Despite the passage of Senate Bill 201, the so-called Landowners Rights Bill, during the recent legislative session, the debate over regulating thousands of miles of carbon capture pipelines across the state is far from over. State officials validated a referendum this past week that will allow voters to have the final say in the Nov. 5 general election.
The referendum was filed with the Secretary of State’s Office on Monday, July 8. Jim Eschenbaum, the Hand County Commissioner who chaired the referendum effort, learned on July 10 that there were enough signatures to get the measure on the ballot.
Volunteers across the state, including many in and around Moody County, helped Eschenbaum collect nearly 31,000 signatures. The Secretary of State’s office found that 92 percent of the signatures were valid, a percentage rarely seen.
“We don’t want SB 201 to go through,” said local opposition advocate Clayton Rentschler.
“It’s an overreach of the government. I just hope people will see through all of the propaganda coming down the pike now that this will get put on the ballot. That will be more of a struggle than trying to get signatures for the petition.”

Voters who want to reject the Act of the Legislature are asked to vote “No” this fall.
Those who want SB 201 to become law will be asked to vote “Yes”.
Senate Bill 201, for those unfamiliar with the measure, introduces new statutory requirements for regulating linear transmission facilities and allows counties to impose a surcharge on certain pipeline companies. Legislative leaders aimed to pass a law that would protect landowners while limiting the role of county governments.
The pipeline is seen as crucial for a potential future aviation fuel market for the Midwest-based ethanol industry, which buys roughly one-third of the nation’s corn crop.
Some landowners oppose the pipeline, questioning the forced use of their property and raising concerns about ruptures that could release hazardous CO2 gas. They also criticize the lucrative federal tax credits for carbon capture projects.
“If this gets shot down, that pipeline’s going to get built with no landowner protections, no plume study released, and without a whole bunch of the other benefits that we fought hard to get included,” House Majority Leader Will Mortenson said.
Mortenson believes the pipeline will ultimately be built whether the regulations are in place or not. He helped introduce the new law, which adds requirements such as minimum depth for the pipeline, liability on pipeline operators for damages, and disclosures of pipelines’ plume models. The law also allows counties to impose a surcharge of $1 per linear foot on CO2 pipelines whose companies claim federal tax credits.
Opponents argue the regulations will strip counties of their ability to pass stringent rules that can effectively ban such pipelines.
“I honestly believe a majority of South Dakotans think this pipeline is foolishness. I’m one of them,” said Eschenbaum, who is also Chair of the South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance, formed by landowners and local officials to oppose the project. “I think it’s just a bunch of hooey and a big taxpayer boondoggle.”
Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions has proposed the $5.5 billion, 2,500-mile (4,023.4 kilometers) pipeline network that would carry emissions from more than 50 ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota to be stored deep underground in North Dakota. Summit has faced opposition and setbacks throughout the Midwest. South Dakota regulators denied Summit’s application for a permit last year. Company officials say they plan to file another application this summer.