South Dakota to Adopt Landowner Bill of Rights
Package of bills near finish line to protect landowners during CO2 pipeline proceedings
PIERRE–Today, Republican Majority Leaders announced the nation’s first Landowner Bill of Rights related to carbon dioxide pipeline projects, making South Dakota a leader in landowner protections throughout the nation.
At the beginning of the 2024 Legislative Session, House Majority Leader Will Mortenson and Senate Majority Leader Casey Crabtree set out to protect landowners and address issues that have emerged in recent years related to interstate utility projects. Together, the Majority Leaders worked on proposals that focused on a project development process that promotes respect, fairness, and certainty for everyone involved.
“These bills are 100 percent pro-farmer and 100 percent pro-landowner,” said Rep. Mortenson, R-District 24. “This package has landowner protections, real benefits to landowners and real benefits to counties. Those were my requirements and they have been met. We’re keeping local input, while keeping South Dakota open for business.”
“When South Dakota farmers succeed, all of South Dakota succeeds, and that cuts both ways. When South Dakota farmers have limited access to national and global markets, our whole state suffers,” said Sen. Crabtree, R-District 8. “These bills reflect the values of South Dakota and set the path for the future of farming in South Dakota. We entered session with an opportunity to help farmers, and we followed through. This package of bills sets the new standard for other states to follow to secure their economic future and provide a blanket of strong protections to landowners.”
“It took us two years for us all to come together because we were so far apart on utility certainty and landowner protections,” said Rep. Oren Lesmeister, D-District 28A and House Minority Leader. “We’ve come together as South Dakotans to do what’s best for all of South Dakota, but especially farmers, ranchers and landowners.”
South Dakota lawmakers are set to approve substantial protections for landowners. To do business in South Dakota, CO2 utility projects will be required to:
- Construct a minimum depth of 48 inches–a full foot beyond federal requirements.
- Assume lifetime drain tile damage repair policy.
- Assume pipeline leak liability protection.
- Indemnify landowners from any damage caused by the pipeline.
- File an agricultural impact mitigation plan with the Public Utilities Commission.
- File a dispersion analysis report with the PUC.
- Require land agents to have a tie to South Dakota.
- Provide landowner with survey results.
- Only mortgage pipeline infrastructure–not an easement holder’s property.
- Limit easement duration to 99 years.
- Construct CO2 pipeline within 5 years of easement enactment.
- Abandon easements if the CO2 pipeline is out of service for 5 years.
- Pipeline easements must be written.
- Follow survey and access rights.
- Provide an access payment to the landowner for survey and siting.
SB 201 collects financial payments from CO2 pipeline operators at the county level per linear foot of the pipeline. The surcharge will provide $0.50 to pipeline landowner property tax relief and $0.50 to county general discretion for each linear foot. This is an estimated influx of $3.6 million annually to South Dakota counties for tax relief.
HB 1185 establishes a clear and fair process for landowners to be informed and compensated for access by companies for surveying and siting. It also establishes a process to challenge requests for access. HB 1185 also sets a $500 payment for survey access to the landowner.
HB 1186 sets easement standards for CO2 pipeline planning projects in South Dakota. Easements will be required to be written, expire in 99 years and be abandoned if the pipeline is out of use for five years or more or if the operator fails to file for permitting within five years.
Together, these bills continue the South Dakota tradition of being good neighbors and right-sizing the issues that have emerged related to pipelines to forge a path forward that respects landowners, creates fairness for landowners and developers, and provides certainty for all parties during the phases of easements, constructions and operations.
SB 201, HB 1185 and HB 1186 are supported by agriculture, landowner, and economic development groups representing tens of thousands of family farms and landowners.
“By looking out for the landowner, the Legislature is requiring developers to accept these terms and be good neighbors in South Dakota,” added Crabtree. “The Legislature’s focus is on South Dakota. This package is the result of listening to landowners, farmers and our constituents and then doing the right thing for our state.”
“I’m excited for the Legislature to cross the finish line with these landowner protections,” added Mortenson. “Doing nothing this session benefits no one – especially farmers. I’m glad we are seizing our opportunity to help farmers, help counties, and ensure projects in our state get built in a South Dakota way.”
SB 201, HB 1185 and HB 1185 will be heard in conference committee on Wednesday, March 6. The proposed amendments for consideration are posted online at sdlegislature.gov.
###
Wow. That’s thick.
Eminent domain for private gain is alive. Foreign ownership has been approved Just my opinion
Eminent domain for private gain has been in effect since the first railroad track was laid down, followed by telegraph lines.
Get over it.
Hope you like the crow you will be eating when you get duped after a little time passes, credits run out or are given to a more efficient type of SAF ethanol . Corn based ethanol may fade from the scene., but.you all believe the Summit people who will make you, the counties, townships, and the entire state rich. First rodeo? Must be.
Any protection goes away if Summit merges with another company to form a new one, right?
“But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever.”
John Adams 1775
My rights as a landowner are God given and protected by the Constitution. The government is only allowed to govern with the consent of the people. Say no to these trio of bills and say NO to eminent domain for private gain!
The first ten amendments to the US Constitution were ratified in 1791.
The protections you get as a landowner are due process and just compensation, guaranteed in the 5th amendment…and that’s it. The use of eminent domain has been ongoing ever since. Your land can be taken from you and you will be compensated.
Somehow all the rest of us have managed to deal with this.
I’m sure I’m just confused but please explain to me how a pipeline utilized for CO2 sequestration is public use? Do I use it for something in my home or is it powering something? What’s the benefit to my community besides “supposed” tax dollars and lowering a carbon score?
It is public use in the same way that the Dakota Access Pipeline was public use. You likely do not use crude oil in your home either. Just because your may disagree with the contents of the pipeline doesn’t change the “public use” argument from one commodity to another.
The definition of a commodity is “a raw material or primary agriculture project that be bought and sold. Or A useful or valuable thing.”
How does CO2 fit into that description? What are we doing with it? What is its purpose?
You may wish to direct your questions to the office of Governor, and soon to be United States Secretary of Energy, Doug Burgum.
Please give an example for how you have had to personally deal with this.
me? The property I grew up on, the family home, was seized to make a bicycle path, which resulted in loud, screaming hordes of bicyclists coming out from the city at dawn to go for rides and throw their Starbucks containers onto the lawn.
It necessitated the construction of stockade fences all along the route which the residents said made the neighborhood look like Fort Apache.” The fences provided some privacy but didnt cut down on all the noise (is there some reason bicyclists have to scream when they coast downhill? At 5 AM? )
The fence also kept the litter confined and easier to clean up. The fences had to be constructed at the property owners’ expense, too.
A pipeline 4′ underground would be preferable to a bicycle path. Once a utility is buried you don’t see it, you can plant flowers on top of it, it doesnt make any noise, intrude on your privacy, or drink Starbucks coffee.
You kind of come across with the attitude that it happened to me therefore it should happen to you.
no that’s not it. Eminent domain has been established for centuries.
The Kelo v. The City of New London decision put the final nail in the coffin of property rights.
If you don’t like what happens to your property after it has been subject to this, you can sell it to somebody else. That’s what happened to our family home: we sold it as soon as Mom died. None of us wanted to keep it.
That’s what you have a right to do with your property: you have the right to sell it.
You are not going to get anywhere ranting about imaginary constitutional rights.
Said by a guy:
1. who gets his diesel via pipeline. If there were no diesel pipelines, diesel would be twice as much AND there wouldn’t be enough diesel here during spring planting unless he built his own storage.
2. whose grain is more valuable because it goes out of here on a railroad
3. Who can get his grain and cattle out of here on roads.
All of which exist because of eminent domain. This farmer is a hypocrite and phony. Why we enable such extortion from people who have already been the winners from eminent domain is beyond me.
I agree with you. I am not anti-pipeline and believe in public use projects I.e. diesel pipelines, railroads, and roads. All used to benefit the community and not one specific company or person.
Again I ask the question…what is the purpose of CO2 sequestration? Who is benefitting? How does it benefit the community? What is the science behind it? What are the dangers? Who has the most to gain from a carbon pipeline that is put through using eminent domain? What are the potential consequences of this project? What is the precedent set for future projects that want to come on your land?
Whether you buy into the “existential threat” fear mongering or not, we are called to be stewards of this earth. In the last 10 years, we have increased human population by over a billion people with continued growth expected.
All this will stress our resources in many ways. Carbon sequestration at least reduces carbon in the environment as we gain knowledge on all the stresses on earth. There are literally thousands of chemicals banned or highly regulated because they cause cancer in mice. We didn’t wait to ban or regulate them until after twenty years of exposure and people start dying to ban them. In both case, it is prudent out of caution to proceed carefully with regard to inputs into the worlds eco-balance.
Who is benefitting? The people building the pipeline, the farmers getting rent, the local tax base that funds schools etc., the pipeline investors, the ethanol producers, the farmers who sell them grain, those who use cheaper ethanol for their cars, and many more. Not unlike every other business in America.
The potential consequences (I assume you mean adverse) are the same as any other pipeline with one exception: If there is a leak, this carbon will get released in a gas into the air (which it would have been otherwise) posing virtually no risk to anyone who isn’t within feet of the plume. With an oil or gas pipeline, it will seep into the soil requiring extensive mitigation and potential go into the water supply. In other words, potential adverse consequences are minuscule compared to a regular pipeline (which incidentally is significantly less risky (and less expensive) to transporting it on rail or by truck).
It sets no new precedent that doesn’t already exist regarding oil pipelines, railroads, roads, electricity, and water.
I doubt you won’t hear anything from her anymore regardless of how this things goes. Get over it
How the hell is this a landowner “bill of rights”? This is actually quite the opposite of protecting private property rights. The biggest right is the right to say NO and stay the hell off my land, especially when it comes to this climate change CO2 bullshit that they are trying to shove down our throats!
but you don’t have that right.
You get due process and just compensation.
Kelo v. The City of New London settled it.
The rest of us are tired of listening to you folks ranting about imaginary constitutional rights.
This imaginary right is the product of social influencers Trent Loos and Amanda Radke.
Constitutional attorneys in their own mind.
That’s Nebraska Lt. Gov Candidate who got 6.1% of the GOP Primary vote, Trent Loos.
The lies she tells don’t stop! How is she a SD Farmer & Rancher on 20 acres & she’s never home! She is using this fight as a platform to sell herself & everything else on her website. She also stated at a townhall in Hanson County that she was a reporter from Hanson County when in fact she lives in Davison County. The lies just don’t end with her…the things she says about the pipeline are coming from Brian Jorde I’m guessing…couple of snakes!
She endorsed Taffy Howard and cites Tinfoil Tom to make her points.
Crazy…
Zoning is the opposite of property rights. The people fighting the pipeline pushed their counties to enforce strict zoning ordinances which ultimately take away property rights- not protect them.
I agree…a lot of those crazy set backs took far more property owner rights away! Your neighbors got to control what you do on you land… Some local governments are self serving and are not about what’s right for landowners. This is a far better option!
Maybe because she is a liar who tells people the constitutional rights she is defending are figments of her imagination?
I mean, she tells people they have constitutional rights which are figments of her imagination. Those property rights are imaginary. If there were any doubt about it, the Kelo decision of 2005 put it to rest.
Property owners get due process and just compensation. Period.
Keep it to discussion on the actual bill and a lot less trolling please.
The actual bill has nothing to do with Eminent Domain…but everyone seems to think it does.
And no proxy servers.. I keep reminding people, and they keep doing it.
“100 percent pro-landowner” would mean land owners could tell Sumit to kick rocks.