South Carolina Landowners Face Pipeline Land Acquisition Debate

Plans for a new natural gas plant in South Carolina have intensified the debate over land acquisition practices. The project, backed by Dominion Energy and state-owned Santee Cooper, aims to transform a shuttered coal plant into a 2,000-megawatt facility along the Edisto River in Colleton County. As the project progresses, homeowners are raising concerns about the role of private companies like Kinder Morgan in acquiring land through eminent domain.

The ongoing discussions spotlight the balance between energy needs and property rights. Critics argue that allowing Kinder Morgan to force land sales undermines the principles of fair negotiation. The company is working with Dominion and Santee Cooper to supply natural gas to the Canadys plant, but its involvement in land acquisition has sparked significant pushback.

While utility companies typically face regulatory scrutiny, Kinder Morgan operates differently. It is not classified as a regulated utility and, therefore, does not require governmental approval to adjust its pricing or assert control over land acquisitions. The situation becomes particularly contentious given South Carolina’s constitutional restrictions on eminent domain, which only permits such actions for projects that serve the public interest.

Concerns about Kinder Morgan’s past actions further complicate the current debate. The company previously attempted to establish a $1 billion petroleum pipeline across South Carolina, a proposal that faced strong opposition and was ultimately abandoned. Such history raises questions about the company’s commitment to operating in the best interests of South Carolinians.

The current proposal, framed as a rental agreement for land, essentially functions like a forced sale. Kinder Morgan seeks to acquire 50-foot-wide tracts from approximately 227 landowners in both Hampton and Colleton counties. Reports from the Post and Courier indicate that the company hopes to identify environmentally sensitive areas and regions where landowners may oppose the pipeline, potentially influencing the project’s routing.

This situation underscores a broader discussion about who holds the power to compel land sales. Historically, the state has permitted private entities to condemn land for certain types of infrastructure projects, including natural gas pipelines. However, many argue that this practice should be reevaluated to ensure that landowners have a fair chance to negotiate or refuse offers without resorting to legal action.

In 2015, lawmakers began discussions on these issues, but progress stalled following Kinder Morgan’s withdrawal from its petroleum pipeline proposal. While some temporary provisions were introduced regarding petroleum pipelines, the existing laws still grant extensive powers to natural gas pipeline owners and private utility companies.

Landowners currently have limited options if they reject an offer from a pipeline company. Their primary recourse is to challenge the acquisition through the court system, often at considerable personal expense. This legal hurdle raises significant concerns about the balance of power in property negotiations, especially with unregulated businesses.

As the debate continues, it remains to be seen how this issue will evolve. The outcome could significantly impact not only the future of the Canadys natural gas plant but also the fundamental rights of landowners in South Carolina. The discussion around eminent domain and property rights is far from over, and it is crucial that all stakeholders engage in meaningful dialogue to protect the interests of individuals and communities alike.