Thank you for sharing your story - so few first-generation farmers manage to own land, and I applaud you.
Not everyone understands that once the CO2 pipeline is buried, the landowner assumes all risk if there is an accident - even though the easement is permanent. And not everyone has tried to farm over ground that isn't properly repaired after a pipeline is laid. During the laying of the Lewis and Clark water pipeline on our land, the clay layer ended up on top, and yields were never the same in that half-mile stretch of ground. Also, it took many years after burying the pipe before the rut left from settling was gone.
I think Tom's main point is well taken. A small handful of people (not from South Dakota) will benefit massively from the billions of dollars of tax money poured into this grift, while relative crumbs are left for the rest of the people in its path. It should be Tom's choice if he wants to participate, guaranteed by the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Taking away Tom's rights for the benefit of a private company should give everyone that owns a house, land, building, or farm pause.
Wasn't Lee Schoenbeck(sp), State legislator from Watertown recently able to move a pipeline from the Nuns' Convent property in Watertown? Would that move on his part show he was protecting the Nuns property from imminent domain? Why can't he do the same for the farmers?
I appreciate your hard work and thrift. I understand that a bike path would remove farmland but how does a buried pipeline affect your ability to farm the surface?
Are you aware of the safety hazards with these pipelines? That affects not only the farmland, but the air and well-being should one of those leak, reach our water supply or explode (check out Satartia, Mississippi.
Your example seems to be an apples to oranges comparison. Plus the first source when searched is a HuffPost article, a known outlet of disinformation. The article states: “…extinct volcano under Jackson, Mississippi, whose 4.6 trillion cubic feet of naturally occurring CO2 gas supplies all of the company’s fields”. I do not believe the CO2 in proposed pipeline is from a similar source nor contaminated with deadly hydrogen sulfide. SD FarmGirl’s above post poses some clear problems for the landowners, all of which I believe could be addressed in negotiations as well as with adequate supervision during the construction. On another note, every time you drink a carbonated beverage, you’re experiencing CO2 in water.
Tom,
Thank you for sharing your story - so few first-generation farmers manage to own land, and I applaud you.
Not everyone understands that once the CO2 pipeline is buried, the landowner assumes all risk if there is an accident - even though the easement is permanent. And not everyone has tried to farm over ground that isn't properly repaired after a pipeline is laid. During the laying of the Lewis and Clark water pipeline on our land, the clay layer ended up on top, and yields were never the same in that half-mile stretch of ground. Also, it took many years after burying the pipe before the rut left from settling was gone.
I think Tom's main point is well taken. A small handful of people (not from South Dakota) will benefit massively from the billions of dollars of tax money poured into this grift, while relative crumbs are left for the rest of the people in its path. It should be Tom's choice if he wants to participate, guaranteed by the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Taking away Tom's rights for the benefit of a private company should give everyone that owns a house, land, building, or farm pause.
Wasn't Lee Schoenbeck(sp), State legislator from Watertown recently able to move a pipeline from the Nuns' Convent property in Watertown? Would that move on his part show he was protecting the Nuns property from imminent domain? Why can't he do the same for the farmers?
Thank you for that information and explanation.
I appreciate your hard work and thrift. I understand that a bike path would remove farmland but how does a buried pipeline affect your ability to farm the surface?
Are you aware of the safety hazards with these pipelines? That affects not only the farmland, but the air and well-being should one of those leak, reach our water supply or explode (check out Satartia, Mississippi.
Your example seems to be an apples to oranges comparison. Plus the first source when searched is a HuffPost article, a known outlet of disinformation. The article states: “…extinct volcano under Jackson, Mississippi, whose 4.6 trillion cubic feet of naturally occurring CO2 gas supplies all of the company’s fields”. I do not believe the CO2 in proposed pipeline is from a similar source nor contaminated with deadly hydrogen sulfide. SD FarmGirl’s above post poses some clear problems for the landowners, all of which I believe could be addressed in negotiations as well as with adequate supervision during the construction. On another note, every time you drink a carbonated beverage, you’re experiencing CO2 in water.