South Carolina Landowners Challenge Kinder Morgan’s Pipeline Plans

The debate surrounding Kinder Morgan’s proposed natural gas pipeline in South Carolina continues to provoke strong reactions from local property owners. Many fear that they might be compelled to sell their land for the project, raising significant concerns about the implications of such actions by private companies.

The planned Canadys natural gas plant, a joint venture by Santee Cooper and Dominion Energy, aims to convert a shuttered coal facility into a 2,000-megawatt natural gas plant located along the Edisto River in Colleton County. While the project has received legislative backing, skepticism remains regarding its execution, given the track record of these companies in abandoning projects after significant investments of ratepayer funds.

Opposition to such initiatives is common, with environmental activists frequently voicing concerns about the impact of both traditional and renewable energy facilities. This particular case, however, transcends environmental issues and taps into fundamental questions about land ownership and the rights of private companies to exert influence over land transactions.

The crux of the matter lies in the power of eminent domain, which allows governments to compel landowners to sell property for public projects. In South Carolina, the situation becomes more complex as it appears that private companies like Kinder Morgan, which is constructing the pipeline, may have similar capabilities. Kinder Morgan is not a regulated utility and, unlike Dominion and Santee Cooper, it is not obligated to operate in the public interest or seek governmental approval for price increases.

This raises significant concerns about the ethics of allowing a private entity to invoke eminent domain. The South Carolina state constitution restricts this power to projects that clearly serve the public interest, yet the current legislation appears to grant such authority to private pipeline builders.

Historically, Kinder Morgan’s approach to property acquisition has not been without controversy. A decade ago, the company sought to condemn private property for a $1 billion petroleum pipeline stretching through several South Carolina counties. This plan was ultimately abandoned after legal challenges and public backlash, including a decisive opinion from the South Carolina Attorney General’s office highlighting the lack of authority for petroleum pipelines to utilize eminent domain.

The current proposal involves Kinder Morgan attempting to negotiate with landowners for a 50-foot-wide tract of land across Hampton and Colleton Counties. While Kinder Morgan representatives claim to assess environmentally and culturally sensitive areas to avoid conflict, the reality is that landowners face a limited ability to negotiate terms. Instead of a fair rental agreement, it resembles a forced sale, where property owners may find themselves without meaningful recourse should they disagree with the company’s valuation.

The implications for landowners are serious. Should they decline Kinder Morgan’s offer, their only option rests in pursuing a legal battle, which can be costly and time-consuming. This dynamic stands in stark contrast to the expected negotiation processes associated with public projects, where elected officials are accountable to voters.

The discussion around eminent domain and its application to private enterprises has been a topic of legislative debate since 2015. Despite some temporary measures established in state law concerning petroleum pipelines, the authority to condemn property for natural gas pipelines remains intact.

As South Carolinians grapple with these developments, the broader question looms: should private companies wield the power to dictate the terms of property sales? The ongoing discourse emphasizes the need for a careful examination of property rights, regulatory frameworks, and the balance of power between private interests and public welfare.

Ultimately, this situation reflects a growing concern about how property rights are upheld in the face of private enterprise ambitions, a debate that is likely to continue long after the Canadys plant opens, if it opens at all.