A stroke of the pen by a governor in one state could make that a significant signature in four other states, too.
South Dakota Governor Larry Rhoden (he took over after previous governor Kristi Noem left to serve as the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security) signed HB 1052 into law on March 6. It involves an issue that has split rural residents in multiple states for the past several years: Should a private company have the right to use eminent domain to force access onto a landowner’s property?
Specifically, this bill deals with eminent domain’s use for a carbon sequestration project. The statement from the governor’s office said that Rhoden’s approval of the bill, “protects the property rights of South Dakota landowners by prohibiting eminent domain for a pipeline that carries carbon oxide.”
Summit Carbon Solutions
Summit Carbon Solutions – a company based in Ames, Iowa – has worked for the past few years to secure the necessary approval from state regulators, lawmakers, local authorities, and property owners to construct a nearly 500 mile, $9 billion pipeline that would transport carbon dioxide emissions from ethanol plants through Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota and empty into an underground storage facility in North Dakota.
Summit secured voluntary agreements with a majority of impacted landowners but wants eminent domain authority for property access with owners who have not agreed to the company’s offer.
Republicans hold about 90% of South Dakota’s seats in the bicameral legislature. The statement from Governor Rhoden, also a Republican, about his support for the bill approved by the legislature banning the use of eminent domain for projects like Summit’s said, “HB 1052 does not kill the proposed project. Rather than viewing this legislation as an obstacle to the proposed project, I encourage Summit and others to view it as an opportunity for a needed reset.”
The statement continued, “Voluntary easements for this proposed project will still be able to move forward… In fact, without the threat of eminent domain, the opportunity might finally be available for trust to be rebuilt and for more productive conversations to occur between Summit and South Dakota landowners.”
RELATED: The Sierra Club of Iowa has opposed Summit’s pipeline project. Approval from Iowa regulators was contingent on the necessary permission from neighboring states in the pipeline’s path. The Sierra Club of Iowa’s attorney has asked that Summit now end its project. Read the Radio Iowa story about that here.
Summit Carbon Statement to South Dakota's Eminent Domain Action
Summit’s spokesperson Sabrina Zenor released a statement in response to South Dakota’s action. It read, “It’s very unfortunate that, despite our approvals in Iowa, North Dakota, and Minnesota, South Dakota changed the rules in the middle of the game. This kind of regulatory uncertainty creates real challenges-not just for our project, but for the ethanol plants in South Dakota that now face a competitive disadvantage compared to their counterparts in neighboring states.”
The statement ended with a pledge that the company would not end its project because of this new legislation in South Dakota. “While this presents obstacles, our project moves forward in states that support investment and innovation, and we will have more news on that soon.”
The ethanol industry is looking for market expansion. Supporters of Summit’s project hoped that it could provide additional opportunities for biofuels producers by making the process more environmentally friendly with the process of capturing carbon dioxide emissions, rather than allowing them to go into the atmosphere.
South Dakota’s governor included in his statement a pledge to support the industry. “The ethanol industry will remain a crucial part of our state’s economy and a key asset as we implement an all-of-the-above energy approach to restore American energy dominance.”
