PIERRE The South Dakota House of Representatives advanced a bill4919that would ban
the use of eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipelines, sending the legislation to the state
Senate.
Eminent domain refers to the power to take private property for public use, with just
compensation to the owner determined by a court.
Supporters ofthe billattended the House debate Monday at the Capitol and cheered when the
vote was displayed.House Speaker Pro Tempore Karla Lems, R-Canton, proposed the legislation
and said it does not stop carbon pipelines from being built in the state.
They just dont get the supreme power of eminent domain to force their projects down the
throats of South Dakota people, Lems said.
She owns land near the route of the proposed $9 billion Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline. That
project aims to transportsome of the CO2emitted by 57 ethanol plants in five states, including
eastern South Dakota, to an underground storage site in North Dakota. The project would
beeligible for billionsin climate-change-related federal tax credits, for preventing the release of
heat-trapping carbon into the atmosphere.
Summit has voluntary easement agreements with some landowners to cross their land, but
needs eminent domain to gain access from landowners who are unwilling to sign easements.
Supporters of the bill said carbon pipelines do not meet the public-use standard required for
eminent domain, which has typically been used by projects such as water and oil pipelines and
electrical transmission lines.
Opponents of the bill warned of economic repercussions for the ethanol industry.
It sends a terrible message to the country, said Rep. Greg Jamison, R-Sioux Falls.
Rep. Drew Peterson, R-Salem, said the bill could make South Dakota an impediment to
President Donald Trumps energy independence goals.
Trump supports biofuels, Peterson said. We dont get to affect federal policy, whether we
want to or not.
But House Majority Leader Scott Odenbach, R-Spearfish, said Trump is eliminating unwise
environmental policies, and tax credits for carbon pipelines could be next. He said there were
three reasons to vote in favor of the bill: voters sent a message in November with thedefeatof
a referred law perceived as helping carbon pipelines; carbon pipelines are hazardous when
theyleak; and the Legislature has a responsibility to clarify if carbon pipelines have eminent
domain authority.
Gov. Larry Rhoden has not yet indicated whether he would sign the bill.
Attempts to ban eminent domain for carbon pipelines failed during prior legislative sessions,
but supporters of the idea usedgrassroots effortslast year to get their candidates elected to
the Legislature and installed in leadership positions, thereby improving the chances for this
years legislation.
Leave a Reply