PIERRE — Tribal police are the only ones who can patrol a protest on tribal trust land near the Keystone XL pipeline route, but when it comes to tribes getting a piece of the state’s riot boosting fund for extraordinary law enforcement costs, lawmakers said no.

The House State Affairs Committee defeated House Bill 1194 in a 9-4 vote. The bill would have included the tribes among the government entities eligible to be reimbursed from the state's Pipeline Engagement Activity Coordination Expenses Fund, created in Gov. Kristi Noem's riot boosting legislation last year to collect damages to pay for extraordinary costs associated with pipeline protests.

Then, in an 8-5 vote, it defeated House Concurrent Resolution 6002 to support the repeal of the federal Dakota Removal Act of 1863 that banished the tribes from Minnesota onto reservations in South Dakota.

Tribal leaders said they have good moments working with state officials, but then legislators defeat their requests and they feel discouraged about the relationship they thought they were building with the state. The defeats come from a lack of knowledge about the tribes, and their history and culture in South Dakota, they said.

Crow Creek Tribal Chairman Lester Thompson said he commends legislators who take the time to listen, learn and understand the tribes' perspective.

"It's just too bad that they're outvoted by the majority," he said.

More:South Dakota tribes want a better relationship with state. Here's what else they want.

Tribes remain on the hook for protest costs

The Keystone XL pipeline activity will happen near tribes' trust land, but the tribes were left out of those eligible to be reimbursed for their extraordinary costs, said bill sponsor Rep. Shawn Bordeaux, D-Mission.

Bordeaux explained that only tribal police will have jurisdiction if a protest occurs on tribal trust land, but unlike other law enforcement entities, the tribes will be on the hook for paying for any extraordinary law enforcement costs in current state law. Noem announced last week that she wants to partner with the tribes on law enforcement and this would be a good place to start, he said.

Ross Garelick Bell, a lobbyist for the Yankton and Crow Creek Sioux tribes, said the bill wouldn't change anything about the fund other than add the tribes to who those eligible for it. Thompson said the Crow Creek tribe would like to continue the strong relationship they have with the state that includes a memorandum of understanding for law enforcement assistance.

Kristi Turman, director of South Dakota's emergency services division, opposed the bill, saying that a pipeline isn't directly impacting a reservation and the fund is intended only for entities directly affected by the pipeline.

"Tribes are sovereign and have their government structure that they can and should use to prevent extraordinary expenses related to pipeline construction," Turman said.

More:Noem offers state resources to tribes to combat meth on reservations

Bell argued that the tribes want to enter into MOUs with the state to partner on law enforcement, but then the state drafts a law directly targeting one pipeline instead of writing laws about all South Dakotans. Many of the tribes don’t have a lot of money for law enforcement to begin with, only being to afford a few tribal officers for their entire reservation, he said.

It's not a "fair situation" to ignore Native Americans because they live on reservations, then put a pipeline on the other side of the reservation border and say they can't be protected, he said.

Passing the bill would only give tribes eligibility, not access, to the funding, and only if they have extraordinary costs, he said. He asked legislators to treat the tribes as an entity that lawmakers' respect when passing bills affecting the tribes.

"You're excluding the tribes without a reason," Bell said. "Keeping the tribes out of this is telling the tribes they're not South Dakotans, that they don't count."