Rep. Spencer Gosch, R-Glenham, speaks on the South Dakota House floor on Jan. 22, 2025, at the Capitol in Pierre.

(Photo by Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight)

PIERRE — A measure that would ask South Dakota voters to restrict eminent domain in a state constitutional amendment is moving on to be heard by the state Senate.

It passed the House on a 62-5 vote Tuesday.

Eminent domain is the power to take private property for public use, with just compensation to the owner. It’s been a divisive issue in South Dakota the last several years because of a proposed multi-state carbon capture pipeline that would pass through the eastern part of the state.

The legislation asks voters to approve a constitutional amendment clarifying that eminent domain “may not be exercised for the purpose of transferring private property to a non-governmental entity solely to promote economic development or increase tax revenue without the provision of a public use.”

Rep. Spencer Gosch, R-Glenham, introduced the bill, which passed through the House State Affairs Committee last week. He said the measure would not ban eminent domain completely.

“We are helping property owners in the state of South Dakota maintain their rights on their property by saying, ‘No, you cannot take my property for economic development or increased tax revenue purposes,’” Gosch said Tuesday. “If I wanted to bring a bill to get rid of eminent domain, I would have done that.”

Supporters of the measure say the amendment would strengthen a law passed last year, which specifically bans eminent domain for carbon capture pipeline projects.

Rep. John Hughes, R-Sioux Falls, worried that the language of the bill is too vague. He said the “poorly drafted” bill is a “poison pill,” because it could unintentionally enshrine a right to eminent domain for economic development or increased tax revenue as long as a public use can be shown.

Down the line, Hughes said, private entities could use things like combating climate change to justify a public use for a carbon pipeline. The proposed pipeline project from Summit Carbon Solutions would capture carbon dioxide emissions from ethanol plants in five states and bury them in North Dakota, to capitalize on federal tax credits incentivizing the prevention of heat-trapping emissions into the atmosphere.

“To now enshrine the ability to take private property for purposes of economic development or increasing tax revenue, so long as that you have a public use, wow, I can’t go there,” Hughes said.

He also criticized the phrase “economic development” in the legislation.

“I don’t even know what that means,” he said. “I support economic growth. I don’t know what economic development is.”

Open-ended language leaves the state vulnerable to lawsuits, he said.

If the Senate also approves the measure, it will go to voters in the Nov. 3 general election.

*This story was originally published on * SouthDakotaSearchlight.com.

______________________________________________________

This story was written by one of our partner news agencies. Forum Communications Company uses content from agencies such as Reuters, Kaiser Health News, Tribune News Service and others to provide a wider range of news to our readers. Learn more about the news services FCC uses here.

Get Local