Minnehaha County Commission denies public input on CO2 pipeline

Besides the fact that the commission gave the green light for the pipeline to move forward (4-1 vote, Barth dissented) they also told the attendees there would be NO public input because the chair said it ‘wasn’t a public hearing.’ Ok, what the Hell would you call a public meeting with a posted agenda item? A church potluck?

14) Consider a Temporary Zoning Ordinance on Gas and Liquid Transmission Pipelines

They did follow state law by allowing general public input at the beginning of the meeting, but you are NOT allowed to comment on agenda items. I would encourage attendees to file an open meetings violation against the commission for denying them their 1st Amendment Rights and the use of Prior Restraint by the Chair. Barth asked for public input and the chair said they have pretty much heard enough thru phone calls and emails. So are those emails and phone calls going to be posted online so people can see those conversations?


#1 D@ily Spin on 08.02.22 at 3:00 pm

Very suspicious. This type of pipeline is both dangerous and with aquifer pollution potential. It must be proven necessary and safe. High pressure pipelines tend to blow out of the ground a half mile at a time. The Ogalala Aquifer is the largest source for fresh water in the country. The major pipeline from ND oil fields to the Gulf is/was across 70 percent of it. It is/was proposed to ship oil to other countries despite high fuel prices in the US.

This matter deserves federal intervention. A 4 to 1 council vote tells me there’s been financial consideration afforded politically.

#2 Frank J Kloucek on 08.02.22 at 3:14 pm

Here we go again. So sad to see this happening at the County and City levels of government in South Dakota!

#3 LJL on 08.02.22 at 7:16 pm

The commision did not need to open the taxpayers to unneeded lawsuits as the CO2 pipeline has not yet been approved by the PUC…It was the right move.

Barth again shows himself to be a petty fool.

The CO2 pipeline is a boondoggle which liberals love to latch onto and I’m finding the gaslighting of the inbred slew creature top bras republicans in this state hilarious.

More cash is getting shoved into pockets of podunk politicians than CO2 molecules will ever go underground.

Your just attempting inject yourself into this money pipe Mr. Barth!

#4 Fear & Loathing in Sioux Falls on 08.02.22 at 8:36 pm

Carbon is taken from North Dakota, then eventually returned to North Dakota. It never ceases to amaze me how the capitalist is able to find new markets and exploit them. It’s like becoming your own middleman.

#5 "Woodstock" on 08.02.22 at 8:40 pm

“What if the build up of carbon beneath the North Dakota landscape would eventually explode, and then send shock waves to the Yellowstone cauldron?”…. “Boy, then we would have a real mess on our hands”…. “Talk about a carbon fall-out”….

#6 Further Fear & Loathing on 08.02.22 at 9:02 pm

I heard a rumor that this new pipeline will have tributaries attached to it to feed other pollutants to it as well as it makes its journey to North Dakota, like one for the Dakota War College for instance.

#7 Very Stable Genius on 08.02.22 at 9:08 pm

An alcoholic hides his bottle. So, what does it say about a society that hides its pollution?

( and Woodstock adds: “So, North Dakota must have a bunch of unused ‘file cabinets’, huh?”

#8 TwoFaced on 08.05.22 at 7:11 pm

The thing about pipelines is they work in two directions. A pipeline can be put in to pump CO2 to the Bakken and not too surprisingly it can pump oil in the other direction. I think a CO2 pipeline is a great end run on the greens. Once the owners have it in and find out it is not economically feasible for CO2 – Oh well just reverse direction. Or reverse direction a few days a week. Congress authorized the reversal of the Oklahoma to Gulf pipelines so they now are selling oil out of the US despite the fact that when they were put in it was promised they would not be used for that.

#9 Mike Lee Zitterich on 08.08.22 at 2:43 am

Listening to the public comments regarding “Voter Fraud” by Mr. John Cunningham, he is 100% incorrect. YOU do not have to legally reside in South Dakota to vote in South Dakota Elections. IT is based on “Domicile” and not residency requirements. All a “American” has to do is go through the legal process of placing his “Domicile” inside South Dakota by claiming “American Citizenship” of the State of South Dakota. The Supreme Court has also ruled that “States” cannot bind a Citizen” to residency requirements, as long as the “CITIZEN” places all his Documents, Papers, Certifications, thus recording his “Legal Status” as an American Citizen of South Dakota. All it requires is 24-Hour Residency so long as you can show proof of receipt from a Campground, Hotel, or Apartment. However, this person would also have to submit to the “Secretary of State” his “original Certificate of Live Birth” along with obtaining a Legal S.D Driver License, Registering his Vehicle(s) inside South Dakota, Obtain Health Insurance, let alone Establish a Legal Bank Account at a South Dakota Chartered Bank, and lastly, this person would have to completely remove himself/herself from the voting rolls of their previous State of Record, all of which the Secretary of State must verify prior to giving this person Voting Rights in South Dakota. IF the previous State will not relinguish the “Domicile”, then the South Dakota Secretary of State must pursue a lawsuit against the previous State in order to settle a “Controversy” between two States.

The Supreme Court has ruled, that States cannot place ‘residency requirements” on any American Citizen choosing to reside in one state or another, but “States’ can adopt Cut Off Dates prior to an Election for anyone not yet registered.

So it is important that “WE” elect a awesome Secretary fo State who is willing to put forth the effort to verify, and inspect and validate all “registered voters” in South Dakota to ensure they are NOT domiciled nor registered to vote in more than one state.