Water for the Next (Ten) Generations by District 24 Rep. Will Mortenson

Water for the Next (Ten) Generations by Rep. Will Mortenson (R-Fort Pierre)(March 1, 2026)

I often tell my kids: if you don’t get started, you’ll never get done. That’s an important lesson as we think about the enormous task of providing water to the next ten generations of South Dakotans.

I live about fifty yards from the Missouri River. It defines the community that I have always called home. It brings recreation and beauty. More importantly, the clean, fresh water of the Missouri River is life-giving and is used by South Dakotans from Aberdeen to Yankton and Pierre to Pine Ridge. The water lines laid by our forebearers have served South Dakotans in big ways and small for decades. We must continue that work.

A couple years ago, knowing that the West River Regional Water Project was on the horizon, I read up on the Pick-Sloan Act, which established the dams along the Missouri River. The damming of the Missouri was already part of my family’s heritage, since it meant the loss of over 1,000 acres from our original ranch. A lot of the most fertile farmland and the most protected acres on South Dakota reservations up-and-down the Missouri were flooded when the dams were built. Whole communities had to move to the windy bluffs or disperse to different areas entirely. South Dakota sacrificed so that the dams could be built to provide power to Chicago and Minneapolis, and for the assurance of barge transport in Iowa and Missouri.

South Dakota has paid its share and should not hesitate to ensure South Dakota benefits from this resource. If we do not seek to establish our water rights, in conjunction with the tribes in our state, others will. Partnership with the tribes is essential, not just recommended. The water lines that currently serve our West River tribes are leaky and inconsistent. The tribes know what folks across western South Dakota know – the time is right for a full-scale partnership and to take the effort of establishing a West River Regional Water System seriously.

South Dakota is in a moment of opportunity. Our state has never had so much clout in Congress, between Majority Leader John Thune, Senator Mike Rounds, and Congressman Dusty Johnson. Each are pushing hard for the federal government to prioritize this large-scale infrastructure project. Our state must be ready to meet its obligation to match, if they are successful. We cannot afford to wait or hope the federal government will fund-in-full. They will not. South Dakota needs to be forward-thinking and prove that we understand the importance of water to our communities, even if it may not come to fruition for decades.

Lately, it seems, we have forgotten the steps taken by our parents, grandparents and great grandparents to build the state we now enjoy. They looked to a future – not only their own, but our future – and built highways, grain elevators, electrical lines, ethanol plants, water lines, oil and gas pipelines, and countless other major projects. They knew it might be costly during their lifetime or inconvenient for some in the short-term, but it would provide for all of us in the future. Now, it is our turn to think about future generations. Nothing is more foundational to a thriving society than water, and no infrastructure project right now is more important than these major water lines. Let’s get started.

The Vital Importance of “No” by Rep. Will Mortenson (R-Fort Pierre) (February 22, 2026)

As your Representative, I’ve got to admit that it’s a lot more fun to be “for” bills than “against” them. I like talking to my neighbors about things I’m “for”: agriculture, education, hunting, and preserving South Dakota values. Those are the reasons I ran for the Legislature and the issues that I’m passionate about.

Lately, though, I have spent more time working against bills and voting “No” than supporting bills and voting “Yes.” Instead of championing dozens of changes to our state laws, I find myself regularly opposing new mandates, pumping the brakes on new regulations, or halting new spending programs.

Remember – every bill changes South Dakota. I love South Dakota. It’s my home and the place I care most about. Legislation that seeks to change our state needs to pass a high hurdle. As a common sense conservative, change comes hard for me. If four parts of a bill are good for South Dakota, but one part is bad, I’m bound to vote against the entire bill. It isn’t enough that a bill sounds good on the surface or makes for a good slogan. I’m interested in what does good, not what looks good.

While voting No is a critically important part of the job, it isn’t a fun one. Often, saying “No” is painful.

Telling my colleagues that I don’t support their bill isn’t enjoyable, nor is it something I do lightly. Each proposal comes from a legislator that truly believes in the idea and was elected by thousands of South Dakotans. However, I owe my constituents (and my colleagues) a duty of uprightness and honesty. So, I spend a lot of my day delivering bad news.

“No” isn’t fun, but it is necessary in government. If I were voting on emotion or trying to make sure the legislator sponsoring the bill liked me, I’d vote yes on every bill. Instead, I think, read, listen, and ask questions on each bill. I test the bill against my values, the constitution, and the impact on South Dakota (and central South Dakota, in particular). No matter my emotional reaction, I run each bill through the same critical, analytical, and careful process.

So, I’ll probably continue to vote “No” more than most. It is a reflection of the high standard I have for changes to our laws in South Dakota. It is rooted in true, restrained conservatism. It is the practical implementation of my common refrain: we just don’t need all these laws.

In government, voting “No” isn’t fun, but it is vitally important.

A Question that Should Not Be Asked by District 24 Rep. Will Mortenson (R-Fort Pierre) (February 15, 2026)

Difficult and uncomfortable conversation still need to be had. This is one of those. I am bringing a bill to prohibit statewide elected officials and legislators from raising campaign funds from their high-level employees. Those folks work for the taxpayers, and it puts them in a tough spot when their boss asks for a campaign donation. At its worst, this is known as a “shakedown.” At its best, the campaign donation request can never be free of inherent pressure. It is just a question that should not be asked.

I want to be clear: I am not alleging that any inappropriate or overt pressure has been applied by any officeholder. I know all the legislators who would be subject to this law as well as the statewide officeholders. I am not aware of anything overtly unethical, am not alleging anything inappropriate, and mean no disrespect to those folks. In fact, my proposed legislation would not even take effect until January 1, 2027, and would not affect anyone running for office today.

Still, this is an important and necessary proposal. Too many aspects of policymaking these days have become about politics and not public service. Perhaps that is unavoidable in the Internet era, or merely an inherent aspect of a democracy where elected officials keep a close eye on the voters’ sentiment, which leads to pandering and political behavior. When it comes to employees who work for the taxpayers, though, we should want them solely focused on public service, and we should do what we can to take politics out of the question.

While prohibiting this kind of request may seem like common sense, it is not the law today in South Dakota. It is the law at the federal level and in many other states. The rationale for the proposal is obvious: there is an inherent pressure on an employee when his or her boss asks for a campaign check. The pressure may not be overt and the request may be made in the friendliest terms imaginable, but common sense tells us the question is not a fair one to impose on that employee.

I am sure I will be removed from several Christmas card lists over this proposal, but my constituents who work for state government deserve to focus their efforts only on the efficient and effective administration of the public good. I am proud of the folks who lead state agencies and have dedicated their lives to serving other South Dakotans. They deserve our support and protection. Our state is best-served when those folks are focused only on the merits of public service. This year, we can take a step toward that goal, no matter how uncomfortable the process is to get there.

The Dawn of Data Centers by Rep. Will Mortenson (R-Fort Pierre) (February 8, 2026)

We are entering a new era of the digital age. The first iPhone was unveiled in 2007, around the time this year’s class of high school Seniors were born. Since then, most of us have snapped tens of thousands of photos, taken hours of video, and downloaded countless apps on our phones. Now, all large organizations and most citizens are exploring the world of generative artificial intelligence (AI), which consumes data at rates previously unseen. That AI is useful not just in creating Muppet images of your friends or drafting an email. Harnessing and directing AI is critical for military and economic dominance in the years to come. We need enhanced data infrastructure in this country, because consumers (aka the public) demand it and because the strength of our nation requires it.

In South Dakota, we are currently deciding whether to welcome this infrastructure development or whether to use government to block these projects. If we site them, there are substantial economic benefits (jobs and wages) and massive tax-base benefits (lower property taxes and more funding for schools, roads, and law enforcement). If we block the projects through over-taxation or over-regulation, the states around us will permit the market to function, and this infrastructure will get built. As a small government conservative, I believe South Dakota’s decision is an easy one: get government out of the way and encourage this infrastructure to get built.

As with any new project, there is fear that comes from the unknown. While the benefits of data centers are clear (and massive), we must be mindful of potential drawbacks as well. Folks often point to concerns about water and power use by these massive infrastructure projects, which might crowd-out consumer use, or make it more expensive. The water issue has been overcome by a ‘closed loop system,’ which does not use all that much water. The electrical issue can and should be confronted to ensure these projects’ electricity costs do not get passed on to other consumers. The good news: the project developers agree with this goal.

If you think the electricity consumption risk is just too big, and government should block data centers, I have bad news for you. Our electric supply is regional and does not abide state borders. That is – if the data center is getting built in North Dakota or Wyoming, we are on the same power grid and would have the same potential effects, whether the data center is sited here or there. We cannot bury our heads in the sand to protect ourselves in this arena. We need to get in the game.

So, our response should be two-fold: we should welcome this data infrastructure, and ensure they are not over-taxed or overregulated. At the same time, we should consider laws to ensure data centers to internalize their electrical costs and to use the water-preserving ‘closed loop’ system. I believe Dusty Johnson called that “Data Centers Done Right.” His plan is a thoughtful, responsible approach for South Dakota and I believe would be a good start.

More generally, we need to get back to being a state and country that builds infrastructure and makes our society stronger for the next generation. We may not know what the world will look like when babies born this year are high school Seniors, but we want to do all we can to provide them with a strong home with real opportunity. We cannot let every online rumor get in the way of building infrastructure that will make South Dakota more prosperous and keep America dominant. We are at the dawn of an era of vast data infrastructure development. Now is the time to look for the path forward, not to run-scared from bumps on the road. Our world needs this data infrastructure and South Dakota should welcome our chance to help build it.

Cigar Bars: Where Freedom Meets Local Control by Rep. Will Mortenson (R-Fort Pierre)(February 2, 2026)

There may not be two more frequently used buzzwords under the Capitol dome than “Freedom” and “Local Control.” We had a bill this week that would entirely ban a type of fake meat, pushed by people preaching freedom, because it competes with an industry they like (and of which I’m a part – cattle). I believe freedom includes freedom to make a decision I would never make myself, like buying unnatural fake meat. Likewise for local control – the same folks preaching local control will often put mandates on schools, hospitals, and businesses, if it aligns with their political rhetoric. In other words, when you hear someone shouting “freedom” or “local control,” you should just know that those terms are not absolute.

With that disclaimer, I wrote a bill this year that I believe perfectly blends freedom and local control. HB1215 would allow (if the city or county wanted to) the creation of a license in each community for a cigar bar. This allows complete discretion in the cities and counties to allow regulated cigar bars, if they choose. If such an establishment is set up, then people can go (or not), if they choose.

Currently, there are three cigar bars allowed in the state, in Deadwood, Rapid City, and Sioux Falls. They were all grandfathered in when the smoking ban took effect in 2009. They have tight requirements about ventilation, ensuring cigars-not-cigarettes, and that cigars be a main source of revenue. If they are OK for three communities, they should be allowed in the rest of the state as well, subject to the same requirements. This doesn’t overturn the smoking ban, it just allows the same freedom and local control for all communities that are currently enjoyed in three.

I often say, when legislating, that “we don’t need all these laws.” Each year, the legislature adds regulation and cost. I sincerely try to push the other way, and have brought regulation cuts each year I’ve been in the legislature. This year, in the Cigar Bar Bill, we would be granting more discretion to our cities and counties, and more freedom for our citizens. In this bill, freedom really does meet local control, and I can’t wait to get to work on it.

Real Partnerships Lead to Real Results in Indian Country by Rep. Will Mortenson (R-Fort Pierre) (January 26, 2026)

As chairman of the South Dakota State‑Tribal Relations Committee this summer, I had the honor of working closely with tribal leaders on issues of shared concern. I visited Sisseton, Cheyenne River, and Standing Rock to hear directly from the tribes and the people who live and work on the reservations. As a tribal member, I have long been frustrated by the pessimism of policymakers and lack of solutions when it comes to Indian Country.

Building strong state‑tribal relationships is not for photo ops or sentimentalism. Building trust is a necessary step to turning the tide. Our approach must be grounded in mutual respect and informed by the history, culture, and needs of Tribal communities in South Dakota. The policy outcomes in Indian Country are not a given. They are not inherent. We should not throw up our hands and assume these outcomes will always be. We can and we must do better.

In our committee hearings and discussions over the summer, we focused on two critical priorities: protecting public safety on and off reservations, and expanding access to effective health care for Tribal members. I’m proud to say we are making substantive strides in both areas.

All policy outcomes are downstream of public safety. A people cannot thrive without a safe community. We listened to Tribal law enforcement, county sheriffs and prosecutors, and community advocates. The committee endorsed measures (which are now bills) to support and protect frontline tribal law enforcement officers and to push for a tribal law enforcement training facility in South Dakota. The most striking thing to me, hearing from law enforcement, was the shared faith among tribal, state, and county law enforcement officers. We need to trust those folks as much as they trust each other.

The most groundbreaking committee recommendation pertained to healthcare. Tribal leaders asked the committee to explore an innovative approach to Medicaid that would give tribes greater self-determination over the design and delivery of care for their citizens, commonly described as the Indian‑Managed Care model.

Under this concept, Tribes would have the opportunity to administer Medicaid benefits for their members through a Tribal health organization or Indian Managed Care Entity (IMCE) under a contract with the state and federal government. This isn’t about dismantling current systems, but about empowering Tribal leadership to coordinate care in ways that are culturally responsive, community‑based, and aligned with Tribal priorities.

In other states where Tribal managed care options have been implemented, Tribal‑led models have demonstrated potential benefits including stronger Tribal sovereignty and self‑governance over health care provision, enhanced financial stability for Tribal health programs, and expanded access to preventative, behavioral, and chronic disease services tailored to community needs and delivered by providers familiar with the cultural and social context of Tribal members.

The Tribal‑managed care approach builds on these protections by giving Tribes a stronger voice in planning, oversight, and administration. If endorsed by the Legislature this year, a measure I am carrying will establish a mechanism for how to set up an Indian-Managed Care model in a way that works for the tribes and their members.

This summer’s work was an important first step in listening, learning, and building trust. I want to thank Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate Chairman J. Garrett Renville for his collaboration and leadership on the Indian-Managed Care model. The ideas we explored aren’t easy, but they are critically important if we want health systems that work for every South Dakotan.

I look forward to continuing this work with Tribal nations, public safety partners, and legislators from across the state. Too often, policy debates involving Indian Country are rooted in pessimism and buck-passing. We do not have to solve every issue to improve an issue. I am hopeful that this year, we will build from the foundation of the relationships built, and pave the way for more partnership in years to come.

.

Jan. 19, 2026:

The Big Problem with the Rhoden Tax Plan by Rep. Will Mortenson (R-Fort Pierre) (Jan. 19, 2026)

In each policy proposal, we must look beyond the talking points and to the real impact on South Dakotans. Nowhere is that more important than in the property tax debate that has been getting louder in the past several years. I have lent support for proposals that provide statewide property tax relief without defunding schools, roads, and law enforcement. While I have been a supporter of property tax changes, I am more interested in getting our policy right than “getting something done,” just because it is an election year.

I applaud Governor Rhoden for presenting a property tax plan that does not require schools, counties, or cities to cut their budgets. I believe there are areas of government where cuts can and should be made, but those spending cuts should be specifically identified and considered. Any plan that vaguely promises or forces cuts to pay for property tax reduction is not a plan at all – it is just political posturing. Governor Rhoden has made clear that his plan is paid for by a new tax, rather than spending cuts, and the math checks out.

The Rhoden Plan would allow the establishment of a county-by-county sales tax of up to 0.5%, which would then be used to reduce homeowner property taxes. Because it is permissive, the plan would result in different sales tax rates county-by-county, depending on whether and how much each county chooses to increase its sales tax rate. If all counties adopt the plan, it would reduce homeowner property taxes by about 20%, spread unevenly across the state.

The big problem with the Rhoden tax plan is where the real estate tax benefit falls, and who pays to provide that benefit. The Rhoden Tax Plan focuses property tax relief on the biggest houses in the biggest towns. It is hard to imagine a property tax plan that would be a more direct shift of dollars from rural South Dakota to the bigger towns, and from lower-income South Dakotans to high-net worth property owners.

The shift from rural-to-urban comes from the fact that the Rhoden Plan keeps all sales tax where it is collected. So, if you live in Lincoln County and buy your groceries, appliances, or vehicles in Minnehaha County, the sales tax you are paying would be used to cut the property taxes of property owners in Minnehaha County and the Lincoln County resident would receive none of the benefit. For folks who live outside of shopping hubs like Aberdeen, Yankton, Brookings, Pierre, Watertown, and Huron (or folks from those towns who visit Sioux Falls or Rapid City) that same trend would follow. Thus, the Rhoden Plan creates a big transfer of dollars from areas without much economic activity to places that are doing much better, economically.

Just as prominently, the Rhoden Plan allocates the bulk of the property tax benefit to the biggest houses in town. The plan calls for the property tax cut to be proportional to assessed value. So, someone owning a $5 Million house will receive twenty times the benefit of someone living in a $250,000 house. Most of the concerns raised by citizens about property taxes have focused on the middle-class, senior citizen homeowners on a fixed income. The Rhoden Plan doesn’t prioritize middle-class South Dakotans, who might only receive a cut of $200 or $300, but instead allocates the vast majority of the property tax relief to the biggest houses in town. Of course, people who do not own their home would receive no property tax benefit, but would be subjected to the additional sales tax rate. This shift persists across a number of proposals, including some I have been open to.

I do not know if Governor Rhoden intended to focus property tax relief on the biggest houses in the biggest towns, or if that was an unintended consequence. But, the facts are, that the Rhoden Plan results in massive winners and losers: the most valuable properties in bigger, richer towns would syphon dollars from renters and middle-class homeowners, as well as everyone in more-rural communities. Again, I applaud any effort to make a responsible, specific proposal on property taxes. That said, the massive shift of dollars that Rhoden’s Plan contains is a huge problem, and one that South Dakotans need to avoid.

.

Jan. 12, 2026:

Economics, Schools, and Property Taxes by Rep. Will Mortenson (R-Fort Pierre) (Jan. 12, 2026)

Three major issues will dominate this year’s legislative session: economic growth, education funding, and property taxes. While often treated as separate debates, they are in fact tightly connected. In South Dakota, economic growth is what allows us to fund schools, maintain infrastructure and public safety, and keep property taxes in check. Ignoring that connection risks serious long-term consequences.

Yet a significant faction under the Capitol dome is advocating policies aimed at slowing or blocking economic growth for South Dakotans. They want to repeal the Future Fund, which has supported initiatives ranging from the Build Dakota Scholarship to the Homestake Mine Research Lab. They seek to strip cities and counties of tools like tax increment financing (TIF) that help attract new construction, businesses or housing. And they are increasingly inclined to overregulate or discourage new industries from locating here. While sometimes well-intentioned, this approach will lead to a stagnant and less prosperous South Dakota.

The reality, which is obvious to anyone who has managed a household budget or run a business, is that the big issues of growth, school funding, and property taxes rise and fall together. Economic growth increases incomes and expands the tax base, generating more revenue for schools without raising tax rates. New construction and added taxable value reduce pressure on property tax rates, holding taxes down without cutting schools, roads, or law enforcement. Growth is not a distraction from these goals; it is the engine that makes them possible.

This year, Governor Rhoden proposed no additional funding for education. That fact is a direct reflection of a stagnating economy in our state. Over the last year, South Dakota’s economy shrank while most other states (and the country as a whole) grew significantly. The economic health of our citizens is paramount and is directly tied into whether we can afford to provide additional funding to schools or hold down property taxes.

For that reason, my focus will be on promoting prosperity and defending South Dakota’s longstanding ethic as a place where people can build and invest. That is the surest path to stronger communities, better schools, and lower property taxes over the long term. South Dakota, for decades, has reflected the American belief in optimism, growth, and the builder, and it must continue to do so if we want to get our state back on track.

.

Dec. 3, 2025:

Stuck in the Mud by Rep. Will Mortenson (R-Fort Pierre) (December 3, 2025)

South Dakota has real cause for concern. On December 2, Governor Rhoden put forth his budget proposal for 2026. The news is bleak. Our state sales tax collections went backward for only the 3^rd time in the last 30 years, and education, nursing homes, and state employees will see 0% increases. After years of growth and advancement, it seems that South Dakota is stuck in the mud.

The state budget is a general proxy for our state’s economy. Because we are largely a Sales-Tax state, the ongoing revenues of state government provide a reflection of economic activity from year-to-year. Despite 3.0% inflation (or so), our revenues actually declined 0.6% last year. Consider that: if we would have just had the same economic activity as the year before, we would have grown by 3.0%. Instead, we went backward.

Do not get me wrong: we should not be spending for spending’s sake. While I understand it will be a belt-tightening year for our schools, hospitals, and law enforcement, I am more concerned about what this budget reflects about the condition of our state. Gov. Rhoden noted that his budget will be the first in state history where South Dakota spends more on Medicaid than on K-12 education. That should be a deeply troubling statistic for anyone who cares about the future of our state.

Unfortunately, the stagnation we see in the state budget was foreseeable. Lately, many in the legislature and in local governments have focused on what government can block rather than what South Dakotans can build. In 2013, South Dakota was the #1 ranked state for business. Today, using the same metrics and from the same entity, we are ranked #35. Worse than no plan, our economic policy has been that of big-government protection rather than people-first prosperity.

We don’t need tours, rallies, politics, or gladhanding. We need a real, clear plan for better wages, more growth, and a robust economy. South Dakota has always prided itself on our independence, our work ethic, and our common-sense values. If we want to ensure that our kids can raise their families here, that opportunity still lives on our main streets, and that our best days are ahead, we need to make prosperity a priority again.

After years of strength, the Rhoden budget reflects sluggishness and an economy that is stuck in the mud. We need to get back-on-track, with budget priorities that focus on the future and a plan for prosperity for generations to come. The news out of the Capitol was bleak this week, but it does not need to remain that way. We can do better, and we must.

.

Oct. 22, 2025:

The Simple Solution to Property Taxes by Rep. Will Mortenson (R-Fort Pierre) (October 21, 2025)

Property taxes are irritating. The tax notice comes in the mail twice a year, showing that you owe the county treasurer hundreds, thousands, or (if you’re lucky and own very valuable property) tens of thousands of dollars. You pay property taxes, even though you may have bought your house, farm, or business fifty years ago and paid off the mortgage twenty years ago. Because of the stark, high-dollar reminder and the fact that no transaction has taken place, property taxes represent more of a burr under South Dakotans’ saddles than about any other tax.

So, if we do not like property taxes and we want to pay less of them, how should we go about doing that? It is important to know that the State of South Dakota, your state government, does not spend one dime of property tax revenue. All property taxes are allocated to local governments, with about 90% spent in three areas: Law Enforcement, Schools, and Roads. The dollars are not going to some faceless paper-pusher; property taxes fund your teachers, sheriffs, city streets, and rural bridges. So, any real, responsible plan to reduce property taxes must replace the revenue instead of recklessly suggesting that our schools, cities, or counties simply cut their staff or their road budget by 25%.

The good news: a simple, straightforward solution has already been proposed. Last year, I co-sponsored a bill that would have cut owner-occupied property taxes by 35% for all homeowners without defunding the police, our schools, or our roads. The replacement revenue was an increase in the sales tax rate by 0.8%, moving us from 11^th lowest in the nation to 18^th lowest, and making our sales tax rate the same as North Dakota (still 1% lower than Nebraska). Despite the support of a couple dozen smart conservatives in the House of Representatives, the bill was opposed by Gov. Rhoden, the Democrats, and House Leadership, and was defeated. If it had passed, the property taxes on your home would be lower by more than one-third in 2026. Remember that when the notice comes this spring.

A consumption tax like the sales tax is the best replacement revenue. It is fair and consistent across the state. It allows frugal, conservative spenders to avoid paying some taxes, if they are willing to consume less. Another benefit: out-of-staters pay sales tax, from truckers passing through to visiting tourists to out-of-state corporations buying goods and services in South Dakota. While it may only account for ten or fifteen percent, tens of millions of dollars would be paid by out-of-staters in sales taxes that are now paid 100% by South Dakota homeowners in property taxes. Owing to that fact, the property-tax-for-sales-tax swap represents a clear and substantial tax cut for South Dakotans.

The best solution for reducing property taxes is a simple, responsible one, that replaces property tax revenue without defunding vital local services. This summer, ideas have been floated, ranging from a State Income Tax to New County Taxes to putting a 16.2% tax on eggs and bread (that last idea is proposed to go in our constitution!). Reducing property taxes for South Dakota homeowners can be achieved, but not at the expense of our law enforcement, not on the backs of our teachers, and not through income taxes or 15%+ taxes on groceries. If we are going to deliver property tax relief and tamp down the irritation of that semiannual tax notice, we need to keep it simple, South Dakota.