By now it's old hat; every year the South Dakota Legislature takes issue with the fact the citizens of this state have an opinion on local control, factory farms, and special-interest-motivated corporate welfare. Rather than listening to the people and passing legislation that reflects their values, the legislature crafts new ways to give their special-interest buddies exactly what they want, which are ways to pillage and plunder the state for profit.

This year the legislature has been brewing up bills like the witches in Macbeth. No matter how much they stir that pot, nothing good is going to come out of it. Senate Bill 163 is the special-interest workhorse this year.

This bill mandates some expensive busywork for the counties in that it adds a agricultural zoning plan and agricultural zoning ordinance to the the counties' comprehensive zoning plan and zoning ordinances. The normal practice for counties that have zoning is that they address agricultural zoning issues in their comprehensive plan. Now they'll have to prove that they have an agricultural zoning plan, even though they may have had one for years. Does SB 163 provide the counties with funds to do this extra paper shuffling? No.

Far scarier in SB 163 are seven brand-new criteria for counties to follow when adopting their agricultural zoning plans and ordinances. These points lay out a blanket approach to zoning for the whole state, ignoring the geographic, demographic, and economic differences that exist around the state. Isn't that the reason we have local control – so that local people who best understand their unique situation are the ones who make zoning decisions? These seven points will effectively strip that power from the counties. And furthermore, these points give little help in guiding the counties on how to deal with some very big problems, such as urban sprawl.

Another frightening point in SB 163 is the point that counties should not address environmental regulation as that is the function of the state and federal governments. Does that mean that counties can't require clay liners in lagoons or that a county's permit regulations can be no stricter than those of the state? That will hamstring many counties' zoning ordinances. This one point abolishes the essence of local control.

SB 163 also says that if an operation meets or exceeds state or federal requirements, it should be approved. Perhaps the state has grown tired of counties getting in the way of the state's efforts to increase factory farms and other anti-independent producer ventures. The state wants to have their way, even if it means cutting counties off at the knees.

The last point made in these “new policies” is rather redundant. Zoning plans should not discriminate. Discrimination is illegal and has been for a long time. Counties should challenge the state to show them one ordinance that would hinder an operation on the basis of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, or age. They won't find it. Perhaps the meat of this point lies in the wording “place of residence.” Perhaps this line is a parting shot to the people of Hutchinson County who voted to keep a large hog farrowing operation out of their county. The person who wanted to build the operation was from Illinois, and would have taken the bulk of the profits back to Illinois with him. Of course, this operation would have had thousands of pigs on a mere 22 acres of land with neighbors less than a mile away, but this bill will remove the ability for counties to make decisions based on those types of facts, too. The bottom line is that SB 163 does nothing to enhance the zoning process; it's just a way for the state to invite factory farms.

Unfortunately for the people of South Dakota, SB 163 is not the only bill we have to worry about. SB 149 amends the Family Farm Act in such a way that absentee ownership will continue to grow. Of course we all know that absentee ownership of land in this state is a growing problem, so why would the state want to exacerbate the problem? If people aren't living on the land, they're not spending money in that community, sending children to school there, or participating in the daily life that makes our communities work.

There are two bills that are very similar in nature. SB 116 repeals last year's HB 1281. Yes folks, the bill that Dakota Rural Action fought tooth and nail, and then successfully referred. Evidently the legislature has seen the light and realized this bill was an infringement on people's right to vote. Or perhaps they just didn't want to get embarrassed at the polls, again. Why then, was SB 164 introduced? SB 164 is nearly word-for-word the same as SB 116, except that SB 116 repeals 1281 fully, and SB 164 leaves one section in. It escapes logic.

The last bill is the most harmless. SB 21 amends the Family Farm Act, but the changes are mostly grammatical and not substantive. However, the bill merits watching in case it's used as a “Trojan Horse” for sneaking in amendments that would weaken the statute. Sometimes this happens regardless of the intent of the bill or those who write them. Though this is not a bill that DRA is opposed to, it shouldn't be ignored.

The moral of the story is to tell your legislators to protect local control, not eliminate it. Zoning is a local decision made by local people for their own unique set of circumstances. Don't let the state water down zoning regulations in order to allow special-interests through the door.

Robin EH. Bagley