By PIERRE — Property rights advocates in South Dakota advanced their “Bossly Bill” on Tuesday, Feb. 3 aimed at limiting the ways developers can use eminent domain to enter private land when a landowner says no.
The bill is named for Jared Bossly, of rural Aberdeen. He became a prominent opponent of Summit Carbon Solutions’ proposed carbon dioxide sequestration pipeline after confrontations with the company as it attempted to access his land for surveys.
The company was exercising authority under the power of eminent domain, the legal process of acquiring access to private property for a public use. Subsequently, Bossly and others sued the company.
Bossly’s wife, Tara, said the family’s experience still haunts them. She alleged that surveyors entered the home while she was alone, showering.
MORE: Brown County landowners who sparked pipeline revolt sue company for trespassing
“Your home is supposed to be your safe place, where you feel comfortable, safe, protected,” she told lawmakers Tuesday. “But for my family, we no longer feel safe at home.”
Jared and others said the surveyors’ heavy equipment damaged his cropland.
Lapka
Sen. Mark Lapka, R-Leola, is sponsoring the bill. It states that if a property owner denies permission, only an “examination,” not a “survey,” is permitted. Developers would need a pending or approved siting permit application detailing where and when they plan to enter, how long they plan to be there and what they’ll be doing.
The bill defines an “examination” as a minimally invasive procedure that causes no more than minor soil disturbance, while defining a “survey” as a more detailed, comprehensive or invasive investigation.
There was no opposition testimony and no votes against the bill in the Senate Commerce and Energy Committee.
Supporters tied the bill to a 2024 South Dakota Supreme Court ruling involving Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions and multiple landowners, including Bossly.
In addition to ruling that the company had not proven its project qualified for eminent domain, the court said the state’s entry law permits only “minimally invasive superficial inspections” that cause minor soil disturbances without landowner consent.
Lapka told lawmakers the bill is intended to align state law with the court’s guidance and to prevent future landowners from spending time and large sums on legal battles.
Summit’s five-state pipeline would capture carbon dioxide from ethanol plants in South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa and Nebraska and transport it to an underground sequestration site in North Dakota, to capitalize on federal tax credits that incentivize the prevention of heat-trapping gases from entering the atmosphere.
MORE: Gevo moves priority from South Dakota to North Dakota amid Summit pipeline delays
The pipeline project has been granted permits in other states, but some permits have been challenged in court, and South Dakota regulators have twice denied permits for the project.
Landowner opposition to the project in South Dakota also culminated in the Legislature’s passage of a law last year banning carbon pipelines from using eminent domain.
Lawmakers are considering a resolution this year that would ask South Dakota voters to put restrictions on eminent domain in a state constitutional amendment. That bill has passed the House and is awaiting consideration by a Senate committee.
