In the rural landscape of Mansfield, South Dakota, farmer Jared Bossly was diligently planting soybeans one evening in the spring of 2023 when he noticed a sheriff’s vehicle situated at the boundary of his expansive 2,000-acre property. Suspecting it was more than a casual visit, Bossly, 43, humorously thought, “Well, I doubt he’s just being a friendly neighbor, bringing a guy a beer at eight o’clock at night.”
His instincts were correct, as he was handed court documents by the deputized officer. The papers revealed that Summit Carbon Solutions, the promoter of a significant carbon pipeline initiative, was seeking to utilize his land through the eminent domain process, a legal method that allows the acquisition of private property for public use, albeit with compensation.
“I received a stack of papers like this,” recounted Bossly, gesturing with his hands. “They began the process of suing us to take our land.”
Bossly found himself among a number of landowners targeted by Summit Carbon Solutions who faced similar legal challenges. The company aggressively pursued eminent domain claims across South Dakota to secure land for its almost $9 billion pipeline traversing the Midwest states. An analysis conducted by Lee Enterprises unveiled the extensive legal measures Summit undertook, which were met with intense opposition from local landowners and farmers in South Dakota. This resulted in the state governor endorsing legislation to halt the use of eminent domain for carbon pipelines, casting doubt over the project’s future.
The scrutiny showed Summit pursuing 232 lawsuits against property owners in South Dakota, North Dakota, and Iowa, primarily for survey access. Notably, South Dakota was the focus of 156 eminent domain cases. Within two days in April 2023, Summit initiated 83 lawsuits across the state. Summit spokesperson Sabrina Zenor articulated that voluntary agreements are the company’s preference, noting that a “vast majority of easements have been and continue to be secured voluntarily,” despite the legal pursuits.
The pipeline, designed to extend 2,500 miles across five states and link 57 ethanol facilities, anticipated capturing carbon emissions, channeling them through the pipeline, and storing them under North Dakota’s terrain, with the goal of decreasing carbon footprints and qualifying ethanol producers for federal tax credits.
Summit eagerly engaged with decision-makers across state and local levels hoping for a smooth process in an area where corn and ethanol sectors traditionally enjoy ample support. However, the company’s legal tactics antagonized many South Dakotans, including farmers who reported unexpectedly encountering Summit surveyors on their land, and claimed that threats of litigation soon followed.
Interviewed landowners discussed varying, often escalating financial offers from Summit during negotiations. For example, one farmer rejected an initial offer of $80,000 for a 36-acre easement, which eventually rose to $350,000, still refusing it. Another landowner also turned down a significant offer that exceeded $40,000.
Bossly resisted the company in court for an extended period to block land surveying on his Brown County property. His wife, recovering from surgery, alerted him in May 2023 to strangers on their land, later linked to Summit’s survey activities. Summit claimed in legal filings they followed protocol by knocking before proceeding. Consequently, Bossly abandoned his task and made a 10-mile journey back home.
Accused of threatening Summit’s workers with harm, Bossly faced a courtroom appearance before a judge who previously admonished landowners against disrupting Summit’s surveys. However, the session drew a crowd of supporters opposing the pipeline, bolstering Bossly’s stance, who denied issuing threats.
The resistance impacted South Dakota’s political landscape, evidenced by state elections where several incumbents were displaced by pipeline-opposing challengers.
Landowners recounted encounters with Summit representatives, describing them as pressuring and abrasive. LeRoy Braun, a well-established farmer, shared an instance of being threatened with legal condemnation for non-compliance with an easement proposal. This echoed across communities, corroborated by his neighbors’ experiences.
Further claims involved Summit employing armed security during surveys, unsettling many farming residents. Summit, refuting claims of intimidation or wrongdoings, maintained a stance of compliance with appropriate procedures.
Not all responses from the farming populace were adverse, with some, like former agriculture secretary Walt Bones, advocating for the project’s economic prospects and commending Summit’s interactions as respectful.
Nevertheless, reports and reactions towards Summit galvanized statewide opposition, beginning with court documents disclosing Bossly’s ordeal, propelling his cause into public discourse. This engagement extended to organized resistance, with communities rapidly mobilizing against the proposed infrastructure after Summit’s attempts to assert legal dominance.
The company continued forwarding legal actions until halting them in August 2023, following the state’s regulatory commission rejecting their permit appeal. However, Summit found traction in other states proceeding with the carbon capture endeavor.
The fluctuating federal climate policies, transitioning under consecutive administrations, also shaped the context for Summit’s projects. Despite abundant incentives for carbon capture under recent legislation, debates on efficient climate approaches persist.
Summit remains hopeful of advancing within South Dakota, pausing while reevaluating strategies amid regulatory setbacks and fragmented public support. Regardless, past missteps weigh heavily on their regional efforts, leaving an indelible mark on its initiative’s trajectory.