To the editor:

Farm News’ coverage of the carbon pipeline issue is to be commended. Bonnie Ewoldt and David Kruse seem to have extensive knowledge of the subject (Aug. 9, 2024). Here are some other points that should be included:

Tax credits of $45 billion given to pipeline investors is not just state funds flushed down the toilet. It will be used for steel, fuel, and labor; driving up those costs for more worthwhile and essential businesses.

It is incredible how The Corn Growers and related businesses have foisted this ethanol scam onto the public to such an extent. Gasoline is more efficient. And when we found out that ethanol doesn’t reduce the so-called carbon footprint, then they want to foist off another ridiculous scam, burying CO2 produced by ethanol plants in the ground! Burning natural gas because ethanol is so inefficient.

I was talking to a small engine mechanic who said he had already repaired 60 lawn mower engines by the beginning of May that had been damaged by ethanol. Add that to the waste created by reduced fuel mileage and pretty soon it’s real money.

David Kruse (being a commodity broker) should realize that diversity is a key element in reducing risk. But he wants diversity in agriculture stymied by ethanol mandates. Corn growers don’t just survive, but thrive, on the backs of ignorant consumers who have better things to do than play watchdog over those they elected to (mis)represent them.

Who will pick up the tab when our Congressionally mandated monoculture of corn is hit with a newly mutated blight, driving food prices through the roof?

I can understand the authors’ intent of the Constitution with the inclusion of “eminent domain.” Proponents of the pipeline think it is so essential that stealing is justified. My questions for them are:

1. What is “public use?” You and I use electricity. I, along with a lot of other people, don’t use ethanol, and especially a pipeline to a CO2 burial site. The pipeline is not “public use.”

2. What is “just compensation?” Just compensation (by definition) can only be a price agreed upon by both parties.

The XL (oil) Pipeline and the carbon pipeline, neither one, qualify as public use. The cost of the projects may be exorbitant. Tough. Pass the cost on to consumers. If they aren’t expected to pay that cost, this says it is not worth it (unless you are an investor who thinks legal theft trumps ethics).

Kruse stated that Summit “was going to pay whatever it took.” Apparently he meant paying politicians, not landowners. It is cheaper to buy politicians than farmland.

Kruse also stated that Gov. Kim Reynolds supported the pipeline along with the Dakota governors. I called the governor’s office and they said Reynolds remains neutral regarding the pipeline. There is widespread opinion that our governor approves of the pipeline. Just because she appointed board members who eventually approved, doesn’t mean she does. Kruse misrepresented Gov. Reynolds’ opinion.

Fritz Groszkruger

Dumont