News from the front in South Dakota's carbon pipeline war.
As Joshua Haiar notes in the article below:
Since Summit [Carbon Solutions] announced its plan in 2021, a politically diverse grassroots movement has formed across South Dakota to oppose it, mixing everything from Republican climate change deniers to Democrats concerned about the fate of family farms.
From the South Dakota Searchlight.
South Dakota Legislature passes eminent domain ban for carbon pipelines
by Joshua HaiarLegislation is culmination of yearslong controversy; governor will decide bill’s fate
A four-year controversy that has shaken South Dakota’s Republican political establishment culminated Tuesday in the Legislature’s passage of a ban on eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipelines.
The state Senate voted 23-12 to approve the bill, which previously passed the House, and sent it to Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden for his signature or veto. He declined to state his position on the bill during recent press conferences. His spokeswoman issued a statement Tuesday in response to a question from South Dakota Searchlight.
“Governor Rhoden is committed to protecting landowner rights and keeping South Dakota Open for Opportunity,” the statement said. “He has a wealth of knowledge on both eminent domain and property rights issues, and he is well aware of all the arguments in this discussion. He will be carefully considering this bill in the coming days.”
The legislation would prohibit carbon pipeline companies from acquiring land by eminent domain. That’s the right to access private property for projects that benefit the public, with just compensation determined by a court. Eminent domain is commonly used for projects such as electrical power lines, water pipelines, oil pipelines and highways.
Sen. Tom Pischke, R-Dell Rapids, supported the bill. He called it a response to an outcry from landowners.
“Private companies should not be able to take South Dakotans’ land against their will,” Pischke said.
Sen. Mark Lapka, R-Leola, also supported the legislation.
“I don’t want to see us go down a path where eminent domain becomes a way of doing business,” he said.
Lapka owns land near the proposed route of Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions’ $9 billion pipeline. So does the bill’s main House sponsor, Rep. Karla Lems, R-Canton.
The pipeline would transport carbon dioxide from more than 50 ethanol plants in five states, including eastern South Dakota, to an underground storage site in North Dakota. The project would qualify for billions in federal tax credits incentivizing the sequestration of heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions.
Summit issued a statement after the bill’s passage Tuesday.
“Summit Carbon Solutions has been inclusive — signing easement agreements with more than 500 landowners, working with nearly every ethanol plant, and ensuring economic benefits for farmers and ethanol producers in the upper Midwest,” the statement said, in part.
The company went on to label its project as important to “American energy dominance” and said “South Dakota should be part of that future.”
Summit was denied a permit by South Dakota’s Public Utilities Commission in 2023, largely due to the route’s conflicts with local ordinances that mandate minimum distances between pipelines and existing features. The company has since made some adjustments to its route and reapplied, and that application is pending.
The project has received permits in Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota, while Nebraska does not have a permitting process, and some of the permits have been challenged in court.
Lapka and Lems are among the legislators who were motivated to run for office by their opposition to Summit’s potential use of eminent domain. The company has voluntary agreements called easements with some landowners but will likely need eminent domain to complete its project. Summit’s eligibility to use eminent domain in South Dakota is being challenged in court.
Since Summit announced its plan in 2021, a politically diverse grassroots movement has formed across South Dakota to oppose it, mixing everything from Republican climate change deniers to Democrats concerned about the fate of family farms.
Last year, after state lawmakers passed legislation placing new restrictions on carbon pipelines and implementing new protections for landowners and counties — without banning the use of eminent domain — opponents petitioned the legislation to the ballot and defeated it. They also helped to oust 14 Republican incumbent legislators in last June’s primary.
The new makeup of this year’s Legislature, with more pipeline critics and some of them elevated to leadership positions, made the passage of the eminent domain ban likely.
Supporters of the bill said it’s necessary to protect landowners from having their property accessed and developed by a private corporation against their will. The bill’s opponents said it could harm the ethanol industry, which is seeking ways to lower its carbon footprint as some states and countries limit sales of carbon-intensive fuels.
Yet carbon dioxide can also be injected into old oil wells — such as in North Dakota’s Bakken oil fields — to bring more oil to the surface, leading some critics of carbon sequestration to label it as a boondoggle ultimately benefiting oil companies.
One legislator invoked that possibility as a positive, and a reason to oppose the eminent domain ban.
“Governor [Kelly] Armstrong is talking about how this has the potential for us to retrieve the remaining oil that’s left in the Bakken,” said Sen. Casey Crabtree, R-Madison, in reference to North Dakota’s governor.
According to reporting by the North Dakota Monitor, Armstrong recently called for policies that promote using carbon dioxide to enhance oil recovery in the Bakken.
Sen. David Wheeler, R-Huron, also opposed the bill. He said it unfairly singles out one type of project. He introduced a failed amendment to allow carbon pipeline companies to use eminent domain if they first obtain agreements with 75% of affected landowners.
“Eminent domain has existed since the country was founded,” Wheeler said. “And we determined, long ago, that public use includes development that goes across the states.”
Senate Majority Leader Jim Mehlhaff, R-Pierre, was one of the most vocal critics of the bill.
“It tells developers that South Dakota is not open for business,” he said. “It tells them that if enough people get together and raise enough ruckus, they can get enough senators elected and House members elected that they’ll come to Pierre and cut the legs off your project.”
Other bills targeting carbon pipelines were heard in the Senate State Affairs Committee later Tuesday. The committee voted 5-4 to reject legislation that would place a moratorium on carbon pipeline permits until new federal safety regulations for the projects are finalized. The committee voted 5-4 to advance a bill that would empower landowners to sue for alleged deception, fraud, harassment, intimidation or misrepresentation by pipeline land agents.
South Dakota Searchlight’s Seth Tupper and Makenzie Huber contributed to this report.
Photo: Supporters of House Bill 1052 wear yellow in the Senate gallery as lawmakers debate the legislation on March 4, 2025, at the South Dakota Capitol in Pierre. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight).
This South Dakota Searchlight article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Related posts
- Carbon pipeline eminent domain ban advances to South Dakota House; ‘compromise’ bill gutted
- SD House: carbon capture pipeline moratorium and land-agent regulations advance, while environmental analysis bill fails
- SD lawmakers endorse hurdles for eminent domain, enviro studies for carbon pipelines
- CURE action alert: carbon pipelines & CCS not Minnesota's answer to a carbon free future
- Ethanol carbon capture pipeline news digest: stories from South Dakota--and The Atlantic
- Bill supports ND landowners caught in costly legal battles over eminent domain & easements
- 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