A new grassroots coalition wants to bring South Dakota’s property rights groups, including those representing landowners affected by carbon dioxide pipelines, under one organizational umbrella.

South Dakotans First, a newly-formed group spearheaded by South Dakota Farmers Union President Doug Sombke, formally launched their organization during a Thursday press conference, which coincided with the release of an eye-opening survey on the support for Summit Carbon Solutions’ controversial carbon dioxide pipeline.

Farmers Union is considered a lead organization in the coalition, which also includes Dakota Rural Action, a family agriculture organizing and advocacy group, and Landowners for Eminent Domain Reform, a property rights advocacy group.

Sombke told Argus Leader the idea to form South Dakotans First came about after the most recent legislative session and the death of House Bill 1133, a bill that aimed to define sequestered carbon dioxide as a non-commodity and essentially block carbon capture pipelines from being built in the state by excluding them from being considered a common carrier.

More:Navigator reverses course, pulls CO2 pipeline permit application in Illinois

The purpose of South Dakotans First, Sombke added, is to provide a central resource for the various landowner organizations in the state.

Sombke added groups such as Dakota Rural Action have played a major part in organizing landowners opposed to carbon dioxide pipelines and the exploitation of eminent domain laws, and he wants South Dakotans First to supplement this effort by unifying these groups and providing some levels of funding.

South Dakotans First is mostly isolated in its support, at least initially. Sombke said none of the state’s major agriculture organizations, like South Dakota Farm Bureau, South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association, South Dakota Corn and South Dakota Soybean Growers indicated they would join or support the coalition when asked.

This was reflected in the attendance of the Thursday press conference, which saw about 50 people — outside of the three speakers, this number comprised mostly landowners but also a few state legislators and local reporters — none of which were representatives of the aforementioned agriculture leaders.

Sombke criticized their presumed lack of support for landowners.

“They’re all afraid of losing the big corporate dollars from the pipeline companies,” Sombke suggested. “It’s in all their organizational policies to protect landowners from eminent domain. Why aren’t they doing that?”

This same critique was thrown toward the state’s Farm Bureau, whose latest policies do state opposition to the use of eminent domain for private economic gain — pipeline opponents say the proposed projects of Summit Carbon and Navigator CO2 Ventures, another carbon capture company, would not financially benefit most South Dakotans, while supporters argue farmers would benefit from higher demand for corn and therefore higher pay from selling to ethanol facilities connected the pipelines.

However, Sombke partially pulled his punches against his organizational opposite, adding that he believes SDFB is working on their own measure to push for the protection of property rights in the state.

Sombke said he has heard of “two or three” other organizations that have expressed notions of joining South Dakotans First since the first press release was sent out Wednesday.

South Dakotans First, Sombke added, is also meant to drive support for eminent domain-focused legislation this coming legislative session.

“There are probably two or three bills being looked at right now,” Sombke said. “One of them looks really good.”

Sombke did not elaborate on what the “really good” bill would entail. Asked if it might look similar to the commodity-defining, carbon pipeline-excluding HB 1133 brought by Rep. Karla Lems, Sombke said it would be “something different.”

Opinion poll argues South Dakota voters don’t support Summit Carbon pipeline, private use of eminent domain

The Thursday press conference also included the release of a survey commissioned by South Dakotans First and conducted by Embold Research, a non-partisan, San Francisco-based subsidiary of Change Research, a “B-” graded pollster, according to polling analysis website FiveThirtyEight.

Embold’s survey, which was conducted online and through text messages, sampled 1,037 likely South Dakota voters between Sept. 5 and 10 “to gauge support for Summit Carbon Solutions’ proposed CO2 pipeline.”

The key findings of the survey indicate the majority of survey respondents do not support the construction of Summit Carbon Solution’s pipeline in South Dakota.

Based on the poll’s methodology, poll takers were asked their opinions about SCS’ project at two distinct times: before “reading arguments for and against the proposed pipeline,” and after.

In terms of initial support, the poll found 58% of those surveyed initially oppose SCS’ pipeline in some form — 42% of that figure being “strongly opposed” — while 29% support the pipeline and 13% were “not sure.”

Additionally, the poll found that a large chunk of surveyed voters — 83% — oppose the use of eminent domain for private use.

However, respondents remained fairly split in terms of eminent domain for public use. 47% of those polled support this form of eminent domain, while 49% expressed opposition and 4% were “not sure.”

More:How safe can carbon pipelines in South Dakota be? Inside the debate between Navigator, landowners

The opinion survey found initial support of SCS’ pipeline was highest among men, with 35% supporting, 18 to 34-year-olds, with 36% supporting, and Republicans, with 38% supporting. Initial support, the survey continues, is also high “among those who have favorable views toward the ethanol industry (38%) and those who are not familiar with eminent domain (40%) and Summit Carbon Solutions (36%).

Embold’s survey then presented respondents with a randomized list of arguments for and against the pipeline before they were queried as to the persuasive value of the arguments. Those undergoing the survey were later asked whether they supported or opposed SCS’ pipeline based on the arguments provided.

After being “informed” of the project, the overall majority opposition against SCS grew, with 78% of respondents indicating some level of opposition, 16% of respondents indicating some level of support and 7% remaining unsure.

But out of the 10 arguments put in front of those taking the survey, seven of them were against SCS’ pipeline. The survey only provided three arguments in favor of the pipeline.

Additionally, one of the arguments against SCS, centered around the potential loss of local control over pipeline projects, may no longer be relevant. The argument states “Summit Carbon Solutions is asking state regulators to overturn local ordinances that present obstacles to the development of its pipeline (Brown, Minnehaha, Spink, and McPherson counties).”

Summit Carbon and Navigator initially intended to argue during their respective permit hearings that state regulators could preempt county setback ordinances, or buffer zones around residential and other areas, and that the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration could preempt said ordinances on a federal level.

However, the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission denied Navigator’s preemption motions outright. Summit Carbon withdrew their preemption motion prior to the start of their September hearing — a move that, at least within the scope of the permit hearing, backfired on the company, as it contributed to their consequential permit denial.

More:South Dakota regulators deny Summit Carbon Solutions permit application on first day of hearing

Any momentum on preemption was further stymied when PHMSA, the agency responsible for regulating the safety components of CO2 pipelines, issued a response letter to Summit Carbon, Navigator and Wolf Carbon on Sept. 15, in which a PHMSA official effectively denied the agency has authority over state laws and county ordinances that specifically regulate the siting of carbon capture pipelines.

The official further encouraged the companies to cooperate with local and state authorities for the routing and siting of their pipeline.

More:Federal agency denies pipeline routing authority in letter to Big Three carbon capture companies

The survey itself is specific to South Dakota voters, which represent about a quarter of the five-state pipeline route. It does not take into account opinions on Navigator’s Heartland Greenway System, which is another controversial, proposed pipeline meant to cross through a small portion of South Dakota.

Reached for a comment about the survey, a Summit Carbon spokesperson said the company remains “committed to working with counties and landowners to find a path through the state that works for everyone, as demonstrated by the success to date.”

“75% of landowners have signed voluntary easement agreements,” the unnamed spokesperson said in a statement. “Our goal is 100% voluntary easement agreements, providing fair compensation and respectful land management. This project is about opening new markets for South Dakota ethanol and corn farmers.