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.
{KXLG -Watertown, SD} One remains in the pipeline construction field as Navigator’s pipeline project is no longer moving forward. Summit Carbon Solutions is still researching ways to progress the project.
During today’s Codington County Commissioners meeting, several landowners in the surrounding area opposed the pipeline construction project.
One of those landowners is Gordon Little….
Little says, “It really got my attention when Summit Caborn sued me.”
Dennis Jones spoke about representing the people of the community….
Jones talks about fossil fuels….
Terry Little farms just South of Watertown….
Navigator CO2 Ventures announced that it is canceling its pipeline construction project in October 2023.
Summit Carbon Solutions and a project by Wolf Carbon Solutions running through Illinois and Iowa are still active pipeline projects.
KXLG News reached out to Brian Jorde, a lawyer for the group LEDR or Landowners for Eminent Domain Reform, and received some PDF slides that are attached to the article below.
In an open letter to President Joe Biden, Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Chuy Garcia (D-IL) called for the urgent issue of a federal moratorium on carbon pipelines.
As can be seen in the full letter here, Omar and Garcia are primarily concerned with the lack of unified safety regulations when it comes to the transport of carbon dioxide.
Although they acknowledge the efforts made so far by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) to improve such regulations, the main concern is that no federal permitting for CO2 pipelines goes through until the PHMSA safety regulations are finalized.
Signed also by Reps. Jamaal Bowman, André Carson, Raúl Grijalva, Jared Huffman, Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr., Barbara Lee, Summer Lee, Rashida Tlaib Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jerrold Nadler, Delia Ramirez, the letter follows a similar one addressed to President Biden earlier and signed by 150 organizations.
The letter is also endorsed by a number of activist and NGO groups, including Food and Water Watch, Sierra Club, Congressional Progressive Caucus Center, the Center for International Environmental Law, Climate Justice Alliance, and others.
The need for a moratorium on carbon pipelines is explained by the fact that existing pipeline regulations were designed to oversee the transport of hazardous hydrocarbon liquids such as crude oil and are not suitable for the transportation of CO2 as a gas or subcritical liquid.
“Communities across the country are opposing these carbon capture pipelines because they understand the risks they pose to their health and safety. We applaud Representative Omar and Representative Garcia for leading this effort to stop dangerous pipelines from transporting carbon dioxide through communities. President Biden needs to use his authority to immediately enact a moratorium on permits for these dangerous projects,” said Jim Walsh, Policy Director at Food & Water Watch.
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (Dakota News Now) – Three statewide organizations are banding together for a campaign, looking to change South Dakota’s eminent domain laws.
Dakota Rural Action, Landowners for Eminent Domain Reform, and the South Dakota Farmers Union are the founding organizations of South Dakotans First. The campaign is looking to the 2024 legislative session in Pierre, as they look for lawmakers to address those laws in response to proposed carbon dioxide pipeline projects.
Although both Summit Carbon Solutions and Navigator were denied their permit requests earlier this year, both have indicated that they will try again. South Dakota Farmers Union Doug Sombke said those eminent domain laws need to change sooner rather than later, and this new campaign will be a unifying voice for many.
“The cheap slogan that I use is eminent domain for private gain is no way to go. We want it for public use only,” Sombke said.
By public use, Sombke said, the issue comes down to what commodity would go through landowners’ properties. He gave the example of electricity, transportation, or other public goods or services that can continue to follow the same eminent domain laws. But he said if a company is looking to make a profit, the use of eminent domain should be much stricter.
“We’re not against eminent domain per se. But it has to be limited on it’s use. If it’s done for the public use, it’s one thing. If it’s going to build a new fire department or a new hospital, or a new highway or bridge, that kind of thing it’s a whole other deal,” Sombke said. “There’s a number of businesses that we’re associated with. East River Electric for instance, Basin Electric. Those types of public entity businesses. It’s something that they almost need to have that at certain times. They don’t use it unless they have to.”
Polling provided by South Dakotans First finds that before people were given information about carbon dioxide pipelines, 58 percent of likely South Dakota voters opposed eminent domain for private use, including 42 percent that “strongly opposed” the action. The polling then said that after those polled were given arguments for and against pipelines, that opposition increased to 78 percent overall, including 60 percent who listed “strongly opposed”.
Sombke said the polling also shows that the issue over carbon dioxide pipelines and eminent domain isn’t a political one. He said a majority of both Republicans and Democrats oppose the use of eminent domain for private use.
The campaign wants to see landowners have the right to not allow surveys, soil samples, or other work done on their property without permission, something that the campaign said is currently in a grey area. Ultimately, it’s having the ability to say no to a project that landowners want to have.
“We didn’t have a choice. We did not want Dakota Access or Summit’s pipelines crossing our land. We should have a choice, the choice to agree to a project, or the choice to say,’ No, thank you,’” Joy Hohn with Landowners for Eminent Domain Reform said.
Aaron Johnson, a landowner and member of Dakota Rural Action, said he doesn’t feel safe as one of the proposed carbon dioxide pipelines would sit less than a thousand feet from his home. As an organic producer, he also said there’s little these pipelines would do to financially support his family.
“Thousands of South Dakotans are going to find themselves in a similar situation if this pipeline comes through. That being that there is no benefit to many, many South Dakotans if this comes through,” Johnson said. “They want to socialize the risks, and privatize the profits.”
Sombke said the recent announcement from Summit Carbon Solutions to give grants to county emergency management departments is “a bribe,” and he wondered how long it will take companies to realize that the issue isn’t about money.
“This last Tuesday, [Summit Carbon Solutions] they came to Brown County and to Spink County, and offered them a $50,000 grant to their rescue crews. Bribe money, in my opinion,” Sombke said. “When are they going to get it, that farmers and ranchers, and these communities that they’re affecting, don’t give a damn about the money? That’s not the point, is it? The point is that we want them to listen to us and respect us. That’s it.”
The three organizations said that funding for the campaign is coming from their organizations alone, all made up of South Dakota residents. Coming together as a unified voice helps them all, as it would be much harder for legislators to ignore when voicing their concerns.
“It’s just like they always say. You can break one stick, but if you bundle them together, they’re harder to break. That’s exactly where we’re at today, and plus it gives you respect. These people deserve respect, their legislators deserve to respect them,” Sombke said.
While changing eminent domain laws is the current goal of the campaign, Sombke also said it’s not the only issue they could address. He said after the announcement that a new state penitentiary would be placed in rural Lincoln County, he said they could work together with landowners there to see if their concerns are being addressed in the future.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
Utility regulators in North Dakota may hold a hearing no sooner than December to consider oral arguments about county ordinances that would restrict the placement of Summit Carbon Solutions’ proposed carbon capture pipeline in that state.
That conflicts with the Ames-based company’s request for the North Dakota Public Service Commission to overrule two county ordinances without soliciting new input from groups that oppose its project.
The commission previously considered arguments about the ordinances in Burleigh and Emmons counties but did not issue a ruling about them when it denied Summit a route permit in August.
The state is crucial to Summit’s proposed five-state pipeline system that would transport captured carbon dioxide emissions from ethanol plants. The company plans to sequester the greenhouse gas in North Dakota.
When the commission denied the permit application, it said the ordinance issue was moot because it was denying the permit for other reasons. However, commissioners indicated they had differing views about the restrictions.
When the commission later agreed to reconsider the company’s permit application with an altered route, Summit renewed its request to overrule the ordinances because they have the potential to significantly affect the pipeline route.
“The issue is purely one of law, and Summit’s renewal motion does not make any new arguments (legal or otherwise) not already made or set forth in its original preemption motion,” wrote Lawrence Bender, an attorney for Summit, in a filing last week. “Accordingly, it is not proper for the commission to allow the intervenors another opportunity to respond in opposition.”
But the commission unanimously decided this week to hold a hearing on the matter — as requested by intervenors in the case — according to a recording of its Monday meeting.
That decision has the potential to elongate the permit reconsideration process, in part because North Dakota’s governor issued an executive order Tuesday to convene a special session of the state’s legislature.
The session is meant to address the North Dakota Supreme Court’s recent decision to void parts of a budget bill, which could affect government services.
That session is expected to last a week, but there are now restrictions on reserving space for all of November in the North Dakota State Capitol, where the Public Service Commission typically operates, said Victor Schock, director of public utilities for the commission.
He expects the hearing to be held no sooner than December.
A ‘very clear law’
The ordinances set minimum distances a pipeline can be placed from cities, houses, livestock facilities and other sites. Summit has argued that the ordinances are so restrictive that its pipeline system could not pass through the counties, but opponents of Summit’s route say that is an exaggeration.
North Dakota law says a gas or liquid pipeline permit “supersedes and preempts any local land use or zoning regulations,” with an exception for road-use agreements.
Randy Christmann, the chair of the commission, has called it a “very clear law.” But opponents of the pipeline route argue that other parts of the law — and the intent of legislators who adopted them — give counties a right to restrict the pipelines.
Commissioner Sheri Haugen-Hoffart has indicated she wants evidence that Summit has tried to work with counties to comply with their ordinances before ruling on the matter.
It’s unclear when the commission will decide the issue. It’s also unclear when it will schedule further evidentiary hearings for its reconsideration of Summit’s permit request.
Summit had requested a single hearing, but the commissioners have signaled more might be necessary.
Commission asks Summit for info
On Tuesday, the commission issued a formal request to Summit for more information about the changes to its route. The commissioners seek, among other information:
Detailed maps of the pipeline route where it has changed.
What the company has done to address the concerns of landowners.
Evidence that the pipeline does not pass through areas prone to landslides.
A thorough analysis of an alternate route around Bismarck, where there has been resistance to the original route because of its potential to affect urban development.
A list of newly affected landowners and parcels.
The percentage of land easements that have been obtained by the company in each county.
Some of the requested information is due within two weeks. Schock said the information is necessary to decide how the reconsideration process will proceed. State law does not prescribe the process or dictate a deadline for its completion.
Find this story atIowa Capital Dispatch, which is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Iowa Capital Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Kathie Obradovich for questions: kobradovich@iowacapitaldispatch.com.
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/gray/X24ETVMOARAD5I4VGO353VW5R4.bmp)
