Soon Gov. Kristi Noem could be installed as the next Secretary of Homeland Security. In one of her last official acts as governor, Noem managed to instill some uncertainty in South Dakota’s public education system.

During her budget speech, Noem claimed she wanted to continue to “prioritize education.” Notice that she didn’t say “prioritize public education.” In what was likely her final budget address to the Legislature, Noem proposed an ongoing $4 million expenditure to help families pay for private school tuition and other forms of alternative instruction.

Her largesse toward families seeking to pay for a private school education came during a budget address in which she:

• Offered a paltry 1.25% funding increase for the “big three” of health care, public education and state employee salaries.
• Unveiled $71.9 million in budget reductions and discretionary changes.
• Included in the budget cuts a $2 million reduction for the Board of Regents and a $3.6 million cut for South Dakota Public Broadcasting.

Noem proposed that the state would pay about $3,000 per student annually for private school tuition or alternative instruction. Private schools, homeschoolers and other forms of alternative instruction operate under a different set of rules. It’s a veritable wild west of schools that can be unaccredited or accredited by someone other than the state. In other words, good luck figuring out how your tax dollars are being spent.

It’s probably possible to figure out how much money the state of South Dakota has invested in public education since statehood. Instead of doing the math, let’s just assume it totals in the billions of dollars. It seems at cross purposes for the state to make that kind of long-term investment in public education only to turn around and start funding its competitors.

Instead of tackling the bigger issues in public education, Noem has revved up the Legislature for a fight over an idea that’s trendy in conservative circles. It’s also an idea that the state can’t afford. Any state budget that proposes tens of millions in cuts isn’t likely to have a spare $4 million. If there is $4 million extra in the state budget, it should be funneled into teacher salaries.

Through neglect and short-sightedness lawmakers and the governor have let teachers’s salaries sink back near the bottom of the barrel nationally. Noem’s proposed 1.25% increase in education funding certainly isn’t going to do much to get South Dakota’s national teacher salary ranking out of the basement.

With its low teacher salary ranking, South Dakota’s universities find themselves training the next generation of teachers for the surrounding states that make a greater attempt to pay teachers what they are worth. When qualified teachers become harder to attract because of South Dakota’s low salaries, school districts will be forced to cut their offerings, hamstringing the very education that Noem says she has gone to such great lengths to “prioritize.”

The last time South Dakota made any progress in this area was in 2016 when Gov. Dennis Daugaard led an effort to raise the state sales tax by half a percent with some of the funds dedicated to raising teachers’ salaries. Since then, lawmakers have cut the state sales tax and mandated a $45,000 minimum salary for public school teachers without offering any extra funding to help schools reach that goal.

Given the state of the budget Noem proposed, lawmakers would do well to put their efforts into protecting public education and finding a funding source that could ensure that the state’s teacher salaries are no longer a national embarrassment.

The company proposing a carbon dioxide pipeline has formally requested that a South Dakota regulator recuse herself from the project’s permit application, citing an alleged conflict of interest.

In a letter sent Thursday, Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions asked Public Utilities Commissioner Kristie Fiegen to disqualify herself. That would allow the governor to appoint another state official to fill in for Fiegen during the three-member commission’s consideration of the application.

Summit wants to construct a $9 billion, five-state pipeline to capture and transport some of the carbon dioxide emitted by 57 ethanol plants to an underground storage area in North Dakota. The project would capitalize on federal tax credits incentivizing the prevention of heat-trapping carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

Regulator stays on new carbon pipeline case after prior recusal, with no explanation this time

This is Summit’s second application in South Dakota, after the Public Utilities Commission rejected the first application in 2023. Fiegen recused herself from those proceedings and was replaced by State Treasurer Josh Haeder. 

At the time, Fiegen wrote a recusal letter saying she had a conflict because the pipeline “would cross land owned by my sister-in-law (my husband’s sister) and her husband.” Fiegen also recused herself from an earlier, separate crude oil pipeline permit application for a similar reason.

Fiegen has not recused herself from the new application, but Summit said the same conflict exists.

“As with your previous decisions,” said the company’s new letter to Fiegen, “the facts and established South Dakota law support a decision that you should step aside.”

Neither Fiegen nor the Public Utilities Commission responded to South Dakota Searchlight messages about Summit’s letter. 

Public Utilities Commission spokesperson Leah Mohr previously said “ex parte” rules bar Fiegen from discussing the matter. Those rules prohibit direct communication with commissioners about dockets they’re considering.

The Summit letter drew criticism from an attorney representing landowners opposed to the pipeline, Brian Jorde, of Domina Law Group in Omaha, who disputed the allegation that Fiegen has a conflict of interest.

“From my viewpoint she never had a conflict that rises to the level of recusal and certainly doesn’t now,” Jorde wrote. “The isolated fact that she is related by marriage to a trustee of a trust that owns land that signed an easement with Summit is not a direct conflict.”

The alleged conflict

The commission’s rejection of Summit’s first application was partly due to the route’s conflicts with several county ordinances. Those ordinances mandate minimum distances between pipelines and existing features. Summit’s new route includes some adjustments.

The original pipeline route crossed three parcels in Minnehaha County owned by Fiegen’s sister-in-law and her husband, Jean Fiegen-Ordal and Jeffrey Ordal, and three parcels in McCook County owned by the Jeffrey A. Ordal Living Trust, which lists the couple as trustees. 

Summit said it paid a total of $175,000 for easements and future crop damages on that land, including $88,000 to the Ordals. Summit declined to tell Searchlight where the remainder of the money went, but public records show the Ordals sold their Minnehaha County land after signing the easement documents in 2022. 

The new pipeline route would cross the same parcels — the Minnehaha County land that the Ordals no longer own, and the McCook County land that’s still owned by the Ordals’ trust.

Summit: Litigation possible

Summit’s new letter said the logic that motivated Fiegen’s prior recusal remains unchanged. The company said her involvement risks violating South Dakota law, which the company said bars officials from participating in matters where conflicts of interest exist. 

The letter said Fiegen’s failure to recuse herself could lead to litigation, an appeal of the commission’s eventual permit decision, and delays in the permitting process. 

“Because your family has a direct interest in the approval or denial of the permit, and because you previously recused yourself in two dockets based on the same facts, a court almost certainly would find it inappropriate for you to participate in this docket,” the letter says. 

The Public Utilities Commission will host a series of public input meetings Jan. 15-17 in eastern South Dakota cities near the pipeline route. The project has a storage permit in North Dakota and route permits in North Dakota, Iowa and Minnesota, while Nebraska has no state permitting process for carbon pipelines. The project also faces litigation from opponents in multiple states.