In his latest rant (Aug. 9 issue) bemoaning Summit’s CO2 pipeline delay, David Kruse omitted key facts and pointed out a problem with Iowa’s eminent domain laws. As one of the “holdouts” who refuses to sign an easement, allow me to fill in the gaps.

The Iowa Utilities Commission (IUC) did not approve the permit. Summit only has a conditional permit with several regulatory hoops to clear. The company must also gain approval to use 5.5 billion gallons of water annually for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).

Although Kruse mentions that the “IUC requires approval from South Dakota and North Dakota regulators,” he skirts over the significance of this ruling. The IUC ruled that Summit cannot begin construction in Iowa until it has permits in the Dakotas, but the company faces strong opposition in South Dakota. Kruse mentions a bill that was “enacted … last session that was supported by Summit that was supposed to go in effect soon.”

As usual, he omits key facts.

In 2023, the South Dakota PUC denied Summit’s first application because of set-back conflicts with county ordinances. In the aftermath, pro-pipeline lawmakers pushed SB201 through the South Dakota legislature. It is a law designed to take local control away from counties.

This year, landowners and their supporters launched a successful petition drive to get Referred Law 21 SB201 on the ballot this November. Contrary to Kruse’s opinion, a no vote will stop the bill from becoming law and kill the pipeline. In the meantime, Summit has not filed for a second permit with the PUC. Once filed, the permitting process will take at least a year, causing yet a further delay.

Because of the successful petition drive, Kruse laments that PUC commissioners “are elected in South Dakota so they will pay attention to public sentiment.”

In contrast, Iowa’s IUC Commissioners are not elected; the governor appoints them. In fact, Gov. Reynolds, who is adamantly pro-pipeline and a close friend of Summit’s owner, Bruce Rastetter, appointed two of the current commissioners, Sarah Martz and Erik Helland.

Therein lies a problem with Iowa’s eminent domain laws. If elected commissioners on the South Dakota PUC are likely to pay attention to public sentiment, will the appointed commissioners in Iowa do likewise? Was the recent pipeline decision unbiased, or were the commissioners influenced by the views of the governor?

Kruse “sympathized” with our opposition to eminent domain but went on to justify its use for CO2 pipelines because of presumed economic benefit. However, for the 440 landowners with 859 unsigned parcels, eminent domain is the issue that drives us. We fight for our constitutional right to protection from eminent domain.

We should not be forced into a permanent easement with profit-seeking investors for a pipeline that is not a public necessity. With only a conditional permit in Iowa and no permits in the Dakotas, this is a pipeline to nowhere. Kruse and Rastetter may have a very long wait until it is operational.

Bonnie Ewoldt

Milford