As noted in Saturday's post, State lawmakers vote down six bills to limit carbon capture in North Dakota, anti-ethanol carbon capture bills haven't been very successful this session in the North Dakota legislature.
A fossil fuels extraction industry might do that to a state.
But it does look as if a sop is being thrown to landowners.
From the North Dakota Monitor.
Bill supports North Dakota landowners caught in costly legal battles
by Jeff BeachSen. Jeff Magrum has not had much success backing bills that seek to protect landowner rights and curb the use of eminent domain and the development of carbon pipelines.
But Magrum, a Republican from Hazelton, got strong backing last week from Senate Majority Leader David Hogue on a bill that would allow landowners to recoup legal fees in eminent domain cases and easement negotiations.
“I love pipelines,” Hogue, R-Minot, said testifying Wednesday in favor of House Bill 2321, “but that doesn’t mean the landowner shouldn’t be treated fairly."
Landowners are asked to provide right-of-way on their land by developers of large infrastructure projects such as pipelines, power lines and roads. Landowners are compensated for that right-of-way, known as an easement, but how much they are paid is subject to negotiation between the developer and landowner.
If an agreement can’t be reached, a developer may be able to obtain the easement through a legal proceeding known as eminent domain.
With eminent domain, a landowner can be forced to provide right-of-way. The court would determine how much a landowner is paid if it allows eminent domain.
But during negotiations and court proceedings, the landowners may incur thousands of dollars in expenses through fees to attorneys or obtaining an appraisal or other expert testimony.
Bismarck attorney Derrick Braaten, who represents landowners, said a growing number of eminent domain cases are ending up in federal court because one of the parties is from out of state. He said federal judges are still basing their rulings on state law, including awarding of fees and expenses, and that federal judges are looking for clarity in state law on how to handle those awards.
He said judges also have discretion not to award the full amount of fees and expenses if it seems unreasonable.
The bill could also address situations where a project developer begins negotiations with a landowner but abandons the project or changes the project footprint. In those cases, a judge could award compensation to the landowner.
“This addresses the situation where there is no win or loss,” said Hogue, who is an attorney.
The Senate Judiciary Committee did not act on the bill but indicated it might pick up the bill again Monday.
The bill is one of several backed by Magrum to give support to landowner rights. In testimony, he has singled out the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline as being forced on landowners who can’t afford the court costs to fight back.
Earlier in the week, the Senate defeated Senate Bill 2322, sponsored by Magrum, which would have eliminated eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipelines.
Hogue voted against the bill but noted during discussion on the Senate floor that North Dakota eminent domain law is flawed, treating half-inch fiber optic cable and 24-inch pipelines the same way and without fair compensation for landowners who seek to negotiate the best possible contract with a project developer.
Another Magrum bill, Senate Bill 2320, sought to remove property tax exemptions for interstate carbon pipelines. That bill also failed last week.
Magrum was a co-sponsor of six House bills related to carbon capture. All six failed on the House floor Friday.
His bills addressing carbon pipelines in the 2023 session also failed.
There is opposition to Magrum’s bill addressing fees and expenses.
“Eminent domain is a necessary tool to ensure reliable and affordable electric service, particularly in the development of transmission infrastructure,” lobbyist Dennis Pathroff wrote on behalf of the Power Companies of North Dakota. “The added costs mandated by SB 2321 could increase project expenses, delay infrastructure investments, and result in higher costs for North Dakota electric consumers.”
After hearing Hogue’s comments on eminent domain, Magrum said he looked forward to getting more support on the bill to improve the stand of landowners in easement negotiations.
“Thanks, Mr. Leader,” Magrum said.
Photo: Sen. Jeff Magrum, R-Hazelton, talks to landowners Jan. 30, 2025, at the Capitol. (Jeff Beach/North Dakota Monitor).
This North Dakota Monitor article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Related posts
- State lawmakers vote down six bills to limit carbon capture in North Dakota
- Bill to kill carbon pipeline property tax exemption in North Dakota fails in state senate
- Iowa House GOP lawmakers introduce suite of pipeline bills on IUC, eminent domain issues
- Iowa House subcommittee advances bill to remove climate change language; aimed at stopping ethanol carbon pipeline
- Landowners, energy industry at odds over bills limiting ethanol CO2 pipelines in North Dakota
- Ban on eminent domain for carbon pipelines passes South Dakota House, heads to Senate
- Ethanol carbon pipeline bills set for hearings in North Dakota legislature this week
- Ban on eminent domain for carbon capture pipelines makes it out of SD House committee
- Carbon pipeline company asks court to force SD regulator’s recusal due to alleged conflict
- Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline company formally asks SD regulator to recuse herself
- South Dakota Public Utilities Commissioner stays on new carbon pipeline case after prior recusal, with no explanation this time
- Hundreds pack SD PUC Summit ethanol carbon pipeline hearings in Watertown and Aberdeen
- 100s attend first day of SD PUC ethanol carbon pipeline meetings in Mitchell and Sioux Falls
- Federal regulators announce proposed rule for CO2 pipeline safety
- Carbon pipeline opponents rallied Monday in Pierre amid push for eminent domain ban
- North Dakota landowners appeal Summit ethanol carbon storage decision
- Punt! Lincoln County commissioners push back decision on ethanol carbon pipeline rules
- Summit Carbon Solutions in the news: landowners & counties appeal North Dakota pipeline permit; Summit tells Iowans to cease & desist; Pipeline Fighters Hub & CURE statements
- North Dakota Industrial Commission approves CO2 storage for Summit ethanol carbon pipeline
- Minnesota PUC granted a permit for Summit Carbon Solutions Otter Tail to Wilkin County pipeline
- South Dakota Public Utilities Commission schedules public input meetings on Summit carbon pipeline application
- Summit ethanol CO2 injection wells up for approval but court appeal already in the works
- Oh the irony: ethanol carbon pipeline company has failed to address crossing concerns, DAPL oil pipeline company says
- Iowa Supreme Court upholds land survey abilities of pipeline companies in Summit case
- U.S. appeals court hears Summit pipeline case against Iowa's Shelby and Story counties
- Never mind the voters: ethanol carbon pipeline company reapplies for South Dakota permit
- Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Summit sues another Iowa county and more!
- North Dakota Public Service Commission approves Summit carbon pipeline route
- North Dakota couple plans to ‘dig in’ if Summit ethanol carbon pipeline is approved
- Summit ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: CO2 pipeline in MN moves forward; ND Public Service Commission decision coming Friday
- SD pipeline foes secure legislative leadership; MN Summit decision could come Dec. 12
- In unofficial results, ethanol carbon-pipeline law tossed out by South Dakota voters
- CURE: MN Administrative Law Judge’s report on Summit’s CO 2 pipeline expected November 4
- Seven South Dakota ballot measures, $7 million and counting: Reports reveal total spending
- Jeepers: ethanol coop kicks in another $400,000 to support carbon pipeline ballot question
- Ethanol carbon news digest: Summit Carbon pipeline in MN, Iowa & North Dakota media
- Summit Carbon Solutions CEO asks for prayer, while MN PUC wants public comment on FEIS of Otter Tail – Wilkin portion of CO2 Pipeline
- Public can comment on Otter Tail – Wilkin Co section of ethanol carbon pipeline until Sept. 11
- VIDEO: Carbon capture in Minnesota: public lands, fast money, and pipe dreams
- Summit pipeline segment enters final permitting stages in Minnesota; CURE raises objections
- Ethanol is fueling support of South Dakota carbon pipeline ballot measure
- Pipeline Fighters Hub: Summit Carbon Solutions numbers don’t add up in South Dakota
- Referred Law 21 & carbon pipelines: A landowner bill of rights or an undermining of local control
- Summit Carbon Solution's ethanol carbon pipeline takes #2 spot on Heatmap's The Most At-Risk Projects of The Energy Transition
- Ethanol carbon pipeline news: Attorneys differ on meaning of common carrier law in Summit case
- Summit Carbon Solutions pipelines won’t capture all carbon emitted by ethanol plants
- South Dakota Supreme Court ruling complicates Summit Carbon Solution’s push for land
- Referred pipeline law puts Summit Carbon Solution's permit quest in limbo
- Breaking crowded South Dakota ballot news: carbon pipeline law referendum validated
- Sustainable jet fuel company Gevo contributes $167K in defense of carbon pipeline law
- South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance turns in petitions to SD Secretary of State to force a vote on carbon pipeline policy
- South Dakota District 1 GOP House primary news round-up: carbon pipeline politics major issue
- New Midwest battles brew over CO2 pipelines
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6
Comments