two decisions by SD Supreme Court today

The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning: 1) McCook Lake Canal issue resolved; 2) Criminal Expungement Vacated; Summaries follows: MCCOOK LAKE RECREATION AREA v. DAKOTA BAY, LLC, ET AL., 2025 S.D. 53: This decision resolves a consolidation of cases which involve an effort to connect a canal with McCook Lake (and change the shoreline thereof). The dispute and proceedings below are described in the first two paragraphs of the Court’s opinion. The Final Resolution of Affirmance is described in the final paragraph of the Court’s opinion, which is also set forth below: First two ¶s: [¶1.] Dakota Bay, LLC, owns a number of lots adjacent to McCook Lake in Union County. Michael Chicoine, the owner of Dakota Bay, planned to construct an 1,800-foot-long, 110-foot-wide canal extending across his property to connect to the southeast corner of McCook Lake. To begin this project, Chicoine first applied to South Dakota Game Fish and Parks (GF&P) for a shoreline alteration permit. After consultation with GF&P, Chicoine applied for a permit to appropriate water from an existing irrigation well on his property (the well permit) to initially fill and maintain the water level in the canal which would be lined with an 18-inch fat clay liner. After learning of Chicoine’s plans, the McCook Lake Recreation Area Association (Association) filed a petition with the South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR) Water Management Board (Board) seeking a declaratory ruling that Chicoine and Dakota Bay must apply for and obtain a permit to appropriate water from McCook Lake before obtaining a shoreline alteration permit. The Association also opposed Dakota Bay’s application for the well permit. [¶2.] After a hearing, the Board granted Chicoine/Dakota Bay’s well permit application and denied the Association’s petition for declaratory ruling. The Association appealed both decisions to the circuit court and the court issued a memorandum opinion affirming the Board’s decisions. The Association appealed and during oral argument before this Court, the parties agreed that the cases should now be consolidated. We agree and render a consolidated opinion. Concluding ¶ (the decision): [¶71.] We conclude that the circuit court properly affirmed the Board’s denial of the Association’s petition for declaratory ruling seeking a declaration that the alteration of the shoreline of McCook Lake to construct a canal requires a permit to appropriate water from McCook Lake. The Board correctly concluded that the proposed construction of the canal will not result in an appropriation of water from McCook Lake and appropriately denied the Association’s petition on that basis. Additionally, we affirm the circuit court’s ruling that the Board did not err by finding that Dakota Bay’s proposed use of water from the irrigation well is a beneficial use in the public interest. We also affirm the circuit court’s ruling that the Board did not abuse its discretion by quashing the Association’s subpoenas but hold that the procedure for issuing subpoenas in administrative proceedings is governed by the APA, rather than the rules of civil procedure. This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with the Court’s opinion authored by Justice Kern. Circuit Judge Mowery sat on this case, in lieu of Chief Justice Jensen. RECORD EXPUNGEMENT OF JONES, 2025 S.D. 54: Criminal Defendant, who was charged with Murder but was found “not guilty” by jury, sought an expungement of the records relating to his arrest and trial. The trial court granted the expungement, over the objection of the State. State brought this appeal. The SD Supreme Court reversed and vacated the order of expungement, holding that “there was no evidence offered to show that an expungement of the records of his arrest and court proceeding would serve the public’s best interest or the ends of justice” as required by SDCL 23A-3-30. Footnote 1 of the Opinions states: The record of the criminal prosecution (06CRI20-000022) contains a video recording of the events leading up to Schumacher’s shooting, although there is no audio. It also depicts the two gunshots Jones fired. With respect to the second shot, the video shows Jones pointing his gun, with a laser, at Schumacher while Schumacher is lying on the ground obviously severely injured, before firing the second shot. This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney. Circuit Judge Clapper sat on this case, in lieu of Justice Myren. These decisions may be accessed at http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

County Assessment of Wetlands Overturned

The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding, inter alia: 1) Roberts County Assessment of wetlands Overturned Summary follows: (NOTE: This case was submitted, on briefs, to the Court less than a month ago, on August 26, 2025) PALLANSCH, ET AL. v. ROBERTS COUNTY, 2025 S.D. 52: This is a dispute over the tax assessment of some 150 acres of land that is burdened by a “federal government perpetual wetland reserve easements that significantly limit the agricultural use of the land.” The landowner contends that the Roberts County Board of Assessment over-valued the land to such a degree that it violated the Constitutional Protection, under the South Dakota Constitution, S.D. Const. art. XI, § 2 ("the valuation of property for taxation purposes shall never exceed the actual value thereof."). Both The Office of Hearing Examiners and the Circuit Court upheld the Roberts County Director of Equalization. The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded, stating: [¶27.] The ALJ did not make a factual finding as to the actual value of the property based on the evidence presented at that hearing. The entry of such a finding was a necessary part of its adjudicatory role. This “actual value” finding is needed to determine the actual value for constitutional purposes. The circuit court’s order of affirmance is reversed. The case is remanded to the circuit court with direction to remand to the ALJ to make a finding as to actual value based on the evidence already presented. After the ALJ issues a new decision, either party may appeal through ordinary means. This decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Myren. This decision may be accessed at http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .