Farmers continue to fight Bakken pipeline ruling By Austin Harrington Staff Writer aharrington@amestrib.com Thursday’s unanimous ruling by the Iowa Utilities Board that granted an out-of-state company the use of eminent domain to build a crude oil pipeline across the property of Iowa landowners who refused to grant easements has left opponents of the decision searching for another way to stop construction. Richard Lamb, an Iowa City resident, owns land on the Boone County line just west of Ames where the pipeline will cross Highway 30. Lamb is the third generation of his family to farm the land that is now being threatened by eminent domain. He said he knows he’s in for a long, tough fight with Dakota Access, the Texas-based company that is proposing the pipeline, but he said he prepared to go as far as he needs to go to protect his land. “I have to be optimistic,” Lamb said. “The intent of the law is on our side.” Lamb was part of the original lawsuit filed against the IUB in July 2015. Now that the IUB has made its decision in favor of the Bakken pipeline, Lamb said he plans on appealing the decision in district court. “I think that building this pipeline is the wrong course of action for the country. It’s billed by the pipeline builder as energy independence, and it has nothing to do with that,” Lamb said. Lamb added that he is also concerned with the possible environmental risks involved with a hazardous liquid pipeline running through the land. “And, of course, just our personal reasons, we just simply don’t want this thing through our farm,” Lamb said. His attorney, Bill Hanigan, of Davis Brown Law Firm in Des Moines, said he believes that Lamb has a good chance of winning the appeal. Hanigan said the point of the case is to prove that “Dakota Access is not a utility. If the state were going to condemn Dick’s land for a highway or an off ramp or a school, everybody gets that. Alternatively, if MidAmerican Energy Company needed to come through Dick’s land with a natural gas pipe so somebody’s home could have heat in the winter, there’s no doubt that they could condemn that with eminent domain, but this isn’t that. I mean this pipe provides no service to anyone who lives in Iowa.” Hanigan said he is only representing one appeal but he believes there will be more filed from other parties since anyone who was an intervening landowner could file an appeal on the IUB’s decision. “Technically, there could be 43 different appeals, there won’t be. My guess is that it would be substantially less than that but I expect there still will be multiple appeals,” Hanigan said. During the appeals process, Dakota Access may be allowed to start constructing the pipeline unless the courts issues a stay to stop them from putting the pipe in the ground, according to Hanigan. “If they build their pipe and use eminent domain while building their pipe and the court says that they weren’t entitled to do that then they’ll have to remove their pipe,” Hanigan said. But at that point, the damage to the land may already be done, according to Hanigan. “That’s why we believe the courts should stay and suspend construction of the pipe,” Hanigan said. “Mother nature’s spent thousands of years making the land right and once you dig that trench in there…it will just never be the same again.” If the appeal process doesn’t workout in Lamb’s favor he may have another opportunity to stop the pipeline before it begins. The IUB was not the only governmental agency that have to issue permits for the pipeline to proceed. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources has already stated publicly that it will issue the necessary permits, but the Army Corps of Engineers has yet to sign off the projects. The Corps is required to issue a permit because the pipeline will cross the Mississippi River along its path. The Corps has not said if they will issue the permit but they have been working with United States Fish and Wildlife Services to study the impact on endangered species in the area. That research is still ongoing according to the Corps. However, the Fish and Wildlife Services issued a study in December that claimed that the pipeline would not impact “critical areas” along its planned route. Following the decisions by the IUB and the Iowa DNR, Vicki Granado, spokeswoman for Dakota Access said she believed both entities made the correct decision. “We are pleased with the decisions rendered by the Iowa Utilities Board and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. We now have the necessary decisions from all four states regarding this important energy infrastructure project. As of today, Dakota Access has secured voluntary easement agreements on 90 percent of the properties across the four-state route with 97 percent in North Dakota, 93 percent in South Dakota, 82 percent in Iowa and 92 percent in Illinois. Dakota Access will continue to work with landowners to negotiate voluntary easement agreements as construction begins,” Granado said in a written statement. Even if the Corps approves the permit, Hanigan said he is prepared to take the case to the Iowa Supreme Court to fight the pipeline. “Our point isn’t that they shouldn’t have a pipe or that it wouldn’t be good public policy. Our point is just that you can’t use the state’s power of eminent domain to take it,” Hanigan said. According to Hanigan, he will file the appeal to the IUB’s decision within the 30 days that the court gives him to do so.