Courts siding with landowners in carbon dispute

Two judges have recently ruled in favor of landowners in disputes challenging state law that forces them to participate in carbon deposit projects, in some cases against their will, according to a report in Livestock News.

The rulings come in the wake of ongoing resistance to carbon sequestration programs and pipeline projects spanning several states.

The most recent decision by South Central District Judge Jackson Lofgren (incorrectly referred to as ”Justice” Lofgren in the referenced article) in Bismarck follows a similar earlier decision by Northeast District Judge Anthony Swain Benson.

The tightrope walk that attempts to balance landowner rights with public use is nothing new. While many object to eminent domain, as a general principle, most agree that it is necessary in the construction of roads and other obviously necessary public projects.

Things get a bit murkier when the projects are not as clear

Perhaps the best-known case to deal with such legal doctrines in recent history was the infamous 2005 KELO decision by the United States Supreme Court. The 5-4 decision upheld the city of New London, Connecticut’s authority to condemn and acquire a private home in order to ostensibly further economic development by clearing the way for a larger project.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s dissenting opinion is perhaps her most famous. In it she warned that, under the majority opinion, ”the specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”

The details differ but the same principles may come into play. More than two decades later, carbon sequestration is the focus. Resisting being forced to allow their land to be part of it is the quest of some land owners.

The courts currently seem to be favoring landowners rights over government takings but the saga continues and the end of the story remains to be written.