Summit Carbon’s Bill of Rights – South Dakota is being bought by Summit’s lobbyists to the detriment of landowners and counties. The tv ads about landowner rights aired as misinformation to sway folks to believe that the state government, Gov. Noem, and Summit held the landowners in their best interests.
Through the work of Summit’s allies and lobbyists, Rep. Mortenson and Sen. Crabtree, SD landowners and counties are now some of the worst protected in the country when it comes to eminent domain and protection against huge private pipeline companies. None of this protects landowners from the abuses of Summit. Eminent domain and invasive destructive land surveys against property owner’s will were both ignored. Each of the so-called landowner rights describes what landowners can already obtain, Summit has already agreed to do, or the law already allows.
These bills are 100% pro-pipeline as they kill local control, destroy PUC discretion and handcuff them from doing their job. In 2023, SD landowners and counties pulled off two historic victories against hazardous Co2 pipelines. After that, corporate lobbyists and legislators changed the rules. Losing on merit and under laws since statehood, they “gamed” the system and laws in their favor, creating these bills. We now have less landowner protections than Iowa or Minnesota.
Gov. Noem, is SD still the land of the free? Or free, meaning just for big corporations she’s backing under “SD We’re Open for Business” all at the expense of SD landowner rights? How could this happen in SD? Landowners’ voices were shut out – when they made suggestions and offered solutions, they were ignored. Every committee hearing was a formality with the outcome predetermined, leaving landowners frustrated. The real “work” occurred in secret meetings orchestrated by Summit’s lobbyists and hand-picked legislators. YouTube “Fighting Eminent Domain Takeover” Amanda Radke.
A bill approved by the Iowa House on Thursday would allow landowners who are subject to eminent domain requests by carbon dioxide pipeline companies to challenge the legitimacy of those requests in court earlier in the permit proceedings.
House File 2664 was approved by a bipartisan, 86-7 vote. Its future in the Senate is unclear.
It is the latest attempt by the House to aid landowners who object to Summit Carbon Solutions’ proposed use of eminent domain to build a sprawling pipeline system that would transport captured carbon dioxide from 30 ethanol plants in Iowa to North Dakota for underground storage.
If the Iowa Utilities Board grants the company’s request, landowners who have refused to negotiate easements for the project voluntarily would have to give up the land use at a price set by a government board.
A bill the House adopted last year would have required Summit to obtain voluntary land easements for 90% of its route before being eligible for eminent domain. The Senate did not take it up.
The new bill the House approved Thursday would not, itself, limit eminent domain for the pipeline projects. It is meant to expedite a court decision about whether eminent domain is allowable — a decision that under current rules might come many months after state regulators issue a permit.
The bill would allow court challenges before permits are issued, at the request of affected landowners or the companies that propose the projects.
“For that entire period, you have the century farms, landowners, people who didn’t especially want to have this pipeline going over their land and have some questions about it, not being able to get an answer on their constitutional law question and not being able to sell their land at full value or make a decision on tiling or make a decision on estate planning for all that period of time,” said Rep. Charley Thomson, R-Charles City, who is an attorney and managed the bill. “This bill corrects that.”
Summit began its pipeline permit process with the Iowa Utilities Board in August 2021. A year later in August 2022, it began notifying the board of properties that might be subject to its eminent domain requests. Now, about 19 months later, the board is poised to decide those requests, which represent about a quarter of its initial route in Iowa.
The board has declined say whether Summit’s project benefits the public in a way that makes it eligible for eminent domain.
“This legislation simply allows both landowners and companies the opportunity to have a declaratory judgment up front on the constitutionality of an eminent domain request, before precious time and money are wasted,” said Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, who has been a leading voice against eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipelines. “This legislation would allow landowners a little peace of mind, getting to know up front the validity of an eminent domain request so that they could plan accordingly, as opposed to waiting and fighting for years, their land in limbo, their futures in doubt, their lives full of tension and fear, while they plead with their elected officials to hear them.”
The legislation is opposed by Summit, the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association and several biofuels companies, according to lobbyist declarations. The Iowa Farm Bureau Federation did not declare its opposition or support.
Seven House Republicans voted against the bill: Michael Bergan of Decorah, Tom Determann of Clinton, Chad Ingels of Randalia, Brian Lohse of Bondurant, Norlin Mommsen of DeWitt, Matt Rinker of Burlington, and David Sieck of Glenwood.
The scope of Summit’s project has expanded in recent months after another company, Navigator CO2, abandoned a similar proposal. That has led Summit to ink agreements with most of the ethanol plants that had intended to connect to the Navigator system.
Summit’s proposal has grown to about 2,500 miles of pipe in five states to transport carbon dioxide from 57 ethanol plants. The company was initially denied permits by state regulators in the Dakotas, but North Dakota is reconsidering a modified plan. Summit has said it will reapply in South Dakota with a different route.
Karsten Thompson, interim dean of LSU’s College of Engineering, says there are also plans to drill a new research well and surface flow loop at PERTT this fall with funding from H2the Future, a GNO Inc.-led initiative that seeks, in part, to substantially lower carbon emissions in the Louisiana industrial corridor. (Photo by Don Kadair)
Louisiana has the ideal geology for carbon sequestration, but an abundance of existing oil and gas wells and the inability of industry to detect carbon leaks across vast areas could be the proverbial flies in the ointment.
There is the potential, at least, for the sequestered carbon to find its way back to the surface undetected through thousands of existing well sites, adding to the urgency of current efforts to plug the state’s orphaned wells. The federal government is providing Louisiana with more than $100 million through 2030 to plug the wells, which have been abandoned with no financially viable owner.
To catalyze the process, the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources issued a new regulation last fall that increases fees on wells that have been inactive and unplugged for five years or more, while reducing fees for operators who plug 10 or more wells in a year. The new regulation makes the state eligible for up to $70 million in additional federal funding to help tackle the problem.
Eric Smith, director of the Tulane Energy Institute, says sequestered carbon reentering the atmosphere through existing well site could be a problem, as it’s difficult to find a viable sequestration site that hasn’t already been drilled at some point over the past century.
Many of us in the strong movement against the way Summit Carbon Solutions is trying to unfairly take our private landowner liberties, have a vested interest in seeing South Dakota and Iowa ethanol and corn flourish.
So, you see it’s not exactly fair to refer to Summit Carbon Solutions’ opponents as “CO2 pipeline opponents” or even as “carbon capture/reduction opponents.”
These terms have a connotation of being anti-agriculture and are labels of someone who does not want Midwest agriculture to be competitive in low-carbon economies of the future.
Both sides of the pipeline debate want those things.
The protest is about the way Summit is approaching this specific project and the evident attempts of Summit to circumvent the rules and trample the well-established precedent of local government control.
Some of the opponents of Summit’s proposal are landowners who have the existing Dakota Access Pipeline route on our property.
It just so happens that my family’s farm is one of them, and Summit Carbon Solutions’ proposal runs exactly parallel to the current Dakota Access Pipeline.
This gives a great opportunity for me to share a narrative example of the disconnect and the bad faith actions of Summit Carbon Solutions.
Dakota Access Pipeline paid more for its pipeline easement in 2016 than Summit is even offering today.
And I don’t believe I need to spell out what the price of farm land has done since 2016.
The offers from Summit are a joke.
A slap in the face.
A better way to refer to this group is “Opponents of Summit Carbon Solutions.”
A bill approved by the Iowa House on Thursday would allow landowners who are subject to eminent domain requests by carbon dioxide pipeline companies to challenge the legitimacy of those requests in court earlier in the permit proceedings.
House File 2664 was approved by a bipartisan, 86-7 vote. Its future in the Senate is unclear.
It is the latest attempt by the House to aid landowners who object to Summit Carbon Solutions’ proposed use of eminent domain to build a sprawling pipeline system that would transport captured carbon dioxide from 30 ethanol plants in Iowa to North Dakota for underground storage.
If the Iowa Utilities Board grants the company’s request, landowners who have refused to negotiate easements for the project voluntarily would have to give up the land use at a price set by a government board.
A bill the House adopted last year would have required Summit to obtain voluntary land easements for 90% of its route before being eligible for eminent domain. The Senate did not take it up.
The new bill the House approved Thursday would not, itself, limit eminent domain for the pipeline projects. It is meant to expedite a court decision about whether eminent domain is allowable — a decision that under current rules might come many months after state regulators issue a permit.
The bill would allow court challenges before permits are issued, at the request of affected landowners or the companies that propose the projects.
“For that entire period, you have the century farms, landowners, people who didn’t especially want to have this pipeline going over their land and have some questions about it, not being able to get an answer on their constitutional law question and not being able to sell their land at full value or make a decision on tiling or make a decision on estate planning for all that period of time,” said Rep. Charley Thomson, R-Charles City, who is an attorney and managed the bill. “This bill corrects that.”
Summit began its pipeline permit process with the Iowa Utilities Board in August 2021. A year later in August 2022, it began notifying the board of properties that might be subject to its eminent domain requests. Now, about 19 months later, the board is poised to decide those requests, which represent about a quarter of its initial route in Iowa.
The board has declined say whether Summit’s project benefits the public in a way that makes it eligible for eminent domain.
“This legislation simply allows both landowners and companies the opportunity to have a declaratory judgment up front on the constitutionality of an eminent domain request, before precious time and money are wasted,” said Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, who has been a leading voice against eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipelines. “This legislation would allow landowners a little peace of mind, getting to know up front the validity of an eminent domain request so that they could plan accordingly, as opposed to waiting and fighting for years, their land in limbo, their futures in doubt, their lives full of tension and fear, while they plead with their elected officials to hear them.”
The legislation is opposed by Summit, the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association and several biofuels companies, according to lobbyist declarations. The Iowa Farm Bureau Federation did not declare its opposition or support.
Seven House Republicans voted against the bill: Michael Bergan of Decorah, Tom Determann of Clinton, Chad Ingels of Randalia, Brian Lohse of Bondurant, Norlin Mommsen of DeWitt, Matt Rinker of Burlington, and David Sieck of Glenwood.
The scope of Summit’s project has expanded in recent months after another company, Navigator CO2, abandoned a similar proposal. That has led Summit to ink agreements with most of the ethanol plants that had intended to connect to the Navigator system.
Summit’s proposal has grown to about 2,500 miles of pipe in five states to transport carbon dioxide from 57 ethanol plants. The company was initially denied permits by state regulators in the Dakotas, but North Dakota is reconsidering a modified plan. Summit has said it will reapply in South Dakota with a different route.
We're fighting for our homes and our land, and for the safety of South Dakota communities just like yours. But we can't do this alone, we need your help, so if you can, pitch in and let's make some hay.
We're fighting for our homes and our land, and for the safety of South Dakota communities just like yours. But we can't do this alone, we need your help, by being informed and taking action when it matters most.
