We're fighting for our homes and our land, and for the safety of South Dakota communities just like yours. But we can't do this alone, we need your help, so if you can, pitch in and let's make some hay.
We're fighting for our homes and our land, and for the safety of South Dakota communities just like yours. But we can't do this alone, we need your help, by being informed and taking action when it matters most.
(The Center Square) – Summit Carbon Solutions’ plan for a carbon dioxide pipeline through the Midwest has new life in North Dakota as hearings in Iowa resume this week.
The North Dakota Public Service Commission is allowing the company to present additional evidence after denying a pipeline permit in early August by outlining concerns in the regulator’s denial. Summit will not have to reapply, which would save time, according to the commission.
“We’ve listened to and learned from the concerns raised by the North Dakota Public Service Commission,” said Summit Carbon Solutions CEO Lee Blank in a news release issued after Friday’s decision. “Subsequently, we rerouted around Bismarck, made adjustments to drill or bypass game management and geo-hazard areas, and collaborated with the State Historic Preservation Office to record the findings of cultural surveys.”
The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission denied Summit’s permit last week, but the commission said the company could reapply.
The Iowa Utilities Board is continuing a hearing this week on the 720 miles of the pipeline that runs through that state. The other states on the 2,000-mile, $5.5 billion carbon dioxide pipeline are Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota.
Some residents in the path of the pipeline said they are concerned about safety and the use of public money to fund private projects.
“Our communities are not prepared to deal with the necessary emergency response measures needed in case of a pipeline rupture,” said Dunlap, Iowa resident Ken Dunham in written testimony in written testimony to the Iowa PUB. “Billions of our tax dollars should not be used to enrich CEOs for the sake of a false climate solution or the insignificant, temporary jobs the projects would demand.”
But there is also support for the pipeline, Summit attorney Brett Koenecke told South Dakota regulators.
“We’ve got easements from 72-73% of the landowners which the route crosses and so I do want to point out the broad support that this project enjoys. I don’t want to deny that there is opposition, but there is broad support,” said Koenecke.
OSKALOOSA — The Mahaska County Board of Supervisors discussed options available to county landowners who are set to be impacted by the proposed Navigator Pipeline, a carbon capture and sequester pipeline that, if approved, would run through Mahaska County.
The board was joined at their regular Monday morning meeting by Tiffany Kruizenga, an inspector with ISG. Kruizenga is part of a team hired by the county but ultimately funded by the pipeline company in accordance with Iowa Code to ensure landowners have all available resources at their disposal when writing easements and dealing with land agents concerning access for the proposed pipeline.
The proposed Navigator Pipeline is a carbon capture and sequester pipeline spearheaded by Navigator CO2 Ventures. If approved, the pipeline would run through 36 Iowa counties including Mahaska and Wapello. The line is still in the permitting stage and recently was rejected for a permit in South Dakota. Efforts remain underway to gain approval for land access, causing some Iowa landowners to fear for their land rights.
Kruizenga says she is at the disposal of Mahaska County residents to provide guidance as they advocate for their own wants and needs during the permitting process.
“Our role, set by the Iowa Utilities Board, is to help ensure that the Chapter Nine enforcing regulations are adhered to throughout the construction process,” Kruizenga says. “As a goodwill gesture, as Mahaska County or any county that signed on with us prior to construction starting, we become a resource for the landowners to help understand what the code includes. As you’re working with the land agents with the pipeline, if you have questions and aren’t sure if your needs or wants are in the code, we can help provide that.”
Kruizenga and her team can provide information and help with answering questions about fencing, tree removal, soil compaction and more in connection with the pipeline, ensuring that all phases of the construction process are executed in accordance with Iowa Code.
Kruizenga says that if Mahaska County residents have questions or concerns, they can get in touch by contacting ISG’s Des Moines office and asking to be transferred to her. The phone number for ISG’s Des Moines office is 515-243-9143.
State Rep. Helena Hayes (R) was also present at the meeting and announced that she will be holding an informational meeting about the pipeline at the Fremont Community Center this coming Wednesday, Sept. 20, at 6 p.m. The meeting will include a history of the pipeline issue, a talk with Anna Ryan, formerly of the Office of Consumer Advocacy, and emergency management personnel from Satartia, Mississippi, a community that experienced a poisonous carbon pipeline rupture in February 2020.
Supervisors discuss putting regional airport to a county-wide vote
The board of supervisors also discussed the proposed South Central Regional Airport, ultimately deciding that the supervisors do not have the authority to put the issue to a county-wide vote.
“In the code there are certain times when you can have a public measure of the ballot,” says County Attorney Andrew Ritland. “Public measure can include the authorization of exceeding a levy, it could be creation of a special district of some kind, like a water district or fire district. There’s a lot of different ways that public measures can get on the ballot. However, there must be specific authorization in the code to put a public measure on. It has to be for a committed purpose.”
Ritland addressed the previous vote on the issue, which was taken in 2005.
“As we recall,” he says, “There was a vote in the City of Oskaloosa … a little while ago. In that vote, it was based on section Iowa Code 330.17, which says if you’re going to transfer the control of an airport from, for example, a city into an airport authority, that needs to be approved by the voters. So if you’re going to create a semi-independent body to operate an airport that used to be held by a city or a county, the voters need to approve that transfer. Obviously the voters of Osklaoosa did not approve the transfer. But there is no general authority to put a question on the ballot regarding a question of public policy.”
Ritland added that some cities in Iowa, called “charter cities,” operate under a city charter that can include the right to Initiative and Referendum, which allows citizens to present initiatives to the city council and put policy issues directly before the voters. Oskaloosa is currently one of these cities. However, in May of this year, the Oskaloosa City Council controversially voted to remove the article providing for Initiative and Referendum from its city charter.
“There is no equivalent in county government of Initiative and Referendum,” Ritland says. “It’s a creature of a charter city, and I would note that it’s somewhat in flux in Oskaloosa because the City Council is trying to remove that ability for citizen initiative.”
A petition has been filed to put the council’s vote to remove Initiative and Referendum from the city charter to a vote this November.
Ritland says that there is no point to the county holding its own vote on the airport, given that the result of the vote would have no binding legal effect. Ritland says that he has been in contact with the Deputy Secretary of State who is in charge of elections state-wide, and that he was advised that in the absence of any “statutory authorization,” the issue cannot be added to the ballot.
“Typically on a ballot, when the voters say ‘I want this to happen’ and there’s a majority approval, there’s a legal obligation that that must happen, right. But in this case, it just doesn’t really do anything. There’s no legal effect,” Ritland says.
NEVADA, Iowa — North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, a GOP presidential candidate, had a tense exchange with crowd members at an event Saturday over the use of eminent domain to install carbon capture pipelines.
At the Fourth Congressional district’s presidential rally in Nevada, Iowa, a man accused Burgum of being a “huge supporter” of eminent domain, which allows the government to seize private land for public projects, for the installation of carbon-capture pipelines.
“What’s going on with the pipeline is you’re taking private property rights away from our landowners that don’t want this,” the man said. “But eminent domain is meant to take private property for public use. There is no public value in here.”
Three companies — Summit Carbon Solutions, Navigator CO2 Ventures, and Wolf Carbon Solutions — have proposed underground pipelines to move CO2 emitted from ethanol and other industrial plants from Iowa to either North Dakota or Illinois.
“The Wolf development team has never used eminent domain in its collective careers in building long-haul pipelines and it doesn’t intend to start now,” Nick Noppinger, Wolf Carbon Solutions’ vice president for corporate development, told The Gazette newspaper in February.
Hearings are ongoing in Iowa to weigh approval for Summit’s permit. Sabrina Zenor, the company’s marketing and communications director, said by text Saturday night that it understands concerns about eminent domain and aims for voluntary easements.
Crowd members hold up signs against the use of eminent domain to install CO2 pipelines on private land at a political rally Saturday in Nevada, Iowa.Alex Tabet / NBC News
Voters across Iowa and some in attendance at the event Saturday expressed concerns that farmers in Iowa could eventually be subjected to eminent domain for the installation of the pipelines if they don’t agree to voluntary easements.
“You stated that I was a huge supporter of eminent domain and that’s just completely false. I’m a farm owner, rancher. I support private property rights,” Burgum said, later adding, “You made a blatantly false statement about me and I have to just tell you that that’s not true.”
Burgum said he thinks there’s a demand to kill liquid fuels, but carbon sequestration can help make the fossil fuel industry more sustainable.
“We have to figure out a way like we’re doing in North Dakota, to use CO2 to reduce or have a net-negative gas in your car or diesel, then everybody can keep driving your pickup trucks like the one that I’ve got,” he said.
A woman in the crowd told Burgum she disagreed with him.
“I think as farmers, we all know the effects of ethanol. I think there’s other things that we can do with that CO2, some of those ethanol plants. We don’t need pipelines,” the woman said, adding that she has safety concerns, too.
Burgum sympathized with her rights as a landowner, but said there’s never been a hospitalization or death in America from a CO2 pipeline. A
Crowd members hold up signs against the use of eminent domain to install CO2 pipelines on private land while Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds speaks at a political rally Saturday, Sept. 9, 2023, in Nevada, Iowa.
Burgum told the crowd that landowners affected by the pipelines’ projected paths could simply turn the companies down.
“Just say no and they’ll move it to your neighbor and your neighbor can get the big check,” Burgum said. “Because that’s what’s happening in North Dakota. It’s been moved a thousand times.”
But some Iowans say that rhetoric is dismissive of possible dangers associated with the carbon pipelines and some say they don’t have the option to say no.
“I’m concerned about my neighbors and children,” said Marvin Johnson, a 74-year-old retired agronomy salesman from Kanawha, Iowa. Johnson says he lives just a couple of miles away from a proposed pipeline.
Sheryl, from Ames, Iowa, who preferred not to share her last name, is afraid about a pipeline bursting below her brother’s farmland.
“One of the pipelines is going through some of my brother’s land so it’s got to be stopped,” she said. “I am scared for every farmer.”
Both Johnson and Sheryl opted to raise signs in protest during remarks Saturday by Iowa’s overwhelmingly popular Gov. Kim Reynolds, a Republican.
“I love Governor Reynolds. I love 90% of what she does. But on the carbon pipeline, she hasn’t stood up for the landowners around Iowa,” Johnson said.
Sheryl says Reynold’s silence on the issue of eminent domain is deafening.
“She’s silent. She’s not saying anything,” Sheryl said. “As governor, you have an obligation to the farmers.”
Reynolds did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the protest.
Concerned legislators and landowners discussed eminent domain at this year’s State Fair.
They said it is not just carbon pipelines that landowners should be worried about.
Eminent domain panel discussion South Dakota State Fair
The Farmer’s Union panel discussion on eminent domain focused on how it applies to any large project in the state.
Leroy Bron is a concerned landowner.
“Well, it’s preventing us from expanding because it’s coming right across our farm is along the Jim River and they are crossing just west of us, so we are not going to be able to expand our farm at all. You know, the cattle feeding part it cuz it’s all right there and it is extremely dangerous to be that close,” said Bron.
Pipelines are just the beginning, according to the landowner’s legal counsel. Brain Jorde represents them in eminent domain cases.
“Correction there, it is much worse. They are secretly filing at the DANR request to permit to pump 21, 25, 26 million gallons a year at every ethanol plant because they need the water to cool the CO2 down to 120 degrees so it’s not too hot to get to the pipeline so the whole pipeline doesn’t fail,” said Jorde.
Landowners should be aware of how big corporations operate, according to state Representative Marty Overweg (R).
Eminent domain panel South Dakota State Fair
“But there’s one thing that is really, really, clear with corporate America. They do not care about you. They don’t care about your family, they don’t care about your history, they don’t care about your future. If you have something you want, they are gonna get it. And here’s the reason why, they got money,” said Overweg.
Navigator CO2’s application for a pipeline is under consideration by the PUC. Summit Carbon Solutions application hearing with the PUC begins September 11th.
A voluminous collection of emails between Bruce Rastetter, the prominent Iowa businessman behind a proposed carbon capture pipeline across the state, Gov. Kim Reynolds and their employees are among records filed in connection with the ongoing Iowa Utilities Board hearing on a permit for the project.
Attorney Brian Jorde, representing Iowa property owners who oppose the pipeline, obtained the emails through a public records request.
The emails show that:
On Jan. 14, 2019, Rastetter’s assistant reached out to Reynolds’ scheduler to see if Reynolds would have time for dinner. They tried several times to arrange dinner in February, March and April, but the dates didn’t work out.
On April 24, 2019, Rastetter’s office invited Reynolds to a June 18 barbecue benefitting Iowa State University at his home in Alden. Reynolds was unable to attend.
On July 27, 2019, Reynolds spoke at Rastetter’s summer party at his home. Reynolds was unable to attend an investor event before the party, with speakers Chris Christie, the former New Jersey governor and current Republican presidential candidate, and Doug Oberhelman, former CEO of Caterpillar Inc.
In October and November 2019, schedulers for Rastetter and Reynolds unsuccessfully tried to plan a dinner for the two. Rastetter would like “to schedule regular dinners with her as schedule allows,” Rastetter’s scheduler said. Reynolds canceled a Nov. 5 dinner so she could vote in Osceola, her hometown, where she served 14 years as the Clarke County treasurer.
On Feb. 11, 2020, Rastetter’s scheduler requested a call from Reynolds Chief of Staff Sara Craig and received it the next day. About the same time, Reynolds’ office told Rastetter’s assistant it would look for a time when Reynolds could meet with Rastetter. “I know we are overdue for getting a dinner on the calendar,” a representative of Reynolds’ office said.
On March 20, 2020: Rastetter’s assistant canceled lunch as Reynolds began issuing proclamations that would shut down businesses, schools and churches to contain COVID-19’s spread. “We’ll revisit once this crisis has passed,” Reynolds’ scheduler wrote.
On June 22, 2020, Reynolds’ scheduler emailed Rastetter’s office, saying the governor “mentioned to me that Bruce was wanting to meet with her soon.” They tried to schedule a lunch at the Capitol on June 23, but the slot was taken with another meeting. Rastetter’s scheduler then asked, “Is there any availability yet this week with Governor, Bruce would like to meet with her if at all possible.” Rastetter’s scheduler asked for a call with Reynolds’ assistant.
Also on June 22, Rastetter canceled his July 25 investor day and summer party. “Even as Iowa and the rest of the country begin to reopen, we do not feel at this time that it makes sense to host a large gathering,” Rastetter said in an email to Reynolds and other invitees.
On July 7, 2020, Rastetter and Reynolds met for lunch at Bubba’s in Des Moines.
On Sept. 28, 2020, Rastetter invited Reynolds to his summer BBQ along with other state executives, including Paul Trombino, then Reynolds’ chief operating officer; Paige Thorson, deputy COO; Joel Anderson, a tax policy adviser; and Daniel Wolter, senior adviser, among others. It’s unclear who attended.
On Oct. 7, 2020, Rastetter invited Reynolds to watch the Iowa State University vs. Texas Tech game from his suite in ISU’s Jack Trice Stadium. It was unclear if she attended.
On April 12, 2021, Justin Kirchhoff, who is now CEO of Rastetter’s Summit Agricultural Group, reached out to Taryn Frideres, then Reynolds’ chief operating officer, connecting her with Patrice Lahlum, then a Great Plains Institute program consultant who was spearheading a multi-state memorandum of understanding for carbon dioxide transport. “We have been working with GPI for some time as they are doing some great work around low carbon biofuels and carbon capture that we believe can be great for states such as Iowa,” Kirchhoff emailed Frideres, now Reynolds’ chief of staff. The email came a little less than two months after Summit announced it was spinning off Summit Carbon Solutions, the company now seeking the pipeline permit, and about a month after the new company hired former Gov. Terry Branstad, with whom Reynolds had served as lieutenant governor.
On May 13, 2021, Summit’s scheduler emailed Reynolds’ new scheduler, saying Rastetter would like to schedule lunch with Reynolds. The lunch was held July 16 at Terrace Hill, the governor’s mansion in Des Moines.
On June 22, 2021, Reynolds announced she’d created a Carbon Sequestration Task Force, whose mission included “discussing economic opportunities presented by carbon sequestration for Iowa’s agriculture economy and renewable fuel sector and how best to capitalize on them.” Reynolds led the 22-member task force that included Kirchhoff and Geri Huser, then chair of the Iowa Utilities Board, along with renewable fuel, agriculture and energy executives, farmers and economic development officials.
On Sept. 22, 2021, Summit’s scheduler said Rastetter would like to schedule lunch with Reynolds. The lunch was held Sept. 30 at Terrace Hill.
On Jan. 19, 2022, Summit’s scheduler reached out to a new scheduler for Reynolds to set up a lunch. “We try to do this quarterly depending on their busy schedules,” the Summit scheduler wrote.
On Jan. 26, 2022, Reynolds’ assistant emailed Summit’s office, saying Reynolds would be unable to attend a fundraiser Rastetter was holding for Republican U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley at his barn on Jan. 28 because of a visitation Reynolds was attending. Reynolds’ scheduler warned that she might not be able to schedule a lunch with Rastetter in February or March. On Feb. 8, Reynolds’ office said it could be April before she had time for lunch with Rastetter, since it was the height of the legislative session.
On March 15, 2022, Jeffrey Boeyink, a partner at LS2 Group, emailed Craig, Reynolds’ then chief of staff, with an update on progress in getting voluntary easements from landowners in the path of Summit’s pipeline in Iowa. Boeyink, who served as chief of staff to Branstad and Reynolds from 2011 to 2013, called the pipeline a “pro-ethanol, pro-agriculture project” and estimated that Summit Carbon would be able to reach voluntary agreements with 90% of the landowners, a goal that the company so far has fallen short of in Iowa. Boeyink also said his “team would be happy to host a meeting with legislators to discuss the project in person and in detail.”
A Lyon County landowner in the path of Summit Carbon Solutions’ proposed carbon dioxide pipeline system alleged on Tuesday that the company punished him for not signing an easement by choosing a less-desirable route through his property.
Gregory Kracht was among several landowners who testified at the start of the fifth week of the company’s evidentiary hearing with the Iowa Utilities Board. They are among the first of dozens of remaining landowners who are subject to eminent domain requests from the company and have yet to testify.
Those requests could force easement agreements that would allow Summit to build and operate its pipeline on land it doesn’t own.
The company wants to lay more than 2,000 miles of pipe in five states to transport captured carbon dioxide from more 30 ethanol plants to North Dakota for underground sequestration.
The IUB has indicated it wants to conclude the hearing by the end of this month, but those who have yet to call witnesses say that is unlikely. Many of those yet to testify are farmers, and their ability to participate might be complicated by harvest season, which has begun.
Landowner concerns
Those who testified on Tuesday said Summit declined to adjust its route to avoid them despite adjacent landowners who are willing to host the project, and despite their concerns about locating the pipeline in a flood-prone area and near a potential residential development.
Reluctance to change the pipeline route was part of the reason North Dakota rejected Summit’s permit application last month. The company has since made hundreds of adjustments to the route in that state.
“Over the past two years, Summit Carbon Solutions has made approximately 3,000 adjustments to our project route based on feedback from landowners, policymakers, and other stakeholders or to avoid identified sensitive areas,” said Sabrina Zenor, a spokesperson for the company. “That deliberate approach is part of the reason why landowners in Iowa and across the Midwest have embraced our project.”
Kracht, the Lyon County landowner, testified that he bought land near the Missouri River more than 10 years ago as an investment. He said he paid “too much” for it but thought he could turn a profit by selling plots to people for their homes.
“The idea behind paying too much for it, in my opinion, was because there was great potential in developing it because (it is) picturesque and just the lay of the land,” Kracht said.
County records show he bought about 180 acres of land for nearly $1 million in 2011.
Kracht said after he initially outright rejected signing an easement, he reached a tentative agreement with the company’s agents for a different route on his property. He said the original route would block road access to more than half of the property.
But Kracht said the company later reneged on that route change when he offered a counterproposal during negotiations.
“They had the route back where it wouldn’t work,” he said. “It seemed as a punishment to me for not agreeing with them at the time.”
A Palo Alto landowner who farms land near the Des Moines River said the pipeline should be moved across the river because his property is prone to flooding that could lead to a pipeline rupture.
Jamie Moser testified that heavy rainfall floods his farmland near the river at least every other year and that standing water can persist for months. When the river floods, it creates new channels on the land that in the past have been two feet deep, he said.
“This is like the worst place to put a pipeline,” Moser said.
The federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration issued an advisory in 2019 that warned pipeline operators to closely monitor flooded areas for signs of shifting ground.
“Operators should be aware that severe flooding, river scour, and river channel migration may create unusual operating conditions that can adversely affect the safe operation of a pipeline,” it said.
Moser said landowners on the other side of the river are more willing to sign easements.
Moser also took issue with how the company’s agents have documented their contacts with him and his family. He said the agents claimed to have had face-to-face talks with his father, who previously owned the land but died in 2020.
Documenting contacts with landowners is important evidence for the eminent domain requests to show the company made sufficient effort to negotiate agreements.
David Skilling, a Kossuth County landowner, said Summit refused to move the pipeline off his property to adjacent land owned by people who have said they would sign easements.
He said he is also worried about the threat of a pipeline break in his area and is concerned that local emergency responders won’t be prepared to handle a carbon dioxide plume it might create.
Under certain conditions, such plumes have the potential to travel long distances and suffocate people and animals. Summit has declined to reveal the areas of the state it has identified that might be at risk if its pipeline system ruptures.
“There’s so much that’s being left unsaid,” Skilling said. “We don’t know about the plume. We don’t know anything about the emergency reaction.”
Board agrees to limit examinations
Questions during Skilling’s testimony elicited multiple objections from Summit’s attorney for potentially violating the rules of the hearing.
Erik Helland is chairperson of the Iowa Utilities Board. (Photo by Jared Strong/Iowa Capital Dispatch)
The primary purpose of the hearing is to allow for the cross-examination of witnesses who have already submitted written testimony, but several times on Tuesday the questions went beyond that scope.
Extraneous questions and the sometimes lengthy responses they elicit have the potential to prolong the hearing. That potential is heightened in this stage of the hearing because most of the remaining witnesses are pipeline opponents who are being mostly questioned by attorneys who represent pipeline opponents.
Erik Helland, chairperson of the IUB, said Tuesday that he will restrict questions that are likely to result in duplicitous testimony.
“District court clearly and succinctly affirmed the board’s ability to limit friendly cross (examination) and rely on pre-filed testimony heavily,” Helland said. He added: “The board will continue to restrict and run a very tight course.”
Despite that decision, an attorney for Summit gradually stopped objecting to certain questions throughout Tuesday’s testimony. Sometimes the process of objecting has taken longer during the hearing than allowing a witness to answer a question.
Legislators make an appearance
Three state legislators also testified on Tuesday, including Rep. Steven Holt, a Denison Republican who has been among the most outspoken against Summit’s proposal.
He led the passage of legislation in the Iowa House this year that would have restricted the use of eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipelines. The bill was not taken up by the Senate.
Rep. Steve Holt, R-Denison, has been an outspoken opponent of eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipelines. (Photo by Katie Akin/Iowa Capital Dispatch)
“My objection is not to the pipeline being built,” Holt said. “My objection is to the use of eminent domain to seize the property of my constituents to build something that I think is a private, economic development project and does not fit the requirements for the use of eminent domain.”
Holt is part of a group known as the Republican Legislative Intervenors for Justice. He was the group’s first witness to testify. The second was state Sen. Sandy Salmon, R-Janesville.
“The very fact that Summit Carbon is still pursuing this project in an agricultural state where landowners depend heavily on private property rights being protected to make their investments … is absolutely breathtaking,” Salmon said. “I am almost 70 years old, and I’ve never seen anything like this. To me, this is outrageous, reprehensible, brazen and shameless action and all Iowans can see it.”
Rep. Charley Thomson, a Charles City Republican, is also expected to testify for the group later in the hearing.
Separately, state Rep. Charles Isenhart, a Dubuque Democrat, testified on Tuesday that he doesn’t think Summit has adequately proven the environmental benefits of its project. He also said it might be possible to sequester carbon dioxide underground in Iowa rather than transport it with a pipeline out of state.
Ryan Clark, a bedrock geologist for the Iowa Geological Survey, testified that there might be places in the state that are suitable for sequestration. Those places would be found by drilling numerous test wells, which would be time-consuming and expensive, he said.
“It is our belief that the potential is there,” Clark said.
