Letters: So, you made a deal?

In a recent commentary titled, “So, I made a deal,” David Kruse announced that he signed with Summit Carbon Solutions. He’s delighted about negotiations that included his neighbors and a relative, saying they “went very well” and “exceeded his expectations.” Kruse said he did it to secure Iowa’s future for his son and his grandson.

By signing voluntary easements, the group gave Summit “a nice little stretch of pipeline.” Kruse encourages other impacted landowners to mitigate their concerns and negotiate an easement contract by having a conversation with Summit. “Give them a fair chance,” he urges.

As one such landowner with a farm in Crawford County, I find Kruse’s advice laughable. Fair chance? Summit Carbon Solutions has given us – thousands of landowners along the 2,000-mile route – anything but a fair chance. With bold-faced lies about the project and CO2 safety, unrelenting harassment by company land agents, and veiled threats to use eminent domain, Summit has done nothing to gain our trust.

Summit touts the safety of the CO2 pipeline. It is so safe, Kruse claims, that “the CO2 carbonates soft drinks.” This is extremely misleading. The pipeline will not carry a harmless CO2 gas that puts bubbles in our pop. Before leaving ethanol plants, CO2 will be converted from a gaseous to fluid state under thousands of pounds of pressure. Liquid CO2 is rated as hazardous material – an asphyxiant and caustic agent – by OSHA. One only need consider Sartatia, Miss., where a hazardous CO2 pipeline rupture sent several people to the hospital and caused life-long disabilities.

With the threat of catastrophic damage from a pipeline rupture, landowners are rightly concerned about liability issues. Some insurance companies warn they will not cover CO2 pipeline breaks, and others propose to raise premiums if CO2 is on the property. Summit assures us they will cover liability in the event of a break in the line, but the question of blame remains. If liability can even remotely be attributed to innocent actions by a landowner, tenant, or even a trespasser – will Summit (or a subsequent owner of the easement) accept legal responsibility?

When it comes to the question of fairness, company land agents have been harassing landowners for months, trying to get voluntary signatures on easements. We’ve been subjected to endless phone calls, emails and unwelcome visits. When “negotiating” with landowners, agents have made false statements such as “all neighbors having already signed,” or “be the first to sign so you get a better deal.”

Land agents targeted an elderly relative of mine for months. The agents called often, visited his house several times, and one even invited himself to morning coffee uptown with friends. At one point, he told my relative, “You may as well sign, because we’ll get your land one way or the other.” As a result of the unrelenting harassment, my relative said, “They’re driving me nuts!” The harassment ended only when legal counsel sent notice to Summit to refrain from any future contact.

Kruse’s commentary is highly insulting to landowners refusing to sign the easements. We are not Neanderthals, or as Kruse so charmingly calls us, “Cave-men (Citizens Against Virtually Everything).” We are a diverse group. Some are opposed to wind turbines and solar panels – and some have this renewable energy on their property. While a number are members of the Sierra Club and opposed to fossil fuels, others, like myself, support ethanol and Iowa’s corn producers.

We understand the need to reduce our carbon footprint. However, we believe there are better ways to do this than spending billions in taxpayer money to tear up 2,000 miles of cropland in five states in order to bury CO2 forever in the caverns of North Dakota. Many other options for using CO2 are in the works, and they will not damage cropland to carry hazardous waste through farms and populated areas.

Opposing landowners have come together to reinforce our Constitutional right to protection from eminent domain, which should only be invoked to take land for public use. If the IUB allows Summit to use eminent domain, our private property will be taken so that private investors can make billions in profit.

In a previous column, David Kruse used a threshold of 85 percent voluntary signings to trigger the use of eminent domain to take the remaining 15 percent of land from stubborn holdouts. As of this writing, several months into the acquisition phase, Summit only has 25 percent of the easements they want – far from 85 percent of signatures needed.

We landowners know this is a David and Goliath situation, and we are up against powerful political players and influential investors with deep pockets. Even so, if Summit is allowed to use eminent domain for profit, all future landowners in Iowa, including David Kruse’s son and grandson, will not be safe from having their property taken by profiteers. So, we won’t be making a deal anytime soon.

Bonnie Ewoldt,

Milford