IUB session Monday to address permit stipulations

DES MOINES — The Iowa Utilities Board will return to open session at 1:30 p.m. Monday to discuss progress of Dakota Access, LLC in meeting additional permit requirements for the construction of the 346-mile Iowa stretch of a four-state crude oil pipeline.

The meeting will follow up on Thursday's board decision to investigate reports that Dakota Access has begun clearing land designated for the pipeline's construction — an action that could violate the regulatory board's orders.

Thursday's meeting was in response to landowner reports which allege workers contracted by the Texas-based pipeline company have begun posting flags and cutting brush along the pipeline's Iowa route. Similar reports of small crews entering private properties, clearing brush and marking the pipeline route in Jasper County near Reasnor came to light in mid-March. According to board documents, the IUB also received reports of an electrical substation being built in Story County that is intended to service a pumping station.

The debate centers around whether or not these activities constitute construction as defined in the board's order approving the pipeline. The IUB approved a permit March 10 giving Dakota Access authority to build the pipeline through 18-Iowa counties and use of eminent domain on parcels which landowners have not yet signed a voluntary land use easement.

The pipeline would stretch from the Bakken Oil Fields of North Dakota to a hub in Patoka, Ill. The pipeline would carry 570,000 barrels of crude oil per day through the state. The underground pipeline will stretch 33.73 miles in rural areas of Jasper County from Mingo through Reasnor.

In a filing following the March 31 meeting, the board stated, "The board’s 'Final Decision and Order' granted a permit to Dakota Access, but the permit was not issued with the order. Instead, the Board said that 'no permit will be issued, and construction may not commence, until [the compliance filings] have all been filed with and accepted by the Board.' These contacts from the public present the question of whether the activities described above, assuming they were, in fact, the activities of Dakota Access or its representatives, constitute 'construction.' The Board’s rules define 'pipeline construction' as 'a substantial disturbance to agricultural land associated with installation, replacement, removal, operation or maintenance of a pipeline, but shall not include work performed during an emergency.'”

The IUB reports the pipeline company itself may have defined "construction" to include clearing brush and marking the route. The IUB said if Dakota Access is found in violation of its order it may levy a civil penalty "not to exceed" $100,000 for each violation. Each day the violation continues "constitutes a separate offense, up to a maximum of $200,000 for a related series of violations." The board said it will establish a schedule for further investigations of these activities.

But the permit has not officially been issued. Attached to the IUB order were several stipulations which Dakota Access must meet before construction is allowed to begin. These include a modified agricultural mitigation plan, a $25 million insurance policy with parental company financial grantees in event of a leak or spill, construction timeline notifications to landowners, modified condemnation easements with landowner protections and a statement accepting the board's terms and conditions.

The board also ruled Thursday against Dakota Access' request to keep the $25 million policy confidential. The IUB decided the company's policy is not entitled to confidentiality, although the pipeline company argued that the documents contain private business information.

One group which disputed Dakota Access' request to keep the insurance policy language confidential is the Northwest Iowa Landowners Association. In a March 23 filing with IUB, NILA argued that the Dakota Access has failed to prove parent company ETP will be able to financially grantee any leak or spill cleanup effort. The landowner group believes making the insurance policy public is the only way to ensure the pipeline meets the IUB's requirements.

The filing states, "only through transparency ... can the public verify that protection is adequate and in place. This is also important on a going-forward basis, as Dakota Access must file annual proof of insurance with the Board. NILA asks how that filing will be fact-checked outside the agency if it is kept confidential."

Contact Mike Mendenhall at mmendenhall@newtondailynews.com