RED OAK, Iowa (KMTV) — The Montgomery County Board of Supervisors heard testimony on Tuesday about the proposed Summit carbon capture pipelines through Montgomery County. The board was asked by several neighbors to enact setback ordinances, which would require the pipelines to be a specific distance from a house.
- The board meeting was held in the courtroom in anticipation of a larger-than-normal crowd.
- One of the central concerns for supervisors was the possibility that Summit Carbon Solutions would sue the county if it passed a setback ordinance. Shelby County is already in litigation over a setback ordinance.
- County board chair, Mike Olson, said he wanted to wait until the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals rules on the Shelby County lawsuit.
We'll continue this story on Wednesday with more details on the proposed pipeline in Montgomery County and the landowners who are affected.
RELATED | 'I don't want this': Iowa farm family says liquid CO2 pipeline violates property rights
BROADCAST TRANSCRIPT:
I'm Southwest Iowa neighborhood reporter Katrina Markel in Red Oak. I'm here because on Tuesday the Montgomery County board weighed whether to pass an ordinance regulating carbon pipelines. It's a story that includes eminent domain, safety concerns and the threat of lawsuits.
The pipelines would carry liquified CO2, a byproduct of ethanol production, from Iowa to underground storage in North Dakota. Pipeline companies receive tax credits to capture the carbon and keep it out of the atmosphere.
At stake on Tuesday: whether the county should require pipelines to be set back a prescribed distance from homes along the pipeline route.
Opponents like landowner James Norris say he and others aren't being treated fairly.
"You're seeing a private company, that's taking yours and my tax dollars, and using eminent domain to seize land and then threatening our counties to sue them if they want to protect the citizens of their county," Norris said at lunch after the meeting.
When I've spoken to representatives from Summit in the past, the company has maintained that its goal is to seek voluntary easements and not use eminent domain for the pipeline.
Ultimately, the board declined to take up a vote.
