Hunhoff co-chairs the Joint Appropriations Committee, which makes major budget decisions. The committee was scheduled to meet Monday with Gov. Kristi Noem, she said.

The Legislature needs to pass not only a balanced budget but one that meets South Dakota’s priorities, Hunhoff said. “We need to make sure the dollars we expend are used wisely,” she said, stressing the need to hold agencies accountable for those dollars.

The 2024 Legislature has moved at a faster pace than past sessions, Stevens said. Much of the remaining heavy lifting deals with the budget, although some key bills remain unresolved, he said.

“We have four days left in the session. Things are moving rather quickly, which is not the case some years ago,” he said. “Lots of times, we worked during the late hours. I didn’t appreciate having that happen.”

Auch characterized the budget discussion as a “battle” between the House and Senate. She used one example of different priorities between the chambers.

“The House has made a top priority for Lifescape, which is funding for a facility that takes care of those with disabilities in our communities, and the Senate wants to build airports and make funding available to improve airports, which is a corporate capitalism industry,” she said.

“The South Dakota Constitution mandates we have to take care of those with disabilities, while on the Senate side, there are those who believe they need to give a little extra help for airports.”

Stevens summed up the home stretch by saying, “This is going to be a very interesting last week.”

The following are some of the various topics Saturday:

One of Saturday’s longest-discussed and most contentious issues was pipelines — particularly for carbon dioxide (CO2) — versus the property rights of landowners where eminent domain may be used for private projects seeking to cross South Dakota.

SB 201 would provide new statutory requirements for regulating linear transmission facilities, to allow counties to impose a surcharge on certain pipeline companies.

HB 1185 would amend provisions regarding entry on private property for examination and survey of a project requiring a siting permit.

HB 1186 would define the requirements for granting a carbon pipeline easement.

Hunhoff and Stevens voted for the House bills, while Auch strongly opposes current efforts in the Legislature.

Auch said she sees the proposed bills taking away local control and landowner rights. She also views it as a back-door way of overriding a past Public Utilities Commission (PUC) decision that led to Navigator’s exit from the state and as a way to benefit current efforts by Summit Carbon Solutions in the state.

Auch acknowledged the pipelines wouldn’t enter Yankton County, but she’s looking to the future.

“I’m always fighting for your South Dakota constitutional rights for private property,” she said. “I fight for your private property rights, and this takes away the county’s right to set setbacks and ordinances saying we don’t want these dangerous CO2 pipelines.”

Auch described the legislation as a way for companies to benefit financially. “(The companies) just say, ‘So bad, so sad. We’ll put it where we want and then serve you with eminent domain papers,’” she said.

Proponents argue companies would pay compensation, but many property owners don’t want to sell or allow access to their land at any price, Auch said. Counties are told they will receive $42 million, but Auch countered that one company has not made any promised payments in Iowa.

HB 1185 and HB 1186, have been heavily amended, Auch said. “Those bills have been completely destroyed. They’re 100% against the landowners’ wishes,” she added.

Contrasting the two chambers, Auch said the House supports landowners while the Senate seeks to take away local control.

Auch doesn’t see any real purpose in the CO2 pipelines as they’re not producing a commodity or anything else worthwhile. On the other hand, she sees CO2 as a dangerous product and fatal if leaked.

“This is a way for large corporations to make money in the state of South Dakota on our resources. It has completely become a boondoggle,” she added.

On the other side, Stevens said he voted for HB 1185 and HB 1186, which he said he saw as a compromise measure by protecting rights while promoting agriculture and economic development.

“We had two hours of debate, the longest debate in the 10 years I have been here,” he said.

Stevens received around 1,600 emails on the issue, with sharp division among landowners, including those from District 18.

“It was one of the few decisions where there truly wasn’t unanimity among people involved (with the issue),” he said. “Some landowners were for it, and some were against it. We had different landowner groups who could not come to an agreement or consensus.”

South Dakota has previously used eminent domain for private projects, Stevens said. “If it’s for the public good, then eminent domain is an appropriate thing,” he said.

In terms of local control, the right isn’t absolute, much as free speech doesn’t cover yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, Stevens said. Also, the public good can override certain individual desires and rights, he said.

On the matter of tax credits for private companies, Stevens noted the financial assistance given to crucial industries in South Dakota. Carbon pipelines are considered crucial to the ethanol industry, he noted.

“Ethanol has a $2 billion economic impact on the state,” he said, noting the major role that the POET ethanol plant plays in Scotland and other rural communities, often with fewer than 1,000 residents,” he said. “Ethanol provides jobs and is the economic engine for small communities. They keep schools open and cities alive. The state gets sales tax revenues.”

Also, ethanol has held down the cost of fuel for the American consumer, Stevens said. In addition, he has spoken with members of a Taiwan delegation about their intense desire to keep the blended fuel coming to their Asian island national.

The Noem administration touts South Dakota as “open for business,” but interested parties may back away if pipeline efforts are blocked in the state, Stevens said.

Hunhoff is waiting to see what happens in the conference committee, of which she isn’t a part.

The push to address CO2 isn’t new, as it goes back to President George W. Bush and succeeding administration’s efforts to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, Hunhoff said. She cited a U.S. Supreme Court case of Kelo vs. New London allowing eminent domain for private industry, determining it could fulfill a “public good.”

Companies may balk at coming to South Dakota if they face different regulations for each county, Hunhoff said.

Echoing Stevens, she noted the sharp division on the current bills, even among similar groups. “The major point is that not everybody is on the same page. Even ag people are against ag people,” she said.

While not meeting with the Taiwanese, Hunhoff noted the potential international market for ethanol and other ag products, along with the expanding jobs and tax base.

Another controversial issue is SB 203, which the legislators said would allow more guns in schools. SB 203 amends current law, by allowing an individual with an enhanced concealed carry permit and written permission from a school principal or individual with control of supervision of the grounds, to carry at a public primary or secondary schools.

The bill was delivered to the governor’s desk Monday for her signature.

Stevens said he was the only member of the House Judiciary Committee and one of only two Republicans to vote against the bill. A National Rifle Association (NRA) member, he does see the bill as a Second Amendment issue.

“What bothers me about this is the (implication) that our school administrators and teachers aren’t concerned about the safety of kids, and we need somebody else to protect them. That’s a bunch of baloney,” he said.

Stevens served on the Yankton school board for a number of years, and he noted the presence of school resource officers (SRO) and a state law allowing armed sentinels in school.  In addition, school staff hold safety drills to protect children, he said.

Schools have bolstered their security measures over the years, and student safety remains the top priority, Stevens said. “The idea that someone has to come in and protect us because we’re not capable of it — I find it very offensive,” he said.

Hunhoff expressed a bit of voter’s remorse, saying she voted for the bill but misunderstood a section and would have voted against it.

Auch supported the bill, saying it would provide additional security for school districts without a school resource officer and located far from law enforcement which could result in prolonged response time.

• A bill that would increase tax credits for insurance companies to help low-income students attend private school earned final legislative approval. Hunhoff and Stevens voted against the bill, saying the Legislature’s responsibility lies with strengthening public education. Auch sees it as the use of insurance funds, not taxes, designated for the purpose and also part of ensuring parental choice in education;

• In response to a question, the legislators noted a bill would tighten up the time frame for a landlord’s ability to evict a tenant, particularly with no written agreement. The lawmakers pointed to the importance of a contract spelling out the responsibilities of each party.

Follow @RDockendorf on Twitter.