On Friday, we posted, Carbon capture pipeline blues: SD landowners call for dismissal of pipeline permit application, which also looked at a May 24 email from the Pipeline Fighters Hub, a project of the Bold Alliance, which revealed the Hastings, Nebraska's group's focus on following the money.
It's not just citizens in South Dakota and Nebraska grabbing figurative pitchforks and torches against this encroachment.
At the Iowa Capital Dispatch, Jared Strong reports in Group seeks end of carbon pipeline ‘harassment’:
The Iowa Utilities Board should order a carbon pipeline company to stop contacting unwilling landowners about easement agreements, according to a conservation group’s “motion to protect landowners.”
“The hundreds of comments and objections from landowners filed in the docket in this case confirm that landowners do not want to sign easements,” wrote the Sierra Club Iowa Chapter, which opposes Summit Carbon Solutions’ pipeline proposal.
Summit is one of three companies to announce a project to transport liquefied carbon dioxide captured from ethanol plants and other agricultural facilities in Iowa to be pumped into the ground in other states. Summit is the only of the companies so far to formally request a hazardous liquid pipeline permit from the IUB, which it did in January after holding a series of public meetings to inform potentially affected landowners about the project.
The company is seeking voluntary permission from people along the proposed pipeline route to bury the pipeline in their ground in exchange for money, but it could use eminent domain to force the agreements with the approval of the IUB.
As of Friday, Summit has inked agreements for about 30% of the 680-mile route through Iowa, said Jesse Harris, director of public affairs for the company. That’s an increase from two months ago when Summit said it had agreements for about 25% of the route.
“We look forward to continuing engaging landowners, answering their questions and securing additional voluntary easements,” Harris told Iowa Capital Dispatch.
But that continued engagement is considered harassment by landowners who are adamantly opposed to the project, according to Sierra Club filings. The group wants the IUB to limit pipeline company contacts with landowners to three times for negotiations.
“I have made it clear that I will not sign an easement, and I just want the land agents to stop harassing me,” Dan Tronchetti of Greene County wrote to the IUB.
Another landowner wrote that she had received five calls, three voicemails and a text message from one of the agents. The text message indicated the agent planned to mail an easement agreement with a monetary offer of about $58,000, according to an IUB filing.
Another landowner, Kathy Carter in Floyd County, wrote that she had received at least nine telephone calls from Summit agents, three pieces of mail and an unannounced personal visit from an agent after repeatedly telling him she was not interested in signing an agreement.
The Sierra Club also wants the board to prohibit Summit negotiators from mentioning the possibility of eminent domain to landowners. Further, the group said the IUB should contact all affected landowners and tell them they are not required to talk to the Summit agents or sign agreements.
Summit, in its written resistance to the Sierra Club requests, said Iowa law requires it to engage in “good faith negotiations” and to make easement offers before eminent domain can be used to force the agreements.
“In many cases, a few initial contacts are necessary simply to make an introduction, learn information about possible tenants, and to provide simple introductory information regarding the project,” Summit’s attorneys wrote.
It’s unclear when the board will make a decision about the Sierra Club’s requests.
In a recent IUB filing, Summit proposed a new schedule for the pipeline permit proceedings that indicates it will file information about eminent domain requests in September, with the goal of holding a multi-day hearing on the permit request in March 2023.
That hearing was initially anticipated to take place in November, but “several policymakers have communicated an interest in later hearing date,” Summit’s filing said.
State lawmakers had considered legislation that would have prohibited the IUB from holding the hearing until February 2023. The Iowa House approved the measure as part of an appropriations bill in March, but it lacked support in the Senate.
Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, R-Wilton, who was a leading proponent of the idea, said the House vote was sufficient to secure a delay in the hearing schedule. He has said the delay removes — at least temporarily — the threat of eminent domain as Summit attempts to negotiate with wary landowners.
“We sent a message that we’re willing to act if property rights are attempted to be infringed on,” Kaufmann said, according to a Radio Iowa report.
Some of those landowners said the moratorium would do nothing to allay their fears because it wouldn’t significantly alter Summit’s schedule, and lawmakers who oppose eminent domain for the private pipeline projects said they will have little time to pass legislation next session to prevent it.
Photo: Carbon pipeline opponents gathered at the Iowa Capitol in March to protest the use of eminent domain to build them. (Photo by Katie Akin/Iowa Capital Dispatch)
Jared Strong has written about Iowans and the important issues that affect them for more than 15 years, previously for the Carroll Times Herald and the Des Moines Register. His investigative work exposing police misconduct has notched several state and national awards. He is a longtime trustee of the Iowa Freedom of Information Council, which fights for open records and open government. He is a lifelong Iowan and has lived mostly in rural western parts of the state.
This story is republished online or under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Related posts:
- Ethanol carbon capture pipeline digest: farmers, students, greenwashing, safety, law enforcement
- Public Utility Commission claims regulatory authority for carbon pipelines
- CO2 pipelines could affect the land, lives and livelihoods of South Dakota property owners
- SD News Watch: Proposed CO2 pipelines thrust SD into billion-dollar climate change debate
- About that permanent carbon storage by the Summit ethanol pipeline & Project Tundra
- Ethanol carbon capture pipeline news digest: political power and big money edition
- Ethanol carbon pipeline digest: trust & protest
- South Dakotans, Iowans don't hug CO2 pipeline
- Keloland: mostly negative public comments to SD Public Utilities Commission on CO2 pipeline
- Strib: Ethanol's per-gallon carbon output shrinks, but greenhouse gas from plants remains high
- We agree: It's time to move on from ethanol
- Another IA newspaper editorial board questions ethanol industry, carbon capture pipelines
- Ethanol CCS pipeline update: Reuters & Agweek
- Not a lot of easements for Midwest carbon pipeline, but plenty of political connections
- 2 ethanol CO2 headlines that make us go hmmm
- CO2 pipelines: who wins & who loses?
- Coming soon from a cornfield near you: mammoth carbon capture pipeline system
- Mother Jones: USDA Secretary Vilsack’s son works for a controversial ethanol pipeline project
- Iowa county boards scorn construction of CO2 pipelines, use of eminent domain to build them
- Digest of news about carbon dioxide pipelines
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6
Comments