Chase Jensen of Dakota Rural Action stood at the front of the room recently at the Janklow Community Center. He had been asked to come talk to residents and farmers in the region concerned over a proposed C02 pipeline.
Those in the room had a lot of questions. Especially over the threat of eminent domain to get the project done.
There are two separate so-called carbon capture pipelines being proposed in the state. Carbon capture and storage is described as a potential green technology that can help address global climate change while also creating good paying jobs and growing the economy.
The companies state the technology works by capturing carbon dioxide produced from power generation or other industrial processes and pressurizing it into a liquid form for transport. Thus, keeping it out of the atmosphere.
Others, including some global and local environmental groups, aren’t sold on it.
The Moody County Enterprise has been working to cover developments on the matter. The Summit pipeline, which is currently pending the approval of the Public Utilities Commission in South Dakota, doesn’t enter into Moody County.
Heartland Greenway does.

That project is currently slated to begin at the Valero Ethanol Plant in Aurora. It would then run south and east through Iowa, touching partners in both Minnesota and Nebraska, before heading ultimately to an underground storage facility in Illinois. Heartland Greenway has not filed the paperwork to build in South Dakota. The expectation is that it will happen later this summer or early this fall, company officials tell us.
Jensen, an hour into the meeting, brought in attorney Brian Jorde with Omaha’s Domina Law Group, virtually. Jorde spoke about landowners’ rights and the advantages of forming a legal “co-op” with others who oppose the use of eminent domain for these projects.
Jensen also introduced The South Dakota Easement Team, a grassroots organization established for the benefit of landowners along these routes in South Dakota. On its website, SDET states that its “number one goal is landowner education around your property rights and how and what to fight for in any easement, the contract determining CO2 pipeline rights to your land and obligations to you, should you be forced to negotiate an easement.”
Other concerned local parties asked about ongoing training for first responders who might be called to an emergency with the pipeline, especially given turnover within the agencies over time; which other companies the lines might connect with besides ethanol plants; and what state legislators have to say about any of this.
Jensen said that he spent a lot of time in Pierre this past session trying to work with legislators on the matter. A bill (SB204) had even been drafted that might protect landowners from eminent domain.
“Summit showed up and opposed the bill, and shut it down essentially. Saying, ‘this will introduce ambiguity into the process, and we’ve already started the application. So why throw ambiguity into eminent domain when we’re already going. They pretty much tipped their hand that this is the route they are headed towards,” Jensen said.
He added that a different bill did pass this spring, “which was to ensure that it (carbon capture) gets added into our tax structure so that we can make money off of it. So, if you want the short answer, how did the legislature handle carbon this year, that’s what I tell people. They made sure they could tax it. That’s about all that we got out of them. Not very encouraging.”
Residents questioned why there is so much concern about carbon in South Dakota and the Midwest to begin with, stating that the small amount of emissions here isn’t the problem. Others added that there is irony in that the corn used to produce ethanol, which is supposed to be more environmentally friendly as a fuel source, actually needs carbon to thrive.
Property owners also asked why the company would offer a one-time payout for access to their land when other efforts like wind energy offer ongoing payouts based on the energy produced.
“I don’t know where we’re currently selling our ethanol, but California is going electric by 2030. They are shifting technology. And not towards E80. They’re shifting toward electric….I think this whole carbon trading market is a scheme. I think it’s a false solution that empowers people who are making money to continue to make money. The whole move to ethanol was done with the claims that we have to have a clean energy source. There are a lot of things that don’t seem to fit well together,” Jensen said, answering a landowners question about is this really the solution.
Ultimately, Jensen wanted those in the room to know that they’re not alone in their concerns but if they’re going to have any sort of say in the matter, they have to be organized and come together. And do so, quickly.
“A lot of what they do is, their tactics are based on trying to make you feel like you’re the only person being hit by this, and there’s nothing you can possibly do. And eminent domain is inevitable so you might as well sign (the paperwork the company would need signed to move forward with installation). It’s an intimidation factor, keep you isolated. We’re trying to say, you’re not alone.”     
Andy Bates with Heartland Greenway said that the company welcome questions and concerns via phone and email. All questions directed to officials with Valero Renewables in Aurora and its company headquarters in San Antonio, Texas from the Moody County Enterprise were redirected to Bates and Heartland Greenway.