No eminent domain for private gain is message supported by 80 percent of all South Dakotans . That issue is not addressed in any of three bills . SB 201 takes away local control . There was no discussion with any land owner groups as stated in the editorial . These three bills were molded and drafted by SCS. There was no compromise sought after . Flowery words with no real support for South Dakota landowners and farmers . The carbon capture scheme by SCS is a money grab for foreign investors seeking to get rich off federal tax dollars .
-If we wanted compensation for our land we would have signed an easement. We don’t want money, we want to be able to choose what we want for our property and how to keep our family/livestock safe in the future.
-A good neighbor policy would be to take eminent domain off of the table to protect property rights.
-Give landowners a chance to say yes or no.
-How are we going to entice people to move to SD while telling them they don’t have protection of their property rights?
-A liability protection clause can say all it wants but it will be twisted when there’s a rupture leaving liability laying on the landowners lap. We have coverage denial letters from insurance companies for land that has a CO2 pipeline.
-We had a “local land agent” speak with us and he was not forthright regarding how many of our neighbors had already signed easements. At that point, we deemed him untrustworthy.
-The Summit representative we met with said they were done moving the route and threatened us with the use of eminent domain. Does this sound neighborly?
– Last year all we heard was there wasn’t anything our representatives could do for us, it was all in the PUC’s hands. Well, the PUC made their decision, yet here we are again because Summit didn’t get their way.
There’s virtually nothing in here that’s serious. Elected officials are elected to fight for their constituents, not big business. I hope the average South Dakotan sees through all this jargon and encourages their elected officials to help defeat these proposals.
This column by Crabtree / Mortenson was run word for word in the Dakota War College . I had the understanding that Dakota Scout will not print guest columns if they are printed or reprinted in other outlets . Perhaps the heavy amount of ad buys in Dakota Scout changes that policy .
Dear Majority Leaders: Explain, please, how implementing and profiteering from the GREEN NEW DEAL pushed by Bernie Sanders and AOC is beneficial for South Dakota. Or for anyone in the US.
If I'm not mistaken, isn't the first hurdle to be passed is the PUC granting the permission of these companies to allow transmission of this GAS as opposed to electricity or fluids? I am under the impression that this is still under study/discussion and the permit was denied because that decision had not been arrived at by the deadline. With North Dakota saying they won't allow this gas to be dumped in their state, why is a pipeline being built before the dump site is located?
In my opinion, Summit Carbon Solutions brought this PR problem upon themselves with heir original threats of eminent domain and then those bonehead surveyors who barged into the Bossley's home and office - UNINVITED - as if the property was his.
I feel Mrs. Bossley exhibited EXTREME PATIENCE by not exercising her CASTLE DOCTRINE RIGHT to defend her home against that invader!
Now SCS is immersing 'their people' in communities to show the residents they are 'one of them'!
One final thing, in reading through the bills supporting this pipeline, In particular, SB 201, Section 2 which addresses an 'Extraordinary Expense Fund' . Where is this money coming from? South Dakotan taxpayers should not be paying for something a private company wants. How is an "Extraordinary Expense Fund" established...how is that amount determined...and how is it approved? (Asking for a lotta taxpayers).
"As a state dependent upon agriculture, our prosperity depends on national and global markets, and we must embrace emerging industries that leverage our commodities. Doing so creates jobs, feeds families, pays off loans, puts dollars into local economies, and, most importantly, helps create a brighter future for our state and its next generation. This is another way we are focused on helping people because a rising tide lifts all boats."
I'm trying to be open-minded about an issue I don't know enough about, but several things stand out for me in this statement. I would argue our prosperity depends at least in part upon our ability to sustain and protect the land that agriculture production depends on--is this a case where short-sighted profiteering poses an unacceptable risk to future production? Is embracing industries that "leverage" commodities always the right choice? For example, the citizens of this state voted to legalize recreational marijuana use--something that supported an emerging industry, created a new revenue stream, leveraged commodities, would have created jobs, paid off loans, fed families, and put dollars into local communities (all of which have been clearly demonstrated in other states that legalized recreational marijuana use) but some politicians felt doing so posed risks, so in spite of the vote of the state's citizens, that decision was effectively nullified on procedural grounds. In this case, if it's true that 80 percent of South Dakotans don't support the use of eminent domain in this instance, are politicians again nullifying the will of the citizens of the state? I'm not arguing that this is an apples to apples comparison, but my point is that simply arguing we must do it because it's progressive and will generate money and jobs hasn't historically been enough of an argument, especially when we don't know what the future risks might be? Take for example cell phone use--undeniably the most progressive technological advancement in the current era, we now have clear evidence that one out of every four car accidents in this country is related to cell phone use, 1.6 million crashes annually according to the National Safety Council--again, my point being that future risks need to be a part of the decision when one talks about commandeering private property to allow a private company to construct a pipeline that carries unknown future risks.
Nowhere on that list of "landowner protections" is the protection of the landowner's right to say "no."
Anti-fossil fuel ethanol subsidies grew Poet and SD corn producers just fine without Summit's additional GREEN NEW DEAL "carbon sequestration." Why is this needed for industries that already are established? Why do carpenters and teachers need to pay Federal income taxes to subsidize a company that produces nothing?
These legislators may believe what they are saying. But tearing up your neighbor’s land to get billions of taxpayer money from Washington DC is not friendly.
For the same cash we could give $100M to every ethanol plant.
i.e. "We're trying hard to tactfully explain to you landowner rubes that we can't NOT build this pipeline. But we aren't willing to commit political suicide by explaining to you the WHY for this pipeline, nor point out how illogical fear of a carbon dioxide pipeline is compared to the already existing natural gas and tar sands oil pipelines, cuz our voters don't believe in science or statistics. We can't say "climate change," nor discuss ethanol's role in it or other environmental damages it causes, nor touch with a ten foot pole an explanation of what a helpful role a carbon pipeline could play in solving these existential issues.
But, if the feds are dumb enough to provide tax incentives for this pipeline, we are going to take advantage of it, come hell or high water, just like we do all the rest of the federal money that allows our state government to provide basic services we refuse to pay for ourselves." Wimps.
There are thousand of miles of existing highways and roads in SD where side ditches could be used to bury pipelines. May not be shortest or most direct routes but cost of doing business and they are getting lots of tax dollar subsidies.
If there is no product to flow through those pipelines. the side ditch consideration is moot. CO2, which is plant food and 18% of human bodies, is headed for sequestration underground to be paid for with federal taxpayer dollars for at least 12 years to Summit. This is bogus.
Add one more requirement: Easements must be "located" and the location must infringe upon both the use of the land (including foreseeable use thereof") and the value of the land in the least intrusive manner feasible.
No eminent domain for private gain is message supported by 80 percent of all South Dakotans . That issue is not addressed in any of three bills . SB 201 takes away local control . There was no discussion with any land owner groups as stated in the editorial . These three bills were molded and drafted by SCS. There was no compromise sought after . Flowery words with no real support for South Dakota landowners and farmers . The carbon capture scheme by SCS is a money grab for foreign investors seeking to get rich off federal tax dollars .
-If we wanted compensation for our land we would have signed an easement. We don’t want money, we want to be able to choose what we want for our property and how to keep our family/livestock safe in the future.
-A good neighbor policy would be to take eminent domain off of the table to protect property rights.
-Give landowners a chance to say yes or no.
-How are we going to entice people to move to SD while telling them they don’t have protection of their property rights?
-A liability protection clause can say all it wants but it will be twisted when there’s a rupture leaving liability laying on the landowners lap. We have coverage denial letters from insurance companies for land that has a CO2 pipeline.
-We had a “local land agent” speak with us and he was not forthright regarding how many of our neighbors had already signed easements. At that point, we deemed him untrustworthy.
-The Summit representative we met with said they were done moving the route and threatened us with the use of eminent domain. Does this sound neighborly?
– Last year all we heard was there wasn’t anything our representatives could do for us, it was all in the PUC’s hands. Well, the PUC made their decision, yet here we are again because Summit didn’t get their way.
There’s virtually nothing in here that’s serious. Elected officials are elected to fight for their constituents, not big business. I hope the average South Dakotan sees through all this jargon and encourages their elected officials to help defeat these proposals.
And the legislators who signed on 😉
This column by Crabtree / Mortenson was run word for word in the Dakota War College . I had the understanding that Dakota Scout will not print guest columns if they are printed or reprinted in other outlets . Perhaps the heavy amount of ad buys in Dakota Scout changes that policy .
Dear Majority Leaders: Explain, please, how implementing and profiteering from the GREEN NEW DEAL pushed by Bernie Sanders and AOC is beneficial for South Dakota. Or for anyone in the US.
If I'm not mistaken, isn't the first hurdle to be passed is the PUC granting the permission of these companies to allow transmission of this GAS as opposed to electricity or fluids? I am under the impression that this is still under study/discussion and the permit was denied because that decision had not been arrived at by the deadline. With North Dakota saying they won't allow this gas to be dumped in their state, why is a pipeline being built before the dump site is located?
In my opinion, Summit Carbon Solutions brought this PR problem upon themselves with heir original threats of eminent domain and then those bonehead surveyors who barged into the Bossley's home and office - UNINVITED - as if the property was his.
I feel Mrs. Bossley exhibited EXTREME PATIENCE by not exercising her CASTLE DOCTRINE RIGHT to defend her home against that invader!
Now SCS is immersing 'their people' in communities to show the residents they are 'one of them'!
One final thing, in reading through the bills supporting this pipeline, In particular, SB 201, Section 2 which addresses an 'Extraordinary Expense Fund' . Where is this money coming from? South Dakotan taxpayers should not be paying for something a private company wants. How is an "Extraordinary Expense Fund" established...how is that amount determined...and how is it approved? (Asking for a lotta taxpayers).
"As a state dependent upon agriculture, our prosperity depends on national and global markets, and we must embrace emerging industries that leverage our commodities. Doing so creates jobs, feeds families, pays off loans, puts dollars into local economies, and, most importantly, helps create a brighter future for our state and its next generation. This is another way we are focused on helping people because a rising tide lifts all boats."
I'm trying to be open-minded about an issue I don't know enough about, but several things stand out for me in this statement. I would argue our prosperity depends at least in part upon our ability to sustain and protect the land that agriculture production depends on--is this a case where short-sighted profiteering poses an unacceptable risk to future production? Is embracing industries that "leverage" commodities always the right choice? For example, the citizens of this state voted to legalize recreational marijuana use--something that supported an emerging industry, created a new revenue stream, leveraged commodities, would have created jobs, paid off loans, fed families, and put dollars into local communities (all of which have been clearly demonstrated in other states that legalized recreational marijuana use) but some politicians felt doing so posed risks, so in spite of the vote of the state's citizens, that decision was effectively nullified on procedural grounds. In this case, if it's true that 80 percent of South Dakotans don't support the use of eminent domain in this instance, are politicians again nullifying the will of the citizens of the state? I'm not arguing that this is an apples to apples comparison, but my point is that simply arguing we must do it because it's progressive and will generate money and jobs hasn't historically been enough of an argument, especially when we don't know what the future risks might be? Take for example cell phone use--undeniably the most progressive technological advancement in the current era, we now have clear evidence that one out of every four car accidents in this country is related to cell phone use, 1.6 million crashes annually according to the National Safety Council--again, my point being that future risks need to be a part of the decision when one talks about commandeering private property to allow a private company to construct a pipeline that carries unknown future risks.
Nowhere on that list of "landowner protections" is the protection of the landowner's right to say "no."
Anti-fossil fuel ethanol subsidies grew Poet and SD corn producers just fine without Summit's additional GREEN NEW DEAL "carbon sequestration." Why is this needed for industries that already are established? Why do carpenters and teachers need to pay Federal income taxes to subsidize a company that produces nothing?
These legislators may believe what they are saying. But tearing up your neighbor’s land to get billions of taxpayer money from Washington DC is not friendly.
For the same cash we could give $100M to every ethanol plant.
i.e. "We're trying hard to tactfully explain to you landowner rubes that we can't NOT build this pipeline. But we aren't willing to commit political suicide by explaining to you the WHY for this pipeline, nor point out how illogical fear of a carbon dioxide pipeline is compared to the already existing natural gas and tar sands oil pipelines, cuz our voters don't believe in science or statistics. We can't say "climate change," nor discuss ethanol's role in it or other environmental damages it causes, nor touch with a ten foot pole an explanation of what a helpful role a carbon pipeline could play in solving these existential issues.
But, if the feds are dumb enough to provide tax incentives for this pipeline, we are going to take advantage of it, come hell or high water, just like we do all the rest of the federal money that allows our state government to provide basic services we refuse to pay for ourselves." Wimps.
There are thousand of miles of existing highways and roads in SD where side ditches could be used to bury pipelines. May not be shortest or most direct routes but cost of doing business and they are getting lots of tax dollar subsidies.
If there is no product to flow through those pipelines. the side ditch consideration is moot. CO2, which is plant food and 18% of human bodies, is headed for sequestration underground to be paid for with federal taxpayer dollars for at least 12 years to Summit. This is bogus.
Add one more requirement: Easements must be "located" and the location must infringe upon both the use of the land (including foreseeable use thereof") and the value of the land in the least intrusive manner feasible.