South Dakota voters reject law allowing pipeline companies to override local restrictions

 SOUTH DAKOTA — Voters in South Dakota rejected a law which would ease the path of construction for a carbon dioxide pipeline.
 Iowa landowners opposing Summit Carbon Solution’s proposed pipeline project assisted South Dakota landowners with sending mass texts to over 250,000 South Dakota voters prior to election day, said Sherri Webb, who co-owns farmland in Shelby County, which was inherited from their grandmother. Webb has been a strong voice in the opposition of the Summit project, which would cut through Shelby County and her family’s Century Farm.
 The South Dakota measure, Referred Law 21 (RL21), would have instituted a relatively large number of changes to laws affecting “linear transmission facilities,” or pipelines, particularly those meant to carry carbon dioxide. If passed, Summit Carbon Solutions and other developers would have been able to supersede all local and county rules, regulations and ordinances which would restrict where a pipeline could be constructed.
 RL21 was a ballot measure encompassing Senate Bill 201, a law passed by the legislature in March, but later challenged through a voter referendum by a grassroots group of South Dakota landowners. The bill would have instituted a relatively large number of changes to laws affecting “linear transmission facilities,” or pipelines, particularly those meant to carry carbon dioxide.
 With almost 90% of precincts reporting Tuesday evening, the decision on RL 21 came down to 60% of South Dakotans voting to repeal it and 40% opting to keep it.
 “I love the fact they call it a ‘landowner’s right’s’ law,” Webb said. “Iowa voters, unfortunately, don’t have the opportunity to decide, but it’s not over with by any means.”
 Summit’s financial partners in the pipeline, including ethanol companies, spent over an estimated $3 million supporting the law, according to the Pipeline Fighters Hub.
 “They donated a lot of money. The landowners had a tiny budget, and that’s why we helped with getting the word out,” Webb said.
 In June, the Iowa Utilities Commission approved Summit’s pipeline permit, but ruled Summit cannot begin construction in Iowa until the necessary permits are secured in South Dakota and North Dakota.
 Webb said she will continue fighting to keep the pipeline off her property, and the voter’s decision in South Dakota gives her hope for Iowa landowners like her family.
 “The voters there said ‘no’. We’re not done yet.”