SD Passes Eminent Domain ban

[Bonasababy]

Not sure this isn't too broad a ban but it will help put a damper on even more intensive corn and ethanol production in the region. (the push to invoke eminent domain to build a CO2 pipeline to allow ethanol plants to claim carbon neutral operations is the impetus for it).

South Dakota Passes Eminent Domain Legislation - Reason Foundation

South Dakota is the latest state to take a stand for private property rights by banning the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes: Calling it a model of legislative cooperation, the South Dakota Senate on Tuesday unanimously passed … Continued

reason.org

 

[warmer]

That is dated 2006

 

[Nick87]

That is dated 2006

Yep. Beat me to it.

 

[Bonasababy]

My bad it was in local news that has a members only lock out, was looking for something that folks could read.

Try this...not sure if you will be able to read it.

I have no idea If the previous articles date was accurate or not. If it was I don't quite understand what happened earlier I guess, would seem that the pipeline companies found some work around so this new one--which appears more narrowly tailored--was needed?

South Dakota governor signs bill prohibiting the use of eminent domain for carbon pipelines

Gov. Larry Rhoden signed South Dakota House Bill 1052 into law Wedneday, prohibiting carbon pipeline companies from using eminent domain.

www.inforum.com

 

[grizzly63]

Yup

 

[SAJ-99]

Not sure this isn't too broad a ban but it will help put a damper on even more intensive corn and ethanol production in the region. (the push to invoke eminent domain to build a CO2 pipeline to allow ethanol plants to claim carbon neutral operations is the impetus for it).

South Dakota Passes Eminent Domain Legislation - Reason Foundation

South Dakota is the latest state to take a stand for private property rights by banning the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes: Calling it a model of legislative cooperation, the South Dakota Senate on Tuesday unanimously passed … Continued

reason.org

If I understand this correctly, it seems like a political play. It just bans carbon oxides. So yeah, you can claim eminent domain to put in a new nat gas, ethanol, or oil pipeline, but pumping the carbon back underground is a bridge too far?

 

[Wild Bill]

It's a very nuanced issue in the state. Both sides can make a compelling argument.

In the end the public was very vocal and opposed to Summit's use of eminent domain for a carbon transfer pipeline.

One point of the argument against the pipeline and the use of eminent domain is that the pipeline does not meet the "public use standard" in which all other utilities that may utilize eminent domain are for the good of the general public. They argue that a carbon transfer pipeline does not benefit the public, instead it benefits Summit Carbon Solutions by allowing them to use the pipeline to gain federal tax credits.

Summit did a very poor job handling the issue and initiating the eminent domain and alienating landowners. Now, Summit will have to either totally reroute their pipeline, or come to expensive agreements with landowners. Landowners, farmers, and ethanol producers have potentially lost a large market for their product as well.

Very messy situation and saying it is simply a "political play" paints the picture with a very broad brush.

You'll need to read more than one article to get a better understanding of the bill and the reasons behind it.

 

[Schism]

This has been a hot button topic in the Dakotas for a few years now. As I understand it, the pipeline will be owned and operated by private, for profit company(s) and will transfer CO2 from corn ethanol plants in Iowa to North Dakota for "storage" underground. Some local politicians claim it is necessary to keep the energy industry in North Dakota afloat amid an array of environmental and financial headwinds.

Landowners I know oppose the pipeline coming through their property for a variety of reasons. There is a 500' setback on either side of the pipeline that will prevent housing or business development on their private land. There is also the question as to whether this pipeline satisfies the legal requirements to allow the taking of private property via eminent domain.

I don't own land in the proposed route but have been following this a bit since the original route would have had the pipeline a couple miles from my home.

 

[SAJ-99]

It's a very nuanced issue in the state. Both sides can make a compelling argument.

In the end the public was very vocal and opposed to Summit's use of eminent domain for a carbon transfer pipeline.

One point of the argument against the pipeline and the use of eminent domain is that the pipeline does not meet the "public use standard" in which all other utilities that may utilize eminent domain are for the good of the general public. They argue that a carbon transfer pipeline does not benefit the public, instead it benefits Summit Carbon Solutions by allowing them to use the pipeline to gain federal tax credits.

Summit did a very poor job handling the issue and initiating the eminent domain and alienating landowners. Now, Summit will have to either totally reroute their pipeline, or come to expensive agreements with landowners. Landowners, farmers, and ethanol producers have potentially lost a large market for their product as well.

Very messy situation and saying it is simply a "political play" paints the picture with a very broad brush.

You'll need to read more than one article to get a better understanding of the bill and the reasons behind it.

Sounds nuanced. I didn't mean to oversimplify. I get the argument made to pass it. But like I said, it seems a nat gas pipeline company can still use ED and claim public benefit because it produces electricity or heat or whatever, even if the goal is profit to the company? I am not a fan of ethanol, but this seems like picking winners and losers, which I don't like either. The bill doesn't see broad enough. Bonasababy thought it might be too broad. Certainly complicated.

 

[Bonasababy]

Sounds nuanced. I didn't mean to oversimplify. I get the argument made to pass it. But like I said, it seems a nat gas pipeline company can still use ED and claim public benefit because it produces electricity or heat or whatever, even if the goal is profit to the company? I am not a fan of ethanol, but this seems like picking winners and losers, which I don't like either. The bill doesn't see broad enough. Bonasababy thought it might be too broad. Certainly complicated.

I was probably confusing an earlier ban effort with this latest one. When I said broad I thought it was a severe restriction on taking even for the public good, which while I understand (have some pretty strong libertarian tendencies myself) but don't think is wise.

FWIW It's more than just Iowa ethanol plants. There a few in MN and here there are law requirements driving ethanol companies to this as a means to keep on producing while claiming they are carbon neutral. Those requirements FWIW were first started under a Republican Governor (Pawlenty). Todays republicans would gut those requirements the day after they come into power if allowed.

Ethanol has been a prairie grouse/pheasant/upland nesting waterfowl/wetland drainer and more killer. Not sure if we care about the environment--or bird hunting in particular--that it's a good thing to keep all those acres in corn, given the intense inputs that crop needs to grow well, the pressure to drain wetlands etc.