer questions about the bill at a Thursday press conference.

Source link