January 19, 2025 • 39 mins
In this episode, Toby Doeden talks with Amanda Radke and Mark Lapka about the debate surrounding the Carbon Summit Solutions Pipeline in SD. The conversation highlights legislative developments with House Bill 1052, the importance of property rights and more.
0:01 - Introduction
11:15 - Legislative Battle Over Eminent Domain
18:47 - Property Rights and Legislative Battles
31:03 - South Dakota Landowner Advocacy and Politics
37:54 - Defending South Dakota Land Rights
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
What an amazing place we live in South Dakota.
My mission statement is simpleTo re-energize the true
conservative values in SouthDakota.
You're listening to Toby DodenUnfiltered.
Welcome to Episode 9 of TobyDoden Unfiltered.
(00:25):
I am your host, Toby Doden, andI am very happy to be back with
you today.
I'm also very happy to announcethat we are going to have two
very special guests on today.
We are going to be talking toAmanda Ratke and we are going to
be talking to Senator MarkLopke.
They're going to be on with usand we are going to talk about
House Bill 1052, which wouldeliminate eminent gain for
(00:48):
private gain in South Dakota.
Okay, so we are joined byAmanda Radke and Mark Lopke, and
if you've been paying attentionat all to politics in South
Dakota, specifically the CarbonSummit Solutions Pipeline, you
(01:11):
undoubtedly know these twocharacters very, very well.
So first thing I'm going to do,Amanda, if you could just maybe
take a minute and just kind ofintroduce yourself.
There probably are a few peoplewatching that don't necessarily
know your history, so why don'tyou tell us a little bit about
yourself, Amanda?
Speaker 2 (01:30):
Sure, I'm Amanda Radke from Mitchell, south
Dakota, mom of four, wife andfarmer rancher entrepreneur.
I travel the country speakingat conferences, talking about
agricultural policy and thingsthat can impact farmers and
ranchers in a positive way, andI got involved in this battle
because I got a phone call froman elderly widow who had been
(01:54):
bullied by Summit CarbonSolutions and she asked me to
use my platform to tell herstory.
And then an avalanche of phonecalls came in of many more
impacted landowners, and so whenI got involved in this fight,
it was just because it was theright thing to do for private
property ownership.
But as it stands today, nowthat the route has expanded, it
(02:14):
goes within a mile of my housewhere my four children sleep,
and so I'm pretty deeplyinvested in the outcome of this
particular battle.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
Excellent.
Yeah, thank you very much, mark.
Why don't you tell the viewersa little bit about yourself?
Speaker 3 (02:30):
Well, I'm a lifelong farmer and rancher from Loyola,
south Dakota, which is inMcPherson County.
As a young man, I've beeninvolved in day-to-day aspects
of the farm and ranch.
I started taking calves when Iwas 12 years old and I've tagged
everyone on our ranch eversince then.
You know I grew up and you knowunder the premise that I
(02:54):
thought that what we do is thebest thing in the world and
where we do it is the best thing.
I truthfully believe that wehad the property rights in place
that was going to ensure thatto happen.
For the next six generations ofmy family, as currently my son
is the sixth generation on ourfarm, I want to see our
livelihood propagated in essence, forever, and it wasn't until
(03:17):
this summit issue arose, justabout four years ago now, that I
started to get more involved.
I really didn't have anything todo with politics previous to
that, nor did I have anyinterest to, and it was an
interesting situation that Ifound myself in that well, once
politics gets involved with you,you have to get involved, and,
(03:37):
having been part of this processover the last several years, it
wasn't until the passage of SB201 last year that turned into
RL 21 that I seriously began toconsider possibly running for
office myself.
I'd spent so many, countlesshours searching for somebody
that I thought I could getbehind and support to do that,
(03:58):
and ultimately you wake up andyou look in the mirror one
morning and realize that thatperson is you.
Wake up and you look in themirror one morning and realize
that that person is you, and sothat's what I did.
I ran for state senate indistrict 23.
I was successful in my primary.
I did not have a generalopponent and so I was sworn.
In this last Tuesday as oursitting state senator, I sit as
(04:21):
the vice chair on theappropriations committee.
We've had a good first week inPierre and looking forward to
getting back to work on Tuesday.
Speaker 1 (04:30):
Excellent.
Thank you very much andcongratulations.
I remember the first time I metyou we had lunch at Mulligan's
in Aberdeen, I think, probablyabout a year ago and I remember
you telling me that you mightjust have to run for office if
things didn't start to change.
And lo and behold, here you are, congratulations, and it's very
(04:50):
nice to catch up with both ofyou.
If, amanda, if you wouldn'tmind, could you or or Mark,
either one, just give us a justa very brief background, going
back to 2021, when Summit CarbonSolutions.
To 2021 when Summit CarbonSolutions and I believe it was
Navigator at that timeoriginally started this
application process for thecarbon pipeline, to just kind of
(05:11):
catch everybody up to kind ofwhere we're at, leading up to
House Bill 1052.
And then we'll talk about thatnext.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
So Mark would be the guy to talk about the very
beginning, because it came tohis backyard first.
Speaker 3 (05:26):
It was August approximately August 24th, if I
remember correctly the firsttime that we had heard anything.
My family received about a halfa dozen letters in the mail for
a proposed CO2 pipeline thatwould be crossing a few miles of
my family's property.
That would be crossing a fewmiles of my family's property,
(05:50):
and at the beginning, you know,I thought it was possibly an oil
or a natural gas pipeline anddidn't particularly see any
issue with it and was interestedin sitting down and discussing
it.
After a little bit more fartherresearch into it, though, I
began to realize what a carbondioxide pipeline was.
Well, what is the possible usefor that?
How are we going to beaffecting our energy prices for
(06:13):
consumers?
Because pipelines have alwaysexisted as a mode of
transportation a cheaper mode oftransportation for liquid fuels
, in order to have lower coststo the consumer.
And as I began to look into ita little bit more, it's like
well, what are we doing here?
Well, we're going to becapturing the emissions off of
ethanol plants, compressing itinto a high dense phase liquid
(06:36):
in order to bury 10,000 feetunder the ground and permanently
sequester, in order for theethanol plants to improve their
CI score.
Well, how are we going to payfor all of this.
And that's probably when I hadan eye-opening moment that it
simply was going to existbecause of complete and total
government subsidization.
And so I kept an open mind fromthat point.
(06:58):
And then, in the initial publicmeetings that Summit had in
October of 2021, that Summit hadin October of 2021, they began
to discuss in detail what theywere going to do.
But a question was broughtbefore them by Mr Ed Fischbach.
He asked them would they committo not using eminent domain?
(07:18):
They would not answer thequestion right away and upon
farther pressing by Mr Fischbach, they would not commit to not
using eminent domain.
And it was at that time that Ibecame quite opposed to this,
because I didn't think it metthe parameters of what eminent
domain was intended for.
And then how could you possiblybe faced with having your land
(07:42):
condemned and then, in turn,paying for it as a taxpayer?
And so that was what kind ofset the stage.
We went into that nextlegislative session and
Representative Carla Lems, inher freshman year at the time,
brought forward House Bill 1133.
House Bill 1133 would have madeit so that CO2 pipelines would
(08:06):
not be eligible for eminentdomain.
That was successful.
It sailed right through HouseCommittee, right through the
House floor, but met its demisein the Senate Commerce and
Energy Committee where it wasdefeated 7-0.
To zero.
(08:27):
And then, following up intolast year's legislative session,
house Bill 1219, a great billbought by our new Speaker of the
House, john Hanson.
He brought that last year,which would also have eliminated
eminent domain for CO2pipelines.
That bill was close incommittee but defeated.
There was an attempt to smokeit out on the House floor.
The initial smokeout wassuccessful but the calendaring
(08:48):
of the bill after that was notsuccessful and then that is
where that in fact died.
And so, rolling into this year,representative Lems has yet once
again and she's a true championof property rights in South
Dakota has brought forward andpresented House Bill 1052.
House Bill 1052 will alsoeliminate the use of eminent
(09:11):
domain for CO2 pipelines in thestate of South Dakota.
I, fortunately, have been ableto be the prime sponsor in the
Senate.
Representative Lems will carryit in the House, I myself will
carry it in the Senate.
We're up to 29 representativesthat have signed on as
co-sponsors, as well as 11senators.
(09:32):
The bill is well positioned.
There appears to be nonpartisansupport for the bill.
We're in a good position andwe're looking forward to moving
on with that.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
So just so the folks at home know, mark just
mentioned House Bill 1052.
I'm just going to read it quick.
Normally when you tell somebodyyou're going to read a bill,
they roll their eyes.
This is the shortest andsweetest bill.
It's very good to see that wehave actual professionals
submitting bills in peer onceagain.
(10:05):
So here's what it said.
What it says, excuse meNotwithstanding the provisions
of any other law, a person maynot exercise the right of
eminent domain to acquire rightof way for, construct or operate
a pipeline for the preponderantpurpose of transporting carbon
oxide.
I kind of liken it to thesecond amendment, like no frills
(10:27):
, no BS, right to the point.
Amanda, what are your thoughtson house bill 1052?
And what is your sense of thetotal amount of support that it
has?
Speaker 2 (10:41):
I think it's precise and addressing in a focused
manner the gun that is pointedat the people's heads, the
people who have been had theirlives put on hold for three
years battling this thing andthey're dealing with
condemnations and having to hirelegal counsel and feeling like
their whole lives have been puton hold as we wait to see what's
(11:02):
going to happen with thisapplication process for this
carbon pipeline.
So I liken it to it's brainsurgery and we've called in a
brain surgeon to really addressthe issue, one of the things
that I think is really important.
As Carla had mentioned, in 30words or less, we are addressing
an issue in a really commonsense way.
There's zero percent chance ofany regulatory drift on other
(11:26):
industries, meaning you're notgoing to be piled on by, you
know electric or water or otherutilities that are actually for
a common use, that are going hasbeen backed by the South Dakota
Supreme Court that this projectdoes not have a common carrier
status, it cannot use eminentdomain, it cannot invasively
(11:53):
survey on people's land, and sothe legislature absolutely has
the authority to act to shore upour private property rights and
to provide that constitutionalcertainty that the people have
consistently asked for andadvocated for since this whole
thing began.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
Yeah, absolutely so, mark.
For most of the people in SouthDakota they aren't nearly as
familiar with the ins and outsof the state legislature,
certainly as somebody like youwho serves in it now.
So to get 40 sponsors on a billlike this, just give us kind of
(12:32):
an indication of what a normalbill would get for sponsors.
I assume this is a much highernumber of sponsors than a normal
bill.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
Yes, it is a particularly high number of
sponsors.
A lot of times you'll see billswith maybe three or two.
The state of South Dakota withRL21.
And the impact that it had onour last round of elections
(13:12):
there is 10 new first-time everserving in any legislative or
governmental capacity members ofthe Senate, and there are seven
of those that RL21 and SB201was the exact reason why they
got involved in the first place,so I think it's exciting that
(13:33):
that many have signed on to it.
I think it's a good show ofsupport for this particular bill
and it's an issue that, quitefrankly, is a statewide
high-profile issue and it'sbeing treated as such.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
So I guess my follow-up to that Mark would be
and I'm curious too just kind ofwalk us through the timing of
this.
When is this thing going to hitcommittee?
How confident are you that it'sgoing to go to a full vote and
when will that happen?
Going to go to a?
Speaker 3 (14:05):
full vote, and when will that happen?
The bill 1052 has been assignedto the House State Affairs
Committee and they meet onMondays, wednesdays and Fridays
of the week at 7 45 am in themorning.
We do not have session tomorrowas it is a holiday, and so I
have not heard if it will becoming this week.
(14:26):
It is looking like more thanlikely it will be coming the
following week, and as soon aswe know for sure, we will be the
very first ones to let everyoneknow.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
Perfect.
So I've had several people askme this question this week and
so I think it's on the minds ofa lot of people, just because
this has been a multi-yearbattle.
So let's just assume for asecond that House Bill 1052
passes, it goes all the waythrough and it's enacted into
(14:59):
law.
What is next for Summit CarbonSolutions if that happens?
Speaker 3 (15:07):
Well, one has to remember, you know, there is
concern amongst you know,industries outside of carbon
pipelines that are concernedabout eminent domain legislation
affecting them, and we have haddiscussions with other entities
and industries, and none of usare against electricity, we are
(15:31):
not opposed to water projects.
That is something that is anecessary use that every man,
woman and child in our state andcountry need for life, and so
this is in no way focused uponthem.
This is focused upon a projectthat has no definitive public
use and it still does not banthis project from taking place.
(15:55):
What it will require?
It will require, in actuality,good faith negotiations between
a carbon pipeline company andlandowners that they can sit
down and if they can come to anagreement, it can move forward.
But we need to establishbusiness practices between a
willing buyer and a willingseller and not allow the heavy
(16:17):
hand of the government to beused in order for them to obtain
that, because if we go downthat path, eminent domain will
simply become a way of doingbusiness and, quite frankly,
there is not one of us thatwould like to be in that
situation.
Speaker 1 (16:31):
Yeah, for sure.
I've got a question for you,amanda, but I have to follow up
Mark, with this.
Originally, I had seen a numberof 73% of landowners had come
to an agreement or planned tocome to an agreement with Summit
Carbon Solutions and I heardthrough the grapevine I was not
(17:09):
there Friday take the money andhave this dangerous pipeline run
through their land.
Speaker 3 (17:16):
Well, I guess the number one thing that I'd like
to see is proof of that.
A lot of the time it has justbeen an arbitrary number that is
thrown out there with anyevidence supporting such.
It was like in the initialfiling.
They had claimed to be 70%signed up.
Well, there was over just about180 persons that were served
(17:38):
with eminent domain proceedings,and that number was greater
than 25% the remainder of theproject that existed that they
said that they had.
So I would take those figureswith a grain of salt until we
would see something to back itup.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
That's a hell of a good answer.
I was thinking the same thingmyself.
So, amanda, what is the currentlay of the land at the PUC
meetings that are taking placeacross the state?
I know you've been attendingthem.
Can you just kind of give us anoverview of what the meetings
are for, how they've been goingand what your perception of them
(18:15):
is at this point?
Speaker 2 (18:20):
Sure Utilities Commission just hosted six
meetings where Summit CarbonSolutions could make their case
and present their project to thepeople, and the people had the
opportunity to express theirconcerns, ask questions, that
kind of thing.
I will say it was quiteinteresting that there were so
many out of state we're talkinglike Oklahoma type out of state,
(18:41):
like very far away from SouthDakota who came in to testify in
support of this project.
And there was many, many loudopposition of people right here
in our communities that haveconcerns about the health, the
safety, whether Summit CarbonSolutions can abide by the rules
, the county ordinances and thetownships.
And right now I'm not sure whenthis is going to air, but there
(19:05):
is a deadline to apply to be anintervener, to have party
status on this project.
That deadline is January 24th,and so it's a very tight
deadline to first hear about theproject, and a lot of people
are hearing about it, believe itor not, for the first time.
6,500 letters, I found out at aPUC meeting, were sent out by
Summit Carbon Solutions the weekof Christmas telling people
(19:29):
that, hey, you are an impactedlandowner in this route, come to
our meetings and find out moreabout it.
And so it's a very tightturnaround for people that are
now new on the route, that aretrying to figure out how it's
going to impact their families,their businesses, their children
.
And again, that deadline isJanuary 24th.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
We are going to get this out very, very quickly.
It should be released to themasses Monday, the 20th,
tomorrow, inauguration Day.
I am indeed an intervener.
This pipeline, in the latestmap I've seen, runs about 2,600
feet give or take from mydoorstep.
(20:09):
So yeah, I understand theplight and the fear of people
all over the state.
Clearly this is a land rightsissue, but it's also a safety
issue.
Mark, we've seen some prettymassive divisions arise over
competing bills on school choice.
(20:30):
Don't worry, I'm not going toask you about that, I'm just
simply using that as a precursor.
Can you explain the differenceson eminent domain between John
Carley's bill and your bill andCarla Lem's bill, because
there's a lot of people outthere that have asked me to give
them the nuanced differencesand I guess what I tell them is
(20:54):
well, just by reading them youcan tell very quickly.
You know what the purpose ofyours was versus theirs.
But since you're the mainsponsor, or one of the two main
sponsors, I'd like to hear itdirectly from you.
Speaker 3 (21:08):
Yes, senator John Carley has brought Senate Bill
49, which is a good piece ofeminent domain legislation that
will start begin theconversation on wind and solar
in the state of South Dakota.
His bill also includes alanguage to take away the
(21:28):
ability of the Public UtilitiesCommission to be able to preempt
local, county and municipal andtownship ordinances for carbon
and hydrogen pipelines, and so,while I think it is a very good
bill, there needs to be someconversations on it, as you are
again bringing in a lot more ofthe other industries that are
(21:50):
not very interested in beingaffected by that type of
legislation.
It needs to have a discussion.
I'm supportive of it, but wealso need to deal with what is
in front of us at the moment,and that is CO2 pipelines, and
that's what HB 1052 specificallydoes.
Speaker 1 (22:13):
I could not go ahead.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
Oh, I just kind of wanted to speak to how we got to
this point, but if you had afollow-up question for Mark, go
ahead.
But okay, I just really thinkthere's a story that's unfolding
here in South Dakota that Ireally want people to understand
is that I really believe thatthis legislative session is
going to be defined by twoissues property tax relief and
(22:36):
private property ownership, andboth of those bring landowners
together.
Whether you own a corner lot inSioux Falls or you own 10
sections of land out by Kadoka,the landowners have spoken, and
how we've gotten to this pointis that bad actors and
bought-off politicians havepushed the people to the brink
where they have to stand up anddefend themselves.
(22:57):
So, watching SB 201 make itsway through the legislative
session last year, despite thefact that hundreds and hundreds
of people traveled repeatedly topeer to advocate against it.
And the real problem with thatpiece of legislation is that it
would have taken away the countyand township's ability to do
setbacks and ordinances that areappropriate for their
(23:21):
individual communities.
And so the RL21 victory, where65 of 66 counties rejected it
with 59% of the vote.
And, by the way, every singlecounty that has an ethanol plant
in it overwhelmingly rejectedthis bill.
It sends a message to peer thathey, we are open for business
(23:41):
but we are not for sale.
And we have spoken very clearlythat we have elected officials
on the townships and thecounties and we want them to
represent us in our bestinterest.
And the great thing about thatis not only do we have this
mandate by the people, but thePublic Utilities Commission
absolutely got it right on thefirst application, where they
said they were going to standbeside the counties and
(24:04):
townships.
And now once again, 10 daysafter the election or two weeks
after the election on November19th Summit, reapplied for a
permit and right there in thatpermit they asked for, basically
verbatim, the language thatwould have been in RL21, sb201,
which is they are asking the PUCto override the counties and
the townships.
(24:24):
So I believe now, going intothis legislative session, we are
in a position of strength.
The people have spoken.
The legislators shouldabsolutely feel empowered that
it's not a small vocal minority.
This is the absolute will ofthe people and I am calling on
the legislators and our governorto act accordingly to the will
of the people.
(24:44):
That without private propertyrights, we have nothing and in a
project like this that is forprivate gain.
South Dakota, south Dakotans,should absolutely have the
option to say no, thank you, andthat is a full sentence.
Speaker 1 (24:58):
Yes, it is, and you want to know what keeps me up at
night?
And, um, largely I I try tokeep a 10 000 foot view of a lot
of these things because, uh,you know, doing the right thing
generally involves playing chessand not checkers and, and, and
(25:19):
sometimes people get caught up,uh, in in the now rather than in
tomorrow and what, what.
What scares me most, and we'vealready seen it a little bit in
this legislative session, is,yes, amanda, you spoke to it.
There was a mandate from thepeople.
It was very specific, ithappened nationally and it
happened in South Dakota thepeople on the other side,
(25:42):
largely I'm not talking aboutthe Democrats, I'm talking about
the establishment left-leaningif I wanted to be nice, I would
say moderate Republicans I'vealready seen some state moderate
Republicans already talking adifferent tune and I've seen
(26:06):
people on the conservative sideof things already take it like,
like hook line and sinker and so, like your passion, I love it,
and I am the same way, and I amconstantly having to remind
people like you have to look atwhat people say and what people
do over a extended period oftime, because if you only listen
(26:29):
to what they are telling youand what they are doing today
and you forget about whatthey've done six months, six
years ago.
You are not using the rightskills to analyze that person's
intentions.
And so, mark, there have beenconversations with legislators
who voted for SB 201.
And I am curious now what yoursense is if any of them are
(26:53):
genuinely changing their tune,or if they're just changing
their tune because they realizethat they've been beaten and
they are trying to negate thefallout and they're trying to
get back in the cool kids cluband the first chance they get to
, to, to, to push things back tothe way they were the last few
years, they'll do it.
(27:13):
So what?
What is your sense of some ofthe SB201 supporters and what
they're saying and doing today?
Speaker 3 (27:25):
I think what's currently going on is that was
the power of the referendumPrevious to the statewide vote
being taken on the issue.
To kind of present a barometerof how the voting public feels
wasn't available up until thatpoint.
For so long it was claimed thatthe people that are in
(27:47):
opposition to this are a smallvocal minority and being out in
the country, living where I do,going across the state to
meetings on this, I knew thatthat was not the case.
I've never seen an issue thathas polarized so many people on
one side.
The amount of opposition thatthere is for this is really
(28:09):
quite amazing to a certaindegree, and I think that because
of the referendum actuallyhaving put a quantifying a
number of how unpopular this iswith the state of South Dakota
has people looking at it througha different lens, and I think
that realization has come withthem being more supportive of
(28:31):
what South Dakota wants.
South Dakota does not want thiscarbon pipeline.
South Dakota does not wanteminent domain abuse in this
state.
They want to have theirfreedoms and their liberties
reinforced so that they can takecare of themselves and their
families with whatever way theysee fit.
Speaker 1 (28:51):
Yeah, 100%.
Speaker 2 (28:53):
Mark is very kind if I could send a little bit more
harsher message to those folks13 incumbents who voted for SB
201 have gone into earlyretirement because we, the
people, sent them home.
We replaced them with servantleaders who have committed to
standing beside the landownerson this issue.
We will not forget, or let themrewrite history, that they
(29:15):
turned their backs on the peoplein favor of the billion-dollar
donor class, when the rightthing to do was to stand beside
private property rights and ourownership.
I was in Pierre last week forseveral days, went out to supper
several evenings.
I saw some of these legislatorssitting with the GEVO and
Summit Carbon Solutionslobbyists.
We are watching.
(29:36):
We know which side of historyyou need to be on.
You don't get to spin doctoryour way out of this.
The right thing to do to respectthe will of the people is to
remember that, yes, there areprojects and there are
opportunities coming into thestate of South Dakota.
They promise a lot of moneywith it, but the last time I
checked, we do not abandon ourprivate property rights and our
(29:58):
individual liberties because thedonor class has something to
offer, and so that would be mymessage.
I do have a feeling there'ssome that are softening and that
are understanding that this isthe will of the people, and they
may even have buyer's remorseon their vote on SB201.
And so I am eager for this billto get out of both committees
and get to the floor, and we'llsee if the actions match the
(30:19):
words of the politicians whotell the people what they want
to hear, while they go behindour backs and do something
completely opposite.
Speaker 1 (30:28):
I didn't know it was possible to like Amanda Radke
more, but man, do I like it whenyou?
I mean that is awesome, mark,you are kind of a diplomat and I
appreciate that.
Amanda just tells it the way itis and that is awesome.
And one thing I want to add,and we're just about done here,
but again, I think this is acaution and this is what I love
(30:51):
about House Bill 1052.
Just no BS.
It's very precise.
This is what it does, noambiguity whatsoever.
And what I use as the oppositeof that are these school choice
bills that have been put forward.
When the establishment loses,whether it's nationally or
(31:14):
whether it's in South Dakota,they will pretend that they're
going to play nice.
But it is all calculated to getpower back.
And when I saw our governorearmark $4 million for school
choice, I knew what she wasdoing and I was hoping and that
(31:40):
it would not work.
And all of a sudden, here weare trying to fix a hundred
million dollar problem with $4million.
It won't work.
I'm not even talking aboutspecifics of a bill Fixing
school choice in a state likeSouth Dakota.
You can't do it for $4 million.
So we have the damned power Ifwe're going to do something,
(32:02):
damn it.
Let's do it right.
And we are with the eminentdomain right.
The other thing is propertyrelief.
Reducing property taxes forowner-occupied homes by 20 or 30
or 35 percent is not enough.
We have one chance to get thisright right.
So every like property, Ibelieve property tax should be
(32:26):
abolished.
I've got a very comprehensiveplan how it can easily be paid
for.
That's for another day andanother time and another
discussion.
And there's people around thestate that also believe that.
But like, eliminating orreducing property tax by 30% on
owner occupied people is doingnothing to help people that
(32:48):
can't pay their rent Right andso like we need.
So I don't want to talk aboutproperty taxes in depth.
I'm just simply saying thatwhen we get the power back, it
is time to do things right andit is time to do them to the
extent they need to be done.
If the roles were reversed lookwhat we saw with Biden the last
four years Look what we've seenwith some of the nonsense going
(33:11):
on with the establishmentRepublicans in South Dakota when
they have the gavel, so tospeak, they will go for your
throat and for decades.
Conservatives get squirmish andconservatives in South Dakota
are not going to get squirmishbecause people like Amanda Ratke
and myself and Mark Lopke arenot going to let it happen there
, I feel better.
I can sleep tonight, havingsaid that.
(33:32):
So, mark, if you would justtake a minute, if just like if
you had one minute to convinceeverybody in South Dakota to
support HB 1052, what would theyneed to do?
Who should they call?
Who do they talk to Go ahead?
Speaker 3 (33:52):
Well, the number one thing to do is contact your
legislators.
Tell them to support HB 1052.
Tell them to vote in favor ofit in committee.
Tell them to vote in favor ofit on the floor.
But the very number one thingthat I can recommend to people
and suggest is come to peer.
(34:12):
Come to peer.
The power of the people is.
There's nothing else thatequates to it.
Show up.
It is your government,participate in it.
Realize it for yourself.
There was nothing more alteringto my thoughts on it.
When I first started going downto the Capitol and experiencing
(34:35):
it for myself, I didn'tunderstand it.
I didn't know how it worked.
In the meantime, I have learnedthat, and I think that's really
what has led to a lot of thechanges in the state of South
Dakota.
More people have just flat outgotten involved, and that's what
it's going to take on all ofthese important issues, because
it will take the will of thepeople to get them across the
(34:56):
finish line, and you can't dothat if you do not participate.
Speaker 1 (35:01):
Yeah, 100%.
Well said, amanda.
Last question for you.
Again, I'm going to do ahypothetical here because I'm
pretty confident in this bill.
So let's move forward past thisbill.
What do you think needs tohappen in order for the state
(35:24):
and specifically this group ofpassionate landowners you know
people like Mark to keep themmotivated and engaged all the
way through the 2026 electioncycle?
Because I think one of you Ithink it was Mark earlier
mentioned you know the landownerenergy is what propelled all of
(35:46):
the changes in 2024.
It and the primary, the general, all the ballot stuff, like
like there was a lot more peopleinvolved and I get that.
What I'm saying is thelandowner energy is what
propelled everything that hashappened, in my opinion, in the
conservative movement in SouthDakota in 2024.
(36:07):
And I'm a little concerned thatif we get this big win here,
that we could lose some of thatthe next two years.
Amanda, what are your thoughtson that?
Speaker 2 (36:23):
You know, last Monday , to kick off the legislative
session, we had our third rally,where hundreds and hundreds of
landowners came to peer askingfor three very specific things
Protect our private propertyrights, secure our local control
and no eminent domain for CO2pipelines.
I've been in a lot of things inmy career regarding policy
issues, but I've never seenanything quite like what's
happened in South Dakota tobring landowners, bipartisan in
(36:47):
nature, setting aside all oftheir differences, to say this
is the right thing to do.
And what happens next?
The decisions that are made inPierre need to outlast us all,
because the land will outlast usall Politicians, those that are
servant leaders, that want toenter into this arena.
My best advice for them is toget into the trenches with the
(37:09):
people, because we're not goinganywhere.
This fight has been long.
The most common comment I gotat the rally was you can tell
the landowners are battle-worn,because we are.
We've taken a lot of bullets,but we're still here, we're
still hopeful and we're notgoing anywhere.
And so this is the issue.
George Washington even said ifprivate property rights and
(37:32):
freedom go hand in hand, youcannot have one without the
other, and I don't think there'sa single person in this
landowner battle that's going tolay down that baton and give up
that fight, even after SummitCarbon Solutions has packed up
their bags and head home.
This is who we are in SouthDakota and we're going to make
sure that remains a number onepriority moving forward.
Speaker 1 (37:54):
Amen, mark.
Thank you very much, amanda.
Thank you very much.
That was excellent.
I look forward to seeing bothyou, and I suspect I will be
seeing you and Pierre very, verysoon.
Thank you, guys.
Have a great day.
As a South Dakotan, my stanceis clear and unwavering I am
completely against theexploitation of eminent domain
(38:17):
by Summit Carbon Solutions fortheir carbon pipeline.
This isn't just about propertyrights, it's about protecting
our safety and our land.
The potential for CO2 leaks orpipeline ruptures poses a direct
threat to our communities, ourwildlife and our agriculture
(38:40):
heritage.
Eminent domain must be reservedfor true public necessity, not
the profit-driven desires ofprivate companies like Summit
Carbon Solutions.
Let's stand firm in defendingSouth Dakota's land, our safety
and our rights against thisinvasive project.
(39:01):
Thank you for listening to TobyDoden Unfiltered.
What an amazing place we live in South Dakota.
My mission statement is simpleTo re-energize the true
conservative values in SouthDakota.
You're listening to Toby DodenUnfiltered.
Welcome to Episode 9 of TobyDoden Unfiltered.
(00:25):
I am your host, Toby Doden, andI am very happy to be back with
you today.
I'm also very happy to announcethat we are going to have two
very special guests on today.
We are going to be talking toAmanda Ratke and we are going to
be talking to Senator MarkLopke.
They're going to be on with usand we are going to talk about
House Bill 1052, which wouldeliminate eminent gain for
(00:48):
private gain in South Dakota.
Okay, so we are joined byAmanda Radke and Mark Lopke, and
if you've been paying attentionat all to politics in South
Dakota, specifically the CarbonSummit Solutions Pipeline, you
(01:11):
undoubtedly know these twocharacters very, very well.
So first thing I'm going to do,Amanda, if you could just maybe
take a minute and just kind ofintroduce yourself.
There probably are a few peoplewatching that don't necessarily
know your history, so why don'tyou tell us a little bit about
yourself, Amanda?
Speaker 2 (01:30):
Sure, I'm Amanda Radke from Mitchell, south
Dakota, mom of four, wife andfarmer rancher entrepreneur.
I travel the country speakingat conferences, talking about
agricultural policy and thingsthat can impact farmers and
ranchers in a positive way, andI got involved in this battle
because I got a phone call froman elderly widow who had been
(01:54):
bullied by Summit CarbonSolutions and she asked me to
use my platform to tell herstory.
And then an avalanche of phonecalls came in of many more
impacted landowners, and so whenI got involved in this fight,
it was just because it was theright thing to do for private
property ownership.
But as it stands today, nowthat the route has expanded, it
(02:14):
goes within a mile of my housewhere my four children sleep,
and so I'm pretty deeplyinvested in the outcome of this
particular battle.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
Excellent.
Yeah, thank you very much, mark.
Why don't you tell the viewersa little bit about yourself?
Speaker 3 (02:30):
Well, I'm a lifelong farmer and rancher from Loyola,
south Dakota, which is inMcPherson County.
As a young man, I've beeninvolved in day-to-day aspects
of the farm and ranch.
I started taking calves when Iwas 12 years old and I've tagged
everyone on our ranch eversince then.
You know I grew up and you knowunder the premise that I
(02:54):
thought that what we do is thebest thing in the world and
where we do it is the best thing.
I truthfully believe that wehad the property rights in place
that was going to ensure thatto happen.
For the next six generations ofmy family, as currently my son
is the sixth generation on ourfarm, I want to see our
livelihood propagated in essence, forever, and it wasn't until
(03:17):
this summit issue arose, justabout four years ago now, that I
started to get more involved.
I really didn't have anything todo with politics previous to
that, nor did I have anyinterest to, and it was an
interesting situation that Ifound myself in that well, once
politics gets involved with you,you have to get involved, and,
(03:37):
having been part of this processover the last several years, it
wasn't until the passage of SB201 last year that turned into
RL 21 that I seriously began toconsider possibly running for
office myself.
I'd spent so many, countlesshours searching for somebody
that I thought I could getbehind and support to do that,
(03:58):
and ultimately you wake up andyou look in the mirror one
morning and realize that thatperson is you.
Wake up and you look in themirror one morning and realize
that that person is you, and sothat's what I did.
I ran for state senate indistrict 23.
I was successful in my primary.
I did not have a generalopponent and so I was sworn.
In this last Tuesday as oursitting state senator, I sit as
(04:21):
the vice chair on theappropriations committee.
We've had a good first week inPierre and looking forward to
getting back to work on Tuesday.
Speaker 1 (04:30):
Excellent.
Thank you very much andcongratulations.
I remember the first time I metyou we had lunch at Mulligan's
in Aberdeen, I think, probablyabout a year ago and I remember
you telling me that you mightjust have to run for office if
things didn't start to change.
And lo and behold, here you are, congratulations, and it's very
(04:50):
nice to catch up with both ofyou.
If, amanda, if you wouldn'tmind, could you or or Mark,
either one, just give us a justa very brief background, going
back to 2021, when Summit CarbonSolutions.
To 2021 when Summit CarbonSolutions and I believe it was
Navigator at that timeoriginally started this
application process for thecarbon pipeline, to just kind of
(05:11):
catch everybody up to kind ofwhere we're at, leading up to
House Bill 1052.
And then we'll talk about thatnext.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
So Mark would be the guy to talk about the very
beginning, because it came tohis backyard first.
Speaker 3 (05:26):
It was August approximately August 24th, if I
remember correctly the firsttime that we had heard anything.
My family received about a halfa dozen letters in the mail for
a proposed CO2 pipeline thatwould be crossing a few miles of
my family's property.
That would be crossing a fewmiles of my family's property,
(05:50):
and at the beginning, you know,I thought it was possibly an oil
or a natural gas pipeline anddidn't particularly see any
issue with it and was interestedin sitting down and discussing
it.
After a little bit more fartherresearch into it, though, I
began to realize what a carbondioxide pipeline was.
Well, what is the possible usefor that?
How are we going to beaffecting our energy prices for
(06:13):
consumers?
Because pipelines have alwaysexisted as a mode of
transportation a cheaper mode oftransportation for liquid fuels
, in order to have lower coststo the consumer.
And as I began to look into ita little bit more, it's like
well, what are we doing here?
Well, we're going to becapturing the emissions off of
ethanol plants, compressing itinto a high dense phase liquid
(06:36):
in order to bury 10,000 feetunder the ground and permanently
sequester, in order for theethanol plants to improve their
CI score.
Well, how are we going to payfor all of this.
And that's probably when I hadan eye-opening moment that it
simply was going to existbecause of complete and total
government subsidization.
And so I kept an open mind fromthat point.
(06:58):
And then, in the initial publicmeetings that Summit had in
October of 2021, that Summit hadin October of 2021, they began
to discuss in detail what theywere going to do.
But a question was broughtbefore them by Mr Ed Fischbach.
He asked them would they committo not using eminent domain?
(07:18):
They would not answer thequestion right away and upon
farther pressing by Mr Fischbach, they would not commit to not
using eminent domain.
And it was at that time that Ibecame quite opposed to this,
because I didn't think it metthe parameters of what eminent
domain was intended for.
And then how could you possiblybe faced with having your land
(07:42):
condemned and then, in turn,paying for it as a taxpayer?
And so that was what kind ofset the stage.
We went into that nextlegislative session and
Representative Carla Lems, inher freshman year at the time,
brought forward House Bill 1133.
House Bill 1133 would have madeit so that CO2 pipelines would
(08:06):
not be eligible for eminentdomain.
That was successful.
It sailed right through HouseCommittee, right through the
House floor, but met its demisein the Senate Commerce and
Energy Committee where it wasdefeated 7-0.
To zero.
(08:27):
And then, following up intolast year's legislative session,
house Bill 1219, a great billbought by our new Speaker of the
House, john Hanson.
He brought that last year,which would also have eliminated
eminent domain for CO2pipelines.
That bill was close incommittee but defeated.
There was an attempt to smokeit out on the House floor.
The initial smokeout wassuccessful but the calendaring
(08:48):
of the bill after that was notsuccessful and then that is
where that in fact died.
And so, rolling into this year,representative Lems has yet once
again and she's a true championof property rights in South
Dakota has brought forward andpresented House Bill 1052.
House Bill 1052 will alsoeliminate the use of eminent
(09:11):
domain for CO2 pipelines in thestate of South Dakota.
I, fortunately, have been ableto be the prime sponsor in the
Senate.
Representative Lems will carryit in the House, I myself will
carry it in the Senate.
We're up to 29 representativesthat have signed on as
co-sponsors, as well as 11senators.
(09:32):
The bill is well positioned.
There appears to be nonpartisansupport for the bill.
We're in a good position andwe're looking forward to moving
on with that.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
So just so the folks at home know, mark just
mentioned House Bill 1052.
I'm just going to read it quick.
Normally when you tell somebodyyou're going to read a bill,
they roll their eyes.
This is the shortest andsweetest bill.
It's very good to see that wehave actual professionals
submitting bills in peer onceagain.
(10:05):
So here's what it said.
What it says, excuse meNotwithstanding the provisions
of any other law, a person maynot exercise the right of
eminent domain to acquire rightof way for, construct or operate
a pipeline for the preponderantpurpose of transporting carbon
oxide.
I kind of liken it to thesecond amendment, like no frills
(10:27):
, no BS, right to the point.
Amanda, what are your thoughtson house bill 1052?
And what is your sense of thetotal amount of support that it
has?
Speaker 2 (10:41):
I think it's precise and addressing in a focused
manner the gun that is pointedat the people's heads, the
people who have been had theirlives put on hold for three
years battling this thing andthey're dealing with
condemnations and having to hirelegal counsel and feeling like
their whole lives have been puton hold as we wait to see what's
(11:02):
going to happen with thisapplication process for this
carbon pipeline.
So I liken it to it's brainsurgery and we've called in a
brain surgeon to really addressthe issue, one of the things
that I think is really important.
As Carla had mentioned, in 30words or less, we are addressing
an issue in a really commonsense way.
There's zero percent chance ofany regulatory drift on other
(11:26):
industries, meaning you're notgoing to be piled on by, you
know electric or water or otherutilities that are actually for
a common use, that are going hasbeen backed by the South Dakota
Supreme Court that this projectdoes not have a common carrier
status, it cannot use eminentdomain, it cannot invasively
(11:53):
survey on people's land, and sothe legislature absolutely has
the authority to act to shore upour private property rights and
to provide that constitutionalcertainty that the people have
consistently asked for andadvocated for since this whole
thing began.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
Yeah, absolutely so, mark.
For most of the people in SouthDakota they aren't nearly as
familiar with the ins and outsof the state legislature,
certainly as somebody like youwho serves in it now.
So to get 40 sponsors on a billlike this, just give us kind of
(12:32):
an indication of what a normalbill would get for sponsors.
I assume this is a much highernumber of sponsors than a normal
bill.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
Yes, it is a particularly high number of
sponsors.
A lot of times you'll see billswith maybe three or two.
The state of South Dakota withRL21.
And the impact that it had onour last round of elections
(13:12):
there is 10 new first-time everserving in any legislative or
governmental capacity members ofthe Senate, and there are seven
of those that RL21 and SB201was the exact reason why they
got involved in the first place,so I think it's exciting that
(13:33):
that many have signed on to it.
I think it's a good show ofsupport for this particular bill
and it's an issue that, quitefrankly, is a statewide
high-profile issue and it'sbeing treated as such.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
So I guess my follow-up to that Mark would be
and I'm curious too just kind ofwalk us through the timing of
this.
When is this thing going to hitcommittee?
How confident are you that it'sgoing to go to a full vote and
when will that happen?
Going to go to a?
Speaker 3 (14:05):
full vote, and when will that happen?
The bill 1052 has been assignedto the House State Affairs
Committee and they meet onMondays, wednesdays and Fridays
of the week at 7 45 am in themorning.
We do not have session tomorrowas it is a holiday, and so I
have not heard if it will becoming this week.
(14:26):
It is looking like more thanlikely it will be coming the
following week, and as soon aswe know for sure, we will be the
very first ones to let everyoneknow.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
Perfect.
So I've had several people askme this question this week and
so I think it's on the minds ofa lot of people, just because
this has been a multi-yearbattle.
So let's just assume for asecond that House Bill 1052
passes, it goes all the waythrough and it's enacted into
(14:59):
law.
What is next for Summit CarbonSolutions if that happens?
Speaker 3 (15:07):
Well, one has to remember, you know, there is
concern amongst you know,industries outside of carbon
pipelines that are concernedabout eminent domain legislation
affecting them, and we have haddiscussions with other entities
and industries, and none of usare against electricity, we are
(15:31):
not opposed to water projects.
That is something that is anecessary use that every man,
woman and child in our state andcountry need for life, and so
this is in no way focused uponthem.
This is focused upon a projectthat has no definitive public
use and it still does not banthis project from taking place.
(15:55):
What it will require?
It will require, in actuality,good faith negotiations between
a carbon pipeline company andlandowners that they can sit
down and if they can come to anagreement, it can move forward.
But we need to establishbusiness practices between a
willing buyer and a willingseller and not allow the heavy
(16:17):
hand of the government to beused in order for them to obtain
that, because if we go downthat path, eminent domain will
simply become a way of doingbusiness and, quite frankly,
there is not one of us thatwould like to be in that
situation.
Speaker 1 (16:31):
Yeah, for sure.
I've got a question for you,amanda, but I have to follow up
Mark, with this.
Originally, I had seen a numberof 73% of landowners had come
to an agreement or planned tocome to an agreement with Summit
Carbon Solutions and I heardthrough the grapevine I was not
(17:09):
there Friday take the money andhave this dangerous pipeline run
through their land.
Speaker 3 (17:16):
Well, I guess the number one thing that I'd like
to see is proof of that.
A lot of the time it has justbeen an arbitrary number that is
thrown out there with anyevidence supporting such.
It was like in the initialfiling.
They had claimed to be 70%signed up.
Well, there was over just about180 persons that were served
(17:38):
with eminent domain proceedings,and that number was greater
than 25% the remainder of theproject that existed that they
said that they had.
So I would take those figureswith a grain of salt until we
would see something to back itup.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
That's a hell of a good answer.
I was thinking the same thingmyself.
So, amanda, what is the currentlay of the land at the PUC
meetings that are taking placeacross the state?
I know you've been attendingthem.
Can you just kind of give us anoverview of what the meetings
are for, how they've been goingand what your perception of them
(18:15):
is at this point?
Speaker 2 (18:20):
Sure Utilities Commission just hosted six
meetings where Summit CarbonSolutions could make their case
and present their project to thepeople, and the people had the
opportunity to express theirconcerns, ask questions, that
kind of thing.
I will say it was quiteinteresting that there were so
many out of state we're talkinglike Oklahoma type out of state,
(18:41):
like very far away from SouthDakota who came in to testify in
support of this project.
And there was many, many loudopposition of people right here
in our communities that haveconcerns about the health, the
safety, whether Summit CarbonSolutions can abide by the rules
, the county ordinances and thetownships.
And right now I'm not sure whenthis is going to air, but there
(19:05):
is a deadline to apply to be anintervener, to have party
status on this project.
That deadline is January 24th,and so it's a very tight
deadline to first hear about theproject, and a lot of people
are hearing about it, believe itor not, for the first time.
6,500 letters, I found out at aPUC meeting, were sent out by
Summit Carbon Solutions the weekof Christmas telling people
(19:29):
that, hey, you are an impactedlandowner in this route, come to
our meetings and find out moreabout it.
And so it's a very tightturnaround for people that are
now new on the route, that aretrying to figure out how it's
going to impact their families,their businesses, their children
.
And again, that deadline isJanuary 24th.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
We are going to get this out very, very quickly.
It should be released to themasses Monday, the 20th,
tomorrow, inauguration Day.
I am indeed an intervener.
This pipeline, in the latestmap I've seen, runs about 2,600
feet give or take from mydoorstep.
(20:09):
So yeah, I understand theplight and the fear of people
all over the state.
Clearly this is a land rightsissue, but it's also a safety
issue.
Mark, we've seen some prettymassive divisions arise over
competing bills on school choice.
(20:30):
Don't worry, I'm not going toask you about that, I'm just
simply using that as a precursor.
Can you explain the differenceson eminent domain between John
Carley's bill and your bill andCarla Lem's bill, because
there's a lot of people outthere that have asked me to give
them the nuanced differencesand I guess what I tell them is
(20:54):
well, just by reading them youcan tell very quickly.
You know what the purpose ofyours was versus theirs.
But since you're the mainsponsor, or one of the two main
sponsors, I'd like to hear itdirectly from you.
Speaker 3 (21:08):
Yes, senator John Carley has brought Senate Bill
49, which is a good piece ofeminent domain legislation that
will start begin theconversation on wind and solar
in the state of South Dakota.
His bill also includes alanguage to take away the
(21:28):
ability of the Public UtilitiesCommission to be able to preempt
local, county and municipal andtownship ordinances for carbon
and hydrogen pipelines, and so,while I think it is a very good
bill, there needs to be someconversations on it, as you are
again bringing in a lot more ofthe other industries that are
(21:50):
not very interested in beingaffected by that type of
legislation.
It needs to have a discussion.
I'm supportive of it, but wealso need to deal with what is
in front of us at the moment,and that is CO2 pipelines, and
that's what HB 1052 specificallydoes.
Speaker 1 (22:13):
I could not go ahead.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
Oh, I just kind of wanted to speak to how we got to
this point, but if you had afollow-up question for Mark, go
ahead.
But okay, I just really thinkthere's a story that's unfolding
here in South Dakota that Ireally want people to understand
is that I really believe thatthis legislative session is
going to be defined by twoissues property tax relief and
(22:36):
private property ownership, andboth of those bring landowners
together.
Whether you own a corner lot inSioux Falls or you own 10
sections of land out by Kadoka,the landowners have spoken, and
how we've gotten to this pointis that bad actors and
bought-off politicians havepushed the people to the brink
where they have to stand up anddefend themselves.
(22:57):
So, watching SB 201 make itsway through the legislative
session last year, despite thefact that hundreds and hundreds
of people traveled repeatedly topeer to advocate against it.
And the real problem with thatpiece of legislation is that it
would have taken away the countyand township's ability to do
setbacks and ordinances that areappropriate for their
(23:21):
individual communities.
And so the RL21 victory, where65 of 66 counties rejected it
with 59% of the vote.
And, by the way, every singlecounty that has an ethanol plant
in it overwhelmingly rejectedthis bill.
It sends a message to peer thathey, we are open for business
(23:41):
but we are not for sale.
And we have spoken very clearlythat we have elected officials
on the townships and thecounties and we want them to
represent us in our bestinterest.
And the great thing about thatis not only do we have this
mandate by the people, but thePublic Utilities Commission
absolutely got it right on thefirst application, where they
said they were going to standbeside the counties and
(24:04):
townships.
And now once again, 10 daysafter the election or two weeks
after the election on November19th Summit, reapplied for a
permit and right there in thatpermit they asked for, basically
verbatim, the language thatwould have been in RL21, sb201,
which is they are asking the PUCto override the counties and
the townships.
(24:24):
So I believe now, going intothis legislative session, we are
in a position of strength.
The people have spoken.
The legislators shouldabsolutely feel empowered that
it's not a small vocal minority.
This is the absolute will ofthe people and I am calling on
the legislators and our governorto act accordingly to the will
of the people.
(24:44):
That without private propertyrights, we have nothing and in a
project like this that is forprivate gain.
South Dakota, south Dakotans,should absolutely have the
option to say no, thank you, andthat is a full sentence.
Speaker 1 (24:58):
Yes, it is, and you want to know what keeps me up at
night?
And, um, largely I I try tokeep a 10 000 foot view of a lot
of these things because, uh,you know, doing the right thing
generally involves playing chessand not checkers and, and, and
(25:19):
sometimes people get caught up,uh, in in the now rather than in
tomorrow and what, what.
What scares me most, and we'vealready seen it a little bit in
this legislative session, is,yes, amanda, you spoke to it.
There was a mandate from thepeople.
It was very specific, ithappened nationally and it
happened in South Dakota thepeople on the other side,
(25:42):
largely I'm not talking aboutthe Democrats, I'm talking about
the establishment left-leaningif I wanted to be nice, I would
say moderate Republicans I'vealready seen some state moderate
Republicans already talking adifferent tune and I've seen
(26:06):
people on the conservative sideof things already take it like,
like hook line and sinker and so, like your passion, I love it,
and I am the same way, and I amconstantly having to remind
people like you have to look atwhat people say and what people
do over a extended period oftime, because if you only listen
(26:29):
to what they are telling youand what they are doing today
and you forget about whatthey've done six months, six
years ago.
You are not using the rightskills to analyze that person's
intentions.
And so, mark, there have beenconversations with legislators
who voted for SB 201.
And I am curious now what yoursense is if any of them are
(26:53):
genuinely changing their tune,or if they're just changing
their tune because they realizethat they've been beaten and
they are trying to negate thefallout and they're trying to
get back in the cool kids cluband the first chance they get to
, to, to, to push things back tothe way they were the last few
years, they'll do it.
(27:13):
So what?
What is your sense of some ofthe SB201 supporters and what
they're saying and doing today?
Speaker 3 (27:25):
I think what's currently going on is that was
the power of the referendumPrevious to the statewide vote
being taken on the issue.
To kind of present a barometerof how the voting public feels
wasn't available up until thatpoint.
For so long it was claimed thatthe people that are in
(27:47):
opposition to this are a smallvocal minority and being out in
the country, living where I do,going across the state to
meetings on this, I knew thatthat was not the case.
I've never seen an issue thathas polarized so many people on
one side.
The amount of opposition thatthere is for this is really
(28:09):
quite amazing to a certaindegree, and I think that because
of the referendum actuallyhaving put a quantifying a
number of how unpopular this iswith the state of South Dakota
has people looking at it througha different lens, and I think
that realization has come withthem being more supportive of
(28:31):
what South Dakota wants.
South Dakota does not want thiscarbon pipeline.
South Dakota does not wanteminent domain abuse in this
state.
They want to have theirfreedoms and their liberties
reinforced so that they can takecare of themselves and their
families with whatever way theysee fit.
Speaker 1 (28:51):
Yeah, 100%.
Speaker 2 (28:53):
Mark is very kind if I could send a little bit more
harsher message to those folks13 incumbents who voted for SB
201 have gone into earlyretirement because we, the
people, sent them home.
We replaced them with servantleaders who have committed to
standing beside the landownerson this issue.
We will not forget, or let themrewrite history, that they
(29:15):
turned their backs on the peoplein favor of the billion-dollar
donor class, when the rightthing to do was to stand beside
private property rights and ourownership.
I was in Pierre last week forseveral days, went out to supper
several evenings.
I saw some of these legislatorssitting with the GEVO and
Summit Carbon Solutionslobbyists.
We are watching.
(29:36):
We know which side of historyyou need to be on.
You don't get to spin doctoryour way out of this.
The right thing to do to respectthe will of the people is to
remember that, yes, there areprojects and there are
opportunities coming into thestate of South Dakota.
They promise a lot of moneywith it, but the last time I
checked, we do not abandon ourprivate property rights and our
(29:58):
individual liberties because thedonor class has something to
offer, and so that would be mymessage.
I do have a feeling there'ssome that are softening and that
are understanding that this isthe will of the people, and they
may even have buyer's remorseon their vote on SB201.
And so I am eager for this billto get out of both committees
and get to the floor, and we'llsee if the actions match the
(30:19):
words of the politicians whotell the people what they want
to hear, while they go behindour backs and do something
completely opposite.
Speaker 1 (30:28):
I didn't know it was possible to like Amanda Radke
more, but man, do I like it whenyou?
I mean that is awesome, mark,you are kind of a diplomat and I
appreciate that.
Amanda just tells it the way itis and that is awesome.
And one thing I want to add,and we're just about done here,
but again, I think this is acaution and this is what I love
(30:51):
about House Bill 1052.
Just no BS.
It's very precise.
This is what it does, noambiguity whatsoever.
And what I use as the oppositeof that are these school choice
bills that have been put forward.
When the establishment loses,whether it's nationally or
(31:14):
whether it's in South Dakota,they will pretend that they're
going to play nice.
But it is all calculated to getpower back.
And when I saw our governorearmark $4 million for school
choice, I knew what she wasdoing and I was hoping and that
(31:40):
it would not work.
And all of a sudden, here weare trying to fix a hundred
million dollar problem with $4million.
It won't work.
I'm not even talking aboutspecifics of a bill Fixing
school choice in a state likeSouth Dakota.
You can't do it for $4 million.
So we have the damned power Ifwe're going to do something,
(32:02):
damn it.
Let's do it right.
And we are with the eminentdomain right.
The other thing is propertyrelief.
Reducing property taxes forowner-occupied homes by 20 or 30
or 35 percent is not enough.
We have one chance to get thisright right.
So every like property, Ibelieve property tax should be
(32:26):
abolished.
I've got a very comprehensiveplan how it can easily be paid
for.
That's for another day andanother time and another
discussion.
And there's people around thestate that also believe that.
But like, eliminating orreducing property tax by 30% on
owner occupied people is doingnothing to help people that
(32:48):
can't pay their rent Right andso like we need.
So I don't want to talk aboutproperty taxes in depth.
I'm just simply saying thatwhen we get the power back, it
is time to do things right andit is time to do them to the
extent they need to be done.
If the roles were reversed lookwhat we saw with Biden the last
four years Look what we've seenwith some of the nonsense going
(33:11):
on with the establishmentRepublicans in South Dakota when
they have the gavel, so tospeak, they will go for your
throat and for decades.
Conservatives get squirmish andconservatives in South Dakota
are not going to get squirmishbecause people like Amanda Ratke
and myself and Mark Lopke arenot going to let it happen there
, I feel better.
I can sleep tonight, havingsaid that.
(33:32):
So, mark, if you would justtake a minute, if just like if
you had one minute to convinceeverybody in South Dakota to
support HB 1052, what would theyneed to do?
Who should they call?
Who do they talk to Go ahead?
Speaker 3 (33:52):
Well, the number one thing to do is contact your
legislators.
Tell them to support HB 1052.
Tell them to vote in favor ofit in committee.
Tell them to vote in favor ofit on the floor.
But the very number one thingthat I can recommend to people
and suggest is come to peer.
(34:12):
Come to peer.
The power of the people is.
There's nothing else thatequates to it.
Show up.
It is your government,participate in it.
Realize it for yourself.
There was nothing more alteringto my thoughts on it.
When I first started going downto the Capitol and experiencing
(34:35):
it for myself, I didn'tunderstand it.
I didn't know how it worked.
In the meantime, I have learnedthat, and I think that's really
what has led to a lot of thechanges in the state of South
Dakota.
More people have just flat outgotten involved, and that's what
it's going to take on all ofthese important issues, because
it will take the will of thepeople to get them across the
(34:56):
finish line, and you can't dothat if you do not participate.
Speaker 1 (35:01):
Yeah, 100%.
Well said, amanda.
Last question for you.
Again, I'm going to do ahypothetical here because I'm
pretty confident in this bill.
So let's move forward past thisbill.
What do you think needs tohappen in order for the state
(35:24):
and specifically this group ofpassionate landowners you know
people like Mark to keep themmotivated and engaged all the
way through the 2026 electioncycle?
Because I think one of you Ithink it was Mark earlier
mentioned you know the landownerenergy is what propelled all of
(35:46):
the changes in 2024.
It and the primary, the general, all the ballot stuff, like
like there was a lot more peopleinvolved and I get that.
What I'm saying is thelandowner energy is what
propelled everything that hashappened, in my opinion, in the
conservative movement in SouthDakota in 2024.
(36:07):
And I'm a little concerned thatif we get this big win here,
that we could lose some of thatthe next two years.
Amanda, what are your thoughtson that?
Speaker 2 (36:23):
You know, last Monday , to kick off the legislative
session, we had our third rally,where hundreds and hundreds of
landowners came to peer askingfor three very specific things
Protect our private propertyrights, secure our local control
and no eminent domain for CO2pipelines.
I've been in a lot of things inmy career regarding policy
issues, but I've never seenanything quite like what's
happened in South Dakota tobring landowners, bipartisan in
(36:47):
nature, setting aside all oftheir differences, to say this
is the right thing to do.
And what happens next?
The decisions that are made inPierre need to outlast us all,
because the land will outlast usall Politicians, those that are
servant leaders, that want toenter into this arena.
My best advice for them is toget into the trenches with the
(37:09):
people, because we're not goinganywhere.
This fight has been long.
The most common comment I gotat the rally was you can tell
the landowners are battle-worn,because we are.
We've taken a lot of bullets,but we're still here, we're
still hopeful and we're notgoing anywhere.
And so this is the issue.
George Washington even said ifprivate property rights and
(37:32):
freedom go hand in hand, youcannot have one without the
other, and I don't think there'sa single person in this
landowner battle that's going tolay down that baton and give up
that fight, even after SummitCarbon Solutions has packed up
their bags and head home.
This is who we are in SouthDakota and we're going to make
sure that remains a number onepriority moving forward.
Speaker 1 (37:54):
Amen, mark.
Thank you very much, amanda.
Thank you very much.
That was excellent.
I look forward to seeing bothyou, and I suspect I will be
seeing you and Pierre very, verysoon.
Thank you, guys.
Have a great day.
As a South Dakotan, my stanceis clear and unwavering I am
completely against theexploitation of eminent domain
(38:17):
by Summit Carbon Solutions fortheir carbon pipeline.
This isn't just about propertyrights, it's about protecting
our safety and our land.
The potential for CO2 leaks orpipeline ruptures poses a direct
threat to our communities, ourwildlife and our agriculture
(38:40):
heritage.
Eminent domain must be reservedfor true public necessity, not
the profit-driven desires ofprivate companies like Summit
Carbon Solutions.
Let's stand firm in defendingSouth Dakota's land, our safety
and our rights against thisinvasive project.
(39:01):
Thank you for listening to TobyDoden Unfiltered.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes present: Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial
Introducing… Aubrey O’Day Diddy’s former protege, television personality, platinum selling music artist, Danity Kane alum Aubrey O’Day joins veteran journalists Amy Robach and TJ Holmes to provide a unique perspective on the trial that has captivated the attention of the nation. Join them throughout the trial as they discuss, debate, and dissect every detail, every aspect of the proceedings. Aubrey will offer her opinions and expertise, as only she is qualified to do given her first-hand knowledge. From her days on Making the Band, as she emerged as the breakout star, the truth of the situation would be the opposite of the glitz and glamour. Listen throughout every minute of the trial, for this exclusive coverage. Amy Robach and TJ Holmes present Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial, an iHeartRadio podcast.
Good Hang with Amy Poehler
Come hang with Amy Poehler. Each week on her podcast, she'll welcome celebrities and fun people to her studio. They'll share stories about their careers, mutual friends, shared enthusiasms, and most importantly, what's been making them laugh. This podcast is not about trying to make you better or giving advice. Amy just wants to have a good time.