Establish percentage requirements for voluntary agreements governing pipeline construction prior to the filing of a petition for condemnation.
Impact
By establishing a percentage requirement for voluntary agreements, HB1256 has significant implications for both pipeline developers and landowners. Developers will now have to ensure they engage more comprehensively with landowners prior to beginning any legal proceedings for land condemnation. This could lead to more negotiations and potential delays for pipeline projects, as acquiring agreements from landowners becomes an imperative step before any state petitions are filed. Landowners may benefit from enhanced protections against unwanted appropriation of their property, giving them more leverage in negotiations.
Summary
House Bill 1256 establishes stringent requirements for voluntary agreements concerning pipeline construction in South Dakota. The bill amends existing legal provisions to require that before pursuing the condemnation of private property for pipeline purposes, the entity seeking to take the land must verify that at least ninety percent of the pipeline's linear footage is covered by existing easements or agreements made willingly with landowners. This change aims to ensure that property rights are respected and that the interests of landowners are prioritized in pipeline projects.
Contention
The bill has sparked discussions regarding the balance between development interests and property rights. Supporters laud its potential to empower landowners, fearing that unchecked pipeline development could undermine their rights and disrupt local communities. However, there are concerns among some legislators and business advocates that these new requirements could jeopardize infrastructure projects vital for economic development by making it more cumbersome and time-consuming to initiate pipeline construction. The protracted process could deter investment in necessary energy infrastructure.
Voting_history
On February 12, 2024, HB1256 was deferred to the 41st legislative day after a vote where it received nine yeas and four nays. The discussion around the bill continues as stakeholders assess its implications for both property rights and energy development.