Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Jason Frerichs’

Frerichs, McCleerey and Feickert at the Brown County Democrat March meeting

March 27, 2015 3 comments

On March 26, 2015, the Brown County Democrats held their monthly meeting at the Eagles club in Aberdeen. Sen Jason Frerichs (D, Dist 1), Rep Steven McCleerey (D, Dist 1), and Rep Dennis Feickert (D, Dist 1) were all guest speakers to give their perspective about how the SD 2015 legislative session went. In this post I’ll pull out some of the highlights of what they each had to say (and keep my editorial comments to a minimum)

Sen Frerichs speaking in Aberdeen. Photo by Ken Santema 03/26/15.

Sen Frerichs speaking in Aberdeen. Photo by Ken Santema 03/26/15.

Frerichs was the first legislator to speak. He opened up by noting that the Senate Democrat caucus actually gained one member in 2015. Along those lines he noted it would have been nice to keep Chuck Welke in the Senate, but he was defeated last fall by Sen Brock Greenfield  (R, Dist 2). He noted that each additional person in the Senate gives the Democrat caucus a little more power, but they need to work on getting at least a third of the Senate to make any real headway. I would agree, in 2016 the Democrats should work hard on getting twelve seats in the Senate if they truly want to have any impact in Pierre.

When talking about this session, Frerichs noted a big theme of this session was that big issues were being avoided. The issues he brought up that were ignored this year include Medicaid Expansion, teacher pay, and teacher recruitment. He believes those issues were “brought up, and placed on top, and placed to the side. And that is unfortunate.”

When talking about the roads bill SB 1 Frerichs noted that the Governor wanted the roads bill and “wants it bad”. He noted the first time going through the Senate he voted no to SB1 quite easily because it really didn’t do much for local governments. Frerichs noted that the conference committee for the bill was one of the worst he has ever seen in Pierre (and I would agree). He noted the bill kept getting delayed during the conference committee process and that the House was holding it up. From his perspective it wasn’t even a Republican vs Democrat issue. It was purely the House trying to control the bill. On the Senate side he noted the Democrats were being lobbied hard to vote for SB1, because they were a couple of votes short in the Republican caucus. Frerichs said that was a good opportunity for the Democrats to push for more local money. The final bill he felt was more “leveled out” so he voted for it the second time. (My summary of what is in SB 1 can be read here).

Frerichs then went on to talk about the water management bills SB 2 and SB 3. Both of these are bills he worked hard on to get passed and will continue to work with going forward. SB 2 creates nine river basin natural resource districts. He also mentioned it creates a pilot project in his area of the state and has a legislative oversight taskforce. He believes there will be a lot of work implementing SB2. He noted that the districts will be a work in progress. When talking about the districts he doesn’t think they will solve all of the water problems; but he does think the program will get the state down the right path of managing the water in the river basins. He said “we shouldn’t just sit back and let mother nature rule us.” That was an interesting segway into his next point. He noted the legislature also passed legislation providing funding for the pine beetle situation west river (SB 152). He noted that west river is fighting to save their property and their economy from a mother nature problem. Further, he finished that thought by saying “This is our pine beetle problem of the east”.

Rep McCleerey speaking in Aberdeen. Photo by Ken Santema 03/26/15.

Rep McCleerey speaking in Aberdeen. Photo by Ken Santema 03/26/15.

McCleerey said if he had to sum up the session in one word it would be “frustrating”. He believes there is a lack of leadership “coming from the other side” and coming from the Governor’s office. He believes that is an unfortunate situation for the people of South Dakota. When talking about the youth minimum wage bill (SB 177) he felt the Governor should have used a veto. That seemed to tie into the lack of leadership points he made.

Briefly McCleerey mentioned something I have noted and plan to a post about in the future. He felt the time being put in while at Pierre is not sufficient. It was frustrating for him that session ended so early every day, and then on Friday they would be out of there at 1:30 pm.

McCleerey also took a few minutes to talk about the highway bill. He noted that when campaigning transportation funding was one of his top issues. But he was hesitant to vote for the bill because it was a such a “poor bill from the start”. The addition of the interstate top speed of 80 mph made the bill even worse for him. He did vote yes to the bill in the end.

Looking to the future McCleerey stated he believes the 2016 legislative session will be about Medicaid expansion and education funding. After that he believes the next two session will be about the Governors race. He doesn’t believe anything substantial will be done in 2017 and 2018 from his perspective. (I agree with him on these points, I would say the run for Governor in 2018 has already started, but that is a topic for a different post).

Talking about bills before the Health & Human Service’s committee, McCleerey mentioned HB 1080. HB 1080 allows investigational treatments to be used by patients under certain conditions. He was happy to the bill passed so it could help people out.

McCleerey was disappointed to see the tanning bed prohibition for minors (HB 1166) was not passed. He says cancer is increasing at an extreme rate. He says the bill was stopped by “small business libertarian types”. He felt it was almost embarrassing that the bill could not be passed, even though it had been amended many times to work out the differences. He felt it was wrong to choose between cancer and small businesses. Going further, he noted that a bill was passed to allow the use of a chemo therapy pill to treat cancer (SB 101) but the legislature couldn’t pass a bill to prevent cancer.

At the end of his time McCleerey noted the Republicans “are a split party”. He hopes the Democrats can capitalize on the split that is evident in the SD Republican party.

Rep Feickert speaking in Aberdeen. Photo by Ken Santema 03/26/15.

Rep Feickert speaking in Aberdeen. Photo by Ken Santema 03/26/15.

Feickert began by saying it was a disappointing how few bills the transportation committee actually took up this year. He noted that many of the bills that went before Transportation dealt more with updating the dates referenced in law. He was truly disappointed in SB 1 because there was discussion about where the road funding bill should go. Due to politics, he said that there was a push to get the transportation funding bill taken out of Transportation and put into State Affairs. The committee actually voted to keep the bill in Transportation. Then the next day it voted on the House floor to force the bill out of Transportation and into State Affairs. He said from that point on the massive transportation bill really didn’t have any involvement from the Transportation committee. (This is another issue that deserves a separate post, Feickert has a good point about the politics of this bill).

When going into specifics about SB 1, Feickert noted he was not happy with the tiered property tax portion of the bill. He said this new method of funding roads is “worse than an opt-out”. He believes the tiers are going to hurt big population counties. When it comes to property tax funding he felt the Governor’s original proposal was much better, but that was changed on the Senate floor.

Feickert also felt it was bad that the bill asking for a study on taxing agricultural land by its actual use was not passed (SB 4). He felt the study would have been able to show what the impact would be if a production-based property tax was implemented. Many opponents of the bill said it would negatively impact school funding. Feickert said the study should have been approved so it could be determined if that was true. Along the same lines he mention the bill that would have created a new leased residential property classification (SB 100). SB 100 was vetoed by the Governor. He feels the same arguments for SB 100 should have been used for SB 4. But at the same time he questioned whether landords would actually have passed savings on to renters if SB 100 had been implemented and a new lower tax levy was created for it.

Overall I would say all three legislators tried to make the case that it is hard to serve in a party that is in a super-minority. But all three noted that division within the Republican party does allow for them to have power at certain times. If they can get more numbers in the 2016 election it might open a new door for Democrats. (That is a BIG IF at this point).

Governor Daugaard signed five final bills for the SD 2015 legislative session

March 20, 2015 Comments off
Rep Gosch on the SD House floor after SB 69 had been killed briefly. Photo by Ken Santema 3/10/15.

Rep Gosch on the SD House floor after SB 69 had been killed briefly. Photo by Ken Santema 3/10/15.

On Friday, March 20, Governor Daugaard signed 5 bills into law. These were five of the final eight bills he waited until today to publicly announce his actions. The other three bills he vetoed.

Posts on the previous bills signed into law during the SD 2015 SD legislative session can be found hereherehereherehereherehere, herehere, here, herehere, and here.

This a group of bills where I wish the Governor had used his veto pen a little bit more. Just like with the 19 bills Daugaard signed yesterday, I’m not going to go too deep into these bills at this time. During the summer I have interviews setup with experts about most of these bills and plan more in-depth posts.

SB 2 – SoDakLiberty PostsProvide for the establishment of river basin natural resource districts.

Sen Jason Frerichs (D, Dist 1) and Rep Brian Gosch (R, Dist 32) are the prime sponsors at the request of the Regional Watershed Advisory Task Force. This bill passed Senate Ag 6-3 after being amended. It passed the Senate floor 20-12. It was then amended in House Ag and passed 10-1. The House floor passed it 51-18 and the Senate concurred in the House changes 28-6.

I found this to be a quite odd bill for a Republican legislature to pass. Technically the new river basin natural resource districts could lead to a large and out-of-control bureaucracy in future years. I think the amendment alleviated the short-term fears of some (including me) about the bill. The amendment in part adds this language: “This Act does not give any district created pursuant to this Act any regulatory or taxing authority”. I still fear the districts would be used against land owners in the future. If this was really so important I wonder why they couldn’t start small, with just one small test water district. This summer I will be speaking with various proponents and opponents of this bill. Right now I am still very much an opponent, but I will as always keep an open mind.

SB 3 – SoDakLiberty PostsProvide for mediation of certain drainage disputes.

Sen Mike Vehle (R, Dist 20) and Rep Brian Gosch (R, Dist 32) are the prime sponsors at the request of the Regional Watershed Advisory Task Force. This bill was amended in Senate Ag and passed that committee 8-0. It then passed the Senate floor 32-2. House Agriculture and Natural Resources passed the bill 11-0 and the House floor passed it 67-1.

This is a HUGE topic… especially here in Brown County, where the County Commissioners act as the drainage board. There have been a lot of incidents where neighbors get into battles (sometimes with fists) over water drainage issues. At first I opposed the bill. But as time went on and I studied the bill more I feel this was actually good legislation. It will allow for drainage disputes to be settled outside of the judicial system. Currently the County Commissioners have no actual power to settle disputes, and it would be unwise to give them that power. This bill allows for a mediation path that should be cheaper for landowners than through the judicial system.

SB 67 – SoDakLiberty Posts – Revise certain provisions regarding challenges to certain election petition signatures.

This bill comes as a request of the SD State Board of Elections. Through session many people, including myself have called it SOS Shantel Krebs bill, but I would like to once again point out the SD State Board of Elections has their name on the bill.

SB 67 passed both chambers with only opposition from 3 on the House floor.

This bill doesn’t seem to be fixing the right problem because it fails to add adequate time for people to challenge a petition. I listened to the SOS give proponent testimony in Senate State Affairs (what seems like forever ago). I do think she made the case that this bill will expedite the court portion of a petition challenge. It undoubtedly will do so. However I believe a bigger problem is citizens getting access to the actual petitions to be challenged, and the voters rolls to do it with. I would have preferred another week for petition challenges be added into this bill. Yes, I think this bill makes an improvement, just not enough. In the end it doesn’t matter what this bill does though. SB 69 (further down the list) is the sister bill to SB 67. Since SB 69 has been amended, the actual good that may come from SB 67 has been destroyed. SB 67 and SB 69 are being submitted (at least in part) to deal with craziness that happened during the 2014 election. As things stand now the election of 2016 may actually be more of a circus thanks to these bills. It should make for interesting blogging!

If the Governor had vetoed SB 69 he would also have had to veto SB 67 because of the timeline changes that connect the two bills.

SB 69SoDakLiberty Posts – Revise certain provisions regarding elections and election petitions.

This is the only bill I adamantly wanted the Governor to veto. This bill also comes as a request of the SD State Board of Elections. And just like SB 67, originates from SOS Shantel Krebs. Honestly I’m tired of blogging about this bill. I have a post highlighting the whole history of this bill and why it should have been vetoed. Sadly the bill was not vetoed. I’ve already seen groups are looking at challenging the law next year in court. Since there are already federal cases showing certain provisions in SB 69 are unconstitutional it should be an easy case. It is sad the legislature chose to pass a bill with known constitutional issues that taxpayers will now have to pay to defend and the AG will have to spend valuable time defending.

Too bad. This underlying original intent of parts of this bill were pretty good and would have made a good first start towards election reform in SD. But instead now it looks like the legislative leaders in Pierre are acting like bullies to keep opposition off the ballot. That just isn’t healthy for the State of SD.

I probably won’t blog about this anymore until the lawsuits are brought forth. I’ve also heard whispered of an initiated measure to change certain election provisions. That also may be another time I blog about this bill.

SB 177 – SoDakLiberty Posts – Establish a youth minimum wage.

Sen David Novstrup (R, Dist 3) and Rep Justin Cronin (R, Dist 23) are the prime sponsors. This bill passed Senate Commerce and Energy 5-1, the Senate floor 26-7, and House Commerce 11-2. It was then sent back to House Commerce because of a request to get a fiscal note. The bill then passed out of House Commerce 11-1. The House floor passed the bill 44-24.

This bill changes the minimum wage for those under 18 to $7.50. This is in response to the minimum wage going up due to the initiated measure on last years ballot. Personally I think this is a good change. I have spoken to certain employers in the Aberdeen area that use youth help for extra projects during the summer. Their budget for summer help is set to a certain dollar amount. The increased wage for these youth means less hours available for youth labor during the summer. But, at the same time this new minimum wage was just set by the voters of SD. So it might be too soon to make such changes…

I expect most of my blogging about this particular bill will come from the 2016 District 3 race for state Senate. If David Novstrup runs for re-election I would expect the Brown County Democrats to make this their top issue to get a Democrat elected.

House Judiciary committee has 5 bills on Weds Mar 4

March 3, 2015 1 comment

dvaOn Wednesday, March 4th, at 10:00 AM the SD House Judiciary committee will take on 5 bills.

SB 13 – SoDakLiberty Posts – Require certain persons convicted for human trafficking to register as sex offenders.

The Office of the Attorney General asked for this one. It passed Senate Judiciary and the Senate floor with no opposition. This bill adds two types of crimes to those that require registering as a sex offender. These two are first degree human trafficking if the victim is a minor and second degree human trafficking involving the prostitution of a minor. This bill I wonder about, because either of these convictions seem to possibly fit under current types of crimes that already require registering as a sex offender.

SB 17 – SoDakLiberty PostsRevise the definition of motor vehicles that are subject to the lemon law.

This bill was requested by the SD Office of the Attorney General. This bill was slightly amended in Senate Transportation and then went to pass through the Senate with no opposition. Currently a motor vehicle with a gross vehicle wight rating of ten thousand pounds or more does not fall under the term “motor vehicle” in this section of law. This bill would change that to fifteen thousand pounds.

SB 108 – SoDakLiberty Posts – Revise certain provisions relating to aggravated DUI’s.

Sen Craig Tieszen (R, Dist 34) and Rep Brian Gosch (R, Dist 32) are the prime sponsors. This passed Senate Judiciary 6-0 and the Senate floor 32-1. Currently if a person is being convicted for a sixth offense (or more), with at least five of them in the last 25 years, then the person wis in violation of an aggravated offense and guilty of a Class 4 felony. This bill would add the stipulation that at least two of the prior convictions must be in the last ten years. There also seems to be some wording cleanup.

SB 154 – SoDakLiberty Posts – Require that certain employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs be veterans.

Sen Jason Frerichs (D, Dist 1) and Rep Larry Zikmund (R, Dist 14) are the prime sponsors. This bill passed the Senate with no opposition. This bill would require the “state veterans service officer or state fieldmen veterans service officer shall be a veteran who has served in the armed forces of the United States and is a citizen of the United States”. It then says all other employees of the Dept of VA shall be veterans if available. I can understand giving preference to veterans for these jobs. But I really can’t see a provision that says a veteran must fill these positions. That just isn’t good policy.

SB 186 – SoDakLiberty Posts – Revise the procedure for the execution of a warrant.

Sen Arthur Rusch (R, Dist 17) and Rep Kyle Schoenfish (R, Dist 19) are the prime sponsors. This bill passed Senate Judiciary 6-0 after being amended. The amendment took out the new language that was to be added by the bill. Now the bill appears to clarify the words used in the law. The bill passed the Senate floor 32-0. I’ll have to listen to this bill to refresh my memory about what it actually does.

House Agriculture and Natural Resources committee has 2 bills on Tues Mar 3

March 2, 2015 1 comment
Geese at the SD State capital building. Photo by Ken Santema 02/24/15.

Geese at the SD State capital building. Photo by Ken Santema 02/24/15.

On Tuesday, March 3rd, at 7:45 AM the SD House Agriculture and Natural Resources committee will take on 2 bills.

SB 2 – SoDakLiberty PostsProvide for the establishment of river basin natural resource districts.

Sen Jason Frerichs (D, Dist 1) and Rep Brian Gosch (R, Dist 32) are the prime sponsors at the request of the Regional Watershed Advisory Task Force. This bill passed Senate Ag 6-3 after being amended. It then passed the Senate floor 20-12.

Here is what Sen Frerichs has to say about the bill:

Northeast South Dakota and the persistent problem of excess surface water received strong support in the State Senate with passage of SB2. This bill originated from our regional watershed taskforce after studying the issue for three years. SB2 creates nine river basin natural resource districts that cover the entire state for water management. Included in the legislation is a pilot project to take a hands-on look at a potential water and natural resources management plan for a basin district. An oversight legislative taskforce is one more component of SB2 which will draw the boundaries for the districts, identify the framework for water management plans, and identify the necessary powers and duties of the river basin natural resource districts. I serve as the prime sponsor of SB2 and have enjoyed garnering strong support from legislators all across the State. Even more important is the fact that over half of the prevailing votes on SB2 in the Senate came from legislators representing the two largest cities – Sioux Falls and Rapid City. Respect for the need to tackle the problem of water management on an entire basin approach is real, and as a rural legislator, I will continue to build bridges with my urban colleagues. SB2 will be up for a hearing in the House agriculture and natural resources committee and appears to have widespread support.

This is an interesting bill. A big part of me is wary of the bill because it could lead to crazy requirements and overstep of authority as is happening with the EPA. But as a resident of NE SD I have heard about the many water issues here and understand where Frerichs is coming from about excess water. I’ll have to listen to testimony to find out more about this legislation.

SB 3 – SoDakLiberty PostsProvide for mediation of certain drainage disputes.

Sen Mike Vehle (R, Dist 20) and Rep Brian Gosch (R, Dist 32) are the prime sponsors at the request of the Regional Watershed Advisory Task Force. This bill was amended in Senate Ag and passed that committee 8-0. It then passed the Senate floor 32-2. This is a HUGE topic… especially here in Brown County, where the County Commissioners act as the drainage board. There have been a lot of incidents where neighbors get into battles (sometimes with fists) over water drainage issues. I don’t see getting the Dept of Ag involved as the answer. Personally I think keeping the drainage board local to deal with disputes is the best system.

House Commerce and Energy committee has 5 bills on Fri Feb 20

February 20, 2015 1 comment

1325432106On Friday, February 20th, at 10:00 AM the SD House Commerce and Energy committee will take on 5 bills.

** This meeting is important. Next Tuesday is the last opportunity for committees to get the bills from their chamber moved on to the floor. This committee does not have a scheduled committee meeting until next Wednesday.

HB 1209 – SoDakLiberty PostsRevise certain provisions relating to changes in terms of credit card agreements.

Rep Kristin Conzet (R, Dist 32) and Sen Tim Rave (R, Dist 25) Majority Leader are the prime sponsors. This repeals two sections of code and adds this new code:

    A credit card issuer may change the terms of any credit card agreement if such right of amendment has been reserved. A credit card issuer shall provide notice of such change, and the right to reject such change, in accordance with, and solely to the extent required by 12 C.F.R. 1026, in effect on January 1, 2015. No credit card issuer may make a change that is specifically prohibited by 12 C.F.R. 1026.

This appears to be a simplification of code. I’ll have to listen to testimony to make sure.

HB 1232 – SoDakLiberty PostsProvide for a determination of the value of small power production facilities.

Rep Paula Hawks (D, Dist 9) and Sen Brock Greenfield  (R, Dist 2) are the prime sponsors. This is a PUC bill. I’ll have to listen to testimony.

HB 1202 – SoDakLiberty PostsRevise certain provisions regarding renewable, recycled, and conserved energy sources.

Rep Dean Schrempp (D, Dist 28A) and Sen Jason Frerichs (D, Dist 1) are the prime sponsors. § 49-34A-101 currently includes this line:

There is hereby established a state renewable, recycled, and conserved energy objective that ten percent of all electricity sold at retail within the state by the year 2015 be obtained from renewable, recycled, and conserved energy sources.

This bill would extend that provision to 2020.

BILLS FOR POSSIBLE ACTION WHICH HAVE HAD PRIOR HEARING.

HB 1157 – SoDakLiberty PostsClarify and provide consistency in cemetery regulations and to establish an administrative fine for failure to file required reports.

Rep Al Novstrup (R, Dist 3) and Sen Ried Holien (R, Dist 5) are the prime sponsors. This bill was in committee on Feb 4. Here are my notes prior to that meeting:

Some of this appears to be language cleanup. But notably it does add a section allowing the Secretary of State to fine a cemetery organization fifty dollars per day if a report is not filed on time.

The bill heavily amended during that hearing. Among other things, the amendment changed the fine from fifty dollars down to twenty-five dollars. The bill then failed to pass with a vote of 6-7. It was then deferred.

HB 1168 – SoDakLiberty PostsRevise alcoholic beverage licensing relating to hotel facility on-sale licenses.

Rep Steve Westra (R, Dist 13) and Sen Tim Rave (R, Dist 25) are the prime sponsors. This is a hoghouse vehicle bill that has been filled with actual code now. Here is the current state of the bill:

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to revise alcoholic beverage licensing.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That chapter 35-4 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:

Notwithstanding the provisions of § 35-4-11.1, a first class municipality may issue a hotel facility on-sale license to any hotel licensed under § 34-18-9 that has at least eighty rooms that are rented to transient guests for sleeping accommodations. The initial fee for the license is ten thousand dollars and the annual renewal fee is one thousand dollars. A hotel facility on-sale license may not be transferred to a different location.

I’ll have to listen to this one in order to find out the reason for it.

Senate Transportation committee has 2 bills on Fri Feb 20

February 20, 2015 1 comment

BMW328Roadster1938On Friday, February 20th, at 9:00 AM the SD Senate Transportation committee will take on 2 bills.

** This meeting is important. Next Tuesday is the last opportunity for committees to get the bills from their chamber moved on to the floor. This committee does not have a scheduled committee meeting until next Wednesday.

SB 185 – SoDakLiberty Posts – Increase the motor vehicle excise tax rate and to dedicate a portion of the revenue to the local government highway and bridge fund.

Sen Jason Frerichs (D, Dist 1) and Rep Dennis Feickert (D, Dist 1) are the prime sponsors. This would raise the vehicle excise tax from three to four percent. It also specifies this as to where the money goes:

Ninety percent of the revenue received pursuant to §§ 32-5B-1 and 32-5B-1.4 shall be credited to the state highway fund and ten percent of the revenue received pursuant to §§ 32-5B-1 and 32-5B-1.4 shall be credited to the local government highway and bridge fund.

HB 1113 – SoDakLiberty PostsRepeal and revise certain motor vehicle and boat damage and salvage disclosure requirements.

Rep Steve Westra (R, Dist 13) and Sen David Novstrup (R, Dist 3) are the prime sponsors. This bill passed House Transportation and the House floor with no opposition. This bill removes and revises a lot of sections of code.

Senate Ag committee has 3 bills on Tues Feb 17

February 16, 2015 1 comment

Gerald-G-Water-Fight-1On Tuesday, February 17th, at 10:00 AM the SD Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources committee will take on 3 bills.

SB 3 – SoDakLiberty PostsProvide for mediation of certain drainage disputes.

Sen Mike Vehle (R, Dist 20) and Rep Brian Gosch (R, Dist 32) are the prime sponsors at the request of the Regional Watershed Advisory Task Force. This is a HUGE topic… especially here in Brown County, where the County Commissioners act as the drainage board. There have been a lot of incidents where neighbors get into battles (sometimes with fists) over water drainage issues. I haven’t had time to study this bill yet, but somehow I don’t see getting the Dept of Ag involved as the answer.

SB 131 – SoDakLiberty Posts – Establish certain provisions regarding stray electrical current and voltage remediation.

Sen Larry Tidemann (R, Dist 7) and Rep Roger Solum (R, Dist 5) are the prime sponsors. This is one I will have to listen to for sure. This seems to be an expansion of the PUC. The testimony will have to be listened to in order to find out if there is an actual need and that there are proper controls in place.

BILLS FOR POSSIBLE ACTION WHICH HAVE HAD PRIOR HEARING.

SB 2 SoDakLiberty PostsProvide for the establishment of river basin natural resource districts and to repeal certain provisions regarding county drainage management.

Sen Jason Frerichs (D, Dist 1) and Rep Brian Gosch (R, Dist 32) are the prime sponsors at the request of the Regional Watershed Advisory Task Force. Another definite one to listen to. Is this meant to work in conjunction with SB 3? Water drainage is a huge issue, so this bill is worth further scrutiny.

%d bloggers like this: