Iowa Utilities Board members learn limitations to rerouting Dakota Access pipeline

The Iowa Utilities Board likely can’t make major changes to the Dakota Access pipeline route without starting the entire hearing process over.
IUB assistant general counsel Cecil Wright told board members Wednesday they are likely limited to route alterations that stay within land owned by people who received notifications from Dakota Access that their land could be selected for the pipeline.
“You can’t move it outside without starting over,” Wright said. “It’s probably not recommended that you do that.”
More of a surprise to board members was that Iowa Code does not set the notification corridor for such a project.
“It would probably vary by project,” general counsel David Lynch said. “The notice corridor could be wider. It’s something that could be selected by the applicant.”
Board member Nick Wagner said he recalled a conversation with Dakota Access Vice President Joey Mahmoud on the subject.
“His response was, we can move it as long as it doesn’t get outside of the notice corridor,” Wagner said. “I thought that was in our rules.”
In Iowa Code, “hazardous liquid pipelines don’t have as much detail as electrical lines,” Wright said. “It doesn’t appear that the rules have to be an exact width. It really depends on the size of the pipeline.”
Wagner and Board Chairwoman Geri Huser said they would both like to see a map that showed which landowners received formal notification of the project.
“That comes into play,” Wagner said. “If the board chooses to move the route, we have to keep that in mind as well.”
Wednesday’s hearing began with discussion of specific properties in Calhoun County, for which official objects have been filed. Wright said those objections referred to impacts to tiling and terracing of land, a general opposition to eminent domain and loss of property value. Some landowners also talked about their long-term plans for the land, which they wanted to pass to younger generations.
After reviewing each property, the board moved to closed session to discuss the permit. Huser noted the board could enter a closed session because the permit request was a contested case, and because of possible litigation relating to the decision. Already, one lawsuit had been filed – and dismissed pending the board’s decision – relating to Dakota Access’ request for eminent domain powers.
Check with The Graphic-Advocate Thursday for coverage of the final day of deliberations. IUB officials have noted that even if they do make a verbal ruling, it is not official until their written opinion is filed and released.