Following South Dakota’s passage of a bill banning eminent domain use for carbon pipelines, many considered Summit Carbon Solution’s pipeline impossible in the state.
As the project’s outlook continues to be unclear, North Dakota’s Attorney General said he’s looking at many options, including suing South Dakota.
According to States Newsroom, on Sept. 15, Summit Carbon Solutions filed a petition with the Iowa Utilities Commission to change its permit in Iowa, and “amend the conditions regarding North Dakota and South Dakota.” This comes following South Dakota’s HB 1052, and two lawsuits in North Dakota over Summit’s approved permits.
According to Fargo-based radio station WZFG, North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley said he’s considering suing South Dakota for inhibiting North Dakota’s access to the pipeline.
“We have and are examining all possibilities in the wake of what I think was not just a bad policy choice by South Dakota by deciding they’re going to look at one commodity, CO2, and for CO2 they’re going to remove the Constitutional protections," Wrigley said. "And it’s a societal protection of eminent domain. South Dakota took away the Constitutional power. My question is, ‘How do you legislate, how do you change the Constitution with your legislation?’ It doesn’t work that way. The Constitution controls all legislation. So, we’re troubled that South Dakota took that very hostile act.”
In response to Wrigley’s comments, South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley provided a statement, saying he “will defend the laws and People of South Dakota, it’s as simple as that.” He added that the Legislature, Gov. Larry Rhoden and People of South Dakota voted for the private property rights, and he will support them.
Wrigley told WZFG they’re examining their options following Summit’s request to change their Iowa permit.
“And I’ve known the Attorney General of South Dakota for 20 years, we were United States attorneys together. And we have a good dialogue on that and some other topics, and we’re actually, as we speak, I’m in the midst of conducting some legal research into what are North Dakota’s options because at the end of the day the United States has a Commerce Clause in our federal Constitution because to have a nation you have to have commerce between and around and across states," Wrigley said. "[I’m] painting a pretty broad brush here, but there are limitations on what one state can do that would then make them into the regulator of the nation, so to speak.”
In response to a request for comment, Rhoden's office pointed to a letter he signed in March, saying he would “continue to support the private property of our people, and opportunity for value-added agriculture.”
Other members of South Dakota's state government weighed in on Wrigley's comments, including Rep. Karla Lems, HB 1052's prime sponsor. She took to Facebook to respond to WZFG's interview.
"The South Dakota Legislature passed a law defining the use of eminent domain for CO2 pipelines. The people of South Dakota overwhelmingly supported protections for property owners," Lems said. "Now North Dakota's attorney general is speaking about challenging the rights of people in our state."
In a similar post to social media, Speaker of the House and Gubernatorial candidate Jon Hansen shared his opinion. He called Wrigley a "puppet" for carbon pipeline lobbyists.
"Drew, we’ve seen this story before. Big corporations and their lobbyists have tried again and again to ram this carbon pipeline down the throats of South Dakota’s farmers, ranchers, and landowners," Hansen said. "But unlike you, we are standing on the side of our people—defending THE PEOPLE’s constitutional right to private property over an out-of-state company’s desire to take what’s not theirs."
Hansen ended his response warning Wrigley that South Dakota won't be easy to "pushover."
