Moody County residents continue to advocate for eminent domain reform as a new carbon capture pipeline network is considered across the eastern half of South Dakota.
Summit Carbon Solutions has filed plans to construct a 2,500-mile pipeline designed to transport carbon emissions from more than 55 ethanol plants in five states to an underground storage facility in North Dakota.
While the newly proposed routes avoid Moody County due to strict setbacks established by county commissioners last year, landowners along the updated path remain concerned about the use of eminent domain for the pipeline’s construction. They also question the safety of the product being transported and the long-term efficacy and necessity of carbon sequestration.
A rally for eminent domain reform was held this past week as legislators returned to Pierre for the 2025 legislative session.

The Public Utilities Commission also held public input meetings this past week in communities along the proposed route — and hundreds, including a number of Moody County residents, attended to hear from the company and voice their concerns with the PUC.
A key issue remains the effort to designate the pipeline as a common carrier, which would give Summit the power of eminent domain to acquire private land.
In 2024, the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled that the pipeline had not demonstrated its need for eminent domain, sending the case back to a lower court for further review.
In the meantime, state lawmakers are considering new legislation to restrict eminent domain use for carbon pipelines. House Bill 1052, introduced this past week, would prohibit the use of eminent domain for pipelines primarily transporting carbon dioxide. The bill currently reads:
“Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, a person may not exercise the right of eminent domain to acquire right-of-way for, construct, or operate a pipeline for the preponderant purpose of transporting carbon dioxide.”
Supporters of the project argue it would bring economic benefits to South Dakota if approved, though opponents question whether any benefit outweighs the potential risks to landowners and the environment.