Revise the description of highways included in the state trunk highway system.
Summary
SB 39 revises the statutory descriptions of several segments of the South Dakota state trunk highway system. The bill updates route language in existing law for highways in Brookings County and in Charles Mix, Hughes, Sully, Potter, Walworth, and Campbell counties, including segments tied to U.S. Highways 12, 14, 44, 50, and 212, as well as routes along and near the Oahe Reservoir and through communities such as Brookings, Pierre, Gettysburg, Mobridge, and Pollock.
The measure is a technical, administrative update rather than a policy change. It amends the legal descriptions in SDCL 31-4-136 and 31-4-246 to reflect current highway alignments and system boundaries, which helps keep the state trunk highway system inventory accurate for transportation planning, maintenance, and legal reference. It does not create new highways or alter funding formulas, but it does change the official statutory map of designated state highways.
Impact
SB 39 amends South Dakota Codified Laws governing the state trunk highway system, specifically SDCL 31-4-136 and 31-4-246. Its effect is to revise the legal descriptions of existing highway segments so the statute matches current roadway locations and route designations. The bill primarily affects the Department of Transportation, local governments, and users of the highway system by clarifying which road segments are part of the state trunk highway network.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been received very positively and without controversy. It advanced with unanimous or near-unanimous support at each recorded stage, with do-pass votes of 7-0, 34-0, 12-0, and 68-0. The absence of committee transcript discussion suggests the measure was viewed as routine and technical, with broad agreement that the highway descriptions needed updating.
Contention
There is little to no visible contention around SB 39. Because the bill is a technical revision to highway descriptions, there were no recorded committee objections or floor debate in the provided materials. Any potential concern would likely have been limited to ensuring the statutory route descriptions accurately match existing highway alignments, rather than disagreement over policy or spending.