MANSFIELD, S.D. (AP) — It was a typical spring night in 2023 when Jared Bossly, a dedicated farmer managing a sprawling 2,000-acre operation in South Dakota, found himself in an unexpected situation. While planting soybeans under the starry sky, he noticed a sheriff's vehicle idling at the corner of his property. Instinctively, he felt that the deputy's visit was far from a casual neighborly gesture.

“I’m thinking, ‘Well, I doubt he’s just being a friendly neighbor, giving a guy a beer at eight o’clock at night,’” recalled Bossly, who is now 43 years old. His suspicions were confirmed when the deputy handed him a hefty stack of court papers. Those documents revealed that Summit Carbon Solutions, the company behind a massive proposed carbon pipeline, was suing him for the right to use his land through eminent domain—a legal process allowing the government or its agents to take private property for public use, with compensation to the owner.

“He gives me a stack of papers about like this,” Bossly said, extending his hands to illustrate the thickness. “They started the process of suing us to take our land.” This encounter was just one in a series of legal actions that Summit Carbon Solutions unleashed against landowners across several states as part of their ambitious plan to construct a nearly $9 billion carbon pipeline.

In collaboration with Lee Enterprises and The Associated Press, a comprehensive review of the situation revealed the aggressive measures undertaken by Summit to secure land for the pipeline, which is intended to span five Midwestern states. Despite the company’s efforts, including legal actions, it faced intense opposition from local farmers and landowners in South Dakota. This backlash was so significant that in early March, South Dakota’s governor signed a bill that prohibits the use of eminent domain for constructing carbon dioxide pipelines, casting doubt on the project's future.

The report uncovered that Summit filed a staggering 232 lawsuits against landowners across South Dakota, North Dakota, and Iowa, including actions merely to gain access for surveys. Notably, all 156 eminent domain cases were initiated in South Dakota, with a single two-day period in late April 2023 witnessing the filing of 83 such lawsuits.

Sabrina Zenor, a spokesperson for Summit Carbon Solutions, emphasized that the company prioritizes securing voluntary agreements with landowners. “The vast majority of easements have been and continue to be secured voluntarily,” she stated. “Condemnation is a legal tool available under the law, but it’s not our preferred approach.” However, the sheer volume of legal actions paints a different picture of the company's strategy.

The pipeline, which spans a remarkable 2,500 miles (approximately 4,023 kilometers), aims to connect with 57 ethanol plants. The carbon dioxide emissions captured from these facilities would be transported through the pipeline and ultimately stored underground in North Dakota, thereby significantly reducing carbon emissions and enabling ethanol producers to market their fuel as more environmentally friendly. This endeavor would also provide substantial financial incentives through federal tax credits.

In an effort to promote the project, Summit dispatched representatives to various state legislatures, county commissions, and regulatory boards, expecting an easy sell given the region’s historical support for the corn and ethanol industries. However, the company's legal tactics and contentious interactions with landowners sparked a fierce backlash in South Dakota. Many farmers reported their first encounter with Summit involved spotting surveyors on their properties without prior notice, leading to feelings of anger and betrayal.

As part of their negotiations, landowners described aggressive financial offers from Summit. One farmer recounted rejecting an initial offer of $80,000 for a 36-acre easement, which later escalated to $350,000, yet he still declined. Another farmer turned down an offer exceeding $40,000. These accounts illustrate the high stakes involved as farmers weighed their options against a backdrop of intimidation.

Bossly faced his own battles with Summit. He learned that the company’s surveyors had entered his property without consent when his wife, recovering from gallbladder surgery, alerted him to the presence of strangers in their home. After a series of court proceedings, the company accused Bossly of threatening the surveyors, leading him to stand before a judge, who had previously issued a ruling preventing landowners from interfering with Summit’s surveys. The courtroom was filled with farmers rallying in Bossly's defense, showcasing the community's solidarity against the company's tactics.

The controversy surrounding the pipeline had significant political implications for South Dakota. In the previous year’s primary elections, several incumbent lawmakers were ousted by candidates opposed to the project, highlighting a political shift among constituents. This unprecedented alliance saw farmers from traditionally conservative regions teaming up with environmentalists to oppose a pipeline intended to benefit the very agricultural communities that have historically supported it.

Brian Jorde, an attorney representing Bossly and other landowners, remarked, “They did this all to themselves... Their legal plan was, ‘we will force them into submission because the lawsuits will break them.’” Meanwhile, Bossly proudly displayed a campaign banner for Donald Trump and JD Vance in his workshop, illustrating the complex political dynamics surrounding the issue.

Summit’s pipeline, initially proposed in 2021, is viewed as a potential boon for the Midwest ethanol industry. Nearly 40% of the nation’s corn crop is transformed into ethanol, which is blended into the majority of gasoline sold across the United States. As demand shifts towards renewable energy sources, some Midwest farmers see aviation fuel as a promising market for ethanol. However, the production process for converting ethanol into aviation fuel must meet strict carbon emission guidelines to qualify for tax incentives aimed at reducing greenhouse gases. Proponents argue that carbon capture initiatives, like Summit's pipeline, play a crucial role in addressing climate change while bolstering the ethanol sector.

Nonetheless, carbon capture technology faces skepticism from certain environmental groups, who question its efficacy at scale and argue that it permits the fossil fuel industry to continue operations without substantial changes. Among the farmers opposing the project, concerns over the safety of the pipeline in case of a rupture and the infringement on their property rights have emerged as significant issues.

Landowners voiced troubling experiences with Summit representatives. LeRoy Braun, a fifth-generation farmer in Spink County, recounted a threatening encounter with Summit's land acquisition team during a property visit. “Just as they were leaving, they said, ‘Well, if you don’t sign, we’re going to file eminent domain on you and you’re going to get nothing compared to what we’re offering you,’” Braun reported. His neighbors echoed similar frustrations regarding Summit's approach.

After a series of legal actions and public rallies, the tide began to turn against Summit. Bossly's story gained traction in the media, and his name became synonymous with the resistance movement. “That day really kicked our opposition movement into gear,” noted Ed Fischbach, a fellow farmer who helped spearhead the protest against the pipeline. As Bossly transitioned from farming to becoming a vocal advocate against the project, he found himself at the center of a burgeoning grassroots movement.

Summit continued to file eminent domain lawsuits in South Dakota until late August 2023. In some instances, landowners capitulated after being sued, but the tide began to shift following the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission's rejection of Summit's permit application in September 2023. Consequently, the company announced a pause in its legal actions.

By the end of 2024, Summit had successfully obtained approvals for pipeline routes in Iowa and North Dakota and secured underground storage in Minnesota. However, in South Dakota, the company still lacked the necessary permits, and the state Supreme Court ruled that it had not sufficiently proven its eligibility for eminent domain authority.

In the recent November election, South Dakota voters rejected proposed regulations that opponents claimed would diminish local control over projects like Summit’s, consolidating authority amongst state regulators. The South Dakota Legislature has undergone a significant transformation as new lawmakers opposed to both Summit’s pipeline and its eminent domain practices emerged from the 2024 primary elections.

Jim Mehlhaff, the Republican majority leader in the South Dakota Senate and a supporter of the pipeline, acknowledged the shifting political landscape. He pointed out that the new law signals a retreat from business-friendly practices in South Dakota. “The legislature, you know, at the behest of what I would call the shrill minority, will cut your legs out,” he remarked.

As the national political climate has changed dramatically, the fate of the proposed Summit pipeline remains uncertain. While the Biden administration has sought to encourage carbon capture technologies through enhanced tax incentives under the Inflation Reduction Act, the Republican stance under Trump has favored increasing fossil fuel extraction.

Summit Carbon Solutions has requested state regulators to suspend the timeline for its permit application. Zenor has indicated that while the company is focusing on advancing in states that “support investment and innovation,” it still believes there is a potential path forward in South Dakota. However, even some of Summit’s supporters acknowledge the company's missteps. “Did they get off to a bad start? Did they soil their sheets? No question, absolutely,” expressed Walt Bones, a supportive farmer.

This situation illustrates the complexities of land use, environmental concerns, and the ongoing struggles between corporate interests and local landowners' rights, revealing a microcosm of larger national debates surrounding energy, agriculture, and climate policy.