Toby Doeden - Unfiltered

Episode 9

• Toby Doeden - Unfiltered • Episode 9

Share episode

In this episode, Toby Doeden talks with Amanda Radke and Mark Lapka about the debate surrounding the Carbon Summit Solutions Pipeline in SD.  The conversation highlights legislative developments with House Bill 1052, the importance of property rights and more.

0:01 - Introduction
11:15 - Legislative Battle Over Eminent Domain
18:47 - Property Rights and Legislative Battles
31:03 - South Dakota Landowner Advocacy and Politics
37:54 - Defending South Dakota Land Rights

Speaker 1:

What an amazing place we live in South Dakota. My mission statement is simple To re-energize the true conservative values in South Dakota. You're listening to Toby Doden Unfiltered. Welcome to Episode 9 of Toby Doden Unfiltered.

Speaker 1:

I am your host, Toby Doden, and I am very happy to be back with you today. I'm also very happy to announce that we are going to have two very special guests on today. We are going to be talking to Amanda Ratke and we are going to be talking to Senator Mark Lopke. They're going to be on with us and we are going to talk about House Bill 1052, which would eliminate eminent gain for private gain in South Dakota. Okay, so we are joined by Amanda Radke and Mark Lopke, and if you've been paying attention at all to politics in South Dakota, specifically the Carbon Summit Solutions Pipeline, you undoubtedly know these two characters very, very well. So first thing I'm going to do, Amanda, if you could just maybe take a minute and just kind of introduce yourself. There probably are a few people watching that don't necessarily know your history, so why don't you tell us a little bit about yourself, Amanda?

Speaker 2:

Sure, I'm Amanda Radke from Mitchell, south Dakota, mom of four, wife and farmer rancher entrepreneur. I travel the country speaking at conferences, talking about agricultural policy and things that can impact farmers and ranchers in a positive way, and I got involved in this battle because I got a phone call from an elderly widow who had been bullied by Summit Carbon Solutions and she asked me to use my platform to tell her story. And then an avalanche of phone calls came in of many more impacted landowners, and so when I got involved in this fight, it was just because it was the right thing to do for private property ownership. But as it stands today, now that the route has expanded, it goes within a mile of my house where my four children sleep, and so I'm pretty deeply invested in the outcome of this particular battle.

Speaker 1:

Excellent. Yeah, thank you very much, mark. Why don't you tell the viewers a little bit about yourself?

Speaker 3:

Well, I'm a lifelong farmer and rancher from Loyola, south Dakota, which is in McPherson County. As a young man, I've been involved in day-to-day aspects of the farm and ranch. I started taking calves when I was 12 years old and I've tagged everyone on our ranch ever since then. You know I grew up and you know under the premise that I thought that what we do is the best thing in the world and where we do it is the best thing. I truthfully believe that we had the property rights in place that was going to ensure that to happen. For the next six generations of my family, as currently my son is the sixth generation on our farm, I want to see our livelihood propagated in essence, forever, and it wasn't until this summit issue arose, just about four years ago now, that I started to get more involved.

Speaker 3:

I really didn't have anything to do with politics previous to that, nor did I have any interest to, and it was an interesting situation that I found myself in that well, once politics gets involved with you, you have to get involved, and, having been part of this process over the last several years, it wasn't until the passage of SB 201 last year that turned into RL 21 that I seriously began to consider possibly running for office myself.

Speaker 3:

I'd spent so many, countless hours searching for somebody that I thought I could get behind and support to do that, and ultimately you wake up and you look in the mirror one morning and realize that that person is you. Wake up and you look in the mirror one morning and realize that that person is you, and so that's what I did. I ran for state senate in district 23. I was successful in my primary. I did not have a general opponent and so I was sworn. In this last Tuesday as our sitting state senator, I sit as the vice chair on the appropriations committee. We've had a good first week in Pierre and looking forward to getting back to work on Tuesday.

Speaker 1:

Excellent. Thank you very much and congratulations. I remember the first time I met you we had lunch at Mulligan's in Aberdeen, I think, probably about a year ago and I remember you telling me that you might just have to run for office if things didn't start to change. And lo and behold, here you are, congratulations, and it's very nice to catch up with both of you. If, amanda, if you wouldn't mind, could you or or Mark, either one, just give us a just a very brief background, going back to 2021, when Summit Carbon Solutions. To 2021 when Summit Carbon Solutions and I believe it was Navigator at that time originally started this application process for the carbon pipeline, to just kind of catch everybody up to kind of where we're at, leading up to House Bill 1052. And then we'll talk about that next.

Speaker 2:

So Mark would be the guy to talk about the very beginning, because it came to his backyard first.

Speaker 3:

It was August approximately August 24th, if I remember correctly the first time that we had heard anything. My family received about a half a dozen letters in the mail for a proposed CO2 pipeline that would be crossing a few miles of my family's property. That would be crossing a few miles of my family's property, and at the beginning, you know, I thought it was possibly an oil or a natural gas pipeline and didn't particularly see any issue with it and was interested in sitting down and discussing it. After a little bit more farther research into it, though, I began to realize what a carbon dioxide pipeline was. Well, what is the possible use for that? How are we going to be affecting our energy prices for consumers? Because pipelines have always existed as a mode of transportation a cheaper mode of transportation for liquid fuels, in order to have lower costs to the consumer. And as I began to look into it a little bit more, it's like well, what are we doing here? Well, we're going to be capturing the emissions off of ethanol plants, compressing it into a high dense phase liquid in order to bury 10,000 feet under the ground and permanently sequester, in order for the ethanol plants to improve their CI score. Well, how are we going to pay for all of this. And that's probably when I had an eye-opening moment that it simply was going to exist because of complete and total government subsidization. And so I kept an open mind from that point. And then, in the initial public meetings that Summit had in October of 2021, that Summit had in October of 2021, they began to discuss in detail what they were going to do. But a question was brought before them by Mr Ed Fischbach. He asked them would they commit to not using eminent domain? They would not answer the question right away and upon farther pressing by Mr Fischbach, they would not commit to not using eminent domain. And it was at that time that I became quite opposed to this, because I didn't think it met the parameters of what eminent domain was intended for. And then how could you possibly be faced with having your land condemned and then, in turn, paying for it as a taxpayer? And so that was what kind of set the stage.

Speaker 3:

We went into that next legislative session and Representative Carla Lems, in her freshman year at the time, brought forward House Bill 1133. House Bill 1133 would have made it so that CO2 pipelines would not be eligible for eminent domain. That was successful. It sailed right through House Committee, right through the House floor, but met its demise in the Senate Commerce and Energy Committee where it was defeated 7-0. To zero. And then, following up into last year's legislative session, house Bill 1219, a great bill bought by our new Speaker of the House, john Hanson. He brought that last year, which would also have eliminated eminent domain for CO2 pipelines. That bill was close in committee but defeated. There was an attempt to smoke it out on the House floor. The initial smokeout was successful but the calendaring of the bill after that was not successful and then that is where that in fact died.

Speaker 3:

And so, rolling into this year, representative Lems has yet once again and she's a true champion of property rights in South Dakota has brought forward and presented House Bill 1052. House Bill 1052 will also eliminate the use of eminent domain for CO2 pipelines in the state of South Dakota. I, fortunately, have been able to be the prime sponsor in the Senate. Representative Lems will carry it in the House, I myself will carry it in the Senate. We're up to 29 representatives that have signed on as co-sponsors, as well as 11 senators. The bill is well positioned. There appears to be nonpartisan support for the bill. We're in a good position and we're looking forward to moving on with that.

Speaker 1:

So just so the folks at home know, mark just mentioned House Bill 1052. I'm just going to read it quick. Normally when you tell somebody you're going to read a bill, they roll their eyes. This is the shortest and sweetest bill. It's very good to see that we have actual professionals submitting bills in peer once again. So here's what it said. What it says, excuse me Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, a person may not exercise the right of eminent domain to acquire right of way for, construct or operate a pipeline for the preponderant purpose of transporting carbon oxide. I kind of liken it to the second amendment, like no frills, no BS, right to the point. Amanda, what are your thoughts on house bill 1052? And what is your sense of the total amount of support that it has?

Speaker 2:

I think it's precise and addressing in a focused manner the gun that is pointed at the people's heads, the people who have been had their lives put on hold for three years battling this thing and they're dealing with condemnations and having to hire legal counsel and feeling like their whole lives have been put on hold as we wait to see what's going to happen with this application process for this carbon pipeline.

Speaker 2:

So I liken it to it's brain surgery and we've called in a brain surgeon to really address the issue, one of the things that I think is really important. As Carla had mentioned, in 30 words or less, we are addressing an issue in a really common sense way. There's zero percent chance of any regulatory drift on other industries, meaning you're not going to be piled on by, you know electric or water or other utilities that are actually for a common use, that are going has been backed by the South Dakota Supreme Court that this project does not have a common carrier status, it cannot use eminent domain, it cannot invasively survey on people's land, and so the legislature absolutely has the authority to act to shore up our private property rights and to provide that constitutional certainty that the people have consistently asked for and advocated for since this whole thing began.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, absolutely so, mark. For most of the people in South Dakota they aren't nearly as familiar with the ins and outs of the state legislature, certainly as somebody like you who serves in it now. So to get 40 sponsors on a bill like this, just give us kind of an indication of what a normal bill would get for sponsors. I assume this is a much higher number of sponsors than a normal bill.

Speaker 3:

Yes, it is a particularly high number of sponsors. A lot of times you'll see bills with maybe three or two. The state of South Dakota with RL21. And the impact that it had on our last round of elections there is 10 new first-time ever serving in any legislative or governmental capacity members of the Senate, and there are seven of those that RL21 and SB201 was the exact reason why they got involved in the first place, so I think it's exciting that that many have signed on to it. I think it's a good show of support for this particular bill and it's an issue that, quite frankly, is a statewide high-profile issue and it's being treated as such.

Speaker 1:

So I guess my follow-up to that Mark would be and I'm curious too just kind of walk us through the timing of this. When is this thing going to hit committee? How confident are you that it's going to go to a full vote and when will that happen? Going to go to a?

Speaker 3:

full vote, and when will that happen? The bill 1052 has been assigned to the House State Affairs Committee and they meet on Mondays, wednesdays and Fridays of the week at 7 45 am in the morning. We do not have session tomorrow as it is a holiday, and so I have not heard if it will be coming this week. It is looking like more than likely it will be coming the following week, and as soon as we know for sure, we will be the very first ones to let everyone know.

Speaker 1:

Perfect. So I've had several people ask me this question this week and so I think it's on the minds of a lot of people, just because this has been a multi-year battle. So let's just assume for a second that House Bill 1052 passes, it goes all the way through and it's enacted into law. What is next for Summit Carbon Solutions if that happens?

Speaker 3:

Well, one has to remember, you know, there is concern amongst you know, industries outside of carbon pipelines that are concerned about eminent domain legislation affecting them, and we have had discussions with other entities and industries, and none of us are against electricity, we are not opposed to water projects.

Speaker 3:

That is something that is a necessary use that every man, woman and child in our state and country need for life, and so this is in no way focused upon them. This is focused upon a project that has no definitive public use and it still does not ban this project from taking place. What it will require? It will require, in actuality, good faith negotiations between a carbon pipeline company and landowners that they can sit down and if they can come to an agreement, it can move forward. But we need to establish business practices between a willing buyer and a willing seller and not allow the heavy hand of the government to be used in order for them to obtain that, because if we go down that path, eminent domain will simply become a way of doing business and, quite frankly, there is not one of us that would like to be in that situation.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, for sure. I've got a question for you, amanda, but I have to follow up Mark, with this. Originally, I had seen a number of 73% of landowners had come to an agreement or planned to come to an agreement with Summit Carbon Solutions and I heard through the grapevine I was not there Friday take the money and have this dangerous pipeline run through their land.

Speaker 3:

Well, I guess the number one thing that I'd like to see is proof of that. A lot of the time it has just been an arbitrary number that is thrown out there with any evidence supporting such. It was like in the initial filing. They had claimed to be 70% signed up. Well, there was over just about 180 persons that were served with eminent domain proceedings, and that number was greater than 25% the remainder of the project that existed that they said that they had. So I would take those figures with a grain of salt until we would see something to back it up.

Speaker 1:

That's a hell of a good answer. I was thinking the same thing myself. So, amanda, what is the current lay of the land at the PUC meetings that are taking place across the state? I know you've been attending them. Can you just kind of give us an overview of what the meetings are for, how they've been going and what your perception of them is at this point?

Speaker 2:

Sure Utilities Commission just hosted six meetings where Summit Carbon Solutions could make their case and present their project to the people, and the people had the opportunity to express their concerns, ask questions, that kind of thing.

Speaker 2:

I will say it was quite interesting that there were so many out of state we're talking like Oklahoma type out of state, like very far away from South Dakota who came in to testify in support of this project.

Speaker 2:

And there was many, many loud opposition of people right here in our communities that have concerns about the health, the safety, whether Summit Carbon Solutions can abide by the rules, the county ordinances and the townships. And right now I'm not sure when this is going to air, but there is a deadline to apply to be an intervener, to have party status on this project. That deadline is January 24th, and so it's a very tight deadline to first hear about the project, and a lot of people are hearing about it, believe it or not, for the first time. 6,500 letters, I found out at a PUC meeting, were sent out by Summit Carbon Solutions the week of Christmas telling people that, hey, you are an impacted landowner in this route, come to our meetings and find out more about it. And so it's a very tight turnaround for people that are now new on the route, that are trying to figure out how it's going to impact their families, their businesses, their children. And again, that deadline is January 24th.

Speaker 1:

We are going to get this out very, very quickly. It should be released to the masses Monday, the 20th, tomorrow, inauguration Day. I am indeed an intervener. This pipeline, in the latest map I've seen, runs about 2,600 feet give or take from my doorstep. So yeah, I understand the plight and the fear of people all over the state. Clearly this is a land rights issue, but it's also a safety issue. Mark, we've seen some pretty massive divisions arise over competing bills on school choice. Don't worry, I'm not going to ask you about that, I'm just simply using that as a precursor. Can you explain the differences on eminent domain between John Carley's bill and your bill and Carla Lem's bill, because there's a lot of people out there that have asked me to give them the nuanced differences and I guess what I tell them is well, just by reading them you can tell very quickly. You know what the purpose of yours was versus theirs. But since you're the main sponsor, or one of the two main sponsors, I'd like to hear it directly from you.

Speaker 3:

Yes, senator John Carley has brought Senate Bill 49, which is a good piece of eminent domain legislation that will start begin the conversation on wind and solar in the state of South Dakota. His bill also includes a language to take away the ability of the Public Utilities Commission to be able to preempt local, county and municipal and township ordinances for carbon and hydrogen pipelines, and so, while I think it is a very good bill, there needs to be some conversations on it, as you are again bringing in a lot more of the other industries that are not very interested in being affected by that type of legislation. It needs to have a discussion. I'm supportive of it, but we also need to deal with what is in front of us at the moment, and that is CO2 pipelines, and that's what HB 1052 specifically does.

Speaker 1:

I could not go ahead.

Speaker 2:

Oh, I just kind of wanted to speak to how we got to this point, but if you had a follow-up question for Mark, go ahead. But okay, I just really think there's a story that's unfolding here in South Dakota that I really want people to understand is that I really believe that this legislative session is going to be defined by two issues property tax relief and private property ownership, and both of those bring landowners together. Whether you own a corner lot in Sioux Falls or you own 10 sections of land out by Kadoka, the landowners have spoken, and how we've gotten to this point is that bad actors and bought-off politicians have pushed the people to the brink where they have to stand up and defend themselves. So, watching SB 201 make its way through the legislative session last year, despite the fact that hundreds and hundreds of people traveled repeatedly to peer to advocate against it. And the real problem with that piece of legislation is that it would have taken away the county and township's ability to do setbacks and ordinances that are appropriate for their individual communities. And so the RL21 victory, where 65 of 66 counties rejected it with 59% of the vote. And, by the way, every single county that has an ethanol plant in it overwhelmingly rejected this bill. It sends a message to peer that hey, we are open for business but we are not for sale.

Speaker 2:

And we have spoken very clearly that we have elected officials on the townships and the counties and we want them to represent us in our best interest.

Speaker 2:

And the great thing about that is not only do we have this mandate by the people, but the Public Utilities Commission absolutely got it right on the first application, where they said they were going to stand beside the counties and townships. And now once again, 10 days after the election or two weeks after the election on November 19th Summit, reapplied for a permit and right there in that permit they asked for, basically verbatim, the language that would have been in RL21, sb201, which is they are asking the PUC to override the counties and the townships. So I believe now, going into this legislative session, we are in a position of strength. The people have spoken. The legislators should absolutely feel empowered that it's not a small vocal minority. This is the absolute will of the people and I am calling on the legislators and our governor to act accordingly to the will of the people. That without private property rights, we have nothing and in a project like this that is for private gain. South Dakota, south Dakotans, should absolutely have the option to say no, thank you, and that is a full sentence.

Speaker 1:

Yes, it is, and you want to know what keeps me up at night? And, um, largely I I try to keep a 10 000 foot view of a lot of these things because, uh, you know, doing the right thing generally involves playing chess and not checkers and, and, and sometimes people get caught up, uh, in in the now rather than in tomorrow and what, what. What scares me most, and we've already seen it a little bit in this legislative session, is, yes, amanda, you spoke to it. There was a mandate from the people. It was very specific, it happened nationally and it happened in South Dakota the people on the other side, largely I'm not talking about the Democrats, I'm talking about the establishment left-leaning if I wanted to be nice, I would say moderate Republicans I've already seen some state moderate Republicans already talking a different tune and I've seen people on the conservative side of things already take it like, like hook line and sinker and so, like your passion, I love it, and I am the same way, and I am constantly having to remind people like you have to look at what people say and what people do over a extended period of time, because if you only listen to what they are telling you and what they are doing today and you forget about what they've done six months, six years ago. You are not using the right skills to analyze that person's intentions.

Speaker 1:

And so, mark, there have been conversations with legislators who voted for SB 201. And I am curious now what your sense is if any of them are genuinely changing their tune, or if they're just changing their tune because they realize that they've been beaten and they are trying to negate the fallout and they're trying to get back in the cool kids club and the first chance they get to, to, to, to push things back to the way they were the last few years, they'll do it. So what? What is your sense of some of the SB201 supporters and what they're saying and doing today?

Speaker 3:

I think what's currently going on is that was the power of the referendum Previous to the statewide vote being taken on the issue.

Speaker 3:

To kind of present a barometer of how the voting public feels wasn't available up until that point. For so long it was claimed that the people that are in opposition to this are a small vocal minority and being out in the country, living where I do, going across the state to meetings on this, I knew that that was not the case. I've never seen an issue that has polarized so many people on one side. The amount of opposition that there is for this is really quite amazing to a certain degree, and I think that because of the referendum actually having put a quantifying a number of how unpopular this is with the state of South Dakota has people looking at it through a different lens, and I think that realization has come with them being more supportive of what South Dakota wants. South Dakota does not want this carbon pipeline. South Dakota does not want eminent domain abuse in this state. They want to have their freedoms and their liberties reinforced so that they can take care of themselves and their families with whatever way they see fit.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, 100%.

Speaker 2:

Mark is very kind if I could send a little bit more harsher message to those folks 13 incumbents who voted for SB 201 have gone into early retirement because we, the people, sent them home. We replaced them with servant leaders who have committed to standing beside the landowners on this issue. We will not forget, or let them rewrite history, that they turned their backs on the people in favor of the billion-dollar donor class, when the right thing to do was to stand beside private property rights and our ownership. I was in Pierre last week for several days, went out to supper several evenings. I saw some of these legislators sitting with the GEVO and Summit Carbon Solutions lobbyists. We are watching. We know which side of history you need to be on. You don't get to spin doctor your way out of this.

Speaker 2:

The right thing to do to respect the will of the people is to remember that, yes, there are projects and there are opportunities coming into the state of South Dakota. They promise a lot of money with it, but the last time I checked, we do not abandon our private property rights and our individual liberties because the donor class has something to offer, and so that would be my message. I do have a feeling there's some that are softening and that are understanding that this is the will of the people, and they may even have buyer's remorse on their vote on SB201. And so I am eager for this bill to get out of both committees and get to the floor, and we'll see if the actions match the words of the politicians who tell the people what they want to hear, while they go behind our backs and do something completely opposite.

Speaker 1:

I didn't know it was possible to like Amanda Radke more, but man, do I like it when you? I mean that is awesome, mark, you are kind of a diplomat and I appreciate that. Amanda just tells it the way it is and that is awesome. And one thing I want to add, and we're just about done here, but again, I think this is a caution and this is what I love about House Bill 1052. Just no BS. It's very precise. This is what it does, no ambiguity whatsoever.

Speaker 1:

And what I use as the opposite of that are these school choice bills that have been put forward. When the establishment loses, whether it's nationally or whether it's in South Dakota, they will pretend that they're going to play nice. But it is all calculated to get power back. And when I saw our governor earmark $4 million for school choice, I knew what she was doing and I was hoping and that it would not work. And all of a sudden, here we are trying to fix a hundred million dollar problem with $4 million. It won't work. I'm not even talking about specifics of a bill Fixing school choice in a state like South Dakota. You can't do it for $4 million. So we have the damned power If we're going to do something, damn it. Let's do it right. And we are with the eminent domain right.

Speaker 1:

The other thing is property relief. Reducing property taxes for owner-occupied homes by 20 or 30 or 35 percent is not enough. We have one chance to get this right right. So every like property, I believe property tax should be abolished. I've got a very comprehensive plan how it can easily be paid for. That's for another day and another time and another discussion. And there's people around the state that also believe that. But like, eliminating or reducing property tax by 30% on owner occupied people is doing nothing to help people that can't pay their rent Right and so like we need. So I don't want to talk about property taxes in depth. I'm just simply saying that when we get the power back, it is time to do things right and it is time to do them to the extent they need to be done.

Speaker 1:

If the roles were reversed look what we saw with Biden the last four years Look what we've seen with some of the nonsense going on with the establishment Republicans in South Dakota when they have the gavel, so to speak, they will go for your throat and for decades. Conservatives get squirmish and conservatives in South Dakota are not going to get squirmish because people like Amanda Ratke and myself and Mark Lopke are not going to let it happen there, I feel better. I can sleep tonight, having said that. So, mark, if you would just take a minute, if just like if you had one minute to convince everybody in South Dakota to support HB 1052, what would they need to do? Who should they call? Who do they talk to Go ahead?

Speaker 3:

Well, the number one thing to do is contact your legislators. Tell them to support HB 1052. Tell them to vote in favor of it in committee. Tell them to vote in favor of it on the floor. But the very number one thing that I can recommend to people and suggest is come to peer. Come to peer. The power of the people is. There's nothing else that equates to it. Show up. It is your government, participate in it. Realize it for yourself. There was nothing more altering to my thoughts on it. When I first started going down to the Capitol and experiencing it for myself, I didn't understand it. I didn't know how it worked. In the meantime, I have learned that, and I think that's really what has led to a lot of the changes in the state of South Dakota. More people have just flat out gotten involved, and that's what it's going to take on all of these important issues, because it will take the will of the people to get them across the finish line, and you can't do that if you do not participate.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, 100%. Well said, amanda. Last question for you. Again, I'm going to do a hypothetical here because I'm pretty confident in this bill. So let's move forward past this bill. What do you think needs to happen in order for the state and specifically this group of passionate landowners you know people like Mark to keep them motivated and engaged all the way through the 2026 election cycle? Because I think one of you I think it was Mark earlier mentioned you know the landowner energy is what propelled all of the changes in 2024. It and the primary, the general, all the ballot stuff, like like there was a lot more people involved and I get that. What I'm saying is the landowner energy is what propelled everything that has happened, in my opinion, in the conservative movement in South Dakota in 2024. And I'm a little concerned that if we get this big win here, that we could lose some of that the next two years. Amanda, what are your thoughts on that?

Speaker 2:

You know, last Monday, to kick off the legislative session, we had our third rally, where hundreds and hundreds of landowners came to peer asking for three very specific things Protect our private property rights, secure our local control and no eminent domain for CO2 pipelines. I've been in a lot of things in my career regarding policy issues, but I've never seen anything quite like what's happened in South Dakota to bring landowners, bipartisan in nature, setting aside all of their differences, to say this is the right thing to do. And what happens next? The decisions that are made in Pierre need to outlast us all, because the land will outlast us all Politicians, those that are servant leaders, that want to enter into this arena. My best advice for them is to get into the trenches with the people, because we're not going anywhere.

Speaker 2:

This fight has been long. The most common comment I got at the rally was you can tell the landowners are battle-worn, because we are. We've taken a lot of bullets, but we're still here, we're still hopeful and we're not going anywhere. And so this is the issue. George Washington even said if private property rights and freedom go hand in hand, you cannot have one without the other, and I don't think there's a single person in this landowner battle that's going to lay down that baton and give up that fight, even after Summit Carbon Solutions has packed up their bags and head home. This is who we are in South Dakota and we're going to make sure that remains a number one priority moving forward.

Speaker 1:

Amen, mark. Thank you very much, amanda. Thank you very much. That was excellent. I look forward to seeing both you, and I suspect I will be seeing you and Pierre very, very soon. Thank you, guys. Have a great day. As a South Dakotan, my stance is clear and unwavering I am completely against the exploitation of eminent domain by Summit Carbon Solutions for their carbon pipeline. This isn't just about property rights, it's about protecting our safety and our land. The potential for CO2 leaks or pipeline ruptures poses a direct threat to our communities, our wildlife and our agriculture heritage. Eminent domain must be reserved for true public necessity, not the profit-driven desires of private companies like Summit Carbon Solutions. Let's stand firm in defending South Dakota's land, our safety and our rights against this invasive project. Thank you for listening to Toby Doden Unfiltered.