Correspondent photo / Robert Hayes. YSU quarterback Beau Brungard gets tackled while carrying the ball on Saturday against South Dakota State in Brookings, S.D.

South Dakota State showed why it has now won 32 straight games against FCS opponents and each of the past two FCS national championships on Saturday.

The Jackrabbits flexed their muscles early and often in a dominant 63-13 victory over Youngstown State in Brookings, South Dakota.

SDSU tallied 557 total yards, which included rushing for 404 yards. It’s the first time YSU has allowed a team to run for more than 400 yards since North Dakota State ran for 454 against the Penguins in 2021.

South Dakota State’s Angel Johnson took the opening kickoff back 99 yards for the team’s first score, as the Jackrabbits scored touchdowns on each of their first four possessions and scored touchdowns on eight of their 10 total drives.

The only possessions SDSU did not score came during the final possession of the first half, when it just ran the ball with 14 seconds left, and then late in the fourth quarter, when it went three-and-out with the second- and third-team offense.

After a slow start that began with a three-and-out on its first possession, YSU started to find some rhythm offensively.

The Penguins went 54 yards in 13 plays before settling for a 39-yard field goal from Andrew Lastovka for their first points of the game.

Then, just before halftime, YSU put together its best drive, as it marched 91 yards in 2:38 for its first touchdown. Quarterback Beau Brungard completed a pair of long third-down passes on the drive to help set up his 4-yard touchdown run, including completions of 32 and 41 yards to Latrell Fordham and Max Tomczak, respectively.

The Penguins trailed 35-10 at halftime, but the Jackrabbits picked up right where they left off in the second half, scoring on each of their first three possessions.

SDSU backup quarterback Chase Mason spearheaded the Jackrabbits’ potent running game, rushing for 161 yards and two touchdowns on five carries. The Jacks had four different players rush for at least 50 yards.

South Dakota State was explosive and potent on the ground all day, averaging 16.2 yards per carry.

YSU’s final points came by way of Lastovka’s second field goal (31 yards) of the game with about three minutes left.

Brungard completed 16-of-27 of his passes for 169 yards and an interception. He led the Penguins with 59 rushing yards, as well. Tomczak finished with six catches for 78 yards.

The Penguins fall to 2-5 overall and 1-2 in the Missouri Valley Football Conference. YSU returns home to Stambaugh Stadium the next two weeks to play host to a pair of top-10 teams in South Dakota and North Dakota.

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (Dakota News Now) – Dry weather is causing a higher fire risk in the Midwest, which is having an impact on harvest season and the pheasant hunting opener. The high winds are less than ideal in tandem with these conditions. Firefighters in South Dakota are reminding the public to be careful and take precautions to prevent fires.

“People just think of things around the house that can be of a concern, but outdoors the time it takes for something to get out of hand, it sure doesn’t take very long,” described South Dakota Firefighters Association President Charlie Kludt.

To some, it’s hard to believe that just a few months ago farmers had to worry about excessive rain and Midwest communities were impacted by flash flooding. Now, rain is desperately needed.

“Everything is dry all over the place,” Kludt said. “It’s dry all over the state. The highway ditches, of course, and then the fields everywhere with harvest being underway.”

Kludt said that harvest time is usually a higher risk season for fires already, but drought conditions have proved to be dangerous this time around. He explained that firefighters can be superstitious, so he reluctantly said that eastern South Dakota has had a quiet year so far despite the risk.

“If something were to catch on fire, this wind can flare it up even several days later,” Kludt explained. “Farmers are being extra cautious. They’re bringing out their equipment and having it sit in the fields, having water tenders ready.”

It doesn’t take much to spark a fire in these conditions. Kludt listed campfires not fully put out, chains dragging on the road sending sparks to the ditch or very hot farming equipment are small things that can result in big fires.

Kludt says that anyone going out pheasant hunting should also continue to be cautious.

“People are out and about traveling into places where there’s tall grass,” said Kludt. “Whether it’s hot exhaust off those vehicles can be a concern. People need to be careful where they’re parking when they go out and do their hunting in those fields, carrying an extra amount of water or something that can help them if they were to accidentally start a fire.”

Copyright 2024 Dakota News Now. All rights reserved.

The measure on South Dakota’s Nov. 5 ballot that addresses carbon dioxide pipelines is either a bill of rights for landowners or a seizure of authority from local governments, depending on the person describing it.

During the last legislative session in Pierre, state lawmakers passed and Republican Gov. Kristi Noem signed Senate Bill 201. Opponents gathered more than 31,000 petition signatures to refer the law to voters. On the ballot, it’s Referred Law 21. A yes vote supports the law passed by legislators and Noem, while a no vote opposes the law.

The law would implement a list of protections and incentives for landowners and counties impacted by the construction of carbon dioxide pipelines. That’s the “bill of rights” part, according to the law’s supporters.

But it would also require local governments to demonstrate to state regulators that their restrictions on pipeline locations are reasonable, rather than the pipeline company having to prove those regulations are unreasonable. That’s the seizure of local authority, according to the law’s opponents.

The path to the ballot

The genesis of the debate over carbon pipelines is a proposal from Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions. It has partnered with ethanol producers, including Sioux Falls-based Poet, to capture some of the CO2 emitted by 57 ethanol plants in several midwestern states — including eastern South Dakota — and send it via pipeline for underground storage in North Dakota. The project would capitalize on federal tax credits that incentivize the prevention of climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions.

Some landowners along the pipeline route oppose the project because they don’t want the pipeline under their land. They oppose Summit’s attempted use of eminent domain to gain court-ordered access to their land and are concerned about potentially deadly leaks of carbon dioxide plumes. Similar debates are occurring in other states on the proposed route. Iowa has granted the project a permit, but it’s contingent on approval in the Dakotas, where Summit has not yet obtained permits.

Legislative sponsors of what became Referred Law 21 described it as a compromise between pipeline opponents and supporters, guaranteeing protections and incentives for landowners while maintaining a regulatory path for pipelines. The compromise effort arose after some legislators failed in their efforts to ban eminent domain for carbon pipelines. Referred Law 21 does not address eminent domain.

Another factor in the debate over the legislation was the role of counties. Some county commissions, prodded by pipeline opponents, have passed local ordinances with strict restrictions on the locations of pipelines. 

Under existing law, those local ordinances apply unless the state Public Utilities Commission decides to declare them unreasonably restrictive. If Referred Law 21 takes effect, the burden would flip. Counties would have to prove to the state commission that their ordinances are reasonable. 

The proposed law says that once the state issues a permit for a transmission project such as a pipeline, it automatically overrides any local rules. Local regulations would no longer be applicable unless state regulators require compliance with local laws as part of the permit.

Some proponents of Referred Law 21 say current state law makes it too easy for a local body opposed to a multi-state pipeline project to hold up construction. They say if local officials are confident their regulations are reasonable, they can rest easy knowing state regulators will uphold them.

“There is no wording in Senate Bill 201, now Referred Law 21, that diminishes the counties’ rights in any way,” said Walt Bones, a proponent of the law, during a September debate in Mitchell. Bones is a former secretary of the state Department of Agriculture.

Opponents are not buying it.

“Senate Bill 201, now Referred Law 21, takes away the voice of those local governments,” argued Jim Eschenbaum, an opponent of the law. Eschenbaum is a Hand County commissioner.

Landowner bill of rights

The law includes landowner protections, coined the “Landowner Bill of Rights” by backers in the Legislature. 

They include requiring carbon pipeline companies, rather than landowners or local governments, to be liable for any damages caused by pipelines. The pipelines would also have to be buried at least 4 feet deep, and companies would have to share their pipeline rupture modeling data.

Counties could also collect a surcharge of up to $1 per linear foot of CO2 pipeline, with at least half of the money going toward property tax relief for affected landowners. The remaining funds could be used at the county’s discretion. 

Plus, local governments could require transmission projects such as pipelines to enter road usage agreements to help pay for the maintenance and repair of roads damaged during construction activity.

“This is all about landowner rights, and getting some funding source back to counties,” Bones said. “That’s all this is. It’s not a referendum on a pipeline. It’s nothing more than this list of landowner rights and protections, and a funding source.” 

Opponents say many of the protections and incentives in the bill are already part of county and landowner negotiations with Summit.

“They call it the ‘Landowner Bill of Rights.’ It is Summit’s bill of rights,” said Eschenbaum during a recent rally in rural Canton. “They said they’d do all that stuff before drafting the bill even started.” 

Eschenbaum added during his September debate with Bones that “the Legislature has no business negotiating terms on peoples’ private property.” 

Proponents counter that landowners could still negotiate the location of the pipeline, how much they will be paid, and additional easement terms.