Once again a bill to impose a fee on certain pipelines carrying crude oil and to create a crude oil pipeline compensation fund that may be used in the event of a crude oil spill was up for a vote in the South Dakota Legislature this year. The same or very similar bills have been presented for consideration and passage during the previous two legislative sessions. Earlier postings relate to the previous legislation.
This year, Senator Rhoden identified that he had come full circle with his opinion on this proposed legislation. When the bill was presented to the Senate State Affairs committee and on the Senate floor, Senator Rhoden voted in favor of the bill. His stated reason for supporting the bill was to protect property owners from financial ruin resulting from the liability for an oil spill on their property.
Thank you for your votes in favor of this legislation, Senator Rhoden. Senator Rhoden also mentioned that his neighbors and others in his district were influential in changing his opinion on this legislation. Unfortunately, once again a one vote margin stopped the passage of this legislation.
This is a disappointing outcome. Hopefully, this issue will be successfully revisited again in the next legislative session. Support for new business is important to the strength of the state’s economy. However, the desire to make accommodation to attract new business to our state should not outweigh our consideration for existing business. This is especially true with regard to the oil pipeline companies. The pipelines need to cross our state in order for the pipeline companies to conduct their business and existing land owners/businesses have been required to make concessions. The full impact of these concessions was not necessarily apparent to everyone concerned when the project was first proposed to or considered by the legislature.
Showing posts with label Senator Rhoden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senator Rhoden. Show all posts
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Friday, April 17, 2009
Senator Rhoden responds to my Feb. 9, 2009 letter
Today, Senator Rhoden sent me an e-mail message asking me to speak with him on the phone regarding the questions I asked him in the letter I sent to him and published on this blog earlier. The Senator was very open and forthcoming about his reasons for voting the way he did with regard to pipeline legislation, SB171 and SB190. His main concern when SB171 was being reviewed in the Senate State Affairs Committee hearing was with the constitutionality of the bill. Upon pressing lobbyists for more information about their claim that at least one other state imposes a similar fee, Sen. Rhoden discovered that the circumstances in that state were quite different from the situation in South Dakota. The other state pipelines were intrastate systems and the pipelines in question crossing South Dakota will be inter-state transmission systems. Federal laws regarding inter-state commerce applied to the South Dakota systems that did not apply to the state lines used for comparison by the proponent lobbyists for the legislation.
My letter discounts his likely concern with the unconstitutionality of this issue compared to his apparent lack of concern for the constitutionality of other legislation. Sen. Rhoden explained that in the other case, testing the constitutionality of the legislation was the intention because of the potential for a positive outcome in the Senator's opinion. In the case of the pipeline legislation, the test stood little or no chance of resulting in a positive outcome and would therefore be nothing more than a large waste of money.
Sen. Rhoden is convinced that adequate funding is currently available to cover the costs of potential pipeline spill cleanup from two existing sources. He referenced the average estimated cost of spill cleanup based on documented historical experience numbers for pipelines in the United States.
Senator Rhoden also apologized for not getting back to me sooner. The timing of his response was not as important as the fact that he did respond and took time out to answer my questions personally, just as I had requested. The same cannot be said of all of my local district's elected officials and I thank Senator Rhoden for his time and his consideration.
My letter discounts his likely concern with the unconstitutionality of this issue compared to his apparent lack of concern for the constitutionality of other legislation. Sen. Rhoden explained that in the other case, testing the constitutionality of the legislation was the intention because of the potential for a positive outcome in the Senator's opinion. In the case of the pipeline legislation, the test stood little or no chance of resulting in a positive outcome and would therefore be nothing more than a large waste of money.
Sen. Rhoden is convinced that adequate funding is currently available to cover the costs of potential pipeline spill cleanup from two existing sources. He referenced the average estimated cost of spill cleanup based on documented historical experience numbers for pipelines in the United States.
Senator Rhoden also apologized for not getting back to me sooner. The timing of his response was not as important as the fact that he did respond and took time out to answer my questions personally, just as I had requested. The same cannot be said of all of my local district's elected officials and I thank Senator Rhoden for his time and his consideration.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
To: sibbyonline@hotmail.com
Subject: SB171
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:08:46 -0600
Mr. Sibson,
We have never met, but it appears that we are both concerned about the potential consequences of a oil pipeline spill in South Dakota.
I listened to the testimony at the Senate State Affairs Committee hearing on SB171. In researching the issue, I also listened to testimony relating to SB190. A question by Senator Abdalah at the most recent hearing seemed to cut to the heart of the issue and lack of a satisfactory response left me wonder why anyone would be against this legislation.
Comments by Senator Rhoden regarding other legislation and the legislative process made me think that perhaps he could explain to me why this legislation (SB171) was killed in committee by a one vote margin. He did not respond to my letter. Consequently, I wrote to the editor of the Rapid City Journal 3-22-09, asking South Dakotans why we wouldn't want this limited, alternative protection.
Now, I'm asking you.
Sincerely,
Greg Olson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg,
Thanks for your email.
The answer to your question is that the Governor is against this idea. He is afraid of scaring away business. And the Governor pretty much runs thw show in Pierre.
I am surprised Larry did not reply to you. Larry is one of the better legislators, although he is not infalliable. He pushes the line as far as he can.
There is a lot of things we need to be concerned about today. Not sure if we can put a stop to them, but I for one believe the fight must happen.
Keep in touch,
Steve
Subject: SB171
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:08:46 -0600
Mr. Sibson,
We have never met, but it appears that we are both concerned about the potential consequences of a oil pipeline spill in South Dakota.
I listened to the testimony at the Senate State Affairs Committee hearing on SB171. In researching the issue, I also listened to testimony relating to SB190. A question by Senator Abdalah at the most recent hearing seemed to cut to the heart of the issue and lack of a satisfactory response left me wonder why anyone would be against this legislation.
Comments by Senator Rhoden regarding other legislation and the legislative process made me think that perhaps he could explain to me why this legislation (SB171) was killed in committee by a one vote margin. He did not respond to my letter. Consequently, I wrote to the editor of the Rapid City Journal 3-22-09, asking South Dakotans why we wouldn't want this limited, alternative protection.
Now, I'm asking you.
Sincerely,
Greg Olson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg,
Thanks for your email.
The answer to your question is that the Governor is against this idea. He is afraid of scaring away business. And the Governor pretty much runs thw show in Pierre.
I am surprised Larry did not reply to you. Larry is one of the better legislators, although he is not infalliable. He pushes the line as far as he can.
There is a lot of things we need to be concerned about today. Not sure if we can put a stop to them, but I for one believe the fight must happen.
Keep in touch,
Steve
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
A letter to Senator Rhoden
February 9, 2009
The Honorable Larry Rhoden
The State Senate
PO Box 12
Union Center, SD 57787-0012
Dear Senator Rhoden,
Thank you for your service to South Dakota. It has been interesting to observe the 2009 session of the legislature. You are one of the few legislators that I have had an opportunity to meet in person. You have voiced in the senate and during committee hearings your particular interest in several issues that are important to me. Also, we both are residents of western South Dakota. When we met, a friend of mine had just testified at a House State Affairs committee hearing and after the meeting he introduced me to you just outside the committee chamber. During the discussion there, you told my friend, who shares many of my political views that you thought that you shared more of the same views with him on legislative issues than he might think. Consequently, it has been especially interesting to observe how you have voted on issues of interest to me, to my friend, to western South Dakota, and to the entire state.
It has been my opinion for a long time that members of political parties will vote in ways that reflect the general views of their political party. Generally this seems to be true, but on occasion, the party view does not coincide with the particular interests of the individual. You have expressed your concern for issues relating to agriculture and land owner rights. Considering how you make your living and where you come from, it is reasonable to expect that on occasion your views would differ from your own political party’s view. Also, some issues are considered nonpolitical so that party affiliation wouldn’t necessarily be an indicator of how you might vote.
With due consideration to the above statements and with no ill intention toward you in any way, your votes in Senate State Affairs Committee on SB171 were puzzling. Fortunately, with recordings of the committee hearings available, I was able to listen to the same testimony that you heard before you cast your votes relative to SB171. Compelling testimony was given by both proponents and opponents of the bill. A critical question that addresses the very heart of this issue was asked by Senator Abdallah at the initial hearing on February 13, 2009. Senator Abdallah asked the question twice; rewording it the second time for clarification and it does not appear that a complete answer was given either time. This is a paraphrase of the senator’s two questions: In the event that the pipeline company was to become financially insolvent for an unspecified reason, how is the required cleanup provided for?
One of the paid lobbyists for the pipeline company indicated that property taxes to be collected on the pipeline during the first two years of operation would be equal to the thirty million dollar fee fund outlined in SB171. How is that relevant or why should these two amounts be equated? The property taxes derived from other entities are not generally used to accumulate funds for the sole purpose of reparations.
While responding to one of your inquiries during the question portion of the hearing one of the proponents of the bill voiced a subtle concern about the makeup of the membership of the task force that was created to study the pipeline projects in South Dakota. The implication was clear that there may have been a bias that affected the reported findings of the task force.
Concern was expressed by Secretary Steve Pirner, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, for the constitutionality of charging a fee for the transportation of goods across South Dakota. Your votes on other nonrelated issues indicate that this is not necessarily a convincing enough concern to cause you to vote against legislation. Apparently, the opposite seems to be true, that in some cases you would appreciate the opportunity for the constitutionality of some legislation to be tested.
Last year SB190 started out to address the same issue of collecting a fee on barrels of oil transported by pipeline across South Dakota. The bill was passed in the senate and was presented to the House State Affairs Committee for consideration. At that hearing, the bill received a do pass recommendation from the committee, but not from you. Later in the house vote, you voted in favor of the bill. Of course, the bill was amended and no longer included the provisions for collecting a fee on products transported by pipelines. Again, audio recordings have provided the opportunity to hear what you heard during the committee hearings. What testimony from the committee meeting convinced you that this bill should not receive the do pass recommendation to the House? Further, what convinced you later to vote for the legislation during the House vote on the bill?
Since a one vote margin defeated SB171 in the Senate State Affairs Committee, I would appreciate hearing from you personally what convinced you to vote the way you did at that time. You stated in your address to the 2009 senate during the discussion before the vote on another bill of mutual interest, that it (HB1301) represented the legislative process at its best. When you and I met after the House State Affairs Committee meeting I agreed with your sentiments expressed then to that effect. Your consideration of my questions and a response would be appreciated.
The Honorable Larry Rhoden
The State Senate
PO Box 12
Union Center, SD 57787-0012
Dear Senator Rhoden,
Thank you for your service to South Dakota. It has been interesting to observe the 2009 session of the legislature. You are one of the few legislators that I have had an opportunity to meet in person. You have voiced in the senate and during committee hearings your particular interest in several issues that are important to me. Also, we both are residents of western South Dakota. When we met, a friend of mine had just testified at a House State Affairs committee hearing and after the meeting he introduced me to you just outside the committee chamber. During the discussion there, you told my friend, who shares many of my political views that you thought that you shared more of the same views with him on legislative issues than he might think. Consequently, it has been especially interesting to observe how you have voted on issues of interest to me, to my friend, to western South Dakota, and to the entire state.
It has been my opinion for a long time that members of political parties will vote in ways that reflect the general views of their political party. Generally this seems to be true, but on occasion, the party view does not coincide with the particular interests of the individual. You have expressed your concern for issues relating to agriculture and land owner rights. Considering how you make your living and where you come from, it is reasonable to expect that on occasion your views would differ from your own political party’s view. Also, some issues are considered nonpolitical so that party affiliation wouldn’t necessarily be an indicator of how you might vote.
With due consideration to the above statements and with no ill intention toward you in any way, your votes in Senate State Affairs Committee on SB171 were puzzling. Fortunately, with recordings of the committee hearings available, I was able to listen to the same testimony that you heard before you cast your votes relative to SB171. Compelling testimony was given by both proponents and opponents of the bill. A critical question that addresses the very heart of this issue was asked by Senator Abdallah at the initial hearing on February 13, 2009. Senator Abdallah asked the question twice; rewording it the second time for clarification and it does not appear that a complete answer was given either time. This is a paraphrase of the senator’s two questions: In the event that the pipeline company was to become financially insolvent for an unspecified reason, how is the required cleanup provided for?
One of the paid lobbyists for the pipeline company indicated that property taxes to be collected on the pipeline during the first two years of operation would be equal to the thirty million dollar fee fund outlined in SB171. How is that relevant or why should these two amounts be equated? The property taxes derived from other entities are not generally used to accumulate funds for the sole purpose of reparations.
While responding to one of your inquiries during the question portion of the hearing one of the proponents of the bill voiced a subtle concern about the makeup of the membership of the task force that was created to study the pipeline projects in South Dakota. The implication was clear that there may have been a bias that affected the reported findings of the task force.
Concern was expressed by Secretary Steve Pirner, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, for the constitutionality of charging a fee for the transportation of goods across South Dakota. Your votes on other nonrelated issues indicate that this is not necessarily a convincing enough concern to cause you to vote against legislation. Apparently, the opposite seems to be true, that in some cases you would appreciate the opportunity for the constitutionality of some legislation to be tested.
Last year SB190 started out to address the same issue of collecting a fee on barrels of oil transported by pipeline across South Dakota. The bill was passed in the senate and was presented to the House State Affairs Committee for consideration. At that hearing, the bill received a do pass recommendation from the committee, but not from you. Later in the house vote, you voted in favor of the bill. Of course, the bill was amended and no longer included the provisions for collecting a fee on products transported by pipelines. Again, audio recordings have provided the opportunity to hear what you heard during the committee hearings. What testimony from the committee meeting convinced you that this bill should not receive the do pass recommendation to the House? Further, what convinced you later to vote for the legislation during the House vote on the bill?
Since a one vote margin defeated SB171 in the Senate State Affairs Committee, I would appreciate hearing from you personally what convinced you to vote the way you did at that time. You stated in your address to the 2009 senate during the discussion before the vote on another bill of mutual interest, that it (HB1301) represented the legislative process at its best. When you and I met after the House State Affairs Committee meeting I agreed with your sentiments expressed then to that effect. Your consideration of my questions and a response would be appreciated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)