Week Three of the 2026 South Dakota Legislature has come to an end and it was not without some very spirited debate over numerous topics.
HB 1015 – release from arrest and bond will be monitored by the Pennington County SO or a CSO. This bill does not forgo the bond process. If the arrestee re-offends, the monitoring system will help with a prosecution while out on release for the initial crime. Chief Justice Jensen, who oversees the courts and CSO’s and it is his responsibility to make sure that they can handle this program. Pennington County SO and States Atty support this one-year program. At the end of the pilot program, they will re-visit if it works or not. This is in hopes of reducing failure to appear and re-offenders. I voted yes.
HB 1020 Brand board fee increase – DANR, SD Cattleman’s, SD Brand Board and Farmers Union all supported the increase after having 4 meetings over the summer. The fee covers the shortfalls of the brand board as they have transferred in at least $500,000 in 2025 from reserves to meet the shortfalls. If they don’t get the fee rise approved, they will go broke. The increase is from $1.00 to $1.65 but they may not use all of the rise at this time. Just enough to cover costs. I voted yes to make sure that the Brand Board continues.
HB1077 – This bill was a very hot topic. I listened to this is the House Ag committee and even now I keep thinking over this bill. It is about cell cultured protein being listed as Adulterated. The big concern is that this will harm our cattle producers. I believe in the free market and that the market and the people will decide if someone is worth their hard-earned money. Personally, I would not want to buy or eat anything like this, however, I don’t think we should prevent anyone that may like it from purchasing or eating it. We are entering an area that would allow people to control what others buy and eat. I don’t eat lots of food, but I shouldn’t be allowed to tell others that they can’t. If the concern is that this would be bad for our cattle producers due to the product being called beef or chicken, then create a law that prohibits it from being called beef or chicken. There are also problems with other states that have passed these laws that are now in expensive court battles, and I don’t think we should pass a law that will end this way. I voted no for these and many other reasons.
HB 1044 – Rural Health Transformation bill- Federal money to assist with our rural communities that can’t afford to have health care in many South Dakota communities. If this money is not used to help our rural communities, the money will, not may, but will be sent to another state to assist with their rural health care. I voted yes.
HB 1064 – allowing for producer raised meat to be sold directly to consumers. This bill, which I voted against, would allow a producer to sell small amounts of beef directly to the consumer from a processing plant that is not food safety inspected. It puts on the responsibility on the consumer or the producer if bad meat gets through. This is currently illegal under federal law. To be able to sell beef this way requires that the cattle are processed through a USDA inspected plant. The SD Cattlemen’s association was also against this bill. Many cattlemen already sell their beef that has gone through the USDA processing plant.
When they do it this way, with the inspection and selling smaller amounts, it costs them an extra approx. $800 but, in the end, they can profit almost double from an “custom exempt” or un-inspected plant. The rules are in place to protect the consumer, but also the cattleman, since letting an uninspected steer through and possibly causing a sickness could cripple the cattle industry.
Lastly, HR 5001 – Landowners property rights to be placed on the ballot- as originally written and supported by many, this would set the standard for Eminent Domain to be guided by what is known by the South Dakota Supreme court as the Benson rule and would solidify that into the constitution of South Dakota. During the process the bill was amended and would then allow for a change that may affect the Benson rule and could open up for the supreme court to rule differently. The supreme court has held in favor of stricter control on the use of eminent domain to protect landowners. I voted to amend it back to its original form, which again was supported by so many legislators and attorneys that worked with the sponsor to draft it. The supreme court has set the standard which has worked for many years to protect landowners and changing this could affect the future. After amending it back to the original form, again supported by many, I voted for this resolution.
Next week is a 5-day week and I am sure that it will also have many contentious bills that we will have to address. Currently there are 449 bills that have been posted, last year’s total was 489. More bills will drop and we will be busy but that is what we signed up to do.
As always, Representative Greenfield, Senator Wipf and I will work together for District 22. We may not always vote the same, but we will always work together.
Have a wonderful week.
Representative Kevin Van Diepen
District 22
Leave a Reply