Select Page

     Compromise:  “The art of dividing a cake in such a way that everyone believes he received the biggest piece.” – Ludwig Erhard, German politician

Gov. Dennis Daugaard wants the Legislature to extend the law passed in a June special session regarding nonmeandered lakes.

The new law favors sportsmen over farmers and landowners, and attempts are being made in Pierre to strengthen even more the position of those who consider such water public domain. Efforts endeavoring to regain lost ground for property rights are finding the going much tougher, just as they did in June.

At issue is access to “nonmeandered” water, that is, water that has outgrown its earlier, surveyed boundaries and now covers privately owned land. All water in South Dakota is considered “public,” but the encroachment of expanding lakes and slews on private land has raised questions of access and taxation.

It is reasonable to take the position that private land that has become inundated with water should be controlled by the landowner. It is a fundamental property right that goes back to the Founding Fathers. Second, that same inundated land that has become non-tillable or suitable for livestock should not be taxed at the same level or arguably not taxed at all.

The new law says a landowner may mark his property line to keep fishermen and other sportsmen at bay, but if he does, he cannot set his own fee to fish or hunt on the water that covers his land.  This provision reflects the muscle of the Game, Fish & Parks and other outdoor groups, which mobilized following the GF&P’s calculated closure of 25 nonmeanderable lakes last spring.

Let’s take a look at that part of the law. If the parcel of land was not covered with water, the landowner could control access to his property by posting the boundaries. He could also charge for hunting on that land. Under the new law, he can post his boundaries, but then is not allowed to charge for fishing or hunting on the water that covers his land.

Landowners do have some recourse on taxation by applying for reduced taxes on inundated land. By some estimates, 100 to 150 farmers and landowners in Day County, where the lawsuit originated, have done just that, contrary to reports that taxation was a minor issue.

Though the governor and many others had hoped that the issue was settled, the deep divide was not spanned by the bridge of compromise attempted in the special session. What has been puzzling from the beginning is the number of lawmakers who will not acknowledge the sanctity of property rights.  Without those rights, the economic engine that serves this state and nation would grind to a halt.

Jan. 17, 2018