South Dakota Supreme Court Rules Against Summit Carbon Solutions’ Use of Eminent Domain
Pierre, SD – August 23, 2024 – In a significant legal victory for South Dakota landowners, the South Dakota Supreme Court yesterday unanimously ruled against Summit Carbon Solutions’ attempt to utilize eminent domain in its surveying process for its proposed carbon dioxide pipeline project. The Supreme Court’s decision invalidates prior rulings by lower courts that had erroneously deemed Summit a common carrier and affirmed its right to use eminent domain to conduct extensive surveys.
The Court’s decision emphasized that “a pipeline cannot become a common carrier simply by declaring itself to be one” (paragraph 26). Moreover, the Court noted that Summit failed to demonstrate that the carbon dioxide it intends to transport qualifies as a commodity, stating, “Based on the record before us, SCS has also failed to establish that the CO2 featured in this case is a commodity” (paragraph 33). Without the power of eminent domain, Summit’s ability to proceed with its pipeline project faces a major uphill battle.
“This decision is a significant victory for the rights of South Dakota landowners,” said Betty Strom, a plaintiff in the lawsuit and member of Dakota Rural Action. “For years, Summit Carbon Solutions has pushed forward its agenda by misleading the public and overstepping legal boundaries. I am so grateful that the Supreme Court has followed the letter and intent of the law on this matter.”
Dakota Rural Action, representing the interests of affected South Dakotans, applauds the Supreme Court’s ruling. The organization has long fought against Summit’s attempts to use eminent domain to bypass landowners’ consent, arguing that this particular project has no claim to eminent domain in our state besides their own word.
“This ruling is a triumph for landowners who have long opposed Summit’s unfounded claims,” commented former South Dakota Representative Dennis Feickert, a Dakota Rural Action member and impacted landowner. “This decision is a major rebuke to the lower court, and the public officials who have supported this project without making sure the company even qualified for eminent domain.”