Grassland Wilderness Opponents: Are You Sure Thune's on Your Side?

Senate Bill 3310, the Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act of 2010, gets coverage from Kevin Woster in today's Rapid City Journal. Woster tells us that 13 of the 15 grazing permit holders oppose the bill, which would create America's first national grassland wilderness right here in South Dakota.

"It's kind of like a land grab," says opposing rancher Travis Bies. Actually, it's not a land grab at all. Not one acre of the 48,000 to be designated wilderness belongs to private landholders. It all belongs to us, the public. Neighboring ranchers have the privilege of buying leases from us and running their cattle on public land.

Perhaps these ranchers have the federal government confused with an entity that really does want to grab their land, the DM&E railroad. Now part of Canadian Pacific, the DM&E has long wanted to build a rail extension from the coal fields in the Wyoming Powder River Basin, around the south edge of the Black Hills, and up through that ranchland and grassland up to Wall. DM&E has threatened landowners with eminent domain to get what they want. DM&E has long tried to get special federal loans and other gimmes to make the PRB extension fly. These efforts have thus far failed, despite the dogged assistance of their former (?) chief lobbyist, Senator John Thune.

Hey, wait a minute: isn't Senator Thune also leading the charge against this wilderness designation? I've heard he extended a special invitation to Hermosa rancher Scott Edoff to come to Washington, be wined and dined, and testify against S. 3310. Fascinating: The Edoff family is among the ranchers who have staunchly opposed Thune-backed DM&E's land grab and rail extension. Thune singled Edoff out as representing South Dakota's ranch community, ignoring Edoff's neighbor and fellow Hermosa rancher Dan O'Brien, who came to speak in favor of the wilderness bill. (If I, a fellow South Dakotan, go to Washington to testify before the Senate, and Senator Thune declines to acknowledge me like that, I'll be torqued.)

It sounds to me like Senator Thune is rousing some ranchers to act against their own interests. S. 3310 explicitly addresses every concern voiced by the ranchers, thanks, according to Woster's report, to significant input already received from area ranchers. The legislation clearly protects existing grazing activities. It guarantees continued authority to address problems with epidemics, disease, insects, and prairie dogs. It even allows one road down the center of the Indian Creek area to remain, allowing continued public access for the old folks and people with disabilities Edoff tells Woster he's worried about. Supporters of the law tell Woster federal wilderness designation could actually improve ranch operations by providing better protection against destructive off-road vehicle activity than shifting Forest Service rules can.

Wilderness designation may also provide better protection against development like the DM&E Powder River Basin rail extension. Look at the maps of the proposed PRB route, the existing Buffalo Gap National Grassland, and the proposed grassland wilderness. DM&E appears to want to run its rail extension through the current grassland. I can't tell if the route would intersect the proposed wilderness, but if it crosses Edoff land, it must come close. There's no way DM&E would get to run rail across wilderness. Even if the route doesn't intersect the wilderness, one would think that raising the profile of the Cheyenne River Valley as home of the nation's first and only grassland wilderness would help the ranchers enlist more allies in keeping DM&E from resurrecting its Powder River Basin rail plans in the area. Might DM&E recognize this prospect as well and be asking their man in Washington to prevent it?

Ranchers, when Senator Thune comes knocking, pay close attention to what he's after. He's willing to make noise about protecting your right to lease federal land for your business efforts... even though the bill he's fighting includes clear language protecting exactly that right. But when DM&E offers you lowball prices and then tries using the courts to take away your land for their private business interests, does he take your side, or the side of his former employer?

HB 1153: Republicans Weaken Property Rights, Remove Barrier to Eminent Domain

Representative Shantel Krebs (R-10/Renner) and Senator Mike Vehle (R-20/Mitchell) are primary sponsors of a measure that would weaken South Dakotans' protection against eminent domain. HB 1153 would repeal the requirement that railroad companies get approval of the Governor or the Transportation Commission to exercise eminent domain.

A railroad company that wants to take your land would still have to go to court. The problem here is that HB 1153 eliminates one more chance that South Dakota farmers, ranchers, and other landowners have to make their case that their land is their land and that the railroad at least needs to offer a better price.

I see one Democrat, Senator Dan Ahlers (D-25/Dell Rapids), with his name on this stinky bill. The other 13 legislators who want to make it easier for certain powerful corporations to take your land are all Republicans.

Plank 11 of the South Dakota Republican Party platform of 2008 says "The South Dakota Republican Party strongly supports private property rights." HB 1153 says otherwise.

Steam Train A-Not-Comin'! DM&E Coal Line on Hold

Did anyone else catch this? (Oh, well, of course Kevin Woster did.) The Dakota Minnesota & Eastern Railroad filed papers in federal court in Wyoming yesterday to drop its condemnation actions against several Wyoming landowners. That's good news in itself: any day landowners escape eminent domain proceedings is a happy day in my book. One attorney for the Wyoming landowners says DM&E probably spent more on litigation than it offered the landowners for right-of-way across their land... so serves DM&E right!

But the court papers contain bigger news: DM&E isn't dropping the eminent domain push because it just became the Good Fairy of Property Rights. DM&E is dropping the suits because it is dropping (for now) its Powder River Basin coal train project:

[DM&E says in the court papers] “There are uncertainties regarding the time when DM&E will be able to meet the necessary thresholds for the project, and it is clear that the project will not proceed in the immediate term.”

...In today’s filing, DM&E’s attorneys also stated, “Due to significant changes in the economic climate, DM&E cannot say that there is a reasonable probability that it will proceed with its Powder River Basin project in the near term.”

...“Available financing has tightened, and the country has seen a record economic downturn altering the strategic growth plans of nearly every industry in the country,” DM&E attorney wrote. “This has resulted in a longer timeframe for commencement of the project than anticipated at the time these condemnation actions were filed” [Dustin Bleizeffer, "DM&E Drops Condemnation Against Wyo Landowners; Railroad Suspends Powder River Basin Project," Casper Star-Tribune, 2009.08.26].

More cause to celebrate:

• The Powder River Basin Project is the same project that would have sent coal trains rushing along refurbished track in South Dakota and Minnesota. DM&E might still go condemning land for other purposes here in South Dakota, but with this project on hold, the company has that much less reason to do so.
• Score another victory for recession: if industries are slowing down enough to stop this rail project, that means they're also slowing down enough to use less coal. That means less emissions, less pollution, less demand for new coal plants... and more energy resources saved up for our great-grandkids.

Funny how a few legal papers can brighten one's day. Yahoo!

Update 15:15 CDT: Don't celebrate too hard, South Dakota. I hear on SDPB that Mike LoVecchio, spokesman for DM&E's parent company Canadian Pacific, is changing the story, saying the project isn't on hold, but that the company simply plans to deal directly with Wyoming landowners. The rail line will still happen; they'll just wait until the economy improves.

And here in South Dakota, CP/DM&E are still more than happy to have the power to take your land (remember 2008's SB 174?), granted to them by a Republican legislature. Grrrrr....

Forget 34: Let's Ask Herseth Sandlin for Madison Commuter Rail!

The Madison City Commission reviews a request for transportation funding information for our Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin at tonight's meeting. The commissioners will likely focus on providing data that supports our begging and pleading for a big fat earmark to bring four lanes of freeway fun to Highway 34 between Madison and I-29.

But as I look at the Congresswoman's info request in the agenda packet (pp. 10–15), I notice the parts about rail service, both commuter rail and intercity passenger rail. Now I've heard the stimulus package puts some bucks behind catching the U.S. up with the rest of the civilized world in efficient long-distance mass transit. I've also heard some stories from old-timers around town about the good old days, as recently as the 1950s, when they could catch a train here in Madison every day to head down to Sioux Falls or other exotic locales. One gal we know said that she used to catch a train each week in Sinai (!) to go to school in Canton.

So what if (ah, my favorite phrase, right after "I love you" and "Supper time!") our commission got creative and said, "Forget Highway 34; let's get some rails!" Draw up a quick plan to upgrade the BNSF line from Madison to Sioux Falls (with stops in beautiful Wentworth, Chester, Colton, Lyons, and Crooks!). Add a spur from Wentworth to create a Madison–Brookings connection. (See South Dakota rail map here). Think of the advantages:

1. Regular rail service replaces hundreds of car trips a day, increasing safety and reducing wear and tear on Highway 34.
2. Hundreds of commuters can talk on their cell phones on their way to work instead of yakking while driving (more safety!).
3. More people can read books (or the Madville Times on their Blackberries!) on the way to and from work, increasing the general intelligence.
4. Sioux Falls gets more rail commuters and fewer small-towners driving like honyockers on the big-city streets.
5. Commuters get healthier as they walk and ride their bikes more from the train depot to their final destinations.
6. The Dan Roemen selling point: Madison commuters buy less stuff in Sioux Falls and more here at home, since they go to their Sioux Falls jobs with briefcases and backpacks instead of cavernous SUVs just begging for a trip to Sam's Club.
   

City commissioners! Now's your chance to make a real 21st-century splash. Highways are so 1990s. Let's go back to the future: ask Herseth Sandlin for a Madison–Sioux Falls commuter rail!

Chief Justice Miller: DM&E Eminent Domain Law Flawed

Dang: I guess we didn't need that push to refer SB 174 to a public vote. All we needed was one judge, Chief Justice Miller, to smell unconstitutionality in it. KELO reports that Justice Miller, the hearing officer in DM&E's request to use eminent domain for its coal train project, says he doesn't intend to "fully or blindly comply with or enforce the 90-day limitation" imposed by the new law because he considers it unconstitutional.

So does that count as judicial activism? And are landowners o.k. with that? That's something Sibby and I will have to think about....

Nelson Throws out Eminent Domain Referral; SB 174 Stands

Jeremiah M. Murphy of the Protect Private Property organization sends bad news for property rights: Secretary of State Chris Nelson has determined that the petitions submitted last week to refer Senate Bill 174 to a public vote did not contain enough valid signatures. Therefore, the law takes effect July 1, giving the DM&E and railroad companies more power to take your land through eminent domain.

Well, if they have this extra power, it would sure be nice of the railroads to start using it for a public purpose, like building some commuter rail across the state....