South Dakota lawmakers on the House Commerce and Energy
Committee worked well into the evening Monday to deliberate on five
separate bills related to the construction of a carbon pipeline in
eastern South Dakota.
And though each of those bills shared similarities — a packed room,
opposition from Summit Carbon Solutions, and emotional testimony from
pipeline-skeptical landowners — they met different fates.
Here is a summary of what each sought to do, and what happened to those
ambitions:
House Bill 1185 – Amend provisions regarding entry on private property
for examination and survey of a project requiring a siting permit.
Prime Sponsors: House Majority Leader Will Mortenson (R-Fort Pierre) and
Senate Majority Leader Casey Crabtree (R-Madison)
One of several pieces of legislation being carried by this duo of
Republican leaders from each chamber, House Bill 1185 outlines rules for
conducting examinations and surveys on private property for projects
requiring siting permits, like carbon pipelines. Additionally, it would
require those doing survey work to make a one-time payment of $500 to
the owner of the property, and make an additional payments if damages
happen.
If passed, the bill would amend existing law to require that property
owners be given at least 30 days notice prior to entry onto their land,
and surveying companies would have to provide specifics such as the
anticipated time the surveying would happen and a description of the
type of surveying work that would be taking place. One concern raised in
committee was the bill would remove tenants from those who had to be
notified, it strikes from existing law a requirement to notify tenants
of scheduled surveys.
PASSED: 10 to 1
House Bill 1186 – Define the requirements for granting a carbon pipeline
easement.
Prime Sponsors: House Majority Leader Will Mortenson (R-Fort Pierre) and
Senate Majority Leader Casey Crabtree (R-Madison)
This bill would help lay the foundation for how an easement is granted
for a carbon pipeline, specifically the time frame. Easements for carbon
pipelines could last up to 50 years, or would expire after five years if
there was no activity on the lines, under the proposal. The deal would
be sweetened for landowners under the bill, because it would require
annual payments to go out to the owner of the property. Yearly payments
would have to include at least a dollar for every foot of pipeline on
the land.
PASSED: 8 to 3
House Bill 1190 – Establish public use criteria for purposes of
condemnation proceedings.
Prime Sponsor: Rep. Scott Odenbach (R-Spearfish)
This bill would have collated all the uses of eminent domain in South
Dakota under one section of law. Further, it would have clarified what’s
a “public” use, which would include roads and substations. The bill
specifies economic development projects, such as the carbon pipeline,
would not qualify for the use of eminent domain. In an attempt to
utilize eminent domain, the party pursuing condemnation would be
required to make a “good faith effort” to negotiate with the landowner
prior to filing for condemnation.
DEFEATED: 8 to 3
HOUSE BILL 1193 – Provide that required siting permits be filed with
condemnation petitions.
Prime Sponsor: Rep. Rocky Blare (R-Ideal)
The longtime representative’s one-page bill sought to clarify that
entities looking to pursue a condemnation hearing would be required to
file with the circuit court for the county where the property in
question was located. However, the reason the bill faced opposition from
Summit and other utility providers was because it would require any
project that needed to get approval from the Public Utilities
Commission.
DEFEATED: 7 to 4
HOUSE BILL 1203 – Clarify references to the court in a condemnation
proceeding.
Prime Sponsor: Rep. Karla Lems (R-Canton)
This bill is modeled after similar legislation brought last year, which
soundly passed the House but was defeated in a Senate committee.
If passed this year, it would require that at a property condemnation
court proceedings, the plaintiff — the party pursuing condemnation — to
make a final monetary offer within 20 percent of the one ordered by the
court. If the amount awarded by the entity pursuing condemnation was
outside of twenty percent less than what the court determined should be
granted, then the court could order the plaintiff to reimburse the
defendant for reasonable attorney fees and other costs associated with
having brought the suit.
For example, if Summit Carbon Solutions made a final offer to a
landowner of $100,000 for an easement, and the landowner and Summit went
to court and the court determined that Summit should pay $125,000 to the
landowners, then the court could also order them to pay the landowner’s
attorney fees.
PASSED: 8 to 3
None of the three bills that passed will be considered on the House
floor Tuesday.