The supervisors of Hamilton County once again signaled their disagreement with Summit Carbon Solutions’ assertion that it could take private property for its pipeline through eminent domain.

Supervisor Rick Young, introducing a resolution later passed by the board Tuesday, said there is a “lack of public purpose” in Summit’s quest to secure a path for its proposed carbon capture pipeline.

“You’ll hear me mention the Constitution multiple times,” he said before reading Resolution 2024-32. In his opinion, he added, the quest for the use of eminent domain by Summit has “broken the Constitution’s intent.”

“The framers of the Constitution sought to limit the government’s use of the power of eminent domain in two important ways,” the resolution states. First is “just compensation.” Second is the criteria that any “taking of private property must be for ‘public use.'”

The resolution pivots on this question: Is the promise of economic development a valid purpose to allow a private enterprise to employ eminent domain?

By passing the resolution, the supervisors said no.

Summit Carbon Solutions is a subsidiary of Alden-based Summit Agricultural Group, which was founded by Iowan Bruce Rastetter. It proposes building a carbon capture pipeline through Iowa and has received provisional permission from the Iowa Utilities Board to do so. Summit seeks to build this pipeline across five states, linking ethanol and fertilizer plants to permanent storage wells in central North Dakota.

To prevail, it would have to employ eminent domain in many instances in Iowa, and it would have to convince North and South Dakota to reverse their previous decisions.

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 landowners, and its proposed path was too close to the city of Bismarck, the state capitol.

The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission voted unanimously in September 2023 to deny Summit a permit. Summit has appealed the decision.

The IUB approved the Summit Carbon Solutions base pipeline project in June, but that approval is conditioned on Summit gaining permits in the Dakotas.

The arguments against the pipeline in North Dakota paralleled many of the arguments expressed at a meeting August 29 in Jewell. Here are the key takeaways from that meeting:

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.