South Dakota Attorney General Finds Authority for Road District Maintenance Fees — But What About Landowners’ Rights?
Official Opinion No. 26-05 raises questions about how broadly South Dakota’s road district laws are being interpreted—and whose interests those interpretations serve.
On October 5, 2026, South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley issued Official Opinion No. 26-05 in response to questions submitted by Dale Ruzicka, president of the Saddleback Road District in Custer County.
Among its conclusions was that incorporated road districts have the authority to impose special maintenance fees.
That conclusion deserves scrutiny.
A Power the Legislature Didn’t Expressly Grant
SDCL 31-12A-21 expressly authorizes road districts to impose property tax levies and special assessments. It does not mention special maintenance fees.
Nevertheless, the Attorney General concluded that road districts may also impose special maintenance fees by virtue of SDCL 31-12A-25, which incorporates certain municipal statutes, including Chapter 9-43.
Chapter 9-43 contains SDCL 9-43-138, authorizing municipalities to impose special maintenance fees.
The Attorney General’s reasoning is that because Chapter 31-12A incorporates Chapter 9-43 to the extent applicable, road districts also possess the maintenance-fee authority found in that chapter.
But there is an important legal question here:
Does incorporating statutes governing municipal proceedings automatically confer every substantive power those statutes grant to municipalities—even when the Legislature separately identified the revenue-raising powers of road districts?
The Attorney General answered that question in favor of the road districts.
Whether a court would agree remains to be seen.
A Very Different Approach When Landowners Want Out
The circumstances surrounding Saddleback Road District illustrate why this interpretation matters.
Nearly three years ago, several landowners attempted to withdraw from Saddleback for the purpose of forming a separate road district.
They were not attempting to create overlapping districts. Their objective was to withdraw from the existing district and establish a new one, allowing them to maintain their own road.
They relied in part on an earlier Attorney General opinion addressing withdrawal from a district for the purpose of establishing another.
Before proceeding, they sought guidance from the Custer County State’s Attorney Office. According to the landowners, this office advised that the proposed process was permissible.
The landowners followed the instructions they received and submitted a verified petition.
The Custer County Commission nevertheless refused to accept it.
After repeated requests, the State’s Attorney sought clarification from the Attorney General’s Office.
But the question submitted was whether South Dakota law permits overlapping road districts.
That was not what the landowners had proposed.
In Official Opinion No. 24-04, the Attorney General concluded that overlapping road districts are prohibited. The opinion also stated that county commissioners lack discretion to deny a petition satisfying the statutory requirements.
What the opinion did not answer was whether landowners may withdraw from an existing road district for the purpose of establishing a separate one.
Despite the landowners’ efforts to obtain clarification, that question remains unresolved.
The Road at the Center of the Dispute
The dispute is not merely theoretical.
The landowners report that Saddleback Road District previously arranged for work that destroyed the existing road surface and removed material they had purchased and installed at their own expense.
For more than two years, the road has remained reduced to base or subbase material.
According to the affected landowners, the district has performed no meaningful maintenance or restoration. More than a year ago, its board publicly stated that it would perform no further work on the road.
Yet the district continues to assert authority over that road and impose financial obligations on the landowners.
Those same landowners have been trying for nearly three years to find a lawful means of separating from the district and assuming responsibility for maintaining their road themselves.
Broad Authority for Government, But What About the Citizens?
There is an apparent imbalance worth examining.
When a road district seeks authority to impose a special maintenance fee, the Attorney General interprets Chapter 31-12A together with incorporated municipal statutes to recognize a power not expressly listed in the road district’s taxing provision.
When landowners seek to withdraw from a district, however, their proposed withdrawal-and-formation process has yet to receive a direct legal answer.
To be clear, these are different statutory questions. A broad interpretation supporting maintenance fees does not automatically establish a legal right to withdraw.
But it is reasonable to ask whether the same willingness to examine the broader statutory framework will be applied when citizens seek relief from a governmental entity.
If the law can be interpreted to recognize additional financial authority for a road district, shouldn’t the law also be examined thoroughly for a means by which landowners can lawfully leave one?
The Attorney General’s Office should answer that question directly.
Why This Matters Beyond Saddleback
Incorporated road districts are governmental entities with the authority to impose financial obligations on property owners.
What happens when a road district refuses to maintain a particular road but continues to collect money from the affected property owners?
What recourse do those owners have?
Can they withdraw? Can they establish a separate district? Or are they permanently bound to an organization that no longer provides the service for which it was created?
These questions deserve clear answers, not simply for Saddleback residents, but for landowners throughout South Dakota.
Attorney General Marty Jackley, who is currently seeking election to the U.S. House of Representatives, has an opportunity to provide that clarification.
South Dakota landowners deserve to know not only what powers their road districts possess, but also what rights they retain when those districts fail to serve them.
Wow! I guess this guy called it, huh. https://southdakotaopinions.com/2026/05/20/why-not-ask-the-ag-marty-jackley/