SB 201 signatures submitted, Iowa approves carbon pipeline
SB 201 petition gathers 28,000 signatures
A group of citizens calling for a referendum of South Dakota’s SB 201 turned in around 28,000 signatures this week.
Jim Eschenbaum, Hand County Commissioner, Miller, South Dakota, served as the chairman of the petition drive.
He said the Secretary of State told him that 17,508 signatures were needed in order to refer the issue back to the voters and secure a spot on the ballot.
Eschenbaum said the group had planned to turn in signatures Monday, June 24, 2024, because that was 90 days after the day they obtained their first signature. The Secretary of State’s office told them that Tuesday, June 25, was their due date, but in an abundance of caution and to avoid their signatures being thrown out, the group decided to turn signatures on June 24.
“We had set a goal of 25,000. We weren’t quite to that goal by 10 am Monday morning, but we figured we’d be close,” he said.
“We turned in about 28,000 signatures,” he said. The petition gatherers met together in Pierre on Tuesday, and actually had in hand another approximately 2,000 signatures, but those were not submittable because the group had already submitted and verified their packet of signature sheets the day before.
“We had a lot of really good volunteers that worked their fingers to the bone
On June 27, the Secretary of States office contacted Eschenbaum to report that the group had turned in 1,520 sheets. Each sheet has room for 30 signatures, but not every sheet was full.
South Dakota laws and law changes approved by the legislature go into effect July 1. It is expected that the state will not enforce the law if sufficient signatures are gathered to justify a referendum.
Senate Bill 201 was a controversial bill that passed the South Dakota legislature this spring. While the bill sponsors, Casey Crabtree of Madison and Will Mortenson, Ft. Pierre touted the bill as a “landowner bill of rights,” one of the biggest aspects of the lengthy bill was the removal of local control over the placement of carbon pipelines and electrical transmission lines. While some counties have already established setbacks (for example, Brown County implemented a 1,500 foot setback for carbon pipelines passing by residences or businesses), SB 201 says that if the state Public Utilities Commission approves a permit and establishes a setback, that the state setback will override the county setback.
Another big aspect of SB 201 gives counties the authority to tax carbon pipelines up to $1 per foot as long as the federal tax break remains available. Under SB 201, counties may use that $1 per foot tax income to offset property taxes for the landowner(s) whose land the pipeline crosses.
The South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance, along with many individuals and organizations have said they don’t see SB 201 as a landowner bill of rights, but a tool to remove local control from counties and townships.
Some agricultural groups including South Dakota Farm Bureau and the South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association testified in favor of SB 201.
Jason Glodt, a Pierre attorney, who along with Rob Skjonsberg, former Senator Rounds Chief of Staff, formed a “coalition” to help lobby in favor of carbon pipelines, said in an official news release that “The large majority of landowners across South Dakota support the carbon capture pipeline project.”
However the state of South Dakota told TSLN that it is unable to quantify how many rural landowners there are in South Dakota.
Glodt told TSLN that he based his statement on the fact that “the largest ag organizations in the state are on record testifying in favor of SB 201.” But the South Dakota Farmers Union has not testified in favor, and has repeatedly stated its opposition to the bill. SDFU president Doug Sombke said SDFU is the state’s largest ag organization.
Glodt also told TSLN that “Proponent landowners heavily outnumbered opponent landowners at the Capital during key votes this Session.”
However, many legislators and citizens who attended committee hearings on the bill reported to TSLN that in more than one instance, over 100 individual citizens were present to oppose the bill (many of whom were landowners) while bill proponents were all or nearly all paid lobbyists. Some of the opponents were not able to speak on the official record due to committee meeting time constraints.
Iowa decision
The Iowa Utilities Board, a three-member panel appointed by the governor of Iowa, decided on June 25, 2024, to approve a permit for Summit Carbon Solutions to build a carbon capture pipeline in its state.
The board also approved the use of eminent domain to condemn land owned by people who don’t agree to sign easements allowing the pipeline’s construction.
“After weighing numerous factors for and against Summit Carbon’s petition, the Board found that the service to be provided by Summit Carbon will promote the public convenience and necessity,” said the board in its official statement.
“The Board found Summit Carbon could be vested with the right of eminent domain and, based upon this finding, the Board examined each of the 859 outstanding parcels subject to a request for eminent domain to determine, based upon the record, whether to approve, deny, or modify each request,” said the board.
The board’s decision will not go into effect immediately.
In its official statement, the board reports that Summit cannot begin construction in Iowa until South Dakota approves a building permit and until North Dakota approves a building permit and sequestration site.
According to Barb Clayton, an Iowa resident who owns a small amount of property, the timing of the Iowa board’s decision is odd, given the historic flooding the area was reeling from at the same time.
“They released their decision here on Tuesday when we’re dealing with floods,” she said.
Clayton is involved in a group called the Free Soil Foundation, which has pledged to fight the ruling.
“The Iowa Utilities Board has decided that private property rights must not interfere with a corporation’s right to federal welfare dollars. This ruling has signaled to the wolf of Iowa and the wolves at the Iowa border that our property rights are up for grabs to the highest bidder. The Free Soil Foundation will fight this lawless and unconstitutional decision by the appointed Iowa Utilities Board with every resource available,” said an official FSF news release.
Doyle Turner, an Iowa resident who is working with companies interested in building methanol plants as an alternative to carbon capture (methanol plants could be build near ethanol plants and would use the excess C02 to produce a fuel called methanol), believes the ruling was “a grave injustice to property owners” in Iowa.
“To pretend that a private company that is essentially taking a valuable resource and putting it in a landfill for federal subsidy dollars has somehow become, according to IUB, a “convenient and necessary activity that would warrant eminent domain…that is not anywhere near what our laws were intending when the developed the criteria for eminent domain.”
Summit Carbon Solutions is a privately owned company with international investors seeking to build a pipeline across several states including Iowa, Nebraska and South Dakota. The pipeline would collect carbon dioxide from ethanol plants and deposit it near Beulah, North Dakota into the ground. The federal government offers 45Q tax credits for the carbon sequestration efforts.
On many occasions, Summit has entered private property without permission to survey land and has filed lawsuits to impose eminent domain onto landowners who have refused to sign easements. Until now, no state had approved a permit so eminent domain has not yet been enacted.
