The South Dakota House of Representatives has passed a bill by a vote of 49-19, prohibiting the use of eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipelines. This legislation will now move to the state Senate for further consideration. The measure aims to protect private property rights and prevent forced acquisition of land for carbon pipeline projects. Proponents argue that these pipelines do not meet the public-use criteria traditionally required for eminent domain. Opponents warn that such restrictions could have negative economic impacts on industries like ethanol production.

Legislative Action Reflects Growing Concern Over Property Rights

The South Dakota House's decision highlights a growing concern over the balance between industrial development and individual property rights. Lawmakers who support the bill emphasize that it does not prohibit carbon pipelines but restricts the government’s power to forcibly acquire land for such projects. Representative Karla Lems, who proposed the legislation, owns land near a proposed $9 billion Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline route. She argued that this measure prevents companies from imposing their projects on unwilling landowners. Supporters also point out that carbon pipelines pose potential hazards if they leak, making them unsuitable for eminent domain considerations.

This legislative action comes after years of debate and grassroots efforts aimed at influencing elected officials. Previous attempts to limit eminent domain for carbon pipelines were unsuccessful, but supporters gained momentum through strategic political campaigning. They managed to elect candidates sympathetic to their cause, leading to increased chances of passing this year's legislation. The bill's passage sends a clear message that South Dakota prioritizes property rights over corporate interests in certain cases. However, some legislators worry about the broader implications for national energy policies and the ethanol industry. Representative Greg Jamison expressed concerns that this decision could discourage investment and send a negative signal to the country.

Economic and Environmental Implications of the Legislation

The bill's passage raises questions about its impact on both the environment and the economy. Supporters argue that restricting eminent domain for carbon pipelines aligns with voter sentiment and environmental safety concerns. They believe that carbon pipelines do not serve a genuine public purpose and should not be eligible for the same legal privileges as traditional infrastructure projects. The Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline, which would transport CO2 from ethanol plants across five states to North Dakota for storage, exemplifies the type of project affected by this legislation. Despite having voluntary agreements with some landowners, the company relies on eminent domain to secure access from reluctant parties.

Opponents of the bill, including representatives from the ethanol industry, fear that limiting eminent domain could stifle economic growth and innovation. Representative Drew Peterson suggested that this legislation might hinder President Trump's energy independence goals, particularly regarding biofuels. He emphasized that while South Dakota cannot directly influence federal policy, supporting carbon pipelines could contribute to broader national objectives. On the other hand, proponents like Majority Leader Scott Odenbach contend that the bill reflects voter preferences expressed in recent elections. They also highlight the potential risks associated with carbon pipeline leaks and stress the importance of clarifying the legal status of eminent domain authority for these projects. Governor Larry Rhoden has yet to indicate his stance on the bill, leaving its ultimate fate uncertain.