State Representative Tina Mulally does not want South Dakota’s system of local governance to be destroyed by greedy members of the ruling class.
Big League Politics previously reported on Referred Law 21, previously known as SB201, and the danger it posed to the practice of local governance in South Dakota.
In a recent interview that BLP conducted with Mulally, the South Dakota State Representative described RL-21 as “bad legislation all the way around.”
Back in January 2024, Mortensen and Senator Casey Crabtree introduced both the House and Senate versions of the bills that would impose a surcharge on several pipeline companies. SB201 was billed as the “Landowner Bill of Rights,” which was marketed as a bill that would promote economic expansions.
Specifically, the project is being spearheaded by the Summit Carbon Solutions. Pro-Business figures see this pipeline project as a potential money grab that could net them billions in revenue.
Due to how the company is based in Iowa and the bulk of the carbon
sequestration is going to North Dakota through five states including South Dakota, grassroots activists have manifested concerns about the project’s environmental impact and the threats that it poses to state sovereignty.
Because of these concerns, a petition was filed to set up a ballot initiative for voters to decide on in early November. The petition passed, meeting the legal requirement of acquiring 17,508 signatures. The ballot measure is currently referred to as Referred Law 21. Referred Law 21 contains the following language:
“[to] Uphold or reject Senate Bill 201, a law that provides statutory requirements for regulating carbon dioxide pipelines and other transmission facilities, and allows counties to impose a surcharge on certain pipeline companies.”
Mulally stressed that voters in the state should reject this law at the polls. For her, this controversy is a matter of local governance. She believes that municipalities and counties should have the power to decide if a pipeline should go through their jurisdiction. At the very least, these local entities should be allowed to voice their grievances with the corporate entities that are laying the pipelines. From there, a solution could be potentially hammered out.
However, the passage of RL-21 would allow companies to completely sidestep municipalities and go through with their projects without any regard to the concerns of local constituencies. South Dakota voters will ultimately be able to decide the fate of this bill on November 5, 2024.