(The following story by Peter Harriman appeared on the Argus Leader website on April 22.)
SIOUX CITY, S.D. — After two days of listening to presentations about how railroads helped develop and define the Dakotas more than a century ago, participants at the 39th annual Dakota Conference sponsored by Augustana College on Saturday concluded the event by hearing discussion about a railroad that wants to do the same thing today.
A panel of historians, authors, an agricultural representative and a Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad opponent talked about the DM&E’s plan to lay tracks from South Dakota south around the Black Hills to Wyoming’s Powder River Basin coal mines.
Debate ranged from South Dakota Farm Bureau general manager Mike Held’s contention that the DM&E’s reconstruction and extension of its line could add $100 million in net income to South Dakota farmers, to president of a Committee for a Safer Brookings Karen Cardenas’ assertion that local communities such as Brookings should have a greater opportunity to influence the operation of railroads such as the DM&E that carry freight through those towns.
Close to 100 people attended the session. They heard a brief reiteration of a dominant theme that railroads were instrumental in creating the South Dakota that exists today, and they heard panel participants touch on issues that have surrounded the DM&E project since it was proposed almost a decade ago.
Held said the Farm Bureau – and its close to 10,000 members in South Dakota – are satisfied that the DM&E will not abandon grain hauling and other farm-related freight if it gains the ability to haul Wyoming coal.
“Yes, we feel we have a deal,” Held said. But he acknowledged, “There is nothing in writing.”
Rex Meyers, a historian from Wyoming’s Northwest College, seconded Held and surmised the DM&E “will carry what it can profitably. There is every reason to believe it will carry grain on improved track.”
Jerry Huddleston, co-author of a history of the DM&E, said comparing the railroad to Class I rail giants such as the Burlington Northern Sante Fe and Union Pacific is not accurate. The DM&E cannot dedicate a large portion of its line to coal traffic but will continue to rely on its traditional shippers, including South Dakota grain farmers. Huddleston added that the DM&E’s niche in coal hauling is likely to be its ability to shorten the distance between Wyoming’s mines and power plants in Minnesota and Wisconsin.
“Where the Powder River Basin project makes sense is where the DM&E could short-haul the UP and BNSF to Minnesota and Wisconsin utilities by 400 miles,” he said.
The DM&E project has been controversial since the railroad proposed to use its dedicated corridor through towns such as Pierre, Brookings and Rochester, Minn., to haul coal, and since it unsuccessfully sought a $2.3 billion federal loan to help pay for the estimated $6 billion project.
Against that backdrop, Harry Thompson — Augustana director of Research Collections and Publications and head of the Dakota Conference – said the concluding panel was being taped for the Rochester Coalition of the Mayo Clinic, local governments in Minnesota’s Olmstead County and other DM&E opponents.
Held also tried to make the case for the DM&E as an important player in transporting energy fuel in addition to coal. South Dakota’s rapidly expanding ethanol industry is on track to produce 1 billion gallons annually, Held said.
“Rail transportation is the only economical way to ship that product from South Dakota to markets,” he said.
Without the transport offered by the DM&E and BNSF in South Dakota, “It would take 268,000 trucks to haul it,” he said.