Recent legislative developments in South Dakota have significantly impacted the trajectory of controversial carbon capture pipeline projects. On the heels of a new law banning the use of eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipelines, opposition groups are celebrating what they call a “major victory,” while also cautioning that the broader fight is far from over.
The law, House Bill 1052, has effectively delayed pipeline progress in neighboring Iowa. Until the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) grants a permit, construction of the carbon capture pipelines, led by Summit Carbon Solutions, cannot proceed in adjacent states. For residents and advocacy groups who have spent the past year resisting the pipeline’s advancement, this marks a turning point in the battle over property rights and environmental concerns.
Emma Schmit, Director of the Pipeline Fighters Hub for the Bold Alliance, described the law as a direct response to grassroots pressure from both conservative and progressive communities.
“The number one issue from people young and old, Republican and Democrat, urban and rural—the top issue that concerned them was definitely property rights and the abuse of eminent domain,” said Schmit.
Summit Carbon Solutions, the company behind the project, requested an extension of its construction permit timeline in response to the new legislation. The company stated that the inability to conduct necessary route surveys due to HB 1052 has disrupted its permitting process.
“With the passage of HB 1052, the ability to conduct necessary route surveys has changed, impacting the timeline for our South Dakota permit application,” said Sabrina Zenor, Director of Corporate Communications at Summit Carbon Solutions. “These surveys are critical to demonstrating the feasibility of construction and operation along the proposed route. We have told the PUC the current schedule is not workable. We have not paused or pulled the current permit application in South Dakota.”
Iowa Landowners Rally to Protect Property Rights
In Iowa, the reverberations of South Dakota’s new law are being felt deeply. Local landowners and legal advocates have interpreted the development as a signal to continue their efforts to oppose similar projects within the state.
Brian Jorde, an attorney representing hundreds of landowners across Iowa, has been closely monitoring the legislative changes and their implications. While he considers the recent events encouraging, he also warned against complacency.
“This is a major victory, but it’s not the final victory,” Schmit added.
“I operate as paranoid at all times because I’ve seen the pendulum swing,” said Jorde. “I tell my people never get too high and never get too low.”
Jorde and his clients have been advocating for legislation in Iowa that would ban the use of eminent domain for private carbon pipeline construction. Their concern lies primarily in preserving individual property rights and preventing private corporations from overriding landowner consent for the sake of profit.
“No South Dakota permit means no construction in Iowa,” said Jorde, explaining how interconnected the permitting process is across state lines.
Opposition groups have been particularly vocal about the precedent that eminent domain for private gain could set. They argue that allowing companies like Summit to seize land from unwilling owners could erode constitutional protections and disproportionately affect rural residents with limited resources to fight legal battles.
A number of rallies have taken place at the Iowa State Capitol, where activists, environmentalists, and concerned citizens are urging legislators to pass bills that would protect landowners from involuntary land seizures.
“We need to urge our Iowa legislature to restore our eminent domain rights,” one protestor declared at a recent rally.
Despite vocal opposition, some Iowans, particularly corn growers, support the pipeline due to its potential to bolster ethanol markets. Proponents argue that carbon capture infrastructure could help make ethanol more competitive under evolving environmental regulations.
Nonetheless, for opponents, the stakes remain deeply personal. “If you are an ordinary citizen out there thinking you can’t do anything about a project or something you don’t agree with—stop thinking like that, because you can,” said Jorde, encouraging public involvement.
Future of Carbon Pipelines Hinges on State-Level Decisions
As of now, Iowa’s pipeline-related bills have advanced in the state House, but attention has shifted to whether the Senate will take up the legislation. The uncertainty surrounding the project has underscored the growing influence of state-level policymaking in determining the future of carbon infrastructure in the U.S.
Sabrina Zenor reaffirmed Summit Carbon Solutions’ commitment to its mission, albeit with a revised approach.
“Summit Carbon Solutions remains committed to working through this process and advancing the project in states that support energy and innovation,” Zenor said.
The company’s broader strategy includes working with multiple Midwestern states to create an interconnected network of carbon capture pipelines aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from ethanol production. However, legal, logistical, and public relations challenges continue to mount.
The current pause in construction activities has bought time for both sides—landowners to rally legislative support, and the company to rework its approach.
For Emma Schmit and her coalition, the goal remains clear.
“This law shows that people power works,” Schmit stated. “But we’re not done. Until every landowner’s rights are protected and the threat of eminent domain abuse is off the table, we will continue the fight.”
In the months ahead, the debate around carbon capture pipelines is expected to intensify. Advocates are closely watching how Iowa’s Senate responds to the proposed legislation, and whether similar laws to South Dakota’s HB 1052 could take hold in other states.
While opponents have won a critical round, the long-term outcome of the battle over property rights, energy innovation, and environmental sustainability remains uncertain. But for now, many landowners and their advocates are celebrating a rare and meaningful win.
Disclaimer – Our editorial team has thoroughly fact-checked this article to ensure its accuracy and eliminate any potential misinformation. We are dedicated to upholding the highest standards of integrity in our content.
