Bob Van Diest

Part 2: To educate readers about this complex, technical issue, today we conclude a two-part series examining both sides of the matter. The decisions made on this issue will shape Iowa’s agriculture and environment for generations. In this second part, we consider the arguments in opposition to carbon capture pipelines.

Testimony of the overwhelming majority of attendees at a carbon capture pipeline meeting August 29 in Jewell hints that a March 2023 Des Moines Register survey was dead on: 78% of Iowans oppose it.

Seated among the dissenters at that Jewell meeting were three prominent voices: former U.S. Congressman Steve King, state Sen. Dennis Guth, R-Klemme, and Bob Van Diest, a highly successful Webster City businessman and farmer.

They are perhaps the most recognizable of the people opposing the proposed pipeline.

Who are the rest of the opposition?

One of the most unlikely of coalitions ever seen in Iowa; they’re Democrats, Republicans, farmers, city residents, environmentalists, first responders, and city and county government leaders.

But back to King, Guth and Van Diest; here’s a sample of what they said on August 29.

King didn’t mince words: “The science of this is a boondoggle — maybe the king of all boondoggles.”

As there are no official records of the meeting, in either written or video format, he said, “this isn’t a public meeting; it’s a commercial being presented to you.”

The handout from the Iowa Utilities Commission states: “No formal record of the informational meeting is made.” This is a standard procedure.

Then King asked: “Who owns Summit Agricultural?”

When there was no answer, King claimed: “Smithfield and Syngenta are shareholders, and they’re 100% Chinese-owned.”

He then asked if Paul Singer was an investor. (Singer is the founder and owner of Elliott Management, a hedge fund, and a billionaire.)

Pipeline company representatives at the Jewell meeting replied they didn’t know who owned their company.

For the record, Summit Carbon Solutions is a subsidiary of Alden-based Summit Agricultural Group, started by Iowan Bruce Rastetter.

When it was his turn to address the meeting, Van Diest, who owns Van Diest Supply Co., introduced himself as a farmer “opposed to the CO2 pipeline for several reasons.

“Under our Constitution, eminent domain is to be used for public necessity, not for private personal financial gain. It was Thomas Jefferson who put this in our Constitution. He believed in property rights, just like most of the people in this room tonight.

“Eminent domain was designed to help get a railroad or a highway through, that most everyone will use, and not a dangerous pipeline designed to make a few people super-rich.”

He said, “I have farmland I’ve spent from $1,000 to $1,400 per acre to pattern tile. When a pipeline goes through a pattern-tiled field, the drainage system can’t ever be adequately repaired to original condition. Some of the tile will be in non-disturbed ground, and some in loose ground, and when they settle, they’ll never be in line to properly work again.”

Then he added: “A CO2 pipeline is dangerous. CO2 is odorless, colorless. It’s an asphyxiant and can kill nearby people when there’s a break in the pipeline.

“In 2020, a CO2 pipeline broke in Mississippi, and 49 people were taken to the hospital. If you’re sleeping at home on a summer evening with your window open near a ruptured pipeline and CO2 comes into your bedroom, you’ll never wake up again.”

Van Diest, like King, minced no words: “This is an illegal, corrupt plan to make a few people rich at the expense of every innocent person in the path of the pipeline. It is nothing more than a scheme for a few people to collect a whole lot of taxpayer dollars. “For these reasons, I’m opposed to the pipeline, and I will help take this battle to the Supreme Court if need be.”

Guth, who was born and has lived his entire life on a farm near Klemme, represents Iowa’s 28th Senate District, a cross-shaped configuration that includes Hamilton, Wright, Hancock, Humboldt, Franklin and a smidge of Story counties.

He favors finding new industrial uses for CO2 rather than a pipeline. He pointed out that Prestage Foods near Eagle Grove had to shut down its operations for several days recently due to a lack of CO2.

“They kill hogs with CO2,” he said. “Their needs could be met by bringing CO2 in by truck.”

In the last legislative session, Guth introduced a bill to deny eminent domain “when there’s no clear benefits to Iowa.” Such a law, he explained, “would apply to all kinds of projects including wind turbines, solar energy and all pipelines.”

The bill was not passed into law.

Guth figures he’s one of only 11 Republican elected officials at the statehouse opposed to granting eminent domain for CO2 pipelines. He’s running for re-election in November and commented, “In all my door knocking, I’ve only found two people in favor of these pipelines.”

As the meeting in Jewell progressed, four key reasons for the strong opposition were made obvious:

Safety risks — CO2 is an intoxicant and an asphyxiant. In the pipeline, it’s highly concentrated and under pressure. It’s heavier than air and, when a pipeline ruptures, CO2 doesn’t dissipate quickly; instead, it seeks and remains in low-lying ground. Those unlucky enough to be near a failed pipeline could die in 10 minutes; others may become seriously ill.

Corporate welfare — Some people see CO2 pipelines as a scheme to prop up Iowa’s ethanol industry at the expense of farmers who bear the disruption to their farms and must live in close proximity to potential pipeline disasters, and taxpayers who would pay for an estimated $30 billion in tax credits and other federal incentives.

Disruption of farming — Iowa already has a dense network of pipelines. Farmers know from experience that compaction of soil from pipeline construction, access roads and easements, and potential for explosions and ruptures near homes, roads, streams and livestock facilities, interferes with farming and decreases the value of their land.

Eminent domain — A 2019 ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court allowing use of eminent domain for the Dakota Access pipeline still rankles many Iowans. Now, the spectre of using it again is a real possibility. Most Iowans believe this is unconstitutional and morally wrong.

In Jewell, after introductory remarks from Iowa Utilities Commission officials and Summit Carbon Solution’s presentation of its plans, about 20 people commented on the proposal.

Two ethanol plant executives spoke in support of the pipeline.

Then a procession of dissenters had their say, some using exceptionally strong words not often heard at public meetings in Iowa.

In 2023, the North Dakota Public Service Commission denied Summit Carbon Solutions a permit, largely because it didn’t feel the company adequately addressed the concerns of land owners, and its proposed path was too close to the city of Bismarck, the state capitol. The arguments against the pipeline in North Dakota were the same, and came from the same kind of people who stood in opposition last week in Jewell.

In a similar action, the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission voted unanimously in September 2023, to deny Summit a permit. The reasons for the denial were straight-forward enough: the pipeline violated county ordinances for required setbacks and safe distances between the pipeline and other features, structures and towns. Summit has appealed the decision.

But Iowa is different.

The Iowa Utilities Board approved the Summit Carbon Solutions base pipeline project in June, but that approval is conditioned on Summit gaining permits in North and South Dakota.

Still, this is a milestone for Summit in its quest to build a pipeline across five states, linking ethanol and fertilizer plants to permanent storage wells in central North Dakota. In this, Iowa is a first.

Without approval from North and South Dakota, Summit’s pipeline doesn’t make commercial sense, and may be abandoned.

So with all that information, Iowans are left to ask these questions:

Why did their state regulators approve the same project that was turned down by two neighboring states?

And why did their state regulators approve a project so roundly opposed by such a large cross-section of the population?