Letter to the Editor: Pipeline bill is legally flawed
The legal flaw of SB 201 should be enough for the law to be thrown out.
It covers multiple unrelated topics, violating a state law that mandates a single, clearly statedsubject per law.
SB 201 as entitled states “(1) An act to provide new statutory requirements for regulating lineartransmission facilities, (2) to allow counties to impose a surcharge on certain pipelinecompanies, and (3) to establish a landowner bill of rights.”
The law violated is South Dakota Constitution, Article 3, 21 which states “One subject expressed in title. No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.”
Also, a communique of Dissent and Protest Passage of SB 201 was filed and signed in the legislature and the senate regarding the illegality of SB 201.
SB 201 has clarity issues. It does not guarantee the public will ever see plume study models and other safety dates about CO2 pipelines. What are they hiding?! After Navigator Heartland Greenway had their permit denied by the Public Utilities Commission last year, they released their plume study model which I assure anyone is watered down at best but should be quite alarming to anyone who reads it.
SB 201 does not protect landowners from eminent domain for private gain. Let’s remember ALL property owners in this equation, this bill doesn’t state “landowners in rural areas only”. If passed, this bill allows any company to use any land, urban or rural. Heads up on wind towers and solar panels and goodness knows what else is coming down the road, perhaps hydrogen pipelines.
This pipeline is being built on the backs of the taxpayers. As if our country isn’t in enough debt, lets throw out billions of dollars, to billionaires, using 45Q tax dollars. If there weren’t tax incentives, there would be no pipeline.
The science does not exist for the Green New Deal’s narrative. The amount of CO2 currently in our atmosphere is .04%, at .02% we wont have enough CO2 in our atmosphere. Please reference YouTube video “What percentage of our atmosphere is CO2?”. Doug LaMalfa stumps entire panel of the House Transportation Committee with climate questions. Ethanol plants aren’t going anywhere and there is no guarantee that corn prices will skyrocketif the pipeline is built.
We keep hearing about all of the people that are for the pipeline. If this is true, why aren’t they having rallies at the capitol and getting signatures to keep SB 201 off of the ballot? In fact, ethanol plants have been paying employees to attend hearings in Pierre so it “appears” they have support. Speaking of being paid, perhaps the public needs to hear that hundreds of South Dakotans have had to hire a lawyer and have had monthly payments for the last twoyears to save their land that is already protected by our constitution.
One of the very states that is causing the push on our ethanol plants to produce low carbon ethanol, California, has a moratorium on CO2 pipelines in their state. There’s a concept to ponder.
No one is talking about water usage or electrical grid issues for these projects. The proposed GEVO plant in Lake Preston, has a required water usage of 300 million gallons annually. Reference Bleeding Heartland, by Nancy Dugan, February 6, 2024. We’ve heard estimates of using 14-20 million gallons of water annually at each ethanol site that has a CO2 pipeline. If anyone would like to reference voting records on landowner protection bills, feel free tocheck it out online at sdlegislature.com. Look up the candidates you are voting for. Get informed before you vote!
Let’s also ask the candidates of District 5, District 4, how much of their campaign funding is from special interest groups, individuals and PAC’s (Political Action Committee) who will benefit from the CO2 pipeline. This information is available on the SD Secretary of State website at sdsos.gov.
Many of these PACs have donor contributions by those that will benefit from our tax dollars using the 45Qtax credits.
Summit Carbon Solutions had a copious amount of lobbyists at this last session pushing for SB 201 to get passed. Why would a company who is trying to take people’s land be all in on a bill that “protects landowners rights”? It’s absolutely ludicrous and insulting to the people of our great state.
In summary, for 30 years we had plans to build a home and live peacefully on our property. This American dream was stolen from us. We found out during testimony in a senate hearing that the pipeline had been moved off of our land and on to our neighbors. How the senator who knew this before we did is beyond us. It’s still 500 some feet from grandpa’s house. We don’t want this for our neighbors either. That’s not how we treat neighbors in South Dakota.
So anyone who is for this pipeline, Summit, ethanol plants, farmers, city dwellers, please contemplate how you would feel having your home taken from you so someone else can get a paycheck. Does this sound like America?
Rick and Wendy SchulzWatertown
This article originally appeared on St. Cloud Times: Letter to the Editor: Pipeline bill SB 201 is legally flawed
