South Dakota Senate votes to remove local control in carbon pipeline regulation, says it’s a compromise

PIERRE, S.D. — The South Dakota State Senate on Feb. 21 passed Senate Bill 201, which would strip local authority from regulating carbon pipelines and seeks compromise on the long debated carbon pipeline issue.

“The future of success for farmers and South Dakota’s ag economy is on the line this session,” said Sen. Casey Crabtree, a Republican who represents district eight, including his community of Madison, and prime sponsor of the bill. “There are those who want to close down our borders to the national and global corn and ethanol markets and those who see opportunity and are willing to work towards solutions. Senate Bill 201 is part of that solution.”

The bill passed 23-11 and was amended to strip it of its original emergency clause. The bill will move on to the House.

Sen. Tom Pischke, R-Dell Rapids, who represents district 25, argued against SB201.

“This bill would forever prohibit local rules regarding routing or setback distances or zoning permits and would entirely preempt all local laws and ordinances and regulations where the citizens and local communities voice their opinions and interests and where local governments did their job and passed common sense land use ordinances.”

In September 2023, the

South Dakota Public Utilities Commission rejected Summit Carbon Solutions’ application

for the pipeline because the route was in violation of “setback” ordinances put in place by Brown, McPherson, Minnehaha and Spink Counties.

SB201 would prevent counties from adopting those types of ordinances. It would also allow counties to charge the pipeline company an additional payment.

Sen. Brent Hoffman, R-Hartford, who represents district nine, voted against the bill but reminded the senators of what he felt was important to note.

“Just because someone votes yes on this bill doesn’t mean that they’re opposed to landowner rights and just because someone votes no doesn’t mean they’re opposed to the ethanol industry,” he said.

Proponents of the bill and carbon pipeline have long argued that it is what is

best for the future of the ethanol industry and South Dakota’s agriculture

.

“When South Dakota farmers succeed, all of South Dakota succeeds, and that cuts both ways,” Crabtree said. “When South Dakota farmers have limited access to national global markets, our whole state suffers.”

For many of South Dakota’s farming and ranching families, the

use of eminent domain for private use

, such as the carbon pipeline, lingers among their fears.

“It should not be something that is done via eminent domain, especially for the sake of pipelines. If a pipeline is going to come through your property, that is not up to the state — that is not their decision,” said Calli Williams, a rancher from Letcher, South Dakota.

While the proposed pipeline does not directly affect Williams, she decided to take to social media to voice her opinions against SB201.

“As a first generation millennial rancher, I get asked all the time, what can we do to protect that next generation? What can we do to make sure that we are here for that next generation and you know what? Don’t take it from us. Don’t do something like eminent domain to strip it from us,” she said.

Kennedy is a reporter for Agweek based out of South Dakota. She grew up on an organic crop farm where her family also raises cattle in eastern South Dakota. She graduated from South Dakota State University in 2023 with a major in agricultural communication and minor in agricultural business. She enjoys connecting with producers and agribusinesses across the region while reporting on all things agriculture.