MELLETTE, S.D.—On their way to attend their niece’s wedding in July 2021, fourth-generation farmer Ed Fischbach of Mellette, South Dakota, and his wife made a quick stop to check the mailbox.
His wife reached inside, pulling out a handful of letters. Within the small pile was an envelope from a company she had never heard of—Summit Carbon Solutions.
She opened the letter and began reading it.
“Dear landowner,” the letter began innocently enough. But as she continued reading, her jaw nearly dropped.
“Listen to this,” she told her husband.
The Iowa-based company described plans to build a massive carbon capture pipeline across five Midwestern states in the letter.
The 1,400-mile pipeline would transport carbon dioxide, produced by ethanol and biofuel refineries, under high pressure for burial in North Dakota. The goal would be to reduce the region’s carbon footprint to protect the environment.
The Fischbachs then learned that the pipeline would travel through some of the most productive areas of the 1,400-acre property that has been in their family for decades.
“The proposed pipeline route for the project is depicted on the enclosed map,” the letter continued, “and public records indicate that you are the record taxpayer of all or certain portions of the property.”
The notice further advised that Summit Carbon, through its consultant, TRC Cos., would perform preliminary surveys in the weeks ahead.
But first, the company needed permission to go on the property. Ed Fischbach said he never filled out or returned the enclosed approval form.
Instead, he made phone calls and soon realized other landowners in Spink County had received the same letter, including his nephew Brad, who raises beef cattle for a living.
“Who is this outfit? Nobody heard about it,” Fischbach said. “I decided I’m not going to stand for this. Somebody had to do something about it. I took the lead.”
In August 2021, Fischbach called a meeting at the local community center, expecting a dozen people to attend.
Without advertising, 74 landowners turned out. None of them supported the project in South Dakota, he said.
Opposition Builds
Fischbach said that soon afterward, Summit Carbon held a catered public meeting to introduce the project.About 300 people showed up for the event, Fischbach recalled. Summit officials spoke and held a slide show on the project’s economic and environmental benefits.
There were questions asked and answered, as well as comments from the public. Fischbach said he was the first to take the microphone.
“My first question to them was, ‘Would you commit today not to use eminent domain on those of us that don’t want your project?’”
After repeated attempts, Summit Carbon officials wouldn’t answer “yes” or “no,” Fischbach said.
Finally, a company official said, “No, I cannot do that,” he said.
“It just set off a chain reaction. Nobody wanted this thing. They ended the meeting,” said Fischbach, leader of the South Dakota group that opposes the company’s attempts to acquire right-of-way easements by eminent domain to build the pipeline.
Since the July 2021 letter, Summit Carbon has filed more than 81 eminent domain lawsuits in 10 South Dakota counties against farmers who refuse to voluntarily sign easement agreements.
“They’re trying to intimidate people,” Fischbach said. “They’re doing this with no permit. That’s what’s upsetting.
“We have a trespass law in this state. It doesn’t mean anything because they’re out surveying people. The company has armed security guards on your property to keep you away from the surveyors. We’ve got pictures of them. They’re bringing this in without authorization.”
Summit Carbon is suing one McPherson County couple to take, acquire, or appropriate property to allow a temporary or permanent easement, “which has been authorized by statute for public use,” according to the petition.
The couple had 30 days to respond to the petition or face a jury to “ascertain the just compensation for the property proposed to be taken or damaged.”
Lawsuits are the next step when “negotiating in good faith” fails to produce results, Jesse Harris, a spokesman for Summit Carbon, told Forum News Service in a statement.
“We look forward to continuing to work with regulators, policymakers, landowners, and more to advance this critical investment in our economy,” he said.
South Dakota state Rep. Karla Lems, a Republican, said the pipeline project takes advantage of legal loopholes in the state’s eminent domain law (SDL 49-7-11) which states, “Any pipeline companies owning a pipeline which is a common carrier as defined by 49-7-11 may exercise the right of eminent domain in acquiring right-of-way as prescribed by statute.”
Summit Carbon Responds
Summit Carbon spokesperson Courtney Ryan countered claims of widespread opposition to the pipeline, saying that an “overwhelming majority” of landowners along the proposed route have signed easement agreements to support and advance the project.“For an easy comparison, the Dakota Access pipeline [the most recent major pipeline project in the Midwest] is 1,172 total miles. In other words, the number of easement agreements we’ve already secured exceeds the mileage of that project.”
“Other uses include other commercial and industrial applications, which include food and beverage production, metal fabrication, cooling, fire suppression, and stimulating plant growth in greenhouses. Emerging uses include construction materials, industrial gas and fluids, fuel, polymers, chemicals, and more.
“In every South Dakota county where our project is located, the company will invest $45 million on average to help generate economic growth. In those same counties, Summit will pay an average of $650,000 in new property taxes,” Ryan said.
The Summit Carbon system includes carbon capture, transportation, and storage, while utilizing long-standing technology that is “reliable and proven to be safe for landowners and community,” Ryan said.
Carrot Versus Armed Guards?
In the meantime, Lems said the company appears to have the right to conduct land surveys on private property within the proposed construction area with 30 days’ notice.However, she said in many cases, those surveys have been “invasive” and, in some instances, accompanied by armed guards.
“They say they’re using the carrot—we’re going to give you so much for your land,” Lems told The Epoch Times. “On the other hand, they’re holding a gun, saying if you don’t do this, we will take your property.”
Lems was the lead sponsor of House Bill 1133, which sought to define a “commodity for the purpose of qualifying as a common carrier.”
“A common carrier is a person or a commercial enterprise that transports passengers or goods for a fee and establishes that their service is open to the general public,” according to LII, a nonprofit legal publishing group based at Cornell Law School in Ithaca, New York.
“A private carrier, on the other hand, is a person or a commercial enterprise that only agrees in particular circumstances to transport passengers or good. Private carriers differ from common carriers because they don’t establish that their service is open to the general public.”
HB1133 held that “a company transporting carbon dioxide, by pipeline, is not a common carrier.”
“We need to redefine commodity,” Lems said. “This is not even a permitted project in our state. And yet they can come in and by the power of eminent domain serve condemnation on these people.”
The bill passed in the House but died in a Senate committee. Similar measures in North Dakota and Iowa also failed, she said.
“It looks to me like a boondoggle,” Lems said. “It just looks to us like the skids have been greased. Everything is lined up for several years.
“You can slice and dice laws so they fit your project. You get the right people on board to push it through. Again, follow the money.”
On April 17, Lems and 21 other state lawmakers penned a letter to South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, asking for her support to stop the “undue attack on the private property rights of our citizens [which] is an affront to the South Dakota Constitution.”
“The CO2 pipelines continue to forge ahead, embracing the World Economic Forum goal of net zero by 2050. However, we in South Dakota live by a different set of rules,” the letter said.
Summit Carbon Solutions investors include Continental Resources, TPG Rise Climate, Summit Agricultural Group, Tiger Infrastructure Partners, and SK Group.
SK Holdings, one of the largest engineering firms in South Korea with reputed ties to the Summit Carbon project, agreed to pay $68.4 million in criminal fines after pleading guilty to defrauding the U.S. Army in June 2020.
“SK paid millions of dollars to secure contracts with the Army and submitted false claims to conceal those illicit payments,” Assistant Attorney General Brian Benczkowski of the U.S. Justice Department’s Criminal Division wrote in a June 10, 2020, statement.
Tip of Investor Iceberg
Lems said the pipeline reportedly has more than 400 private and foreign investors, but Summit Carbon Solutions has refused to make them all public.Summit Carbon Solutions is a subsidiary of agribusiness operator and investor Summit Agricultural Group.
On Feb. 18, 2021, Summit Agricultural Group announced the creation of Summit Carbon Solutions to address the “global challenge of decarbonization by developing the world’s largest carbon capture and storage project.”
“In doing so, Summit Carbon will accelerate the transition toward sustainable, renewable energy by dramatically lowering the carbon footprint of bio-refineries and other carbon dioxide emission sources throughout the midwestern region of the United States,” the company wrote in a press release.
When complete, the pipeline would enable the capture and storage of more than 10 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, “which is equivalent to taking 2 million cars off the road per year.”
“In addition to the project’s positive environmental impact, it will enhance the economic sustainability of the biofuels and agriculture industries while providing tremendous benefits to communities across the Midwest [through] significant private investment and job creation.”
According to Summit Carbon, the estimated $4.5 billion pipeline would produce 11,427 construction and permanent full-time jobs, $371 million in tax revenues, and $309 million in the right-of-way and “other landowner payments.”
Who’s Future?
“I know the money they’re throwing at [landowners] is a big deal,” Fischbach said. “But, my goodness, is it worth it? I take the position that anybody who would sign an easement like that must not like their kids or grandkids much to do that to them.”Fischbach, 68, is nearing retirement. He said the proposed right-of-way appears to bisect his land to render its future use by his children problematic.
The same is true on property owned by his nephew Brad where a proposed 100-foot easement would straddle his cattle operation, preventing expansion.
“I think it would be devastating to the area the way it’s going to follow diagonally through the parcels instead of section lines,” Fischbach said. “It’s going to ruin some of that land. You'll never get the production back.”
“You can never build anything over the top of that line. It’s permitted forever.”
The petition against the McPherson County couple contains an assignment clause stating the company has the right to sell, apportion, mortgage, or lease any agreement with landowners, including easements granted under them.
Money No Object
Fischbach said the company recently moved the pipeline off his property and onto his neighbors’ without notice or explanation.“The fact that they moved the pipeline off me—I don’t appreciate that,” he said. “They never asked me. They moved onto some of my neighbors and upset them. If I don’t want something on my property, I wouldn’t want it on my neighbor either.”
The fourth-generation farmer said some farmers—offered hundreds of thousands of dollars to sell the right of way—just said “no.”
“They’re walking away from that. It is not a company we want to have long term in our state—or any other area,” Fischbach said.
“Once they get that easement, nothing is stopping them. They’ve got the politicians—all the governors in these states are all on board with them. They’ve got our federal people who are on board or won’t touch it.”
“Our governor won’t even meet and talk about this.”
Fourth-generation farmer Jared Bossly is another pipeline opponent facing eminent domain litigation from Summit Carbon.
He sees the project as a direct assault on his children’s future and his private property rights.
“The pipeline will come right through here,” Bossly said, pointing to an open field near a tree windbreak on his 2,000-acre farm where he raises 200 head of cattle. “They’re going to tear all these new trees out and go right through the middle of this.”
“If they’re so green and want to save the world, why do they want to ruin people’s trees?”
Bossly, 42, said the pipeline easement would cripple his ability to expand his operation.
“It totally could change the future of this [farm],” he said. “Right now, we’re about maxed out. The only way I can expand is north.”
Like the map of Fischbach’s property, Bossly said the proposed easement runs diagonally across his land.
Charges Filed
Bossly said that on May 3, two land surveyors from Summit Carbon went onto his property without notice. Then they entered his farmhouse while his wife was in the shower.At the time, Bossly said he was out planting crops several miles away. When his wife called him on his cellphone, Bossly advised that a sheriff’s officer should be present and said, “I gotta go.”
During that brief exchange, Bossly said he never spoke with either land surveyor. One later claimed Bossly threatened to kill them.
“They claimed I threatened them. I was on the phone for six seconds. I’ve got phone records,” Bossly said.
A Brown County judge dismissed a contempt charge on May 31. Bossly said the judge wouldn’t allow evidence that would have cleared his name.
‘Horrible Situation’
Michael Klipfel, a fifth-generation farmer and chairman of the McPherson County Republican Party, told The Epoch Times that his farmland is also a target for eminent domain confiscation in court by Summit Carbon.“It’s going to affect the farm in a major way adversely. It’s hitting me on five different corridors that happen to lay on five different sections,” he said.
“The reduction in value will be huge. It’s between two of my farmhouses—300 feet from the one I live in; 600 feet from our guest house. We have outbuildings in there, too. Once that pipeline goes through, we can’t build there anymore.”
“It’s a horrible situation. It’s a private property issue that needs to be solved here, or else it will resonate through the country in a big way.”
Heidi Engelhart said she and her husband started farming in Aberdeen, South Dakota, in 1993. They have three sons working on the farm and nine grandchildren who will inherit it someday.
“We want to be able to carry that on. We have grandchildren. And we want them to carry that on for them also,” Engelhart told The Epoch Times.
Farmers Rally
On June 10, more than 100 South Dakota farmers gathered at City Lights in Aberdeen to show solidarity against the pipeline. The keynote speaker was Tom DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center, a nonprofit free enterprise action group based in Virginia.DeWeese told the farmers that the issue is primarily about preserving individual property rights and personal liberty.
“Property rights protection is the No. 1 weapon to use against all sustainable policy because sustainable policy cannot be imposed without destroying property rights,” DeWeese said.
“If property rights are protected, they’re stopped in their tracks.”
DeWeese characterized globalist environmental initiatives such as United Nations Agendas 21 and 30 as a “diabolical force unlike any other in history.”
He said it involves the voluntary surrender of liberty, enshrined in personal property rights, using fear of an environmental catastrophe as a weapon to sway people. He described the global green agenda as a “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.”
“These environmental policies have absolutely nothing to do with protecting the environment. Almost every policy they bring out is damaging to the environment.”
DeWeese said the term “sustainable” is a trigger word for getting people to surrender liberty voluntarily as part of an action plan to “inventory and control all resources and people, enforced with fear of climate change.”
“That is what you are all facing in the drive to create the carbon capture pipeline. South Dakota is on the front lines,” DeWeese said.
DeWeese added that no evidence supports claims of manmade climate change or that CO2 is dangerous to the environment.
“There is no consensus of scientists. Rising sea levels drown no islands. The poles are not melting. Polar bears are not drowning. The numbers are climbing,” he said.
At 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, DeWeese said the planet is “on the verge of CO2 starvation,” holding up a U.S. Navy data sheet for the audience.
He said at least 1,600 ppm of carbon dioxide is required for trees and plants to thrive.
“Let me tell you something. If you have no carbon footprint, you are dead. This idiotic scheme ignores biological science. Trees and plants need CO2 to live.”
Safety Concerns
Landowners for Eminent Domain Reform (LEDR), a group opposed to carbon capture pipelines in South Dakota, said Summit Carbon and another firm, Navigator Heartland Greenway, are two start-up companies formed to “take advantage of massive lucrative” 45Q federal green energy tax credits.Like the Summit Carbon pipeline, the Navigator project spans approximately 1,300 miles across five Midwestern states, but with plans to permanently bury captured CO2 in Illinois.
“The CO2 pipelines of the type proposed for our area have never been built anywhere and are being built by companies that have never built or managed a hazardous CO2 pipeline,” a LEDR fact sheet states.
The organization believes the general safety record of carbon capture operations is doubtful.
On Feb. 22, 2020, a carbon capture pipeline in Satartia, Mississippi, ruptured, spewing toxic gas and leaving a 40-foot crater beside the highway.
Danbury Gulf Coast Pipelines owns and operates the 77-mile pipeline, installed in 2009 for enhanced oil recovery.
Carbon dioxide is “an asphyxiant,” Lems said. “If this thing blows [in South Dakota] more than likely people, at the least, will be in the Emergency Room. At the most, they’re going to die.”
With pipeline safety a top priority, Fischbach said burying the line at a proposed shallow depth of four feet doesn’t make him feel safer.
At that depth, he said heavy farm equipment can sink and damage the pipeline.
Legislators Oppose Pipeline
South Dakota Rep. Carl Perry, a Republican, said he is “100 percent in favor of ending the erosion of property rights” by companies like Summit Carbon and Navigator that exploit loopholes in eminent domain laws.“It should not be for private gain—period,” Perry told The Epoch Times. “We need to take care of our people. If they can do this to my farm, what if they come to my house?”
Perry said he supported HB1133, which passed in the House by a 70 percent margin, losing in a 9–0 vote in the Senate committee.
“It was what we call a stacked committee. It was already decided even before they had the meeting,” Perry said. “Our farmers feed the world. We’re in trouble if we don’t care for our farmers.”
South Dakota Rep. Brandei Schaefbauer, a Republican, said the central issue is “not about the pipeline; it’s about property rights.”
“It’s not just farmland; it’s anything you own,” Schaefbauer told The Epoch Times. “It’s happening [in Brown County] because a judge said you can go on land without interference.”
“When the word gets out, and the truth is out in the media, people start saying wait for a second. I had no idea this was going on,” she said.
Fischbach said at least two nonresident landowners in Spink County signed easement agreements with Summit Carbon. At the same time, an unlikely coalition of conservative farmers and liberal environmentalists has come forward to oppose the pipeline, refusing to sell out at any price.
“We don’t have a price. We don’t sell our soul to anybody. I'll go to my grave fighting this,” Fischbach said.
