May 13, 2024

Opponents intend to appeal pipeline in court

By Mike Mendenhall
Image 1 of 2

Carolyn Raffensperger from the Science and Environmental Health Network wears an armband which reads “Pipeline Fighter” Thursday during a press conference following the Iowa Utilities Board’s 3-0 approval of the Dakota Access crude oil pipeline. Roughly 25 protesters gathered at the hearing while labor union representatives celebrated what they see as the approval of a job creating project. Dakota Access, LLC anticipates 2,000 to 4,000 construction jobs created by the pipeline. (Mike Mendenhall)

DES MOINES — It did not take long for the Iowa Utilities Board to issue it ruling Thursday granting a construction permit and the right of eminent domain to Dakota Access, LLC to lay nearly 343 miles of Bakken crude oil pipeline through 18 Iowa counties. And it took protesters even less time to react.

About 25 members from the Bakken Pipeline Resistance Coalition — in a meeting room filled with media and roughly 60 people — began to yell, one-by-one, “I’m an Iowan, and I vote no!” The turnout and energy, however, was a far cry from December and January hearings at the Boone County Fairgrounds where more than 100 dissenters testified and even more attended to protest the development of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Directly following the IUB’s 3-0 ruling Thursday, members of the Coalition held a press conference where the land rights activists and environmentalists fighting the pipeline outlined their next steps.

Wallace Taylor is a Cedar Rapids-based attorney who has represented the Sierra Club through the IUB’s proceedings. He said his client will be appealing the decision in district court — a right outlined in both the board’s ruling and in Iowa Code.

“The board has to find that this pipeline is of the most public convenience and necessity. As they said in there, (IUB) admitted, that means the benefits would outweigh the costs and the risks. It certainly does not,” Taylor said.

The attorney claims Dakota Access’ lack of a cohesive environmental damage mitigation plan to clean up or prevent spills — as mandated in the board order — could be a basis for appeal. Taylor also argues that with the United States lifting the export ban on domestically produced crude oil earlier this year, there is no guarantee the Bakken product will be consumed in the Midwest or U.S. He suggested this could be an argument against the Iowa Code provision which says a utility must prove its project’s public convenience and necessity before board approval.

IUB members said during their deliberations in February that the lifting of the export ban would not weigh heavily in their decision to grant the pipeline construction permit.

Carolyn Raffensperger is a representative of the Science and Environmental Health Network, one of 43 intervenors to file briefs during the IUB proceedings. She said that she and other coalition members would begin an “mourning process” but would continue resisting via lawsuits and other means left undefined Thursday.

“We intervened on behalf of future generations. The first time in this preceding that future generations were represented,” she said. “And the reason we did that is your great-grandchildren had no voice in this decision, and we wanted to speak for their right to inherit clean air, clean water and stable climate. ...this story is not over. We do not have a pipeline in the ground yet. We will stop this pipeline from crossing the heartland.”

The coalition partnered with disaffected landowners who oppose the use of their land for the pipeline but will now have to negotiate eminent domain proceedings with Dakota Access if they continue to decline voluntary easements. Pam Alexander lives in Wapello County and has land on the pipeline route in Mahaska County. She said additional landowner protections put in the order by IUB did not go far enough for those who do not want the pipeline in their land.

“I’m really disappointed they didn’t stand up for landowners rights in the state. I think it’s going to be detrimental to our whole state, our land and our water, if this thing leaks,” she said. “I have no confidence in Dakota Access being able to build this and being able to take care of this pipeline, and these easements they want for the rest of our lives and the rest of our children’s’ lives, that just isn’t’ right.”

Labor union representatives quietly celebrated a victory from the ruling, anticipating the construction project will create thousands of jobs. Chad Carter, vice president business representative for International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 234, anticipates dispatching at least 50 percent of his union’s workforce to help build DAPL. Carter said the project would create 300 to 400 jobs for operating engineers — workers who handle and helm the heavy equipment which supports welders and other pipeliners.

Unions have been in constant communication with Precision Pipeline, LLC and Michels Corporation — the two subcontractors awarded the project by Dakota Access — but Carter said he does not know when his crews will to be called to work. But he estimates a May start date. Dakota Access representatives indicated in IUB hearing testimony, they hope to begin construction in Iowa this spring.

“This is definitely the outcome our members here in Iowa wanted,” Carter said. “It’s going to be good for farmers who need the product. There isn’t one piece of equipment that we operate that does not use a fossil fuel. Everybody’s talking wind, but we put up at least 95 percent of the windmills here in Iowa. It takes so much natural resources to put up those windmills that they’ll probably never produce what it takes to create them.”

Contact Mike Mendenhall at mmendenhall@newtondailynews.com