South Dakota House Bill HB1202

South Dakota 2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/1/23
• Refer: 2/1/23

Caption

Require consent from property owners prior to a pipeline condemnation proceeding.

Impact

If passed, HB1202 significantly alters the process by which pipeline companies can acquire land, as it mandates that companies demonstrate that they have secured consent representing at least ninety percent of the total linear feet of pipeline that will cross the owners' properties. This requirement is expected to empower property owners and potentially limit the power of pipeline companies, making it more challenging for these companies to proceed with land acquisitions without adequate community support.

Summary

House Bill 1202, introduced by Representative Sjaarda, focuses on the requirement of obtaining consent from property owners before any pipeline company can commence condemnation proceedings to acquire land for pipeline operations. This bill seeks to amend existing laws regarding the right of eminent domain, thereby introducing a new requirement for pipeline companies to obtain verification of consent from affected property owners. This amendment is designed to promote fairness and protect the property rights of individuals whose land may be impacted by pipeline developments.

Contention

There may be notable points of contention regarding how this bill balances property rights with the needs of pipeline infrastructure development. While proponents argue that the requirement for consent gives property owners a voice and protects their interests, critics may respond that it could impede essential infrastructure projects or lead to complications in the development of energy resources. Concerns could arise over whether the consent requirement allows a minority of property owners to halt projects that serve broader public interests.

Additional_notes

This bill signifies a potential shift towards greater local control over property rights in the context of energy and utility companies, a topic that has garnered considerable attention in legislative discussions. The implementation of this bill would necessitate careful consideration of the implications for both landowners and the broader state economy.