AGWEEK: Landowner lawyer fights against eminent domain

via AgWeek
By Jeff Beach
March 17, 2022

“MASON CITY, Iowa — As public hearings on the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline are set to begin in South Dakota, the legal jousting over the right eminent domain has begun in Iowa.

Domina Law, a Nebraska law firm that says it has clients in all five states along the Summit pipeline route, has filed a motion in regard to what it calls Summit’s “defective filing” for a permit in Iowa, where the carbon capture pipeline would originate.

Domina attorney Brian Jorde filed the motion with the Iowa Utilities Board on behalf of George Cummins, an Iowa landowner in the path of Summit’s Midwest Carbon Express, a $4.5 billion project that intends to gather carbon dioxide from 31 ethanol plants and store it underground in North Dakota.

The motion contends that Summit should not be granted the right of eminent domain, giving it the power to force landowners to allow pipeline construction on their property, because Summit’s permit application lacks an “Exhibit H,” spelling out what property is needed.

Summit’s reply is that in the past, such as with the Dakota Access Pipeline, permit applicants have been able to add an Exhibit H to the initial permit filing and the Iowa Utilities Board will set a deadline for when that exhibit is needed.

“Until that time, it makes no sense, and would waste the time of the Board and SCS (and needlessly alarm landowners) to file and serve numerous Exhibit Hs which would be withdrawn long before the time at which the Board really needs the Exhibit Hs to be final in order to timely process the case,” Summit’s response from attorney Bret Dublinske said.

Domina is making its filings on behalf of Cummins, of Charles City, Iowa, but Jorde says it could have been any number of landowners who are resistant to eminent domain.

In its most recent response , dated March 11, Domina said Summit needs to provide a detailed map of all the properties affected.

“Until this basic information sees the light of day in a transparent filing — as Exhibit H was intended to be — no action should be taken,” the filing said.”