The South Dakota House sustained Gov. Larry Rhoden’s vetoes of two bills Monday, the final day of the 101st Legislative Session. 

Lawmakers also approved $8.2 million for Richmond Lake dam and spillway replacement near Aberdeen, and Rhoden signed the bill Monday.

The votes left two session fights unresolved. One bill would have classified cultivated-protein food products as adulterated food under state law. The other would have required non-medical home care agencies to obtain licenses, carry liability insurance, and ensure workers passed criminal background checks and completed training. The dam bill moved forward because lawmakers treated it as an immediate public-safety need.

Dam funding clears both chambers

House members voted 61-3 to adopt the conference committee report on Senate Bill 121. The Senate later adopted the same report. The bill transfers and appropriates $8,212,497 for replacement of the Richmond Lake dam and spillway. The money comes from the trust fund for unclaimed property and is appropriated to the Office of the Commissioner of School and Public Lands. Rhoden signed the bill Monday. The measure carries an emergency clause, so it took effect upon passage and approval.

Rep. Al Novstrup, R-Aberdeen, said the dam could not wait.

“We’ve got a high-hazard dam, which the definition of high hazard means significant loss of property and life could result if this dam breaks. And so we have a need and we have the money available to do it,” Novstrup said.

Cultivated-protein veto stands

The House voted 32-32 on whether to override Rhoden’s veto of House Bill 1077. A veto override required a two-thirds vote of the 70-member House, or 47 votes. The override failed, so the veto stood.

HB 1077 would have classified cultivated-protein food products as adulterated food under South Dakota law. The bill defines those products as food made from manufacturing cells that resemble tissue from an agricultural food animal.

Rep. Julie Auch, R-Yankton, argued the issue was larger than labeling or coexistence.

“This is not about coexistence. This is about replacement. Replacement of ranchers, replacement of farmers’ family operations, replacement of rural economies, and the replacement of a food system rooted in the land with one controlled by patents, corporations, and laboratories,” Auch said.

Rep. William Shorma, R-Dakota Dunes, said he opposed an outright ban if a product could be shown to be safe.

“I don’t want to take commerce and crush it. I would rather make it safe if they can make it safe. If they can’t, then they won’t be able to sell it,” Shorma said.

Rhoden had separately signed Senate Bill 124, which imposed a five-year moratorium on cultivated-protein sales in South Dakota.

Home care licensing veto stands

The House then voted 36-27 on whether to override Rhoden’s veto of House Bill 1138. That also fell short of the 47 votes required, so the veto stood.

HB 1138 would have required non-medical home care agencies to be licensed by the Department of Health. It also would have required liability insurance, training for home care aides, criminal background checks, recordkeeping, and rules for enforcement and licensing. The bill was set to take effect Jan. 1, 2027.

Supporters said the bill would have created basic protections for vulnerable adults receiving care at home. Opponents said it was too broad and could create a false sense of protection while limiting access to care, especially in rural areas. Those arguments framed the override debate on the House floor.

Rep. Mellissa Heermann, R-Brookings, the bill’s prime sponsor, urged members to act.

“Keeping our heads in the sand while people are getting taken advantage of, it just hurts the soul,” Heermann said. She added that sustaining the veto would not make the issue go away.

Rep. Heather Baxter, R-Rapid City, said she would support the veto.

“I feel it creates a false sense of consumer protection because there’s not even background checks that the Department of Health can actually verify. Also concerned about reduced access to services potentially having unintended consequences on our rural communities,” Baxter said.

Other opponents were concerned that the bill addressed non-medical needs and personnel.